Greed Is Not Good--So What Do We Do About It?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS
THE VALIDITY OF CHRISTIANITY:

"The motives of credibility may be briefly stated as follows:

In the Old Testament, considered not as an inspired book, but merely as a book having historical value, we find detailed the marvelous dealings of God with a particular nation to whom He repeatedly reveals Himself; we read of miracles wrought in their favor and as proofs of the truth of the revelation He makes.

We find the most sublime teaching and the repeated announcement of God's desire to save the world from sin and its consequences.

And, more than all, we find throughout the pages of this book a series of hints, now obscure, now clear, of some wondrous person who is to come as the world's savior.

We find it asserted at one time that He is man, at others that He is God Himself.

When we turn to the New Testament we find that it records the birth, life, and death of One Who, while clearly man, also claimed to be God, and Who proved the truth of His claim by His whole life—miracles, teachings, and death, and finally by His triumphant resurrection.

We find, moreover, that He founded a Church which should, so He said, continue to the end of time, which should serve as the repository of His teaching, and should be the means of applying to all men the fruits of the redemption He had wrought.

When we come to the subsequent history of this Church, we find it speedily spreading everywhere, and this in spite of its humble origin, its unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution, which it meets at the hands of the rulers of this world.

And as the centuries pass, we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people-nay, of her own rulers.

Yet continuing, we see ever the same, promulgating ever the same doctrine, and putting before men the same mysteries of the life, death, and resurrection of the world's Savior.

Moreover, it was He Who had, so She taught, gone before to prepare a home for those who while on earth should have believed in Him and fought the good fight.

But, if the history of the Church, since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms, the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvelously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain. Viz. they contain Divine revelation.

And more than all, that Person’s life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament. Therefore, it must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God.

His work, therefore, must be Divine. The Church that He founded must also be Divine. Therefore, since the Church is the repository and guardian of His teachings, it must be Devine.

Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity, in which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony. We believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony. [That testimony is] of His miracles,

His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine. [More so, we believe because of] the marvelous propagation of His teachings.

[Thus, it has came about, even] in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs. [And there is] the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives.

The history of the Church herself, since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius XVI. show Her validity.

These [Her] testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence.

And, as the Vatican Council has said, "the Church herself, is, by her marvelous propagation fruitfulness, her wondrous sanctity, her inexhaustible in good works, her Catholic unity, and her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable witness to her Divine commission" (Const. Dei Filius).

"The Apostles,” says St. Augustine, "saw the Head and believed in the Body; we see the Body let us believe in the Head" [Sermo ccxliii, 8 (al. cxliii), de temp., P.L., V 1143].

"Every believer will echo the words of Richard of St. Victor, "Lord, if we are in error, by Thine own self we have been deceived- for these things have been confirmed by such signs and wonders in our midst as could only have been done by Thee!" (de Trinitate, 1, cap. ii).

Well. Mr Mark-

I can see where you went with your change to atheism.

I still don't see it. The mustard seed was a parable. I don't discount the message intended.

And Yes, I do believe that Adam and Eve existed. I don't know how they came to be (were they the end result of evolution and received spirits at that time?) This I don't know. I do know, looking at mankind , that is obvious that we sin, and that we are sinners. Look at the world man ! Look at the greed, lust, killing,maiming, awful things that are happening in the world ! Caused by people- people that if they were to follow moral concepts laid out in the New Testament, (the new convenant, not what occurred in the old) then the world would be a much better place. Again, that is why the whole world's dating system has Christ's death at its center or beg. Ever wonder why it ended up that way? Of course , you have stated Jesus never existed, this is very convenient also.

One other thing- I have, at one time in my life, received miraculous healing. I have , like Baum, and still do, experience the love of Christ.

It's my belief that somehow you have been blinded to the truth. Knowing God is positive thing in people's life, whether you want to believe that or not.

MR MARK

You wrote, " The belief that, "there is a God, in the end no one gets away with anything," is a fairy tale that gives comfort to those so conceited as to believe there is some reason for THEM to live eternally while others won't, but it isn't truth."

If you have read what I have written over time on these posts, you should know that the above statement does not apply to what I have written.

Granted, some that call themeselves "christian" have written words to that effect.

What I have written is that no one gets away with anything but that God's Plan is for everyone to be with Him in His Kingdom and I have said it many times very simply, plainly and straight-forward.

Divine Mercy and Divine Justice go hand in hand.

By the way, when I mentioned a God Day, I did not mean something like the day part being millions of years long and the night part being equally long. If you would have read what I wrote, I said that we are still in the sixth day, so I was referring to it as quite literal from God's point of view.

One way that people could look at the night of the sixth day coming is from a spiritual point of view.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"However, since there is a God, in the end no one gets away with anything."

Actually, there is accountability in this life, the only life we have. It's not perfect, but it exists.

But my job here is to make sure that people who write such things as the quote above don't "get away with" passing off pure, unadulterated conjecture as fact. The belief that, "there is a God, in the end no one gets away with anything," is a fairy tale that gives comfort to those so conceited as to believe there is some reason for THEM to live eternally while others won't, but it isn't truth.

The truth is that some people DO get away with things. The truth is that there is no eternal justice to be served, outside of a man's legacy and reputation to his fellow beings. The only justice to be found is in death, the great equalizer, the equalizer who negates any advantage one may have had by getting away with something during their lives.

In the end, it didn't buy them any more life, or, for that matter, any less life than the next guy.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
"WITHOUT GOD, GREED WOULD BE A VIRTUE."
POSTED ON JUNE 9, 2008 10:37

IRT:
This is incorrect. Greed provides enough disruption in the social order even for people without the slightest hint of God to rise up against it.

ANS:
Without God, greed would be a virtue in the sense that there would be no recompense to be paid to God. Without God there would be no Commandments, no Church, and no reason to do good except to further one’s own self-ambitions.

Namely, there wouldn’t be any advantage not to be greedy if you are convinced you can get away with it. There are plenty who do.

Here’s a real story and it’s not a myth. It’s a story of real people with real greed.

The Clinton’s, the epitome of greed in both finance and politics, came to Washington D.C., and came out of the Presidency with a $100,000 million in earnings. Greed captivated Slick Willy in all his dealings in White Water, in his sexual escapades, and in his desire to be President.

Hillary was in on a land scheme to get rich quick. “HRC writes Jim McDougal, ‘If Reagonomics works at all, Whitewater could become the Western Hemisphere's Mecca." More than half of the purchasers will lose their plots thanks to the sleazy form of financing used.

Two months after commencing the Whitewater fraud, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

Accordingly, Jim McDougal said the Clintons were in a financial crunch. Hillary Clinton makes a $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal that involves taking advantage of the FCC's preference for locals, minorities, and women. The franchise is almost immediately flipped to the cellular giant, McCaw.

Gaining riches at the expense of others didn’t seem to bother the Clintons. Hillary took campaign money from drug dealers, and wanted criminals. To the Clintons, the end justified the means.

A drug dealer, Jorge Cabrera, donates $20,000 to the DNC, attends a Christmas reception hosted by Hillary Clinton, and is photoed with the Clintons and Al Gore. Three weeks later he is arrested for smuggling 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States. He had served two prison terms. Later he will be charged with laundering $3.5 million.

The Clintons sold out our strategic ICBM technology to China, and along with Gore, they were taking funds from the Riadi family a Red Chinese agent. All was for their campaigns.

The Buddhist Temple campaign scandal was another Clinton Gore scheme to raise money. Johnny Chung, who put in $50,000 to Clintons’ coffers, said the Whitehouse was like a subway turnstile; you just deposit the money and enter.

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm
“Hillary invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit, and ends up with nearly $100,000. Economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million. Her broker is indicted for unscrupulous trading.

So what was their punishment? They reelected them, and a majority of Catholics voted for them. Hillary gets elected to the Senate, and Americans, including Catholics, almost put them back in the Presidency again.

Gore, the engineer of the Buddhist Temple campaign-funding scheme, gets the Pulitzer Prize for another scheme in “The Inconvenient Truth.” The “Inconvenient Truth has found it inconvenient to tell the truth. It has been found to be full of intentional falsifications.

Report Finds $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global.
Report, Friday June 6, 2008 AP: That’s a good bargain for solving Global Warming when were actually in a Global Cooling.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?currentPage=2

“A Cavernous Narcissism
So what can be known, or fairly inferred, from the Clinton available record?”

Most of the names of the donors who have contributed some $500 million to Clinton’s library are not known.

“Clinton, who never made more than $35,000 a year as governor of Arkansas left the White House about $12 million in debt, That the world of rich friends, adoring fans, and borrowed jets in which he travels has skewed his judgment or, at a minimum, created uncomfortable appearances of impropriety.”

Sins never seemed to hurt some. The real payoff is not in this world but in the next, and if there is no next, then as long as you aren’t caught, you become admired for being slick.

Bill Clinton wasn’t called Slick Willy because he was a philanthropist. In fact, he was called one of the most astute politicians in history because he had no moral scruples and it paid off for both of the Clintons.

However, since there is a God, in the end no one gets away with anything.

More Biblical Fun Facts for Thomas Baum to consider.

Let's play the T Baum game and stipulate that a "God day" isn't a 24-hour day. T Baum seems to think that a "God day" could have been millions of years long.

Interesting.

Which brings us to this thought: if a "God day" was really millions of years long, then what happened to all of the plants that God created on the Third Day? You see, plants need sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. No sunlight, and plants die.

Problem is, God didn't create the sun until the Fourth Day. Now, that's not a big problem if a God Day is 24 hours long. Most plants can survive for 24 hours without sunlight. But if - as TB suggests - a God Day was actually millions of years in length, then all of those plants woulda died, dontcha think?

Of course, that brings us to another little problem: how could there have been "an evening and a morning" on the first, second and third days if God didn't create the light producing sun and the sunlight reflecting moon and all of the stars in the firmament until the Fourth Day?

Perhaps "God Light" is different from sun and star light??

T Baum writes:

"The six days of creation are quite literal but they are not earthly days but GOD DAYS, exactly how long each one has lasted or will last, I don't know, but we are still in the sixth day and night is coming and it will not be nice."

The BIBLE contradicts T Baum:

Genesis 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. AND THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. AND THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE SECOND DAY."

Hmm. The Bible says, "The evening and the morning were the first/second etc day." The Bible defines a "day" as "AN evening and A morning." Sounds like a good old Earth day to me. How does a "God day" differ from a human day, Thomas?

BTW, Thomas. Science has proven that the Earth used to rotate much faster than it does now. An Earth "day" was about 6 hours long 4 billion years ago. Hence, the Biblical "day" of the creation story isn't even today's 24-hour day, that is, if you wish to put a scientific reading on things.

Of course, if you prefer a FICTIONAL accounting, then time is your oyster...until you run up against the Bible itself defining the timeframe of what "a day" constitutes...at which point, any HONEST person would concede that the Biblical "day" of Genesis is defined in Genesis as the 24-hour day we all know and love.

;)

T Baum writes:

"I do not look at the bible as a science book but as much, much more than that."

And, it must be said that there are those of us who look at the Bible as being much, much, much, MUCH LESS than any science book. We also look at it as being much, much less than any number of philosophy books.

HOWEVER, we do find the Bible to be very much ON PAR with many other WORKS OF FICTION.

What I have said is: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

I have also said: It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic FAITH, the word catholic means universal and God's salvation is universal.

I do not look at the bible as a science book but as much, much more than that, how others look at the bible is up to them, I am not here to live anyone else's life, I am not here to tell anyone else how to live.

My "job" is to tell the world that: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

The six days of creation are quite literal but they are not earthly days but GOD DAYS, exactly how long each one has lasted or will last, I don't know, but we are still in the sixth day and night is coming and it will not be nice.

The dawning of the seventh day will also arrive and with it the ushering in of the Kingdom of God, the new heavens and the new earth.

There are plenty of people, some call them experts, who are so intent on looking at some aspect of this life that they are blind to the big picture.

Whether anyone sees it or not all of life on this planet is interconnected and all of the workings of this planet, man-made and otherwise, are interconnected, only God can see the BIG PICTURE but lots of people are blind to the fact that a BIG PICTURE even exists, especially some of the "experts".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

RNH

"Without God, Greed would be a virtue."
---
This is incorrect. Greed provides enough disrpution in the social order even for people without the slightest hint of God to rise up against it. There are plenty of mythological stories of people succuming to their greed, resulting in monstrous results, and showing that greed is no virtue. (Fafnir of the Ring of Nibelung, the myths of Sedna of Inuit Mythology, and more if you just look them up)

Greedy people set themselves up to have that which they covet work against them, or taken away by those that desire more.
Sins tend to do that, regardles of your religion.

--

Thomas Baum

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

Let's look at the original article:

"God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

They were not talking about the clouds which we not know contain water, they were talking about a water encased, like a giant fish bowl. The Firemament they speak of in the Scripture is described as a solid object, not gaseous or liquid, dividing the seas above and below. windows were opened to let water in, so the water of the second sea was beyond the firmament.

Even if billions of years ago, in the Precambrian period as the earth cooled from its molten state, water fell back down, this is not the event they are refering to(Otherwise the creation mentioned in the Bible would be a theory, it insists that it is the truth). Clouds are not the firmament, nor is the space between the clouds and the ground the firmament.

The clouds are below the sky that they saw, Thomas, and thus they believed in it as the boundary between the blinding light made on the first day, and the earth.

They weren't refering to a "Sea of Stars", for the stars were attached to the firmament. Water of the second sea with water was therefore beyond the stars, according to this, also, the stars are not attached to clouds, nor are they below the clouds, one or the other would have to occur in the example you described previously.

Finally, Stars are not attached to any solid object today, they are moving, even our sun, in a galaxy which contains more stars than what could be observed from earth back then. and this is but one galaxy of many, that we have only begun to observe in the whole of human history.

I hope this gives you a new perspective on what faith is. Faith isn't nonexistent, otherwise we wouldn't speak of it, but nor can it alone convey authority across all the potential of mankind. That is its own "greed" that threaten to put one's ideas as above all others, how can one measure the difference between two infinites? You can't. No one can, it defiesand negates the definition of "infinite".

Some people say Atheists have no place discussing faith, or to judge its use, or their opinions are of no importance or are somehow inferior because their conclusions do not factor in this God, or that Book, or that translation of the other Scroll. I say what could be of more importance? It is the objective judge that is needed for justice. What is "Good" is a concept that is beyond all the creeds that attempts to define it, even yours.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GERRY
“SCIENCE VS. THEOLOGY”
June 5, 2008 9:23
IRT:
“Therefore, in order to make difficult phenomena appear simple for the human minds of the era (which we are still in, alas, as proved in such posts), it posits a plausible sounding fairy tale, hoping to make every simple mind happy - and dependent.”

ANS:
Is Communist China one of those fairy tales? Were Hitler, Stalin, Mayo, Edi Amine, and Pol Pot all fairy tales adjured up by the Christians? Are the over 48 million unborn aborted myths. Ask all the families of the dead murdered by those who call God a fairy tale.

The morally blind can’t see the difference of good and evil and the tragic obloquy these misanthropes have warranted for humanity by ignoring God's moral laws?

The millions of deaths caused by the morally unrestrained are the fruits of the Godless. The millions slaughtered by tyrants are the fruits of their rejecting God's moral laws, and thinking God is your fairy-tale.

The simple-minded are not those who believe in God, but the presumptuous and impudent autonomous who think they are a God unto themselves, and make morality subjective.

IRT:
“Exchanging an unknown for another unknown. What a regrettable lack of insight, demeaning even the attempt to improve knowledge. (Luther: "Reason is of Satan"!) Who created "god?””

ANS:
God is only unknown to the dissipates, the duped and the incoherent. Namely, they are those who are without logical or coherent connections with reality. They live in the alternate world where good is evil and evil is good, where up down and down is up.

You choose Luther, a dropout, a dissident who couldn’t see the truth that was in front of him to bolster your argument against God? What presumptuous priggishness that is. Now that’s not surprising. Scripture warns man to beware; besotted absurdity begets absurdity.

If you didn't know, God was not created; He has no beginning or end. He is unmoved. That means He doesn’t have potency but is pure actuality. Hence, He is the Unmoved Mover.

If you had read Aristotle’s proof of God from motion, you wouldn’t have asked such a fatuous question.

If you're not indisposed to truth and knowledge, you might try reading the five proofs of God by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica and see how simple minded are the atheists and agnostics who think God is a myth.

AQUINAS’ FIVE PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

ARISTOTLE’S PROOF OF GOD FROM MOTION:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

IRT:
Theology proves exactly nothing:

ANS:
It proves nothing to the closed mind and the predisposed, and the empty minded. That's why there are so few of them in the world.

IRS:
“…It replaces the unknown with another unknown, using a seductive sounding code called a "god". Theology reminds me of a hamster running in a running wheel, which proves that it makes progress, since the wheel is spinning.

ANS:
Is America spinning its wheels? It based its Constitution on our Judeo-Christian heritage. You see the Founding Fathers believed in God.

God manifest himself through His Creation by His works. You should thank God the Founders were as astute as to found this country on our Judeo-Christian Heritage. They've been proven right by the fruits of their choice.

Truth does not depend on being known. Only dullards ridicule what is impossible for them to perceive.

Of course, since all things act for an end, those who cannot conceive of a God cannot conceive their end in life. They are constantly disposed to achieve a desire that is irrational to them. That’s why the psychiatrists’ offices are usually filled.

IRT:
“Theology creates an imaginary system and handily moves around within this imaginary system, unable to even take the slightest look at the system from the outside: This would prove that its subject is fiction.”

Are the Ten Commandments fiction? Are all the miracles at Lourdes and Fatima fiction? What is this imaginary system you speak of?

It is the Godless who are locked into a materialistic world, not Christians. They await a supernatural existence and eternal happiness. The Godless only have a grave to look forward to in the end.

Who but the Godless distort the social order? The Fascist, the Communists, the pagan ideologies, the atheists and agnostic nations and civilizations went your way and they have all ended up destroying themselves and others.

Are such ideologies not an invitation to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalyptic, where famine, pestilence, war, and death ensue? Have any of these nations succeeded?

So below is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Have your want of it and find me some of the fiction and imaginary fantasies that you speak of that are distorting the society and the Universe.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

IN REPLY TO (IRT)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GERRY
“SCIENCE VS. THEOLOGY”
June 5, 2008 9:23 AM
“Really? Genesis doesn't have the slightest information about physics or chemistry, it reflects a total, implicitly admitted ignorance of nature.

ANS:
Without God, Greed would be a virtue.

Genesis reveals how the world began. A problem that plagues man even today, as is evident from your response. Moreover, it reveals the nature and dignity of man from which all science is born.

Genesis informs man of the purpose of man’s existence, and compasses the direction that man is to take if he is to reach his final destination.

Empirical Science (ES) may formulate all the laws of Physics and Chemistry that it can deduce from the Natural Law, but that is not the purpose or formal object of Genesis or Scripture. Its formal object is knowledge of God.

Genesis reveals who is the Law Giver, and the purposes of the Natural Law and who made the Universe. It was not man nor did it cause itself.

Moreover, Genesis reveals to man who man is and why he is. ES is only a subordinate instrument for man to achieve his purpose in life.

In Genesis, man is defined as a spiritual being formed to the image and likeness of God and given a natural destiny to achieve eternal happiness. That is not the domain of ES.

In addition, man is called down by God to live in accordance to the laws of God so that man’s end in life may be completed.

Throughout the annals of history, every time man has presumptuously tried to succeed on his own and become a God unto himself, he has ended being a complete and tragic conflagrated failure destined for Hell.

Adam and Eve thought they were God and they were thrown out of the Garden. Moreover, they impugned man’s nature for all time. Sodom and Gomorrah attempted to become God and they were annihilated.

The Roman Empire was hoisted on its own petard when they chose the Seven Deadly Sins, (one being gluttony) instead of God. ES and all its worldly virtues couldn't help those who damned themselves, only God, who is Truth, could do that.

In contemporary times, we had the USSR and the Gulags. The USSR thought as you, that God is a fairy-tale, and Marx described Religion as the opium of the masses. And what infamous Communist leader derisively said, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

Then there is the atheist Mao, another Communist who disposed of Chinese to the tune of some sixty million deaths; another atheist, Stalin, had about the same number. Pol Pot was another shinning panegyric social beauty as well. How many did he murder? Moreover, these tyrants are on a dust heap in history and their legacy is death and destruction.

The Chinese have murdered so many unborn and born that they are in a population crisis since their earthquake. Twenty, major nations are having negative birth rates, namely, they are dying, because they think God’s laws are myths. Europe and Japan are dying, thanks to ES without moral restraint, an amoral EP that invented contraceptive pills and abortion.

Suicide is becoming the leading cause of death in America, in part, because the purpose of life has been obscured by the scientific amoral who deny God's presence.

What did a morally unrestrained EP do for pro-abortion troglodytes? It gave them Abortion, the carcinogenic pill; subsequently AIDS and STPs followed. It gave America over 48 million unborn dead. Lacking any sense of moral standards or principles science gave America the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death.

Now EP, undisciplined by morality, has turned upon the embryo another assault on human life. But, the drama of death has not ended. Not only the defenseless and unborn, but also the old, and infirmed, found as a drag on society by Hitler, are being found an inconvenience in America.

Here’s an ignominious scientist you might look up on Google, the good atheists, Dr. Joseph Fletcher. He was a doctor who recently chaired the Department of Ethics at Virginia University. He’s the epitome of what Science molds without the counsel of Genesis and God. He puts Hitler to shame.

Dear RNH -

Thanks for the comments.

My turn to atheism was not the result of some traumatic moment. It took decades for me to finally let loose the shackles of Xianity. Truth be told, were it not for the fear, ignorance and guilt that Xianity uses as a retention tool to keep its membership in line, I would have freed myself even earlier.

But that's what indoctrination is all about, and the fear of something you have only been warned of (hellfire) but can't prove to be true, coupled with the guilt one is taught they will feel if they ever desert the "poor innocent baby Jesus who came to die for us all aren't you ashamed you've rejected his gift just think of any other poor baby how mean you are" is a strong sense of guilt to the indoctrinated.

Like you, my trip to atheism began with my "really read[ing] the New Testament at face value," and at some point about 20 years ago, I began to realize that it was absolute BS.

Perhaps the starting point was really admitting to myself for the first time that the myriad contradictions in the Bible couldn't be adequately explained away with the old reliable "who knows the mind of god? god moves in mysterious ways" get-out-of-rational-jail-free card that the religious use whenever such idiocies raise their heads.

Perhaps my distrust of the Bible grew whenever I happened upon a verse that claimed to reveal some scientific reality about the world when said "reality" had been disproved by modern scientific knowledge. After all, if the "one true god" is omniscient, and the god of the Bible doesn't know his science, then one can rightly assume that the god(s) of the Bible (including The Son) can't possibly be the "one true god."

(Question for RNH: do you "take at face value" Jesus' statement that the mustard seed is the least of all seeds when it isn't? Do you take at face value his claim that said seed grows into a tree when no plant in the mustard family grows into a tree? Do you "take at face value" his referencing of Adam and Eve as the first humans on Earth? Just what do you mean by "face value?")

And, perhaps when my study of the Bible led me to examine other religions and the archetypical templates that somehow fit ol' Jesus to a tee were shown to be in existence in the pagan world long before Jesus' supposed advent, well, I started to question what was unique about Jesus outside of the make up of the pagan attributes that were cobbled together to form his life story. Perhaps that led to a more-realistic examination of history, which revealed to me just how inconclusive and non-existent the evidence for a corporeal Jesus really was (contrary to the received opinion of all those religionists around me.)

And...at some point, the worm turned and I found myself on the other side of the scale, sitting on the non-belief side with the weight of the argument ever increasing, even as it continues to increase to this day.

Unlike you, I'm not willing to "take the bet that when I die I will be with God almighty- and live a life of fulfillment with Christ and my family with the fruits of the Spirit of God," anymore than I'd be willing to take the same bet on Vishnu or Odin or Zeus. There is NOTHING in the Biblical fairy tale that demands or even encourages us to place even an ounce of belief in its veracity on anything. If you choose to lead your life believing what by all measures is a lie of man's devising, fine. But you're taking a sucker's bet, the same sucker's bet that was taken by the ancient Egyptians and Romans - and the same suckers' bet that you most likely believe is being taken by Muslims and Mormons in the world today.

Nope. I'm looking to live a life of fulfillment with my family and friends right here and now, in the only life that I have and the only life that we all have, God isn't necessary to my equation of what constitutes fulfillment. The only difference between you and I is that right before I die, I'll know that my life here was what I wanted it to be, and that I found fulfillment in my life and in this world. You, on the other hand, will believe that you're just about to find your fulfillment. Beyond that, we both end up in the same place, and that's dead, just like every other life form on this planet ends up.

We'll enter the void, the great equalizer, as it were. We'll return to the "nowhere" place where we didn't exist for the billions of years of time that passed BEFORE we arrived for our brief stay on this planet. Mercifully, you'll NEVER find out how wrong you were about an afterlife, you'll never even have the pain of realizing how much time and how much of your life you wasted imagining there was an afterlife, because the greedy conceit we humans have fashioned for ourselves that we will live eternally is an illusion that ends the moment we die.

Death is a part of life, a bookend on our existence, a finality that mirrors the finality of those billions of years of our pre-existence. What an insult, what a cop out to the order of things to believe otherwise, and to believe so based upon the fearful ramblings of the lesser selves of our Bronze Aged ancestors. What an egocentric conceit! What an elitist view of life and the cosmos, to imagine that it is ALL here so I/me/myself may live eternally!

You're right. That's something that I can't fathom.

MR MARK

I thought that you knew about the hydrospere, it is one of the things that people learn about in science classes.

As far as the "dirt" that we walk on, there are untold rivers and streams running all over down there. Where do you think well water comes from?

God really did make a nice earth and we sure are intent on wrecking it and a lot of that wrecking is coming from the "greed" of man, which was the topic discussed in this question.

Greed comes in many forms and it is one of the things that is manifested in man's inhumanity to man.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIEL IN THE LION'S DEN:
SCIENCE VS THEOLOGY:
IRT:
“Wow! I sure did not understand any of that.
You seem to be saying that science is bad. You are not saying that are you?”

ANS:
Absolutely not. Dawkins said religion has no purpose and the Empirical Sciences (ES) trump anything religion has done and will ever do. He cites all the accomplishments of ES and claims everything that Theology has done is rhetoric. I refute that and the post tells why.

In fact, ES has the least of certitudes. Mathematics is the Second Degree of abstraction, has more certitude than ES. ES borrows many of its assumptions it bases its science on from Mathematics.

The Science with greater certitude is Natural Theology. The less a science is associated to matter as its formal object the more certitude it has. Thus, Math is less associated to matter than ES. Matter has more unrevealed truths or potential and man can only know what is evident.

Thus, we see a young tree beginning to grow, we do not know what it will be in 20 years until we see it, because its potential has not been revealed yet. Math is different in respect to its hypothesis and conclusions.

In Natural Theology its ideas are formed from abstracting from ideas, the least associated to matter.

But above all, Divine Revelation is revealed truth from God, and is the most certitude of all truths because God is Omnipotent and Omniscient; He is Truth itself.

Now man has a spiritual nature. We know this from his operations, namely man forms ideas and judgments that are immaterial beings that have no quantity.

Thus, it is written that man does not live by bread alone. The food of the intellect is knowledge, a spiritual entity of man’s spiritual nature.

John Henry Newman wrote a thesis on the “Educated Man.” Any educational system that doesn’t educate both sides of man, viz. his spiritual and material sides is not a full and proper education system. Hence, Public Schools fail in this matter.

Thus, man not only must know how to supply his material needs as clothing, shelter, food, health and so on, he must also know how to succor to his spiritual needs as well. Note that man can build an nuclear bomb but Theology tells man how to use it.

Thus, man must be integrated into society and the social order. That is not the concern of ES. ES meets man’s physical needs, not his social ordering.

Theology, viz. morals ethics, and the like are also an integral part of human life and are more important because they deal with the eternity of man, and the material things deal only with the temporal needs of man. ES is a subordinate instrument for man's achievement to his eternal destiny.

IRT:
“I do not think that you understand what science is, or how it operates, nor what scientists do, and what their goals are.

“Someone presents an argument that promotes science over religion. To refute the argument, you make a whole long list of what is wrong with science and why science is bad.

“But that does not refute the argument, and it only makes you look a little foolish, and even childish, to present science as the main enemy of man, when, I would say, almost no one would agree with that.

ANS:
I say not why Science is bad but why it would be denigrating without its use being governed with the Natural Moral Law.

What was said is that Science is not the be all and end all of humanity. There are certain things that are more important. Thus, it is written, “What does it profit a man to gain all the riches of the world and lose his soul for all eternity?”

What does science have to do with forming a man's character and integrity? Theology in its moral values and its ethical systems is what made America great; science ensued because of man freedom of expression to pursue his innate desires inscribed in his human nature.

Therefore, for Science to succeed, man must be free to pursue it. He cannot pursue his aspirations, unless he is free to do so.

So why is America greater than all the other nations? It is because the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights saw that man was endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. They recognized these rights are not given by man but by God.

Nations that are Godless like the former USSR, and now China have probably more natural resources, than America. West Germany had no more resources than East Germany. Because of the difference in the recognizing of human freedom, one nation's dignity exceeds the other.

Nazi Germany's oppression had Max Born forced him to flee Germany, come to America, and with Edward Teller, J Robert Oppenheimer, built the nuclear bomb. This was not because Born was a scientific genius, but because he was given the intellectual freedom pursue science.

Jesus said, store your treasures in Heaven and not in the world. All things of the world are temporal; the things in Heaven are eternal. Man’s time on earth is not comparable to eternity. When one dies his wealth on earth is insignificant compared to what man stores in Heaven Luke 12:22-40.

Mr Mark-

Actually, you just prove points to yourself, how convenient!

You can't fathom invisible attributes that can't be smelled, touched, seen, or proven, so in your little world you've made up for yourself, anyone that comes to a different conclusion did so due to some reason that you've conjured up in your head.

Look at it this way- when I was given a fresh look at Christianity and really read the New Testament at face value, I realized that it was the truth but I was too immature in my high school years to apply it to my life properly. I woke up to the fact that , although not physically proven , Jesus CHrist was the Son of God and he solve mankind's problems - that's right, sin, and he loved me more than any one person can ever do so. I could not be indoctrinated by my parents as they did not believe in any real sense of the word, they were into partying /socializing with their friends, and really did not have deep beliefs like I came to have once I really sat down and read the NT seriously.

I don't know what traumatic (sp?) event caused you to reject God, or if your intelligence won't allow you to have faith in something you can't prove out in your head, but its not my problem.

I'll take the bet that when I die I will be with God almighty- and live a life of fulfillment with Christ and my family with the fruits of the Spirit of God(Love joy,peace, tranquility, etc etc.) over the life where there is skepticism about anything and everything that can't be "proven" . The concept is logical on its face- to me.

You have actually proven my point, and do so time after time. You are a elitist, as are most militant atheists. It is actually quite pitiful to see anyone disdain others that believe in God like you and some others on this "blog". It must be a difficult life disdaining those that are "religionists" as you all say.

My actual conversion to Christ had nothing to do with fear, as many atheists want to think with their assumptions when they truly don't know people on places like the internet. It had to do with the enormous love that God has for us all.It continues to be that way in my life to this day.

Thomas Baum writes:

"One of the things that you wrote, " stuff like the sky was a second sea", if you think about it, why do you not see that in a way it is. The sky is full of water, think about the "hydrosphere", evaporation, condensation, rainstorms, snowstorms, etc. Water is constantly going up in the sky and falling out of the sky, is it not?"

Sorry, Tom, but this is yet another example of you attempting to spin a Biblical idiocy into some kind of prescient view of the sky that would not be revealed until man actually knew the sky's chemical composition, hence, the Bible musta been right all along in saying the sky was a second sea.

Unfortunately, your analysis works just as well if I change but a single word, to whit:

"One of the things that you wrote, " stuff like the sky was a second sea", if you think about it, why do you not see that in a way it is. DIRT is full of water, think about the "hydrosphere", evaporation, condensation, rainstorms, snowstorms, etc. Water is constantly going up in the sky and falling out of the sky, is it not?"

The point is that your lame excuse works just as well if you aver that "by a second sea, the Bible meant the ground we walk on."

The difference comes down to what a "sea" is in the normal consideration of things. If you could get off your Biblical Apology Express, you could admit that the second sea the Bible refers to has the same density and composition of the Earth's oceans.

Not even a good try, my friend.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "Said Scholars of the past didn't take into account that people in the future would reason, measure, and ultimately prove new knowledge existed. that the earth revolved around the sun, that the sky's blue color was a of the sun's light, and not the appearance of water."

Do you honestly, in your heart, believe that knowledge is supreme and that it is the most important or even the only important thing.

Do you think that messengers of God turn into some kind of dictation machine for God?

Do you think that there should be some kind of ethical issues that should guide people in the pursuit of knowledge?

One of the things that you wrote, " stuff like the sky was a second sea", if you think about it, why do you not see that in a way it is. The sky is full of water, think about the "hydrosphere", evaporation, condensation, rainstorms, snowstorms, etc. Water is constantly going up in the sky and falling out of the sky, is it not?

I have met God and one day you will too.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum

One thing about meeting God if you are a know-it-all you realize that you don't know-it-all and if you aren't a know-it-all to begin with, you still don't know-it-all.

I know you do not know-it-all, therefore you cannot know whether God knows-it-all, because you are incapable of knowing everything you do not know. If you are incapable of knowing everything you do not know, you do not know if God knows it.

Consider the Bible,It was written as God's Word. As far as the writers and scholars knew, what they knew as God's Word was true, stuff like the sky was a second sea, the sun revoled around the earth.
Yet nowadays a good chunk of the knowledge it proclaims we now know and have proved to be false. Said Scholars of the past didn't take into account that people in the future would reason, measure, and ultimately prove new knowledge existed. that the earth revolved around the sun, that the sky's blue color was a of the sun's light, and not the appearance of water. How could they? The knowledge that they had as God's answer was enough for them. how could they ask that which they had no knowledge of?

So no one can know, truly know, if God knows everything. For whatever knowledge can be attributed to God(another task that has only increased its uncertainty with the passage of time and the lives that lived it) can only be inferred through beings that do not know everything.

One thing about meeting God if you are a know-it-all you realize that you don't know-it-all and if you aren't a know-it-all to begin with, you still don't know-it-all.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear RNH -

Thank you for proving my point.

Your parents indoctrinated you in Xianity as a child ("My parents made us go to church."). You then "walked away," but the indoctrination was so strong that eventually you came back to Xianity and embraced its myths for yourself. Notice that you didn't explore and decide upon a different faith like Islam. Notice that your parents didn't "make us go to church but, at the same time, gave us a thorough education in ALL religions and even in atheism." No, your indoctrination was as a Xian, and to Xianity you returned.

What drove you to re-examine the NT? Was it a search for "love?" Did you suddenly realize that your parents were smart after all? I'm going to guess that there was an element of fear involved.

Your story proves the indoctrination of which I spoke.

To TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

"We might know why stars formed, but we do not know what caused the material that formed them or who authored the laws that formed them from ES. That is the explained in Genesis."

Really? Genesis doesn't have the slightest information about physics or chemistry, it reflects a total, implicitly admitted ignorance of nature. Therefore, in order to make difficult phenomena appear simple for the human minds of the era (which we are still in, alas, as proved in such posts), it posits a plausible sounding fairy tale, hoping to make every simple mind happy - and dependent. Exchanging an unknown for another unknown. What a regrettable lack of insight, demeaning even the attempt to improve knowledge. (Luther: "Reason is of Satan"!) Who created "god"?

Theology proves exactly nothing: It replaces the unknown with another unknown, using a seductive sounding code called a "god". Theology reminds me of a hamster running in a running wheel, which proves that it makes progress, since the wheel is spinning.

Theology creates an imaginary system and handily moves around within this imaginary system, unable to even take the slightest look at the system from the outside: This would prove that its subject is fiction.

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
"THE EMPTINESS OF THEOLOGY"
BY RICHARD DAWKINS
IRT:
"People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

ANS:
The purpose of Theology is not the purpose of Science. Theology is the Queen of all sciences because Her subject matter is God who encompasses all sciences. Its certitude exceeds all other sciences because it is revealed to man by God who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Prescience.

ES studies material beings and formulates the laws that govern them. Man has a spiritual nature and spirituality is not the formal object of ES. Science begins with the premise that things exist and studies their existence.

To know the origins of man and the Universe people might try reading Genesis sometime. No Empirical Science (ES) can determine the origins of man because man has a spiritual nature.

Spirituality is not the formal object of ES. Thusly, ES has no concern with Greed or morality or immorality that is the providence of Theology and God.

IRT:
“Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen.”

ANS:
We can never know when the Universe began, only that it began, because before it began there was no time. Time only began when God created the Universe.

ES cannot explain what caused matter. Scientists begin with the self-evident knowledge that matter exist. Why it exists is the subject matter of Natural Theology and Divine Theological Revelation.

IRT:
“We know why stars form …the fundamental principles of … chemistry can become biology …the principal of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.”

ANS:
We might know why stars formed, but we do not know what caused the material that formed them or who authored the laws that formed them from ES. That is the explained in Genesis.

Matter cannot cause man; God did. Man has a spiritual nature. It is important because it determines man's final end.

ES can not determine existence and the author of the Natural Law that orders the Universe that is the domain of Natural and Divine Theology.

IRT:
“It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge. On every one of these questions, theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong. “

ANS:
To the contrary, nothing in Divine Revelation, the subject of Theology has ever been proven wrong because it comes from God who is with out error.

IRT:
“Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria.”

ANS:
Eradicating diseases is not the purpose of Theology. Theology gives man the rationale for his proper behavior and his relationship to himself, his neighbor, society and the God who created man.

IRT:
“Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin.

ANS:
The purpose of Theology is not to eradicate pestilence. Its purpose is stated above.

IRT:
Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear.

ANS:
However, ES has no authority to determine why and what caused the Universe's existence and its order. That is not the domain of ES but of Divine Theology.

The Shroud of Turin has not been found a fake; the fake was the study that said the Shroud was a fake. Nothing can explain it. Attempts to prove the Shroud a fraud have failed miserably.

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

IRT:
“What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?”

On the contrary, the very opposite is true.

Theology is the vanguard of all moral behavior and is the foundation of all Civil Law. Those who ignore its precepts have been wiped from the history of civilization.

From Noah to Sodom and Gomorrah, Nazi Germany, to Communism of Marx to the collapse of the USSR, and to the destruction of mankind in China, the violations of the Natural Moral Law have been an invitation to the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War and Death.

Moreover, the precepts of Theology are the forefront of all knowledge because it comes from God. It recognizes man’s dignity and true freedom and the proper ordering of the social order. The Church is the beacon of Education, which forms man to prefect his nature and guides him in his journey to his final end, the purpose of life.

Without the dignity and respect for humanity, there is no social order. Without the Church counsel for man there would be no momentum to seek the purpose of man that ultimately rest in God.

Hence, St Augustine said, Lord, you created us out of your love for man for yourself. We will not rest until we rest in you.

A person who demeans the other's life philosophy as repugnant is - repugnant, q.e.d.

To call a delusion a delusion is not demeaning.

Mr Mark-

It's interesting that all atheists like yourself make that comment that one of the reasons that I believe is that I was "indoctrinated" as a child.

Far from it. My parents made us go to church , my brothers and I , and when I was so called "confirmed" I walked away from religion. Once I actually read the New Testament, and realized that God is about love, incredible love, and these attributes, factors, whatever you want to call them= that is , faith , hope and love, attracted me like nothing else has in this world.

You've basically placed yourself in the position that since YOU have come to the conclusion YOU have, that anyone else must have a illogical conclusion if THEY have come to the opposite conclusion. It's in the atheist 's wheelhouse and mantra about us awful "religionists".

It is pure elitism and is repugnant.

Thomas Baum

"I am not here to present an argument for or against the reality of God being a Trinity or that God is a Being of Pure Love, I am here to state that God is a Being of Pure Love and that God is a Trinity, it is that simple."
--I am saying the your statements are begging the question that you have proof behind your claims to faith, when you actually have not /proven/ such in your writing.

"Your faith in non-belief in God will one day be shattered and you will one day be glad that God is a Being of Pure Love and that God's Plan is"
--doesn't that also mean that your presumptions face an equal chance of being shattered? No matter how well meaning you make God to be? Isn't your purpose of being a messenger moot if God is supposedly going to "Shatter" our conceptions about him anyway?

"Also, I don't even know what you mean by "the whole of theological faith", as I have said before, I am not a theologian, I am a messenger."
--The idea that you are a messenger denotes that your have knowledge beyond that of other believers. In terms of a religious message board, this means that your faith surpasses others in that yours is not faith, but knowledge.

Consider the belief in "God" as in the Christian tradition. God is Monotheistic, yet a trinity of beings, and that he has made you a messenger of sorts. Your "faith" as it were, refutes all other faiths, including other Christian faiths, insisting that God will dissaude them all for your own. Your faith that you insist is knowledge, is in fact your own perceptions of God. And that is what faith is, for everyone. You have no more divine knowledge than the panelists, than the posters, than even those shouting in the streets a different tone of God, eternally vengeful and jealous.

The very fact that people do not believe as you do is not a failing, it is varitey that allows us as a species to flourish.

M ANONYMOUS

To continue the response to what you wrote, "If so, then I ask a question that has been asked before. If there is a personal savior, then why do we see genocide today?

Free will doesn't answer this question at the level of the individual victim. Free will explains, to an extent, the reasons why some perpetrate genocide."

If one has free will, then all have free will. All of us happen to have a fallen nature or as some refer to it as "our more base human nature".

This fallen nature seems to affect different people in different ways and it also seems to work on not only the individual level but sometimes seems to really kick in with the herd mentality.

We are subject to not only natural occurrences but also to whatever people, individually or in groups, good or bad, do to each other.

In the above sentence when I wrote, good or bad, this refers to our choice, what choice we make is the free will part of it, is it not? Also, when we make a choice such as this, are we rising above our more base nature sometimes even to the point that the good of others outweight what some people refer to as the basic instinct of survival?

Putting the blame on others, in any way, shape or form, is denying that we have free will and there do seem to be times when individuals or groups can be so caught up in evil that they seem to be possessed by that evil, blind to that evil, sometimes even calling the evil good, does it not?

Whether people believe that satan is real or that demons are real is really immaterial because the fact of the matter is: satan and demons are both real.

Something to think about and thanks for asking.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Arminius,

Here is another moving poem on the longed-for departure of CCNL, this one posted by pseudo.
----------------

Once there once was a blogger named shell script
Who pasted so much he could well skip
They knew he was witless
'cause he bored them...*
And wished he would bid a farewell quip.

*well kids, I know it is not metrical, but he really bored them, anyway.
-------------------

I'm not really poetically inclined, but the theme inspires me, so I guess I'll give it a shot.

Sincerely,
Wiglaf

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
POSTED BY SUSAN JACOBY
JUNE 2, 2008 9:00 AM
IRS:
“Greed Is Not Good--So What Do We Do About It?
IRT:
“The real civic and economic question is not the morality or immorality of greed but what legal restrictions we are prepared to place on greed—

ANS:
Greed has many faces; it comes from man’s avarice, covetousness, rapacity, envy, and avaritia. If these iniquities are not morally defined, then the restrictions enacted will be measured by the whims of man. Namely, evil must be disciplined in respect to the proportion of its impunity of man’s nature and justified in accordance to the NML.

Thus, a penalty for a law against stealing food cannot be cutting off one’s hands or arms as the punishments as some totalitarian countries do.

Why can’t we live in a society in which greed can be tolerated? It is because Greed is a violation of the NML and therefore violates human nature and the purpose of society. It disrupts the individual, the nucleus of the State, the family, and the social order.

Therefore is written in the basic precepts of the NML, the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors’ goods.”

“…whether it manifests itself in usurious credit card interest rates, golden parachutes for executives of failing corporations and brokerage houses, the abandonment of pension and health care promises to retired workers, or moves to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans.”

ANS:
Wealth is not evil, without out the investments of the wealthy, there are no industries. Moreover, investments are risks as history taught America in the ‘30s. Golden Parachutes are not the business of the government; they have their own parachutes. They are the business of the stock market and the stockholders.

Second, one percent of the top money earners pay about10 to 20 percent of the taxes. You’ve been listening to the Dems who are the epitome of greed or reading the NY Times too much.

The Clintons didn’t amass a $100 million of wealth while in Oval Office because they were benevolent philanthropists. Hillary, before coming to DC deducted her underwear and socks on her income tax form as charity; of course, it failed. The Clintons were part of every possible flim-flam scheme that ever originated in Arkansas.

And there are a few more tidbits you might try to digest. For instance, the good Senator from California had her hands in the pockets of Uncle Sam, as has Pelosi the House Speaker.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932

“Meanwhile, “Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Ca. has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received BILLIONS of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved “

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05082007/news/nationalnews/her_an_fran_treat_nationalnews_geoff_earle.htm

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used her clout to get lawmakers to back a San Francisco redevelopment project near her multimillion-dollar rental properties, disclosure documents reveal.”

Of course, the Dems have Harry Reed and his land deals, Obama and his land deal with a criminal, Rep. Jefferson dancing with his $90,000 bribe through the halls of Congress. There is no greed on the Dems side; it's entrepreneurship. It’s only greed when the Republicans become entrepreneurs.

Greed is generated by a love of self, pride, as are the Deadly Seven Sins are detrimental to the individual and society and the nation.

The Tenth Commandment forbids greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches and their attendant power. It also forbids the desire to commit injustice by harming our neighbor in his temporal goods.

When the Law says, "You shall not covet," these words, mean that we should banish our desires for whatever does not belong to us. Our thirst for another's goods is immense, infinite, never quenched. Thus, it is written: "He who loves money never has money enough.

"It is not a violation of this Greed to desire to obtain things that belong to one's neighbor, provided this is done by just means.

'The forms of Greed are depicted in the merchants who desire scarcity and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell more dearly and buy more cheaply."

Greed and its many forms are seen in those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them. Physicians who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials are pictures of greed.

"Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another's goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor, it is a mortal sin:

St. Augustine saw envy as "the diabolical sin." "From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.

"Envy and Greed represents a form of sadness and therefore a refusal of charity; all should struggle against it by exercising good will.

"Envy and Greed and all their form often comes from pride” Its solution is to promote the Corporal Works of Mercy, be encouraged by the promises in the Beatitudes, and practice the virtues of charity and humility.

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
POSTED BY SUSAN JACOBY
JUNE 2, 2008 9:00 AM
IRS:
“Greed Is Not Good--So What Do We Do About It?
Since I am not a theologian, the question of whether greed is ever morally justified doesn't much interest me. Like vindictiveness, greed is a base but probably ineradicable human instinct that must, for the good of society, be restricted not only by moralizing rhetoric but by law."

ANS:
It is written, “Without God nothing is possible; with God all things are possible.”

Whose law and what laws are the questions. The Natural Moral Law (NML) is not empty rhetoric as is being implied here.

The NML is a part of the Natural Law (NL) given to man by God for the good and cohesion of Society and its social order. The NML was given by God, along with a conscience, so that man in society may choose the goods of the earth, for the purposes of which God created him for. Namely, man is made to do good and avoid evil in order that he may achieve his final purpose in life.

Therefore, the NML, instead of being relegated to empty rhetoric, is the governing principle of proper human behavior. It is important whether any civil law is just or unjust. The NML is the standard by which all civil laws are measured.

Our Court has just justified the legalization of murder in its recent decision of Roe v. Wade, an unequivocal and explicit violation of the NML, a crime against humanity. The Court has no authority over the NL, that is God’s domain, but the Court maliciously assumed such authority.

Though it may not bother you whether an act is morally justified or not, it mattered to some fifty million unborn that were and are being legally murdered by abortion.

Morals do matter, and they mattered to those being aborted. It matters to the order of society that the moral structure of every nation is built on just laws.

When Pope Benedict XVI recently addressed the UN, he said, “The founding principles of the United Nation—the desire for peace, the quest for justice, respect for the dignity of the person, humanitarian cooperation and assistance — express the just aspirations of the human spirit, and constitute the ideals which should underpin international relations.

"The United Nations embodies the aspiration for a ‘greater degree of international ordering’ inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules and through structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples.

“This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world's problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.”

Because there is a NML, this collective action can be directed to the good of society because all men have the same nature and the same needs that God endowed their nature with.

The Founding Fathers knew that man was endowed with certain inalienable rights and therefore codified them in the Bill of Rights and inscribed them in the Declaration of Independence.

Laws that are adverse to the NML are a prescription to social suicide, as the Communist societies have shown the world.

Whether an act is morally licit mattered and matters to the prisoners of the USSR gulags, the East Germans, to the people of Darfur, the people of Sudan, and the Congo and China.

It didn’t matter whether the laws were morally justified to Hitler and the Nazis; they made laws to justify their own greed for power, and millions died.

It didn’t matter to Mao and Communist China who chose a form of Marxism that rebuked God and the NML. Nor did morality matter to Stalin to justify his manic disorder, but sixty million or more died because of it.

Any law that is adverse to the Natural Moral order violates the nature of man and it can never be justified. Hence, murder and abortion are never justified because they are an intrinsic evil in themselves, and can never be good, and so is greed, an evil that must be tempered by justice.

Victoria,

Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear about this 23,000. I've been to Israel many times. I know what Israelis get and don't get. And 23,000 is one thing they don't

Again. Go yourself. As for the banking industry, the connection "to the actual topic"?

M ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "What you are referring to by the seventh day seems to be the Apocalypse. Am I correct?"

What I am referring to by the seventh day is the new heavens and the new earth, the ushering in of the Kingdom of God, does this answer your question?

You also wrote, "May I ask if as a Christian, you believe in the notion of a personal savior?"

If by "personal savior" you mean that Almighty God is the saviour of All of humanity and that God, Himself, became a person, then yes, but not only that but God asked us to be active participants in His Plan but that we do not have to do it alone, not only will Jesus, God-Incarnate, help us but He will also send the Holy Spirit to help us in whatever we are called and/or chosen to do.

You then wrote, "If so, then I ask a question that has been asked before. If there is a personal savior, then why do we see genocide today?

Free will doesn't answer this question at the level of the individual victim. Free will explains, to an extent, the reasons why some perpetrate genocide."

Yes it does, I will have to finish this answer later, I am running out of time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "“Hope this is an adequate answer.”
--It is not, I’m afraid. It certainly doesn’t bring forth how your statements are the whole of theological faith."

I am not here to present an argument for or against the reality of God being a Trinity or that God is a Being of Pure Love, I am here to state that God is a Being of Pure Love and that God is a Trinity, it is that simple.

Your faith in non-belief in God will one day be shattered and you will one day be glad that God is a Being of Pure Love and that God's Plan is, to say the least, much better than some think that It is and also much better than some even want It to be.

Also, I don't even know what you mean by "the whole of theological faith", as I have said before, I am not a theologian, I am a messenger.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIBETAN SYMPATHIZER

You wrote, "If we understand that all is within rather than without, and know this in a deep way, we realize that even God and the devil are not separate from our own nature - the dicotomy is a false one.

Spiritual experience of the sacred in life or in death is thus never truly based on the 'Other'....but is generated from within."

This is your opinion and very well could be the opion of very many people but from my experiences, it is absolutely false.

Also from what you wrote, does that mean that only you and no one else is real or does it mean that even you aren't real?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JIHADIST

Thank you for your post of 6-3-8 at 5:32 PM.

One of the things that I have said many times is: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know, and the reason that I said and continue to say this is because of what I have experienced.

From what I know of the term "jihad", what I believe it means is the struggle each and every one of us goes thru to rise above our "fallen" or as some people refer to it as our more base human nature, is this correct?

Take care and thanks again for reading my posting and, at least in my opinion from what you wrote, thinking about it, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

Wow! I sure did not understand any of that.

You seem to be saying that science is bad. You are not saying that are you?

I do not think that you understand what science is, or how it operates, nor what scientists do, and what their goals are.

Someone presents an argument that promotes science over religion. To refute the argument, you make a whole long list of what is wrong with science and why science is bad.

But that does not refute the argument, and it only makes you look a little foolish, and even childish, to present science as the main enemy of man, when, I would say, almost no one would agree with that.

So much intentional nonsense in a single post:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954).

I do not know a single atheist who would not subscribe to this notion of "religion".

DIFFERENT:
“THE EMPTINESS OF THEOLOGY”
BY RICHARD DAWKINS
JUNE 1, 2008 9:55 PM
“It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions, theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong.”

ANS:
What Empirical Science (ES) has given man the ideas and the fundamental principles that have adorned the Constitution and are the foundation of our nation? It is certainly not ES.

Why did Thomas Jefferson say, to whom shall we go to for our moral guidance if not the Church? Can Chemistry answer these questions? Can Physics, or Astrology, or Mathematics give one the answer?

Has ES given us the Bill of Rights? Did ES give us our inalienable rights? What country, recognized that all men were created equal, more than America, and that these inalienable rights were not given by man but were endowed by God, man’s Creator.

One of the greatest scientists of our modern times, Albert Einstein, said a scientist who does not recognize the awesomeness of God is brain dead.

“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

“He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed."--AE

And what ES has given man the knowledge of his origins? Certainly not Evolution; try Genesis, and Christianity, who takes the matter Evolution studies and infuses a spiritual soul into it that's made to the image and likeness of God.

And what ES has given man the knowledge of his purpose in life? What ES has given man the Natural Moral Laws to guide man on his odyssey to eternal happiness? And, who but Christianity is the vanguard of all the sciences. The universities of the Catholic Church outnumber all the other universities in the world combined.

Yes, ES has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria, but what motivates man to eradicate diseases? It just might be “Love your neighbor as you love your self.”

Did not the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Communist China have science? What they didn't and don't have is God. They had Hitler, Stalin, and Mao the antithesis of God. You see, for there to be ES, there first must be freedom of man, of thought, and he must have his dignity and there must be a God who gives these to man. Science cannot do that.

Can ES explain the miracles at Fatima and Lourdes? Can ES explain a girl with no pupils miraculously seeing after Father Pio prayed to God for her sight? Christianity can explain it.

That is a Christian formula and not a hypothesis of Chemistry. The ESs have no compassion, they do not formulate Love. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a precept from God, not Physics.

Science can make a Nuclear Bomb, but God’s NML tells man how he must use it.

IRS:
"It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong."

ANS:
ES studies matter and formulates the order of the Universe that God gives it through His Natural Law (NL). Without God who is the Law Giver there would be no NL or no order and no ES.

Yes, ES has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria, but it cannot prevent man from eventually dying. God does that.

Nor does it motivate man to eradicate diseases? That motivation just might be “Love your neighbor as you love your self.” That is a Christian formula and not a hypothesis of Chemistry.

It is written, “Man does not live on bread alone. ”The ESs have no compassion, they do not formulate Love. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a precept from God, not Physics.

Science can make a Nuclear Bomb, but God’s NML tells man how he must use it.

Clarence Darrel debated G.K. Chesterton; it was a debate between an atheist who calls himself an agnostic and a Catholic. You might read it some time. "Clarence Darrow and G.K. Chesterton Debate Science and Religion” Dale Ahlquist

It was billed as the battle of the titans but only one titan showed up, GK. It was suppose to be the defense of science against the providence of God and the Catholic Church. The audience was stunned. Science or Darrow did not triumph over the Catholic Church and GK. Unfortunately for the agnostics and atheists, the opposite occurred.

The "Obfusing" One i.e. the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist says she is not superstitious but apparently believes in pretty, gay?, greedy?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. Very, very strange rationale!!!

And she previously notes "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." So Islam is not an organized and institutionalized religion??? More "strangeness" from one who believes Islam is a perfect and error-free religion revealed to us serfs via gay(?) Gabe, Allah's/God's/religion's messenger to the hallucinating Mohammed et al.

And of course, the "fems" (to include the greed) of Islam continue to be impossible for the "googling" Jihadist to come to grips with. Strange indeed since she "goggles" and grips all other subjects with great gusto.

Arminius,

Please come back.

Wiglaf

are you talking about a reed in the orchestra? about harmony and music? how can you take people into a chorus to give harmonical music?

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

RE: Your posts to Jihadist

Again, I say, this sort of thing will not win the heart of woman. If you are a man, not shell script, if, indeed you are organic, surely, you must see that you have gotten no closer to the lady's tenderest feeling. Not an inch, not an iota, CCNL.

Try Browning, if you wit not to write. Sonnets from the Portuguese, for example. Or, better, ask Bewildful if he might not be your John Alden, compose a verse for you to send the lady.

Best of luck, Old Boy.

M. Anonymous

The continuing saga:

The "Obfusing" One i.e. the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist says she is not superstitious but apparently believes in pretty, gay?, greedy?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. Very, very strange rationale!!!

And she previously notes "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." So Islam is not an organized and institutionalized religion??? More "strangeness" from one who believes Islam is a perfect and error-free religion revealed to us serfs via gay(?) Gabe, Allah's/God's/religion's messenger to the hallucinating Mohammed et al.

And of course, the "fems" (to include the greed) of Islam continue to be impossible for the "googling" Jihadist to come to grips with. Strange indeed since she "goggles" and grips all other subjects with great gusto.

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

How did I know I would find you here at this ungodly hour?

RE: Your post to Jihadist

Again, I must tell you, based on my limited, though consequential success with the gentler sex, that this is no way to woo a woman. Railing, condemning, belittling, sneering will not win her.

One needs a certain politesse, a je ne sais quoi, that must come from the heart. You must speak to her from the depths of your being, not from your fears of her. Speak on the subject to any other man of the world, and he will tell you the same.
----------
Re: Your Molecular Status

I must repeat that I have no wish to pry, but Pseudo has raised the question as to your status human and, indeed, organic-wise. If you are shell script, you are, de facto not human, not a life form of any sort.

I am no bigot and can vouch for Pseudo, since I never would have invited him or her to join the Language Sportspersons Fellowship, had he or she been a bigot. It makes no difference to me, and I daresay to him or her, what your personal molecular structure is. It does, however, go to Bewildful's poetry. And that, my dear CCNL, is not of an age, but for all time.

I await your reply.

M. Anonymous
New York

The continuing saga:

The "Obfusing" One i.e. the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist says she is not superstitious but apparently believes in pretty, gay?, greedy?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. Very, very strange rationale!!!

And she previously notes "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." So Islam is not an organized and institutionalized religion??? More "strangeness" from one who believes Islam is a perfect and error-free religion revealed to us serfs via gay(?) Gabe, Allah's/God's/religion's messenger to the hallucinating Mohammed et al.

And of course, the "fems" (to include the greed) of Islam continue to be impossible for the "googling" Jihadist to come to grips with. Strange indeed since she "goggles" and grips all other subjects with great gusto.

M. Anonymous and Bewildful,

Thank heavens Bewildful is again among us. It is true, per the Language Warlord, that we were at the ready to set out for you, word hoards padlocked, braced to hazard all, would have journeyed to the very Loonasphere itself before we surrendered.

"Desolation II" is a masterpiece, and history will deem it such. So, too are Pseudo's mighty lines. It is well that for one brief moment the entire fellowship is home: M. Anonymous, You, Pseudo, and I.

WHERE IS ARMINIUS?

Arminius, come back, please.

Wiglaf
Language Sportsperson Fellowship

Ender, you write:

Greed is not one of the Old Testament forbidden activities

Greed is not an activity. The Tanakh (from which the Christian and Catholic OTs derive, which they took, stole?) is quite specific on related states of mind and the activity to which it leads:

Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.

That is what we do, have done, continue to do here in Christian America, both with respect to Americans and the world.

Merry Anonymous, Atheist
Former Captive of Christianity

DITLD:

You write to E Favorite "perhaps I was being to general" (in your reply, I think, to my post).

I think not. I think you were being quite specific, confining youself to religioun and nature.

I was being general with respect to belief, what you refer to as "political choice," but in cass where there is indoctrination on the order of Romania or even with the women E Favorite led on a tour, the existnece of "choice" as such becomes problematic. It goes to temperament, the willingnes to examine the self, exposure to counter-evidence, or the willingness to consider it, the willingness to engage complexity.

In the US, where information is not necessarily distributed fully and without interest, one can still find it. Too often, what people grasp at, regardless of the issue, is whatever "evidence" confirms there own views. This is true of atheists, believers, secularist idealists and materialists.

Descartes with whom I do have some argumets offered this: Doubt.

Doubt.

M. Anonymous

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
THE FAKE JESUS
MAY 28, 2008 5:42 PM
“Hello everybody, I'm Jesus and I'm here to say I'm fake. Yup, fake. A total fraud. A childish fiction.”

ANS:
“Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.” The English Novelist George Eliot wrote, “It is better to confess ignorance than provide it.”

And, so you have confessed. Therefore, since you've confessed that you are a fiction, it follows that anything you say is fictitious or pure babble.

Consequently, anything that a fake says is also fake, false, and irrational. Fakes are the antitheses of truth, lack truth, lack reality, and they are a façade representing truth.

Consequently, the prattle of your delusion is no more meaningful than a sophist or a demagogue who know little of which they speak, and know even less when they unwittingly admit to being a fraud.

Hence, Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” Even though you are foolish but delusively think you are wise, you should take Lincoln’s advice, for even the foolish, at times, can do some things right. Is not a broken clock right twice a day?

IRT:
“You only believe in me because someone implanted the illusion of me in your brain when your were vulnerable.”

ANS:
Absurdity begets absurdity. As an admitted fake, are you now pretending to be a counterfeit psychoanalyst as well?

Accordingly, not only does your delusion think it’s fallacious but it has a fixed and false belief that it is something other than itself. Moreover, your delusion has a confrontation with God whose is Truth and Reality.

In addition, delusion is not only just a self-admitted fake, a paranoidal delusion, but unwittingly appears to think it has been endowed with the powers of a psychoanalyst.

There is a term in psychiatry called schizophrenia. It is also called a “dementia praecox.” It happens to many who are adverse to reality.

Psychiatry defines this as a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: “emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.”

Or, it simply may be a state characterized by a self-coexistence of delusional contradictory or incompatible personalities.

But, don’t lose hope; the probability is good that the real Jesus, and not the fake one you think you are, will have mercy on you.

Since you admit to being this fake, God will take pity on your delusional state and bestow the light of day upon you. That will enlighten you so that you may see the truth and live happily ever after. However, you must ask His help to receive it.

And so not all is lost in your delusions, some good may come from them. Thus, Eurico Fermi writes, “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him.” So even from evil, God will draw some good.

May that be the fate of your delusional paranoia. Namely, that something good may come from it. That you may learn from your ignorance that the real Jesus loves you, even though you’ve attempted to mock Him, and you believe you have become Him in your psychotic hallucinations.

Jesus said that no man has greater love for man than he who gives his life for the good of another. Jesus even loved those who mocked and murdered Him while they crucified Him on the cross. . "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!"

Because He loves you so much, he died so that you and even his executioners would not end in eternal damnation

So smile and give your face a holiday, there is hope for you being cured of your hallucinations and then you may enjoy the fruits of God’s love that is waiting for you.

Even though now you believe you are a fake Jesus, He will never stop loving you. Scrooge thought Christmas was humbug; he had to learn the hard way, but he was revered because he did

So descale this squamous delusion from your mind, and return to the Real One, who is God. The God you mock awaits you. His arms are open to embrace you, his heart is open to receive you.

To paraphrase Cardinal John Henry Newman:
“Then the greater your distress, the more He will comfort you! The more you are scorned, the more He will love you! The more you are insulted, the more He will exalt you! The more you are forgotten, the more He will remember you! If abandoned, He will draw you closer to Himself”

Mr. Thomas Baum:

You write to Bewildful:

I happen to think that creation is more interesting and awe-inspiring than the mathematical formulas that so facinate others, but we are all different and that is the way that God made us, we are not puppets on a string and we are not to be robots either.

The night of the sixth day is coming and it will not be nice but the dawning of the seventh day will also arrive.

We have free will and we are responsible for what we do whether we accept that personal responsibility or not.

We will all be judged, but remember Divine Justice and Divine Mercey go hand in hand.

Take care, be ready.
-----------------
Thank you for your reply. As I have pointed out, many mathematicians had and have a mystical bent. The interrelations of numbers and letters figure heavily in both Judaism and Islam.

What you are referring to by the seventh day seems to be the Apocalypse. Am I correct?

May I ask if as a Christian, you believe in the notion of a personal savior? If so, then I ask a question that has been asked before. If there is a personal savior, then why do we see genocide today?

Free will doesn't answer this question at the level of the individual victim. Free will explains, to an extent, the reasons why some perpetrate genocide.

The victim is not made into a victim as a result of free will.

I am not trying to make you question your beliefs. I am just trying to understand.

M. Anonymous

test

DITLD:

You write:

When I question "free will," I am not really talking about the political choices we make, or even the religions that we follow; I am thinking more about the physical nature of things, and the nature of subjective consiousness, and by what processes do any of us know anything at all. On this, I muse, and speculate for awhile, because it is something that I am interested in, and because it often gets a reaction out of people. But then, when I am done with this speculation, I too, assume the role of an intelligent person who makes his own life by the excericse of free will.

I believe that we have impressions of order. From these impressions, a quality of orderliness can be inferred in the universe. By our experiences, we work out some patterns in this order from which we are able to derive some benifit. But the nature of this order is unknown, and by the constratints of our existence, must remain unknown. Yet, we are, ourselves, in our bodies, and in our minds, a sort of focussed reflection of this implicit order, which we are able to discern.
---------------------
As you say, "the nature of this order is unknown." I think, perphaps, it would be best to think of orders. But let us begin with the "natural order," since I think it is to that which you refer.

We are limited historically and, perhaps, intellectually, in our ability to grasp it. What we can produce are models that enable us to determine the extent to which we have reached an understanding of its existence. DNA is an excellent case in point. When Watson and Crick were fooling around with the notion of a helix, they were not alone. Quite a number were playing with the notion of a helix. The problem was it didn't, couldn't account for the phenomena they were observing through the scientific interpretive
apparatus available to them.

Of course, that interpretave framework was also a model, not the thing in itself. Then W & C concluded there must be two helixes at work. Better, but the notion still didn't adequately explain what it needed two. Finally, they arrived (eureeka, intuition) at the model we have.

Is it the think in itself? More and more evidence suggests it is quite close. Does it explain the data? Yes. Does it have applications? Can they be replicated? Yes.

The order then, while possibly not understood as the thing in itself, can be grasped to a greater or lesser extent.

The benefits we seek to derive from these understandings are, of course, plural. They go to vested interests, which of necessity bring us into what you call the "political," what I would call the historical domain.

Best regards,
M. Anonymous

“Actually it is somewhat difficult to put into words but I will give it a shot, again, since I was asked a very similar question a while back.”
--I think you’ve been asked this several times. What I seem to notice is that despite your claim of being God’s messenger, you don’t make a good effort explaining anything pertaining to your faith, and your message is one that takes an effort to AVOID being tested. Even a tautology is a faulty argument by design.

“God the Father came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000. God the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000. “God the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.
-- the Eucharist is a sacrament to commemorate Jesus and the mystery of faith. What role did this play on the person of faith(or lack thereof) you were before?

“A few hours later God allowed satan to come down and work me over in different ways even audibly but not physically for 24 plus hours, this happened on 30 Jan 2000 into 31 Jan 2000.”
--First, the so called struggle between heaven and hell is off. If the devil must ask permission from God to do things, that means there is no conflict, and he is not in the adversarial role which you state that he “loses”, but rather, God’s servant. Now unless one were to make a crack at saying both are in cahoots with one another, this doesn’t make sense.

“God the Father did not say a word, God the Holy Spirit did not say a word, but as I have already said above, satan did say things, as I have said in other spots, satan is not nice.”
--You have described what “God” showed, yet how does one know that it was god if nothing was stated? Oh, and plenty of folks are “not nice”, this doesn’t convey what you were going through. This doesn’t show the titanic struggle you claim to have faced.

“There are other things that have happened to me before this and after this but this is when I met God, Who is a Trinity, and it is when I met satan.”
--If you are going to go through the trouble of discussing your epiphany, then do not make it vague. We already read above that this is you meeting God and Satan. Something from the person you were before brought you to faith, something in your faith caused you to have your faith tested in but a few hours, what was it, and how did you overcome it? Do you address these points?

“After I battled satan, as I said for 24 plus hours, that is when I experienced hell and spiritual death and I am not speaking about a near-death experience either.”
--A battle with the devil after one revalation? You claim a struggle in but a few words and a founding of faith, with what fate were you struggling against? In what manner did this struggle come about that landed you in a hospital, if not a physical one? What of spiritual death? You are either claiming the “second death” of which there is no return whatsoever, as the soul is destroyed. Or you are claiming spiritual death that is when one sins, a reversible kind of punishment felt by some, but not others? Of what need does a God who’s plan is to bring “Everyone in His Kingdom” have of destroying souls, the object he intends to gather all of?

“When God the Father came into my heart and God the Holy Spirit came into my body, I JUST KNEW, there is no way I can tell you how, I just knew it was God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.”
--Then how do you know what is and what is not? What made the person you were before the person you are now? Moreover, how can you know then what is of God, or not of God? If you cannot tell us how your faith realized itself from the person you once were, then of what purpose are the rest of your statements hereafter?

“Yes, it does have things to do with the "job" that God gave me and also other things that have occurred in my life before and since. Like I said, it is hard to put into words and even the words, 'you had to be there', is inadequate, because there were different people there for parts of what when on, actually you had to be me to know what was happening.”
--So you’re not even giving us the whole story…just a vague semblance of what truly happened to Thomas Baum to make him a believer… One cannot even be you to have knowledge of what is going on, as this post clearly shows. One would have to have a clearer understanding of what was going on, or at least the ability to put it into written words. You keep it vague and nice sounding, with the exception that you are the messenger of God. The Internet is a vast place, full of thing both divine and profane, one of which is the On Faith boards. What makes you have the immutable answer that cannot be refuted?

“As I have said to many people, there are things that have happened to me that I wish on everybody and there are things that have happened to me that I wish on no one.”
“Hope this is an adequate answer.”
--It is not, I’m afraid. It certainly doesn’t bring forth how your statements are the whole of theological faith.

The Tibetan Buddhists believe that we all confront what appear to be both deities and demons during our transition from death to re-birth in the Bardo state, prior to reincarnation as a human.

They believe this presents a rare opportunity for achieving a state of supreme enlightenment, thus obviating a need for further rebirth.

The key here is to remember that the entire panoramic spectacle of angelic/demonic displays is mind-created, from start to finish. These are not external to our own mind, but are projections and in fact part of our own eternal nature - the ego typically fails to recognize this because of the deeply ingrained habits of dualism, and thus the discarnate 'self-consciousness' reacts with fright at this spectacle....this drives the individual consciousness toward it's fate in the Bardo realm, and eventual reincarnation.

If we understand that all is within rather than without, and know this in a deep way, we realize that even God and the devil are not separate from our own nature - the dicotomy is a false one.

Spiritual experience of the sacred in life or in death is thus never truly based on the 'Other'....but is generated from within.

Oh, voices within? Voice or voices of God?

Some dentists should be shot for fixing one's teeth in such a way (with wirings and God knows what and what not) that some of us can hear not only voices, but music within us, inside our heads.

Turns out we were hearing music and voices from radio stations. Rush Limburgh is God. We heard him as the voice from nowhere. And Rush, the "God" voice within, has certain moral values. We now know God is a Republican. And that is truthiness.

Got to go.
Cheers
"J"

E.Ponsonby-Smallpiece:)

Yes, it is absurd when even theologians, and not just philosophers ruminate, pondered, grappled on the "TRUTH" since time began, even now, and undoubtedly in future too.

Come now, apart from the "truth" of God for Mr. Baum as he personally experienced, he has also been constantly expressing one "truth" I cannot disagree and argue with - we will all die, the world will end. As for when and how, well, we don't know, and even Mr. Baum did not say so explicitly. It would take Spiderman2 to show, to remind us on the "signs" of why "the end is near".

Thank God for Thomas Baum and Spiderman2. And thank Thomas Baum for God, and Spiderman2 for pointing out our stupidity too!

**************************************************

Just a Comment,

As for your one word edition, revision or deletion in a paragraph of mine (minus the word, "No" preceding God) as:

"God is a premature articulation as saying that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth was until we know more, and will know more and more over time on us, the earth, the universe".

I'm fine with it. I consider such revisions, editions, deletions as like:

* "There is no God, but God"

becoming

* "There is no God".

An edition in substracting two words, "but God" making the sentence or paragraph different and conveying a meaning of truth or fact for them. I'm just glad I made someone see something as "true" for him or her even if it is something I do not I personally hold as "true":)

Cheers
"J"

Betsy, thanks for your comments to my post. Here my reactions to your thoughts:

B> "I am saying that there is a "new" (to most people) definition of spirituality.." AGREE.

B> "Religions were developed by their faithful devotees." AGREE, but notice that many claimed that God talk to them in dreams, in state of ecstasy or during meditation.

B> "But what about those historically significant scientists, artists, geniuses in all fields? Aren't their ideas the products of meditation and the hearing of an inner voice?" DISAGREE, not a single serious scientist, artist or genius that I'm aware of said to have received ideas from God's voice during meditation, which is the matter at hand in our discussion. The inner voice came from themselves and their experiences.

B> "But what if the "morals" or better yet the "laws" are not made up by individuals but are set as the basic dynamics of all life on this planet? Like the Law of Gravity, there is said to be an impersonal "Law of Cause and Effect" which describes what happens when something is set in motion...a thought or action, for example." What if that law encompasses both the physical and the metaphysical worlds? Or to put it simply, whatever one says or does, or even thinks, creates a cause the effects of which come back to be experienced and resolved by the creator of the cause? If I were, for example, generate a hatred and start a war, that would initiate a series of causes with accompanying effects I will (not may or must, but will) experience eventually." TOTALLY DISAGREE, I can't follow this chain of ideas and make sense of them.

What I said is simple: if somebody hears a voice from nowhere and thinks that the voice is from God, that person cannot create morals and try to impose laws in the country based on what that voice told him/her.

If two person claim to hear the voice of God and the voices are not from the same God, chances are that hatred and war can start.

Peace and best wishes to all,

JAC

GERRY

You wrote, "His brain is the only conceivable place both to creatively imagine a god (any god) and to perceive a "real" god - in case he existed:"

If you read what I wrote, it was not in my brain that this went on but in my heart and in my body as far as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and with satan, he was outside, not inside, of me.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

E FAVORITE

You wrote, "Thomas Baum - I recall asking you a similar question months ago and you gave a similar response. However, I recall you also mentioned that during that time, you were also hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation. Is that right?"

On the morning of 31 Jan 2000, I was delivered by ambulance unconscious, I suppose, since when I came to I was on four points and there was a quite a few people there. The place was Perry Point VA Hospital up in Perry Point, Md.

I was there for a month and the way that I look at it now is that God took me there for a much needed rest considering that it was not easy battling with satan for 24 plus hours. Actually, it was when I was on four points that I experienced hell and spiritual death.

God works in mysterious ways, does He not?

Those few days and the month that I spent at the VA hospital is just some of what has happened to me. There are more, and the thing is, I do not have to believe that the aforementioned is true and neither does anyone else, my job is to be a messenger and God will see me thru this job.

By the way, I say "job" because I take that from the Book of Job because in the Book of Job, satan had to get special permission from God, twice, to do what he did to Job and I believe that what I mentioned and what happened on 13 July 2000 was two occasions where satan had to get permission from God.

satan is the prince of this world but he is not the ruler and not only does he have limits on what he came do, he is a loser and all of his powers of lying and deceiving will come to an end.

As I have said before and I say again, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr. Thomas Baum,

Thank you for your patient recounting on how you met God (the Father), how God (the Holy Spirit) came into you body on 29 Jan 2000, and God (the Father/Holy Spirit) allowing satan to come down, and you had to battle satan for 24 plus hours on 30 Jan 2000 into 31 Jan 2000.

I am glad you got through what is apparently a harrowing and yet enlightening personal experience for you which has changed your vision of the world, and clarified on your mission in the world.

Take care, be ready.

Yours sincerely,

"J"

College is just a faded memory now.

I can practically see the rush of students to Marist College now!

Daniel itld – Agreed! And this doesn’t just apply to religion. I know people who have very strong opinions about the world’s perception of America without ever having traveled outside of US borders. I know people who don’t want to visit other countries because they feel ours is so superior that they would automatically be unhappy there. They’re indoctrinated to be xenophobic.

I know people who are amazed when they come to Washington to find that it is so beautiful, because all they’ve heard about is the crime and corruption here. I’ve had people who’ve never been here warn me that it’s dangerous for me to walk around at night.

I remember years ago I was taking a group of Midwesterners through the Library of Congress. It’s the most beautiful building in Washington, I think – all Italian Renascence. The people loved it and one older woman commented on the way out that it was too bad something so beautiful was in neighborhood with so many black people in it. I told her that the black people liked it too. I could see the light bulb go off in her head. She had been indoctrinated to think only white people were worthy of such beauty. She was racially indoctrinated.

As a secular humanist I try to avoid the moralization of this negative human characteristic as it relates to an individual. If a human, or a crow, chose to spend their existence pursuing extreme levels of material ‘wealth’, I don’t need to make a judgment on the right or wrong of it. Greed only becomes an ethical issue when the accumulation of any commodity injures others members of that group by depriving them of things necessary for existence, or when a resources is made unavailable to an individual or society through theft. A little research shows that the Bible even walks around greed carefully. Greed is not one of the Old Testament forbidden activities, and the language against it in the new testament leaves plenty of room to dance around the concept. Secular ethicist often play it off as a perversion of a natural tendency to hoard possessions for a future need.

I suggest that the majority of US citizens should recognize the glass houses we live in, the very large and energy hungry glass houses, before we throw stones at the uber rich. Why the vehicles we travel in would be commercial enterprises for entire villages in many nations, and the total energy and water consumption exceeds that of substantial villages in much of the world. We seem to think this conspicuous consumption only effects us, and has no impact on the rest of the world other than the overlarge share of pollution we generate.

Our energy usage from the houses, cars, homes, boats and toys of all manner keep the supply of oil low and the price so high as to stifle development in much of the world. Our cheap consumer goods, from Nike shoes to electronic toys are built by subsistence level workers kept that way by our foreign policies where we use proxies in the form of dictatorships to maintain that status. It cost us much less to make a few people rich than to raise the standard of living for a peoples.

The inhabitants of North America are the most materially pampered humans known to history, knowingly or not, those creature comforts have been purchased on the iron cross of our industrial military complex and the lives of the poor that have hanged from it.

E Favorite

I can see that you may have a point; maybe I am being too general. Perhaps I was referring to someone with firmly held beliefs, for whom doubts present difficult problems, and who defend fearfully against such doubts.

Some people accept "new" information, without much difficulty. I think that might describe me, as well.

I have more thoughts on the nature of belief:

When I say that we inherit the beliefs of the previous generation, that can happen in different ways. Some people merely "take" the heritiage of beliefs that is handed to them; they simple "accept" all that is told to them, without worry, or doubt, or wonder that it could be true or not; they are not very interested, and accept these beliefs handed to them, as their beleifs, without ever thinking about them enough to know, really if they believe or not.

They go along.

If you ask them what they believe, they can recite forcefully, and convincingly, the doctrine of belief, but it is just someone else's theological construct that they are referring to, that they do not even understand.

In fact, I think most people do not know what they believe. They experience belief as they experience everything else, as it happens, and the experience of belief changes as easily and as rapidly as our perceptions of a changing landscape. And if you ask them at any given moment, what they may believe on any given subject, they are just as likely to make it up out of their heads, as the thoughts come to them.

Most of religious moralizing about the conduct of others, especially regarding matters of sexuality, is not really based in any kind of valid belief in good or evil, but is based more on complex psycholoigcal compulsisons or dysfunctions, or else on political necesity and the maintenance of power over others.

And so, there you have it, that religion is mixed up in sex and politics, in an awfully complicated way.

If there were a god, nobody would be able to discern the difference between the experience of a "real"(?) "God" and the experience of his own firm imagination of a god - both experiences are identical. People have "seen" all kinds of things they then claim to "know", just ask a judge as to the truth of statements by witnesses.

There is no imaginable difference between a real god Moses Baum "knows" to exist and Baum's imagination of "Him": His brain is the only conceivable place both to creatively imagine a god (any god) and to perceive a "real" god - in case he existed: Thus it follows, that the "real" god is a virtual god.

The only available argument for the flat earth folks is that they believe the earth is flat. They "know" the earth is flat.

Thomas Baum - I recall asking you a similar question months ago and you gave a similar response. However, I recall you also mentioned that during that time, you were also hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation. Is that right?

That's my strong recollection, but I don't know where to look for the reference. Forgive me if I got that wrong, but I am curious to know if my memory serves me.

Daniel ITLD, you say, “When you reject [religious indoctrination], then that is your doubt chiseling away at it. But doubt is something that wells up from within, over which you have no control. You cannot dismiss your doubts; they just keep coming and coming.”

I say, not necessarily - you could reject it because you get new information, new actual facts (not just thoughts generated inside your head), that easily refute the indoctrination.

You also say, “And when you accept [religious indoctrination], that is your fear, that all that you have been taught might not be true. But fear is also something that you cannot control, or dismiss, or at least not very easily.”

Again I say – not necessarily – you could accept it simply because a trusted person told you that was the case and your whole society backs it up. You might not be fearful at all.

I think indoctrination of any kind affects different people differently, depending on the personalities involved and general life circumstances.

In my case I was easily indoctrinated into Catholicism as a child – I think because I was a trusting child. Then, I easily dropped it in my late teens – because it just didn’t make any sense in my life (an eternity in Hell for missing mass?) and probably because it wasn’t being pushed on me by my family or anyone important to me.

Still, for years after that, I believed in God. Why? I think because it was at some level comforting and because it never intruded into my life the way the rules of Catholicism did. As soon as I started gathering real information about religion, the belief fell away.

But that’s just me. I know it’s a complicated issue and is different for different people.
PS – you don’t really feel a little “schizophrenic” – unless you’re feeling psychotic. It’s a common mistake for people to think schizophrenic means “of two minds.” It doesn't. Schizophrenia is a form of mental illness.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "MR.BAUM

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

CARL SAGAN.

But of course that doesn't apply to you, does it?"

Don't worry, God, Himself, will supply the "EVIDENCE".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

E PONSONBY-SMALLPIECE

You wrote, "The religious don't like doubt. It's not considered smart amongst the believers, as it is among thinking people. While we consider doubt to be a virtue, the religious are terrified of doubt, they see it as the slippery slope to non-belief. They proudly avoid doubt and self-reflection as weakness."

Would you actually read what you wrote?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JIHADIST

You wrote, "You mentioned in other posts too that you have met God and Satan. I am curious as to what the experience was like, how and when. Does it has anything to do with the "job" God gave you by your constant reminder to "Take care, be ready"?."

Actually it is somewhat difficult to put into words but I will give it a shot, again, since I was asked a very similar question a while back.

God the Father came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000. God the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000. God the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus. A few hours later God allowed satan to come down and work me over in different ways even audibly but not physically for 24 plus hours, this happened on 30 Jan 2000 into 31 Jan 2000.

God the Father did not say a word, God the Holy Spirit did not say a word, but as I have already said above, satan did say things, as I have said in other spots, satan is not nice.

There are other things that have happened to me before this and after this but this is when I met God, Who is a Trinity, and it is when I met satan.

After I battled satan, as I said for 24 plus hours, that is when I experienced hell and spiritual death and I am not speaking about a near-death experience either.

When God the Father came into my heart and God the Holy Spirit came into my body, I JUST KNEW, there is no way I can tell you how, I just knew it was God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Yes, it does have things to do with the "job" that God gave me and also other things that have occured in my life before and since.

Like I said, it is hard to put into words and even the words, 'you had to be there', is inadequate, because there were different people there for parts of what when on, actually you had to be me to know what was happening.

As I have said to many people, there are things that have happened to me that I wish on everybody and there are things that have happened to me that I wish on no one.

Hope this is an adequate answer.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Merry Anonymous

It would seem that we have free will. Everyone agrees that we do. Everyone behaves as if we do. I lobby for my side, just like everyone else, like I have chosen my beliefs, and in the hopes that I might persuade others to my point of view. That is how we are made, to have this sensation of free will.

When I question "free will," I am not really talking about the political choices we make, or even the religions that we follow; I am thinking more about the physical nature of things, and the nature of subjective consiousness, and by what processes do any of us know anything at all. On this, I muse, and speculate for awhile, because it is something that I am interested in, and because it often gets a reaction out of people. But then, when I am done with this speculation, I too, assume the role of an intelligent person who makes his own life by the excericse of free will.

I believe that we have impressions of order. From these impressions, a quality of orderliness can be inferred in the universe. By our experiences, we work out some patterns in this order from which we are able to derive some benifit. But the nature of this order is unknown, and by the constratints of our existence, must remain unknown. Yet, we are, ourselves, in our bodies, and in our minds, a sort of focussed reflection of this implicit order, which we are able to discern.

And all that we can know of, with any degree of assurance, is the landscape in which we experience our lives, these experiences, being an infinite succession of contingencies, each of equal importance in determining what will come next, and no experience being key to all the rest, and therefore, that regret and recrimination about what might have been, is pointless.

And also, I do not believe in any such thing as laws of nature, or laws of physics, or laws of order, but only of pure order which operates without laws to govern its orderliness. And so, without these laws of nature, I cannot infer any kind of "Intelligent Designer."

And I believe that knowledge of the world is a sort of artful collecting process, in which the more accurate and valid view of things goes to the one who is more talented and creative in the art of collecting chunks of knowledge, and that some people are gifted at this, and others are not, and that others, still just don't care, and are apathetic.

And I believe that we are set here, on the earth, as a kind of stage, like Shakespeare suggested, to act out our parts, but that our scripts are not necessarily pre-determined, but perhaps reactive with all the others, in some sort of unpredictable way. And I do not know how any of this could have come to pass, nor the purpose for it, at all.

But perhaps, at the foundation of all things, there may be something like "Providence" which is another word that some Protestants have used in the past, for God.

I like the word "Providence;" it rings happily in my heart, so perhaps that is what I believe in.

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

The gentle words are to go to Bewildful, whose moving verse on your longed-for departure has been acclaimed throughout the Cybersphere.

Pseudo thinks you shell script. Then you may still be in the Loonasphere, and not as we had all thought a driftee to earth eons ago.

I don't mean to pry, but are you organic? The question must be answered. It could alter the course of poesie.

M. Anonymous

JUST A COMMENT wrote:
The frontier between spirituality and religion is not absolutely clear, but by reading your post I believe you cross the frontier into religious territory if we go by Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Religious: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"

MW is a repository of past accepted terminological definitions. For good or ill, those are all subject to revision based on current usages. I am saying that there is a "new" (to most people) definition of spirituality, and that this new definition allows for development of human potential outside of any religious affiliation. I suggest that the Hercules, Vyasa, Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, Hermes, and the Christ were not religious figures but spiritual teachers. Religions were developed by their faithful devotees.

JAC: If you meditate and later tell you heard a voice, and that the voice was that of God, well, you are relating to a deity, hence it's a religious experience.

B: But what about those historically significant scientists, artists,
geniuses in all fields? Aren't their ideas the products of meditation and the hearing of an inner voice? To be agnostic, or as is the fashion atheist, does not necessarily cut one off from that inner voice, does it?

JAC: When the spiritual/religious experience of hearing voices is kept as a private enrichment, it's nobody's business other than for the person with the experience. When the voice is taken as the source to dictate morals and laws, then hatred and war will come as a result.

B: But what if the "morals" or better yet the "laws" are not made up by individuals but are set as the basic dynamics of all life on this planet? Like the Law of Gravity, there is said to be an impersonal "Law of Cause and Effect" which describes what happens when something is set in motion...a thought or action, for example.

What if that law encompasses both the physical and the metaphysical worlds? Or to put it simply, whatever one says or does, or even thinks, creates a cause the effects of which come back to be experienced and resolved by the creator of the cause? If I were, for example, generate a hatred and start a war, that would initiate a series of causes with accompanying effects I will (not may or must, but will) experience eventually.

Very best wishes,
Betsy

Merry Anon, Merry Anon, Merry Anon wherever you are,

A gentle word, a gentle word, a gentle word, a gentle word. That should cover it.

BE WILDFUL

You asked, "Can you tell me what the sixth day is?" and you asked, "What is the night of the sixth day?"

In the bible it speaks of the six days of creation and it also says, "God Blest, Rested and made Holy the seventh day.

I look at the six days of creation as God Days, how long each one lasted I don't know, but we are still living in the sixth day.

Jesus said, "My Father has been busy even until now", well if Jesus's Father, who He told us to also call Our Father, has been busy even until now, then the seventh day is not here yet.

Sounds simple doesn't it, well like it says, "I will reveal to the little ones the Mysteries of the Kingdom".

How all of what we perceive, either by our own senses or by the technologies that we come up with, came about and what natural laws govern the workings of the material plane and how long it took, that is what science is trying to figure out.

I happen to think that creation is more interesting and awe-inspiring than the mathematical formulas that so facinate others, but we are all different and that is the way that God made us, we are not puppets on a string and we are not to be robots either.

The night of the sixth day is coming and it will not be nice but the dawning of the seventh day will also arrive.

We have free will and we are responsible for what we do whether we accept that personal responsibility or not.

We will all be judged, but remember Divine Justice and Divine Mercey go hand in hand.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello Arminius,

Have you read any Joyce yet?

Merry Anonymous

Merry Anonymous:

"You have returned! And as a major poet! Is your verse meant to be a tribute to CCNL like Bewildful's?"

'Twas a tribute to Bewildful's, very creative acts.
He makes his points with humor, panache, and states the facts.
The case about the shell script he well and truly made.
It's furious cutting and pasting just don't make the grade.

Been busy. How's things out your way? We should continue the discussion of the futility of trying to capture semantics with syntactic devices the way the Gnome did. Actually has theological implications, well at least Platonic ones, when pursued far enough. I may be a bit delayed in getting back once again because of pressing events, but I thought that was an interesting thread.

Betsy, you said: "And people will begin to hear that inner voice of God."

The frontier between spirituality and religion is not absolutely clear, but by reading your post I believe you cross the frontier into religious territory if we go by Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Religious: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"

If you meditate and later tell you heard a voice, and that the voice was that of God, well, you are relating to a deity, hence it's a religious experience.

When the spiritual/religious experience of hearing voices is kept as a private enrichment, it's nobody's business other than for the person with the experience.

When the voice is taken as the source to dictate morals and laws, then hatred and war will come as a result.

Peace to all,

JAC

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

Speaking as one who has had some minor success with women, I can tell you that raging at them never gets one far. Ditto, demeaning.

Alliteration, however("googles, grips, great gusto" is another matter). Given this subtle improvement in your use of our ancient tongue, I trust you have come to better appreciate Bewildful's moving verse on your longed-for departure. Some gentle words from you are forthcoming, no doubt.

M. Anonymous

The "Obfusing" One i.e. the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist says she is not superstitious but apparently believes in pretty, gay?, greedy?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. Very, very strange rationale!!!

And she previously notes "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." So Islam is not an organized and institutionalized religion??? More "strangeness" from one who believes Islam is a perfect and error-free religion revealed to us serfs via gay(?) Gabe, Allah's/God's/religion's messenger to the hallucinating Mohammed et al.

And of course, the "fems" (to include the greed) of Islam continue to be impossible for the "googling" Jihadist to come to grips with. Strange indeed since she "goggles" and grips all other subjects with great gusto.

CCNL writes to my kinsman (and poet) Bewildful, who posted to CCNL three times (thrice) in response to his (Bewildful's) moving verse on CCNL's longed-for departure:

Bewildful, Bewildful, Bewildful,

Reply, reply, reply.
---------------------------
CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

O, Bitter, bitter (bitter). Hard of heart. Though you do not compassionate, know that my kinsman (and poet) Bewildful, will not grow pale, not cease, not break off, leave off, stop, or otherwise end penning moving verse to you on your longed-for departure. You are his Muse.

Sleep well, Bewildful, of the mighty heart, the brave pen.

M. Anonymous,
Language Sportsperson Fellowship

DITLD:

You write:

But, I still do not see such a thing as "free will" such as most people think of it. For example, you cannot "freely" choose to believe something that you already do not believe. When you believe, you do so by compulsion, the compulsion of acknowledging that which seems to be true. But why does it seem to be true? Because that is how you see it. Now how have you have chosen to see it?

This brings us to the question of seeming truth and the conditions upon which it is predicated. In a totalitarian state the conditions for disbelief are minimal. So, take a group of people, raise them from infancy to have access only to distortions of knowledge, as was done in Romania, and I would imagine there were few who would and did raise questions, unless the poor souls were somehow given counter-evidence, but even then, there would be many who would deny the truth of there own experience. Some would not.

In a state such as ours, where information is strictly controlled and limited by the mainstream media to serve media ownership interests, ideology develops which stops people from asking questions. That persons deeming themselves enlightened "leftists" are often serving the interests of those they despise escapes them. Our culture does, however, enable access to information that the mainstream, and the state department, for reasons of its own, do not freely offer. Few have the interest to pursue matters in any depth. Or, they will look to those sources that reinforce their own views. What stops them, if not free will, or willful blindness and ignorance?

Let us take the invasion of Iraq and the French objections to it. Let me add that I opposed the invasion from DAY ONE. However, I was curious about the French and their passion. Just a little research revealed that behind the rhetoric were monumental oil interests; Iraq, as the ordinary Frenchman knows, it turns out, had been France's oil playground. In the meantime, "leftists" used France's opposition to support their arguments. This, is the same France, btw., whose former chief executive said that an "attack on a Jew was like an attack on a Frenchman," the same France that oppresses Algerians to an extent that must be seen to be believed, etc. Moral exemplars?

Openness to evidence in the US, openness to experience, openness to belief or disbelief is possible in most situations, even today, in 2008 cum 1984. But belief or disbelief in anything begins with an openness to question, a willingness to depart from whatever herd you are a part of, an evaluation of different kinds of evidence.

As for religion, there are varieties of religious experience. When you say you believe, what do you believe? And why?

M. Anonymous

The Emptiness of Theology

by Richard Dawkins

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper The Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self replicating molecules. We know how the principal of self replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong.

Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria.
Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them; I have never heard any of them say anything of the smallest use; anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't effect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

"The Emptiness of Theology" by Richard Dawkins published in "Free Inquiry" Spring 1998.

Bewildful, Bewildful, Bewildful,

Reply, reply, reply.

Dear Merry Anonymous

I have a question:

People let the unjust suffering of the world get them down. I have suffered alot too. I have wondered why me? Why do I have to go through all of this? I know I do not deserve it. At least unjust suffereing removes any sense of guilt, at least it did for me, for I think there is nothing that I could do ever, that could justify a worse punishment than I have alreay had. And unjust suffereing makes it difficult to believe in Hell as a punishment, because I cannot envision any experience worse than I have already had, and wasn't even a punishment.

So, I have thought about this suffering alot. And I have concluded that we live in a world of contrasting experiences, and only by these contrasting experiences, can we know anything at all. "Pleasure and pain, are mingled together in sunshine and rain." We would not know either without the other.

So this is my question: what philosopher has said this about the nature of experience, that all that we can know of the world is by contrasting experiences, and without these contrasting experiences, we would know nothing at all? Someone must have thought of this already.

When I think of suffereing that way, it does not seem unjust; it is just a price that must be paid, in order to live at all.

Merry Anonymous

What changes our inheritance of belief from one generation to the next is doubt. And what generates doubt, but experience. And the experiences of the succeeding generations changes a great deal, as the doubts of the previous generation sculpts and re-forms their beliefs, of yet their previous generation; and so it goes on this way in succession.

Christians of today do not really inherit their Christian belief from 2,000 years ago; they inherit their beliefs directly, from the generation that precedes them. So, of course the divergent groups become more and more different as time passes.

Of course one way that the experience of one generation is differnt from the one before, is by way of the advancement of scientific knowledge, and the credibility that science has acquired.

But, I still do not see such a thing as "free will" such as most people think of it. For example, you cannot "freely" choose to believe something that you already do not believe. When you believe, you do so by compulsion, the compulsion of acknowledging that which seems to be true. But why does it seem to be true? Because that is how you see it. Now how have you have chosen to see it?

Doesn't it at least make a little sense?

Hi DILTD,

I think we crossed posts. I've said this to you before, but it's worth repeating. You say you don't have a background in philosophy, but you are all but writing Heidegger, in part. You are a natural, Daniel, and in my seemingly interminable experience, naturals in the field of philosophy are very rare.

Something worth thinking about. I think you would enjoy reading that stuff.

Merry Anon

DITLD:

You write to E Favorite:

For me to choose my beliefs, there must be a "ME" to start with; but where does that "ME" come from? What determines and defines "ME?" My beliefs, which must therefore procede me. The origin of the beliefs that define "ME" derives from the heritage of belief that is passed on to me from the previous generation.

So, it is somewhat, (but of course, just more of my speculation) my conclusion that we do not cause ourselves to believe anything, but just the opposite, our beliefs cause us to be as we are, and cause the formation of ourselves, more than ourselves causing the formation of beliefs. And that rather than choosing our beliefs, we experience them, as they happen, and not as we choose them.
-----------------

Yes, and no. We are, of course, born into history. On the other hand, if We that is Human were entirely controlled by existing norms, attitudes, mores, "beliefs," nothing would have changed much since the first moment of recorded time.

History, leaves, openings in prevailing paradigms. Individuals think outside the box in their daily lives. Think of the last problem you solved.

Some things, I grant you, go to temperament. I was raised Chritian in a rather big way, although I cannot recall ever having "believed," something I can't explain. I've known others raised in different faiths, who have told me the same.

Merry Anonymous

Merry Anonymous

I do not believe we are programmed, either. Perhaps I did not say my thoughts carefully enough. I believe our envirnment, (which I refer to as our "landscape" because it implies "experiences") impresses itself upon us to sculpt our beliefs.

I guess my questioning is about the nature of "free will;" just what is this "free will" I wonder? I am not so sure that there is an answer to this question. I agree that we change, but I am not sure where this change comes from, and I am not sure that this change is anything that we choose.

And I think I implied in a previous post, that I am not exactly sure about all this; I am just sort of ad-hoc-stream-of-consciousness-philosiphizing about things.

CCNL:

Really, it is rudeness itself not to take a moment and reply to one who has labored to pen such moving verse on your longed-for departure.

M. Anonymous

Concerned, Concerned, Concerned,

Three times (thrice), I have posted to you regarding my moving verse, after Hopkins, on your longed-for departure. I edited the final line (twice).

I await your replies.
----------------------------

Desolation II: Adieu, CCNL
(Apologies to Hopkins and Wiglaf)

CCNL is grieving
Because Susan's thread he's leaving
His posts, the stale thoughts of him, he
With brain froze cares for, can he?

Ah! As mind grows wiser
It will come to such thoughts higher
By and by, nor spare a cry
Though all space cyber from him fly.

Ahh, again and again what would we do without Google and the Reality Challenged/Obfuscating Jihadist!!!!

To the TOPIC and a Google Search (Greed Islam "House of Saud" Jihadist 2008):

Major "hit"

"In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

Then there is the House of Saud!!!!! The Emir of Kuwait!!! The King of Jordan !!! and The King of Bahrain!!! And no doubt most of the ayatollas are doing quite well!!! Hmmm, and GREED is a major element in the Sunni/Shiite blood feud going on for the last 800 years!!!"

And Google search#2 (fems Islam)

major hit:

"Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and GREED-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added gay? (and "GREEDY"?) "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/ mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The muck and stench of Islam you ask?

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering , womanizing, hallucinating founder.

But, and it is a big BUT:

The "Obfusing" One is not superstitious but apparently believes in pretty, gay?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. Very, very strange rationale!!!

And she notes "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." So Islam is not an organized and institutionalized religion??? More "strangeness" from one who believes Islam is a perfect and error-free religion.

But alas, comments about the "fems" of Islam continue to be quiet on the Malaysian front.

E Favorite

You said:

"You can’t choose being religiously indoctrinated, but you can reject it or accept it."

When you reject it, then that is your doubt chiseling away at it. But doubt is something that wells up from within, over which you have no control. You cannot dismiss your doubts; they just keep coming and coming.

And when you accept it, that is your fear, that all that you have been taught might not be true. But fear is also something that you cannot control, or dismiss, or at least not very easily.

And also, when I say "inner will," that is a term that I made up, and perhaps does not describe this mechanism very well. Perhaps it has a phychological description, or a neurological description.

For me to choose my beliefs, there must be a "ME" to start with; but where does that "ME" come from? What determines and defines "ME?" My beliefs, which must therefore procede me. The origin of the beliefs that define "ME" derives from the heritage of belief that is passed on to me from the previous generation.

So, it is somewhat, (but of course, just more of my speculation) my conclusion that we do not cause ourselves to believe anything, but just the opposite, our beliefs cause us to be as we are, and cause the formation of ourselves, more than ourselves causing the formation of beliefs. And that rather than choosing our beliefs, we experience them, as they happen, and not as we choose them.

So, of course, if someone is haranguing me about their religious beliefs and how mine make me an apostate, I can't really relate.

Also, E Favorite, I am feeling a little schizophrenic about this whole thing, since I seem to step back and forth from the point of view of the believer and the non-believer, and since I also, say that we do not choose our beliefs, yet I argue and lobby my own beliefs, as if I have chosen them.

I think this way of thinking bothers some people. I think it implies "predestinaiton" and that bothers people. But although I cannot see how any of us choose much of anything, I also, cannot imagine how our lives could also be predestined.

Every which way I seek to understand, there seems to be some hint of the possibility of understanding, but also, a roadblock to understanding, so that we can only go so far and then no further.

I attribute this to the landscape of our experience, the template that forged us into existence, and our attempts to think about what is beyond this landscape.

People like to use the phrase "think outside the box."

I believe we are in a box, or in someway, constrained and limited. And I believe that thinking outside of this box that confines us is litterally impossible, and in fact, unimaginable.

So? God? or no God? Which is it?

I sometimes get a very real and intense feeling that something "weird" is playing out here, in these questions that we puzzle over.

Test

Pseudo:

'cause he bored them...*

*Cause he bored them in excess?
*Cause he bored them shtless?

M. Anonymous

JUST A COMMENT:
Betsy, you said:

“The way out of our problems is to listen again to the voice of God in our hearts.”

It sounds like a spiritually motivated advice, but the reality is that when people hear the voice of different gods, there may start some real problems of hatred and war.

Peace to all,

JAC

It is spiritually, but not religiously motivated advice. Spirituality refers to whatever leads to development of the best in human potential. It is the conditioning of people from earliest life which causes the problems of hatred and war. Babies must be taught to fear, and to hate, and they are taught what to fear and what to hate. That conditioning is what causes the problems. Although it takes a lot of time for adults to learn to adjust their thinking to
compensate for conditioning, it can be done. When people become aware of who they are, their attitudes and motives change for the better. Meditation is, thankfully, becoming quite main stream now. As more people learn to meditate, self awareness will grow. And people will begin to hear that inner voice of God.

Pseudo!

You have returned! And as a major poet! Is your verse meant to be a tribute to CCNL like Bewildful's?

Will you tell us something about Bandler?

M. Anonymous

A little knowledge imperils. Drawing conclusions based on readings from posts, a WaPo article by the second author of a controversial book does not an investigation make.

BUT: THE Q GOSPEL is RISIBLE in religious studies.

M. Anonymous
Atheist
________________________________________

Hi DILTD:

I do not believe we are as programmed, neither physically nor mentally. Our environments, and, indeed, free will, play key roles, and Daniel, we change. Some of us even evolve, no?

M. Anonymous
Atheist
___________________________________________

Bewildful,

Greatly have your kinsmen suffered with fear for you thesis-wise. It is good to have you again among us. Had I not seen you upon this thread today, your kinsman, Wiglaf, and I would have set off to find you, should the journey take us to the very Loonasphere itself.

May I say, that I was wordless, dumfounded, speech-impedimented as a read your profound farewell to CCNL?

Yours,

M. Anonymous,
Language Sportsperson Fellowship

E.Favorite;

Hi EF. Your points are put very well, and I do agree that we come to atheism in different ways.

For me it was when I was asked outright (about god belief) by buddies during one of those philosophical chats that young people get into over coffee or beer sometimes. I'd never been confronted before and had to stop and think about it, and it just came out; I didn't believe there was a god. As I was saying it I was aware that I was being totally honest. I thought about it later and accepted that I was an atheist. I was very comfortable with that.
Now I'm older and wiser and one happy atheist. I read all the literature on the subject and am surprised that anyone can actually believe in gods. I wanna shake them and say - get real!
That's why I like to drop in here sometimes and get a fix, reading posts by you and the other infidels like yoyo and Mr Mark and Chris etal.
And I can also 'unload' my pent up anger with religion, here from time to time. That helps too.

Betsy, you said:

“The way out of our problems is to listen again to the voice of God in our hearts.”

It sounds like a spiritually motivated advice, but the reality is that when people hear the voice of different gods, there may start some real problems of hatred and war.

Peace to all,

JAC

Once there once was a blogger named shell script
Who pasted so much he could well skip
They knew he was witless
'cause he bored them...*
And wished he would bid a farewell quip.

*well kids, I know it is not metrical, but he really bored them, anyway.

The way out of our problems is to listen again to the voice of God in our hearts, and to share the produce of this most bountiful of worlds with men and women everywhere. When we learn to share, we will trust each other...help each other. There will be no more hatred or war. There will be no more fear of our neighbors. There will be enough for everyone's need for the basic necessities of life: wholesome food, adequate shelter, quality healthcare and education. We will discover sciences of which we cannot now dream. We will rebuild our cities to become oases of nourishment and education. We will live long and purposeful, creative lives. All this will be ours when we learn to share.

Hi, Daniel itld, You might not choose your appearance or intelligence, but you can maximize them with a little effort.

You can’t choose being religiously indoctrinated, but you can reject it or accept it.

Perhaps for some, belief comes from an inner will, but don’t assume that is the origin for all. Having talked now with a lot of atheists, I found that we’ve come to our lack of belief in several different ways. For some it was the scientific argument. Upon studying science, they realized that science explained how things worked and that religion did not. For others, it was the historical argument. Learning that the bible stories lack historical and archeological evidence, simply meant there was nothing there to believe. For others it’s a combination of evidence from both science and history. Then there’s a smaller group who simply knew as small children that what they were taught about religion didn’t make any sense. They rejected it viscerally on the basis of common sense, and learning the science or historical information later just confirmed their initial reaction.

MR.BAUM

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

CARL SAGAN.

But of course that doesn't apply to you, does it?

Daniel in the lion's den.

Hi Daniel. Yes I hear you. I share some of your experiences.
I think somehow though...the atheist is a seeker, and is not happy with simple, supernatural answers to the big questions.
I'm too damn curious to settle for a God answer to anything, because that sets up all kinds of other questions; much bigger ones.
Yes it's hard to figure things...life really is a puzzle.
I also agree that its almost impossible to convert anyone from religion to atheism, or from atheism to religion. But we can't help trying all the same.

Though, frankly, I'm running out of motivation, and will give up soon, on trying to get the religious to dump their irrational beliefs.

We are all here trying to get each other to change viewpoints, and nobody ever succeeds; but it's fun for a while. But tiring too.

Adieu.

Curious:

No intrusion, at all, and, yes, I think "fly" works better in the last line. By "higher," I mean the Loonasphere, from which CCNL floated down to earth at some unknown point in the past.

Thank you for your fine critical eye.

____________________________________________
Concerned, Concerned, Concerned,

Please substitute "fly" for "flies" in the last line of "Desolation II: Aieu, CCNL."

I await your replies.

Honestly Jihadist, can't you see the hilarious side of the great philosophical questions and the search for God, for which countless thinkers and philosophers have pondered and fought over since time began, and which we all continue to debate and disagree on and fight over...and its Thomas Moses Baum who has discovered the TRUTH, that GOD IS.

Who would have thunk it?

I bet Einstein would give anything to sit at the feet of Mr Baum, notebook and pencil in hand, taking notes and finally learning the answers to the great questions which he spent a lifetime puzzling over.

And it was God all the time; and we have Thomas Baum to thank for that discovery

Thank God for Thomas Baum. And thank Thomas Baum for God.

E. Ponsony- Smallpiece said:

"I am an atheist because no matter how hard I try to believe in God my brain won't let me."

I have similar feelings about how my beliefs work, too. I tried for awhile to convey this observation and belief about things here, but it didn't seem to go over too well.

When I look in a mirror, I see my face, my nose, my eyes, my hair, my skin tone; whether I am ugly or handsome, I know that I did not choose what I look like, but that the appearance of my body is simply a fact of existence, presented to me, like all other facts of existence, which I had no chance or opportunity to choose or determine.

And so, the interior workings of my mind are the same; if I am dumb or intelligent, it is neither anything to feel ashamed of or to be proud of, because none of it is my doing; the mental processes of my mind operate without my will or knowledge, a mystery, unknown to me.

And I do not choose my beliefs, either, but inherit them from a previous generation, and then watch them become transformed according my doubt that they can be true, or my fear that they cannot be true, that my doubts and fears, act on the inheritance of my beliefs, and sculpt them into something that is different than my original inheritance. But it is not consicous and free will that causes me to believe that "this" is true or that "that" is false.

Belief is, instead, determined by what I call an inner will, which is beyond our conscious control. When I think of freedom to choose my beliefs, I mean the free expression of this inner will, which itself, operates outside of and beyond our abilitiy to understand or control it.

Therefore, a Christian cannot coax an atheist into believing, and an atheist cannot coaxt a Christian into unbelief. These kinds of arguments cannot work. Each believes according to the setting into which they were born, and the physical landscape of experience upon the earth.

People sometimes refer to the "system" when they speak about the political or economic rules and constraints of our lives. But we also live in a "system" of physical existence. I believe that at the foundation of this system that determinses our lives, is a God-like Providence, and that it is not important or vital that any one religion be seen as a correct or valid reflection of God's will and God's "plan" for us.

I do not believe Christianity is the true religion, nor that there is even any true religion that all people could comprehend together, at once, because, the variety of settings and physical landscapes, and the variety of inheritances of belief is too varied, and too different, from person to person and from place to place, and even the capacity to understand, and the willingness and interest to understand,is too varied and too different, to ever make them unified.

These things are the concerns of men and not of God.

And someone here earlier said that fear of death is why people believe in God. But I do not think that is exactly right. Fear of an immediate threat makes people believe in God. Tornadoes, earthquate, thunder and lightening, volcanoes, just the cold of the Winter, and the stalking beasts at the door, makes people seek for and then believe in God.

And suffering makes people believe in God. The imminent threat or the very real persisitence and presence of suffering, in oneself, and in ones own family, and cirlce of friends, is what is most common in religion and religious people.

So, I know that the reality of unjust suffering in the world makes some people believe that there is no God; but it is also at the root of most people's belief in God as well.

"J", it is impossible to ignore a startling reality that conveys of one paragraph in your last post. I mean your paragraph minus the word *No* at the beginning. Here is your well crafted paragraph after my subtraction:

"God is a premature articulation as saying that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth was until we know more, and will know more and more over time on us, the earth, the universe".

Yes, we all know that you didn't mean to say that, but that’s the way I read it. Taking out the negative it becomes in a very profound thought. I couldn't say it better. Thanks.

Peace to all,

JAC

Angela;

Thanks for your comments(at 5;57) You made some really good points. I almost missed them.

Yes. You're right. God is certainly just a hypothesis, or, to others, a metaphor for the great unknown. The religious don't like doubt. It's not considered smart amongst the believers, as it is among thinking people. While we consider doubt to be a virtue, the religious are terrified of doubt, they see it as the slippery slope to non-belief. They proudly avoid doubt and self-reflection as weakness.

Weird uh?

Bewildful:

I don't mean to intrude upon your exhange with CCNL. Just want to say that your lyric is inspired. Hopkins redivivus. AND it movingly captures the longed-for departure of CCNL, longed for by many throughout this blog.

I would like to proffer a minor editorial suggestion. I would consider substituting "fly" for "flies" in the improved last line. At some future point, you may want to ask your publishers to provide a footnote explaining "higher."

Curious

E Ponsonby-Smallpiece : "It is incredibly presumptuous of you guys to claim to KNOW of god's existence when great minds like Einstein and Russell etcetra,who searched all their lives for answers,failed to find any gods."

Come now. Einstein doth offer up theories before being proven by other scientists. For the scientific minded, God is a hypothesis, a theory then, still waiting to be proven or disproof. Einstein died before this theory/hypothesis on God was proven. Even his theories and physics have glitches and bugs still being ironed out by scientists and will continue to be.

We have barely step out of solar system thus far, and only physically step on the moon so far.

No God is a premature articulation as saying that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth was until we know more, and will know more and more over time on us, the earth, the universe.

Got to go.

Cheers

"J"

Ponsonby - Smallpiece;

Excellent posts, especially the last couple. Fresh thoughts. Yeah. Who asks to be atheist? If you can't believe, you can't believe, that's all there is to it.
Don't expect the religious to actually read your posts. They glance through looking for the good bits and ignore anything that disturbs them.
But good luck. Long live Brian!

Concerned, Concerned, Concerned,

I see what you were trying to tell me! O worthy, wordsmith. It was the final two lines which would work better thus:

Though all space cyber from him flies.

What say you, new mentor, dear Sir or Madam?

Desolation II: Adieu, CCNL
(Apologies to Hopkins and Wiglaf)

CCNL is grieving
Because Susan's thread he's leaving
His posts, the stale thoughts of him, he
With brain froze cares for, can he?

Ah! As mind grows wiser
It will come to such thoughts higher
By and by, nor spare a cry
Though all space cyber from him flies.

Where is Spiderman2 when we need him?

Concerned, Concerned, Concerned

Below I re-post my moving lyric inspired by your longed-for departure. Again, I ask why you question my poetical prowess. I ask that you read my earlier post to you regarding your harsh words to me, harsh and scoffing, muse-wise. I await your response, dear Sir or Madam.

Desolation II: Adieu, CCNL
(Apologies to Hopkins and Wiglaf)

CCNL is grieving
Because Susan's thread he's leaving
His posts, the stale thoughts of him, he
With brain froze cares for, can he?

Ah! As mind grows wiser
It will come to such thoughts higher
By and by, nor spare a cry
Though all of cyberspace from him flies.

Arminius and Thomas Baum;

With all due respect, you miss my point, and like the religious folk you are you seized on my comment that IF there is a god I know he'll understand why I don't believe in him.

That's a BIG IF! It's there because being a mere mortal I would be a fool to think that my opinion is necessarily one hundred percent correct. One can always be wrong about such things. But the last thing I need is christians jumping-in to speak on behalf of someone who is almost certainly make believe. Please. From my point of view you are both deluded; how could I think otherwise.I am an atheist, remember?

Unlike me, you guys have no room for doubt, so maybe you don't understand the concept. But it is a wonderful concept that admits humbly that one cannot know everything; in fact one can know very little. And among the things that we cannot know is what life is all about, and how it all began, and what, if anything, it all means and, is there a god? We cannot know these things.

It is incredibly presumptuous of you guys to claim to KNOW of god's existence when great minds like Einstein and Russell etcetra,who searched all their lives for answers,failed to find any gods.
Yet Thomas Baum and Arminius found him. That's rich. So you'll excuse me if I repeat, you are both deluded..

Mr. Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

You : "Have you ever noticed that you (Yoyo) and CCNL and B-GONE and SPIDERMAN2 and MR MARK, among others, seem to be in agreement with your opinion of me and me doing the job that God gave to me, the words might be slightly different but pretty much convey the same thing."

Now, I cannot contain my curiousity as a fellow believer, albeit one with a different notion of God, on God.

You mentioned in other posts too that you have met God and Satan. I am curious as to what the experience was like, how and when. Does it has anything to do with the "job" God gave you by your constant reminder to "Take care, be ready"?.

You may ignore my question in this post if you chose to do so. I am not condemning your belief as one of a different belief. Only to understand and appreciate better regarding yours on God.

Sincerely,

"J"

Dear Mr. Baum,

Can you tell me what the sixth day is?

Sincerely,

Bewildful

Hello E. Ponsony-Smallpiece,

What? Your brain, the software installed by God half a century too? Too long. And degrading every day too.

What? No update of software programme since in your brain? It was not designer error of an unitelligent design. It is a corrupted programme!

Quick! Get an anti-virus expert to purge your brain's prgramme of the Dawkins virus!

Quick! Get an anti-worm expert to purge your brain's programme of the Hitchens/Harris worm!

They are parasites of an intelligent design programme that must be cleansed lest it corrupts the whole brain, the whole carbon-based body!

Alas, since you have cut off contact with God the Intelligent Designer, well, what do you expect in not getting an upgrade?

I have no problem in people declaring they are happier as adherents of any faiths or being atheists.

I only like to make some small problems for people who say they are happier because they are Muslim or Unitarian or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Scientologist and the rest who don't share their same belief are not.

It's like someone saying to me, he or she like Tammy Wynette and Ms. Wynette makes him or her feels happy, contented, fulfilled happy. Therefore I should and must listen to Tammy Wynette to feel and think the same way when I've listened and it made me want to jump off a cliff.

No such thing as there is only one way, one right way, the only way to personal happiness.

That said, I do like to take on some of atheism and atheists' sacred cows and sacred bulls as a return favour of atheists taking on religions' sacred cows in On Faith threads. It would be so boring if not so, and we would be reduced to just:

- there is a God
- there is no God

It's the whys and the hows that makes it all interesting, and hopefully elevate discussion on faith to a broader and deeper level on how faith move man, unite man, divide man since the dawn of history.

I love your posts. Some of the funniests in On Faith I've read.

**************************************************

Hello A-gnostic,

Suffering? How about greed too.

Gates gave away billions. Balmer made billions for Gates. Gates the light one, the humanitarian one. Balmer the dark one, the greedy one. One sinning in greed. The other atoning for greed.
No one ever said corporate figures and corporations makes sense on greed and charity.

Halliburton makes lots of money from contracts worth at least $ 30 billion in Iraq. They pay lots of taxes. Taxes that are used for.....

**************************************************

Hello Yoyo,

Come now. I don't regard On Faith as a forum to "convert" anyone to anything. Only to take on certain cliches as atheists do on beliefs. To try to widen discussions from within walls to outside the walls and off the wall too.

I would not regard it as an "unfortunate truth", but only as fact that people are still willing to stand up for and even die for what they believe in. Perhaps this is the unfortunate fact.

I am against monopolies in the marketplace of products and services. I am against monopolies in marketplace of ideas. Let them compete and in doing so we get better products, better services, better ideas, better facts. Even on God and religions.

I regard and read the theology of all faiths in tandem with philosophy for understanding how man see human nature and human condition, and how man seek to address them.

I have no problem with atheists not believing in deity/deities. Only always curious on their convictions, thinking, feelings on what is the alternate to fill the needs of man the social animal at the personal and group level.

I am concerned with individual or group forcing their own and groups' beliefs on others, leery of any faith dominating and having their way in the public square.

I am equally leery of those who want to purge everyone from belief in God or being member of organised religion, or completely barred from expressing their beliefs in the public square.

Who are we protecting? The vulnerable and delicate sensibilities of some, many? Or just to pander to plain intolerance and non-accomodation of diversity by some, many?

You : "Bottom line - inventing gods is what we do. We've done it from the very beginning and we still do it. So I maintain, there is no god."

Ever wondered why we keep doing that? Are we untrusting of fellow man? Don't we have any faith in fellow men? Do we know too much on human nature? Do we aspire for something more sublime, more transcendent? Do we aspire to reach for the unattainable as manifested in the nature and ascribed characteristics of God?

What is the metaphor of atheists for greater, higher, better? Is there an equivalent of Supreme Being in athiestology? The ultimate and perfect being to strive for oneself? Is it Humaism, Secular Humanism, Cynicism, Scepticism or Realism? All sounds a bit resigned, no, on human nature?

We still have gods and goddesses don't we? Look in any teenager's room and see whom they adulate from the posters they put up on the walls. As adults, we admire some people too, and gave them all sorts of citations, prizes and acknowledgements to recognise them as gods and goddesses of music, of movies, of literature, of science etc. Latter day offerings methinks, to the gods and goddesses who impress us with their prowess and as a manifestation of our adulation.

I'd rather worship and adulate an invisible God rather than those who walked the earth. Can't do that too much to them. It might get into their heads and make them hubristic and arrogant and greedy and they can do no wrong and all that and immune from the laws and accepted norms of men :)

Best regards
"J"

MR MARK

You wrote, "You seem to be suggesting that our agreeing that you're hearing voices somehow means that there ARE actual voices (god) speaking to you. Talk about a leap of faith."

I am just making an observation, I am not suggesting anything, I just find it interesting that some people that seem to have very different degrees of belief/non-belief, concerning God, can come together in agreement in condemnation over what they consider someone else's belief.

Of course, like I have said many times before, I used to believe that God is real but now I know since I met Him and like I have said He is a Trinity and He is Love, Love is not an attribute of God, Love is His Very Being.

Some people call other people fanatics and you know what, it sure does seem like what some people either see or think that they see in others is really what they refuse to acknowledge in themselves.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear Mr. Baum,

Thanks for your reply. What is the night of the sixth day?

Thanks.

Bewildful

BE WILDFUL

Anonymous asked the same question and I already answered it earlier today so I am just going to copy what I wrote then. Here it is.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "you always end your comments with 'be ready'.

Be ready for what?"

Night, whether it is our own personal night, as in our physical death or the night of the sixth day which will come in due time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

T Baum writes:

"Have you ever noticed that you and CCNL and B-GONE and SPIDERMAN2 and MR MARK, among others, seem to be in agreement with your opinion of me and me doing the job that God gave to me, the words might be slightly different but pretty much convey the same thing.

"You and at least some of the above mentioned don't seem to agree on much else except for this, do you think that this is some kind of coincidence?"

It's no more of a coincidence that all of us mentioned above would agree that David Berkowitz (aka Son of Sam) believed that he was also "given a job to do," but that the instructions came from his dog, rather than from god.

You seem to be suggesting that our agreeing that you're hearing voices somehow means that there ARE actual voices (god) speaking to you. Talk about a leap of faith.

God, dog. Pick your imaginary voice poison.

Dear Mr. Baum,

I mean no disrespect at all since you appear to me to be a gentle person, but you frequently write, "Take care. Be ready."

Could you explain what you mean by "Be ready."

Thanks.

Bewildful

Concerned,etc.,

You write:

Bewildful, Bewildful, Bewildful,

That is poetry???
------------------------------------------
Concerned, Concerned, Concerned,

(Please do not use three question marks. One question mark suffices.)

Do you not see in "Desolation II: Adieu CCNL," the "sprung rhythm" (googleable) for which Hopkins is so justly famous?

Crushed, I am. Like "the ooze of oil." Crushed.

Concerned, please read aloud (very important) Hopkins' "Spring and Fall to a Young Child" posted by the intrepid Wiglaf, June 2, 2008 3:01 AM. Then reread my moving lyric to you. (I was moved, Concerned. Moved.)

Bewildful

YOYO

You wrote, " Thomas Baum, who I think is a drooling idiot, to fend for himself.", I would like to thank you for your comment.

Have you ever noticed that you and CCNL and B-GONE and SPIDERMAN2 and MR MARK, among others, seem to be in agreement with your opinion of me and me doing the job that God gave to me, the words might be slightly different but pretty much convey the same thing.

You and at least some of the above mentioned don't seem to agree on much else except for this, do you think that this is some kind of coincidence?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

there is a God. There really really IS A GOD! There is. There must be.There is.There really really IS! Isn't there? Say YES.There is a God, there is a God there is a God there IS A GOD. There really really really IS A God! Isn't there? Well isn't there?? Speak to me God.Tell me You are Real. Speak up God I cannot HEAR you.

Are YOU there GOD? Are you THERE? Anybody HOME up there? Yoohoo!! Go'od!! Its ME! I used to think you were REAL! But you are just as phoney as all those other gods that people stopped believing in hundreds of years ago.

and if George Bush believes in you, that proves you don't exist. He never gets anything right.

E PONSONY-SMALLPIECE

You wrote, "If it turns out that there really is a God, I'm sure He will understand my inability to believe in Him and forgive me".

Actually, in the bible it says that "Faith is a gift that no man should boast" and from the sounds of some, it sure sounds like they are boasting but only God knows.

God is real and He is a Being of Pure Love and He is not a He, a She or an It but Is Love. Also God is not the ego-maniac that some would have you think by what they write about Him but it seems that some people who know God's Name know nothing else about Him.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God also says in the bible that He would write His Law on our hearts and His Law is God Himself, LOVE, so whatever you do for Love out of Love, you do for God.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition in due time, God's Time.

God's Plan is for the new heavens and the new earth at the dawning of the seventh day and His Plan is for ALL but the night of the sixth day is approaching.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ponsonby- Smallpiece

You nailed it. Atheists discover their atheism maybe like the religious discover their religiousness. Atheism is certainly not an intellectual decision too often. A person usually becomes aware that she doesn't believe in god. Nothing much she can do about it when she finds out she just doesn't have the religion gene, or when her brains don't allow her the liberty to believe just anything she wants.
It probably has to make sense first, maybe then she will toss it around in her brain, check it out, and then dump it or go for it, if it rings her bell. Like another poster said, you have to be 'persuaded' there's a god. Some are easily persuaded; others are not. The fact is though, god is certainly not proven, otherwise we wouldn't all be arguing about it all the time. The doubt must be acknowledged.
You can't just expect people to believe any silly old nonsense. It doesn't work like that. Things have to make some kind of sense don't they?

OR,

Jesus is the silent partner in this business. Try our special--burger, fries, salad, and coke.

Or become a fashionista: a leftist; a conservative--You too can be a god, or close relative of a supernatural. Transcend. Don't despair. No down payments for the first year.

E. Ponsony- Smallpiece:

You wrote,
"If it turns out that there really is a God, I'm sure He will understand my inability to believe in Him and forgive me."

He will. I firmly believe that He will accept all good people, regardless of what particular holy book they ascribe to. Hang in there!

Arminius

Yoyo writes:

Bottom line - inventing gods is what we do. We've done it from the very beginning and we still do it.

Yes, we do. Idolatry. Francis Bacon took up the very old theme. Celebrities, celebrity politicians. "Heroes" and "villains."

And for some the destitute. Okay to starve now. You will go to some place after you die. Jesus will help. Or, study Quoran.

Wiglaf

Whow Smallpiece great post. Of course atheists don't decide to become atheists! They don't flip a coin and say "Heads I'll be an atheist, tails I'll be a believer". It just becomes apparent. One day you realize you don't believe what lots of other folks believe. just like some folks believe in Astrology, and others think its pretty stupid. Religions like that. You look up at the sky, which they used to call the heavens, and all you see is more sky and clouds. In the olde days folks wouild look up there expecting to see God and Heaven (Can you believe it?)
Those were the days when everyone believed, or said they did. If they said they didnt they could be killed just like in Islam now where its death to the infidel.
We've come a long way baby. But we still got a long way to go.

No discussion of greed would be complete without mention of the excellent recent movie "There Will Be Blood", which is all about greed and lust for oil and riches;(from the Upton Sinclair novel), plus there is an interesting struggle between the totally corrupt and greedy oil man and a weird young priest who wants to save souls. Which one is the most corrupt and deluded plays out most dramatically in this fine movie for grown-ups.
Daniel Day-Lewis turns in a performance that Marlon Brando couldn't have bettered. Amazing stuff.

Jihadist

I am an atheist. I do not want to be an atheist. But I am an atheist and there is nothing I can do about it. I am an atheist because no matter how hard I try to believe in God my brain won't let me.

If it turns out that there really is a God, I'm sure He will understand my inability to believe in Him and forgive me. I would like to think that if in fact there IS a God He will be intelligent enough to understand that the brain he installed in me half a century ago doesn't work properly; there is no link to His program, and it is unresponsive to His existence. It is not my fault. It was a Designer error, so I am not bothered by guilt. I would, in fact, love to believe in a God if only I could. I would be a happier man if I believed I would live forever in a Paradise somewhere,instead of becoming dead one day, and rotting in the ground; which is what my brain tells me will happen.
It is not easy being an atheist. But at least it is honest. It looks reality in the face, and accepts it for what it is; unknowable and awesome.

An excellent example of the personal suffering that occurs due to a greedy, egocentric dominated consciousness was aired on CBS Sixty Minutes on June 1, 2008. The profile of Tom Perkins, a self made wealthy venture capitalist who is trapped in his attachments to material goods, offered a great example of an ego self driven person. One example shown during the profile was his obsession with owning the largest privately owned sailboat in the world. While discussing the price of the yacht, Mr. Perkins was too embarrassed to reveal the actual price of the boat because even he was aware of the good that could have been done around the world to alleviate suffering of others with his money. His better nature of consciousness exists but is clearly overshadowed by his overwhelmingly dominate egocentric nature.

Some may argue that he does not suffer from this monstrosity of selfishness since he obviously lives an easy life of wealth and luxury. But his ego driven self is continually searching for relief of his own suffering through the accumulation of material wealth. Despite the fact that he should never have to work again and could provide great service to his fellow humans and other sentient beings of earth, he proclaimed that he was selling the largest sailboat and seeking a new nautical toy: a sports submarine.

And this is different from the previous 8 years how?

Jihadist.

Thanks for your post.

We could throw a million words at each other and nothing would change. That is the unfortunate truth for both of us.

If I thought there was a god I would be religious.

If I am not religious, it is for one reason and one reason only, I do not believe there is a god. It is really that simple.

The only way a religious person can change the mind of an atheist and make him believe in a god, is by producing this god, or producing evidence of the existence of this god.

If I disapprove of religion, it's because I do not think that a god exists. If there is no god then religions are mistaken
.
Everything weighs on that one point. Is there a god? You say yes, I say I no.

I would like to believe in a god. In fact, I did believe in god when I was younger. I was in my twenties when I realized that, deep down, I didn't actually believe at all that such an unlikely entity existed.
I don't think a person can decide to believe or not believe. Some are persuaded that god exists. I am not persuaded.

As I've said before, if we exchanged backgrounds we would each believe what the other believes.

If I had been born in Malaysia of Muslim parents then I would now be a believing Muslim.
If you had had my background you would likely be an atheist.

One more thing that persuades me that there is no god, is the fact that as a species we have had thousands of gods, from Apollo to Zarathustra, all make believe. Not one of them real.

Bottom line - inventing gods is what we do. We've done it from the very beginning and we still do it.
So I maintain, there is no god.

Respectfully, Yoyo.

Ahh, again what would we do without Google and the Reality Challenged/Obfuscating Jihadist!!!!

To the topic and a Google Search (Greed Islam "House of Saud" Jihadist 2008):

Major "hit"

"In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

Then there is the House of Saud!!!!! The Emir of Kuwait!!! The King of Jordan !!! and The King of Bahrain!!! And no doubt most of the ayatollas are doing quite well!!! Hmmm, and GREED is a major element in the Sunni/Shiite blood feud going on for the last 800 years!!!"

And Google search#2 (fems Islam)

major hit:

"Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and GREED-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added gay (and "GREEDY"?) "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "you always end your comments with 'be ready'.

Be ready for what?"

Night, whether it is our own personal night, as in our physical death or the night of the sixth day which will come in due time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

You wrote, "You definitely live in a "neuron" world of your own."

No, actually I live on Earth the same as you.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

DENNIS W

You wrote, "Get a life.", actually I have one and it is to be me.

You also wrote, "I was in the RAF at the time and suddenly looking up at a clear blue sky, the truth that god is fiction found its way into my mind. It made a new man of me, and I never looked back. From then on, everything made better sense".

After I met God, I instantly knew that the bible was true, even tho I did not and still do not know all of the details, shall we say, and it also took awhile for me to see, so to speak, how it really made sense of, shall we say, the history of man.

Man's inhumanity to man whether on a small or large scale has been quite a constant, has it not?

Some put the blame on religion, others put the blame on whatever but when it comes down to reality, is it not someone or a group of someones trying to dominate others and using whatever reason that they can come up with?

Some put their faith in science and granted there have been some major advances in different fields and some have benefitted from these advances while others have not.

Have you ever heard the term "Better living thru chemistry", I haven't heard the term lately but I have heard it many times and you could insert other science fields in place of "chemistry".

I grew up near the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and I heard recently that the Bay, as we call it, is estimated to be "40% dead", there are many factors involved in this, "better living thru chemistry", being just one of them.

The Bay, in very recent memory, was the most productive estuary on the entire planet, at least I think so, not just the USA but the entire world. Greed which is what this question was originally about very much enters into the equation of the degradation of the Bay.

Reality is more than science and as interesting as science can be, basically all that it can answer is how not why.

The Bay is one example, there are many, of how we are trashing our very home, planet Earth, a lot of that trashing is thru greed, if it isn't obvious to you there is nothing that I can say.

Some people will use and have used any excuse to justify their actions, including but not limited to blaming it on God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And Now for Something Different,

Who posted an essay by Dick Dawkins.

The Emptiness of Theology? Science is responsible for the knowledge about our origins? What is this? Nothing on knowledge acquired in the fields of anthropology, sociology, economics, politics to understand man and human progress?

If organised and institutionalised religion is as powerful and unreasonable as Dawkins makes it out to be, science would never thrive at all. All would be beheaded or hung or burned at the stakes through the ages. Science is no threat to religion. Competing theologies and ideologies were and are. Why kill scientists and technologists who comes up with new tools to facilitate the wars of theologies?

It seems that Mr. Dawkins forgot religious driven wars and competition by different faiths for lands and control of resources also facilitated the advances of science (including in weapons), the discovery of the new world, intellectual discourses and cross-fertilisations on science too. Is it not the religious sorts who established the first universities in the world? Do they still not fund quite a number of scientific research too?

And what a capital idea to compare witch doctors with medical doctors. Was it not witch doctors who first knew of herbs and plants as remedies, and their latter day descendants, medical doctors are just the inheritors of accumulated knowledge started by witch doctors through their trials and errors? Obviously, Mr. Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, apparently did not see the evolution of witch doctors to medical doctors.

And so asked Dawkins too, “What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody”?

Obviously, Mr. Dawkins is not much a reader of world history or a reader of current reality. We saw where “empty” theology got us in the history of man. So much so Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al are trying to empty the world of theology. Science is good? Ideology is better? Match science and ideology and we got the atomic bomb, the nuclear bomb, biological weapons, chemical weapons.

Science is not a passionate human discourse, but theology and ideology are. Even movies, music, literature, food, fashion evince more heated human discussions that science. We should wonder why that is. We should also wonder why hubris is a virtue for scientists and ideologues but not for theologians into humility and all.

In this century, ideology and science are the beasts around us, and theology/spiritualism will be the counterpoint, the counterweight, the check and balance of ideology and science from the perspective of ethics and values. Refer to debate on cloning and stem cell research. Refer to just war or otherwise from a moral and not just legal perspective. Is being legal the same as being moral and ethical?

Mr. Dawkins is the high priest, the witch doctor of science as panacea of man’s problems? He is also a rather Eurocentric fellow on science and ideas, not quite acknowledging ideas from Asia, Africa, and South America adopted and adapted by Europe.

Never mind. He is writing for a fundamentally western audience as always. For one, vaccination was practiced in Turkey long before any Englishman tried it out. Read more of travel books by writers of yore and not to be too dismissive of them. Hint – it is by an Englishwoman whose husband was an ambassador to Turkey.

Greed is good? Science is good? Only if we can control both before it controls us.

E Posonby-Smallpiece,

* Religion is a cushion spiked with pins to discourage wimpy non-believers from sitting on them, and to be too afraid to sit on them ever again. Real religionists sits on pins without cushions.

* Atheism is the blankey of atheists to hide and cower from the deluge of belief such as fire and brimstone in hell. Real religionists are not afraid of heat.

* Atheism is for the unimaginative and the unoriginal who don’t even see the difference between Santa, Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster and God. Real religionists knows the differences between a fat fellow in a red suit and flying food in the kitchen hurled by toddlers and God the Ultimate.

* O just world! Is there no end to serene believers to terrify panicky atheists with their belief in heaven and hell, God and the hereafter, angels and satan?

* What could ever replace religious belief? Not Christopher Hitchens. Not Sam Harris? Give me satan! Give me hell! Real religionists can deal with the unseen, the unknown, and the unknowable.

* Locke, Hume, Kant? The Old Testament is a more timeless read on human understanding and human nature than Locke or Hume. Sam Harris? Need to take him with a barrel of salt. Dick Dawkins? Needs to remember he is an, ahem, evolutionary biologist. Ah, the Bible still outsells all the books written by everyone from Voltaire to Harris. And given out for free too.

* O tepid same old world, let us remain where we are on our separate fears and hopes, on our dreams for a brave new world as we envision it, and to make it our mission to impose them on others.

Onward God’s soldiers!

Hello Yoyo,

Religion will always be with us. In what form, mutations and permutations we see in history how religions evolved, and even now.

Better for researchers to look at new religious/spiritual leaders that seemingly pop out of nowhere as to why they appeal to some people. Too bad these fellows are regarded as heretics or madmen by mainstream media and believers who often forget the founders and originators of current world religions were regarded as heretics in their own time against prevailing beliefs. Why? How?

Religion do also thrive under repressive and unjust governments as the opposing force against the controlling force, as theology vs ideology, and during conflicts too – an element, a factor in accentuating group identity and solidarity in the us vs them apart from as well as a component of race/ethnicity and nationalism.

The experience of Ireland has many parallels in the Muslim world where countries and people in are conflicts. Radicalism, extremism, regression, repression to control their population happens. That happens in Afghanistan. We are now seeing it in Iraq. As you pointed out on Ireland, the end of conflict is the beginning of personal and group security with political stability enabling economic growth. People are no longer regarded as treasonous or unpatriotic to their own group if they don’t get into the group’s identification and battles for the group.

In this century, nationalism is a stronger bind than race or religion. One don’t hear someone called a heretic and getting really upset over it in the west. One is more upset in being called unpatriotic. And being unpatriotic or treasonous is punishable even by death in many states while being a heretic is not, and one would be shocked or dismayed to hear a heretic or apostate being excommunicated, vilified or given a fatwa death sentence.

You : “I don't expect you and I to see eye to eye on matters of religion. We come from different worlds, and are the products of different cultural environments. In a way we are enemies. You oppose atheism and I disapprove of religion.”

So, I am an enemy of and oppose atheism. Atheism and atheists are just people not of the same belief as me on God as are adherents of other religions. There will always be differences on God/s or no God/s between believers and atheists, and what is and what is not God/s, interpretation of God’s injunctions, reminders, laws, commandments, nature etc among adherents of different religions. Not to mention within the same faith group.

By the way, should I regard an anti-theist the same way one would regard an anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist etc?

Cheers
“J”

Bewildful, Bewildful, Bewildful,

That is poetry???

Desolation II: Adieu, CCNL
(Apologies to Hopkins and Wiglaf)

CCNL is grieving
Because Susan's thread he's leaving
His posts, the stale thoughts of him, he
With brain froze cares for, can he?

Ah! As mind grows wiser
It will come to such thoughts higher
By and by, nor spare a cry
Though all of cyberspace from him flies.

Apparently a dose of Reality is again in order:

Hmmm, greed?? Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions.

In Islam, we have the GREED-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

In Christianity (including Mormonism), the "historic" founder was the simple preacher man, long-dead Jewish fellow, Jesus. Not much greed there but one can make a case for the following steps for the start of greed in the said religion:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed.

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

Desolation I

There once was a CCNL,
Whose posts made everyone yell.
They yammered and yammered
At the unceasing Spammer
'Til he left to get a brain cell.

Bewildful 2008

There are religions in which an afterlife doesn't figure, and those in which it figures very little.
Hard to know which one to place Judaism in. We live in and/with the denial of death, but it remembers us. In times of great social and technological upheavals, religion and religious movements inevitably gain ground. The Enlightenment was one such period.

If people derive something from religion, what harm can it possibly do? The major harm from organized religions comes from conversionism, the attempt to legislate one's religious perspectives, and bigotry. Given that the major religions are organized, as it were, is it possible for an "observant" to avoid all three?

Meanwhile, one can look to this,and, perhaps, forget some of what we know of its author, not, by the way, his religion.

Spring and Fall, to a Young Child

Margaret, are you grieving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leaves, like the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Ah! as the heart grows older
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you will weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name:
Sorrow's springs are the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It is the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for.

-- Gerard Manley Hopkins

Anon, Anon, Anon and Whatever,

Hmmm, the bible and koran have been going thump, thump, thump for these many, many centuries so the poetry of Boof and CCNL will counter said mumbo jumbo for the next many, many centuries.

"I am tired of Jesus and Mohammed.
I am tired of man's foot.
I am tired of the White man's mother.
I am weary...from doing nothing about it"

"Save us from the FEMs of Mo and Chris,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
As they ooze from the rocks of earth,
Like worms in the wrench of lurid death."

"Deal with it !!!!!!"

When I was a little girl in Montana in the fifties I belived in God about the same time I belived in Santa Claus. I gave them both up at the same time.
I found out myself there was no Santa so I knew that that went for God too. It was a relief too.
Thats how I felt about it. It was a relief. It was good to know nobody was spying on me growing up back then.I liked knowing that I could be out of everyone's sight sometimes and not have some God looking down trying to see what I was doing. Because before that, I thought he could and I didn't like it and it didn't make any sense and I would scratch my head and try to figure out how he could see me if I couldn't see him. Where was he? Everyone talking about him but I don't see nobody there or anywhere. so when I saw through the Santa thing I saw through the God thing too cause it figured. I liked sense, you know what I mean. I hated being mixed up. I stopped being mixed up right then. Santa Claus and God and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and all the rest of them are just made up in our mind.I never understood all these years how grown ups just get sucked right into it and believe its all real. it's a shame really. I shake my head all the time jsut thinking about it. Didn't mean to write so much.

Wow isn't that Dawkins piece beautiful? I mean it really is. Its the ice-cool clarity of it all compared to the tangled mumbo-jumbo of faithspeak; where nothing makes actual sense but is called 'truth' anyway; that mind numbing drivel that they expect us to take on faith, because it cannot be taken as logic or common sense.

For me, to read Dawkins is as refreshing as a cool drink from a mountain stream.

e.ponsonby - smallpiece:

Hey Yoyo. Interesting thoughts on the wisdom of non-belief. If religion is a safety net, or cushion, or blankey for the weak and downtrodden, you want to pull the cushion from under them? O cruel world! Is there no end to such barbarous ideas? What could ever replace religious belief?

Maybe....An equitable distribution of wealth, social justice, accountability, end of -isms working to prevent same.

Tough order, I guess.

Wiglaf

Ctcnl;

Yeah it's like you're more trapped than liberated.

Concernedtcnl;

That's better. Post more of other people's poetry, or prose or whatever.

Repetition is good up to a point, but then people stop reading you and just keep scrolling right through your posts. We all know what you are going to say so we keep on scrolling.

Time for a change maybe.

Anon, Anon, Wherever you are??

"Born on the Nile River in Sudan, Kola Boof is an exciting new voice in literature. Her remarkably beautiful (but controversial) poetry collection, "NILE RIVER WOMAN" is now available at Amazon.Com. Some of the classic poems from that collection are printed right on this page!! Also see her tribute to her slain friend, Theo Van Gogh: poetwomen.50megs.com/catalog.html

Published in Africa/1997:

"BINT IL NIL"

I want a new religion.
The one our mothers had in the river.

I am tired of Jesus and Mohammed.
I am tired of man's foot.
I am tired of the White man's mother.
I am weary...from doing nothing about it.

I want my own religion.
I want my real mother.

Africa, I want you.

Make me pregnant with God.
Our own perfect babies...Black as perfection.
Tall as the sky. Healthy as light sparkling on
clear water.

I want my own religion.
I want my own voice.
I want my own face.
I want my own hair.
I am Naima/the one who is victorious
the one

who is praying"

Concernedtcnl.

Dylan Thomas you ain't. And neither are you T.S.Eliot. In fact your poetry is appalling.
Stick to prose. And you might consider using invisible ink.

Mr Dawkins I love you. I love a man who gives it to me straight without the pretty embroidery. Even though many prefer the more comfortable lies and fantasies of religion to help them through, I'll take the plain truth anytime. Belief in the ridiculous makes wimps of men AND women. Religion is a crutch for the frail of heart and incurious of intellect. And it is SO seventh century.

The Emptiness of Theology

by Richard Dawkins

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper The Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self replicating molecules. We know how the principal of self replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong.

Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria.
Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages od sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them; I have never heard any of them say anything of the smallest use; anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't effect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

"The Emptiness of Theology" by Richard Dawkins published in "Free Inquiry" Spring 1998.

Utter nonsense! Let me get this straight... you believe that an individual's ability to generate prodigious amounts of profit from their efforts, and dispose of it in any way they see fit, is immoral, yet you encourage the jack-booted thugs of government to steal that money and give it to someone who has not earned it... and THAT is moral??? You have a very twisted morality. It's despicable, really.

Hey Anonymous, that's MY line. You just beat me to it.

Arminius;

Then stop eating so many burgers and donuts. if you cut out the carbs you'll soon be slim again.

e.ponsonby - smallpiece:

Are you aware that the hysterically funny movie, "Life of Brian", is NOT a parody of religion per se? On the contrary, it is a glorious put-down of how humanity totally screws up religion.

I am a HUGE Monty Python fan!

Arminius

E.Ponsonby-Smallpiece;

Your vision IS hilarious. I'm still laughing.

Arminius;

Mmm..I think I was painting a Monty-Pythonesque picture of 'enlightened ones' forcibly ripping the bibles from the hands of the bedraggled and deluded and making them read Schopenhauer instead. Think of it in a "Life Of Brian" context. It's kind of hilarious.

Yoyo; I share your concern visa-vis religion and secularism. Are they on a collision course I often wonder? Is this what the clash of civilizations is all about? Is it the old versus the new? Is it mythos against logos? Superstition vs reason? All of the above?
We may be in the middle of change, and it may be a very slow process. May take fifty or a hundred years to see the enormity of it. But it really does seem to be happening, and as you say, the bookshelves are showing big changes in our reading habits. Books by atheists are everywhere. I was in a bookshop a few weeks ago in a small mid-western town, and "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, was on special display alongside "The Portable Atheist" by Christopher Hitchens. I was delighted, and bought the Hitchens', which is a book of essays on atheism by various writers on the subject from Lucretius to Sagan. A veritable feast of common sense that I am hungrily devouring.
There was a time I had to hunt high and low for books on atheism, and only ever found two or three. These days they are writing them as fast as I can read them, it seems.
It must mean something.

E.Ponsonby - Smallpiece:

You said, and I don't know if you were really serious:
"Though, we could start by burning the Bibles and Korans, and instead give everyone copies of Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, Hume's Treaties of Human Nature, and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Well, I do recall something called the First Amendment. What you propose is the flip side of the theocracy that the dominionists wish for.

We're all here together, dude. I, being a moderate believer, do not need persecution from both extremes!

Yoyo;

Hey Yoyo. Interesting thoughts on the wisdom of non-belief. If religion is a safety net, or cushion, or blankey for the weak and downtrodden, you want to pull the cushion from under them? O cruel world! Is there no end to such barbarous ideas? What could ever replace religious belief?

Though, we could start by burning the Bibles and Korans, and instead give everyone copies of Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, Hume's Treaties of Human Nature, and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. That should do it. Then we could throw in some Sam Harris, a little Dawkins and a dash of Hitchens and some Susan Jacoby.

O brave new world, let us go forward together without the weight of dead gods on our shoulders. Let reason reign over us whatever the cost. For ever and ever. Amen.

Hi Mary;

Can't argue with you...you know Ireland a lot better than I.
My point was things change. Ireland seems to have changed for the better. Less religious - more affluent.
Of course, even the word 'better' is a matter of opinion. As you are religious, you may conclude that it is worse now, not better; that religion is 'better' than affluence. On this we can agree to disagree.
Thanks anyway for your input which provides me with much food for thought.
Cheers...

Yoyo

Re: "look at Ireland"

Yoyo, I wouldn't use Ireland as an example for anything! Its history is traumatic and sad--just ask my generation: none of us wanted to study history or politics. I was going to be an exception but after one year of it I went to my tutor and said I am not going to be able to complete a doctorate on this. We are going to have to find something else--and so we did.

Religion is what saved us in the worst years, it's the English--ancient foe and long term occupiers--who who almost did us in. The worst time in Irish history was the Famine when one million died and one million fled, and in responce the English did, well, not much. The old saying went: "God sent the potato blight, but the English made the Famine."

Religion has been jettisoned as a direct result of better times in the Republic and a religious war in the North. (Migration has reversed as well.) The Irish threw away their ancient language about two centuries ago in a desperate attempt to hold on to their Catholicism. Now they're chucking out the Catholicism as well. Doesn't leave a lot, eh? Language and religion gone. Still there's always drink and song. Not quite the same, but still...any port in a storm and all that.

Jihadist;

I have a couple of hours to spare and just re-read your comments from yesterday.

I stand by my initial response. I was somewhat moved by what you said, and acknowledge the atheists dilemma...that while we believe that there is no God, we recognize the problem of encouraging non-belief amongst those who have nothing but God to turn to for comfort and solace.

Religion, of course, thrives on the very despair you allude to; and it's because of this that Hitchins (for example) believes that religion will always be with us. And he may be right.

But 'always' is a very long time, so I disagree with Hitchins. Change happens. Given time, cultures do change.

I don't expect you to agree with this but I hope that when (and if) universal education becomes a reality, religion will weaken and become unnecessary. But I am often wrong about such things, and accept that I may be quite naive in this regard.
But look at Ireland. Affluence and immigration is changing the culture from extremely religious to less religious with clear agnostic tendencies. Many in Ireland detest religion for the damage it inflicted on the country over many many years. (There are many books and movies now that show us how grim and cruel Ireland was under catholicism.)

Universalism is happening all around us. Cultures mingle and adapt and change. Despite the rise of Islam in he west, religion is less influential than it ever was(in the west). The trend seems to be a slow moving away from religious belief and supernaturalism. Ten or twenty years ago, my local library had one book on atheism; now there are dozens.People are reading these books. They are best sellers. (I'm just reading "God; The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. Quite brilliant.)

Anyhow J. I don't expect you and I to see eye to eye on matters of religion. We come from different worlds, and are the products of different cultural environments. In a way we are enemies. You oppose atheism and I disapprove of religion.

It's cool that we can exchange ideas and josh around and have a laugh or two. I liked your Eve joke...yeah, maybe women are an improvement on men. My mother certainly thought so.

Bye4now.

test

Wiglaf,

BTW, you can get Guinness in Pakistan, something that never dawned on me to consider before your post on the subject.

Spirits are available in all of the Muslim countries I've been too, but I'd rather thought attempting to locate Guinness, per se, would be a futile endeavor.

Not so. It is a wondrous world.

M. Anonymous

Jihadist writes:

Not all of us are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. In this this hideous, hopeless, wretched life where we can't even afford coke or heroin or LSD, and because of our very low income, belief in God and the afterlife is a free delusion to ease our pain, to give us hope beyond hope. Hell, we don't even pay taxes because our income are so low!

But this is not the case with Jihadist who can afford a coke as can I. For the poor, religion is an opiate as often as not, both in developing nations and elsewhere, the drug of choice for persons who will surely get their reward in the afterlife, while the rest peruse the internet, cable TV; drink bottled water (causing death from thirst in India), wine, dine, and make merry. Make exceedingly merry in countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Egypt where, due to current food shortages, starvation grows apace.)

How do revolutions begin? Can anyone see connections between the Islamist Revolution, imperialism, and poverty?

Ahh, what we do without Google and the Reality Challenged/Obfuscating Jihadist!!!!

To the topic and a Google Search (Greed Islam "House of Saud" Jihadist 2008):

Major "hit"

"In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

Then there is the House of Saud!!!!! The Emir of Kuwait!!! The King of Jordan !!! and The King of Bahrain!!! And no doubt most of the ayatollas are doing quite well!!! Hmmm, and greed is a major element in the Sunni/Shiite blood feud going on for the last 800 years!!!"

And Google search#2 (fems Islam)

major hit:

"Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added gay "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, illiterate and hallucinating,
O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha greed and lustful, womanizing,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, warmongering and hateful,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Sunnis of hate, Shiites of late,
Even Pretty Wingie Thingies cannot
Save us from O Islam's hate.

Save us from these Islamic FEMs,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
As they ooze from the rocks of earth,
Like worms of wrench and death.

Born, Bred, and Brainwashed too,
Whatever, whatever to do?
Truth, Truth, History and Truth,
Let it Ring True, Freedom, Freedom
Freedom at Last and much left to do!!!

May 16, 2008 3:31 PM "

YoYo,

Re your reply to Jihadist:

You are A-1 OK dude. But there are still things neither of us understand. I am looking forward to your return.

Arminius

Jihadist,

My respect for you continues to grow, and you continue to make me laugh. Thank you.

And my own internal jihad continues, as outlined in my replies to YoYo.

Arminius

Jihadist.

I just read quickly through your response to my comments....I'll read it in more detail later and respond maybe more fully.

But I want to say you moved me. Of course life is hell for most. I am painfully aware of that. Too,too painfully aware. And I recognize the dilemma for people like me who would advocate revealing religion for the outrageous hoax that it is.

Yes at one level it's a philosophical question, but on another level it meets a real social and emotional need. So I give up. What do we do? Pretend there is a God?
I'm glad you were light on the sarcasm etc. It made your remarks a pleasure to read and your points interesting to think about. Thanks J.

Must go now...

Hello Arminius,

You : "What a subtle web you weave. You confound and amaze me. And you leave no clue as to where you go with this symphony of words."

The point being, even a believer can outdo a non-believer even in mocking on belief in God/s and religions and remain a believer. This should mess them up and drive them up the wall on reason, logic, delusion and what not.

Whoever said all non-believers have imagination and are creative? The last thing I heard of, and again and again, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy.:)

Cheers
"J"

Anonymous,

From long experience here, and I have the scars to prove it, I have learned to respect those who post with politeness and compassion. Thomas Baum does this. I try to do this, but have certainly had my failures, and regret them. We are here to discuss and learn, not to flame. Of course, there are some, in my estimation, that deserve to be slammed. I do that with great glee. Thomas Baum is not among them, I admire restraint, regardless of the source.

thats my anonymous post above

Arminius;

I liked what you said in your first comment, and what your own religious thing does for you. Cool. Wish they could bottle it.

Re your second post, I was merely finishing Ira Gershwin's great lyric about the bible. It's a great song from a great American opera, by America's best composer.

And as for Thomas Baum...don't tell me how to behave here and who not to offend. You can't drag the rules and expectations of your church onto this thread.
I will express myself as I see fit, and leave it to the moderator to judge my comments, and Thomas Baum, who I think is a drooling idiot, to fend for himself.
So butt out.

Jihadist,

What a subtle web you weave. You confound and amaze me. And you leave no clue as to where you go with this symphony of words.

Hello Yoyo :)

Long time no see. Where have you been? Let's josh around a bit here as always.

You quoted Dawkins on whether he thought man had created God, said, "Well, if it wasn't man, then it must have been a woman".

When God created man/Adam, It thought, "Hmmmmm...I can do better." So God created woman/Eve.

You : "Religion's most appealing feature is its promise of an after-life, without which nobody would bother with religion."

We, the great poor and unwashed masses, we who are about to die without ever having a three room bungalow, two car garage, a sedan and an SUV, three computers, Internet, cable TV, washer/dryer, microwave, deluded ourself of a second chance for a better life.

Not all of us are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. In this this hideous, hopeless, wretched life where we can't even afford coke or heroin or LSD, and because of our very low income, belief in God and the afterlife is a free delusion to ease our pain, to give us hope beyond hope. Hell, we don't even pay taxes because our income are so low!

You : "But everything we know about life shows it ends in death. Cats and dogs die, so do trees and flowers. Everything that lives - dies and decays; people too. There are no known exceptions."

Yeessssss??????????

You : "But the priest says "Not true, there's an invisible man who lives in the clouds; and if you can believe in him - you won't die; you will live forever, up there in the Heavens".

Invisible man? Who lives in the cloud? Not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I want to live for all eternity. I want to be immortal. Who is this invisible fellow who lives in the cloud? What kind of cloud? Cumulus? I want to be up in the clouds and look down on earth. Introduce me to this invisible fellow who lives in the clouds.

You : "Fear of death drives religion. The religious are cowardly, and cannot live without a pathetic and irrational hope that they are never going to die."

Fear of death? Nahh...... We get to to the hereafter remember. And there's "72 virgins" too. Who would not want to die?

You : "They sell-out their brains for a grotesque pipe-dream about living forever and ever and ever, when such an idea is clearly absurd."

Oh well, don't get all twisted up over when and if we mesh or mash our brains and sold our souls to go to the hereafter. Great idea to have another chance, a better chance for us with no chance, no hope, no opportunity in this wretched life of ours.

You : "The reality is we ARE going to die, and its best to just face it and stop kidding ourselves."

Yes, we are all going to die. We know that already. But I want to be buried. Don't cremate me. Oh, don't forget death duties. Even when you die, some governments wants taxes from and with your death. Goverments do profit from deaths - taxing cremation and burial businesess, limo services etc.

You : It's easier on the brain too. The world is even more interesting when you take God out of the picture; things make more sense, and life is more intellectually exciting and challenging than ever.

Nahhhh.....it is easier on the brain to die when you know when you die, you'll go to heaven and have "72 virgins" as companions at least. Makes life more interesting and hopeful for losers who find getting girls in life challenging to know they will have more virgins in the afterlife than in life.

You : I might not enjoy the realization that one day I will be worm food, but as that is reality, I refuse to pretend that some celestial superman is going to rescue me from the grave and fly me up to Heaven. After all, I'm not a child anymore.

Don't want to be cremated like me, eh? Wants to be worm food like me. At least the both of us are feeding what could be starving creatures even in death. Doing good never ends, even when dead, no?

The celestial "superman"? Personally, I prefer the Silver Surfer. He can whisk me away anytime, dead or alive, on that surfboard up to heaven and beyond.

Cheers and selamat malam.

"J"

YoYo,

Oh, yes, one more thing. Please be easy on Thomas Baum. Disagree with him of course, I do too. But he is polite and compassionate, two things that are normally lacking on these blogs. This should be respected, I think.

Hi, YoYo,

You said, "You quote, It aint necessarily so,don't forget the coda...the things that you're liable
to read in the bible,
aint necessarily so.

Try telling that to Thomas Baum."

My reply:
You don't get quite yet where I am at. I do not accept the entire bible. In fact, I only accept the Gospels, and maybe Acts and the Epistles. I am a seeker, not a bible thumper. I am NOT your average Christian! I do not come out of the bible, I go into it to discover what truth is there that I can accept after my experiences.

YoYo,

I fell away from religion in my early 20's. I came back in my mid 50's.

I willingly admit that the death-avoidance is paramount among many Christians.

For me, belief - religion, as it were - is not a safety net. It is a doorway, an entry into a journey that is difficult.

It has nothing to do with pixies. It has nothing to do with reason. There is no logic here. There is no proof. Except in my heart. That cannot be explained, it just is. Call me insane, if you will, but as I have said here before, it is a gentle and beautiful madness.

I cannot go back to your position. To do that would be to deny my own being.

Arminius;

You quote, It aint necessarily so,don't forget the coda...the things that you're liable
to read in the bible,
aint necessarily so.

Try telling that to Thomas Baum.

Dawkins, when asked whether he thought man had created God, said, "Well, if it wasn't man, then it must have been a woman".

Hi Jihadist. Selamat malam.

and bye.

Arminius;

Hi.Yeah you're right. I cast my net too wide.

Still...my point that death-avoidance is religion's
main attraction still stands. If we lived forever religion would be out of business.

I refer, of course, to religions of the supernatural; religions where one has to believe in an eternal skygod and the hereafter; not to buddhism and other contemplative disciplines, through which one acquires self-knowledge and awareness.

Religion seems to be a kind of safety net for the fearful.

I note you say you came to religion after 30 years of non-belief. Does that mean you were an atheist up until you were thirty years old, and at thirty
you became religious?

Or do you mean that at (say) fifty years old you returned to religion after having ignored it since you were twenty?
Just curious, because while most atheists unavoidably grow up in some religious environment or other, I haven't heard of too many cases of born and bred atheists becoming religious.

I can't imagine how, in my own case, I could ever believe in the supernatural, once having been able to appreciate how absurd it is. Just check ACGraylings comments above regarding belief in pixies. Could Grayling one day end up believing in Pixies? I doubt it. But then I am a doubter.

Going from belief to enlightenment is going with the intellectual flow. The reverse is less common.
Come back Arminius. You were right the first time.

What now, here.

Hydrogen? Bronze Age? Gamma rays? Bronzing in the sun (gamma rays) can really age one if one don't use sunblocks of any sort. And don't go near hydrogen if one is really sunbaked. Might set oneself on fire.

Don't take much to see "greed" for acquisition - knowledge, materials, applications of knowledge and materials, led to human progress too.

As for taxation without representation, no new taxes, more taxes, less taxes, proportionate taxes, incremental taxes for whatever reason...all said and done, as Josephine, the wife of Napolean the Short Frenchman, allegedly said on her deathbed when told that nothing is certain as death, she responded, "Except taxes".

**************************************************

Spiderman2: "In whatever topic or subjects, you guys are idiots. Hydrogen (nuclear fusion from the sun) powers our solar system. It means that the energy we get from solar panels are a result of energy coming from hydrogen fusion."

Yes, I am a happy idiot. Ignorance is bliss. And what does it mean - energy from solar panels are a result of energy coming from hydrogen fusion? I'm no rocket scientist. Let me see. Ah. Hydrogen is an inflammable gas. Therefore, hydrogen is an inflammable topic in this blog. Very logical, no?

Therefore, hydrogen, the known inflammable gas, was used to make the Hindeberburg, a zeppelin airship, to rise and float up in the air. It burned and crashed like a lead ballon, like a lead zeppelin. Hence, Led Zeppelin, the heavy metal king of kings, the hammer of the gods got its name from that.

See the logical connection between hydrogen, air ballons and heavy metal music?

It's a gas, gas, gas.

Sorry. No links and references to give on this.

**************************************************

Hello RNH,

In case you're wondering what Mr. Mark, my fave classical music lover and anti-theist is talking about when he said:

"..... and all because some ignorant Bronze Aged fears were indoctrinated into you as a child."

So, here is an informal and subjective guide to the Nine Ages of Man from Ignorance to Enlightenment to Post-Enlightenment Cynicism to the present Neo-Scepticism:

I - Straw Age

The Age when man first put out all the strawman arguments for God/s as the One or Ones Who Did It All - good harvest and bad harvest, plagues and calamities, good fortune and bad fortune, health and sickness, birth and death, even marraiges made in heaven to Explain Everything.

II - Wood Age

The Age when man carved out sublime images for the good gods that makes the sun rises among others, or grotesque images for the bad gods that cause earthquakes among others as their tangible representations which rotted due to bad weather and changing climes, and thus deplete the forest in chopping down trees to carve out replacement wooden figurines that again rotted. All to honour and remember Who Do It All or Which One Did It.

III - Stone Age

The Age when man realised stone is longer lasting than wood to carve out extra small, small, medium and large and extra large figurines and statues of God/s and the Age when man morphed from primacy of belief in female Great Goddesss of Mother Nature to male jealous and vengeful god/s as the primary God of gods, or as the One and Only God -the One Who Did and Do It All.

IV - Bronze Age

The Age when man decide to do away with all that carving of representations of God/s and go for an Invisible God/s instead. Saved on wood and stones for building homes, dams, walls etc instead. Also the Age when man first recorded how God/s Did and Do It All, and what God/s says man should and should not do, and what will be punishments for man for transgressing against God/s.

V - Silver Age

The Age when man decided as that as God/s is Invisible, therefore God/s have nothing to do with with man, with nature, with planet earth rotating around the sun, with the Universe. Deism is that state of mind and belief. Some said God Did It and then Leave It All Alone, including suns and planets and man to fend for itself.

VI - Gold Age

The Age when man decided that as God the Invisible, has nothing to do with the fallen or risen man, the fallen or risen planet, the Big Bang, the Expanding Universe, there is No God, but for the Singularity that Did It First in creating the Universe, and Humanity that Did It All on Planet Earth.

VII - Platinum Age

The Age when man decided he can do a bit of what God the Invisibe Did, and to create and harness fuel cells among others, from platinum.

VIII - Titanium Age

The Age when man decided he is really Singular in the Universe, Master of His Destiny, Master of the World, Master of the Universe, Master of the Multiverses, and to become the Creator and Causer of Mass Death and Massive Destruction with missiles etc from titanium to - I am become Death.

* I left out the Mud Age as it is parellel with the other Ages of Man from the Straw Age to the Wood Age to the Stone Age as a binding material of it all(straw, wood). Or as a mixed stand alone material by man to create figures, statues, structures and speculations, ruminations, postulations, hypotheses, theories in his mind too.

Some scholars maintained that man has never really move out of the Mud Age in spite of tangible material progress as in the Bronze Age, the Silver Age, the Gold Age, the Platinum Age and the current Titanium Age as manifested by the still apparent dirty minds and muddied thinking of man.

"Goddidit"? God, the Silver Agers said, is Invisible. God, the Golden Agers said, has nothing to do with the Universe and Earth and does not exist. So, "goddidit"? Not so terrible actually, yes?

"Mandidit"? We know which man did it as he is not invisible and we know which man decided to be god over other man and the world in the Platinum and Titanium Ages. So, "mandidit" is really, really, really terrible, no?

Sorry. No links and references to give on this too.

Cheers

"J"

YoYo, you said:

"Religion's most appealing feature is its promise of an after-life, without which nobody would bother with religion."

My reply:
As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so...".

It depends on how a religious person approaches it. One that is brought up from birth to march lock-step to a particular theology will have this fear of death, and be obsessed with heaven, hell, and the book of Revelation, 'rapture' included.

On the other hand, you have somebody like me who have come into religion, after three decades of non-belief, because of a spiritual experience. I have no fear of death, it is out of my hands. I don't care about heaven or hell; if they exist, it is out of my hands. I came to realize that God IS (the spiritual part), and that the teachings of Jesus are critical (the religious part). I am still trying to work out the latter. It is a journey, not just spinning in place trying to digest a theology that was force-fed to me. And it ain't easy.

Please don't make the mistake of trying to cover all believers under one tent.

Thomas Baum

you always end your comments with 'be ready'.

Be ready for what?

Are we ready for God's imminent arrival here on planet earth? Is that what you mean?

Folks have been ready for two thousand years
and they'll still be ready and waiting in another two thousand years. Bet nothing ever happens.

You are very gullible dude.

YOYO - you certainly make a good point. Religion does seem to be based on the assumption of an afterlife - but at it's core, it should be based on the true and natural view of reality as it is. This is a vision that few people have ever experienced, and is based on a perception that is reported to be quite beyond description. Zen calls it the One Mind for lack of a more satisfactory identifier. It is all that is......

At this nexus point of self-discovery, life and death of the individual are said to have no meaning whatsoever. Nevertheless, life must have ample opportunity to reach this stage of development - therefore, we have continuing life of the 'individual' consciousness after death. 'Individual' being a transient quality that passes after full realization occurs.

There is no need to believe any of this of course - the ineffable driving force of your life is in full control, until such time as the person that is you attains to full consciousness - which ironically is no-consciousness.

To begin to devolop a sense of this Mind, imagine for a moment that you were required to consciously control all the relatively infinite biochemical and neurological functions of your body from moment to moment in a state of absolute balance and perfect harmony - fortunately you do not. Your real Mind does this effortlessly, but where is it located?? There are paradoxes within paradoxes.........

Religion's most appealing feature is its promise of an after-life, without which nobody would bother with religion.

But everything we know about life shows it ends in death. Cats and dogs die, so do trees and flowers. Everything that lives - dies and decays; people too. There are no known exceptions.

But the priest says "Not true, there's an invisible man who lives in the clouds; and if you can believe in him - you won't die; you will live forever, up there in the Heavens".

Fear of death drives religion. The religious are cowardly, and cannot live without a pathetic and irrational hope that they are never going to die.
They sell-out their brains for a grotesque pipe-dream about living forever and ever and ever, when such an idea is clearly absurd.

The reality is we ARE going to die, and its best to just face it and stop kidding ourselves. It's easier on the brain too. The world is even more interesting when you take God out of the picture; things make more sense, and life is more intellectually exciting and challenging than ever.

I might not enjoy the realization that one day I will be worm food, but as that is reality, I refuse to pretend that some celestial superman is going to rescue me from the grave and fly me up to Heaven. After all, I'm not a child anymore.

Actually speaking Thomas W., belief in the land-based fairies, sea-going sprites, and assorted little people and varietous homunculi died a slow death among Celtic folk. Reading an older and sympathetic work by W.Y. Evans-Wentz entitled 'The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries' we find that as belief died out, so did the preponderance of sighting and 'relationships' between humans and fairies that were previously plentiful in bygone eras.

Of note - elvish peoples are not by any means on the small side, but are similar in stature to humans and with great dignity. They are regal beings with quite a different destiny from distantly related humans.

As we see in the copious research from the Findhorn commune in Scotland, the smaller elemental creatures do care for the welfare of plants and our simple brethren, the animals of the glade and forest. These are roles for the ages, and are assigned by higher powers during particular world cycles.

It seems as though the more people progress, the less they really know - many would agree.

WKKellogg,

Hmmm, the historic simple preacher man cannot be very happy with your lucid talk about your digestive system.

On the other hand, you now have free reading in bulk for your next visit to the crapper assuming you have a laptop resistant to malodors.

Worth repeating;

ACGrayling; from his book "The Sense of Things"

It has been well said that one should not be so open minded that one's brains fall out. This is a good admonition to those who, for example, pusillanimously declare themselves agnostics when the only rational alternative to belief in the existence of supernatural beings can be atheism.

This is because the basis of belief in the existence and gods and goddesses is no different from that for belief in pixies, namely legend and credulity; and the grounds for entertaining the thought that something might exist (footprints, fur snagged on fences, grunting in the night, actually seeing the creature in question bounding up a hillside) require much better and more consistent supports than the pre-scientific fictions invented by our ancestors to explain what they did not understand.

People forget how strong the belief in the Little People was until quite recently - they were a feature of things well into Victorian times and even later. They were blamed for much, such as missing pins and curdled milk, the lights seen on the marshes,and various aches and twinges suffered by old ladies. As reason diffused its happy light over the Western hemisphere, courtesy of the growth of literacy in those same times, belief in pixies and their ilk faded.

But superstition has strong talons; a lady of Cork, literate and generally sensible, was once asked whether she believed in leprechauns, and replied, "I do not, but they are their anyway," thus beautifully capturing the spirit of agnosticism in all its faint-hearted fence-sitting tendentiousness; for it is premised on the fact that since no one has proved that X does not exist, X might exist, as if this in any way followed, and as if responsible and disciplined intellectual endeavor does not show the fallacy of thinking that, for example, the fact that no one has proved the non-existence of Tolkein's Hobbits means that they therefore might exist in some Middle Earth after all.

Still: it remains important to be open-minded, though with a readiness to subject what is offered for our intellectual assent to stringent evaluation by the light of probability and experience. These two latter are indispensable servants of thought. They explain the difference between the assiduity with which some seek the Loch Ness Monster, while no such expense of cameras and microphones, boats and planes, bearded researchers and photojournalists has ever clustered around the possibility that a woodland grove might be the scene of moonlit pixie parties. For the idea of large marine beasts has a plausibility endowed by whales and manatees, while the idea of antique such beasts has its plausibility from sharks and coelacanths, both of them survivors from hideous depths of zoological time.

Oddly, it is the credulous who are the least open-minded. They accept dogma, and dogma closes - even indeed punishes - inquiry thereafter.
Voltaire says that he honors the man who seeks truth, but despises the man who claims to have found it.
The saying touches the essence of the difference exceedingly well, and should be the motto of anyone who aspires to intellectual honesty.

ACGrayling. The Sense of Things.

Thomas Baum;

A more measured response to your comments of 10;10am

I quoted Grayling's, "Voltaire says that he honors the man who seeks truth, but despises the man who claims to have found it."

You ask "What about the person that, The Truth has found him?"

Well, the truth found me too Mr Baum. One day many years ago the truth of Atheism arrived in my brain. I was in the RAF at the time and suddenly looking up at a clear blue sky, the truth that god is fiction found its way into my mind. It made a new man of me, and I never looked back. From then on, everything made better sense. So I understand the concept.

But lies and myth can also 'find' one, don't you think? As ACGrayling points out in his article, for years belief in fairies and sprites was widespread. Now we know it was all silly nonsense.
The 'truth' of fairies was no truth at all.

Then you ask;
"Second, do you follow Voltaire?"
No I don't follow him; I read him. He makes great sense.

Then you inquire...
"Third, do you think we should look up to our fellow human beings, look down on our fellow human beings or look at our fellow human beings?"

Well Thom...it all depends on who the human beings are, and what the context is. I would look down on Hitler but up to Plato. I look up to those I respect and admire; down on those who are dangerous and foolish, if you wish me to comment in such a limited and superficial way to my interaction with others.

Its a silly question Thom, constructed in a silly way to get a silly answer. Religion is all about the silly isn't it Thom?

Read Grayling and free your mind.

Contrary to popular belief, I was not a Jehovah's Witness but more of a Seventh Day Adventist - I did believe most sincerely that cereal was of great benefit to humanity....and a true celebration of America's heartland.

CCNL is killing us with all of this useless religious bulk, when we know perfectly well that wheat bran far exceeds in colonic benefits, compared to infinite amounts of melliflous gibberish spouted by religious fartbrains that run primarily on methanol - our most sincere homeopathic recommendation is to let true wisdom rise to the top as weightlessness is the true propensity of the spirit - while the detritus of found religions and would-be religionists passes temporarily to our lower parts, on it's dark journey to a most healthful evacuation. Obsession with all things religious is not advised on the rocky road to health and longevity.

This is Nature's Way - and remember the children.

"It is our intention not only to open and prepare the [experimental] way, but also to enter upon it. The third part, therefore, of our work embraces the phenomena of the universe; that is to say, experience of every kind, and such a natural history as can form the foundation of an edifice of philosophy. For there is no method of demonstration, or form of interpreting nature, so excellent as to be able to afford and supply matter for knowledge, as well as to defend and support the mind against error and failure. But those who resolve not to conjecture and divine, but to discover and know, not to invent buffooneries and fables about worlds, but to inspect, and, as it were, dissect the nature of this real world, must derive all from things themselves. Nor can any substitution or compensation of wit, meditation, or argument, (were the whole wit of all combined in one,) supply the place of this labour, investigation, and personal examination of the world; our method then must necessarily be pursued, or the whole forever abandoned. But men have so conducted themselves hitherto, that it is little to be wondered at if nature do not disclose herself to them."
- Francis Bacon."Novum Organum". 1620.

This is the most profound, most productive, noble liberating and best idea in the history of our species.

Thomas, the mythical Moses, Baum,

You definitely live in a "neuron" world of your own.

Hi Humanity! Or at least the eight or nine of you always lurking on this thread.

GOD IS. I should know. I see Him all the time.
And you could too if you would just open your eyes.

God IS. Well kinda.
While He is not actually a person in the accepted sense of the word, or an actual entity that we can see or touch, He is nontheless real just as Santa Claus is; and takes up the same amount of brain space.

Close your eyes and believe...and THERE He is, as real as the Fairies and the Hobbits.
Isn't it exciting? To know that in the brain everything exists that you want to exist?
And The Kingdom exists too!! You just gotta believe.

Be ready. See you when you get there.

Folks without the imagination to believe in our Creator are doomed to spend eternity in Hell. And why not I say? They don't deserve any better.

Religious thinking is by definition thinking inside the box.The bigger picture is outside the box.
In pondering the cosmos and the meaning of life
the God hypothesis prevents any further inquiry into what life is really all about.
Our ancestors,the people who invented religions and gods in the first place,were ignorant,illiterate and superstitious beyond our wildest imaginations.
Unable to make any kind of sense of their situation
they figured that there must be SOMEONE responsible for all this. If any of us had been around in those frightening times we would have agreed with them;and we would have used the god idea to explain everything,from the trees moving in the wind to the patterns of the clouds drifting by.
We've come a long way since then.We no longer have to pray to everything that moves.We know better.
We are now able to think outside the box called religion,and get a clearer picture of reality.
There should be no need of the supernatural in this new century.Surely we've moved beyond that.

Mark Twain wrote...

"The easy confidence with which I know
another man's religion is foolish,
teaches me to suspect that mine is also"
This is a man with a brain talking.One of America's
greatest ever.If I was religious such observations
would definitely have me examine my belief.
I wish religious folk were braver and had more curiosity about the real world.Before its too late.
The reason Hitchins and others are writing books attacking religion is because the survival of the world is at stake.
9/11 was a faith based attack on America.It was all about religion. And it aint over yet.

Thomas Baum.

The comments you refer to were not written by me but by the noted British philosopher ACGrayling.

You would do well to attempt to comprehend what he is saying; though I suspect you will be unable to do so, because your delusions of a god and other supernatural twaddle have ruined your objectivity and common sense.
You are every bit as absurd and ridiculous as Spiderman2 is.
Get a life.

Thomas, The Mythical Moses of the NT, Baum,

Welcome to the realm of Reality!!!!

CCNL

Even tho "your" bible is so lightweight and virtually empty considering all that you and your colleagues have ripped out of it, if you would look at one that has not yet been cannibalized, you should be able to see that what you write about has already been fortold in the bible.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

DENNIS W.

You wrote, "Voltaire says that he honors the man who seeks truth, but despises the man who claims to have found it."

First, what about the person that, The Truth has found him?

Second, do you follow Voltaire?

Third, do you think we should look up to our fellow human beings, look down on our fellow human beings or look at our fellow human beings?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Merry, Merry, Merry Quite Contrary,

Apparently in your "travels" to wherever you say you are, you have no access to the studies of the NT and/or historical Jesus exegetes. So we shall provide some "to the pointers" for your perusal to keep you in the realm of Reality:

Part 1:

From Schillebeeckx in his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And then there is that famous quote you might want to emblazon on a T-shirt as you travel the lands of Islam.

"Until the koran is deflawed, no one is safe!!!"

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

RE: Your post

Is this a joke?

Greed Is Not Good So What Do We Do About It?

It is written,” The Lord has filled the Hungary with good things and the rich He has sent empty away."

“It is natural to man to desire external things as means to an end: wherefore this desire is devoid of evil, in so far as it is held in check by the rule taken from the nature of the end. But greed and avarice exceed this rule, and therefore is immoral.

“Secondly, greed may signify extreme excessiveness in the internal affection which a man has for riches when, for instance, a man loves them, desires them, or delights in them, excessively and inordinately. On this way by greed, a man sins against himself, because it causes disorder in his affections, though not in his body as do the sins of the flesh.

“As a consequence, however, it is a sin against God, just as all mortal grievances against God and man are, inasmuch as man despises things eternal for the sake of temporal things.

"Natural inclinations should be regulated according to reason, which is the governing power in human nature. Hence, though many people seek more greedily the aid of external things, just as everyone that is in need seeks to have his need supplied, no one is excused from doing evil if they exceed this due measure of reason with regard to riches.

“Insatiable greed is often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels.

It becomes a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and everything is measured by these inordinate desires.

Hence, there is no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglected their duty, and the unity and stability of the family is undermined, namely, society in a word is shaken to its foundations and is on the way to ruin.”

"The Natural Moral Law, in the Tenth Commandment, forbids greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit for one's own sake and the good for no other but one's self. It forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches and their attendant power. It also forbids the desire to commit injustice by harming our neighbor in his temporal goods:

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?

1. Become a Catholic and seek the love of God through his Church.

2. Study the Beatitudes so that you may know the rewards that await you, and that by doing the will of God your hope and innate desires for eternal happiness will be fulfilled.

3. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor as you love yourself and as God so loves you.

5. Perform the Corporal Works of Mercy.

6. Love God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your soul. and then go out into the world and do what your heart desires. Then smile and give your face a holiday.

Concerned the Christian Never-endingly Ludicrous:

That should have been "neither as subject Nor complement"--blasted heat.

No need to post from the Loonasphere. News will come to us from astronomers.

Goodspeed!

M. Anonymous
Islamabad and Actuality

Wiglaf,

I am off to Lahore, but Bewildful and my kinsmen are ever in my thoughts. Keep the word hords locked away. I shall return on Monday to lead the search for Bewildful should he not have returned by then.

Gaze up if you would, if it is evening where you await your Language Warlord, and see if CCNL is circling the moon. If you see his spinning shape up there, know that all is well with Bewildful.

M. Anonymous
Language Sportspersons Fellowship

Concerned the Christian Never-endingly Ludicrous:

The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board.

Exploitive and the stuff that folklore is made of. I can see you missed your calling. Literary criticism. Must rid yourself of lingering idolatry and attachment to things of this world, gnosis, etc. Keep in mind that whomever can serve neither as subject or complement of any form of the verb Be (am, is , are/was, were). Mistakes in BE constructions have ruined the most promising careers, among which yours doesn't figure.

M. Anonymous
Islamabad and reality

Concerned the Christian Never-endingly Ludicrous:

That should have been P.B. Still, give Frankenstein a read. Good for you exegetical types.

CCNL: Concerned the Christian Never-endingly Ludicrous

No, exegete. Exegesis is for scholars of literature. May I recommend Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, if literature is your thing? Inspired by the Golem, with whom I had a pint earlier.

A more continuous narrative, although P.S. had his Romantic hand in it. Did more harm than good.

Must have your JC, mustn't you. Kind of like a teddy bear for you believers. That doesn't bother. This religion nonsense is unlikely to leave us any time soon.

In fact, I detest it when atheists such as I speak with contempt for believers such as your deluded self. The problem with you is hypocrisy, and bigotry. Believe away. (Pixies, leprechauns, and the Loch Ness monster are also good believables. See post of Dennis W)

But stop bothering people. No more lists. And no more bigotry. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, Q GOSPELLY OR OTHERWISE. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS THAT YOU DO NOT GET.

The Golem, who says his name is Ned, wishes you good speed on your way to the Loonasphere.

M. Anonymous
Islamabad and Reality

Merry, Merry, Merry Quite Contrary and Obviously Not an NT Exegete,

Again for your perusal. Call when finished:

References and commentary to the existence of an historical Jesus as studied in depth by many contemporary NT exegetes:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at books.google.com/books.

There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.

Then there are these scriptural references:

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Were these scriptural stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the constant event.

Added suggested readings:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative

40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q

50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's, The Real Jesus,

ACGrayling;

It has been well said that one should not be so open minded that one's brains fall out. This is a good admonition to those who, for example, pusillanimously declare themselves agnostics when the only rational alternative to belief in the existence of supernatural beings can be atheism.

This is because the basis of belief in the existence and gods and goddesses is no different from that for belief in pixies, namely legend and credulity; and the grounds for entertaining the thought that something might exist (footprints, fur snagged on fences, grunting in the night, actually seeing the creature in question bounding up a hillside) require much better and more consistent supports than the pre-scientific fictions invented by our ancestors to explain what they did not understand.

People forget how strong the belief in the Little People was until quite recently - they were a feature of things well into Victorian times and even later. They were blamed for much, such as missing pins and curdled milk, the lights seen on the marshes,and various aches and twinges suffered by old ladies. As reason diffused its happy light over the Western hemisphere, courtesy of the growth of literacy in those same times, belief in pixies and their ilk faded.

But superstition has strong talons; a lady of Cork, literate and generally sensible, was once asked whether she believed in leprechauns, and replied, "I do not, but they are their anyway," thus beautifully capturing the spirit of agnosticism in all its faint-hearted fence-sitting tendentiousness; for it is premised on the fact that since no one has proved that X does not exist, X might exist, as if this in any way followed, and as if responsible and disciplined intellectual endeavor does not show the fallacy of thinking that, for example, the fact that no one has proved the non-existence of Tolkein's Hobbits means that they therefore might exist in some Middle Earth after all.

Still: it remains important to be open-minded, though with a readiness to subject what is offered for our intellectual assent to stringent evaluation by the light of probability and experience. These two latter are indispensable servants of thought. They explain the difference between the assiduity with which some seek the Loch Ness Monster, while no such expense of cameras and microphones, boats and planes, bearded researchers and photojournalists has ever clustered around the possibility that a woodland grove might be the scene of moonlit pixie parties. For the idea of large marine beasts has a plausibility endowed by whales and manatees, while the idea of antique such beasts has its plausibility from sharks and coelacanths, both of them survivors from hideous depths of zoological time.

Oddly, it is the credulous who are the least open-minded. They accept dogma, and dogma closes - even indeed punishes - enquiry thereafter.
Voltaire says that he honors the man who seeks truth, but despises the man who claims to have found it.
The saying touches the essence of the difference exceedingly well, and should be the motto of anyone who aspires to intellectual honesty.

ACGrayling. The Sense of Things.

Aubade

I work all day, and get half drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there;
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
And interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.

The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not used, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never:
But at the total emptiness forever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon, nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

There is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die
And specious stuff that says no rational being
Can fear a thing it cannot feel, not seeing
that this is what we fear - no sight. nor sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anaesthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision
Most things may never happen: this one will.
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no-one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.

Philip Larkin 1922 - 1985.

How easily it is forgotten that most rich get a large proportion of their wealth at the expense of the poor - by paying as low a wage as they can get away with. Some get rich by being paid exorbitant wages quite out of proportion with the work done and the knowledge and skills required for the job.

CCNL, whoever he is, writes.

Apparently even atheists can suffer from a 3 B Syndrome.

There you have it. You must have your JC, musn't you.

Superstitious nonsense. Much prefer the Golem.

CCNL: A little (very little) learning is a dangerous thing. You are no longer simply a nuisance. You have become offensive If you won't take my advice (see A,B,C recommendations below), please join JJ in the Loonasphere for R & R.

As matters stand, you're adrift in outer space and cyperspace, taking up too much space on this thread.

Merry, Merry, Merry Anon whomever you are,

Apparently even atheists can suffer from a 3 B Syndrome. Read some Schillebeeckx for a quick cure.

Hi Arminius,

Please do give Joyce a shot. Stunning stuff, Portrait. Annotated edition or decent grounding in Catholic thinking, ritual, helpful.

Dubliners--short stories. Magnificent. Read the Dead. Maybe available online. Snow is general all over Ireland. See film, afterward. Also brilliant.

M. Anonymous
Former Captive of Christianity

What you have posted from Crossan is sorry, sorry stuff. To bad you didn't read it before clicking on post:

"And it is very hard to imagine...."

He finds it hard to imagine? Then I guess what he can imagine must be true. As for yours truly, it is very hard to imagine that given Rabbi Judah Lowe's reputation as a scholar, ethicist, etc., that he did not create the Golem when he claimed he did and explained how he did it. It is particularly difficult in light of the numerous contemporaneous testimonies, and those that continue up to the present.

I'm embarrassed for you.

A CALL FROM EARTH TO CCNL:

THERE US NO Q GOSPEL. IT IS A WORN OUT DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN. IT IS A THE ANGUISHED HYPOTHESIS OF THE ANGUISHED AND STILL SUPERSTITIOUS. HELLO?!

BTW, TO WHICH POOR DID THE "APOSTLES" GIVE? GREAT SUPPER, THAT LAST. ONLY THING MISSING WAS DESSERT. BUT THE CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PIGGING OUT ALL OVER THE WORLD, EVER SINCE.

INDULGING THEMSELVES ON ANY NUMBER OF LEVELS, IN ALL KINDS OF VARIETIES, PUSHING EVERYONE ELSE OUT OF THE WAY. REASON, THOUGHT, EVIDENCE, MORALITY, BE DAMNED. LIKE YOU.

A. READ JOYCE

B. SEE JESUS LIZARD AT YOUTUBE

C. HAVE A GUINNESS

M. Anonymous,
Former Captive of Christianity

CCNL:

Once again, Crossan notwithstanding, there is no evidence that Jesus ever said thirty per cent of anything. What little evidence that a Jesus may have existed comes not from Josefus, whose accounts of any number of phenomena have been thorougly disproven.

As for Tacitus, he cribbed from Josefus. Crossan's Q Gospel is risible, more to come on the NT Q(ueer) Gospel site. As for the "archaelogical evidence," there is none.

Back to the OT. Your comments on Dever, et al?

Once again references and commentary to the existence of an historical Jesus as studied in depth by many contemporary NT exegetes:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at books.google.com/books.

There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.

Then there are these scriptural references:

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Were these scriptural stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the constant event.

Added suggested readings:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's, The Real Jesus,

Well, well, well, we have the Arminius and Merry Anon show this afternoon. Hmmm, "blog hogs"??

Bigot am I?? Spammer am I?? Hmmm, no just a Realist addressing 6000 years of religious myth and mumbo jumbo with a little factual data thrown in.

Once again addressing these 6000 years of religious seeds of greed:

In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

In Christianity (including Mormonism), the "historic" founder was the simple preacher man, long-dead Jewish fellow, Jesus. Not much greed there but one can make a case for the following steps for the start of greed in the said religion:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

M Anon,

Yes, I am aware that the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual) crowd think 'queer' it is ok. Among us straight folks it is considered not quite proper. No matter, a classical tempest in a teapot.

I'll give Joyce a shot. I may even have a copy here.

Arminius

Arminius,

Actually, the word queer isn't derogatory at all amony the LBGQ scholars (lesbian, bisexual, gay, queer), et al. Gay folk like "queer."

Portrait of the Artist is very accessible, but get one of the annotated editions, since, otherwise, you could miss some of the illusions. (Notwithstanding the case of Susan J., there is no Catholic like one who has "lapsed.")

Also, read "Dubliners." Magnificent as well. As for the rest, gets much more difficult. Must be committed. Have time. Have a couple of other books nearby. Read aloud. Worth the effort.

But Portrait and Dubliners, you will like, and they should not cause you cognitive suffering as Ulysses and Finnegans caused yours truly.

M. Anonymous

Ah, Arminius,

I recall what B was: Go to YouTube and watch the Jesus Christ Lizard.

Arminius, I am with Wiglaf, my kinsman, on this. The JCL may our last best hope. Humanity owes you a great debt.

M. Anonymous

M Anon,

You are right, CCNL, whatever his faults, is not an idiot.

Nothing wrong with homosexuals at all. Remember, I am Episcopal, we have a gay bishop, and I am fine with that. The problem here is the word: 'queer' is somewhat derogatory, 'gay' is not.

As to Joyce, I confess that I have never had the guts to try him. A weakness on my part, a gap in what passes for my education.

Guinness? Bring it on!

Arminius

Arminius:

I know what CCNL does, but he does more than cut and paste. He's not an idiot. He is a bigot. Time for him either to reform or beat it.

I made, what I believe, are three excellent recommendations to him.

A. Read James Joyce, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Good for all ccnls

C. Guinness

I forgot what B was. But I'm sure Crossan would approve of A, if not C.

If he chooses not to follow my excellent advice and continue on the road to perdition, fine. Why must we be kept up to date on his journey?

M. Anonymous,
Former Captive, etc.

PS. What's wrong with queers?

Damnit, M Anon, I am NOT offended! (LOL)

Anyway, my classical education of course did not proceed in any haphazard manner, excepting, perhaps, my bad study habits...

Wikipedia is a starting point, and usually a good one. I started there. My journey has just begun.

Arminius

Arminius,

Btw. yes, my friend, I am very much aware of what the Q stands for. Quelle, indeed. How about a Quelle Goloem Gospel. Plenty of the same kind of evidence.

Incidently the future site name, NT Q(ueer) Gospel Theory derives from the title of a riotiously amusing paper presented at a conference. There are those biblical scholars who have quite had it with all this nonsense.

Still, you have not said what offends you.

Merry Anonymous,
Former Captive of Christianity

Hi, M Anon,

Well, you set me quite a task. So, in no particular order.....

CCNL is something of a spammer. He is known as the King of Cut and Paste for the endless repetitions he posts. He is capable of different posts, but does not seem able to discuss anything in a reasonable manner. Plus, he is a bigot.

How did you 'offend' me? Well, you did not, but I was a bit taken aback when you said "...the Q(ueer) gospel...". 'Queer' in American English is a derogatory term for 'gay'. This ain't England.

As for the OT being for a large part myth - many Jews agree with that. So do I. The credible history in the OT probably begins with the Babylonian Exile. I am prepared to believe - stress on 'believe' - that Abraham may have been a historical figure, as well as his descendants. Want proof? Forget it.... this is wishful thinking on my part.

As for Jesus - E Favorite and I have discussed this at length. I learned a lot, and grew to respect her. At any rate, I am quite aware that there is no direct, contemporary evidence that Jesus existed. There is a vast amount of indirect evidence, starting with the Gospels. While I am an avid student of history, I am ignorant on historical methods in a case like this. As far as the OT and Jesus goes, it does not matter if a good deal of the OT is myth. The message of Jesus is the same, regardless. Prophesies are of no use here, just icing on the cake.

Remember, I ain't yer average Christian.

Arminius

Sputterman2 is an idiot.

The aluminum-hydrogen technology is NOT a source of energy. The energy is STORED in the aluminum and TRANSFERRED to the hydrogen as needed. All it does is alleviate the need to store molecular hydrogen locally.

Splatterman2 is an idiot.

It's too bad that Splatteman2 is such an idiot, because I think we are all geeky enough to find the technology facinating, and I think we all were cutting the idiot a little slack on this one. I've read a little more about it, and another advantage is that the aluminium oxide reactant can be shipped to a power plant to be recharged on-site, avoiding transmission losses (of course, these are replaced by transportation costs). It would also allow power plants to be sited in remote locations (and even off the grid), because the energy is actually being SHIPPED in the form of aluminum metal as opposed to being transmitted via powerlines.

Spittleman2 is an idiot.

Which leaves me wondering, what does Spittleman2 even think the aluminiom-hydrogen technology even is? He seems to think it's a SOURCE of energy. He even seems to think it's FUSION, and he may possibly think it's somehow a piece of the SUN!

Arminius,

The fifth paragraph in my post should have read as follows:

"However, the manner in which persons of faith easily dismiss texts, etc., sans all relevant evidence, that properly belong to those of another religion does not speak well of said persons of faith."

I have posted before on Susan's thread regarding these matters, in which I have some expertise. Silberman and Finkelstein (first author in the book to which the former's WaPo article refers) has a view. Dever, an archaeolgist, et al, also has views. Reading that which supports one's self-delusional "debunking," as CCNL does, excluding opposing evidence as others do, basing one's biblical expertise on Wikepedia and the biased sources posted on this thread is not the best way to proceed in an investigation. Excluding from the discussion the several scholars who wrote the OT (sic) does not a balanced study make.

Did your education into the classics proceed this way? I doubt it.

I doubt it, Arminius. I mean no offense. Many times we do and say things quite out of consciousness--all of us.

M. Anonymous,
Former Captive of Christianity

Arminius,

Ii'm sure I don't mean to offend you anymore than you mean to offend Jews and when you say that "we" know that the OT (sic) is fiction. What incidentally does Dever say about this? Surely, you and E Favorite and CCNL have read him? Archaeologically speaking one can't dismiss him.

It strikes me as curious anti-bigotry wise, and I'm not accusing you of being a bigot, that evidentally educated people are willing to dismiss much of the OT, since, of course, Silberman does not dismiss the whole thing, but get nervoust when we point out that there is no scholarly evidence supporting the existence of Jesus "sayings," not 30% of them, not 0%.

Further, without the OT (sic), which you so readily dismiss having read Wikepedia, et al, the NT, loses ground, does it not? What did Jesus come to fulfill? Fiction? The OT, Part II?

As for his followers, they have raped the world. That is simply the way of it. It began with Constantine and it has never stopped. Surely, something is amiss, theologically speaking.

As I have posted before, the manner in which atheists, and I'm among them, speak to persons of faith sickens me. However, the manner in which persons of faith easily dismiss texts, etc., sans all relevant evidence that may be relevant to does not speak well for them.

Finally, I'm not sure what, in my post, offends you. The site is going up. There is no archaelogical evidence, no Dever, et al, who has been able to provide NT archaelogical evidence, no others who have raised questions that we still cannot answer for the NT just by looking around the region as has been done for the OT (sic).

You may be Christian, but others may not be. I would keep that in mind when talking about "what we know," particularly, as I have posted before, because you do not.

Finally, what is it in my post that offends you?

M. Anonymous,
Former Captive of Christianity

PS. I'm beginning to think of CCNL as a spammer.

M Anon,

I have no more use for CCNL than you do. But when posting please bear in mind that I am Christian.

As for the Q Gospel, I'm sure you are aware that it is hypothetical. The name 'Q', of course, is from the German "Quelle" meaning "source"

CCNL:

What Jesus? The Q Gospel Jesus? Soon to appear on the NT Q(ueer) Gospel site? To whom did the "disciples" incidentally leave all this? And his legendary aescetism? Hmmm. Some last supper.
Only thing that might have been missing is dessert. No problem. HIs descendants are pigging out all over the world.

Fair tales are fine, just so you know what you're reading. Josefus told good stories. This wasn't the only one.

POst the Q Gospel. Tell us when it was discovered.

After 95 comments, it is time to reiterate religions' role in "historic examples of greed":

In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

In Christianity (including Mormonism), the "historic" founder was the simple preacher man, long-dead Jewish fellow, Jesus. Not much greed there but one can make a case for the following steps for the start of greed in the said religion:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

Wiglaf,

Alack and alas, I am stranded on another continent. Will set sail across the skies and return on Monday. For Bewildful, we look to that indominitable spirit that preserved him in the grotesque face of gaps, aporias, slippage, monstrous and dreadful.
...............................................
Arminius,

If you want to understand greed, Casas' History is as good a place as any to start. Journals kept by Cortez' "soldiers," Thomas Harriot, etc. This is a country founded on greed. Religion, imperialism, capitalism guide the will and bring us to new wisdom: To each according to what he can take, from each according to how much can be stolen.

IN pre-capitalist societies, such as the one I'm now in, it gets uglier because the From Each are all around one.

M. Anonymous
Islamabad

Wiglaf,

Alack and alas, I am stranded on another continent. Will set sail across the skies and return on Monday. For Bewildful, we look to that indominitable spirit that preserved him in the grotesque face of gaps, aporias, slippage, monstrous and dreadful.
...............................................
Arminius,

If you want to understand greed, Casas' History is as good a place as any to start. Journals kept by Cortez' "soldiers," Thomas Harriot, etc. This is a country founded on greed. Religion, imperialism, capitalism guide the will and bring us to new wisdom: To each according to what he can take, from each according to how much can be stolen.

IN pre-capitalist societies, such as the one I'm now in, it gets uglier because the From Each are all around one.

M. Anonymous
Islamabad

"Daniel in the Lion's Den:

How come Spiderman is the only one who knows about this new energy source?"

I knew about it. I work for the university in queston. But it is far from being a practical source of enegy at this time.

IF THE U.S CONGRESS IS SERIOUS IN STAMPING OUT THE SPECULATORS IN THE OIL COMMODITY MARKET, THEY SHOULD PASS A LAW THAT WOULD PLACE A CEILING PRICE FOR OIL FOR A PERIOD OF TIME (3 months to 6 months). After the period expires, set another ceiling price that is lower than the previous. Im sure that in 1 year time, the price of oil will be back to its normal level which could be 40 to 50 dollars per barrel. No speculators would like that and for sure a selling spree would occur.

That is the best solution to scare off speculators.

DZ,

If anybody has a good reason for an SUV, you do! I have no problem with that at all. OK, gas tax it is.

Arminius

Arminius:

No, do not tax SUVs. Tax consumption not the instrument of consumption. I have an SUV - hybrid that gets 28 mpg - but still SUV. Try taking 4 Siberian huskies and a dog sled and related equipment up to 7000' in the heavy snow in anything else. The difference is that I only drive 4000 miles per year. That's consumption of 161 gallons of gasoline. One of my neighbors frequently hassles me about the SUV thing and brags about his 45 mpg car, but he drives 30,000 miles per year. That's consumption of 667 gallons. What's the problem here - well, it's not my SUV.

Hi Arminius,

Speaking of savage greed, how goes it with Casas?

Regards,

Wiglaf

Dear M. Anonymous,

Speaking of heroism, our word hoards have been packed since Wednesday in readiness for your arrival at dawn on Thor's Day for to find the long absent Bewildful. What is keeping you, Language Warlord? Are you trapped on the other side of the world? When will you return to lead us after our kinsman?

Thinking of you and Bewildful,

Wiglaf,
Language Sportspersons Fellowship

Ayn Rand would have avoided today's Bush administration like the plague. She would regard them as a full participant in the type of welfare state she abhorred, albeit on behalf of his wealthy cohort as much as the meek. He is certainly not for *the individual* in any rational sense.

Just as in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, we hear greed being condemned nearly nonstop, yet it is the policies of selflessness that are leading us to ever more authoritarian societies, more mysticism, with more conflicts, more chance for war, and less prosperity.

Are my lungs "greedy" for consuming air? Is my stomach "greedy" for digesting food? Are my veins "greedy" for only pumping blood for me, and not for the public good? Self-interest is the essence of life. And just as it is with the body, so it is with the ethical code we should live by. A true ethics of self-interest does not involve the type of brutal sacrifice often attributed to it, but a politics built on worship of the group at the expense of the individual does. Rational self-interest demands self-sufficiency, a ruthless adherence to the truth, a life of productivity, and hopefully happiness and prosperity (see Ayn Rand; The Virtue of Selfishness).

So, before condemning an idea for sending us to hell in a handcart, it would be good to find out who's really doing the pushing.

DILD, Arminius, Mr. Mark:

We could probably learn much from our European brothers and sisters in that they have taken a leap forward in harvesting wind energy (electric cars "refueling" from sources powered by wind turbines) and solar power. Germany is attempting to convert much of the powering of Munich by solar panels lining the edges of the Audubon. I find this exciting and promising. These people have vision!

My wife and I are attempting to partially "solarize" our home, but there are many things to do before adding panels. We bought a device called a Kill-a-watt to measure device consumption and frightfully learned that our older freezer consumed the amount of energy in one day equal to washing 27 loads of clothes in our front-load washer.

Arminius I believe mentioned it below: incentives, tax advantages to put in panels, tax advantages and cooperation with power companies to allow "reverse metering" to feed the grid from our homes.

I hope (and even though an atheist) PRAY that the next administration will be about caring for our world, having some bigger vision, and being a part of a greater citizenship, and less about greed, terrorist-hunting, and politics of fear.

Just another thought.

This is off the subject of greed, but on the subject of the rising price of oil.

I can make a prediction on what might happen, if the price of oil keeps going up, up, up. Before, when this happened, and we had actual gas shortages, we did not have personal computers, cell phones, and the internet. Now we have all those resources. There are many people in many jobs who could work at home. They can work off of their home computer instead of their work computer and their office phones can be transferred to their homes.

There are probalby many millions of people who could be accomodated in this day at least one day a week by their employers, if the shortages of gas became so severe that transportation was actually disrtupted.

And then for business meetings and conferences and training, there is teleconferencing. Many business meeting could probably be transitioned from actual travel to far distant places, to virtual teleconferences.

Mayvbe these new ways of working at home, and conducdting teleconferences may not be sutiable for all cases, but surely, there is a flexibility built into our economy and in sychronization of the business world that is new and that perhaps can absorb these new energy challenges, by accomplishing the same amount of work, more efficiently.

"...private greed can only be checked by a certain amount of legal redistribution of wealth..."

How can an emotion be anything other than private?
One must question the clarity of this writer's thought.

Imagine harnessing the power of gamma rays - with which we are bombarded at every moment. Vast energy potential beyond our wildest dreams, could we but capture this energy in a usable form - the most powerful in the known universe. It puts atomic fusion to shame.....

Arminius said

"I believe the answer is pure, stubborn stupidity, and the unfortunate ability of too many people to admit that they were wrong."

It's heart breaking, isn't it? Because I am arguing these things with my neighbors, and coworkers, and close relatives and loved ones, whom, basically, I love and care about. So there is all this frustration and hostility bubbling over whenever this stuff comes up.

There is in all this, some greed. I am greeedy for freedom, the freedom to get in my car and drive around as much as I want, without thinking about how much it is costing. But people who want the big car, are greedy for the big beautiful, gigantic, luxuriant vehicle, which they somehow associate in their heads with goodness and happiness. But they aren't happy paying to fill up, and they aren't happy, being forced to drive less, and they aren't happy to consider driving something smaller.

And I can't really gloat and enjoy my temporary position of advantage, because I like all these people and want the best for them.

How come Spiderman is the only one who knows about this new energy source?

And also, Mr Mark and Arminius, did you know that to get a small quantity of enriched uranium, whole mountains have to be bulldozed away in massive mining projects to dig out the raw material, uranium ore. So there are complications to nuclear power, that are not widely known.

I have seen the windmills in Palm Springs, CA and they are gigantic and amazing. In addition to solar and wind, there is also tidal energy, which you don't hear too much about.

And I have wondered sometimes, might ships supplement their power with sails, and use the wind, like in the pre-industrialized times? I mean, couldn't the oil tankers from the middle east be powered with sails? Just a thought.

Daniel,

Oops... make that "...the unfortunate INability of too many people to admit that they were wrong."

Daniel ITLD,

You said, about big cars and their benighted owners:
"So what is up with this attitude, that we are entitled to drive such large cars, and that driving a smaller simply is not an option?

I believe the answer is pure, stubborn stupidity, and the unfortunate ability of too many people to admit that they were wrong.

About a year and a half ago, my old car had just about reached the end of its life, and I wanted a new car. I got alot of advice on all the big and luxuriant cars and SUV's that I would "look good in." But I bought a small car that gets good gas milege. I am not quite sure why I did that. I felt that the price of gas was only going to go higher and higher, and that it was just a smart thing to buy something small and efficient.

Now, almost everyone I know, without exception, is driving their big cars, and they complain alot about paying so much for gas. But whenever I suggest that they might drive a smaller car, they really act pained, as though I am suggesting someting that is really unreasonable. And most everyone I know has a condescendining attitude about my small car, even though now, I still have never paid more than 40 dollars to fill it up.

So what is up with this attitude, that we are entitled to drive such large cars, and that driving a smaller simply is not an option?

I don't get it.

Maybe there are some ideas out there on this subject.

Mr. Mark, you should lighten up and should watch Spiderman2, the movie. Doctor Octopus highlighted the use of that hydrogen nuclear power source. If you watched it but didn't get it, that answers why you and Arminius need to keep silent whenever technology is the topic. Stick to music. Both of you.

Mr Mark,

First, grand answer to Spidey, I enjoyed it hugely.

Next, the nukes. I thought there was much more uranium around, I know Australia has a lot of it. I will follow your leads.

There is one other source of nuke power: there is a substantial tonnage of plutonium and weapons-grade uranium in storage, the result mainly of warheads being deconstructed according to treaty. I have a close friend who is a nuclear physicist in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He let me know that America has at least 250 tons of enriched uranium, and even now is diluting it with normal uranium to make fuel. I don't know what difference this makes in the equation of years.

Arminius

Mr. Mark posted "No matter how it’s been made, hydrogen has no energy in it.... To put energy into hydrogen, it must be compressed or liquefied. "

Mr. Mark , for believing that statement, you and Arminius became idiots. Hydrogen is the powersource of this earth. The sun is a big ball of hydrogen. Future nuclear plants will also be using hydrogen instead of uranium.

Also, by using aluminum-gallium alloy, there is no need to liquefy hydrogen. All you need to do, is fill up your tank with water, the alluminum-gallium alloy will do the rest. No hydrogen liquification needed.

The only reason why it's not used yet is because the technology is new and is not perfected yet and the reason for that is because somebody owns the patent. Once the government gives it full support to the patent owner by investing heavily on this technology, it would fast track the use of that technology.

Arminius -

I recently read that the biggest problem with nuclear power right now is the lack of fuel sources.

To whit:

"To decide how valid an option nuclear energy is we must understand the limitations on the availability of uranium, and the current state of reactor technology. There are many uncertainties about how the nuclear industry might develop in the future, but it is possible to conclude that the supply of uranium, at a level that could support large-scale power generation, might only be viable for a matter of decades. Potentially, could a shortage of uranium be the Achilles-heel of the nuclear industry that, so far, the anti-nuclear lobby have missed?

"At the current level of uranium consumption (67,000 tonnes per year) known uranium resources (2.8 million tonnes of uranium) would last 42 years – a fact highlighted by the European Commission in their Energy Green Paper [EC 2001]. The known and estimated resources plus secondary resources (such as the military inventory), a total of around 4.8 million tonnes, would last 72 years. Of course this assumes that nuclear continues to provide just a fraction of the world's energy supply. If capacity were increased six-fold then 72 years would reduce to 12 years. This is because nuclear energy, in terms of global energy supply, must increase by a factor of four to eight to make any significant difference to the use of fossil fuels around the globe. Consequently the expected lifetime of the uranium resource would fall by a similar factor."

Source: ...http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html...

Seen in this light, nuclear power is hardly even a short-term solution.

spiderman2 writes:

"In whatever topic or subjects, you guys are idiots. Hydrogen (nuclear fusion from the sun) powers our solar system. It means that the energy we get from solar panels are a result of energy coming from hydrogen fusion.

I made a mistake though in stating that aluminum oxide reacts with water. It should be aluminum-gallium alloy which reacts with water."

Well, here's another instance of On Faith's resident idiot calling others idiots.

For some reason, Spidey takes Arminius and me to task for questioning his proposed panacea of developing hydrogen as a replacement for oil-based fuels, like the gasoline that powers cars. What else were we to believe he was talking about when he (Spidey) wrote this on May 29, 2008 11:42 AM?:

"The government can also choose to invest heavily on aluminum oxide. This compound can separate hydrogen from water easily.

"Fast track this technology and you would see the price of oil tumbling down.

"Oil producing countries by now should look for alternatives aside from selling oil to sustain their economy. This could hit them real hard."

Gee, Spidey's original post makes nary a mention of, "hydrogen (nuclear fusion from the sun) powers our solar system. It means that the energy we get from solar panels are a result of energy coming from hydrogen fusion."

I see.

Spidey is trying to move the goalposts once again.

Spidey is trying (unsuccessfully and rather clumsily) to wiggle out of his earlier premise that hydrogen energy could be powering our cars by implying that he was "actually" speaking of the hydrogen power one captures from the sun by employing solar panels.

Uh huh...sure.

Well, if that's what you meant in your ORIGINAL post on the subject, Spidey, may I ask two simple follow-up questions? To whit:

1. What does the fact that "aluminum-gallium oxide...can separate hydrogen from water easily," HAVE TO DO WITH GATHERING SOLAR POWER THROUGH SOLAR PANELS?

And,

2. why should the "government choose to invest heavily" (your words in your original post, Spidey) in aluminum-gallium oxide if the Spidey plan is to GATHER THE SUN'S POWER THROUGH SOLAR PANELS, rather than harvesting hydrogen as a liquid or gaseous fuel source by using A-G-O to "separate hydrogen from water easily"?

I'm looking forward to your...whatever they are, Spidey...they're never real answers.

Here's a thought, Spidey (and see if you can stay with me on this one): maybe you could give us all a break and just admit that your original post had nothing to do with solar panels and everything to do with harvesting hydrogen to be used as a liquid or gaseous fuel source to power cars, heat homes etc.

My guess? You're not man enough to admit that you look like an idiot in this exchange, even though all of us here have been in similar situations and would be more than happy to cut you some slack on this one.

Arminius wrote "Mr Mark, If I wore a hat, it would be off to you for your reply to Spidey (whichever one he was) regarding the great hydrogen scam. Seldom have I ever seen a post so well researched, written, and thunderously effective. "

In whatever topic or subjects, you guys are idiots. Hydrogen (nuclear fusion from the sun) powers our solar system. It means that the energy we get from solar panels are a result of energy coming from hydrogen fusion.

I made a mistake though in stating that aluminum oxide reacts with water. It should be aluminum-gallium alloy which reacts with water.

WAY off subject.

Oh, Lord, the oil dependency. Now you had to get me started.....

Well, start with the American obsession, surpassing all other desires: the automobile. Solution:
1. Require 35 mpg immediately, to be increased
2. Tax the living hell out of SUVs
3. Make plug-in hybrids very attractive with tax breaks
4. Increase tax on gasoline/petrol to make #3 even more attractive

Of course, this brings us to the next problem: how to keep those hybrids running. Two problems:
1. All those expensive batteries
2. The power required for recharging all those plug-in hybrids

Ignoring the batteries, the next problem is power generation. How to cope?
1. Clean coal - possible, but expensive. Does not solve the environmental problems of mining it.
2. Wind farms - America has enough wind to supply the entire county. Problem A with this is persuading North Dakota and other places to accept several thousand square miles of wind farms. Problem B is transporting that power to where it is needed. That is very expensive due to power losses.
3. Solar - it must get cheaper. Can be done. Still is no 'silver bullet'.
4. Nukes - good solution for the short term of a century or two, but expensive.

Any thoughts?

Arminius

I think Mr Mark has a smart idea to conserve petroleum based products for cars and trucks since there is no other easy alternative to powering cars, than the internal combustion engine. Why burn up all the petroleum products for which other energy sources might be substituted?

The problems of energy are much more difficult complex and intractabale than most people realize; the infomration and news media portray this as just another easy problem to be solved, but it is not. Biofuels are not going to prove to be very effective. Hydrogen cells are not cost-effective. Wind and solar are marginally supplimental, but perhaps have some promise.

Increased effeiciency and conservation is a very good option, which mamy people just don't seem to want to face. Just smaller cars would do alot to help, and give us more time to figure out what to do.

“…We are taxed because we all have obligations to the larger community that sustains us…”

Das bedanya, Comrade Susan. I see you believe like me, Joe Stalin, that: “Your lives and the works of your lives belong to the State.”

I am glade you believe, otherwise, to the re-education work camp Gulags you must go, Comrade! Only foolish imperialist Capitalist Pigs believe that communities are to be voluntary associations of individuals. Only greedy imperialist swine capitalist dogs question the sovereign power of the State to impose the will of the workers on the individual. Now join me in this Workers Paradise ---- or else……

Chris and Mr Mark,

There indeed is research going on about hydrogen produced by aluminum oxide pellets coated with gallium. It has promise, but is not there yet.

see this -http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

Arminius

Point of clarity on the hydrogen article:

I failed to delete a few footnotes from the original that made nonsense of the numbers posted. It would have also helped if I had added a few delimiters for the sake of clarity.

Ergo,

Amount of fuel Tank weight with fuel Driving range Tank cost
Hydrogen 55 kg @3000 psi 400 kg 165 miles13 $200021
Gasoline 17 gallons 73 kg 493 miles $100

Should have been:

Amount of fuel/Tank weight with fuel/Driving range/Tank cost

Hydrogen 55 kg @3000 psi/400 kg/165 miles/$2000
Gasoline 17 gallons/73 kg/493 miles/$100

Hope that makes more sense.

I'm replying directly to a comment by Chris Everett, who says that it's morally problematic to tax the earnings from a bestselling book because the book exists only because of the author's effort. By contrast, taxing the gold someone mines is OK because gold is part of our communal heritage.

As the author of a bestselling book (albeit a modest bestseller), I feel well-placed to comment on this. Taxes, and the morality of taxation, should have nothing whatever to do with the source of the income or the creativity involved in producing the income. We are taxed because we all have obligations to the larger community that sustains us. True, my books wouldn't exist without me--but they also wouldn't exist without the society in which I was raised and the society in which I live. My parents brought me up. Part of my taxes go to pay for my mother's Medicare and Social Security. I've written all of my books in the New York Public Library. Part of my taxes (not nearly enough, given the pittance that the federal government spends on libraries) go to support that library system. No one, in a decent society, is exempt from obligations to the community. And no one, in a decent society, fails to benefit from services that are paid for collectively. Income from writing books is no more exempt from these social obligations than income from laying bricks.

I looked into Spidey's aluminium oxide idea. It appears that researchers at Purdue have come up with an aluminium alloy that reacts with water to produce hydrogen gas and aluminium oxide.

The real issue is always "where does the energy come from?" Oil is a NATURAL high-energy molecule. Aluminium metal is MAN MADE from the low-energy bauxite. The reason the aluminium-hydrogen idea is interesting is because it's cheaper for industries that want aluminium (e.g. for soda cans) to reprocess the aluminium oxide than it is to dig up and process more bauxite. But (my opinion) this begs the question, isn't it cheaper still to reprocess waste aluminium directly via conventional recycling? Doesn't this scheme borrow from Peter (aluminum metal industry) to pay Paul (energy industry). Doesn't this Biblical reference justify such an off-topic post on On Faith?

The aluminium-hydrogen idea might possibly add an EFFICIENCY to the aluminium cycle if it results in less waste of high-energy aluminium metal, but high-energy aluminium metal only exists because somebody used energy FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE to make it.

Arminius -

That cut-n-paste I did was from the Skeptic Magazine website.

Indeed, it looks like hydrogen "fuel" may be an even bigger scam than ethanol and biofuels. There's got to be a solution out there that makes sound scientific and economic sense.

I live in SoCal where solar power is an obvious option that isn't adopted by many, primarily because solar panels are too damn expensive. If this technology was made cheaper and installed on every rooftop we'd be cutting our dependence on oil like crazy. We also get lots of wind of the Pacific - another energy source that could be harvested and used to off-set oil.

As the article states, the best way to make cars more efficient is to lower their weight. Lighter cars take less energy to move their mass, hence less gas to get you the same distance.

The big mistake everyone makes in the alternate fuel debate is to think one must totally eliminate oil as a fuel source. That leads people to think what kind of fuel will be used in cars, which is myopic. Most people don't realize that many electric-generating plants used oil as a fuel source to produce the electricity. If we could convert our production of home and business electricity from oil to solar, the demand for oil would go down, gasoline prices would drop and we could maybe buy a few more decades of time to figure out a REAL solution by limiting the major use of oil as a fuel source to cars and trucks.

In 2001, gasoline accounted for 44% of oil fuels used in the USA. That means that fully 56% of oil-based fuels are used for something besides powering cars. Home heating oil and diesel account for 20% of oil-based fuel use in the USA.

Imagine a world where the power to run and heat your home came from solar and wind, with oil as a fuel reserved primarily for vehicular transportation? Seems to me that we could be reducing our use of oil by 50% if we restricted (as much as possible) our oil-derived fuels to gas and replaced non-gasoline oil fuels with renewables like solar and wind.

Reasonable not hateful,

Au contraire, I have read the other side of the historic simple preacher man's story. Father Ray Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament, 878 pages, is an excellent resource as is Luke Johnson's book, The Real Jesus. Brown's book is a must reference book for any orthodox Christian touching only however on the historic Jesus in the appendix and Brown fails to convince me that Professor Crossan and other NT exegete's attestation and stratum methods are in error. Ditto for Luke Johnson.

Then there are the books by Bishop NT Wright, another On-Faith panelist and a very orthodox Anglican. Bishop Wright unfortunately has a biased mind because of his position in the Anglican Church but he and Professor Crossan do have lively debates about the simple preacher man with many of these debates available on-line or in book form.

Some added words of wisdom by Professor Crossan concerning the last day of the simple preacher man: (from the book Who is Jesus?)

"My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Mr Mark,

Addendum - even if you did a cut-and-paste with that, my hat is still off to you.

RNH writes:

"Mr Mark-

I am the same age as you. I searched a long time ago, and have gone back over my conclusions. God, Yehweh, exists and it the creator of the universe- that is my conclusion. I don't expect it to make complete logical sense but much of what it out there does NOT make complete sense. If you think science is going to explain everything, you are sadly mistaken."

A few thoughts:

* Yes, much of what is "out there" doesn't make complete logical sense, but logic and reason still beat speculation, conjecture and whole-cloth belief as the best ways to determine the truth that underpins what's out there.

* Science doesn't claim to "explain everything," but it does offer the most-evidence-based claims we have as explanations.

Certainly, claiming "goddidit" as an explanation for the yet-unexplained in existence may provide short-term comfort to the average believer, but in the long term, it's a recipe for disillusionment as science will - eventually - provide plausible, non-supernatural explanations for just about everything one can imagine.

The gaps wherein god lives are shrinking at an alarming rate, at least to those of our species who embrace real, provable knowledge, rather than fearing and resisting the same.

* I wonder if your conclusions from long ago that you have "gone back over" are open to new evidence that might refute them, or if you're firmly ensconced in a defensive posture that turns a deaf ear to the entreaties of science, logic and reason?

Sad to think you've closed your mind to real enlightenment, and all because some ignorant Bronze Aged fears were indoctrinated into you as a child.

Mr Mark,

If I wore a hat, it would be off to you for your reply to Spidey (whichever one he was) regarding the great hydrogen scam. Seldom have I ever seen a post so well researched, written, and thunderously effective.

Arminius

Spidey brings up hydrogen. Hmm? Read this:

Putting Energy into Hydrogen

No matter how it’s been made, hydrogen has no energy in it. It is the lowest energy dense fuel on earth. At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up three thousand times more space than gasoline containing an equivalent amount of energy. To put energy into hydrogen, it must be compressed or liquefied. To compress hydrogen to the necessary 10,000 psi is a multi-stage process that costs an additional 15 percent of the energy contained in the hydrogen.

If you liquefy it, you will be able to get more hydrogen energy into a smaller container, but you will lose 30–40 percent of the energy in the process. Handling it requires extreme precautions because it is so cold — minus 423 F. Fueling is typically done mechanically with a robot arm.

Storage

For the storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen, you need a heavy cryogenic support system. The tank is cold enough to cause plugged valves and other problems. If you add insulation to prevent this, you will increase the weight of an already very heavy storage tank, adding additional costs to the system.

Let’s assume that a hydrogen car can go 55 miles per kg. A tank that can hold 3 kg of compressed gas will go 165 miles and weigh 400 kg (882 lbs). Compare that with a Honda Accord fuel tank that weighs 11 kg (25 lbs), costs $100, and holds 17 gallons of gas. The overall weight is 73 kg (161 lbs, or 8 lbs per gallon). The driving range is 493 miles at 29 mpg. Here is how a hydrogen tank stacks up against a gas tank in a Honda Accord:
Amount of fuel Tank weight with fuel Driving range Tank cost
Hydrogen 55 kg @3000 psi 400 kg 165 miles13 $200021
Gasoline 17 gallons 73 kg 493 miles $100

According to the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA), “Vehicle weight reduction is probably the most powerful technique for improving fuel economy. Each 10 percent reduction in weight improves the fuel economy of a new vehicle design by approximately eight percent.”

The more you compress hydrogen, the smaller the tank can be. But as you increase the pressure, you also have to increase the thickness of the steel wall, and hence the weight of the tank. Cost increases with pressure. At 2000 psi, it is $400 per kg. At 8000 psi, it is $2100 per kg.20 And the tank will be huge — at 5000 psi, the tank could take up ten times the volume of a gasoline tank containing the same energy content.

Fuel cells are heavy. According to Rosa Young, a physicist and vice president of advanced materials development at Energy Conversion Devices in Troy, Michigan: “A metal hydride storage system that can hold 5 kg of hydrogen, including the alloy, container, and heat exchangers, would weigh approximately 300 kg (661 lbs), which would lower the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.”

Fuel cells are also expensive. In 2003, they cost $1 million or more. At this stage, they have low reliability, need a much less expensive catalyst than platinum, can clog and lose power if there are impurities in the hydrogen, don’t last more than 1000 hours, have yet to achieve a driving range of more than 100 miles, and can’t compete with electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius, which is already more energy efficient and low in CO2 generation than projected fuel cells.

Hydrogen is the Houdini of elements. As soon as you’ve gotten it into a container, it wants to get out, and since it is the lightest of all gases, it takes a lot of effort to keep it from escaping. Storage devices need a complex set of seals, gaskets, and valves. Liquid hydrogen tanks for vehicles boil off at 3–4 percent per day.

Hydrogen also tends to make metal brittle. Embrittled metal can create leaks. In a pipeline, it can cause cracking or fissuring, which can result in potentially catastrophic failure. Making metal strong enough to withstand hydrogen adds weight and cost. Leaks also become more likely as the pressure grows higher. It can leak from un-welded connections, fuel lines, and non-metal seals such as gaskets, O-rings, pipe thread compounds, and packings. A heavy-duty fuel cell engine may have thousands of seals. Hydrogen has the lowest ignition point of any fuel, 20 times less than gasoline. So if there’s a leak, it can be ignited by any number of sources. Worse, leaks are invisible — sometimes the only way to know there’s a leak is poor performance.

Transport

Canister trucks ($250,000 each) can carry enough fuel for 60 cars. These trucks weigh 40,000 kg, but deliver only 400 kg of hydrogen. For a delivery distance of 150 miles, the delivery energy used is nearly 20 percent of the usable energy in the hydrogen delivered. At 300 miles, that is 40 percent. The same size truck carrying gasoline delivers 10,000 gallons of fuel, enough to fill about 800 cars.

Another alternative is pipelines. The average cost of a natural gas pipeline is one million dollars per mile, and we have 200,000 miles of natural gas pipeline, which we can’t re-use because they are composed of metal that would become brittle and leak, as well as the incorrect diameter to maximize hydrogen throughput. If we were to build a similar infrastructure to deliver hydrogen it would cost $200 billion. The major operating cost of hydrogen pipelines is compressor power and maintenance.30 Compressors in the pipeline keep the gas moving, using hydrogen energy to push the gas forward. After 620 miles, 8 percent of the hydrogen has been used to move it through the pipeline.

More here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-03-12.html#feature

Good article Susan, with a number of good ideas. Regarding deep-seated instincts, even Dawkins would distinguish between the 'selfish gene' and the selfish person. Greed can be unlearned, but it requires great encouragement and 'incentives' from complex cultural and societal forces.

Certainly religion hasn't been so good at disabusing folks of the notion that greed is good, nor have the actions of our own government -those folks in Congress that usually give deferential treatment to the bagmen of rich corporate interests, and otherwise known as lobbyists.

There does have to be a more equitable re-distribution of wealth set in place in this country, and on the order of other of the world's socialized democracies.....e.g. Germany, Canada, England, and the Scandinavian countries come to mind as good examples.

The rich pay far higher taxes in these countries, and those that profit the most from residing in modern technologically advanced cultures do need to pay for that privilage, regardless their good fortune, talents, hard work, 'superior intellect and entrepreneurial abilities', and all the other libertarian rationalizations for 'keeping what is yours and letting others forage for themselves' - a primitive form of social Darwinism at it's greedy worst.

Instead of keeping 20 million, how about keeping 5 million and re-distributing the rest? Naturally the goverment has to stop doing stupid things that waste valuable fiscal resources - like perpetuating the totally wrong-headed war in Iraq as one prime example.

As Dawkins would say, it's not really survival of the fittest that counts genetically, it's survival of the most cooperative genes - by accident, happenstance or by design is subject to debate.

Since society is a cooperative effort designed allegedly for everyone's benefit, this should be better reflected in more intelligent and broadly informed legislative efforts and social policies forged by our esteemed representatives in Congress and our elected leader in the Whitehouse.

'Trickle down' economics failed with Reagan and is failing again with Bush - instead, gravity is defied and our country's liquid assets are 'trickling up' and becoming a gusher at an alarming rate. Reform indeed - but when and how??

Dudes-

I think we have come to the typical "Agree to disagree" conclusion.

Mr Mark-

I am the same age as you. I searched a long time ago, and have gone back over my conclusions. God, Yehweh, exists and it the creator of the universe- that is my conclusion. I don't expect it to make complete logical sense but much of what it out there does NOT make complete sense. If you think science is going to explain everything, you are sadly mistaken.

CCNL-
to put your faith in Crossan is folly. Why should you believe what he has to say over the conservative theologian? I see you NEVER responded to my assertion that you should research the other side of the coin, as I have. Your quote should be:

"No , according to liberal contemporary theologians that can't conceive of God in the first place"

How in the heck do these guys KNOW that Jesus never said that?

READ the words that Spiderman quoted and try to comprehend them. What does it profit to inherit the world, but lose his life?

Christianity is about charity, love, faith , hope,and joy.

"2But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law."

I want these qualities in my life- why would I not?

Life is not about MONEY but about how we relate to one another and to God . God is about love, period.

Why would anyone want to reject that?

Spiderman2,

Aluminum oxide separates hydrogen from water? What about the energy balance? 2(H2O) => 2(H2) + O2 is an endothermic reaction. The reaction energy has to come from somewhere. You don't get something for nothing. Thermodynamics tells us it takes MORE energy to create the H2 then we will get back later when we burn it.

Chris Everett:

As much as I respect and admire your posts over the months, I have to disagree with you regarding property taxes instead of income taxes. I believe that only income taxes can even possibly lead to a tax-fair society. My property tax bill was $2300 last year. I paid $125,000 in income taxes. No way to reconcile the difference. I choose to live in a very modest 100 year old bungalow in Portland. But, in income, I have the ability to pay much more than most people, and I am perfectly willing to do so. I live in a community - it is important to give back to that community and I do so by taxes and by giving to charity. I am very successful, but I had every advantage - affluent parents, fancy prep school, Ivy league, etc. I had a leg up on the system - it isn't just a product of my intelligence and hard work although that is part of it.

A flat tax, not the Steve Forbes kind, but a real flat tax would be my choice. Fed income tax plus Soc Sec plus Medicare wrapped into one rate, applied uniformly gainst all income regardless of source with no deductions of any kind. That's my plan.

The government can also choose to invest heavily on aluminum oxide. This compound can separate hydrogen from water easily.

Fast track this technology and you would see the price of oil tumbling down.

Oil producing countries by now should look for alternatives aside from selling oil to sustain their economy. This could hit them real hard.

The government can also choose to invest heavily on aluminum oxide. This compound can separate hydrogen from water easily.

Fastract this technology and you would see the price of oil tumbling down.

Oil producing countries by now should look for alternatives aside from selling oil to sustain their economy. This could hit them real hard.

Greed is the willingness to invest in the oil commodity market despite the knowledge that doing so will help it increase the price of oil.

IF ONLY THE U.S. CONGRESS WOULD TALK ABOUT PLACING A CAP TO THE SELLING PRICE OF OIL IN THE COMMODITY MARKET EVEN FOR JUST 3 TO 6 MOHTHS, YOU WOULD SEE THE PRICE OF OIL TUMBLING DOWN.

NOBODY WOULD INVEST IN A COMMODITY THAT WON'T GROW. PUT SANITY ON THIS COMMODITY BY PUTTING A CEILING PRICE.

Susan Jacoby

When you speak of greed as being a "deeply rooted human instinct" and vindictiveness as "probably a an ineradicable human instinct", does this not sound like, or at least part of, the definition of a "fallen human nature"?

Do you think that the only way that people can rise above their "base" selves is by the hammer of the law?

Also, what does not being a "theologian" have to do with whether or not you have an opinion on whether "greed" is right or wrong at least in your personal life?

Seems to me that whether someone studies about God, knows that God is real, believes that God is real, or does not believe that God is real should still have some kind of code to live by or at least try to live by, don't you think?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Now's a good time to reiterate my "libertarian socialism" idea: The products of one's own efforts are one's own; the natural environment is a communal legacy. Thus, if one, say, writes a best-selling book, he is entitled to the earnings, and it's hard to morally justify the government confiscating a portion of it since the book only exists because of him. However, if someone, say, digs for gold, he is NOT entitled to the gold's value since he didn't create the gold, he only dug it up. If he wants it he should purchase it from its rightful stewards, which is all of us. Who represents all of us? The government. Thus, the government should get its revenue not from taxing income or sales, but from the 'sale' of natural resources to those who are able to use them productively. This kind of tax policy rewards the creation of value and the preservation of resources.

On the issue of the needy, it's clear that private charity is only part of the solution. Inasmuch as we feel a moral revulsion towards those who could relieve acute suffering but choose not to, there is a moral basis for compulsory charity, and a moral basis for some redistribution of wealth as needed to provide it. But even here, taxation of income seems counterproductive. Property taxes seem better, since they are a better measure of wealth and also relate to the privilaged use of the natural resource of land.

I think it was Bill Clinton who said something along the lines that we tend to think of public policy issues as problems that have correct answers, but that's not the right way to think about it. It's more a matter of tensions between interests. Nothing is ever correct in any absolute way - but we try to relieve the tensions in the fairest way we can.

Steven:

Not a bad working definition. Works for me.

DZ: how about this?

If you wake up each morning with something to eat, don't have to worry about being murdered or killed by some rebel group, actually have a bank account, and have minimal health issues, you're already far richer than a vast majority of humans in the world.

Susan: One final note on the rich thing. Before my wife died in December, we would have been considered rich by your definition. Now, with just my income, I am no longer rich and, yet, because of her life insurance, retirement money, etc., I have far more money than I did before. That's why I'm curious about definitions.

Susan:

Thank you for your response to my inquiry regarding what constitutes being rich. I did understand that we were only talking about money. So, by your definition, which is income-based, any household earning more than $364,000 per year is rich. The implication is that a household earning less than that in income is not rich. I'm not sure that I buy that completely. What about the household with $100,000 in income but $2 million in net assets? But, still, I appreciate your response, and it's a good start toward a working definition. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

"You are equating normal human needs for successful survival with something that is supposedly evil."

What Absolute Rubbish.

Rob, spend some time under a bridge one day. Go to a homeless shelter and actually talk to these people who you so quickly discard.

Joe, sorry to tell you this but that's how it's currently done now. Capital gains taxes, property taxes, state and federal income taxes. Don't get too scared.

"...private greed can only be checked by a certain amount of legal redistribution of wealth..."

Yet another reason why this woman is scary.

Rob, hurry, get back to your Fox News quick!

I think that people have an inborn survival instinct which motivates actions towards self-preservation. Then also, many people have a predisposition towards comfort and luxery. And people get confused and obsessed over material things and the money that represents these material things. Real greed, where a person seeks more and more stuff, and more and more money, for gratification anf for security, is a sort of maladjusted dysfunction.

When I think of greed that I encouner everyday, I think of peoiple who are greedy for food and eat more and more all the time. And I think of people with their gigantic vehicles, sucking up more and more gasoline and oil all the time, and only wanting more and more and more, far out of proportion to their needs.

Of course, there is also corporate greed, which I do not know as much about. It seems to me that greed is a kind of personal dysfuncion of misplaced values. This partly human nature, but also partly a problem of ignorance versus education and sophitication.

Society deals with greed in a sort of ad hoc way. Reaction to greed is somehwat improvised, and varies from time to time. I cannot imagine that a law could be passed to abolish greed or even to manage it very well. But I can imagine a society in which through the evolution of custom and culture, greed would be frouwned upon and more ostrracized than it is now.

I WANT THE EARTH PLUS 5%

http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

The very concept of greed is a strawman. To think that someone actually advocates a legal remedy for something that is so loosely defined only indicates the fuzzy logic of the left. How do we distinguish between self-interested action that actually does good? How about the people who earn massive wealth by actually providing products that benefit peoples' lives, save them time and make it possible for them to do more with less time and energy? Is that greed? You are equating normal human needs for successful survival with something that is supposedly evil. That is the problem with this fuzzy logic; all you have to do is mention drug companies or oil companies and you've got a ready made scapegoat that justifies looting the wealth of every American. It might help if you defined what constitutes greed before you just assume that everyone agrees with you. The problem with your suggestion that we outlaw and punish greed is that such a suggestion will ensure that no one succeeds and we all suffer. But then when did a liberal ever care about the consequences of their hairbrained schemes? When things go south, they can just blame greed.

241-. What Profit?: (1a) Mark 8:36 = Matt 16:26a = Luke 9:25, (1b) 2 Clem. 6:2;

Mark 8:36
"For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?"

Nice passage but did the historic, simple preacher man i.e. Jesus, say it? No, according to many contemporary NT exegetes. wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/241_What_Profit%3F

It is just more embellishment of the life of said simple preacher man. Was greed a factor in making said embellishment? Would definitely impress the "pew sitters", increase conversion rolls and open money pouches.

Interesting Susan but at what point does acquisition become greed? As the saying goes you have to have money to make money. Misers are quite rare and most of the stories of such that I have seen indicate that they live like paupers more often than not.

The greatest asset a company can have is the good will of it's employees. Sacrifice that and it will cost your company dearly. Most retail stores lose far more to employee theft than they do to casual shop lifters. Why? Because unless things have changed retail outlets tend to treat their employees fairly poorly both in terms of benefits and compensation and I'm not just talking Walmart here. All of them tend to be rather ham handed in how they manage there employees.

Again the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist fails to note the greed in Islam starting with its founder.

To wit:

In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing (11 wives), warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

Then there is the House of Saud!!!!! The Emir of Kuwait!!! The King of Jordan !!! and The King of Bahrain!!! And no doubt most of the ayatollas are doing quite well!!! Hmmm, and greed is a major element in the Sunni/Shiite blood feud going on for the last 800 years!!!

"What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul? " (Jesus Christ)

True Christtians believe that. The problem lies on the UNBELIEVERS. This world is doomed because of unbelievers and that includes believers of lies like false religions.

Apostle Paul told believers to be generous to the poor.

What's wrong about the bible with those words? Nothing. Unbelief is the problem. Hell would be their reward. God won't allow foolishness to be left unpunished.

Greed manifests from the ultimately illusory ego self which continually seeks to attach itself to “things” and “others”. Humans have suffered from both the internal and external consequences of egocentric thoughts and acts for millennia. If more people could realize the interdependent nature of all life and things in the universe (Thich Nhat Hanh calls it “interbeing”), and overcome the illusory independent self, then many of the world’s egocentric caused problems would cease.

Did the evolution of our species allow us to create vivid conceptual images of the past, present and future as a survival technique in a world with bigger, stronger competition? Is not the knowledge of good and evil a manner by which intelligent, self-aware beings conceptualize their apparent reality? Humans conceptualize their surroundings and phenomena in almost every moment of consciousness. Another necessary strategy for survival is the ability to distinguish one’s self from other selves. Other animals also seem to be able to distinguish their individual entities from other entities but to our knowledge, we may be the only animals to have evolved to the point of conceptual self reflection. (Genesis-they knew they were naked). But doesn’t our false, complex creation of an illusory “self” separate each “individual” from the true nature of the universe: Oneness!
If one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. In other words, we as physical beings are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish greedy entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. In Christian terminology this selfishness is defined as sin. Selfish acts and thoughts always cause the selfish person to suffer. Also, since in true reality we are part of all things, when we are selfless in thoughts and acts, we are one with God. Is this not essentially what history’s great spiritual teachers were teaching?

This discussion intends to paint a portrait of basic human psychology in order that we may point our moral compasses towards a brighter future for humankind. Yes, I must seek out sustenance for my individual existence to maintain life and well being. But do I have to maintain a luxurious lifestyle while millions of fellow humans suffer from malnutrition and impoverished living conditions? Should we interact with each other globally by continuing to emphasize our differences and not our similarities? Should we continue to allow corporate greed to victimize poor people throughout the world?
One problem with our current inability to fully sustain an enlightened world is our selfish economic systems that encourage selfish motivations in our daily lives. With cooperative economic systems in place, we would not have to struggle for survival in a selfish manner.

It is difficult to recognize our egocentric nature whenever it arises but through mindful practice and enlightened education, we could be on the right path. To create an evolution of consciousness amongst our species, we must seek our Buddha nature, Christ consciousness that exists within us all but is hidden behind the greedy ego self. And finally to quote the great American Christian minister Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

Greed is a great power that can make worse vices disappear. Taking econmic resources away from someone who is lustful or power-hungry is a way to place their love of money in charge of their more harmful vices. So the story goes. Of course, more wealth has not made people better people. There are good people with lots of money, but there are plenty of people with money who are not good at all.

One problem with "the rich" is repeatability of income. An athlete might make a lot of money for 5-10 years, but that represents most of the income they'll ever earn. Not the same as millions every year in stock dividends.

We also need to face the fact of what we value most. One of the top "marginal" purchases under rising incomes is real estate -- basically, we want to not have to be around people of lesser income.

I think most Americans would be in favor of more even distribution of wealth -- if it would make the poor ACT more like the middle class.

McMansions? Each and every house is different.

F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The rich are different from you and me."

Ernest Hemingway : "Yes, they have more money."

Gordon Gekko : "Greed, for lack of better word, is good." He spoke of greed for life, love etc too, and not just money. Never mind greed of money is the root of all evil.

Why let governments tax one so much for budget allocations one has no say in and one would rather not? All that budget allocation for defence instead of for education and health, say.

Better to be taxed less and one to donate to charities, programmes and activities one likes and want - from environment to humanitarian assistance to shelters for abused women and children, for computers and other equipment for schools in developing countries etc.

Whatever amount of money the rich make, they may not deserve better health care than the poor, but they certainly can afford it. It is not the rich wasting money as much as goverments - all that taxed money as revenues and then wasted on defence at the expense of budgeting allocation for better health and education for the poor.

The rich are rich because they work harder, saw posibilities, seize opportunities and thus, more more deserving of the fruits of their opportunism and enterprise.

No sin for the rich to be rich. No taxing of the rich in high taxations. But, oh, never mind. It is not so taxing. Can sell of that chateau there, a ranch here, a triplex there, shares here, one or two Georgia O'Keefe paintings....

The lawyers and accountants can always find tax loopholes and tax havens here, there and everywhere. The rich can afford to pay on ways and means to to continue being rich and richer.

Greed is not good if its fruits are wasted and that really grates. It is goverments who are greedy for higher taxes and then to waste, waste and waste. And then to tax, tax and tax. And then to waste, waste and waste some more.

Wasted collected revenues in wrong priorities and budget allocations is an evil in not providing for needed public social services.

What do we do about it? In a word: regulate. We need to return to sane regulation of financial markets. Limits on margin trading, to include hedge funds. Limits on money supply when bubbles like the stock and real estate markets are evident. Regulation of financial instruments like mortgages. An updated version of what we had a decade ago before the "free market" bandits took control will suffice. Society simply needs to enforce some norms of decency.

ragnar_rahl:

I loved your post. Short but precise. I think another dimension in the fallacy of "free market" is the extent to which a few powerful players in government are in a position to reward inefficiencies of "friends" in big business, and to artificially distribute wealth where wealth wouldn't necessarily go if the market were truly free.

For Example, the extent to which Big Oil and the ties among our current administration to Big Oil exist to serve each other are amazingly corrupt. (For something that'll really make you angry try reading "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast.) Remember good 'ol Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL.) ..I mean, Operation Iraqi FREEDOM!

But it's a fact that powerful people will be sure to direct policy to the interests of powerful people. Free-market economics is great in theory, if it weren't so corruptible and prone to manipulation by the wealthy and powerful.

It may be totally a pipe dream to hope otherwise, but I'm certain that another Republican administation and Congressional majority is not the answer to our dilemmas.

Spiritual:

Thanks for your feedback. My work partner is from Canada (Prince Edward Isle area) and is a health care provider, and she relays some of the same concerns regarding wait times for her mother toward the end of her life, but overall seemed pretty happy with the experience.

I see your concerns about government becoming the payor for all providers, and that won't be a good option for obvious reasons (see Medicaid Medicare).

I agree that it will have to be a system that rewards good work, but that cares for those citizens who would otherwise not be included for financial reasons.

HSAs would seem to be a good option, my own experience is that they seemed to add charges to the account, interest and other things that felt like it was another way for the insurance companies to make a buck off of me.

We'll see where it goes, but I don't think American's are willing to watch more people uninsured, or uninsurable, use the ERs as their primary care, nor are we willing to continue to pay house-payment sized premiums to insurance companies for $6000 deductable policies.

Reasonable not hateful and not greedy we trust,

Added words of wisdom that might cure your 3 B Syndrome i.e. Born, Bred, and Brainwashed in Orthodox Christianity:

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

From JD Crosssan's book "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts).

And as per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given/"Mom Nature" gifts of Free Will and Future.

You seem to be ignoring the basic fact that none of these problems you are speaking of have ever occurred in a free market- because no such thing has ever existed. Enron occurred due to fraud, which is punished in a free market, and frankly not likely to be funded in the first place by banks that aren't insured by the government. In a free market education would be something people would pay for in order to use (and no one would purchase it at the schools in China in question). In a free market people have to pay for their prescription drugs, which means they are more likely to investigate them. In a free market becoming rich is not destructive- because the only way to do it is to produce more, rather than get it through subsidies, i.e. loot.

Hello everybody, I'm Jesus and I'm here to say I'm fake. Yup, fake. A total fraud. A childish fiction. You only believe in me because someone implanted the illusion of me in your brain when your were vulnerable. Maybe it was when you were very young. Maybe when you were desparately ill. Maybe when you 'hit bottom' due to drugs or alcohol. Or when your loved one died or left you. Someone told you a story or handed you a book. Or you walked into one of those Jesus churches.

Maybe the story of me helped get you through. If so, that's great. But you know better now. You know that you did it yourself. And you can do it again if you have to. You don't need me anymore, and come to think of it, you never did. Goodbye.

Dear DZ -

Re: counting the unemployed.

Let's not forget that Saint Ronnie Reagan came up with the brainstorm of counting the military in the ranks of the employed. Before Reagan, they weren't counted. That bit of sleight of hand helps depress the unemployment figures as well.

It's amazing, ain't it? You've got a job, you're counted as being fully employed. You lose a job, you're counted as being unemployed. Your UI benefits run out after 13 weeks, and you're suddenly not counted at all, either among the unemployed or the employed. You're just statistically disappeared, even as you slide into debt, foreclosure and homelessness.

Looks like the government has a few other lists they'd like to see you on.

RNH writes:

"If you can't conceive of God in the first place, you are not very open minded, and not searching for the truth."

With all undue respect, Reasonable, many of us atheists had a very strong and vibrant concept of god for most of our lives. But our "searching for the truth" led us to abandon the fantastic concept of god. Our open minds led us to the truthful conclusion that god - any god of any religion - is a construct of man's creativity, not a real being.

What do you say to that? That we didn't conceive "hard enough," or that we "weren't open minded enough?" If I'm 53 and my atheism has been open for only the past dozen years or so, did I not spend most of my life with roughly the same set of unproven concepts as you now hold?

What if our rejecting the concept of a god is the end result of our search for truth? What if our rejecting of Yahweh/Jesus is no less or no more than our rejecting of Zeus or Apollo? Why on earth should the Hebraic gods be given any more credence than all the other gods of myth, history and legend?

Any thoughts?

What does it matter how rich the rich are? I'd like to see the creation of *value*. If the money wasted in Iraq was spend instead on schools, hospitals, roads, alternative energy, etc., we'd all be better off. If housing builders built houses to last 100 years instead of 20, we'd all be better off.

I'm no economist, but it's crystal clear to me that material quality of life is a direct result of turning human effort into lasting value. If Brad and Anjolina are building mansions in France, I hope to heck they build them to last.

Reasonable Not Hateful, I can conceive of God: He's a being of many noodly appendages supporting all-knowing balls, smothered in all-encompassing sauciness. If you can't conceive of God in this way, you are not very open minded, and not searching for the truth.

All hail His pastahood!!!

DZ--

When I use the word rich, I'm not using it in a metaphoric sense (rich in love, rich in happiness). I'm talking about money in relation to social policy. I'm not talking about feelings or emotions. If you're in the top 1 percent of annual income earners, relative to the rest of your society, you're rich. The fact that someone making $1 million a year may feel "poor" in comparison to someone making $100 million a year is irrelevant. For purposes of taxation, both are rich--although the $100 million man or woman should be taxed at a higher rate than the poor millionaire.

Sorry Pinker NON thinker.

There are two sides to the coin. Skepticism is all well and good if applied properly.

Your elitism is showing.

If you can't conceive of God in the first place, you are not very open minded, and not searching for the truth.

Reasonable Not Hateful writes to Concerned the Christian Now Liberated in the last post that "Your search for truth was not even handed or even fair to yourself, as you won't listen what the full spectrum of theologians think,only the skeptics."

Newsflash: Only the skeptics think. That's why they're skeptics. Har!

God did it. No matter how it looks, God did it. Even if you have what you believe to be proof that God didn't do it, God made it look that way by (you guessed it) doing it.

The Burton Report doesn't pass this dogg's sniff test. It's one guy's opinion forum. He appears to be a semi-fringe doctor with a predisposition for medical savings accounts. The overall look and feel of the site screams "nut job".

Let's see some standardized, recognized, normalized statistics on health care; not some lone individual's rants and anecdotes.

CCNL-

Instead of IBID, IBID, etc etc.....

You should simply confront my assertions.

You probably have not read the NT length in years, given your dependence on liberal theological assertions/spectulation that assert what did or did not happen, and what was said and not said by Jesus etc ad nauseam.

I only had time to look at a couple of websites-one of which looked third rate, couple of others from Catholics I am guessing. Others are typical liberals theologians. I am sure that the Pope will disagree with much of these Catholics you have referenced.

One comment from one of the websites=

"They used the following techniques:

The most likely words of Jesus to remember [and survive the oral period] would be short, provocative, often repeated sayings, anecdotes, aphorisms and parables because these things are easiest to remember. "

This precludes the possibility /probability that the Holy Spirit was with and in the writers, and that God himself was involved in the process of putting down the words into the Scriptures and preserving them over the years.

Basically you've painted yourself into the corner of claiming what these people say about the Judaism and Christianity is FACT when its pure conjecture. It precludes God's intervention in our lives.

Come back to me when you've actually read what conservative theologians have to say on the topics. You've come to the conclusions you want based on what you want to find, which is that God can't exist as in the God of Abraham and the God that Jesus showed us when he was alive on earth.

Your search for truth was not even handed or even fair to yourself, as you won't listen what the full spectrum of theologians think,only the skeptics.

Steven.

I grew up in Canada but am now an American citizen with all my extended family still in Canada.

The care is excellent once you get in. You can wait 4 months for a heart specialist and could easily be dead in that time. Though the work around is go into the ER and complain of chest pains even if you don't have them.

Canadians pay much more in taxes in order to get their “free” health care. It is a better way to get people covered. The problem of course is when it isn’t “anyone’s money” government bureaucracy takes over and we know who efficient that is.

The other problem in Canada is the United States who drains the healthcare professionals. A doctor in family practice can move to the states and make significantly more money seeing ½ - 1/3 less patients. That can be hard to pass up.

If you have insurance then the healthcare service in the US is the best. The quality and skill is likely the best in the world or close to it. Access is usually quite short for getting care or tests. Though the health care costs are getting silly. If you max your out of pocket that can be 5K-10K annually. That is a lot of unplanned money out the door. Sitting on the insurance committee for our company I also see the costs rising to the employer which is eventually passed on to the employees in premiums and higher deductibles/ OOP.

Maybe we need to privatize with some regulation (I hate that word). Maybe I am just cynical but I see for profit healthcare company getting their revenue from the government as dangerous. The company may just see that as some one with bigger (unlimited?) pockets.

True change comes from within; I believe that applies to companies / governments as well. The hard part is those entities are made up of people. It probably comes down to who be the visionary who is willing to be mocked ad ridiculed?

Doug

I enjoyed reading the Burton Report. Sounds like an interesting organization, and I thought pretty spot-on in regard to not rushing headlong into a "failed system" that is the British Health Care system, according to their assessment.

Although I've rarely met real people coming from that system who thought it was failed, or thought they were particularly naive regarding their "wait times." The same applies to those Canadians I know who generally feel very proud of their services in Canada. It would be nice to have a Canadian or British citizen respond to the Burton Report.

I do remember an article published several years back by the AMA that suggested we in America considered it a hardship if we needed to drive more than 15 miles to have an MRI. Where I am in Texas, I have a choice of 4 facilities with MRIs within a 10 minute drive, and I'm talking about a community 25 miles from Austin, which has undoubtedly many more options still.

As "high" as our satisfaction remains for the quality of our health care, it remains the number one reason for family bankruptcy: get sick without (or, as documented several times recently even with) health insurance. We will all suffer to the extent we don't care for the health of the "least" of our citizens.

As long as it is left to the "free market" to distribute health care benefits, we will continue to be divided into the have's and the have-nots. It should be the defining agenda of this political election, and the next administration.

God help us if this election becomes more (again) about "values voters" or "patriotism" or "faith" or "terrorism" or other fear-driven agenda.

Are the English, for example, really so much better off? What about the long waits for care? Interesting to read about:
http://www.burtonreport.com/InfhealthCare/BritNatHealthServ.htm

Reasonable not hateful,

Studies for perusal:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/
17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf

18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx words of wisdom as found in his books.

Reasonable...:

No, actually, unemployment rates in Western Europe are about the same as here. The difference is that the Europeans count everyone not working whereas we do not count the homeless, anyone who has exhausted unemployment insurance and others. In French terms, the U.S. unemployment rate is about 10%, same as France.

I don’t know that the word greed is left to stand by itself, but is an extension of need. One man’s need is another man’s greed.

One of the greatest scourges of mankind is the false notion of need. Theists and atheist alike a brought down by need. Perhaps we hear more about the lack of need being some theological or philosophical stepping stone to being free and/or happy.

I choose Susan’s thread because many of her admires are atheists. I am a theist who doesn’t agree with all of her articles but I do find many of them do hit the mark. I also chose this thread because we will get numerous theists saying you need God to get rid of greed/need.

I agree the concept of a God could certainly help focus one’s thoughts towards the greater good but I find that the varying definitions of God carry baggage and a good old secular look at need can turn the same trick.

There are two keys to getting over need. First understanding that need, having stuff, doesn’t guarantee happiness - though I have heard it helps  . Happiness is really a state of mind, happiness comes from within not from external results and many people don’t get that. This is an individual endeavor.

I want to focus on the group endeavor which is the second key. Do you consider yourself to be part of something greater than yourself be it God, universe, society, country or humanity? The capitalist societies have proven to be some of the better implementations of a society though it leaves many traps for need.

Economics drives too many bad decisions and not enough good decisions. Go into Iraq because of Oil, but ignore Rwanda because there is no economic benefit. We can put a man on the moon but not tin foil in a microwave or provide health care and education for your citizens. We layoff workers so execs and wall street can make more money they’ll never spend and the people who do the actual work need to struggle to make it by day to day. If the execs are in charge of strategy and leading the company and results are poor remind me again why they keep their jobs?

Communism is a theoretical Rosetta Stone that has failed miserably in implementation. The concept of “for the greater good” is a fine goal but the one thing they forgot in the recipe is freedom of choice.

Capitalism has a myriad of it’s one problems; greed, benefit of the few at the cost of the many. We can’t afford health care for everyone in the country. We can’t afford to educate our all of our children. How can we not afford to do this? We can afford to pay athletes, movie stars and executives ridiculous salaries but struggle to pay teachers, fireman, policeman and nurses.

We have it bass ackwards because we NEED.

When people need, particularly the necessities of life then they take. When people are controlled then they need to be in control because that is the only way to be free – even if it means that someone else is not free.

Yet when we serve others first we help reduce their need. Removing need reduces conflict. Removing need makes us a better society. Removing need means giving a hand up not a hand out ; wish I came up with that – love that saying.

I partially disagree with Anon – I have meet many an executive who plays the game well, but really isn’t that smart mix that in with an A-holes or two who climb over people. I’ve seen execs and companies make money in spite of themselves. I do agree that the free market works better, if executed properly but it is not a level playing field.

Drastically uneven wealth and power has always created conflict and that may never change. The solution is not hope for the wealthy and powerful to become saints but to distribute wealth, power and freedom not equally but more equally.

The question of course is how to do that? Higher taxes for the very wealthy, remove tax breaks for corporations that no longer need them (oil comes to mind). Level executive salaries, including stock options (needs to come from the BOD and stock holders, not government restrictions). Some suggestions to start. I am sure someone smarter than me will do better.

Susan-

I would disagree with your blanket statement.

Rich people that have risked their capital, and worked hard to get where they are(not the aristocracy that some "old" rich people are)DO deserve to be where they are. They should pay more tax than others in our society, no doubt.

There is a healthy medium between providing health care to all, and dumbing down our economy by making it more like Western Europe, where their unemployment rates are very high. I don't think the government can afford to give the same health care to a poor person that a rich person can afford to pay for. That said, there should be a minimum standard for health care for all, but with the government solution that has most minimum intrusion ......

Wow, all this talk about the dangers of greed and wealth distribution and not one mention of the Federal Reserve who is orchestrating it all.

Susan, educate yourself for one week on the creation of the FED, it's owners (no it's not the gov't), and how they are accountable to no one.

I suggest starting the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve".

http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

That will start you down the path to understanding who is really in control and literally creating most of our "crisises".

People toss around the phrase 'The rich' without ever defining what that means. What is a good working definition? I'm not sure I know the answer, but it can't just be income-based, because income does not necessarily make one rich. It could be asset-based but, still, what makes one rich vs some other description? Susan?

CCNL-

Where you get off calling Jesus and Paul men that "charged" for their services- I'll never know. there is nothing in the gospels or in the letters, or the book of Acts, that illustrated that making money was their goal in life, of that is was even something they emphasized.

Internet 101- Don't believe forum posters, or blogs,especially people that don't know that the h*** they are talking about.

Given the fact that most of the Apostles were martyred for their faith and SPIRITUAL positions, Crossan and his ilk are way, way off, just are you are. Paul and Jesus were all about spiritual freedom by giving mankind that connection to God through the death and resurrection of Christ, and how that works. Politics and money were the furthest things from their minds.

If you were really liberated, you'd realize that liberal theologians don't know that the heck they are talking about. Time for you to pick up some books written by people that actually put some credence in the Bible.

I don't believe in restricting the amount of money an athlete or an entertainer or a CEO can make; I simply believe in the progressive income tax. Meaning that if you make $50 million a year, you should be taxed at a higher rate than someone making $50,000 a year. In the end, the rich are still going to be very, very rich: they're simply forced to make a larger contribution to the rest of society than people who are less able to pay.

The definition of "needs" and "abilities" is indeed subjective. You may think you need to drive an SUV; I may think you don't. You may think that the "ability" of a rock star is such that he deserves every penny of the millions he makes each year; I may cringe at the sounds. It doesn't matter what we think, in the end. Whatever amount of money they make, the rich do not deserve better health care than the poor. Although of course they do get better health care, in a society where the market determines the price of both care and insurance. And since most rich people are not about to pay for poor people's health care voluntarily, they must be taxed. Either you believe that everyone is entitled to certain basic services or you don't.

Of course, none of this matters to anyone deluded enough to believe that the rich are rich because they are more deserving. If that's so, then we can simply ignore others, as Scrooge said, and "decrease the surplus population."

Hmmm, greed?? Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions.

In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

In Christianity (including Mormonism), the "historic" founder was the simple preacher man, long-dead Jewish fellow, Jesus. Not much greed there but one can make a case for the following steps for the start of greed in the said religion:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed.

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

Good esssay, Susan.

One problem with libertarianism is that it treats everything as property to be owned. Although this seems like the moral stance for the products of ones own mind and hands, it fails to appreciate the 'stewardship' nature of our relationship to the environment. We have an obligation to pass the world on to future generations in at least as good a shape as it was passed on to us. (My tax fantasy is to tax the DEPLETION of natural resources, not the CREATION of wealth).

But it's a gray area. What about the person born into a one-factory town, for whom the factory is the core of the whole area? Does the factory owner have a 'stewardship' obligation on top of his ownership rights? I tend to think so. When someone is powerful enough relative to others that they can essentially DEFINE the environment of others, an obligation exists. I think this was Teddy Roosevelt's essential point vis a vis trust busting.

And what about people who are desparate or short sighted enough that they sign up to, say, usurious balloon interest rates? Is it a free negotiation, or are they being 'taken advantage' of? It's their choice, but they wouldn't have done it if they 'knew better' and it puts them in a situation where they are stripped of choice - its own 'environment' if you will.

Then there's the issue of charity. Is it greedy NOT to give to the needy, even if you have nothing to do with their neediness? My gut says yes. Should the government REQUIRE us to give (e.g. through mandatory taxation)? I think so.

Susan,

A very good article that I enjoyed reading. Skimming many of the articles by self-styled "spiritual" writers was disappointing and their rationalization of greed was revolting. You show a greater depth of understanding and instinct for the parameters of the question than the others.

I'd like to add a couple things. Firstly, book to read:

Affluenza, by Oliver James
Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough, by Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss

A point about the re-distribution of wealth. Practically speaking, I oppose it, because it seems always to come down to a few very wealthy people paying to get their fairly wealthy friends elected to office so that they can tax the hardworking-and-somewhat-prosperous in order to "help" the hardworking-and-poor or the lazy-and-poor, so that the fairly wealthy elected folks can look good and maintain a status quo favorable to the very wealthy few. This situation, I propose, is precisely the one that reigns in our nation and it is time for an overturning. Neither Republican nor Democratic party is capable of offering a real alternative, and perhaps the two-party federal system we currently have isn't either, because of the amount of money required to get a person into office and the tight control of the means of social communications by a very few (wealthy) people. Something altogether new is needed, but I cannot figure out what. Maybe a radical decentralization of power, so that the Federal government returns to its former relative minor role relative to other levels of government: defense, interstate commerce, etc. State and local governments with more robust roles would be too diverse to be controlled by a few people, and too local to be beyond a popular movement. A host of issues like education, abortion, infrastructure, agriculture, etc., can then be discussed on a more manageable level. I am not here proposing anything specific - only thinking aloud.

In principle I fully support a high tax rate for the very wealthy. It will not discourage them from making tens of millions of dollars if they have to give a few million away - not nearly as much as it discourages me from making a few tens of thousands having to give away a few tens of thousands, and knowing that I'll be more-or-less "taken care of" regardless. If the very wealthy make their money off of the labor and necessities of the great majority, contribution to their wellbeing should not be optional.

Lastly, I'd like to comment a bit on the "metaphysics" of greed and what makes it bad, as such. You prudently avoided the issue and focused on the social implications, and I would like to note why greed has inherently bad social implications.

In any situation with limited resources, or resources perceived as limited, greed - the desire for acquisition for its own sake - will naturally turn us against each other as those resources become more scarce. It is inherently self-absorbed and carries a cautious regard of the other that will turn into outright hostility once its perceived self-interests are endangered. Because of a crack in human nature, greed is almost inevitable, and only diminished in a person by one's efforts to wage relentless war against one's own acquisitiveness. Greed perhaps arises initially as an unconscious attempt to fill in the psychic chasm that makes us feel inadequate, to provide oneself with security in a dangerous world, or to impress one's neighbors and peers. Whatever its origin(s) in a particular person, it certainly has an addictive quality in that it can never be satisfied and its demands only grow as it is fed. If one will not make war against one's own greed, or at least occasionally put it in check as needs be, one will certainly end up at war with one's neighbors, or collude with one's neighbors to war against the next neighborhood, so to speak. If a member of society will not restrain his own greed, society - his neighbors - have the right and duty to protect themselves by putting restraints on the antisocial implications of this disordered arrangement in some of its members' psyches.

Thanks for the good article, Susan.

Sorry Susan, you and those that think like you, missed the boat on this one --- which is surprising since you’d expect skeptics and others that seek more objective reasons and facts for evidence to support their beliefs (in this case economic beliefs) have yielded to their to their emotions and prejudices.

You said:

“…The Marxist formula, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ can never work in real life--if only because the definition of ability and need is completely subjective. In the Soviet Union, the phony and corrupt application of Marxist ideals simply replaced money with Communist Party clout as the currency of greed….”

Well, ability and need are not *completely* subjective --- but if so, wouldn't it be best left to the market place to decide rates of return rather than for Susan, Political parties, Mob rule, etc., to make the decisions. I for one think that professional athletes (e.g. Alex Rodriguez of the NY Yankees) are vastly overpaid. But that is not my decision to make --- those that choose to fork over the money to go to games, buy merchandise, etc… have every right to spend their honestly acquired income and wealth on such and the professional athlete is just as entitled to sell his services on terms they find most favorable. Hollywood actors that make mega bucks starring in movies (and some of those movies are quite bad in my humble opinion --- but is it to be my opinion to determine their incomes? Yes, insofar it is the price of the ticket that I do or do *not* purchase).

Examples of highly compensated people (that I don’t object to) that I know of and in some cases have worked for and/or with include: High IQ people that developed semiconductors, software designers, medical doctors, etc. I know of musicians that make huge sums of money composing film scores. In general, those with rare and valuable talents are going to be well compensated --- those big payoffs are for those folks, the big paychecks are not aimed at us average people with average DNA that allow for the expression of average talents (be it average IQ, average musical talent, average athletic ability, etc.). Of course, human nature being what it is (the subject of the question that started this), those with only average talents, or below average talents, and thus not receiving the high returns are going to not like this so well --- many politicians have used and no doubt will continue to use this to get themselves elected and re-elected.

I do agree that if you try to replace Adam Smith’s invisible hand, as with the Marxist ideals of the Communist Party you referenced --- even if applied in a non-“phony” non-“corrupt” way --- you get dismal outcomes in comparison. So, yes, in general, logic and fact --- the evidence --- supports the proposition that indeed Adam Smith’s hand does a better job at allocation of returns to various goods and services compared to all the other systems civilizations have tried from time to time (gee, wasn’t that Winston Churchill that said something like that?)

The reality is, as Warren Buffett once said in addressing the very high compensation of CEOs, including the CEO of Coke at the time, that he personally thought the CEO pay was too high (and this was many years ago), but that is the market for those people --- generally CEOs are highly talented (e.g. IQ, leadership, market knowledge, etc.). It is the stockholders that should concern themselves about CEO compensation.

I do think that a good case can be made that in general stockholders are not exercising sufficient control in this and many other areas of corporate governance. If there are defects in the laws on shareholder’s ability to exercise more direct control (e.g. votes on general parameters of executive compensation packages), then perhaps there is a role for Congress to do something here.

Thanks Susan. Well said.

Two good books I'd encourage all to check out:

1) Nobodies, by John Bowe
2) Richistan, by Robert Frank

In case anyone thought that there was no problem with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" merrily distributing goods and services and wealth among all of the happy workers in society, these two books give a taste of the difference between the two Americas.