The existence of God?

[Michael Burns]

The existence of a god?

Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
nature of such a being.

I have asked permission via posting from all of the newsgroups included in
this discussion. Not all have responded; so, I assumed it to be tacit
permission.

A few things to note about this discussion:

1.. This newsgroup thread is cross-posted to eight news groups.
2.. Proponents of a couple of these newsgroups generally do not accept
the premise that a god exists.
3.. Because this newsgroup thread is cross-posted to newsgroups
frequented by participants holding very different and possibly diametrically
opposed ideologies / belief structures there is good chance others will
completely disagree with most every comment and assertion you make.
This discussion, considering the history of many newsgroup postings,
will become nothing but a cyber back alley brawl if a few simple
considerations by participants are not taken. Firstly, I ask that you treat
everyone and everyone else's viewpoint with respect, even if you completely
disagree. Secondly, do not treat others who do not accept your beliefs as
the enemy; the only enemies here are ignorance and self-importance. Lastly,
I ask that you do not call other's names such as idiot, Satan, fool, etc. If
someone is rude in a posting to you or about your beliefs simply do not
reply in kind. Let others point out the fact that someone is being rude.

I will use the following structure to begin this discussion. This posting is
being used to introduce the discussion into all seven of the newsgroups.
From this posting I will place six replies to this posting to serve as
branches to each of the basic doctrines followed by the newsgroups included
in this discussion. I will ask proponents of each of the news groups to
briefly describe / state, as best as they can, the basic assumptions held by
most proponents of their newsgroup

It might be a good idea, when posting to this thread for the first time, to
tell us what your affiliations are. In other words, tell us you are
Catholic, an atheist, or that you are a Hindu. If your beliefs are not that
easily describable then take more space in your posting to let us all know.

Currently, I am a member of the Catholic Church and probably will be for the
duration of my life. I like the current Pope a lot and feel the Church is
generally very giving to the poor and generally fair. In my formative years
my family attended an American Luther Church. When in high school I became,
for the most part, an agnostic, in part due to watching Carl Sagan's series
"Cosmos". As a personal response to the Iran/Iraq war I became an atheist
for a number of months, almost a year. Because of my studies in Physics,
philosophy, and history I could not remain an atheist. So, I started to
follow the path of enlightenment set out in the teachings of the Zen
masters. I also enjoyed the teachings of Buddhism and Taoism. In the end I
could not really find much more to these ways than I could with the
existentialist philosophies. Existentialism, though it seemed to explain a
lot of the world to me, always led me toward a feeling of depression or
apathy. I always knew that if I returned to Christianity it would be via the
Catholic Church; that is here I am now. This paragraph is more than I would
expect as your own personal bio, but I thought in doing this others might
follow in kind.

............................................................................
............
"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
-Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the
first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40
............................................................................
............

[Michael Burns]

The existence of God: A Christian view:

I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is to
simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
following is called the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true
God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the father. Through him all
things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became
man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died
and was buried. On the third he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his
kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from
the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through
the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We
acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

There are a number of assumptions about the existence of God that can be
drawn from the Nicene Creed. I will list only a few:

1.. A God does exist
2.. There is only one God; though this one God by humans is seen as
three entities yet being one God
3.. The God Christian's worship is considered to be the creator of the
universe
4.. God does interact with God's human creation
5.. God became man via a birth resulting from the union of the Holy
Spirit and woman named Mary
6.. The human aspect of God was slaughtered by man in fulfillment of the
Scriptures; the Scriptures being the texts/Traditions kept by the Jewish
culture (the chosen people of God)
7.. The Holy Spirit is God's venue for interacting with man; thought by
many (including the Catholic Church) to be personally man's conscience as
well as the driving force behind God's Church here on Earth.
8.. Man is separate from God; man is a created being; yet in union with
God through the Holy Spirit
Well, this ought to be enough to start the discussion about the
existence and nature of God as seen by Christians.

[Michael Burns]

>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about
>the existence of a god and the
>nature of such a being.

The existence of God; a gnostic view

From "Webster's New World Dictionary"

gnosis: knowledge of spiritual things; esp., an esoteric, syncretistic,
allegedly superior spiritual knowledge gained by self-illumination and
limited to an elite few, like that the Gnostics claimed to have.

The following is from a Gnostic web site; it is written by Stephen Hoeller,
a Gnostic Bishop. I ask our gnostic/Gnostic proponents to add or amend the
following if need be.

Gnosticism is the teaching based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence
arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus
rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such
experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say
that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience
that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but
which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the
medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the
forms of myths. The term "myth" should not here be taken to mean "stories
that are not true", but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are
of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of
philosophy.

In the following summary, we will attempt to encapsulate in prose what the
Gnostic myths express in their distinctively poetic and imaginative
language.

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

The Cosmos
All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they
differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this
imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have
their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold
that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that
earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all
forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death
upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of
plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods,
fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in
their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are
aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also
suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a
world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections
of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as
declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought
about a "fall" of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the
world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The
blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator.
Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God,
this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay
even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed
creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have
impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised
people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its
grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this
harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of
existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the
Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of
creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how
the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the
first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

Once the initial shock of the "unusual" or "blasphemous" nature of the
Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off,
one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all
explanations. To appreciate it fully, however, a familiarity with the
Gnostic conception of the Godhead is required, both in its original essence
as the True God and in its debased manifestation as the false or creator
God.

Deity
The Gnostic God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its
way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism,
as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is
beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in
which the word "create" is ordinarily understood. While this True God did
not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) "emanated" or brought forth from
within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and
invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is
God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must
also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have
been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome
changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied
creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions
of the emanated divine essence.

The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons,
intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and
ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness
(Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully. The Fullness
stands in contrast to our existential state, which in comparison may be
called emptiness.

One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia ("Wisdom") is of great
importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings,
Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being
who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he
created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins,
imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God. Since he took the
already existing divine essence and fashioned it into various forms, he is
also called the Demiurgos or "half-maker" There is an authentic half, a true
deific component within creation, but it is not recognized by the half-maker
and by his cosmic minions, the Archons or "rulers".

The Human Being
Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by
the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God.
Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a
spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence. This latter
part is often symbolically referred to as the "divine spark". The
recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has
earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of "dualist".

Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This
ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator
and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant
of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us to remain attached
to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to these lower cosmic
rulers. Death releases the divine spark from its lowly prison, but if there
has not been a substantial work of Gnosis undertaken by the soul prior to
death, it becomes likely that the divine spark will be hurled back into, and
then re-embodied within, the pangs and slavery of the physical world.

Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and
liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who
recognize only the physical reality. Others live largely in their psyche
(psychics). Such people usually mistake the Demiurge for the True God and
have little or no awareness of the spiritual world beyond matter and mind.

In the course of history, humans progress from materialistic sensate
slavery, by way of ethical religiosity, to spiritual freedom and liberating
Gnosis. As the scholar G. Quispel wrote: "The world-spirit in exile must go
through the Inferno of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the
spiritual Paradise." This kind of evolution of consciousness was envisioned
by the Gnostics, long before the concept of evolution was known.

Salvation
Evolutionary forces alone are insufficient, however, to bring about
spiritual freedom. Humans are caught in a predicament consisting of physical
existence combined with ignorance of their true origins, their essential
nature and their ultimate destiny. To be liberated from this predicament,
human beings require help, although they must also contribute their own
efforts.

From earliest times Messengers of the Light have come forth from the True
God in order to assist humans in their quest for Gnosis. Only a few of these
salvific figures are mentioned in Gnostic scripture; some of the most
important are Seth (the third Son of Adam), Jesus, and the Prophet Mani. The
majority of Gnostics always looked to Jesus as the principal savior figure
(the Soter).

Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather
from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is
meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and
the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light,
especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering
and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that
Christ has performed His work of salvation.

The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle
one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an
unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself
project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation
is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but
individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and
salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to
effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by
Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific
mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the
Messengers and their successors.

One needs also remember that knowledge of our true nature -- as well as
other associated realizations -- are withheld from us by our very condition
of earthly existence. The True God of transcendence is unknown in this
world, in fact He is often called the Unknown Father. It is thus obvious
that revelation from on High is needed to bring about salvation. The
indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the saving
knowledge that comes "from without".

Conduct
If the words "ethics" or "morality" are taken to mean a system of rules,
then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with
the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the
other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from
the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this
spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.

To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not
substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous
ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the
maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however,
are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis.
Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular
terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with
the spiritual development of the individual.

As noted in the discussion above, "hyletic materialists" usually have little
interest in morality, while "psychic disciplinarians" often grant to it a
great importance. In contrast, "Pneumatic spiritual" persons are generally
more concerned with other, higher matters. Different historical periods also
require variant attitudes regarding human conduct. Thus both the Manichaean
and Cathar Gnostic movements, which functioned in times where purity of
conduct was regarded as an issue of high import, responded in kind. The
present period of Western culture perhaps resembles in more ways that of
second and third century Alexandria. It seems therefore appropriate that
Gnostics in our age adopt the attitudes of classical Alexandrian Gnosticism,
wherein matters of conduct were largely left to the insight of the
individual.

Gnosticism embraces numerous general attitudes toward life: it encourages
non-attachment and non-conformity to the world, a "being in the world, but
not of the world"; a lack of egotism; and a respect for the freedom and
dignity of other beings. Nonetheless, it appertains to the intuition and
wisdom of every individual "Gnostic" to distill from these principles
individual guidelines for their personal application.

Destiny
When Confucius was asked about death, he replied: "Why do you ask me about
death when you do not know how to live?" This answer might easily have been
given by a Gnostic. To a similar question posed in the Gnostic Gospel of
Thomas, Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the
ineffable, divine reality from whence they have originated, and whither they
will return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are
still embodied on earth.

Death does not automatically bring about liberation from bondage in the
realms of the Demiurge. Those who have not attained to a liberating Gnosis
while they were in embodiment may become trapped in existence once more. It
is quite likely that this might occur by way of the cycle of rebirths.
Gnosticism does not emphasize the doctrine of reincarnation prominently, but
it is implicitly understood in most Gnostic teachings that those who have
not made effective contact with their transcendental origins while they were
in embodiment would have to return into the sorrowful condition of earthly
life.

In regard to salvation, or the fate of the spirit and soul after death, one
needs to be aware that help is available. Valentinus, the greatest of
Gnostic teachers, taught that Christ and Sophia await the spiritual man --
the pneumatic Gnostic -- at the entrance of the Pleroma, and help him to
enter the bridechamber of final reunion. Ptolemaeus, disciple of Valentinus,
taught that even those not of pneumatic status, the psychics, could be
redeemed and live in a heavenworld at the entrance of the Pleroma. In the
fullness of time, every spiritual being will receive Gnosis and will be
united with its higher Self -- the angelic Twin -- thus becoming qualified
to enter the Pleroma. None of this is possible, however, without earnest
striving for Gnosis.

Gnosis and Psyche: The Depth Psychological Connection
Throughout the Twentieth Century the new scientific discipline of depth
psychology has gained much prominence. Among the depth psychologists who
have shown a pronounced and informed interest in Gnosticism, a place of
signal distinction belongs to C. G. Jung. Jung was instrumental in calling
attention to the Nag Hammadi library of Gnostic writings in the 1940's and
1950's because he perceived the outstanding psychological relevance of
Gnostic insights.

The noted scholar of Gnosticism, G. Filoramo wrote: "Jung's reflections had
long been immersed in the thought of the ancient Gnostics to such an extent
that he considered them the virtual discoverers of 'depth psychology' . . .
ancient Gnosis, albeit in its form of universal religion, in a certain sense
prefigured, and at the same time helped to clarify, the nature of Jungian
spiritual therapy." In the light of such recognitions one may ask: "Is
Gnosticism a religion or a psychology?" The answer is that it may very-well
be both. Most mythologems found in Gnostic scriptures possess psychological
relevance and applicability. For instance the blind and arrogant
creator-demiurge bears a close resemblance to the alienated human ego that
has lost contact with the ontological Self. Also, the myth of Sophia
resembles closely the story of the human psyche that loses its connection
with the collective unconscious and needs to be rescued by the Self.
Analogies of this sort exist in great profusion.

Many esoteric teachings have proclaimed, "As it is above, so it is below."
Our psychological nature (the microcosm) mirrors metaphysical nature (the
macrocosm), thus Gnosticism may possess both a psychological and a religious
authenticity. Gnostic psychology and Gnostic religion need not be exclusive
of one another but may complement each other within an implicit order of
wholeness. Gnostics have always held that divinity is immanent within the
human spirit, although it is not limited to it. The convergence of Gnostic
religious teaching with psychological insight is thus quite understandable
in terms of time-honored Gnostic principles.

Conclusion
Some writers make a distinction between "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism". Such
distinctions are both helpful and misleading. Gnosis is undoubtedly an
experience based not in concepts and precepts, but in the sensibility of the
heart. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is the world-view based on the
experience of Gnosis. For this reason, in languages other than English, the
word Gnosis is often used to denote both the experience and the world view
(die Gnosis in German, la Gnose in French).

In a sense, there is no Gnosis without Gnosticism, for the experience of
Gnosis inevitably calls forth a world view wherein it finds its place. The
Gnostic world view is experiential, it is based on a certain kind of
spiritual experience of Gnosis. Therefore, it will not do to omit, or to
dilute, various parts of the Gnostic world view, for were one to do this,
the world view would no longer conform to experience.

Theology has been called an intellectual wrapping around the spiritual
kernel of a religion. If this is true, then it is also true that most
religions are being strangled and stifled by their wrappings. Gnosticism
does not run this danger, because its world view is stated in myth rather
than in theology. Myths, including the Gnostic myths, may be interpreted in
diverse ways. Transcendence, numinosity, as well as psychological archetypes
along with other elements, play a role in such interpretation. Still, such
mythic statements tell of profound truths that will not be denied.

Gnosticism can bring us such truths with a high authority, for it speaks
with the voice of the highest part of the human -- the spirit. Of this
spirit, it has been said, "it bloweth where it listeth". This then is the
reason why the Gnostic world view could not be extirpated in spite of many
centuries of persecution.

The Gnostic world view has always been timely, for it always responded best
to the "knowledge of the heart" that is true Gnosis. Yet today, its
timeliness is increasing, for the end of the second millennium has seen the
radical deterioration of many ideologies which evaded the great questions
and answers addressed by Gnosticism. The clarity, frankness, and
authenticity of the Gnostic answer to the questions of the human predicament
cannot fail to impress and (in time) to convince. If your reactions to this
summary have been of a similarly positive order, then perhaps you are a
Gnostic yourself!

+ Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop)

[Michael Burns]

>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>nature of such a being.

The existence of God, a Zen view

[Michael writes]

It is not purpose of Zen to describe God or to even attribute anything
including existence to a god. Yet, it is not the purpose of Zen to deny that
a God exists. The following are a few samples of Zen thought taken from
various web sites. I did not try to imply any order or meaning to these
thoughts. I think what can be seen by reading these thoughts is that Zen is
not a religion but rather a method of living one's life. It be better said
that Zen is taking the time to really understand life. It has been a while
since I delved into Zen thought; did I get even close to saying it
correctly?

[Michael's writing ends]

[Zen Thoughts Begin]

A Hindu story tells of a fish who asked of another fish: `I have always
heard about the sea, but what is it? Where is it?' The other fish replied:
`You live, move and have your being the sea. The sea is within you and
without you, and you are made of sea, and you will end in sea. The sea
surrounds you as your own being.' The only true answer is the one that you
find for yourself.

The Teachings of
The Monk Suwattano

What do Buddhists believe?
What is Buddhism? What's religion?

It it not unusual for people to ask me"What do you (Buddhists) believe in?"
I usually say that "it's not important what I believe." Generally people are
not sure how to take that, but they are usually sure that I don't believe
that "it's not important what I believe." They usually just think I don't
wish to discuss it with them, and create some mental idea (predisposition)
as to why. Usually people equate religion with theistic beliefs...so if I'm
a Buddhist then I should have "Buddhist" beliefs. Buddhism is often regarded
by theistic religions as atheistic, and sometimes not even a religion at
all...it's seen as a psychology or philosophy because Buddhism doesn't
originate from a theistic or doctrinal position. Not so long ago someone
showed me a description of Buddhism as a "non-theistic religion", which
seems to indicate a non-religion.

I remember a book I read a few years ago where almost an entire chapter was
spent debating whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy...the Author
finally came to the conclusion that he thought it was a combination, a sort
of religious-psychology, although he wasn't really sure. So, we could go
debating and speculating about this forever...we come to theistic
irrelevancy...back to "it doesn't matter what I believe." You see...religion
isn't really what a person believes, but what a person practices day to day.
If someone says that they are a Christian with Christian beliefs, but they
don't practice the non-judgement of others on a daily basis, then they don't
really believe in the teachings of Jesus...they're just speculating about
the way things could be.

In Buddhism we emphasize practice because that leads to true understanding
as opposed to mere speculation. As we practice we begin to see how our mind
works and how things really are...our beliefs keep changing with our
realizations until we finally realize how impermanent our beliefs are, that
there is no permanent "self" to be found in them, and that they are
essentially unsatisfactory because trying to hold onto them only stands in
the way of our willingness learn. Then we can have a real belief...the
belief that our beliefs don't matter, not even the belief that 'our beliefs
don't matter' is important, they all become irrelevant as mere beliefs.
please, take care of your heart...
Suwattano

The Four Noble Truths of Life
(Life Sucks When We Are Being Stupid)

(note: loose translations of quotes of the Buddha are in Italics annotated
with quotation marks)

1. Life sucks - "Now this is the Noble Truth concerning life sucking. Birth
sucks, aging sucks, death sucks, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
despair suck; not getting what one wants sucks. In short, the limited five
aggregates suck that make up this human life."

2. Life sucks for a reason - "And what is the Noble Truth of the origination
of life sucking? The craving that creates further becoming, accompanied by
chasing after lust and delight, relishing now here and now there, i.e.
craving for sensuality, craving for existence, craving for non-existence."

The Buddha told us that life sucks for a reason, and that we make our own
lives suck. We make our lives suck by our constant chasing after excitement
and our thinking that life sucks when it isn't exciting. There is no
possible way that life can be exciting all the time, and it is our wanting
life to always be exciting even though it can never be that way; our wanting
life to be other than it is; our own wrong thinking, that makes life suck so
much. Our own trying to make life more than what it naturally is and can
ever be; trying to get more out of life than what it has to offer, where we
make our own lives suck.

3. Life doesn't have to suck - "And what is the Noble Truth of the ending of
life sucking? The abandoning and cessation, renunciation relinquishment,
release, and letting go of the craving that causes life to suck."

The Buddha says that life doesn't have to suck, that if we stop being stupid
life won't suck anymore. If we look at this we can see that we make life
suck ourselves (create our own turmoils). So if we stop being stupid by
creating our own difficulties life won't suck so much.

4. The path leading to the ending of life sucking - Don't Be Stupid!.

The Buddha described it as the Eightfold Path saying: "And what is the Noble
Truth of the path of practice leading to the end of life sucking? Just this
very Eightfold Path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
concentration."

That doesn't mean that we should sit around trying to perfect each of these
eight aspects individually. That would be being "Stupid", it would take
forever. Look back at the time of the Buddha...at the number of people who
gained enlightenment...not a single one of these people had a Ph.D., so this
path can't be as complicated as most modern teachers make it out to be.
Maybe they just like being important and in control, I don't know, but it is
not so difficult. Just Be Only The Heart the best you can, and be patient
(but patience is not negligence). If we are patiently doing the best we can
and not being negligent, we are practicing the entire Eightfold Path...it's
that simple. It just comes down to: Don't Be Stupid...it's not so difficult,
so don't make it difficult.

The Teachings of
Zen Master Bankei
True Zen

"It's essential that you people learn about the living Buddha-Mind that
functions vitally as you live and work. For hundreds of years now the Zen
teaching in both China and Japan has become mistaken. People have thought,
and still do,, that enlightenment is attained by doing zazen. They've tried
to discover the "master of seeing and hearing." They're dead wrong. Zazen is
another name for the primary mind. It signifies peaceful sitting. A peaceful
mind. When sitting, it just sits. When doing walking meditation, it just
walks. There is no way in the world anyone could preach the Buddhist Dharma,
not even if they had all heaven and earth for a mouth. Those who attempt to
preach it only end up blinding others. There wasn't a speck of trouble or
illusion in the mind your mother gave you when she brought you into the
world. From ignorance of this, you say something like: "I'm deluded because
I'm an ordinary, unenlightened man," unfairly pushing the blame onto your
parents. The Buddhas of the past and the people of the present are one and
the same substance...there is nothing setting them apart. It's like taking
water from a river and pouring it into buckets of different shapes and
sizes; when the weather turns cold and it freezes solid, the shape it takes,
large, small, square, or round, varies according to the shape of the bucket
you put it in. But thawed, it's all the same river water.

You don't know that you're already living Buddhas in all that you do. You
think that you attain enlightenment and become a Buddha by piling up merit
through religious practice. But since that's totally wrong, yo go along
pathetically leaving one darkness for another.

as for me, I don't preach about Buddhist teaching. I only point out the
false notions you bring with you."

- - - - - - - - - -

Zen Words And Stories

A monk spoke to Master Bankei: " I've been working on the "Have no
illusions!" koan for thirty years. Bankei replied: "Say something about
"Have no illusions!" just as you are right now! The monk said: "Yesterday it
rained.". Bankei coughed. The monk said: "Today is clear." Bankei struck
him.

"The people studying Zen nowdays spend all their time on old Zen words and
stories, quoting this fellow and citing that one as they deliberate
fruitlessly over their koans. Trailing doggedly after other peoples' words.
Feeding on their dregs. Caught in another man's tub, unable to break out
into real freedom. They're down in the dark caves, living with the
disembodied spirits. You won't find any of those musers or cogitaters around
here. Here, I make people stand absolutely alone and independent right from
the start, with their eyes fully open, so they can reach out through all the
universe. Each one of the words and sayings uttered by the worthy teachers
of the past was given in response to a particular occasion, according to
changing conditions; they were trying to stop a child's crying by showing
him an empty hand. How could anyone who belongs to the family of Zen have
even a single Dharma to preach! If you chase along after phrases and get
muddled up in words, your no better off than a man who loses his sword over
the side of a ship and then marks the spot where it fell in on the railing."

- - - - - - - - - -

Reading Dharma Texts

Itsuzan asked: "Is it helpful for students to look through the Buddhist
sutras and Zen records?"
Bankei replied: "There's a time for reading the Zen records. If you read
them or the sutras while you're still seeking the meaning contained in them,
you'll only blind yourself. When you read them after having transcended that
meaning, they become proof of your attainment.

"The only way any of you can become unborn and realize the Buddha-Mind is to
confirm what I am telling you in your own mind. I won't tell you that you
have to practice such and such, that you have to uphold certain rules or
precepts or read certain sutras or other Zen writings, or that you have to
do zazen. I'm not going to try to give you the Buddha-Mind either, you
already have it. If you listen carefully to me, and grasp the Buddha-Mind
that is already yours, then you become a genuine living Buddha. Wherever you
are standing, that place is the Unborn. Whatever you want to do, you can do
it. If you want to recite sutras or do zazen, observe precepts, recite the
Nembutsu or the Diamoku, you may do it. If you're a farmer or a tradesman
and you want to work your farm or buisness, the go ahead, do it; whatever it
is, that will be your personal samadhi. My part in this is simply to tell
you about it and to try to get you to confirm the Buddha-Minds you were all
given when you were born"

What is Zen? (the simple question)
Zen is short for Zen Buddhism. It is sometimes called a religion and
sometimes called a philosophy. Choose whichever term you prefer; it simply
doesn't matter.

Historically, Zen Buddhism originates in the teachings of Siddhartha
Gautama. Around 500 B.C. he was a prince in what is now India. At the age of
29, deeply troubled by the suffering he saw around him, he renounced his
privileged life to seek understanding. After 6 years of struggling as an
ascetic he finally achieved Enlightenment at age 35. After this he was known
as the Buddha (meaning roughly "one who is awake"). In a nutshell, he
realized that everything is subject to change and that suffering and
discontentment are the result of attachment to circumstances and things
which, by their nature, are impermanent. By ridding oneself of these
attachments, including attachment to the false notion of self or "I", one
can be free of suffering.

The teachings of the Buddha have, to this day, been passed down from teacher
to student. Around 475 A.D. one of these teachers, Bodhidharma, traveled
from India to China and introduced the teachings of the Buddha there. In
China Buddhism mingled with Taoism. The result of this mingling was the
Ch'an School of Buddhism. Around 1200 A.D. Ch'an Buddhism spread from China
to Japan where it is called (at least in translation) Zen Buddhism.

What is Zen? (the real question)
This question basically asks "What is the essence of Zen?". It appears in
various guises throughout Zen literature, from "What is the meaning of
Bodhidharma's coming from the West?" to "Have you eaten yet?". The question
cuts right to the heart of the matter and can only be answered by you.
Perhaps the best answer is "practice".

Why do people post such nonsense to this group?
One of the central points of Zen is intuitive understanding. As a result,
words and sentences have no fixed meaning, and logic is often irrelevant.
Words have meaning only in relation to who is using them, who they are
talking to, and what situation they are used in. Some postings are indeed
nonsense; other postings appear to be nonsense at first but this is because
the meaning is all between the lines. Zen and poetry have gone hand in hand
for centuries.

[Michael Burns]

>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>nature of such a being.

The existence of God; a Hindu's view

I am not fully versed in the traditions/history and culture of Hinduism; so,
I ask someone who is fully versed in Hindu tradition to describe how a
typical Hindu would view the nature of God.

Following are excerpt from a web site called the Spirit Web. The following
texts answers nine typical questions asked about Hinduism:

1) What is the Hindu definition of God-monotheistic or polytheistic?

Introduction

There is much confusion about this, not among Hindus but among those on the
outside looking in. Learn the right terms, and the subtle differences in
them, and you can explain the profound ways that Hindus look at Divinity.
Others will be delighted with the richness of the ancient concepts of God.
You may wish to tell inquiring minds that some Hindus believe only in the
formless Absolute Reality as God, others believe in God as personal Lord and
Creator. Hinduism gives us the freedom to approach God in our own way,
without demanding conformity to any dogma. This freedom makes the concept of
God in Hinduism the richest in all the world's religions.

Answer #1: Hinduism is both a monotheistic and a henotheistic religion.
Hindus believe in one supreme God who created the universe and who is
worshipped as Light, Love and Consciousness. Hindus were never polytheistic,
but were always henotheistic. Henotheism is defined by Webster's as "the
belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of others."

Answer #2: We Hindus believe that there is one all-pervasive God which
energizes the entire universe. We can see Him in the life shining out of the
eyes of humans and all creatures. This concept of God as existing in and
giving life to all things is called "panentheism." It is different from
pantheism, which is the belief that God is the natural universe and nothing
more. It is also different from theism which says God is only above the
world. Panentheism is a beautiful concept. It says that God is both in the
world and beyond it, both immanent and transcendent. That is the Hindu view.
Hindus also believe in many devas who perform various kinds of functions,
like executives in a large corporation. These should not be confused with
God. There is one Supreme God only. What is sometimes confusing to
non-Hindus is that we may call this one God by many different names,
according to our tradition. Truth for the Hindu has many names, but that
does not make for many truths.

Answer #3: Hindus believe in one God, one humanity and one world. People
with different language, different cultures have understood this one God in
their own way. This is why we are very tolerant of all religions, as each
has its own path to this one God. One of the unique understandings in
Hinduism is that God is not just far away, living in a remote heaven, but is
also inside of each and every soul in the heart and consciousness, waiting
for you and me to discover. Knowing the One Great God in this intimate and
experiential way is the goal of Hindu spirituality.

Summary

In summary, if by this time you have a little group around you very
interested in what you have to say, ask them if they have ever seen God.
Most will say "No, never." Then explain that you are now going to give them
the experience of seeing God. Go on to explain that God is the Life of our
lives, and the life within each of us is the same as the life within all of
us. Then carefully explain that that Life which is God can be seen by
looking in one another's eyes. Ask each one to look into each other's eyes
trying not to see the person but to just see the life, the pure
consciousness, of the person instead. Then explain that when we are seeing
the life in others eyes we are actually seeing God.

2) Could you describe the process of reincarnation?

Introduction

Reincarnation, known in Sanskrit as samsara, is a very openly discussed
subject these days. Shirley MacLaine went "out on a limb" on this subject
and made popular throughout the United States. Now nearly every television
script has standard statements written into it such as "See you in the next
life," or "I must have known you in a past life." The TV serial "Quantum
Leap" is a great example of a program that is bringing this knowledge of a
one soul inhabiting many bodies to the forefront of mass consciousness. I
talked with Shirley a few weeks ago in San Francisco and told her what a
fantastic job we all thought she is doing in spreading this knowledge, and
assured her that she has the full support of Hindus.

Now to three answers that you can memorize to give when this question is
asked of you. Don't forget to precede your answer with your sweet smile and
confident prologue.

Answer #1: Reincarnation, yes, carnate means flesh. The word reincarnate
means to "reenter the flesh." We Hindus believe the soul is immortal and
keeps reentering a fleshy body time and time again in order to resolve
experiences and thereby learn all the lessons life in the material world has
to offer.

Answer #2: There have been many recorded out-of-the-body experiences. These
have been researched by scientists, psychiatrists and parapsychologists
during the last decade and documented in some very good books. Even science
is discovering reincarnation.

Answer #3: Yes, we Hindus believe in reincarnation. To us, it explains the
natural way the soul evolves from immaturity to spiritual illumination. I
myself have had many lives before this one and expect to have more. Finally,
when I have it all worked out and all the lessons have been learned, I will
attain mukti. This means I will still exist but no longer be pulled back to
incarnate in a physical body.

Summary

I would like to explain the process of reincarnation in a little more
detail. When the soul leaves the physical body never to return, the soul
does not die but lives on in another subtle body called the astral body. The
astral body lives on another plane of consciousness called the astral plane.
Here we continue to have experiences until we are reborn again in another
physical body as a baby. The soul chooses a home and a family which can best
fulfill its next step of maturation. Hindus understand the natural growth of
all humans as they experience evolution because they know these facts. After
enlightenment, however, we do not have to re-experience the baseness of
human existence but go on in evolution in our other bodies. As an example:
After we graduate from school we don't have to-nor do we want to-re-enroll
in the fifth grade. We are beyond that in understanding.

If you choose to use answer number three, be prepared that it might lead
into a very interesting discussion, and you might want to invite your
new-found friend and the little group that has perhaps gathered around to
further pursue reincarnation over a cup of coffee or tea.

Reincarnation is a vast subject and there are many books written about it.
Get them and read them. They will enlighten on the subject you and keep you
informed. We would be happy to send you pamphlets on karma and
reincarnation, which gives the central facts of our Hindu belief and a book
list, names of authors, publishers, etc. You should also know that most all
of the worlds religions believe now or once believed in reincarnation. Even
the early Christian church believed in reincarnation. But an early King
Justininan took it out of the Bible to affect better control of the people.
Even now many Christians are attempting to get back to those early
teachings. We have some of these books, too, and can refer them to you if
you are interested. Should you be in a hurry, we have a 36-hour turn-around
response to every fax that comes in. They come in daily from at least three
or four countries. We don't do as well with paper mail. About a 15 or 30
days turnaround for that. So, fax us if you are in a hurry.

3) What is karma?

Introduction

Karma is another word we hear about quite often on television. "This is my
karma." or, "It must have been something I did in a past life to bring such
good karma to me." In more liberal schools of Hinduism, karma is looked upon
as something bad. Just two days ago a Hindu guest from Guyana in South
America came to visit us in Hawaii and mentioned that karma means "sin," and
that this is what the Christians in his country are preaching that it means.
Karma actually means "cause and effect." Here is an example: I have a glass
of water sitting in front of me on a table. Because the table is not moving,
nor is the glass, the water is calm. Shake the table, the water ripples.
This is action and reaction, the basic law of nature. The process of action
and reaction on all levels-physical, mental and spiritual-is karma.

Here is another example: I say kind words to you, you are peaceful and
happy. I say harsh words to you, you become ruffled and sad. This is karma.
It names the basic law of the motion of energy. An architect thinks
creative, productive thoughts, and draws plans for a new building. But were
he to think destructive, unproductive thoughts, he would soon not be able to
accomplish any kind of positive task even if he desired to do so. This is
karma, a natural law of the mind. We must be very careful about our thoughts
because thought creates and thoughts also make karmas, both good, bad and
mixed. Here are three answers to memorize and later explain to beautiful
souls who are seeking higher consciousness and look to you for mystical
knowledge of the Far East.

Answer #1: Karma is one of the natural laws of the universe. It simply means
"cause and effect." Our religion is made up of many natural laws of the
universe. Karma is just one of them. (This is a simple answer for a casual
seeker. After you have said this, smile and ask if they want to know
anything more.)

Answer #2: Karma is basically energy. I throw energy out through thoughts,
words and deeds, and it comes back to me (in time) through other people. We
Hindus look at time as a circle. I think professor Einstein came to the same
conclusion. He saw time as a curved thing and space as well. This would
eventually make a circle. Karma is a very just law, too, as it is equal in
re-payment. Like gravity, it treats everyone the same.

Answer #3: God does not give us karma. We create our own. Bad karma is
because we have done something bad in the past to someone, and now someone
is doing something bad to us. Good karma means that we have done something
good in the past and now others are doing something good to us now. Because
we Hindus understand karma, we do not hate or resent the people who do us
harm. We understand they are giving back the effects of the causes we set in
motion at an earlier time. At least we try not to hate them or hold hard
feelings, by reminding ourselves of the law of karma.

Summary

A coffee shop might be in order here if you want to continue discussing this
subject. There are many souls in America seeking higher consciousness and
they are all very interested in knowing more about karma. We can supply you
with as much background literature as you need.

Our fax number is 822-4351. Above all, don't be shy. Speak with authority
and with a smile. Don't think you have to know everything about karma,
reincarnation, God or gods in order to answer casual questions. Just do your
best.

4) Why do Hindus regard the cow as sacred?

Introduction

We cannot give anything away but that it comes back to us. A few years ago
in Madras an American devotee said to me, "Shall I give money to the beggar
who is asking?" I said, "Give him ten rupees. You may need the fifty rupees
when karma pays you back, just as he needs the ten rupees now." The karmic
law pays higher interest than any bank when you give freely with no strings
attached.

Rhetorical question: "Who is the greatest giver on planet earth today?" Who
do we see on every table? At every country of the world, breakfast, lunch
and dinner? It is the cow. The golden arches made a fortune on the cow. When
we were in Moscow in March we learned that MacDonalds is opening 11 of its
cow-vending machines there.

The generous cow gives milk and cream, yogurt and cheese, butter and ice
cream, ghee, buttermilk, sirloin, ribs, rump, quarterround, porterhouse,
beef stew. Its bones are the base for soup broths. It gives us our leather
belt, leather seats, leather coats and shoes, beef jerky, cowboy hats, you
name it. The cow is the most prominent giving animal in the world today.

And now the question: Why do the Hindus regard the cow as sacred? (Don't
forget to give the proper prologue before you answer this question. This
will break down any resistance to the answer you are about to give.)

Answer #1: People who ask if cows are considered sacred should understand
that Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred-mammals, fishes, birds and
more. The cow symbolically represents all other creatures to the Hindu.

Answer #2: The cow represents life and the sustainance of life to the Hindu.
It represents our soul, our obstinate intellect, our unruly emotions, but
the cow supersedes us because it is so giving, taking nothing but grass and
grain. It gives and gives and gives, as does the soul give and give and
give.

Answer #3: The cow is so vital to life, the virtual sustainer of life for
humans. In a society if you only had cows and no other domestic animals or
agricultural pursuits, you could still survive and the children could
survive with the butter, the cream and the milk to feed the children. The
cow is a complete ecology, a gentle creature and a symbol of abundance.

Summary

Yes, the cow is considered very sacred in our religion and for very good
reason. It's good qualities are those that we can emulate.

5) Are Hindus idol worshippers?

Introduction

No Hindus are not idle worshippers. I have never seen a Hindu worship in a
lazy or idle way. They worship with great vigor and devotion, with
unstinting regularity and constancy. There's nothing idle about our ways of
worship! (A little humor never hurt when answering a silly question.)

But, of course, the question that is being asked is not about this. It is
about graven images, like the Christian cross with Jesus hanging on it, or
statues of Mother Mary and Saint Theresa, or the holy Kabaa in Mecca, or the
Adigranth enshrined in the Golden Temple in Amritsar, or the Arc and the
Torah of the Jews, the image of a meditating Buddha, the totems of the
indigenous faiths (the so-called primitive faiths throughout the world), the
artifacts of the many holy men of all religions. All these graven images are
stood before in awe by the followers of these religions. The tooth of the
Buddha in Sri Lankan town of Kandy is another loved and respected image. All
religions have their symbols of holiness. The question is, Does this make
all the above religions idol-worshippers? The answer is, No.

Answer #1: No, Hindus are not idol worshippers in the sense implied. They
are intelligent people, and intelligent people do not worship stones or
statues. Hindus invoke the presence of great souls living in higher
consciousness into stone images so that we can feel the presence of God.
Though we may have a stone image of a God, we are invoking the physical
presence of the God into the stone image to bless us. Invocations of this
nature can be performed by invoking God's presence in a fire, or in a tree,
or in the enlightened person of a Sat Guru.

Answer #2: The human mind releases itself from suffering, as shown by all
the religions, through the use of forms and symbols that awaken reverence
and evoke sanctity. Even a fundamentalist Christian who rejects all forms of
idol worship, including those of the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church,
would resent someone who threw his Bible on the floor. This is because he
considers it sacred. In Hinduism one of the ultimate attainments is that the
seeker transcends the need of all form and symbol. This is the yogi's goal.
In this way Hinduism is the least idol-oriented of all the religions of the
world. There is no religion that is more aware of the transcendent,
timeless, formless, causeless Truth. Nor is there any religion which uses
more symbols to represent Truth in preparation for that realization.

Answer #3: No, no. Ten thousand times no. We do not worship idols. We invoke
God within our temple through our highly trained priests into the sanctum.
We invoke God within us through or highly trained Sat Gurus who teach us
yoga. Yoga means to yoke oneself to God within.

Summary

If after all that the questioner is still interested, invite him or her to
the Lemont temple and explain the process of the puja and the experiences to
be had. Tell him or her that you don't have to be born a Hindu to be a
Hindu. This is ridiculous Christian propaganda. You are a Hindu if you
believe in karma, reincarnation, the existence of God everywhere in all
things, and the existence of beings that are on a greater evolutionary path
than ourselves. As a Hindu you are the converter, the one who can never be
converted. Could anyone ever convince you that the law of gravity is an
untrue law or that heat from a stove would not burn your hand? These are
pragmatic laws we all know. Karma, reincarnation, invocation of the Deity
are equally pragmatic laws known to Hindus who believe in these eternal
Truths. Smile, have confidence as you give these answers. Don't be shy.
There is no question that can be put to you in your karma that you cannot
rise up to and fully satisfy the seeker.

6) Is there a rule about Hindus eating meat?

Introduction

This is a very touchy subject.

When you are asked this question, there are several ways that you can go,
depending on who is asking the question and the background in which they
have been raised. Basically, there is a rule, an overlying rule, which gives
the Hindu answer to this query. It is called ahimsa, refraining from
injuring-physically, mentally or emotionally-anyone or any living creature.
The Hindu who wishes to strictly follow the path of non-injury to all
creatures naturally adopts a vegetarian diet.

We have collected many scriptural quotes which counsel Hindus not to eat
meat. There are references in the Vedas and Manu Dharma Shastras to this
effect, as well. As in other matters, Hinduism has very few rigid "do's and
don'ts." Rather, its injunctions are called restraints and observances. The
ultimate authority for answers to such questions is one's own guru, or our
religious community and sampradaya and our own understanding of the
spiritual benefits from abstaining from eating meat. Let me put it this way.
There are good Hindus who eat meat, and there are bad Hindus who are
vegetarians.

Today in America and Europe there are literally millions of vegetarians.
This is because they want to live a long time and be healthy. Many feel a
certain moral obligation to their own conscience which they wish to fulfill.
There are some good new books on vegetarianism, such as Diet for a New
America by John Robbins. If you want to know about vegetarianism from the
American perspective, write to us and we can refer you to some excellent
books. Perhaps at your next meeting you can invite some of these authorities
to come and speak to your group. There is also a fine magazine dedicated to
the subject, "Vegetarian Times," which comes out monthly. Now to some
answers that you can memorize when asked about vegetarianism and its
relationship to Hinduism.

Answer #1: Simply put, vegetarians are more numerous in the south of India
than in the north. This is because of climactic conditions and the Islamic
influence within the north of our country. Our religion does not lay down
rigid "do's and don'ts." There are no commandments. Our religion gives us
the wisdom to make up our own mind on what we put in our body, for it is the
only one we have, in this life at least.

Answer #2: All of our priests and religious leaders are definitely
vegetarian, because they have to awaken the more refined areas of their
nature in order to perform their work. Our soldiers and law-enforcement
people are generally not vegetarians. This is because they have to keep
alive their aggressive forces in order to perform their work. To practice
yoga and be successful in spiritual life it is advisable to become a
vegetarian. It is a matter of wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge
at any given moment.

Answer #3: Today, about twenty or thirty percent of all Hindus are
vegetarians and the rest are not.

Summary

Through my forty years of presenting the eternal Truths of Hinduism, I have
found that families who are vegetarian have fewer problems than those who
are not. This is because when we eat meat, fish, fowl and eggs, we absorb
the vibration of the instinctive creatures into our nerve system and this
amplifies our own lower nature. Our lower nature is prone to fear, anger,
jealousy, confusion, resentment and the like. We advise all members of my
Saiva Siddhanta Church to be well-established vegetarians prior to
initiation into mantram and then remain vegetarian afterward. However, we
don't insist upon members becoming vegetarian if they are not seeking
initiation.

7) Why do Hindu women wear the dot on the forehead?

Introduction

Not only women, but Hindu men also wear a dot on the forehead, indicating
their third eye. The pottu is a very auspicious symbol, reminding those who
ear it of their spiritual heritage and ideals, wherever they may be. It also
serves to identify a Hindu among the members of all other religions. Muslim
girls often cover their face with a veil. Christian girls wear a cross.
Jewish boys wear small leather cases holding scriptural passages. Men and
women of a particular faith often wish to identify themselves to each other,
and they do so by wearing religious symbols which generally are blessed in
their temples, churches and synagogues. In many cases a dot on the Hindu
woman's forehead is similar to a beauty mark, just as European women used to
wear a black dot on their cheek as a beauty mark. An unmarried girl wears a
black dot, and a married girl a red one. Nowadays the dot's color
complements the color of a lady's sari. "Wearing a dot on the forehead is
largely a cultural symbol or a beauty symbol." This may be a good answer to
this question if the person who asked the question is a little shallow and
possibly antagonistic.

Answer #1: The dot in the middle of the forehead of the Hindu woman is a
beauty mark not unlike the beauty marks European and early American women
used to wear on the cheek. Let me put one on you right now and then you can
look in the mirror and see how it enhances your natural beauty.

Answer #2: In the old days, Hindu men and women wore these marks, and they
both also wore earrings. The dot has a mystical meaning, for it represents
the Third Eye or spiritual sight which Hindus seek to awaken through yoga.
Today, only the most traditional men observe this, but women continue to
follow these traditions.

Answer #3: There are many marks other than the dot that we Hindus use. Each
mark represents a different sect or denomination of our vast religion. We
have four major sects, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saktism and Smartaism. By these
marks we know what a person believes, and therefore know how to begin
conversations.

Summary

Do not be ashamed to wear the pottu on your forehead in the United States.
It will distinguish you from all other people as very special person, a
Hindu, a knower of eternal Truths. You will never be mistaken as belonging
to another nationality or religion. For both boys and girls, men and women,
the dot should be small or large depending on the circumstance, but should
always be there under appropriate circumstances. Naturally, we don't want to
flaunt our religion in the face of others. We observe that Christian boys
and girls take off or conceal their crosses in the corporate business world.

8) Is the memorization of slokas and mantras essential to being a good
Hindu?

Introduction

This is a question that obviously you won't be asked by anybody, so it will
be answered just for all of your here today. Most mantras and slokas are in
the Sanskrit language, and your knowledge of Sanskrit is probably like my
own. Nil! We must realize that slokas are like affirmations and are spoken
in the language the speaker understands. Though Sanskrit has a tremendous
value because it is a spiritually powerful language, we should combine two
languages, English and Sanskrit, when we are learning slokas. Repeat the
sloka first in Sanskrit and then in good American English. This is like
repeating affirmations. Affirmations remold our subconscious mind and keep
us mentally alert. They remind us of the goal of life, they give us strength
and power but, of course, only if we understand their meaning. If we do not
know Sanskrit, the key is to speak the sloka first in Sanskrit and then
speak it out again in English. Yes, of course, slokas are extremely
important. Without them we would tend to forget our religion. They are
capsules of our enlightenment heritage, much like E=MC2 capsulates the
physicists' truth. These sacred utterances are to be said before sleep, upon
awakening, in the shrine room in the morning, in the temple and before any
important event.

Mantrams are different. They are sound vibrations seen in the inner astral
atmosphere as light and color. Mantrams awaken latent brain cells. Some
mantrams such as AUM can be said before initiation and others should not be
used. The simple yet powerful mantram Aum harmonizes the physical forces
with the emotional forces with the intellectual forces. When this happens,
you begin to feel like a complete being. There are different mantrams taught
within the four major sects of Hinduism. Mantrams are most generally given
by the Sat Guru. Many of the most powerful mantrams need no translation.
They are what they are. Their power is supreme. There is one great mantram
at the very center of the Vedas which has the five syllables: "Na ma si va
ya."Memorizing slokas and repeating mantras definitely is a vital part of
our personal religious life. They should be memorized for a mystically,
profound purpose. A mystical Hindu places stress on quality and not
quantity. There are Sanskrit scholars who believe that their salvation lies
in the numbers and complexity of the mantras and slokas they have at their
command. Among themselves, they judge that those who know the most verses
are necessarily the most enlightened.

The mystical Hindu knows that this is a false concept. He comprehends that a
devotee can know but a single mantra, use it perfectly and wisely to reach
God consciousness. Under no circumstances should we judge a person's
attainment by how many verses he has memorized. Rather, we should judge it
by how he uses the verses that he knows. Some of the greatest of all Hindus
did not know a single syllable of Sanskrit or any other sacred language.

9) How can we use scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita or religious books as a
practical guide to growing up in the United States?

Introduction

This, too, appears to be a personal question for the entire group to ponder.
I will answer it simply, first by first asking if you ever heard of a
religion called Jordanism? No, you haven't. But let us juxtapose it to
Hinduism. Along the Jordan River Christianity, Islam and Judaism came up.
Jordanism could become a modern word to name all three of these religions,
which do have similar beliefs and practices. But, like the denominations now
under the banner name of Hinduism, they are also three separate religions.
Well, it was the Persian explorers attempting to explain a very complicated
set of cultures and values around the Indus River which gave rise to our
religion's modern name. They called it "Induism," which later became
Hinduism. Hinduism is not really the name of our religion, but that is what
it has come to be called in the media, history books, etc. So, we have to
accept this. It would be impossible to change. There are four important
surviving religions under the banner word Hinduism. These are Vaishnavism,
Saktism, Saivism and Smartaism. So, nowadays, we say, "I am a Sakta
Hindu...a Smarta Hindu...a Saivite Hindu...a Vaishnava Hindu."

Scriptures are very important to read. The four Vedas are the bible of all
Hindus. Use scripture when you feel lonely or sad or not quite perfect.
Listen to the wisdom of our forefathers and try to see how they would have
faced a situation like yours. Use scriptures to meditate upon. Use
scriptures to read on the bus on your way to work, or at night just before
sleep. They will be like a compass, guiding you along the right path as you
go through the experience of growing up in the United States.

[Michael Burns]

>The existence of a god?
>

>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>nature of such a being.

Atheists' views on "The existence of a god"

From the "Webster's New World Dictionary":

Atheist: a person who believes that there is no God. An atheist rejects all
religious belief and denies the existence of God.

To start a discussion on the existence of God through an atheist's viewpoint
I thought it would be best to simply define the word atheist. I thought this
would serve as the basic assumption held by all atheists. If any of the
atheists reading this posting feel there is a better description of atheism
please do jump in here and set the stage properly.

Except for the basic assumption by an atheist, there is no god; there really
is no doctrine that describes atheism. But, considering the scientific
information we have today there are a few more basic assumption we need to
look at. The first I would like to discuss is the beginning of the universe.
From where did the universe originate? An Atheist, I guess, would say it
just is. For the purpose of discussion, let's accept the current theories in
cosmology that say the universe all started at an event called "The Big
Bang." To me "The Big Bang" theory describes very well a created universe; a
universe coming in to existence out of nothingness. I suppose one could say
that the universe is expanding and contracting so it only seems to becoming
in to existence out of nothingness. But, then I wonder what started this
process in the first place.

To me, for someone to be truly an atheist, one would have to say the
universe is only made of energy and matter; that overall the energy and
matter making up the universe has nothing in it to give it direction. Well I
suppose if we look at the universe in galactic sense it is rather hard to
see any sort of direction being given to the universe, other that it's
inherent expansion. However, when we look at our part of the universe we can
begin to see some real direction.

The direction I am speaking of here is life. And more specifically I am
referring to the persistence of life. Life persists by the process of birth
and death. On a cellular level, using microscopes, we can see cells
combining and dividing. We can easily say this is no different then the way
atoms bond with one and other to form molecules. In other words, there is
nothing more at work than the electromagnetic forces of nature. But, I do
not think we can say the same thing when we look the gestational processes.
No animal, including humans, are cognitively capable of moving a fertilized
egg from cell division through birth.

I guess the basic question here is what causes life to keep reproducing
itself. The gestational processes are very complicated. These processes
require an amazing ordering of biological material to produce an offspring.
According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics entropy in a system will always
increase unless acted on by an outside source. In the case of the fertilized
egg what is the outside source that causes the gestational processes to
continue and result in the birth a being?

Well, I suppose this is enough to get this part of the conversation started.

[Michael Burns]

The existence and nature of God; an Islamic view

I am not at all well versed in the history and culture of Islam. So I will
not attempt to describe how an adherent of Islam would describe God. I ask
that someone who is well versed in this tradition/faith/culture describe the
nature of God as seen by most those who follow Islam.

Though I do not at all profess to understand Islam, I will share in this
discussion the one aspect of Islam I do know about, that is the wonderful
poetry of Jalaluddin Rumi. If you have never read the his poetry it would be
beneficial if you will.

Poems of Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi:

We are as the flute
Love is the Water of Life
On the Deathbed
This Marriage
Lovers
This World
From Fihi ma Fihi
The drum of the realization
Call of Love
Our Death is our Wedding with Eternity
I've said before that every craftsman
"NOONE" says it better
These Spiritual Windowshoppers

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

We are as the flute, and the music in us is from thee;
we are as the mountain and the echo in us is from thee.

We are as pieces of chess engaged in victory and defeat:
our victory and defeat is from thee, O thou whose qualities are comely!

Who are we, O Thou soul of our souls,
that we should remain in being beside thee?

We and our existences are really non-existence;
thou art the absolute Being which manifests the perishable.

We all are lions, but lions on a banner:
because of the wind they are rushing onward from moment to moment.

Their onward rush is visible, and the wind is unseen:
may that which is unseen not fail from us!

Our wind whereby we are moved and our being are of thy gift;
our whole existence is from thy bringing into being.

Mesnavi Book I, 599-607

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

Love is the Water of Life

Everything other than love for the most beautiful God is agony of the
spirit, though it be sugar- eating. What is agony of the spirit? To advance
toward death without seizing hold of the Water of Life.

Mesnevi I 3686-87

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

On the Deathbed

Go, rest your head on a pillow, leave me alone;
leave me ruined, exhausted from the journey of this night,
writhing in a wave of passion till the dawn.
Either stay and be forgiving,
or, if you like, be cruel and leave.
Flee from me, away from trouble;
take the path of safety, far from this danger.
We have crept into this corner of grief,
turning the water wheel with a flow of tears.
While a tyrant with a heart of flint slays,
and no one says, "Prepare to pay the blood money."
Faith in the king comes easily in lovely times,
but be faithful now and endure, pale lover.
No cure exists for this pain but to die,
So why should I say, "Cure this pain"?
In a dream last night I saw
an ancient one in the garden of love,
beckoning with his hand, saying, "Come here."
On this path, Love is the emerald,
the beautiful green that wards off dragonsnough, I am losing myself.
If you are a man of learning,
read something classic,
a history of the human struggle
and don't settle for mediocre verse.

Kulliyat-i-Shams 2039

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

This Marriage

May these vows and this marriage be blessed.
May it be sweet milk,
this marriage, like wine and halvah.
Msay this marriage offer fruit and shade
like the date palm.
May this marriage be full of laughter,
our every day a day in paradise.
May this marriage be a sign of compassion,
a seal of happiness here and hereafter.
May this marriage have a fair face and a good name,
an omen as welcomes the moon in a clear blue sky.
I am out of words to describe
how spirit mingles in this marriage.

Kulliyat-i-Shams* 2667

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

Lovers

O lovers, lovers it is time
to set out from the world.
I hear a drum in my soul's ear
coming from the depths of the stars.

Our camel driver is at work;
the caravan is being readied.
He asks that we forgive him
for the disturbance he has caused us,
He asks why we travellers are asleep.

Everywhere the murmur of departure;
the stars, like candles
thrust at us from behind blue veils,
and as if to make the invisible plain,
a wondrous people have come forth.

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

This World Which Is Made of Our Love for Emptiness

Praise to the emptiness that blanks out existence. Existence:
This place made from our love for that emptiness!

Yet somehow comes emptiness,
this existence goes.

Praise to that happening, over and over!
For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.

Then one swoop, one swing of the arm,
that work is over.

Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope,
free of mountainous wanting.

The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw
blown off into emptiness.

These words I'm saying so much begin to lose meaning:
Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw:

Words and what they try to say swept
out the window, down the slant of the roof.

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

"It is said that after Muhammad and the prophets revelation does not descend
upon anyone else. Why not? In fact it does, but then it is not called
'revelation.' It is what the Prophet referred to when he said, 'The believer
sees with the Light of God.' When the believeer looks with 'The believer
sees with the Light of God.' When the believeer looks withGod's Light, he
sees all things: the first and the last, the present and the absent. For how
can anything be hidden from God's Light? And if something is hidden, then it
is not the Light of God. Therefore the meaning of revelation exists, even if
it is not called revelation."

Fihi ma fihi [Discourses of Rumi]
quoted from William C. Chittick, _The Sufi Path of Love:
The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi(Albany: SUNY, 1983)

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

The drum of the realization of the promise is beating,
we are sweeping the road to the sky. Your joy is here today, what remains
for tomorrow?
The armies of the day have chased the army of the night,
Heaven and earth are filled with purity and light.
Oh! joy for he who has escaped from this world of perfumes and color!
For beyond these colors and these perfumes, these are other colors in the
heart and the soul.
Oh! joy for this soul and this heart who have escaped
the earth of water and clay,
Although this water and this clay contain the hearth of the
philosophical stone.

(Mystic Odes 473)

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

At every instant and from every side, resounds the call of Love:
We are going to sky, who wants to come with us?
We have gone to heaven, we have been the friends of the angels,
And now we will go back there, for there is our country.
We are higher than heaven, more noble than the angels:
Why not go beyond them? Our goal is the Supreme Majesty.
What has the fine pearl to do with the world of dust?
Why have you come down here? Take your baggage back. What is this place?
Luck is with us, to us is the sacrifice!...
Like the birds of the sea, men come from the ocean--the ocean of the soul.
Like the birds of the sea, men come from the ocean--the ocean of the soul.
How could this bird, born from that sea, make his dwelling here?
No, we are the pearls from the bosom of the sea, it is there that we dwell:
Otherwise how could the wave succeed to the wave that comes from the soul?
The wave named 'Am I not your Lord' has come, it has broken the vessel of
the body;
And when the vessel is broken, the vision comes back, and the union with
Him.

Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch,
'Rumi and Sufism'
trans. Simone Fattal
Sausalito, CA: Post-Apollo Press, 1977, 1987.

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

Our death is our wedding with eternity.
What is the secret? "God is One."
The sunlight splits when entering the windows of the house.
This multiplicity exists in the cluster of grapes;
It is not in the juice made from the grapes.
For he who is living in the Light of God,
The death of the carnal soul is a blessing.
Regarding him, say neither bad nor good,
For he is gone beyond the good and the bad.
Fix your eyes on God and do not talk about what is invisible,
So that he may place another look in your eyes.
It is in the vision of the physical eyes
That no invisible or secret thing exists.
But when the eye is turned toward the Light of God
What thing could remain hidden under such a Light?
Although all lights emanate from the Divine Light
Don't call all these lights "the Light of God";
It is the eternal light which is the Light of God,
The ephemeral light is an attribute of the body and the flesh.
...Oh God who gives the grace of vision!
The bird of vision is flying towards You with the wings of desire.

(Mystic Odes 833)

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

I've said before that every craftsman
searches for what's not there
to practice his craft.

A builder looks for the rotten hole
where the roof caved in. A water-carrier
picks the empty pot. A carpenter
stops at the house with no door.

Workers rush toward some hint
of emptiness, which they then
start to fill. Their hope, though,
is for emptiness, so don't think
you must avoid it. It contains
what you need!
Dear soul, if you were not friends
with the vast nothing inside,
why would you always be casting you net
into it, and waiting so patiently?

This invisible ocean has given you such abundance,
but still you call it "death",
that which provides you sustenance and work.

God has allowed some magical reversal to occur,
so that you see the scopion pit
as an object of desire,
and all the beautiful expanse around it,
as dangerous and swarming with snakes.

This is how strange your fear of death
and emptiness is, and how perverse
the attachment to what you want.

Now that you've heard me
on your misapprehensions, dear friend,
listen to Attar's story on the same subject.

He strung the pearls of this
about King Mahmud, how among the spoils
of his Indian campaign there was a Hindu boy,
whom he adopted as a son. He educated
and provided royally for the boy
and later made him vice-regent, seated
on a gold throne beside himself.

One day he found the young man weeping..
"Why are you crying? You're the companion
of an emporor! The entire nation is ranged out
before you like stars that you can command!"

The young man replied, "I am remembering
my mother and father, and how they
scared me as a child with threats of you!
'Uh-oh, he's headed for King Mahmud's court!
Nothing could be more hellish!' Where are they now
when they should see me sitting here?"

This incident is about your fear of changing.
You are the Hindu boy. Mahmud, which means
Praise to the End, is the spirit's
poverty or emptiness.

The mother and father are your attachment
to beliefs and bloodties
and desires and comforting habits.
Don't listen to them!
They seem to protect
but they imprison.

They are your worst enemies.
They make you afraid
of living in emptiness.

Some day you'll weep tears of delight in that court,
remembering your mistaken parents!

Know that your body nurtures the spirit,
helps it grow, and gives it wrong advise.

The body becomes, eventually, like a vest
of chainmail in peaceful years,
too hot in summer and too cold in winter.

But the body's desires, in another way, are like
an unpredictable associate, whom you must be
patient with. And that companion is helpful,
because patience expands your capacity
to love and feel peace.
The patience of a rose close to a thorn
keeps it fragrant. It's patience that gives milk
to the male camel still nursing in its third year,
and patience is what the prophets show to us.

The beauty of careful sewing on a shirt
is the patience it contains.

Friendship and loyalty have patience
as the strength of their connection.

Feeling lonely and ignoble indicates
that you haven't been patient.

Be with those who mix with God
as honey blends with milk, and say,

"Anything that comes and goes,
rises and sets, is not
what I love." else you'll be like a caravan fire left
to flare itself out alone beside the road.

Rumi VI (1369-1420) from 'One-Handed Basket Weaving'

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

"NOONE" says it better:

What is the *mi'raj* of the heavens?
Non-existence.
The religion and creed of the lovers is non- existence.

Mesnevi VI 233

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

These spiritual windowshoppers,
who idly ask, 'How much is that?' Oh, I'm just looking.
They handle a hundred items and put them down,
shadows with no capital.

What is spent is love and two eyes wet with weeping.
But these walk into a shop,
and their whole lives pass suddenly in that moment,
in that shop.

Where did you go? "Nowhere."
What did you have to eat? "Nothing much."

Even if you don't know what you want,
buy _something,_ to be part of the exchanging flow.

Start a hugh, foolish project,
like Noah.

It makes absolutely no difference
what people think of you.

Rumi, 'We Are Three', Mathnawi VI, 831-845

[Colin Montoya-Lewis]

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:21:33 -0400, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

Look, I hate to cry "foul" so early in the game, but didn't the author
of this thread say that the object was to define our OWN views? No
offense, but I'd rather hear an atheist define atheism.

-Colin

My real email address is: c o l i n m l @ r t 6 6 . c o m

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<61s137$d...@examiner.concentric.net>...

> The existence of a god?
>
> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
> nature of such a being.

No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
either.
I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the relation
between time and "now".
That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived, thus we
can not be a part of time.
A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a part
of time.
Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the physical
universe.
This but means we are not our bodies.
Immortality is a complete perception of "now" and that is the perception of
the present, past and future.
For example, it would be impossible to receive immortality at a future date
without also being immortal today.
The bible and all it's theology deals with events of the past.
These events have duplicate tales from ancient societies in the near east
without exception. ( See http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm )
In other words, there is not a single biblical tale which can not be
disputed regarding validity.

No matter how long you search you will never find yourself, the reason is
simple, and it is because you are.

Regards

--
The Immortal Atheist
#700
Norway
------------------------------------
http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/

Theists can be likened to a rock rolling down a hill.
All they see is that the hill is passing them by,
They do not know what got the hill to move so
they believe in an allmighty roller!

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

<snip>

There is a real audio file linking off the first paragraph of my homepage
that is a computer genetrated direct read of the first 4 paragraphs of
"hypostasis of the Archons."

Check it out and lemme know how it sounds on yer computer. It tells about
where Yaldabaoth came from and how he created the flawed world.

Regards,

Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network

--

"Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" [James 4:4]

"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" [Galatians 4:16]

Curious to learn the truth about God's secret identity? Visit the Gnostic Friends Network at:

=8)
---> http://www.enemies.com <--- ))
((
II where Yahweh gnashed His teeth ))
====== as Jesus escaped ((
II laughing invisibly ))
II
II For NONE have sinned

[Mats Andtbacka]

Michael Burns, in <61s49r$n...@examiner.concentric.net>:

> The existence of God: A Christian view:

the relevance of which to:
alt.atheism
alt.religion.hindu
alt.religion.islam
alt.zen
would be...?

>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1008.3

stands to fuckin' reason, don't it?
--
"Yes i'm lonely..."
_Yer Blues_, Lennon / McCartney

[Michael W. Fisher]

[This followup was posted to alt.christnet and a copy was sent to the
cited author.]

In article <61s3uv$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, you say...

> Atheists' views on "The existence of a god"
>
> From the "Webster's New World Dictionary":
>
> Atheist: a person who believes that there is no God. An atheist rejects all
> religious belief and denies the existence of God.
>
> To start a discussion on the existence of God through an atheist's viewpoint
> I thought it would be best to simply define the word atheist. I thought this
> would serve as the basic assumption held by all atheists. If any of the
> atheists reading this posting feel there is a better description of atheism
> please do jump in here and set the stage properly.
>
> Except for the basic assumption by an atheist, there is no god; there really
> is no doctrine that describes atheism.

Here's a dialog I had on a mailing list on just this subject.
Perhaps it will help:

Walter Nusbaum wrote:
Michael,
It is amazing that the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries of philosophy
would not have this insight of yours. Why do you suppose that
historically atheists have defined 'atheism' as the denial that God
exists? By the way, a-theist, no matter how you want to break it down
still asserts a metaphysical position. It clearly DENIES supernatural
phenomena.

* * *
MWF
Which only goes to show that one ought not try and "do"
philosophy from a dictionary. My "Encyclopedia of Philosophy" devotes
some 14 pages of double column 8 point type to the topic of "Atheism. The
subheading "Definition of 'Atheism' " consume some 24 column inches
alone.

Some highlights from the article.

From the heading, the first subheading after the introductory
paragraph, "Hostility to Atheism",

". . .One could fill many volumes with the abuse and calumny
contained in the writings of Christian apologists, learned no less than
popular. The tenor of these writing is not simply that atheism is
mistaken but also that only a depraved person could adopt so hideous a
position and that the spread of atheism would be a horrifying catastrophe
for the human race. "No atheist as such," wrote Richard
Bentley in EIGHT SERMONS (Cambridge, 1724), "can be a true friend, an
affectionate relation, or a loyal subject." In the preface to his THE
TRUE INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE (1678) Ralph Cudworth made it
clear that he was addressing himself not to "downright and professed
atheists" but to "weak, staggering and skeptical theists." Downright
atheists were beyond the pale, for they had "sunk into so great a degree
of sottishness" that they evidently could not be reached. . . ."

The article goes on to describe numerous injustices against
professed atheists, such as Shelly who was expelled from Oxford (of your
dictionary) and some years later judicially deprived of the custody of
his children specifically on the grounds that he was "likely to inculcate
the same [atheistic] principles upon them."

The sections concluding paragraph starts with:

"A comprehensive article on atheism would, among other things,
trace the history of the persecution of real and alleged atheists, of the
changes in public attitudes, and of the gradual repeal of discriminatory
legislation. It would also inquire into the psychological sources of the
hatred of atheists that is sometimes found in otherwise apparently kindly
and sensible men. . ."

However, the author lacked space and had to confine his remarks
to the aforementioned 14 pages of double column 8 point type (on 7 1/2 X
10 inch ages)

Under the heading "Definition of "Atheism", I'll quote from one
paragraph:

". . .According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a
person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence
"God exists" expresses a false proposition. On our definition, an
"atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or
not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses
a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection
toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false
proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it
was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject position on the ground
THAT THEY ARE MEANING LESS [emphasis added-mf]. Sometimes, too, a theory
is rejected on such grounds as that IT IS STERILE, OR REDUNDANT OR
CAPRICIOUS, [emphasis added-mf] and there are many other considerations
which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds
for rejecting an assertion. An atheist in the narrower, more
popular sense, is IPSO FACTO an atheist in our broader sense, but the
converse does not hold. . . .

<big jump>[assorted theistic positions and "belief" described,
including a metaphysical God, an infinite "anthropomorphic" God, and a
finite "anthropomorphic" God. To be brief]

"The broader definition here adopted enables us to classify
together philosophers whose attitudes toward belief in God are
exceedingly similar, although their detailed reasonings may not always
coincide. Rudolf Carnap, for example, regards metaphysical theology as
meaningless, while treating belief in an infinite as well as a finite
anthropomorphic God as "mythology," implying that both are false or
probably false. In our sense, he can be classified as an atheist without
further ado, and it is doubtful that believers would consider him less
hostile than atheists in the narrower sense. It is also worth observing
that our broader definition receives a good deal of backing from the
actual writings of philosophers and others who regarded themselves as
atheists. Many of them were by no means unaware of the fact that the word
"God" has a number of uses and that what may be a plausible justification
for rejecting one kind of belief in God may be quite inappropriate in the
case of another. Charles Bradlaugh, for example, made it very clear that
in calling himself and atheist he did not simply maintain that there is
no God. In his "Plea for atheism," he wrote:

'The Atheist does not say "there is no God," but he says "I know
not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to
me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation . . .The Bible God
I deny; the Christian God I disbelieve in; but I am not rash enough to
say there is no God as long as you tell me you are unprepared to define
God to me."

Me again.

What's the difference between the above position and agnosticism?
I'll jump back up a few column inches with one final quote:

"A person is an atheist in our sense if he adopts an attitude of
REJECTION [emphasis added-mf] toward all three theistic positions
previously stated--belief in a metaphysical God, in an infinite
anthropomorphic god, and in a finite anthropomorphic God. He will count
as a believer in God if he maintains that "God exists" expresses a true
proposition, where "God" is employed in one of the three ways described.
A person will be and AGNOSTIC [emphasis added-mf] if he does not accept
any of these three claims BUT AT THE SAME TIME SUSPENDS JUDGMENT
CONCERNING AT LEAST ONE OF THEM [emphasis added-mf]. It will be observed
that on our way of drawing the lines, agnosticism and atheism remain
distinct positions, since suspension of judgment and rejection are
different attitudes."

And THAT should clear up most of the definitional
problems.

Just reread Carnap's and Bradlaugh's positions a few times and
review such material as I have quoted until the light goes on.

My position is essentially that of Carnap and Bradlaugh.

Metaphysical God ["creator" "designer" whatever] = nonsense

Yahweh/Jesus = mythology

Others on a case by case basis.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

(Walt's reply to the above and my further response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(written at 1:00am local, so bear with me if I ramble)
Walt Jr.;
I am not arguing that there aren't people who argue for atheism being 'a
lack of belief.' My argument was that there was a reason why atheists
have historically defined atheism as an assertion/claim that there is no
God.

MWF
And I am not arguing that there are not those who go along with
your narrow definition.

I just don't really, speaking philosophically and not just as an
emotive outburst, don't care.

I agree much more with Carnap and Bradlaugh, and what you want to
define me to be is quite irrelevant.

The only organization I belong to as a member and not just a
subscriber is the First Unitarian Church of San Diego. You may well know
that the Unitarians DO NOT HAVE A CREED. In the church are assorted
"pagans" (the UU pagans put on various activities through the year), as
well as those who would describe themselves as liberal Christians. And
some of us non-simple atheists.

The only real rule in the UUA is mutual respect for each other.
Period.

And my claim is that of Carnap and Bradlaugh. Yahweh/Jesus is
myth, and the metaphysical "God of the philosophers" is mere nonsense.

If not, then define it in such a way it makes sense.

Walt Jr.;
Even Paul Kurtz in his Encyclopedia of Philosophy (vol. 1) defines =
atheism as maintaining that there is no god.

MWF
Fine. I am not Kurtz, nor have I joined any Kurtzian worship
group and signed any creedal statement stating I accept the
teaching/authority of Kurtz in all matters.

He has his opinions, I have mine.

YOU are the one who has to regularly reaffirm a commitment to a
creedal statement somebody else wrote.

I haven't, I won't, and I will damn well change my mind anytime I
thing the evidence warrants it--and not unless the evidence warrants it.

Period.

Walt Jr.
It is an assertion. =
B.C. Johnson in his "The Atheist Debater's Handbook" says this about =
atheists: "...the atheist may CLAIM TO KNOW that God does not exist." =

MWF
As above. I never heard of Mr. Johnson before, and I have not
agreed to
accept a thing he says.

I DON'T BELONG TO ANY CREED WALT. I MAKE UP MY OWN DANMED MIND.

AND I SAY THAT THE WORD "GOD" IS NOTHING BUT NOISE SIGNIFYING
NOTHING, AS SUCH IT IS NONSENSE AND I REJECT NONSENSE.

Walt Jr.
Now, why do you suppose that men such as Kurtz and Johnson are so =
misguided and yet you are so well guided?

MWF
Maybe I'm smarter than them. Maybe Carnap and Bradlaugh are
smarter than them. Or maybe, since we none of us belong to any
organization which says we MUST agree on such definitions, we are
actually each free to define the silly word, at least as it applies to
each of us, for ourselves.

If that is too confusing for you, too bad.

Kurtz is a grown man and can make up his own mind.

I can surely make up mine.

And the article from my Encyclopedia describes not only my belief
much better, but seems to give a far more workable and useful meaning to
the word.

If its too much work for you, well as I said, too bad.

You Yahweh/Jesus is myth from the dawn of civilization, and the
God of the philosophers is nothing but inchoate nonsense not worthy of
belief.

Deal with it.

Walt Jr.;
Give it up Michael, atheism has changed its face because it could not
prove a universal negative,

MWF
More like the theists keep shifting what they say they are
willing to defend.

I have articulated a position which easily encompasses, as the
author noted, the narrow (and silly) version of the definition you want
to try and bind me with, but also includes those such as myself who deny
that there is any God which matches anything ever articulated by man, and
very probably nothing that would be universally recognized by any AS a
God if he appeared de novo one day.

Walt Jr.;
therefore, it was time to restructure just exactly what atheism is.

MWF
Well, just like I said Walt. "Atheism" is "A--theism". Non-
theism. It is defined only by the territory the theist first stakes out
as his, assuming his notion is coherent enough to have a definable shape.

Once the theist made his God so vacuous that the word no longer
stood for anything, then the A-theist I suppose needs to redefine just
what it is that he is denying.

Since neither you nor anyone else has been able to come up with a
coherent definition of God, then what I am refusing to grant assent to is
a belief in nonsense.

Which seems awfully rational to me.

Walt.
You continue to say that atheism is not a system...

MWF
Absolutely correct. If there were no theists in the world, then I
would be but an epistemolgist/moral philosopher and nothing more. It is
only when there is such a thing as theism around that I need to take any
position on the assertion.

I am also an A-UFOist, and A-Loch Ness Monsterist, and an A-
psychicist. I am not an A-San Diego Bay Monsterist because no one has
asserted that there is a monster in our bay.

I need only deny nonsensical positions which are asserted.
Yahweh/Jesus is asserted; a vague "creator" is asserted. Ergo since both
are silly for some of the same as well as different reasons, I will
assert a denial of affirmation of the existence of either. The first as
mere human myth, and the other rejected as inchoate nonsense.

Walt Jr.
this is one of the most incredibly ludicrous statements I have heard you
make.

MWF
Well, it seems I have good company, and nothing you have said has
shown why a metaphysical conception of God is coherent/intelligible or
why Yahweh/Jesus is more than myth.

All you have done is complain that I won't accept your particular
narrow definition. You have found a couple of atheist philosophers who
happen to, at lest on the surface, seem to agree with you.

But I do not accept their definitions, and they are not binding
on me since we are not all of us members of some doctrinal body in which
we recognize some authority capable of binding us.

Atheism is the denial that certain Gods exist, or that the
metaphysical houses of cards of the Gods of the philosophers are
unintelligible nonsense.

Walt Jr.
Why don't you just be honest with yourself about this Michael? Atheism
makes the following claims:

1. There are no moral absolutes.

MWF
That is not a positive claim of the atheist. Its contrary, that
there are moral absolutes is the claim of certain theists. Who have done
a miserable job of defending that thesis, at least as it must be
appurtenant to a god.
There are atheistic systems of belief which never the less assert
moral absolutes. Confucianism springs to mind. Taoism is much fuzzier.

Walt Jr.
2. There are no immaterial entities that intervene in the world. (ie.
angels)

MWF
Inchoate unintelligible nonsense. What is it that you are
asserting? That something which cannot interact with the world can non
the less interact with the world? That is self contradictory and ergo
nonsense. If the something can never the less assert some force against
something material, then it is causing a material change in something--
which contradicts the immaterialness and reduces once more to nonsense.
So the above sentence actually asserts nothing.

Walt Jr.
3. There is no afterlife.

MWF
This is short, but none the less just as unintelligible as the
above. What is this "afterlife"? Life but _after_ life? But if one is
still alive, then one has never died so where is the "after"? Is this
something, as above, "immaterial"? Then how do you know it? What does it
mean to be alive but immaterial? Once again you descend into the realm of
the inchoate and assert statements that mean nothing.

Walt Jr.
4. The origin of life was guided by natural processes.

MWF
That is an assertion of science, not philosophy or "atheism". It
is equally compatible with a deity of some kind. Several of our posters
are deists who would never the less concur with that statement.

Walt Jr.
5. The origin of the universe was guided by natural law.

MWF
Fallacy of composition/argument from ignorance.

In actual fact, the only intellectually completely honest answer
is "insufficient data". This seems to be one which particularly irritates
theists, but tough.
There simply is not enough information to answer the question.

Walt Jr.
6. Miracles do not occur (def. anomalous events that supersede natural
law)

MWF
Hume's comments in section X of the Enquiry are as applicable as
ever.

Walt Jr.
7. Survival is the ultimate goal of living things.

MWF
Fallacy of division.
Is it? Or is it just reproduction. Do living things even have
ultimate goals? Does a fern? Does a virus?
Is it only men and women who have ultimate goals? If so, then
just how are we limited by biology to survival only? The ultimate goal of
many is to produce art.
Of some to reduce human suffering.
Of some to discover what makes the universe tick.
Once consciousness enters the picture, biology gets overridden
and we choose our own goals.
The ultimate goal of my dog seems to be to curl up in my lap.

Walt Jr.
8. Rationality is a product of biochemical reactions.

MWF
Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy of division. "Greedy
reductionism", or a parody thereof.
It makes no more sense to claim that rationality is the product
of biochemical reactions than it does to claim that the result that Deep
Blue achieved in defeating Kasparov was just a product of electrical
power generation.

It is also the same fallacy as would be committed if one were to
claim that since neither and of pieces of metal nor hydrocarbons,
(whether long chain polymers or ring aromatics or some other form) can
fly, then nothing assembled from those components could fly. And yet
airplanes, composed of just those substances, do fly, indeed every hour
of every day hundreds of planes are in the air all over the world. Yet
the reasoning offered by Walt is exactly the same. It is fallacious and
the conclusion is necessarily invalid.

9. Emotions are biochemical reactions.

MWF
As above. Fallacy of Division etc.

10. There is no free will. All things are biochemically determined.

MWF
False cause. Fallacy of division. Fallacy of Composition. As well
as unintelligible.
Just what is free will Walt? Is it a product of mind? If mind does not
arise from matter, then where is it at? If it is that Immaterial stuff
again, then you have descended yet again into unintelligibility as well
as the problem of mind body duality of Descartes. Even if mind is somehow
separate from material things (and it's not) just what is the free will
thing supposed to be? Surely not sheer randomness, but then if
the mind is following any kind of rules, then it ought to be predictable,
whatever it is that the mind is part of.
Utterly unintelligible once again. Once again your assertion is
but nonsense.

Walt Jr.;
Shall I continue?

MWF
To what point Walt? The longer you go on, the more egregious the
fallacies you commit. If you were to continue on any longer you would
start looking really silly.

Walt Jr.
Sure, some atheists would take issue with some of the above statements,
however, they would be hard pressed to defend their objection.

MWF
Odd, I didn't find it all that difficult, at least where it made
any difference. Fallacies do not make valid arguments, and I've been
spotting these a couple hours past my bedtime after a long day.

And many of the assertions would seem to be indirectly necessary
if the universe is not the plaything of some fiendish deity. And so what?
If the only meaning or purpose you can find in your life is hoping that
sugar daddy in the sky will make it all better after you die, then what
kind of life are you living? What kind of purpose is that?

Walt Jr.
In fact, the above assertions all fit by NECESSITY within an atheistic
framework.

MWF
Sorry Walt, but fallacies do not by any stretch of the
imagination render anything necessary.
The ones which seem not to be fallacious flow not from a "belief"
that there is no god, but by simple logic if the universe is not a made
thing. If no critter intentionally made the universe, then yes it arose
via natural processes.

If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad.

And if there are no moral absolutes, then that renders the job of
the moral philosopher all the more important--for then we are responsible
for our own rules and the results thereof.

Perhaps you are afraid of that responsibility, I am not. One of
the things that a lawyer can do is try and make new law which will have a
positive affect on the society he or she lives in--as our professors
delight in reminding us.

So by choice of profession, I have already taken on part of that
responsibility.

Maybe you should grow up and assume some real responsibility for
your society.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some additional commentary by Douglas Kruger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for forwarding the post. I read it and liked it. I would
only have added a few things here and there, as noted below. Fisher does
a great job.

> Walt Jr.;
> I am not arguing that there aren't people who argue for atheism being 'a
> lack of belief.' My argument was that there was a reason why atheists
> have historically defined atheism as an assertion/claim that there is no
> God.

DOUG
Historically, this is FALSE. Atheism was not distinguished
from agnosticism until Thomas Huxley's essay "Agnosticism" in 1889.
Many of those who are now called deists were called atheists. Since
atheism is defined in contrast with theism, if theism is defined (as it
sometimes is) as the belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent god who is active in the world, and deists deny the latter
clause, they were considered atheists.

> Walt Jr.;
> Even Paul Kurtz in his Encyclopedia of Philosophy (vol. 1) defines =
> atheism as maintaining that there is no god.

DOUG
The standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Paul
Edwards (who is an atheist, and who wrote the article on atheism) (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company and The Free Press, 1967) has
atheism defined as:

"one who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his
reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false
proposition."
(v. 1, pg. 175)

Edwards explains a number of other definitions, even ridiculous
ones like Fichte's: an atheist is "the person who, instead of following
the voice of conscience, always calculates the consequences before
acting in a moral situation" (Ibid., pg. 175).

Edwards explains that "it is common among contemporary
philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to
reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless" (Ibid., pg.
175).

Thus, Fisher is well within his rights to claim to be an atheist
and yet hold that the proposition "God exists" is, not false, but
meaningless. (If the proposition "Gods exists" makes sense then there
could be a possibility that there could be such a being but if the words
mean nothing then there is no possibility that there could be such a
being.)

> Walt Jr.
> It is an assertion. =
> B.C. Johnson in his "The Atheist Debater's Handbook" says this about
> atheists: "...the atheist may CLAIM TO KNOW that God does not
exist." =

DOUG
This is true in many senses, although I have not read Johnson's
book and I don't know what he means by this.
One can hold that god does not exist and yet hold that the term
"god" is nonsense. If the term "god" is nonsense, then it ipso facto
does
not describe a state of affairs in which a particular being exists. If
there is no description of a being as existing, then there can be no
being
which fits that description. If there is no being who fits that
description, since there is no coherent description, then it is accurate
to say that there is no such being, at least in some sense. After all,
wouldn't everyone agree that beings with contradictory attributes do not
exist?

> Walt Jr.;
> Give it up Michael, atheism has changed its face because it could not
> prove a universal negative,
>
> MWF
> More like the theists keep shifting what they say they are willing
> to defend.

DOUG
The current literature in philosophy of religion suggests that
Fisher's statement is accurate. For example, some theists have even
advocated no longer calling god "omnipotent" because no theologian or
philosopher has been able to come up with a coherent definition of that
attribute.
Much of the academic literature in philosophy of religion is now
devoted to defending the view that claims about god and his supposed
attributes are logically possible (that is, not self-contradictory).
Many
philosophers of religion and theologians have given up even attempting
to show that such claims are TRUE and will settle for the much weaker
claim that their claims are logically possible or not outright
irrational.

> Walt Jr.
> Why don't you just be honest with yourself about this Michael?
> Atheism makes the following claims:
>
> 1. There are no moral absolutes.
>
> MWF
> That is not a positive claim of the atheist. Its contrary, that there
are moral absolutes is the claim of certain theists. Who have done a
miserable job of defending that thesis, at least as it must be
appurtenant
to a god.
> There are atheistic systems of belief which never the less assert
moral absolutes. Confucianism springs to mind. Taoism is much fuzzier.
>

DOUG
We needn't go abroad to find such systems. John Stuart Mill's
utilitarianism and Kant's system based on the categorical imperative
produce objective moral values, at least in the sense of objective in
which the wishes and needs of the agent do NOT affect the
determination of one's moral duty. Any person in the same situation,
regardless of his of her individual desires, would reach the same
conclusion in these systems.

> Walt Jr.
> 3. There is no afterlife.
>

DOUG
The Jains, whose religion in an offshoot of Hinduism, are
atheists. Yet they believe in reincarnation. The belief in a soul, an
afterlife, and so forth has NOTHING to do with belief in gods. There is
no logical connection between the two. There can be a god without there
being an afterlife, and there can be an afterlife without there being a
god.

> Walt Jr.
> 7. Survival is the ultimate goal of living things.
>

DOUG
This has nothing to do with nonbelief in gods. Mill, Kant and
other philosophers have explained IN DETAIL what life is all about
without recourse to gods. And mere survival was not considered the goal.
Walt Jr. is speaking from ignorance here. Maybe he ought to read
Kurtz's _Living Without Religion: Eupraxophy_ or _Exuberance_.
It is easy to see how someone who reads the bible, by the way,
would not see survival as a goal. God is depicted so often as making
sure that thousands do NOT survive!

Regarding Walt Jr.'s other claims, he ought to study Fisher's
responses long and hard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope this helps;

Mike in San Diego

[Raistlin Majere, Achmage]

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:32:36 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>
summoned up some courage and said:

>The existence of a god?

Yeah..that's about it--god? What a silly and utterly archaic concept. Time
to relegate it to the trash heap.

I think that sums up my feelings.

Raist

alt.atheism atheist #51

"Bother" said Pooh as he stuffed Piglet's corpse into the box

<dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>

[Raistlin Majere, Achmage]

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:21:33 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>

summoned up some courage and said:

>>The existence of a god?
>>

>>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>>nature of such a being.

>Atheists' views on "The existence of a god"
>
>From the "Webster's New World Dictionary":
>
>Atheist: a person who believes that there is no God. An atheist rejects all
>religious belief and denies the existence of God.
>
>To start a discussion on the existence of God through an atheist's viewpoint
>I thought it would be best to simply define the word atheist. I thought this
>would serve as the basic assumption held by all atheists. If any of the
>atheists reading this posting feel there is a better description of atheism
>please do jump in here and set the stage properly.

There is: the lack of belief in a god or gods. If you break down the word
"atheism", that's what you get.

[snippage]

My my, you do have a lot of theistic presuppositions, don't you? Let's
look at some:

> To me "The Big Bang" theory describes very well a created universe; a
>universe coming in to existence out of nothingness.

It didn't come out of "nothingness". You need to do a little bit of
research.

> I suppose one could say that the universe is expanding and contracting so it only seems to becoming
>in to existence out of nothingness. But, then I wonder what started this
>process in the first place.

"Start" can be likened to "cause", and "cause" is inapplicable to the
universe as a whole. Read up on the cosmological arguments and their
refutations.

>To me, for someone to be truly an atheist, one would have to say the
>universe is only made of energy and matter; that overall the energy and
>matter making up the universe has nothing in it to give it direction. Well I
>suppose if we look at the universe in galactic sense it is rather hard to
>see any sort of direction being given to the universe, other that it's
>inherent expansion. However, when we look at our part of the universe we can
>begin to see some real direction.

By what do you mean "direction"? Purpose, perhaps? If so, then you need to
demonstrate that the universe requires a purpose.

>The direction I am speaking of here is life. And more specifically I am
>referring to the persistence of life. Life persists by the process of birth
>and death. On a cellular level, using microscopes, we can see cells
>combining and dividing. We can easily say this is no different then the way
>atoms bond with one and other to form molecules. In other words, there is
>nothing more at work than the electromagnetic forces of nature. But, I do
>not think we can say the same thing when we look the gestational processes.

Why not?

>No animal, including humans, are cognitively capable of moving a fertilized
>egg from cell division through birth.

Does this mean that creatures actively and intelligently direct the
process? I hope you don't mean that. If so, you definitely need a refresher
course in biology.

>I guess the basic question here is what causes life to keep reproducing
>itself.

An evolutionary trait to preserve the species.

> The gestational processes are very complicated.

So?

> These processes require an amazing ordering of biological material to produce an offspring.

So?

(please tell me you aren't going the argument from personal incredulity
route)

>According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics entropy in a system will always
>increase unless acted on by an outside source. In the case of the fertilized
>egg what is the outside source that causes the gestational processes to
>continue and result in the birth a being?

What is the source of your growth from a newborn to adult?

[Michael Burns]

[MB Wrote]

>> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
>the
>> nature of such a being.
>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>either.

Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
without time. After all such a being created existence.

>I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the relation
>between time and "now".
>That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived, thus we
>can not be a part of time.

Try sticking with energy and position. Otherwise you have a new major
mathematical proof to show us.

>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a part
>of time.

Why?

>Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the physical
>universe.
>This but means we are not our bodies.

In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
other dimensions we might be something else. When one believes in a soul
one might consider that a soul exists uniformly in all dimensions,
including time.

>Immortality is a complete perception of "now" and that is the perception of
>the present, past and future.

?????
Do you mean that via immortality we would see all time as now and be able to
perceive all time at once?

>For example, it would be impossible to receive immortality at a future date
>without also being immortal today.

Why can't a godly being endow you with immortality. Why do you suppose a
god could not create you into a time structured existence and then at some
point in that time structured existence give you the ability to exit outside
of that time structure.

>The bible and all it's theology deals with events of the past.

No; not completely. The bible deals with God and man. God's creation in
this time structure and man's chance at living beyond our current existence.

>These events have duplicate tales from ancient societies in the near east
>without exception. ( See http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm )
>In other words, there is not a single biblical tale which can not be
>disputed regarding validity.
>
>No matter how long you search you will never find yourself, the reason is
>simple, and it is because you are.

Basically, I am so I am immortal.

>
>Regards

[Brian Drummond]

"Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

>>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>>nature of such a being.
>
>The existence of God, a Zen view
>
>[Michael writes]
>
>It is not purpose of Zen to describe God or to even attribute anything
>including existence to a god. Yet, it is not the purpose of Zen to deny that
>a God exists.

Nor is it the purpose of zen (or most forms of buddhism) to affirm that
God exists. Theists trying to reconcile zen with their own belief often
make the first of these statements omitting the second, just as you did.
IMO that can lead to confusion. Or not enough confusion.

>The following are a few samples of Zen thought taken from
>various web sites.

On the whole quite well selected, IMO.
Attributions might have been useful in case anyone wanted to read
further.

I recognised part of the alt.zen FAQ (from
http://www.interlog.com/~daryl/zenfaq.html ) but not the others.

>
>The Four Noble Truths of Life
>(Life Sucks When We Are Being Stupid)

I like this - where did it come from?

- Brian

[Michael Burns]

Colin Montoya-Lewis wrote in article <3441cf6b....@198.59.162.1>...

>On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:21:33 -0400, "Michael Burns"

><mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>
>Look, I hate to cry "foul" so early in the game, but didn't the author
>of this thread say that the object was to define our OWN views? No
>offense, but I'd rather hear an atheist define atheism.
>
>-Colin

Simply, I used a dictionary definition of atheism. I ask that any or all
proponents of Atheism post a definition. I did not intend to supercede
anyone by placing that definition at the start. If you problem is that I
started the posting with my personal questions about Atheism, I apologize
for doing so. I had the question on my mind and posted befor thinking.

I am willing to delete the posting and let an atheist start the discussion.
Let me know if this is preferred.

>
>
>
>>>The existence of a god?
>>>

>>>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
>>>nature of such a being.

>>Atheists' views on "The existence of a god"
>>
>>From the "Webster's New World Dictionary":
>>
>>Atheist: a person who believes that there is no God. An atheist rejects
all
>>religious belief and denies the existence of God.
>>
>>To start a discussion on the existence of God through an atheist's
viewpoint
>>I thought it would be best to simply define the word atheist. I thought
this
>>would serve as the basic assumption held by all atheists. If any of the
>>atheists reading this posting feel there is a better description of
atheism
>>please do jump in here and set the stage properly.
>>

>>Except for the basic assumption by an atheist, there is no god; there
really

>>is no doctrine that describes atheism. But, considering the scientific
>>information we have today there are a few more basic assumption we need to
>>look at. The first I would like to discuss is the beginning of the
universe.
>>From where did the universe originate? An Atheist, I guess, would say it
>>just is. For the purpose of discussion, let's accept the current theories
in
>>cosmology that say the universe all started at an event called "The Big

>>Bang." To me "The Big Bang" theory describes very well a created universe;
a
>>universe coming in to existence out of nothingness. I suppose one could

say
>>that the universe is expanding and contracting so it only seems to
becoming
>>in to existence out of nothingness. But, then I wonder what started this
>>process in the first place.
>>

>>To me, for someone to be truly an atheist, one would have to say the
>>universe is only made of energy and matter; that overall the energy and
>>matter making up the universe has nothing in it to give it direction. Well
I
>>suppose if we look at the universe in galactic sense it is rather hard to
>>see any sort of direction being given to the universe, other that it's
>>inherent expansion. However, when we look at our part of the universe we
can
>>begin to see some real direction.
>>

>>The direction I am speaking of here is life. And more specifically I am
>>referring to the persistence of life. Life persists by the process of
birth
>>and death. On a cellular level, using microscopes, we can see cells
>>combining and dividing. We can easily say this is no different then the
way
>>atoms bond with one and other to form molecules. In other words, there is
>>nothing more at work than the electromagnetic forces of nature. But, I do
>>not think we can say the same thing when we look the gestational
processes.

>>No animal, including humans, are cognitively capable of moving a
fertilized
>>egg from cell division through birth.
>>

>>I guess the basic question here is what causes life to keep reproducing

>>itself. The gestational processes are very complicated. These processes

>>require an amazing ordering of biological material to produce an
offspring.

>>According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics entropy in a system will always
>>increase unless acted on by an outside source. In the case of the
fertilized
>>egg what is the outside source that causes the gestational processes to
>>continue and result in the birth a being?
>>

>>Well, I suppose this is enough to get this part of the conversation
started.
>>
>>
>>
>
>My real email address is: c o l i n m l @ r t 6 6 . c o m

[Doug Adams]

Michael Burns wrote:
>
> The existence of a god?
>

<snip>

> A few things to note about this discussion:

<snip>

> This discussion, considering the history of many newsgroup postings,
> will become nothing but a cyber back alley brawl if a few simple
> considerations by participants are not taken. Firstly, I ask that you treat
> everyone and everyone else's viewpoint with respect, even if you completely
> disagree.

Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and so would
my 4th grade teacher).

Thank you.

[Raistlin Majere, Achmage]

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood
<s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Raistlin Majere, Achmage wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>

>> summoned up some courage and said:
>>

>> >[MB Wrote]

>> >[Rasmus Wrote]
>> >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>> >>either.
>> >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
>> >without time.
>>

>> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
>Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation be
>an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have
>been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of Creation
>being the *start of time*.

The *act* itself is an act in time.

[Jonnie Underwood]

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Raistlin Majere, Achmage wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>
> summoned up some courage and said:
>
> >[MB Wrote]
> >[Rasmus Wrote]
> >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
> >>either.
> >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
> >without time.
>
> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation be
an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have
been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of Creation

being the *start of time*. And as for God existing, most religions seem
to have as an underlying fundamental concept of God as undefinable, so
therefore by saying God exists in time, or that God exists wherever God
wants to exist is basicl an act of definition, isn't it? Well, i hope
i've added something by saying this...

with metta
Jonnie Underwood
s34...@student.uq.edu.au

[Raistlin Majere, Achmage]

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>
summoned up some courage and said:

>[MB Wrote]

>>> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
>>the
>>> nature of such a being.
>>

>[Rasmus Wrote]
>>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>either.
>
>Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
>without time.

Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.

> After all such a being created existence.

And creation only makes sense coupled with existence/the universe.
Creation/cause does not apply to the universe as a whole.

>>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a part
>>of time.
>
>Why?

As above, creation is an act *in time*.

>
>>Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the physical
>>universe.
>>This but means we are not our bodies.
>
>In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
>other dimensions we might be something else.

This dimension? There are 4 dimensions--length, height, width and position
in time.

> When one believes in a soul one might consider that a soul exists uniformly in all dimensions,
>including time.

But then one is obligated to prove that such a thing as a "soul" exists.

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

In article <621gi4$v...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

> >> [MB Wrote]
> >> >> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
> >> >the
> >> >> nature of such a being.
> >> >
> >> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >> >No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
> >> >either.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within
> >or

> >> without time. After all such a being created existence.
> >>
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >But I thought you argued that the god created the physical universe. If he
> >created the physical universe his origin would not have been of the
> >physical universe thus to exist in it would be limiting him to our level.
>
> [MB Wrote]
> Why can't a god exist in all realities or existences.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >To understand what I said you must first understand "now". You may read my
> >pages
> >and get a better idea of what my interpretation is of now and that which
> >must perceive events in time from now, but I stated that neither the god or
> >we can exist in time.
>
> [MB Wrote]
> Please, do tell us you definition of now. I reread you previous posting and
> did not see it there. If you are saying you have on you web site then it
> would be better if you brought it to the newsgroup.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >We can make believe we are of the physical, het that is the grandest of
> >deceptions.
>
> [MB Wrote]
> I just am. I would suppose that I am physical, cognitive, and spiritual. I
> do not believe this is any real deception here.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >If your god deceives himself in the same fashion he would no longer be
> >immortal, omnipotent or even know that he was a god!

> >
> >
> >> >I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the
> >relation
> >> >between time and "now".
> >> >That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived, thus
> >we
> >> >can not be a part of time.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Try sticking with energy and position. Otherwise you have a new major
> >> mathematical proof to show us.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >I realize there is a new concept to show. It is not quite ready yet, but
> >it is on my pages.
>
> [MB Wrote]
> Bring it on
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >
> >> >A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a
> >part
> >> >of time.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]
> >> Why?
> >>
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >Because time is a part of the physical universe and he could not have
> >created the physical universe from within the physical universe.
> >
>
> [MB Wrote]
> The physical universe, at least this what most theist believe, was created
> by God. And a God can choose to exist within it if God wants to.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >> >Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the
> >physical
> >> >universe.
> >> >This but means we are not our bodies.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in

> >> other dimensions we might be something else. When one believes in a soul

> >> one might consider that a soul exists uniformly in all dimensions,
> >> including time.
> >>

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >The Soul, spirit, or perception point or whatever else one desires to call
> >oneself is not what one has, it is what one is.
>
> [MB Wrote]
> Fine.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >It can not be described from a three dimensional viewpoint as the ancients
> >knew ages ago.

> >
> >> >Immortality is a complete perception of "now" and that is the perception
> >of
> >> >the present, past and future.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> ?????
> >> Do you mean that via immortality we would see all time as now and be able
> >to
> >> perceive all time at once?
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >Not via anything. The physical universe is via time/space. Immortality is a
> >spiritual state which has no past or future, only the present or "now".
> >Included in that now would be all past and all future.
> >
> [MB Wrote]
> Okay, so spiritual existence is outside of space/time. That is a pretty old
> idea.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >>
> >> >For example, it would be impossible to receive immortality at a future
> >date
> >> >without also being immortal today.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Why can't a godly being endow you with immortality. Why do you suppose a
> >> god could not create you into a time structured existence and then at
> >some
> >> point in that time structured existence give you the ability to exit
> >outside
> >> of that time structure.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >My reasoning could not be explained unless I knew you fully understood
> >"now"
> >and this I don't. Besides, The magnitude of the comprehension is one which
> >I
> >am afraid I have not fully grasped either as yet.
> >
> [MB Wrote]
> Let us know when you do.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >> >The bible and all it's theology deals with events of the past.
> >>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> No; not completely. The bible deals with God and man. God's creation in
> >> this time structure and man's chance at living beyond our current
> >existence.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >All tales in the bible regards the past and mans existance in time. Even
> >the alleged paradise is a tale from the past and the allusions to a future
> >in books such as Daniel
> >are not authentic.
> [MB Wrote]
> You seem to say that creation had to exist within space/time. I would say
> that space/time is the result of creation; therefore, creation precedes
> space/time because it is the cause of space/time. Also, it is my contention
> that all aspects of heaven are outside of space/time. Only the beings who
> come from heaven into our existence for periods of time are in space/time
> there/then.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >
> >> >These events have duplicate tales from ancient societies in the near
> >east
> >> >without exception. ( See http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm )
> >> >In other words, there is not a single biblical tale which can not be
> >> >disputed regarding validity.
> >> >
> >> >No matter how long you search you will never find yourself, the reason
> >is
> >> >simple, and it is because you are.
> >>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Basically, I am so I am immortal.
> >>
> >

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >Basically you are, all you need is the comprehension and perception, but
> >that involves a little more than just worshipping at the church with the
> >accredited steeple.
> >
> >And when all is known we will reallize there were no enemies.
>
> [MB Wrote]
> Yes, my gnostic friend. I have no enemies. But I do have a relationship
> with God. And God is not me. Though, I am of God.
>
<snip>

"Believe me everything which appears
Is shadows and images.
The hand which draws them is the hand of God.
This magnificent lie doesn't reach
The magnificent truth.
The known exists because of the unknown."

(Rumi, from Crazy As We Are by Dr. Nevit O. Ergin, p. 7, pub. A.D.1992)

[Michael Burns]

[MB Wrote]

>>>The existence of a god?
>>>

>>>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
>>>nature of such a being.

>>Atheists' views on "The existence of a god"
>>
>>From the "Webster's New World Dictionary":
>>
>>Atheist: a person who believes that there is no God. An atheist rejects
all
>>religious belief and denies the existence of God.
>>
>>To start a discussion on the existence of God through an atheist's
viewpoint
>>I thought it would be best to simply define the word atheist. I thought
this
>>would serve as the basic assumption held by all atheists. If any of the
>>atheists reading this posting feel there is a better description of
atheism
>>please do jump in here and set the stage properly.
>

[Raistlin Wrote]

> There is: the lack of belief in a god or gods. If you break down the word
>"atheism", that's what you get.
>
> [snippage]
>
> My my, you do have a lot of theistic presuppositions, don't you? Let's
>look at some:

I guess I do. Although, I would not say they are presuppositions.
Actually, I would call them tendencies.

>> To me "The Big Bang" theory describes very well a created universe; a
>>universe coming in to existence out of nothingness.
>

> It didn't come out of "nothingness". You need to do a little bit of
>research.
>

Excuse me. You are, I think, correct on this accord. Regardless, according
to the "Big Bang" theory all our known universe came from one point in
space/time. What was that there/then?

>> I suppose one could say that the universe is expanding and contracting so
it only seems to becoming
>>in to existence out of nothingness. But, then I wonder what started this
>>process in the first place.
>

> "Start" can be likened to "cause", and "cause" is inapplicable to the
>universe as a whole. Read up on the cosmological arguments and their
>refutations.
>

As a Physics student I read many cosmological arguments about the
possible/probable beginnings of the universe. None that I recall mentioned
anything about refuting causality of the universe as a whole. Would you
mind pointing one out for me.

>>To me, for someone to be truly an atheist, one would have to say the
>>universe is only made of energy and matter; that overall the energy and
>>matter making up the universe has nothing in it to give it direction. Well
I
>>suppose if we look at the universe in galactic sense it is rather hard to
>>see any sort of direction being given to the universe, other that it's
>>inherent expansion. However, when we look at our part of the universe we
can
>>begin to see some real direction.
>

> By what do you mean "direction"? Purpose, perhaps? If so, then you need to
>demonstrate that the universe requires a purpose.
>

Purpose would be a direction. But, what I mean by direction is any meaning
of direction that one could suppose. The only direction I could suppose by
considering the currently excepted model of the universe, by most physicist,
are the expansion/contraction aspects.

>>The direction I am speaking of here is life. And more specifically I am
>>referring to the persistence of life. Life persists by the process of
birth
>>and death. On a cellular level, using microscopes, we can see cells
>>combining and dividing. We can easily say this is no different then the
way
>>atoms bond with one and other to form molecules. In other words, there is
>>nothing more at work than the electromagnetic forces of nature. But, I do
>>not think we can say the same thing when we look the gestational
processes.
>

> Why not?
>

If you will, give me some examples of non biological processes that start
with separate entities, like the sperm and egg, that combine to form a
single entity that continues to evolve. Life as can be seen in biological
entities is very different than the life of any other aspect in the
universe.

The male/female nature of most creatures and the resulting offspring is not
likened in any other aspect of the universe. I suppose the birth of a star
is the closest thing to it. But, as far as I know, two stars do not come
together for the purpose of producing an offspring.

Why is this process not simply attributable to electromagnetic forces? It
is hard for me to say other than to point out the fact that it is a process
that generates life; or better(?) said that, at least with humans,
generates consciousness. Most creatures have an innate drive to stay alive.
Stars, planets, stones and the like do not seem to have this kind of drive.

Would you give me description of how you might say that any of know physical
forces in nature combine to keep the process of gestation going. What
aspect physics drives biology? What physical force/law occurs at conception
to cause the gestational process to start. What causes cell division in the
gestational process to commence.

>>No animal, including humans, are cognitively capable of moving a
fertilized
>>egg from cell division through birth.
>

> Does this mean that creatures actively and intelligently direct the
>process? I hope you don't mean that. If so, you definitely need a refresher
>course in biology.
>

>>I guess the basic question here is what causes life to keep reproducing
>>itself.
>

> An evolutionary trait to preserve the species.

What is the physics happening here? Why do biological entities have a trait
to preserve it species? No other aspect in the universe has such a nature.
Let me know if you can think of one.

>
>> The gestational processes are very complicated.
>

> So?

2nd law of thermodynamics

>
>> These processes require an amazing ordering of biological material to
produce an offspring.
>

> So?
>
> (please tell me you aren't going the argument from personal incredulity
>route)

What do you think I would be doubting here? That the universe could not
generate life on its own? In away that would be because as you pointed out
above I am a theist, not an atheist.

>
>>According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics entropy in a system will always

>>increase unless acted on by an outside source. In the case of the
fertilized

>>egg what is the outside source that causes the gestational processes to
>>continue and result in the birth a being?
>

> What is the source of your growth from a newborn to adult?
>

I answer your question by simply returning it to you to answer. Because it
is very similar to the questions I pose about the gestational process. What
do you say is the physical science of growing up. What drives us to go
through the growing process physically, mentally, and emotionally. What
keeps our hearts beating. What gives us the ability to look into the night
sky and wonder how it all happened. Why do you have cognitive abilities;
what caused the universe to go through an evolutionary process to give you
that ability?

[Michael Burns]

@news.demon.co.uk>...

>"Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
>>>nature of such a being.
>>
>>The existence of God, a Zen view
>>
>>[Michael writes]
>>
>>It is not purpose of Zen to describe God or to even attribute anything
>>including existence to a god. Yet, it is not the purpose of Zen to deny
that
>>a God exists.
>

>Nor is it the purpose of zen (or most forms of buddhism) to affirm that
>God exists. Theists trying to reconcile zen with their own belief often
>make the first of these statements omitting the second, just as you did.
>IMO that can lead to confusion. Or not enough confusion.

Yes,yes. My point in metioning this was that I knew that this was to be
posted in newsgroups with theist leanings. And I wanted theists who did not
realize this to at least be aware of it. However, there are a number of Zen
followers who are either Christians, Jewish, or Islamic as well. Being a
follower of Zen does not preclude being a theist.

>>The following are a few samples of Zen thought taken from
>>various web sites.
>

>On the whole quite well selected, IMO.
>Attributions might have been useful in case anyone wanted to read
>further.
>
>I recognised part of the alt.zen FAQ (from
>http://www.interlog.com/~daryl/zenfaq.html ) but not the others.
>>

>>The Four Noble Truths of Life
>>(Life Sucks When We Are Being Stupid)
>

>I like this - where did it come from?
>

I will look back at my notes and let you know via e-mail.

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

In article <621fao$c7t$1...@gte1.gte.net>, saw...@gte.net wrote:

> Michael Burns wrote:
> >
> > The existence of a god?
> >

> > Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
> > nature of such a being.
> >

> > I have asked permission via posting from all of the newsgroups included in

> > this discussion. Not all have responded; so, I assumed it to be tacit
> > permission.
> <snip>
>
> The thread may quickly wear thin.
> The fabric already did.

"When my essence became
An ocean for the universe,
Every particle in my body shone.
When I burned out like a candle
In the way of Love -
All the past, present and future
Became Absolute Time."

(Rumi, ibid., p. 28)

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Raistlin Majere, Achmage <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
wrote in article <3447347c...@news.execpc.com>...

> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood

> <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:
>
> >On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Raistlin Majere, Achmage wrote:
> >

> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net>
> >> summoned up some courage and said:
> >>
> >> >[MB Wrote]

> >> >[Rasmus Wrote]
> >> >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
> >> >>either.

> >> >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either
within or
> >> >without time.
> >>

> >> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.

> >Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation
be
> >an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have
> >been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of
Creation
> >being the *start of time*.
>

> The *act* itself is an act in time.
>
>
> Raist

There you got it Raist, I wonder why it is so difficult for creationists to
perceive
anything which makes them see?

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article

<61tqb1$e...@examiner.concentric.net>...
> [MB Wrote]

> >> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
> >the
> >> nature of such a being.
> >

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
> >either.
>
> Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within
or

> without time. After all such a being created existence.
>

But I thought you argued that the god created the physical universe. If he
created the physical universe his origin would not have been of the
physical universe thus to exist in it would be limiting him to our level.

To understand what I said you must first understand "now". You may read my
pages
and get a better idea of what my interpretation is of now and that which
must perceive events in time from now, but I stated that neither the god or
we can exist in time.

We can make believe we are of the physical, het that is the grandest of
deceptions.

If your god deceives himself in the same fashion he would no longer be
immortal, omnipotent or even know that he was a god!

> >I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the
relation
> >between time and "now".
> >That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived, thus
we
> >can not be a part of time.
>

> Try sticking with energy and position. Otherwise you have a new major

> mathematical proof to show us.
>
I reallize there is a new concept to show. It is not quite ready yet, but

it is on my pages.

> >A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a
part
> >of time.
>

> Why?

>
Because time is a part of the physical universe and he could not have
created the physical universe from within the physical universe.

> >Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the

physical
> >universe.
> >This but means we are not our bodies.
>

> In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
> other dimensions we might be something else. When one believes in a soul
> one might consider that a soul exists uniformly in all dimensions,
> including time.
>

The Soul, spirit, or perception point or whatever else one desires to call
oneself is not what one has, it is what one is.

It can not be described from a three dimensional viewpoint as the ancients
knew ages ago.

> >Immortality is a complete perception of "now" and that is the perception
of
> >the present, past and future.
>

> ?????
> Do you mean that via immortality we would see all time as now and be able
to
> perceive all time at once?
>

Not via anything. The physical universe is via time/space. Immortality is a
spiritual state which has no past or future, only the present or "now".
Included in that now would be all past and all future.

>

> >For example, it would be impossible to receive immortality at a future
date
> >without also being immortal today.
>

> Why can't a godly being endow you with immortality. Why do you suppose a
> god could not create you into a time structured existence and then at
some
> point in that time structured existence give you the ability to exit
outside
> of that time structure.
>

My reasoning could not be explained unless I knew you fully understood
"now"
and this I don't. Besides, The magnitude of the comprehension is one which
I
am afraid I have not fully grasped either as yet.

> >The bible and all it's theology deals with events of the past.
>

> No; not completely. The bible deals with God and man. God's creation in
> this time structure and man's chance at living beyond our current
existence.
>

All tales in the bible regards the past and mans existance in time. Even
the alleged paradise is a tale from the past and the allusions to a future
in books such as Daniel
are not authentic.

> >These events have duplicate tales from ancient societies in the near

east
> >without exception. ( See http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm )
> >In other words, there is not a single biblical tale which can not be
> >disputed regarding validity.
> >
> >No matter how long you search you will never find yourself, the reason
is
> >simple, and it is because you are.
>

> Basically, I am so I am immortal.
>

Basically you are, all you need is the comprehension and perception, but

that involves a little more than just worshipping at the church with the
accredited steeple.

And when all is known we will reallize there were no enemies.

Best Regards

[Stephen M. Dodd]

Michael Burns wrote:

> discussion the one aspect of Islam I do know about, that is the wonderful
> poetry of Jalaluddin Rumi. If you have never read the his poetry it would be
> beneficial if you will.

The poetry you describe defies elements of Islam and is of little value to
anyone.

Omar

--
-
- Stephen M. Dodd
- New World Productions
- 541 754-7757; http://www.sdodd.com

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Jonnie Underwood <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.95.971014...@student.uq.edu.au>...

> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Raistlin Majere, Achmage wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net>
> > summoned up some courage and said:
> >
> > >[MB Wrote]

> > >[Rasmus Wrote]
> > >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
> > >>either.
> > >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either
within or
> > >without time.
> >

> > Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
> Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation be
> an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have
> been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of
Creation

> being the *start of time*. And as for God existing, most religions seem
> to have as an underlying fundamental concept of God as undefinable, so
> therefore by saying God exists in time, or that God exists wherever God
> wants to exist is basicl an act of definition, isn't it? Well, i hope
> i've added something by saying this...
>
> with metta
> Jonnie Underwood

No, it is not illogical, just take another look!
Nothing can exist in the physical universe without time.
A car has no speed "now", we need to measure it's speed in regards to time.
Corrollarily time as we understand it does not exist without the physical
universe
as it is but a measurement of change.
If creation was the start of time, then creation could not have been the
act of a deity which experienced time. If the deity did not exist
originally in time then who is to
define the deity? It would all be mere speculation and speculation only
prooves we have more to learn.

Far more important than these speculations is the fact that we do not seem
to exist in time either.
If we existed in time we would not be able to perceive time.
There would not be planning or reflecting because those are movements in
time, free from the barriers of time as well as space.

Since the concept of a deity existing, undefinable by time is no more
substantial than the concept of us existing undefinable by time there is no
more reason to credit the deity with the creation of the universe than
there is to credit ourselves with the creation of the physical universe.

[Colin Montoya-Lewis]

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:14:21 -0400, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

>
>
>Colin Montoya-Lewis wrote in article <3441cf6b....@198.59.162.1>...
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:21:33 -0400, "Michael Burns"
>><mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Look, I hate to cry "foul" so early in the game, but didn't the author
>>of this thread say that the object was to define our OWN views? No
>>offense, but I'd rather hear an atheist define atheism.
>>
>>-Colin
>
>Simply, I used a dictionary definition of atheism. I ask that any or all
>proponents of Atheism post a definition. I did not intend to supercede
>anyone by placing that definition at the start. If you problem is that I
>started the posting with my personal questions about Atheism, I apologize
>for doing so. I had the question on my mind and posted befor thinking.
>
>I am willing to delete the posting and let an atheist start the discussion.
>Let me know if this is preferred.

If I lashed out a little harshly sounding, I apologize. The last
thing I mean to do is stiffle discussion. Honestly, I didn't consider
the possibility that you hadn't been reading alt. atheism in the last
two months. The definition of the term "atheist" has been a matter
of...shall we say...disagreement. Unfortunately, most of the defining
has come from people other than atheists. In other words, I'm a
little sensitive after repeatedly being told by theists that I don't
know what I am. You wouldn't have had a way to know this was going
on, and it wasn't fair of me to assume you would.

I'll defer to another atheist to elaborate on the philosophical
ramifications, but, essentially, I define an atheist as someone who
lacks theism. That is "atheist" is simply "not-theist."

Personally, my atheism is something I spent many years trying to
overcome. I wasn't able to, but now I'm happy that I've given up
trying to convince myself of a proposition I couldn't accept. With
regard to the existence of a god, the question is only relevant to me
in relation to the political and social consequences of so many people
asking the question. It is also of some mild interest in terms of the
mental exercise involved in discussing logical proofs and refutations.

-Colin

[Jazz]

Michael Burns wrote:
>
> The existence of a god?
>

> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
> nature of such a being.
>

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <61ulvm$isp$1...@news.dialnet.net> Doug Adams <"dadams"@ NoSpam dialnet.net> writes:
>Michael Burns wrote:
>>
>> The existence of a god?
>>

><snip>
>> A few things to note about this discussion:
><snip>
>> This discussion, considering the history of many newsgroup postings,
>> will become nothing but a cyber back alley brawl if a few simple
>> considerations by participants are not taken. Firstly, I ask that you treat
>> everyone and everyone else's viewpoint with respect, even if you completely
>> disagree.
>
>Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and so would
>my 4th grade teacher).

Why? He was talking about "a god" - with a small "g" meaning a generic deity.
"God" with a large "G" is the name of a specific god. Just as Zeus was the
name of another specific god.

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

In article <623ova$n...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

> Rev. Illuminatus Maximus wrote in article ...
>
> >In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com

> >It's weird how the Juseo-Christian god gets a capital "G" while all the
> >others deities have to make do with a small "g". Why don't we just call
> >them by their proper names? For example, the Judeo-Christian god is named
> >"Jehovah" and "Yahweh" in mainline Christianity, "Yaldabaoth," "Saklas"
> >and "Samael" in the gnostic tradition. That would be a good place to
> >start, I think.
> >
> >Now, if Krishna, Christ, Vishnu or Mithras enter the discussion, we can
> >keep them all seperate without getting confused.
>
> In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital "G"
> when I am refering to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls God.
> Does that make sense to anyone.
>
<snip>

I suggest the use of proper names mostly just because it prevents
overlapping areas of disgreement, for example, to gnostics, Jehoavah is a
god, but not God, whereas Jesus is a god in Christianity, but only Yahweh
is God to Jews, similarly, Allah is not acknowledged as God by Catholics,
etc...

So, there is a Biblical creator deity who goes by all these different
names, we gnostics call it the demiurge, but the father of the NT is a
different god who is simulateneously everything and nothing...similar to
the Buddhist void or the hindu Brahma...

I guess the sticking point for me is that the "God" of gnosticism is
thought to be unknowable, a being outside space and time quite distinct
from the creator god Jehovah...

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

Regards,

[Jiva Goswami]

Michael Burns wrote:

> The existence of a god?
>

> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
> the
> nature of such a being.
>
> I have asked permission via posting from all of the newsgroups
> included in
> this discussion. Not all have responded; so, I assumed it to be tacit
> permission.

Definitions are critical. If someone says "There is no God", that's one
argument. If someone says "I don't believe there is a God" that's
another.

Simplification is also important. Is the question, "Is there or is there
not God?"? Or is it "What is God to you?" or "Why do you believe that
there is no God?".

The discussion will tangent off into meaningless loops otherwise

Jiva Goswami

[Michael W. Fisher]

[This followup was posted to alt.christnet and a copy was sent to the
cited author.]

In article <621do0$i...@examiner.concentric.net>, mcb...@concentric.net
says...

<snip a bunch>

> I answer your question by simply returning it to you to answer. Because it
> is very similar to the questions I pose about the gestational process. What
> do you say is the physical science of growing up. What drives us to go
> through the growing process physically, mentally, and emotionally. What
> keeps our hearts beating. What gives us the ability to look into the night
> sky and wonder how it all happened. Why do you have cognitive abilities;
> what caused the universe to go through an evolutionary process to give you
> that ability?
>

Hmm. I've got an essay handy on that subject:

The picture of the fundamental stuff of space/time that modern
physics presents to us is "codified" in quantum-chromodynamics. In (very)
brief, proton and the neutron (baryons) are described as formed from some
combination of up, down, or charmed quarks, which each have a bundle of
occasionally whimsically named properties, electrons and some other
particles (leptons) are themselves fundamental. A final grand unification
is somewhat distant (some would say very distant) but excerpt for
unifying gravity and QM, the current QCD does a very good job of
describing/predicting the behavior of atomic particles.

Now technically, any composite structure could be described by
using the QCD description, and predictions of its behavior made based on
the results of those calculations. This however is not necessary. As
larger and larger numbers of baryons and leptons are grouped together, we
can ignore the behavior of the individual quarks and just "lump" the
characteristics together in a higher order constant or variable.

As the accretion of mass continues to grow, the same thing
happens again. The H2O molecule, alone, has certain properties-none of
which could be predicted based just on a QCD description. In a large
aggregate under certain conditions, properties emerge that could not be
described or predicted from the physical properties which describe the
molecule in isolation or in small groups.

Yet the very behavior of the Hydrogen atoms and the Oxygen atoms
in forming the molecule itself are strictly describable under QCD
principles.

These properties of self-organizing and emergent behaviors exist
at all levels of the universe, from the proton and neutron and simple
atoms themselves, all the way to the super-clusters of Galaxies, from
near absolute zero and densities of only a few particles per cubic light
year, to the interiors of stars going super-nova and the cores of neutron
stars.

On the earth, molecules vital to life have been shown to form
under conditions such as are believed to have existed on the early earth.
Evidences of bacteria exist in the oldest rocks still left on the surface
of the earth--life is older than the oldest parts of the earth itself
still surviving on the surface.

Looking at living organisms themselves, we can see this same kind
of emergence of new properties. Looking at an amoebae gives you no clue
that such a thing as a rotifer could exist, comprised of differentiated
individual cells. A rotifer would not, by itself, lead to the prediction
either a clam or a shark. As complexity increases, new properties emerge.

Yet all these natural artifacts, from neutron stars and
supernovas (and seifert galaxies and quasars) to clams and sharks, are
all comprised of the same leptons, and baryons. Technically, the entire
system could be described/modeled at that level. Practically, it is not
necessary. The behaviors of the individual quarks is unimportant to
understanding the operation of the Krebs cycle in cells. Understanding
the Krebs cycle is unimportant in understanding the sensory modalities
and their effect on the hunting behavior of a shark.

But understanding that QCD world is IN FACT at the base of all
of those systems is critical. It is because all the behaviors at levels
above that of the QCD is DERIVED from those QCD properties. Alter QCD
parameters, and EVERYTHING would change--and in ways we cannot predict
(at
least until computers get a few orders of magnitude more powerful).

It is because quarks have the properties they do that the rest of
the universe works the way it does.

Segueing back to life and its organization; as multicelled
creatures become larger and including more cells, more specialization
comes in. Before there are distinct eyes or olfactory organs, there is a
central nervous system--olfactory receptors and light receptors are
specialized nerve cells. And the more complex the eyes (in particular) or
the olfactory organs, the more complex the nervous system--indeed, by the
time there are eyes, there is a distinct swelling in the central nervous
system where the signals from the eyes enter the rest of the nervous
system--a brain.

And increasing sophistication of sensory modalities is coupled
with increasing flexibility in behavior. As the eye/nose/brain increase
in sensitivity and complexity, the ability of the organism to respond in
complex ways to its environment becomes quite sophisticated.

The central nervous system, the brain, exhibits the ability to
remember and therefor learn. The "neural net" programs and devices that
are produced mimic to some degree the natural operation of real neurons--
and demonstrate analogous abilities to learn.

Note that since life evolves (sorry if that makes you gnash your
teeth), and natural selection weeds out variations that don't work, what
is happening in an information transmission context, is that the "new"
organisms inherit a form of knowledge from their parents. I.e., if the
"new systems" don't hook up correctly, or if the neural system
doesn't/can't properly interpret the information, that animal is selected
out. The better the "engineering/programming" of the offspring is, the
better it's reproductive success. So just as programs which are
artificially evolved under constraints selected by programmers evolve
quickly to maximize their "fit" with the artificial conditions, real
organisms also alter their "programming" to fit with the environment.

The world makes intuitive sense to us because for several billion
years the "programs" and "hardware" necessary to make sense of that
environment have been mercilessly selected for.

And that is what researchers in artificial intelligence and
artificial life are learning. That to simulate what we recognize as
intelligence, requires AN ENTIRE ORGANISM. The "intelligence" of an
animal is not a separate quantifiable "thing" which exists independently
of that which "executes" it. That's why it is so difficult to capture in
some heuristic algorithm the way a human uses language--language use is
not some completely separate subfunction of "intelligence" that can be
surgically separated from a person. Everything in the greyware is
interwoven, hooked together. A "table", the concept "table" is comprised
of our visual impressions of tables we have seen, the things we have used
for tables, the kinesthetic memories of using tables, whatever we may
know of the (various) formal definition(s) of table, as well as any
"poetic" usages of the word we have seen. When we hear or read the word
"table" ALL of that knowledge is immediately available to that part of
the brain which is processing the word and the sentence containing it.

And our ability to process all that information is derived from a
few billion years of our ancestors struggle to survive in the same
environment operation under the same fundamental QCD properties we are
living
under.

The neural nets which are our brains are "built" based on
"programs" which have been mercilessly pruned by that environment.

Which brings the recursion full circle.

What we call logic is the linguistic abstraction we create which
is true because it is recursively related to the very stuff of which the
universe is made.

Hegel's universe as organism. Heidiggers being becoming.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ciao.

--
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994

* * *

He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Paine

[Michael Burns]

>> >> [MB Wrote]
>> >> >> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god
>and
>> >> >the
>> >> >> nature of such a being.
>> >> >
>> >> [Rasmus Wrote]
>> >> >No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>> >> >either.
>> >>
>>

>> [MB Wrote]

>> >> Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either
>within
>> >or
>> >> without time. After all such a being created existence.
>> >>
>>

>> [Rasmus Wrote]

>> >But I thought you argued that the god created the physical universe. If
>he
>> >created the physical universe his origin would not have been of the
>> >physical universe thus to exist in it would be limiting him to our
>level.
>>

>> [MB Wrote]
>> Why can't a god exist in all realities or existences.
>>

>[Rasmus Writes]
>For the same reason that you yourself can not be an honest citizen and a
>criminal
>at the same time, yet in an entirely different dimension.

[MB Writes]
This comparison assumes I have the same abilities that a god would have.

>[Rasmus Writes]
>A reality which is not subject to the laws of the physical universe as we
>understand them would not be tha same. Mybe I best illustrate by going down
>instead of into dimensions not understood.
>
>Picture a two dimensional surface if you will. There would be no
>protrusions.
>Let us make the denizen of this two dimensional surface a snail on a
>parking lot.
>Available to this snail would be just the perceptions of the flat surface
>and nothing
>else. If a dog took a crap on his surface the object would have been
>unavailable to the snails perception, and if there had been any logical
>reasoning available to him, the snail may have seen it as a proof that God
>had left him proof of his existance.
>
>If there had been a person that could not perceive anything but a two
>dimensional
>existance he would be impossible to communicate with for us. Would you
>desire to punish this person for being handicapped? I think not. You would
>try to help him, but you could not do so by punishing the person for not
>perceiving what you perceived.
>
>The same way with the dimensions we mentioned. You ask why your god could
>not exist in all dimensions. You can exist in a three dimensional world,
>and while you may perceive a person in a two dimensional world, you
>yourself could not be in that same two dimensional world.
>
>What I am saying is that like the man in the two dimensional world who had
>his perceptions limited your perceptions are also limited.
>The dimension where you are visualizing your god is the dimension where you
>in reality exist. The difference between the two dimensional world of the
>parking lot and your three dimensional world is not nearly as great as the
>difference between the
>three dimensional world where you think you exist and the world in which
>you really live.
>

This analogy only works when one does not give God the ability to exist
outside of all the dimensions of our universe. In fact why would you
confine a God to our universe; to the universe one could suppose God
created. If you want to define the universe to include God then this
analogy does not necessarily work, because God need not be confined to
dimensions at all.

>> [Rasmus Wrote]

>> >To understand what I said you must first understand "now". You may read
>my
>> >pages
>> >and get a better idea of what my interpretation is of now and that which
>> >must perceive events in time from now, but I stated that neither the god
>or
>> >we can exist in time.
>>

>> [MB Wrote]
>> Please, do tell us you definition of now. I reread you previous posting
>and
>> did not see it there. If you are saying you have on you web site then it
>> would be better if you brought it to the newsgroup.
>>

>[Rasmus Writes]
>I can not bring it to the newsgroup. It is far too much material. I can not
>hold up a mirror in front of you and say "look, there you are". because you
>are not reflected in anything material. Like the person on the two
>dimensional surface which you would desire to help, I have a problem. I do
>not know how to communicate so that you will understand me. I try on my
>pages, but there is an awfully lot of garbage we carry about in form of
>preconceptions and these impaire our vision. We must see with the eye of
>our mind and not rely on the eyes of our body.
>
[MB wrote]
Are you saying you are not capable of telling us what you mean when you use
the word now?

>> [Rasmus Wrote]
>> >We can make believe we are of the physical, yet that is the grandest of
>> >deceptions.
>>

>> [MB Wrote]
>> I just am. I would suppose that I am physical, cognitive, and spiritual.
> I

>> do not believe this is any real deception here.
>>
>[Rasmus Writes]
>The physical is the deception, or one of them. One of the places where the
>ancients were correct was where they stated we live in a dualistic
>universe. There is the physical which is neither good or bad and there is
>the spiritual which is. The spiritual always try to do what cause good and
>happyness. This is where love exist.
>The physical has urges with compulsions, repressions and fears. This is
>where
>obsessions come from. While neither is really evil, the interaction of the
>physical and the spiritual can have results which are evil.
>

[MB Wrote]
You seem to be leaving out cognitive aspects of our reality. Or are you
lumping cognitive in with either the physical or spiritual?

>> [Rasmus Wrote]

>> >If your god deceives himself in the same fashion he would no longer be
>> >immortal, omnipotent or even know that he was a god!
>> >
>> >
>> >> >I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the
>> >relation
>> >> >between time and "now".
>> >> >That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived,
>thus
>> >we
>> >> >can not be a part of time.
>> >>
>>

>> [MB Wrote]

>> >> Try sticking with energy and position. Otherwise you have a new major
>> >> mathematical proof to show us.
>> >>
>>

>> [Rasmus Wrote]
>> >I realize there is a new concept to show. It is not quite ready yet, but

>> >it is on my pages.
>>

>> [MB Wrote]
>> Bring it on
>>

>[Rasmus Writes]
>I know it seems weird to refer to a page all the time, if you still want it
>next time I'll send it, yet this is already getting too long for a
>newsgroup.
>Briefly stated, if you swich E=mc^2, say that C=Sq Root of e/m and locate
>the point from which you view and say it is 0 and put the entirity in a
>quadrant you would have a bit of the picture. But then you would need a Z
>axis in addition to the X and Y, yet it would be wrong because there would
>then be a location.

The problem is that you keep trying to confine God inside your universe. He
does not have to solely in this universe. No one can create anything in
which they are confined. In order to create this universe God would need
experiences (though I hesitate to use experience as it is a rather human
description) outside our universe as a framework in which to create this one
(framework, again a rather human description). Unless one assumes that God
created God when God created the universe all your constructs will fail when
in describing the limitations of God.

[snip]

>> [MB Wrote]
>> Okay, so spiritual existence is outside of space/time. That is a pretty
>old
>> idea.
>>

>[ Rasmus Writes)
>It is thousands of years old, does this make it invalid?
>
[MB Wrote]

That was not my point at all. I am little confused. I suppose my confusion
arises when some who calls themself an Atheist argues about the spiritual
aspects of self. What are the sources of the our spiritual nature if not
from God. Do you believe that the universe is God and that we are all just
manifestation of God the universe. I so you are not an Atheist. Please
explain how you see the spiritual plane.

[snip]
>[Rasmus Writes]

>> >I
>> >am afraid I have not fully grasped either as yet.
>> >

>> [MB Wrote]
>> Let us know when you do.
>>

>[Rasmus Writes]
>I fear I will have great problems communicating with you and others when
>all the ramifications are perceived.

[MB Writes]
In the end, really, is perception not all we have to go by.

[snip]

>> [MB Wrote]
>> You seem to say that creation had to exist within space/time. I would
>say
>> that space/time is the result of creation; therefore, creation precedes
>> space/time because it is the cause of space/time. Also, it is my
>contention
>> that all aspects of heaven are outside of space/time. Only the beings
>who
>> come from heaven into our existence for periods of time are in space/time
>> there/then.
>>

>[Rasmus Writes]
>Once the process of creation was commenced it would have to be done from
>within time/space. I believe my rewording of ancient Gnostic/Greek
>philosophies explain it
>better.

[MB Wrote]

I missed something along the way. Please, explain again why creation would
have to be done within space/time.

[snip]

>> [MB Wrote]
>> Yes, my gnostic friend. I have no enemies. But I do have a relationship
>> with God. And God is not me. Though, I am of God.
>>

>[Rasmus Wrote]
>Well my Christian friend. We all desire the correct answers, after all, it
>is the most
>important endeavour in our lives. I have been afraid that if I carried with
>me preconceptions which were wrong, I may spend eternity waiting at a dock
>which is not a dock looking for a ship which is not a ship.
>I would have liked it if I could believe the Christian statements are
>correct, I just cant.
>
[MB wrote]
Keep up your vigil. I hope I did not offend you by calling you gnostic.
Though, so much of what you have to say seems quite gnostic to me.

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <623ova$n...@examiner.concentric.net>, mcb...@concentric.net
says...

> >
> >Now, if Krishna, Christ, Vishnu or Mithras enter the discussion, we can
> >keep them all seperate without getting confused.
>

> In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital "G"
> when I am refering to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls God.
> Does that make sense to anyone.
>

Sorry, no, that simply is not true.

The Yahweh/Jesus of American fundamentalists has nothing in common
with the Allah of any sect of Islam and is distinct even from the Yahweh
of any modern Jewish sect--however conservative. The fundamentalist
Yaweh/Jesus certainly has nothing in common with the Yahweh of Reform
Judaism. Whether the god of any of the current religions which sprang
from the ancient Hebrews has anything truly in common with the Yahweh of
the OT is still another issue.

And the god of the philosophers is, as I've elsewhere posted, an
inchoate patch of fuzzy nonsense. Your opinion may differ, but then you
need to articulate it, I certainly provided a long enough discourse on
mine, so I won't repeat it.

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article

<621gi4$v...@examiner.concentric.net>...

> >> [MB Wrote]
> >> >> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god
and
> >> >the
> >> >> nature of such a being.
> >> >
> >> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >> >No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
> >> >either.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either
within
> >or
> >> without time. After all such a being created existence.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >But I thought you argued that the god created the physical universe. If
he
> >created the physical universe his origin would not have been of the
> >physical universe thus to exist in it would be limiting him to our
level.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> Why can't a god exist in all realities or existences.
>
[Rasmus Writes]
For the same reason that you yourself can not be an honest citizen and a
criminal
at the same time, yet in an entirely different dimension.

A reality which is not subject to the laws of the physical universe as we

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >To understand what I said you must first understand "now". You may read
my
> >pages
> >and get a better idea of what my interpretation is of now and that which
> >must perceive events in time from now, but I stated that neither the god
or
> >we can exist in time.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> Please, do tell us you definition of now. I reread you previous posting
and
> did not see it there. If you are saying you have on you web site then it
> would be better if you brought it to the newsgroup.
>
[Rasmus Writes]
I can not bring it to the newsgroup. It is far too much material. I can not
hold up a mirror in front of you and say "look, there you are". because you
are not reflected in anything material. Like the person on the two
dimensional surface which you would desire to help, I have a problem. I do
not know how to communicate so that you will understand me. I try on my
pages, but there is an awfully lot of garbage we carry about in form of
preconceptions and these impaire our vision. We must see with the eye of
our mind and not rely on the eyes of our body.

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >We can make believe we are of the physical, yet that is the grandest of
> >deceptions.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> I just am. I would suppose that I am physical, cognitive, and spiritual.
I
> do not believe this is any real deception here.
>
[Rasmus Writes]
The physical is the deception, or one of them. One of the places where the
ancients were correct was where they stated we live in a dualistic
universe. There is the physical which is neither good or bad and there is
the spiritual which is. The spiritual always try to do what cause good and
happyness. This is where love exist.
The physical has urges with compulsions, repressions and fears. This is
where
obsessions come from. While neither is really evil, the interaction of the
physical and the spiritual can have results which are evil.

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >If your god deceives himself in the same fashion he would no longer be
> >immortal, omnipotent or even know that he was a god!
> >
> >
> >> >I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the
> >relation
> >> >between time and "now".
> >> >That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived,
thus
> >we
> >> >can not be a part of time.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Try sticking with energy and position. Otherwise you have a new major
> >> mathematical proof to show us.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]
> >I realize there is a new concept to show. It is not quite ready yet, but

> >it is on my pages.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> Bring it on
>
[Rasmus Writes]
I know it seems weird to refer to a page all the time, if you still want it
next time I'll send it, yet this is already getting too long for a
newsgroup.
Briefly stated, if you swich E=mc^2, say that C=Sq Root of e/m and locate
the point from which you view and say it is 0 and put the entirity in a
quadrant you would have a bit of the picture. But then you would need a Z
axis in addition to the X and Y, yet it would be wrong because there would
then be a location.

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >
> >> >A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a
> >part
> >> >of time.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]
> >> Why?
> >>
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >Because time is a part of the physical universe and he could not have
> >created the physical universe from within the physical universe.
> >
>

> [MB Wrote]
> The physical universe, at least this what most theist believe, was
created
> by God. And a God can choose to exist within it if God wants to.
>

[Rasmus Writes]
Yes, this is what most theists believe. All I say is that they are snails
running into
obstacles which they assign to a God. (No offence intended)

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >> >Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the
> >physical
> >> >universe.
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more;
in
> >> other dimensions we might be something else. When one believes in a
soul
> >> one might consider that a soul exists uniformly in all dimensions,
> >> including time.
> >>

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >The Soul, spirit, or perception point or whatever else one desires to
call
> >oneself is not what one has, it is what one is.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> Fine.
>
> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >It can not be described from a three dimensional viewpoint as the
ancients
> >knew ages ago.
> >
> >> >Immortality is a complete perception of "now" and that is the
perception
> >of
> >> >the present, past and future.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> ?????
> >> Do you mean that via immortality we would see all time as now and be
able
> >to
> >> perceive all time at once?
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >Not via anything. The physical universe is via time/space. Immortality
is a
> >spiritual state which has no past or future, only the present or "now".
> >Included in that now would be all past and all future.
> >

> [MB Wrote]
> Okay, so spiritual existence is outside of space/time. That is a pretty
old
> idea.
>
[ Rasmus Writes)
It is thousands of years old, does this make it invalid?

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >>
> >> >For example, it would be impossible to receive immortality at a
future
> >date
> >> >without also being immortal today.
> >>
>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Why can't a godly being endow you with immortality. Why do you
suppose a
> >> god could not create you into a time structured existence and then at
> >some
> >> point in that time structured existence give you the ability to exit
> >outside
> >> of that time structure.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >My reasoning could not be explained unless I knew you fully understood
> >"now"
> >and this I don't. Besides, The magnitude of the comprehension is one
which
> >I
> >am afraid I have not fully grasped either as yet.
> >

> [MB Wrote]
> Let us know when you do.
>
[Rasmus Writes]
I fear I will have great problems communicating with you and others when
all the ramifications are perceived.

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >> >The bible and all it's theology deals with events of the past.
> >>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> No; not completely. The bible deals with God and man. God's creation
in
> >> this time structure and man's chance at living beyond our current
> >existence.
> >>
>

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >All tales in the bible regards the past and mans existance in time. Even
> >the alleged paradise is a tale from the past and the allusions to a
future
> >in books such as Daniel
> >are not authentic.

> [MB Wrote]
> You seem to say that creation had to exist within space/time. I would
say
> that space/time is the result of creation; therefore, creation precedes
> space/time because it is the cause of space/time. Also, it is my
contention
> that all aspects of heaven are outside of space/time. Only the beings
who
> come from heaven into our existence for periods of time are in space/time
> there/then.
>
[Rasmus Writes]
Once the process of creation was commenced it would have to be done from
within time/space. I believe my rewording of ancient Gnostic/Greek
philosophies explain it
better.

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >
> >> >These events have duplicate tales from ancient societies in the near
> >east
> >> >without exception. ( See http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm )
> >> >In other words, there is not a single biblical tale which can not be
> >> >disputed regarding validity.
> >> >
> >> >No matter how long you search you will never find yourself, the
reason
> >is
> >> >simple, and it is because you are.
> >>

> [MB Wrote]

> >> Basically, I am so I am immortal.
> >>
> >

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >Basically you are, all you need is the comprehension and perception, but
> >that involves a little more than just worshipping at the church with the
> >accredited steeple.
> >
> >And when all is known we will reallize there were no enemies.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> Yes, my gnostic friend. I have no enemies. But I do have a relationship
> with God. And God is not me. Though, I am of God.
>
[Rasmus Wrote]
Well my Christian friend. We all desire the correct answers, after all, it
is the most
important endeavour in our lives. I have been afraid that if I carried with
me preconceptions which were wrong, I may spend eternity waiting at a dock
which is not a dock looking for a ship which is not a ship.
I would have liked it if I could believe the Christian statements are
correct, I just cant.

>
............................................................................

> ............
> "I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
> about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
> -Mahatma Gandhi
>

[Michael Burns]

>> [MB Wrote]
>> >> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
>> >the
>> >> nature of such a being.
>> >
>> [Rasmus Wrote]
>> >No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>> >either.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within
>or
>> without time. After all such a being created existence.
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>But I thought you argued that the god created the physical universe. If he
>created the physical universe his origin would not have been of the
>physical universe thus to exist in it would be limiting him to our level.

[MB Wrote]

Why can't a god exist in all realities or existences.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>To understand what I said you must first understand "now". You may read my
>pages
>and get a better idea of what my interpretation is of now and that which
>must perceive events in time from now, but I stated that neither the god or
>we can exist in time.

[MB Wrote]

Please, do tell us you definition of now. I reread you previous posting and
did not see it there. If you are saying you have on you web site then it
would be better if you brought it to the newsgroup.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>We can make believe we are of the physical, het that is the grandest of
>deceptions.

[MB Wrote]

I just am. I would suppose that I am physical, cognitive, and spiritual. I
do not believe this is any real deception here.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>If your god deceives himself in the same fashion he would no longer be
>immortal, omnipotent or even know that he was a god!
>
>
>> >I consider myself an Atheist after my research into time and the
>relation
>> >between time and "now".
>> >That which perceives can not be a part of what is being perceived, thus
>we
>> >can not be a part of time.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> Try sticking with energy and position. Otherwise you have a new major
>> mathematical proof to show us.
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]
>I realize there is a new concept to show. It is not quite ready yet, but

>it is on my pages.

[MB Wrote]
Bring it on

[Rasmus Wrote]

>
>> >A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a
>part
>> >of time.
>>

[MB Wrote]
>> Why?
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>Because time is a part of the physical universe and he could not have
>created the physical universe from within the physical universe.
>

[MB Wrote]

The physical universe, at least this what most theist believe, was created
by God. And a God can choose to exist within it if God wants to.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>> >Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the
>physical
>> >universe.
>> >This but means we are not our bodies.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
>> other dimensions we might be something else. When one believes in a soul
>> one might consider that a soul exists uniformly in all dimensions,
>> including time.
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>The Soul, spirit, or perception point or whatever else one desires to call
>oneself is not what one has, it is what one is.

[MB Wrote]
Fine.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>It can not be described from a three dimensional viewpoint as the ancients
>knew ages ago.
>
>> >Immortality is a complete perception of "now" and that is the perception
>of
>> >the present, past and future.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> ?????
>> Do you mean that via immortality we would see all time as now and be able
>to
>> perceive all time at once?
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>Not via anything. The physical universe is via time/space. Immortality is a
>spiritual state which has no past or future, only the present or "now".
>Included in that now would be all past and all future.
>

[MB Wrote]
Okay, so spiritual existence is outside of space/time. That is a pretty old
idea.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>>
>> >For example, it would be impossible to receive immortality at a future
>date
>> >without also being immortal today.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> Why can't a godly being endow you with immortality. Why do you suppose a
>> god could not create you into a time structured existence and then at
>some
>> point in that time structured existence give you the ability to exit
>outside
>> of that time structure.
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>My reasoning could not be explained unless I knew you fully understood
>"now"
>and this I don't. Besides, The magnitude of the comprehension is one which
>I
>am afraid I have not fully grasped either as yet.
>

[MB Wrote]
Let us know when you do.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>> >The bible and all it's theology deals with events of the past.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> No; not completely. The bible deals with God and man. God's creation in
>> this time structure and man's chance at living beyond our current
>existence.
>>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>All tales in the bible regards the past and mans existance in time. Even
>the alleged paradise is a tale from the past and the allusions to a future
>in books such as Daniel
>are not authentic.

[MB Wrote]
You seem to say that creation had to exist within space/time. I would say
that space/time is the result of creation; therefore, creation precedes
space/time because it is the cause of space/time. Also, it is my contention
that all aspects of heaven are outside of space/time. Only the beings who
come from heaven into our existence for periods of time are in space/time
there/then.

[Rasmus Wrote]

>
>> >These events have duplicate tales from ancient societies in the near
>east
>> >without exception. ( See http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm )
>> >In other words, there is not a single biblical tale which can not be
>> >disputed regarding validity.
>> >
>> >No matter how long you search you will never find yourself, the reason
>is
>> >simple, and it is because you are.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>> Basically, I am so I am immortal.
>>
>

[Rasmus Wrote]

>Basically you are, all you need is the comprehension and perception, but
>that involves a little more than just worshipping at the church with the
>accredited steeple.
>
>And when all is known we will reallize there were no enemies.

[MB Wrote]

Yes, my gnostic friend. I have no enemies. But I do have a relationship
with God. And God is not me. Though, I am of God.

............................................................................

............
"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
-Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,

[Michael Burns]

>Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>nature of such a being.

The existence of God; a Hindu's view

I am not fully versed in the traditions/history and culture of Hinduism; so,
I ask someone who is fully versed in Hindu tradition to describe how a
typical Hindu would view the nature of God.

Following are excerpt from a web site called the Spirit Web. The following
texts answers nine typical questions asked about Hinduism:

1) What is the Hindu definition of God-monotheistic or polytheistic?

Introduction

There is much confusion about this, not among Hindus but among those on the
outside looking in. Learn the right terms, and the subtle differences in
them, and you can explain the profound ways that Hindus look at Divinity.
Others will be delighted with the richness of the ancient concepts of God.
You may wish to tell inquiring minds that some Hindus believe only in the
formless Absolute Reality as God, others believe in God as personal Lord and
Creator. Hinduism gives us the freedom to approach God in our own way,
without demanding conformity to any dogma. This freedom makes the concept of
God in Hinduism the richest in all the world's religions.

Answer #1: Hinduism is both a monotheistic and a henotheistic religion.
Hindus believe in one supreme God who created the universe and who is
worshipped as Light, Love and Consciousness. Hindus were never polytheistic,
but were always henotheistic. Henotheism is defined by Webster's as "the
belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of others."

Answer #2: We Hindus believe that there is one all-pervasive God which
energizes the entire universe. We can see Him in the life shining out of the
eyes of humans and all creatures. This concept of God as existing in and
giving life to all things is called "panentheism." It is different from
pantheism, which is the belief that God is the natural universe and nothing
more. It is also different from theism which says God is only above the
world. Panentheism is a beautiful concept. It says that God is both in the
world and beyond it, both immanent and transcendent. That is the Hindu view.
Hindus also believe in many devas who perform various kinds of functions,
like executives in a large corporation. These should not be confused with
God. There is one Supreme God only. What is sometimes confusing to
non-Hindus is that we may call this one God by many different names,
according to our tradition. Truth for the Hindu has many names, but that
does not make for many truths.

Answer #3: Hindus believe in one God, one humanity and one world. People
with different language, different cultures have understood this one God in
their own way. This is why we are very tolerant of all religions, as each
has its own path to this one God. One of the unique understandings in
Hinduism is that God is not just far away, living in a remote heaven, but is
also inside of each and every soul in the heart and consciousness, waiting
for you and me to discover. Knowing the One Great God in this intimate and
experiential way is the goal of Hindu spirituality.

Summary

In summary, if by this time you have a little group around you very
interested in what you have to say, ask them if they have ever seen God.
Most will say "No, never." Then explain that you are now going to give them
the experience of seeing God. Go on to explain that God is the Life of our
lives, and the life within each of us is the same as the life within all of
us. Then carefully explain that that Life which is God can be seen by
looking in one another's eyes. Ask each one to look into each other's eyes
trying not to see the person but to just see the life, the pure
consciousness, of the person instead. Then explain that when we are seeing
the life in others eyes we are actually seeing God.

2) Could you describe the process of reincarnation?

Introduction

Reincarnation, known in Sanskrit as samsara, is a very openly discussed
subject these days. Shirley MacLaine went "out on a limb" on this subject
and made popular throughout the United States. Now nearly every television
script has standard statements written into it such as "See you in the next
life," or "I must have known you in a past life." The TV serial "Quantum
Leap" is a great example of a program that is bringing this knowledge of a
one soul inhabiting many bodies to the forefront of mass consciousness. I
talked with Shirley a few weeks ago in San Francisco and told her what a
fantastic job we all thought she is doing in spreading this knowledge, and
assured her that she has the full support of Hindus.

Now to three answers that you can memorize to give when this question is
asked of you. Don't forget to precede your answer with your sweet smile and
confident prologue.

Answer #1: Reincarnation, yes, carnate means flesh. The word reincarnate
means to "reenter the flesh." We Hindus believe the soul is immortal and
keeps reentering a fleshy body time and time again in order to resolve
experiences and thereby learn all the lessons life in the material world has
to offer.

Answer #2: There have been many recorded out-of-the-body experiences. These
have been researched by scientists, psychiatrists and parapsychologists
during the last decade and documented in some very good books. Even science
is discovering reincarnation.

Answer #3: Yes, we Hindus believe in reincarnation. To us, it explains the
natural way the soul evolves from immaturity to spiritual illumination. I
myself have had many lives before this one and expect to have more. Finally,
when I have it all worked out and all the lessons have been learned, I will
attain mukti. This means I will still exist but no longer be pulled back to
incarnate in a physical body.

Summary

I would like to explain the process of reincarnation in a little more
detail. When the soul leaves the physical body never to return, the soul
does not die but lives on in another subtle body called the astral body. The
astral body lives on another plane of consciousness called the astral plane.
Here we continue to have experiences until we are reborn again in another
physical body as a baby. The soul chooses a home and a family which can best
fulfill its next step of maturation. Hindus understand the natural growth of
all humans as they experience evolution because they know these facts. After
enlightenment, however, we do not have to re-experience the baseness of
human existence but go on in evolution in our other bodies. As an example:
After we graduate from school we don't have to-nor do we want to-re-enroll
in the fifth grade. We are beyond that in understanding.

If you choose to use answer number three, be prepared that it might lead
into a very interesting discussion, and you might want to invite your
new-found friend and the little group that has perhaps gathered around to
further pursue reincarnation over a cup of coffee or tea.

Reincarnation is a vast subject and there are many books written about it.
Get them and read them. They will enlighten on the subject you and keep you
informed. We would be happy to send you pamphlets on karma and
reincarnation, which gives the central facts of our Hindu belief and a book
list, names of authors, publishers, etc. You should also know that most all
of the worlds religions believe now or once believed in reincarnation. Even
the early Christian church believed in reincarnation. But an early King
Justininan took it out of the Bible to affect better control of the people.
Even now many Christians are attempting to get back to those early
teachings. We have some of these books, too, and can refer them to you if
you are interested. Should you be in a hurry, we have a 36-hour turn-around
response to every fax that comes in. They come in daily from at least three
or four countries. We don't do as well with paper mail. About a 15 or 30
days turnaround for that. So, fax us if you are in a hurry.

3) What is karma?

Introduction

Karma is another word we hear about quite often on television. "This is my
karma." or, "It must have been something I did in a past life to bring such
good karma to me." In more liberal schools of Hinduism, karma is looked upon
as something bad. Just two days ago a Hindu guest from Guyana in South
America came to visit us in Hawaii and mentioned that karma means "sin," and
that this is what the Christians in his country are preaching that it means.
Karma actually means "cause and effect." Here is an example: I have a glass
of water sitting in front of me on a table. Because the table is not moving,
nor is the glass, the water is calm. Shake the table, the water ripples.
This is action and reaction, the basic law of nature. The process of action
and reaction on all levels-physical, mental and spiritual-is karma.

Here is another example: I say kind words to you, you are peaceful and
happy. I say harsh words to you, you become ruffled and sad. This is karma.
It names the basic law of the motion of energy. An architect thinks
creative, productive thoughts, and draws plans for a new building. But were
he to think destructive, unproductive thoughts, he would soon not be able to
accomplish any kind of positive task even if he desired to do so. This is
karma, a natural law of the mind. We must be very careful about our thoughts
because thought creates and thoughts also make karmas, both good, bad and
mixed. Here are three answers to memorize and later explain to beautiful
souls who are seeking higher consciousness and look to you for mystical
knowledge of the Far East.

Answer #1: Karma is one of the natural laws of the universe. It simply means
"cause and effect." Our religion is made up of many natural laws of the
universe. Karma is just one of them. (This is a simple answer for a casual
seeker. After you have said this, smile and ask if they want to know
anything more.)

Answer #2: Karma is basically energy. I throw energy out through thoughts,
words and deeds, and it comes back to me (in time) through other people. We
Hindus look at time as a circle. I think professor Einstein came to the same
conclusion. He saw time as a curved thing and space as well. This would
eventually make a circle. Karma is a very just law, too, as it is equal in
re-payment. Like gravity, it treats everyone the same.

Answer #3: God does not give us karma. We create our own. Bad karma is
because we have done something bad in the past to someone, and now someone
is doing something bad to us. Good karma means that we have done something
good in the past and now others are doing something good to us now. Because
we Hindus understand karma, we do not hate or resent the people who do us
harm. We understand they are giving back the effects of the causes we set in
motion at an earlier time. At least we try not to hate them or hold hard
feelings, by reminding ourselves of the law of karma.

Summary

A coffee shop might be in order here if you want to continue discussing this
subject. There are many souls in America seeking higher consciousness and
they are all very interested in knowing more about karma. We can supply you
with as much background literature as you need.

Our fax number is 822-4351. Above all, don't be shy. Speak with authority
and with a smile. Don't think you have to know everything about karma,
reincarnation, God or gods in order to answer casual questions. Just do your
best.

4) Why do Hindus regard the cow as sacred?

Introduction

We cannot give anything away but that it comes back to us. A few years ago
in Madras an American devotee said to me, "Shall I give money to the beggar
who is asking?" I said, "Give him ten rupees. You may need the fifty rupees
when karma pays you back, just as he needs the ten rupees now." The karmic
law pays higher interest than any bank when you give freely with no strings
attached.

Rhetorical question: "Who is the greatest giver on planet earth today?" Who
do we see on every table? At every country of the world, breakfast, lunch
and dinner? It is the cow. The golden arches made a fortune on the cow. When
we were in Moscow in March we learned that MacDonalds is opening 11 of its
cow-vending machines there.

The generous cow gives milk and cream, yogurt and cheese, butter and ice
cream, ghee, buttermilk, sirloin, ribs, rump, quarterround, porterhouse,
beef stew. Its bones are the base for soup broths. It gives us our leather
belt, leather seats, leather coats and shoes, beef jerky, cowboy hats, you
name it. The cow is the most prominent giving animal in the world today.

And now the question: Why do the Hindus regard the cow as sacred? (Don't
forget to give the proper prologue before you answer this question. This
will break down any resistance to the answer you are about to give.)

Answer #1: People who ask if cows are considered sacred should understand
that Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred-mammals, fishes, birds and
more. The cow symbolically represents all other creatures to the Hindu.

Answer #2: The cow represents life and the sustainance of life to the Hindu.
It represents our soul, our obstinate intellect, our unruly emotions, but
the cow supersedes us because it is so giving, taking nothing but grass and
grain. It gives and gives and gives, as does the soul give and give and
give.

Answer #3: The cow is so vital to life, the virtual sustainer of life for
humans. In a society if you only had cows and no other domestic animals or
agricultural pursuits, you could still survive and the children could
survive with the butter, the cream and the milk to feed the children. The
cow is a complete ecology, a gentle creature and a symbol of abundance.

Summary

Yes, the cow is considered very sacred in our religion and for very good
reason. It's good qualities are those that we can emulate.

5) Are Hindus idol worshippers?

Introduction

No Hindus are not idle worshippers. I have never seen a Hindu worship in a
lazy or idle way. They worship with great vigor and devotion, with
unstinting regularity and constancy. There's nothing idle about our ways of
worship! (A little humor never hurt when answering a silly question.)

But, of course, the question that is being asked is not about this. It is
about graven images, like the Christian cross with Jesus hanging on it, or
statues of Mother Mary and Saint Theresa, or the holy Kabaa in Mecca, or the
Adigranth enshrined in the Golden Temple in Amritsar, or the Arc and the
Torah of the Jews, the image of a meditating Buddha, the totems of the
indigenous faiths (the so-called primitive faiths throughout the world), the
artifacts of the many holy men of all religions. All these graven images are
stood before in awe by the followers of these religions. The tooth of the
Buddha in Sri Lankan town of Kandy is another loved and respected image. All
religions have their symbols of holiness. The question is, Does this make
all the above religions idol-worshippers? The answer is, No.

Answer #1: No, Hindus are not idol worshippers in the sense implied. They
are intelligent people, and intelligent people do not worship stones or
statues. Hindus invoke the presence of great souls living in higher
consciousness into stone images so that we can feel the presence of God.
Though we may have a stone image of a God, we are invoking the physical
presence of the God into the stone image to bless us. Invocations of this
nature can be performed by invoking God's presence in a fire, or in a tree,
or in the enlightened person of a Sat Guru.

Answer #2: The human mind releases itself from suffering, as shown by all
the religions, through the use of forms and symbols that awaken reverence
and evoke sanctity. Even a fundamentalist Christian who rejects all forms of
idol worship, including those of the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church,
would resent someone who threw his Bible on the floor. This is because he
considers it sacred. In Hinduism one of the ultimate attainments is that the
seeker transcends the need of all form and symbol. This is the yogi's goal.
In this way Hinduism is the least idol-oriented of all the religions of the
world. There is no religion that is more aware of the transcendent,
timeless, formless, causeless Truth. Nor is there any religion which uses
more symbols to represent Truth in preparation for that realization.

Answer #3: No, no. Ten thousand times no. We do not worship idols. We invoke
God within our temple through our highly trained priests into the sanctum.
We invoke God within us through or highly trained Sat Gurus who teach us
yoga. Yoga means to yoke oneself to God within.

Summary

If after all that the questioner is still interested, invite him or her to
the Lemont temple and explain the process of the puja and the experiences to
be had. Tell him or her that you don't have to be born a Hindu to be a
Hindu. This is ridiculous Christian propaganda. You are a Hindu if you
believe in karma, reincarnation, the existence of God everywhere in all
things, and the existence of beings that are on a greater evolutionary path
than ourselves. As a Hindu you are the converter, the one who can never be
converted. Could anyone ever convince you that the law of gravity is an
untrue law or that heat from a stove would not burn your hand? These are
pragmatic laws we all know. Karma, reincarnation, invocation of the Deity
are equally pragmatic laws known to Hindus who believe in these eternal
Truths. Smile, have confidence as you give these answers. Don't be shy.
There is no question that can be put to you in your karma that you cannot
rise up to and fully satisfy the seeker.

6) Is there a rule about Hindus eating meat?

Introduction

This is a very touchy subject.

When you are asked this question, there are several ways that you can go,
depending on who is asking the question and the background in which they
have been raised. Basically, there is a rule, an overlying rule, which gives
the Hindu answer to this query. It is called ahimsa, refraining from
injuring-physically, mentally or emotionally-anyone or any living creature.
The Hindu who wishes to strictly follow the path of non-injury to all
creatures naturally adopts a vegetarian diet.

We have collected many scriptural quotes which counsel Hindus not to eat
meat. There are references in the Vedas and Manu Dharma Shastras to this
effect, as well. As in other matters, Hinduism has very few rigid "do's and
don'ts." Rather, its injunctions are called restraints and observances. The
ultimate authority for answers to such questions is one's own guru, or our
religious community and sampradaya and our own understanding of the
spiritual benefits from abstaining from eating meat. Let me put it this way.
There are good Hindus who eat meat, and there are bad Hindus who are
vegetarians.

Today in America and Europe there are literally millions of vegetarians.
This is because they want to live a long time and be healthy. Many feel a
certain moral obligation to their own conscience which they wish to fulfill.
There are some good new books on vegetarianism, such as Diet for a New
America by John Robbins. If you want to know about vegetarianism from the
American perspective, write to us and we can refer you to some excellent
books. Perhaps at your next meeting you can invite some of these authorities
to come and speak to your group. There is also a fine magazine dedicated to
the subject, "Vegetarian Times," which comes out monthly. Now to some
answers that you can memorize when asked about vegetarianism and its
relationship to Hinduism.

Answer #1: Simply put, vegetarians are more numerous in the south of India
than in the north. This is because of climactic conditions and the Islamic
influence within the north of our country. Our religion does not lay down
rigid "do's and don'ts." There are no commandments. Our religion gives us
the wisdom to make up our own mind on what we put in our body, for it is the
only one we have, in this life at least.

Answer #2: All of our priests and religious leaders are definitely
vegetarian, because they have to awaken the more refined areas of their
nature in order to perform their work. Our soldiers and law-enforcement
people are generally not vegetarians. This is because they have to keep
alive their aggressive forces in order to perform their work. To practice
yoga and be successful in spiritual life it is advisable to become a
vegetarian. It is a matter of wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge
at any given moment.

Answer #3: Today, about twenty or thirty percent of all Hindus are
vegetarians and the rest are not.

Summary

Through my forty years of presenting the eternal Truths of Hinduism, I have
found that families who are vegetarian have fewer problems than those who
are not. This is because when we eat meat, fish, fowl and eggs, we absorb
the vibration of the instinctive creatures into our nerve system and this
amplifies our own lower nature. Our lower nature is prone to fear, anger,
jealousy, confusion, resentment and the like. We advise all members of my
Saiva Siddhanta Church to be well-established vegetarians prior to
initiation into mantram and then remain vegetarian afterward. However, we
don't insist upon members becoming vegetarian if they are not seeking
initiation.

7) Why do Hindu women wear the dot on the forehead?

Introduction

Not only women, but Hindu men also wear a dot on the forehead, indicating
their third eye. The pottu is a very auspicious symbol, reminding those who
ear it of their spiritual heritage and ideals, wherever they may be. It also
serves to identify a Hindu among the members of all other religions. Muslim
girls often cover their face with a veil. Christian girls wear a cross.
Jewish boys wear small leather cases holding scriptural passages. Men and
women of a particular faith often wish to identify themselves to each other,
and they do so by wearing religious symbols which generally are blessed in
their temples, churches and synagogues. In many cases a dot on the Hindu
woman's forehead is similar to a beauty mark, just as European women used to
wear a black dot on their cheek as a beauty mark. An unmarried girl wears a
black dot, and a married girl a red one. Nowadays the dot's color
complements the color of a lady's sari. "Wearing a dot on the forehead is
largely a cultural symbol or a beauty symbol." This may be a good answer to
this question if the person who asked the question is a little shallow and
possibly antagonistic.

Answer #1: The dot in the middle of the forehead of the Hindu woman is a
beauty mark not unlike the beauty marks European and early American women
used to wear on the cheek. Let me put one on you right now and then you can
look in the mirror and see how it enhances your natural beauty.

Answer #2: In the old days, Hindu men and women wore these marks, and they
both also wore earrings. The dot has a mystical meaning, for it represents
the Third Eye or spiritual sight which Hindus seek to awaken through yoga.
Today, only the most traditional men observe this, but women continue to
follow these traditions.

Answer #3: There are many marks other than the dot that we Hindus use. Each
mark represents a different sect or denomination of our vast religion. We
have four major sects, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saktism and Smartaism. By these
marks we know what a person believes, and therefore know how to begin
conversations.

Summary

Do not be ashamed to wear the pottu on your forehead in the United States.
It will distinguish you from all other people as very special person, a
Hindu, a knower of eternal Truths. You will never be mistaken as belonging
to another nationality or religion. For both boys and girls, men and women,
the dot should be small or large depending on the circumstance, but should
always be there under appropriate circumstances. Naturally, we don't want to
flaunt our religion in the face of others. We observe that Christian boys
and girls take off or conceal their crosses in the corporate business world.

8) Is the memorization of slokas and mantras essential to being a good
Hindu?

Introduction

This is a question that obviously you won't be asked by anybody, so it will
be answered just for all of your here today. Most mantras and slokas are in
the Sanskrit language, and your knowledge of Sanskrit is probably like my
own. Nil! We must realize that slokas are like affirmations and are spoken
in the language the speaker understands. Though Sanskrit has a tremendous
value because it is a spiritually powerful language, we should combine two
languages, English and Sanskrit, when we are learning slokas. Repeat the
sloka first in Sanskrit and then in good American English. This is like
repeating affirmations. Affirmations remold our subconscious mind and keep
us mentally alert. They remind us of the goal of life, they give us strength
and power but, of course, only if we understand their meaning. If we do not
know Sanskrit, the key is to speak the sloka first in Sanskrit and then
speak it out again in English. Yes, of course, slokas are extremely
important. Without them we would tend to forget our religion. They are
capsules of our enlightenment heritage, much like E=MC2 capsulates the
physicists' truth. These sacred utterances are to be said before sleep, upon
awakening, in the shrine room in the morning, in the temple and before any
important event.

Mantrams are different. They are sound vibrations seen in the inner astral
atmosphere as light and color. Mantrams awaken latent brain cells. Some
mantrams such as AUM can be said before initiation and others should not be
used. The simple yet powerful mantram Aum harmonizes the physical forces
with the emotional forces with the intellectual forces. When this happens,
you begin to feel like a complete being. There are different mantrams taught
within the four major sects of Hinduism. Mantrams are most generally given
by the Sat Guru. Many of the most powerful mantrams need no translation.
They are what they are. Their power is supreme. There is one great mantram
at the very center of the Vedas which has the five syllables: "Na ma si va
ya."Memorizing slokas and repeating mantras definitely is a vital part of
our personal religious life. They should be memorized for a mystically,
profound purpose. A mystical Hindu places stress on quality and not
quantity. There are Sanskrit scholars who believe that their salvation lies
in the numbers and complexity of the mantras and slokas they have at their
command. Among themselves, they judge that those who know the most verses
are necessarily the most enlightened.

The mystical Hindu knows that this is a false concept. He comprehends that a
devotee can know but a single mantra, use it perfectly and wisely to reach
God consciousness. Under no circumstances should we judge a person's
attainment by how many verses he has memorized. Rather, we should judge it
by how he uses the verses that he knows. Some of the greatest of all Hindus
did not know a single syllable of Sanskrit or any other sacred language.

9) How can we use scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita or religious books as a
practical guide to growing up in the United States?

Introduction

This, too, appears to be a personal question for the entire group to ponder.
I will answer it simply, first by first asking if you ever heard of a
religion called Jordanism? No, you haven't. But let us juxtapose it to
Hinduism. Along the Jordan River Christianity, Islam and Judaism came up.
Jordanism could become a modern word to name all three of these religions,
which do have similar beliefs and practices. But, like the denominations now
under the banner name of Hinduism, they are also three separate religions.
Well, it was the Persian explorers attempting to explain a very complicated
set of cultures and values around the Indus River which gave rise to our
religion's modern name. They called it "Induism," which later became
Hinduism. Hinduism is not really the name of our religion, but that is what
it has come to be called in the media, history books, etc. So, we have to
accept this. It would be impossible to change. There are four important
surviving religions under the banner word Hinduism. These are Vaishnavism,
Saktism, Saivism and Smartaism. So, nowadays, we say, "I am a Sakta
Hindu...a Smarta Hindu...a Saivite Hindu...a Vaishnava Hindu."

Scriptures are very important to read. The four Vedas are the bible of all
Hindus. Use scripture when you feel lonely or sad or not quite perfect.
Listen to the wisdom of our forefathers and try to see how they would have
faced a situation like yours. Use scriptures to meditate upon. Use
scriptures to read on the bus on your way to work, or at night just before
sleep. They will be like a compass, guiding you along the right path as you
go through the experience of growing up in the United States.

[Michael Burns]

Rev. Illuminatus Maximus wrote in article ...

>In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com

>(Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>
>> In article <61ulvm$isp$1...@news.dialnet.net> Doug Adams <"dadams"@ NoSpam
>dialnet.net> writes:

>> >Michael Burns wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The existence of a god?
>> >>

>> ><snip>
>> >> A few things to note about this discussion:
>> ><snip>
>> >> This discussion, considering the history of many newsgroup
postings,
>> >> will become nothing but a cyber back alley brawl if a few simple
>> >> considerations by participants are not taken. Firstly, I ask that you
treat
>> >> everyone and everyone else's viewpoint with respect, even if you
completely
>> >> disagree.
>> >
>> >Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and so would
>> >my 4th grade teacher).
>>
>> Why? He was talking about "a god" - with a small "g" meaning a generic
deity.
>> "God" with a large "G" is the name of a specific god. Just as Zeus was
the
>> name of another specific god.
>
>It's weird how the Juseo-Christian god gets a capital "G" while all the
>others deities have to make do with a small "g". Why don't we just call
>them by their proper names? For example, the Judeo-Christian god is named
>"Jehovah" and "Yahweh" in mainline Christianity, "Yaldabaoth," "Saklas"
>and "Samael" in the gnostic tradition. That would be a good place to
>start, I think.
>

>Now, if Krishna, Christ, Vishnu or Mithras enter the discussion, we can
>keep them all seperate without getting confused.

In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital "G"
when I am refering to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls God.
Does that make sense to anyone.

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <MPG.eaedd316...@news3.cts.com> mwfi...@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) writes:
>In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com says...

>> In article <61ulvm$isp$1...@news.dialnet.net> Doug Adams <"dadams"@ NoSpam dialnet.net> writes:
>> >Michael Burns wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The existence of a god?
>> >>
>> ><snip>
>> >> A few things to note about this discussion:
>> ><snip>
>> >> This discussion, considering the history of many newsgroup postings,
>> >> will become nothing but a cyber back alley brawl if a few simple
>> >> considerations by participants are not taken. Firstly, I ask that you treat
>> >> everyone and everyone else's viewpoint with respect, even if you completely
>> >> disagree.
>> >
>> >Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and so would
>> >my 4th grade teacher).
>>
>> Why? He was talking about "a god" - with a small "g" meaning a generic deity.
>> "God" with a large "G" is the name of a specific god. Just as Zeus was the
>> name of another specific god.
>

> No it's not. All it is is a means to ensure, intentionally or
>otherwise, that any discussion gets thorougly lost in equivocation
>fallacies before it can possibly get anywhere.

No, It's not. If Michael Burns had *meant* "the existence of God" he would
have said so. As it is, he said "the existence of *a* god" with a small
"g". You are cross-posting to an atheist newsgroup, where the Christian
deity is just one of all the generic gods that people believe(d) in, that
is equally irrelevant as all the gods (note the small "g") that you don't
believe in either. So if a Christian wants to "prove" his god called
"God" _on_ _alt.atheism_ he first has to prove generic gods before he
can prove his one

The equivocation is on the part of those who insist that it should always
be spelt with a large "G" so that it blurs any difference between their
god called "God" and generic deities.

> If you wish to refer to the Christian Yahweh/Jeses/Ghost, then
>refer to it by name and everyone will know exactly what kind of or at
>least which critter you're talking about.

Better still, call it something like "the Christian god called 'God'".
That way there will be no misinterpretation, and it acknowledges that
other people believe in different gods too.

[Michelle Malkin]

Doug Adams <"dadams"@ NoSpam dialnet.net> wrote:
>Michael Burns wrote:
>>
>> The existence of a god?
>>
><snip>
>> A few things to note about this discussion:
><snip>
>> This discussion, considering the history of many newsgroup postings,
>> will become nothing but a cyber back alley brawl if a few simple
>> considerations by participants are not taken. Firstly, I ask that you treat
>> everyone and everyone else's viewpoint with respect, even if you completely
>> disagree.

>Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and so would
>my 4th grade teacher).

>Thank you.

No. god.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

[AltWay]

In article <MPG.eaea43cd...@news3.cts.com>, mwfi...@cts.com
(Michael W. Fisher) wrote
Re: The existence of God - Atheist view.

I am familiar with the kind of description of the whole creative process
given by this article.

the point I wish to make is this :- It is a description of an observed
process. But what is the force or power which makes the Universe obey this
description? Does it describe all the various experiences we have? Does it
account for consciousness?

It seems to me that though physics can explain the forces which govern the
bahaviour of particles, quite different concepts are required to explain
biological behaviour. It is impossible from a study of physics alone to
predict the arising of living organism or to determine their bahaviour. This
is why Biology is an independant science. Living organisms possess
organisation and adaptibility which makes them to a degree independant of
external causes or even simple inner ones.

Similarly, it is impossible from biological knowledge alone to predict human
psychological behaviour. This is because we have the capacity to record and
manipulate images internally.

there are therefore several levels of functioning, and each level, though it
may be regarded as an epi-phenomena arsing from the organisation of a
previous level is, nevertheless another phenomena - another creation.
Indeed, matter itself is an epi-phenomena.

It is true that the whole structure must be driven ultimately by the most
fundamental (or highest) level we can access e.g quantum events - this is
why we can think of the Cause as descending through the levels rather than
as being prior in time.

I doubt very much, however, that the so called fundamental particles,
leptons etc are really fundamental. They appear to have an inner structure.
Apart from this modern particle physics requires at least 10 dimensions to
explain the properties of all these particles. Since there are only four in
our experience, the others are regarded as being folded in in tight circles.
This may well account for what we call inner experiences.

Consciousness it self appears to be connected with Quantum events within the
brain. Thus human beings are able to function at the quantum level as well
as the electro-magnetic, electronic, chemical and mechanical level. Each has
ddifferent possibilities.

--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" for more info
_______________________/ ha...@argonet.co.uk - www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz

[AltWay]

Re: The existence of God - A Hindu view.

This article appears mostly to be compatible with the Islamic view, at least
to me.

However, I would like to ask some questions and make some comments :-

(1) What exactly is meant by Henotheistic? Does it mean that there are
several supreme gods of which the Hindus accept only one? Or that they are
agnostic about the existence of other gods? Or that there could be other
ideas or concepts about God than the one they have?

(2) What does Panentheism mean? The Islamic concept of God is regarded as
being monotheist, yet according to the Quran God is both within and outside
all things including the whole Universe and man himself, and is not to be
identified with anything since all these have limitations in space, time and
qualities and are relative things. Would this be defined as panentheism?

(3) It is generally believed that the theory of re-incarnation is un-islamic
and is also un-christian. But this may not be the case. Islam, too, regards
the soul as being immortal, though it is capable of development or
degeneration. But it passess through a period of unconsciousness on death
which is regarded as similar to going to sleep. Resurrection in Islam, at
least, is regarded as the day of awakening.

The point it seems to me is this :- If a person does not remember his past
life in what sense can it be said that he is the same person as the one who
lived in the past? One might as well divide the life of a person into a
past, a present life and an after life, as the Quran does. All the series of
lives have been collapsed into one. It is only when he "wakes up" then does
his past life have any meaning. On the other hand it is perfectly true, even
from a scientific standpoint that every person is formed mentally speaking
by cultural factors and he affects the culture around him. Thus every new
generation is mentally formed by the previous generation. As for the body,
even within this life time matter and energy is constantly passing in and
out of it. Cells are dying and being replaced to perform the same function
just as human individuals are within the Society. We can hardly identify a
person with his body.

Some comments on this way of looking at things would be welcome.

[Z-hack]

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:35:54 -0400, Jiva Goswami
<Jiv...@microserve.net> wrote:

>Definitions are critical. If someone says "There is no God", that's one
>argument. If someone says "I don't believe there is a God" that's
>another.
>

>Jiva Goswami
>

What's the difference?
What assumptions are you making for there to be a difference?

-Z-hack

[Michael Burns]

When one refers to a god specifically one should capitalize the word "God".
However, if one refers to a god in general then one need not capitalize the
word "god".
...........................................................................

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."

- Mahatma Gandhi

[Michael Burns]

><snip>
[Rev Wrote]

>
>I suggest the use of proper names mostly just because it prevents
>overlapping areas of disgreement, for example, to gnostics, Jehoavah is a
>god, but not God, whereas Jesus is a god in Christianity, but only Yahweh
>is God to Jews, similarly, Allah is not acknowledged as God by Catholics,
>etc...
>
>So, there is a Biblical creator deity who goes by all these different
>names, we gnostics call it the demiurge, but the father of the NT is a
>different god who is simulateneously everything and nothing...similar to
>the Buddhist void or the hindu Brahma...
>
>I guess the sticking point for me is that the "God" of gnosticism is
>thought to be unknowable, a being outside space and time quite distinct
>from the creator god Jehovah...
>

[MB Wrote]

Reverend, it has been a while since our last discussion. How nice to speak
with you again.

It is my understanding that the God of the OTdid not have a name, or rather
that God was not to be named. I was also under the impression that the term
Yahweh means one who has no name. Maybe not?

Any way there is a passage in the NT where Christ finally names God. The
term Christ uses for God the Father is LOVE.

[Michael Burns]

[Michelle Wrote]
>[>>>> >Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and

>>>> >so would my 4th grade teacher).
>>>>

[Christopher wrote]

>>>> Why? He was talking about "a god" - with a small "g" meaning a
>>>> generic deity. "God" with a large "G" is the name of a specific
>>>> god. Just as Zeus was the name of another specific god.
>>>

[snip]

[MB Wrote]

>>In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital
"G"

>>when I am referring to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls

God.
>>Does that make sense to anyone.

[Christopher Wrote]
>
>No.
>
>It presupposes that everybody shares your doctrinal understanding.
>Several different religions claim a god called "God". For instance
>"Allah" means "the g/God". But that particular god called "the g/God"
>didn't have a son who became divine.
>
>Even J*hnu sometimes calls his god "God". Whichever religion does this,
>it's semantic trickery that presupposes this particular god called "God"
>is the only one. Which has not yet been agreed by those on the receiving
>end who didn't start the debate and maybe don't even share the same
>doctrine. Eg in some of the newsgroups this thread is cross-posted to.

[MB Wrote]

When I personally use the term God I refer to the creator of our universe.
I do put a doctrine behind God in the sense. I am a Christian and try to
follow the lesson in our Bible. However, I do not presuppose this on to God
just because this is my faith. I do want to put God into a rational
definition to which God would never really fit.

[Christopher Wrote]
>
>This is true even if your religion/doctrine (eg Bahai) says they are
>the same deity worshipped differently. Your audience won't necessarily
>accept it. You have to demonstrate *this* early on but *after* you have
>established generic god(s).
>
>Threads like this one are fraught with this kind of problem. It is
>well-nigh impossible to argue any religion and its deity objectively,
>and those arguing for it never seem to realize that their doctrinal
>premises are shared by their audience.

[MB Wrote]

I agree, it is difficult because everyone has their own understanding of the
word God/god. But, that is par for course in discussion about God.

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <6254u0$t...@examiner.concentric.net> "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net> writes:
>[Michelle Wrote]
>>[>>>> >Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and
>>>>> >so would my 4th grade teacher).
>>>>>
>
>[Christopher wrote]
>>>>> Why? He was talking about "a god" - with a small "g" meaning a
>>>>> generic deity. "God" with a large "G" is the name of a specific
>>>>> god. Just as Zeus was the name of another specific god.
>

>[MB Wrote]
>>>In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with
>>>a capital"G" when I am referring to God. God is God regardless of
>>>what anyone calls God.
>>>Does that make sense to anyone.
>
>[Christopher Wrote]
>>
>>No.
>>
>>It presupposes that everybody shares your doctrinal understanding.
>>Several different religions claim a god called "God". For instance
>>"Allah" means "the g/God". But that particular god called "the g/God"
>>didn't have a son who became divine.
>>
>>Even J*hnu sometimes calls his god "God". Whichever religion does this,
>>it's semantic trickery that presupposes this particular god called "God"
>>is the only one. Which has not yet been agreed by those on the receiving
>>end who didn't start the debate and maybe don't even share the same
>>doctrine. Eg in some of the newsgroups this thread is cross-posted to.
>
>[MB Wrote]
>
>When I personally use the term God I refer to the creator of our universe.

What "creator of our universe"? You're presupposing one, and that
it is the god of your religion - on a thread cross-posted to several
non-Christian newsgroups whose reders don't share your doctrinal
premises - including *your* *version* of "God". You can't do that,
you have to start from common accepted and shared premises.

>I do put a doctrine behind God in the sense. I am a Christian and try to

But worse than that, you presume it when initiating dialog with people
who don't share that premise.

>follow the lesson in our Bible. However, I do not presuppose this on to God
>just because this is my faith. I do want to put God into a rational
>definition to which God would never really fit.

Once again, you're presupposing it. Which you cannot do in this
discussion. After all, you initiated it in atheist, Hindu and Zen
newsgroups as well as the Christian and Islamic newsgroups (which two
share a monotheistic creator-god concept), not to mention the generic
alt.religion which includes any of the religions anybody anywhere
believes, of which Judeo/Christian/Islamic monotheism is a small
subset.

>[Christopher Wrote]
>>
>>This is true even if your religion/doctrine (eg Bahai) says they are
>>the same deity worshipped differently. Your audience won't necessarily
>>accept it. You have to demonstrate *this* early on but *after* you have
>>established generic god(s).
>>
>>Threads like this one are fraught with this kind of problem. It is
>>well-nigh impossible to argue any religion and its deity objectively,
>>and those arguing for it never seem to realize that their doctrinal
>>premises are shared by their audience.

The above two paragraphs were a very major hint. I'll spell it out
clearer below.

>[MB Wrote]
>
>I agree, it is difficult because everyone has their own understanding of the
>word God/god. But, that is par for course in discussion about God.

So why presuppose your particular god called "God", and your
understanding of it?

Why even bother to discuss it where your beliefs aren't shared if
you're not prepared to do so from shared understanding?

Generic gods, let alone a god called "God" are irrelevant to both
atheists and Zen Buddhists because an atheist is simply somebody
who doesn't have *any* god to believe in (let alone yours, or
even one of the different versions of a monotheistic creator-god),
and Zen has nothing at all to say about them.

So you cannot presume any god at all let alone yours in those two
newsgroups.

Hindus do not subscribe to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic monotheistic
creator-god concept. They have a pantheon of deities more like the
ancient Greeks. So you cannot presume your god concept there either.

Why is this so hard to understand?

>"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
>about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
>- Mahatma Gandhi
>
>He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,

But it's yours, not ours. We don't have one on alt.atheism. Remember?

>with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and the
>first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
>yourself." The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
>-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

Quoting the Bible to those who don't share your belief is both
discourteous and a waste of time. It carries no authority with
several of the groups you are posting to - especially when what
you quote puts loving your neigbour at a lower priority than
loving some figment of your imagination - because that's all
it is until you demonstrate its existence objectively.

Once again, DON'T PRESUME THAT EVERYBODY ELSE BELIEVES IN YOUR GOD,
OR ANY DEITY AT ALL.

[Michael Burns]

>Michael Burns wrote:
>
>> discussion the one aspect of Islam I do know about, that is the wonderful
>> poetry of Jalaluddin Rumi. If you have never read the his poetry it would
be
>> beneficial if you will.
>

[Stephen/Omar? Wrote]

>The poetry you describe defies elements of Islam and is of little value to
>anyone.
>
>Omar
>

As I said, I am not at all an expert on Islam; please, explain why Rumi's
poetry defies elements of Islam.

It my understanding that Rumi was a Sufi, maybe even started
Sufis; does this have any bearing on your comments?

By the way. Would you mind explaining or describing a typical Islamic
follower's view of the nature of God. This would be most helpful in getting
a proper discussion started.

Thanks
-Michael
...........................................................................

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
- Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,

with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and the
first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

...........................................................................

[Michael Burns]

Rasmus Gjesdal wrote in article
<01bcda50$1a78e260$b0e04382@compaq-presario>...

>
>
>
>
>
>Raistlin Majere, Archmage <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
>wrote in article <34496cbe...@news.execpc.com>...
>> On 14 Oct 1997 16:05:07 GMT, "Rasmus Gjesdal" <rgje...@online.no>

>summoned up
>> some courage and said:
>>
>>

>> >Raistlin Majere, Achmage <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
>> >wrote in article <3447347c...@news.execpc.com>...

>> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood
>> >> <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:
>> >>
>>
>>
>> >> >Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could
>Creation
>> >be
>> >> >an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would
>have
>> >> >been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of
>> >Creation
>> >> >being the *start of time*.
>> >>

>> >> The *act* itself is an act in time.
>>
>> >There you got it Raist, I wonder why it is so difficult for creationists
>to
>> >perceive anything which makes them see?
>>
>> Bugger all if I know.
>>
>>
>> Raist

[Rasmus Wrote]
>
>I think it has to do with the ability to perceive through preconceptions.
>I feel sorry for those who really desire to know the truth, it would be
>hard
>desiring something and then erecting your own stumbling blocks.
>
>

[MB Wrote]

Everyone has preconceptions. Conceptions of anything come to us via
experiences. All experiences by nature are viewed/experienced through some
sort of filter/vantage point. This is because we are not omnipresent or
omniscient.

In our searches for truth we all have stumbling blocks. Whether they arise
from a limited vantage point or some other self-induced filter. Feeling
sorry for another person's perceived handicap is a sure way of pulling a bag
over one's own head.

[Michael Burns]

>>
>>[Re: The existence of God - Atheist view.]
>>
>>In previous posting a discussion about the appearance
>>of creativity, conciousness and life itself were being bantered about.
>>
[Fischer Responded]

>
>I am familiar with the kind of description of the whole creative process
>given by this article.
>
>the point I wish to make is this :- It is a description of an observed
>process. But what is the force or power which makes the Universe obey this
>description? Does it describe all the various experiences we have? Does it
>account for consciousness?
>
>It seems to me that though physics can explain the forces which govern the
>bahaviour of particles, quite different concepts are required to explain
>biological behaviour. It is impossible from a study of physics alone to
>predict the arising of living organism or to determine their bahaviour.
This
>is why Biology is an independant science. Living organisms possess
>organisation and adaptibility which makes them to a degree independant of
>external causes or even simple inner ones.

[MB Wrote]

This was my point, though not as well stated.

[Fischer Wrote]

[MB Wrote]
In what manner would you suppose that quantum events are connected with
consciousness? The idea that our consciousness is somehow connected with
the more fundamental particles in nature is quite interesting. I do not
know where my thoughts/creativity lie in regards to what we might call the
physical universe.

How does one manipulate the fundamental particles in order produce a
thought? Or, would it be said that we are, in terms of our "self", at our
core just a collection fundamental particles? It is interesting to think of
my inner being as simply consisting of a collection of leptons or of some
even more fundamental particles. Could such aspects of a person be tapped
in some way; possibly to change how a person thinks or what a person thinks?

We have for some time now explained memory in terms of electro-chemical
deposits in the brain. How are these electro-chemical deposits formed?

Have I departed greatly from the points you were trying to make

-Michael

[Michael Burns]

[Broad conversation about the existence of a god]

The idea of this thread is discuss this topic with others who do not share
the same understanding. Think it of a way of broadening one's scope of
understanding on this topic.

>>[MB Wrote]
>>
>>I agree, it is difficult because everyone has their own understanding of
the
>>word God/god. But, that is par for course in discussion about God.
>

[Christopher Wrote]

>So why presuppose your particular god called "God", and your
>understanding of it?
>

[MB wrote]
I am a theist by nature. Hence, I an some what presupposed to the concept
of a God. But, I still feel it is both beneficial and possible to carry on
a conversation with those with other natures.

>Why even bother to discuss it where your beliefs aren't shared if
>you're not prepared to do so from shared understanding?
>

[MB Wrote]

Why not? You seem to have no problem discussing this topic. Yet, you do
not agree with the premise at all. The most boring conversation on can have
is usually with someone else who agrees with what you already
believe/understand. The most irrelevant activity one can perform is to keep
discussing concepts with someone else who will most likely agree with most
everything you have to say.

[Christopher Wrote]

>Generic gods, let alone a god called "God" are irrelevant to both
>atheists and Zen Buddhists because an atheist is simply somebody

[MB Wrote
Being a Zen Buddhist does not preclude one from believing in a god.

[Christopher Wrote]

>who doesn't have *any* god to believe in (let alone yours, or
>even one of the different versions of a monotheistic creator-god),
>and Zen has nothing at all to say about them.

[MB Wrote]
I have a lot of respect for the lessons to be learned via a Zen philosophy.
That is the main reason I include the Zen newsgroup in this discussion. I
posted to the Zen news group to see if those who typically posted to the Zen
news group would enjoy being part of this discussion. The response was
overwhelming yes.

>
>So you cannot presume any god at all let alone yours in those two
>newsgroups.

In a cross-posted thread such as this one does not have to give up their own
presumptions. The manner in which you are currently addressing this
discussion is filled with your own presumptions.

All we can ask anyone contributing to this discussion is that we respect
everyone else's beliefs/contributions. I ask that you disagree with me
whole heatedly. Use your best logic to explain how you think; point out the
possible fallacies of others; keep, yet challenge, your own presumptions;
and respect the views of others.

>
>Hindus do not subscribe to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic monotheistic
>creator-god concept. They have a pantheon of deities more like the
>ancient Greeks. So you cannot presume your god concept there either.
>
>Why is this so hard to understand?

I understand fully that their are many diverse minds involved in this
discuss; in fact, the diversity is to be treasured. This is why it would be
a great loss to ask those contributing to leave there presumptions at the
door.

[Start MB's newsgroup signature]

>>"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
>>about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
>>- Mahatma Gandhi
>>
>>He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,

[Christopher Wrote]

>
>But it's yours, not ours. We don't have one on alt.atheism. Remember?
>

[MB Wrote]
Yes it is. My faith in God is expressed in my signature. Why do have
problems with this being my signature?

[Continuation of MB's Signature]

>>with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and the
>>first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
>>yourself." The whole law and the prophets depend on these two
commandments."
>>-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

[Christopher Wrote]

>
>Quoting the Bible to those who don't share your belief is both
>discourteous and a waste of time. It carries no authority with
>several of the groups you are posting to - especially when what
>you quote puts loving your neigbour at a lower priority than
>loving some figment of your imagination - because that's all
>it is until you demonstrate its existence objectively.

[MB Wrote]
Notice it also says to love you neighbor as you love yourself. That is
quite a reasonable statement to make.

I do not see God as a figment of my imagination. Rather, I see God as the
being the one who gave me an imagination. I know you do not agree with me.
But, to me it is the most important aspect of this discussion that we
disagree.

You seem hold your thought, understandings on atheism with great pride. I
do not wish to take these understandings away from, not that I could. But,
I do want you to continue to express them in this discussion. Otherwise,
this discussion might become rather boring to us all. Maybe, you are
already bored. If so I will miss your contributions.

[Christopher Wrote]

>
>Once again, DON'T PRESUME THAT EVERYBODY ELSE BELIEVES IN YOUR GOD,
>OR ANY DEITY AT ALL.

Again I say, "we are diverse; this is the treasure that we share."

Christopher, the only thing I presume about you is that you are Atheist.
Please, continue to express this aspect in your continued posting to this
discussion.

[My signature follows]

...........................................................................

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
- Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,

with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and the
first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

...........................................................................

[Michael Burns]

[snip]

[MB Wrote]
>> In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital
"G"

>> when I am refering to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls

God.
>> Does that make sense to anyone.
>>

[Fischer wrote]

>
> Sorry, no, that simply is not true.
>
> The Yahweh/Jesus of American fundamentalists has nothing in common
>with the Allah of any sect of Islam and is distinct even from the Yahweh
>of any modern Jewish sect--however conservative. The fundamentalist
>Yaweh/Jesus certainly has nothing in common with the Yahweh of Reform
>Judaism. Whether the god of any of the current religions which sprang
>from the ancient Hebrews has anything truly in common with the Yahweh of
>the OT is still another issue.
>
> And the god of the philosophers is, as I've elsewhere posted, an
>inchoate patch of fuzzy nonsense. Your opinion may differ, but then you
>need to articulate it, I certainly provided a long enough discourse on
>mine, so I won't repeat it.
>

[MB Wrote]
I never intended to imply that any god is God. I fully understand that
people define God's nature in many ways. Yahweh and Vishnu are not the same
being, I think anyway. I just say that whenever I refer to a god as being
the creator of the universe I use a capital "G" when referring to this
being. It really does not matter what anyone thinks. God is God or there
is no God. Again I would never attempt to imply that my beliefs are any
more correct than anyone else's. I would never suggest that my definition
of God must also encompass anyone else's definition. God in the end is a
most personal concept for anyone, even an Atheist.

............................................................................
............

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."

-Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the
first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

............................................................................
............

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

In article <625osp$b...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

<snip>

Just a quick note, there is a great book by Nick Herbert called "Elemental
Mind" in which he explores the eight (or so) major scientific theories of
consciousness, everything y'all discussed above (well, not leptons, maybe,
but most of the rest of it) and examines their philosophical implications
a little... He seems to think that consciousness itself is a quantum
phenomenon, as basic and pervasive as energy... It includes treatment of
how many dimensions there might be and if there are "mental dimensions"
too..

[Christopher A. Lee]

[some ofthe quotes restructured to correct line wrap]

In article <623ova$n...@examiner.concentric.net> "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net> writes:
>>> >Can you please capitalize God? I find this disrespectful (and
>>> >so would my 4th grade teacher).
>>>

>>> Why? He was talking about "a god" - with a small "g" meaning a
>>> generic deity. "God" with a large "G" is the name of a specific
>>> god. Just as Zeus was the name of another specific god.
>>

>>It's weird how the Juseo-Christian god gets a capital "G" while

>>all the others deities have to make do with a small "g". Why don't

>>we just call them by their proper names? For example, the
>>Judeo-Christian god is named "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" in mainline
>>Christianity, "Yaldabaoth," "Saklas" and "Samael" in the gnostic
>>tradition. That would be a good place to start, I think.
>>
>>Now, if Krishna, Christ, Vishnu or Mithras enter the discussion,
>>we can keep them all seperate without getting confused.
>

>In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital "G"
>when I am refering to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls God.
>Does that make sense to anyone.

No.

It presupposes that everybody shares your doctrinal understanding.
Several different religions claim a god called "God". For instance
"Allah" means "the g/God". But that particular god called "the g/God"
didn't have a son who became divine.

Even J*hnu sometimes calls his god "God". Whichever religion does this,
it's semantic trickery that presupposes this particular god called "God"
is the only one. Which has not yet been agreed by those on the receiving
end who didn't start the debate and maybe don't even share the same
doctrine. Eg in some of the newsgroups this thread is cross-posted to.

This is true even if your religion/doctrine (eg Bahai) says they are

the same deity worshipped differently. Your audience won't necessarily
accept it. You have to demonstrate *this* early on but *after* you have
established generic god(s).

Threads like this one are fraught with this kind of problem. It is
well-nigh impossible to argue any religion and its deity objectively,

and those arguing for it never seem to realise that their doctrinal

[Michael Burns]

[Colin Wrote]
>>>
>>>Look, I hate to cry "foul" so early in the game, but didn't the author
>>>of this thread say that the object was to define our OWN views? No
>>>offense, but I'd rather hear an atheist define atheism.
>>>
>>>-Colin
>>
[MB Wrote]
>>Simply, I used a dictionary definition of atheism. I ask that any or all
>>proponents of Atheism post a definition. I did not intend to supercede
>>anyone by placing that definition at the start. If you problem is that I
>>started the posting with my personal questions about Atheism, I apologize
>>for doing so. I had the question on my mind and posted befor thinking.
>>
>>I am willing to delete the posting and let an atheist start the
discussion.
>>Let me know if this is preferred.

[Colin Wrote]
>
>If I lashed out a little harshly sounding, I apologize. The last
>thing I mean to do is stiffle discussion. Honestly, I didn't consider
>the possibility that you hadn't been reading alt. atheism in the last
>two months. The definition of the term "atheist" has been a matter
>of...shall we say...disagreement. Unfortunately, most of the defining
>has come from people other than atheists. In other words, I'm a
>little sensitive after repeatedly being told by theists that I don't
>know what I am. You wouldn't have had a way to know this was going
>on, and it wasn't fair of me to assume you would.

[MB Wrote]
Understood. I would probably be as sensitive to this problem if I were in
the same situation.

>
>I'll defer to another atheist to elaborate on the philosophical
>ramifications, but, essentially, I define an atheist as someone who
>lacks theism. That is "atheist" is simply "not-theist."
>
>Personally, my atheism is something I spent many years trying to
>overcome. I wasn't able to, but now I'm happy that I've given up
>trying to convince myself of a proposition I couldn't accept. With
>regard to the existence of a god, the question is only relevant to me
>in relation to the political and social consequences of so many people
>asking the question. It is also of some mild interest in terms of the
>mental exercise involved in discussing logical proofs and refutations.
>

[MB Wrote]
I guess I had the opposite problem. I spent many years trying get beyond my
theist tendencies and in the end have learned to accept them.

...........................................................................

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."

- Mahatma Gandhi

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <na.a1f52447d...@argonet.co.uk>, ha...@argonet.co.uk
says...

> In article <MPG.eaea43cd...@news3.cts.com>, mwfi...@cts.com

> (Michael W. Fisher) wrote

> Re: The existence of God - Atheist view.
>

> I am familiar with the kind of description of the whole creative process
> given by this article.
>
> the point I wish to make is this :- It is a description of an observed
> process. But what is the force or power which makes the Universe obey this
> description?

The question presupposes that the Universe needs to be compelled
or controlled. How could we ever, from inside the system where it seems
quite self sufficient, acquire the necessary information to support such
a proposition?

> Does it describe all the various experiences we have?

It is sufficient to do so.

> Does it
> account for consciousness?

Again, the model is sufficient to describe what we observe. Until
and until someone can describe consciousness and then prove 1.) that his
model is not merely sufficient, but necessary AND 2.) that such a model
_necessarily_ implies something else, there is no cogent reason to look
anywhere else for an explanation.

>
> It seems to me that though physics can explain the forces which govern the
> bahaviour of particles, quite different concepts are required to explain
> biological behaviour.

But why?

> It is impossible from a study of physics alone to
> predict the arising of living organism or to determine their bahaviour.

It's impossible, at a practical level to, from a quantum
mechanical description alone, predict the behavior of water at standard
temperature and pressure, or to even derive the concepts of standard
temperature and pressure.

Complex systems are like that. It is impossible from a lower level
description alone to infer (at least in any "simple" manner) what the
higher level properties of the whole will be.

> This
> is why Biology is an independant science. Living organisms possess
> organisation and adaptibility which makes them to a degree independant of
> external causes or even simple inner ones.
>

> Similarly, it is impossible from biological knowledge alone to predict human
> psychological behaviour. This is because we have the capacity to record and
> manipulate images internally.

It is impossible to predict human behavior from _any_ simple
description.

I refer you to "THE COMPUTATIONAL BRAIN" by Churchland and
Sejnowski. One of the opening examples is the neural network in lobsters
that controls the chewing motions of the mandibles. It is comprised of
only 26 neurons, and it is capable (so a neuro-scientist acquaintance who
studies such things adds) of recognizing a grain of sand and reversing
the basic chewing operation, i.e., of spiting the sand out. This network
has been extensively studied and the is much detailed information on its
various subparts. Yet no one can yet explain just how it does what it
does. The basic chewing movement consists of a regular wave like motion
of the mandibles at a basic frequency. No one can explain how the network
generates that simple wave motion.

And that's with just 26 neurons. The complexity of the problem
expands geometrically as the number of neurons, and hence the number of
possible interconnections expands, and the human brain has over 100
BILLION neurons.

There is nothing mystical going on at all. The human brain is the
most complex assembly of any kind in the universe. And if a mere 26
neurons can be so fiendishly difficult to analyze, then it's hardly
surprising that human behavior is so difficult to predict.

Prediction implies that either the system is so simple already,
that its cogent aspects can be extracted to some abstract formal system
which can predict the eventual outcome (like ballistics and aiming
artillery) or at the least that a simplified model can be constructed
which reliably predicts the outcome, but which is computationally
tractable, i.e., it takes less time to run a simulation than the real
world events take to happen, i.e., we get the result from the model in
time to predict what the real world outcome will be.

There is as yet, if there ever will be, NO model of the human
brain simpler than the human brain which can mimic the behaviors we want
to predict.

>
> there are therefore several levels of functioning, and each level, though it
> may be regarded as an epi-phenomena arsing from the organisation of a
> previous level is, nevertheless another phenomena - another creation.

Using the word creation sets you up for equivocation fallacies in
a big way. Creation _implies_ a creator, a fact simply not in evidence.
The only facts in evidence are the emergence of new epiphenomenon as the
organization become more complex. Whether that is the emergence of
certain bosons as quarks bind to form particles, atoms as protons and
electrons bind to form hydrogen, or more complex elements as hydrogen is
fused inside a star -- or whether it is more complex behaviors as
evolution builds ever more complex brains.

> Indeed, matter itself is an epi-phenomena.

Yes, that's what I said in my first post, although I didn't use
that vocabulary.

>
> It is true that the whole structure must be driven ultimately by the most
> fundamental (or highest) level we can access e.g quantum events - this is
> why we can think of the Cause as descending through the levels rather than
> as being prior in time.

The whole structure is bound by the limits set by the most
fundamental phenomena, but to it is a fallacy to say that the whole
structure is somehow "driven" by the fundamental properties. The
fundamental properties determine limits and potentials, but their is no
control by quantum phenomena any more than transistors doing what
transistors do "control" a computer. The computer is more than any given
transistor or group of transistors. Without the transistors, you don't
have a computer, but there is no "control" exerted by the transistors --
they simply follow the laws of physics and do what the applied voltages
compel them to do.

>
> I doubt very much, however, that the so called fundamental particles,
> leptons etc are really fundamental. They appear to have an inner structure.

Even if true, it would have no effect on the basic analysis.

> Apart from this modern particle physics requires at least 10 dimensions to
> explain the properties of all these particles.

In some, perhaps the leading models. Still, it's quite irrelevant
to the basic analysis.

> Since there are only four in
> our experience, the others are regarded as being folded in in tight circles.
> This may well account for what we call inner experiences.

Your making a leap in reasoning unsupported by facts or logic, and
unnecessary in the face of the sheer complexity of the brain. Neural
structures are difficult to understand even when they're simple. Very
simple, numerically, networks exhibit some quite amazing properties, it
is simply not necessary to postulate anything more than neurons doing
what neurons do to explain human psychology, at least not yet.

>
> Consciousness it self appears to be connected with Quantum events within the
> brain.

Same caveat as above. This is a leap unwarranted by the facts.

> Thus human beings are able to function at the quantum level as well
> as the electro-magnetic, electronic, chemical and mechanical level. Each has
> ddifferent possibilities.

This last pair of sentences is simply a faith statement based on
the already noted invalid inferences above. It is just and simply without
meaning.

Ciao.

> _ ___ _ _____________________________________________

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Raistlin Majere, Archmage <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
wrote in article <34496cbe...@news.execpc.com>...
> On 14 Oct 1997 16:05:07 GMT, "Rasmus Gjesdal" <rgje...@online.no>
summoned up
> some courage and said:
>
>
> >Raistlin Majere, Achmage <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
> >wrote in article <3447347c...@news.execpc.com>...
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood
> >> <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:
> >>
>
>
> >> >Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could
Creation
> >be
> >> >an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would
have
> >> >been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of
> >Creation
> >> >being the *start of time*.
> >>
> >> The *act* itself is an act in time.
>
> >There you got it Raist, I wonder why it is so difficult for creationists
to
> >perceive anything which makes them see?
>
> Bugger all if I know.
>
>
> Raist

I think it has to do with the ability to perceive through preconceptions.

I feel sorry for those who really desire to know the truth, it would be
hard
desiring something and then erecting your own stumbling blocks.

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net>
[Snip for brevity]

> >> [MB Wrote]
> >> Why can't a god exist in all realities or existences.
> >>
> >[Rasmus Writes]
> >For the same reason that you yourself can not be an honest citizen and a
> >criminal
> >at the same time, yet in an entirely different dimension.
>
> [MB Writes]
> This comparison assumes I have the same abilities that a god would have.
>

{Ras Wrote}
There is no evidence for any god so how can the abilities of a god be
assumed?

You can not see because you have an image of some god which can not be.
Remember, there is little or no evidence whatever that any gods have ever
lived on this planet thus allegations about the abilities of Gods are just
allegations.
There is even less evidence that any one god has been here with the
concerns of mankind at heart and virtually no evidence at all that the god
depicted in the bible (OT) was here. The only god there is less evidence
for is the one depicted in the new testament. To me it is ridicolous to
bring up abilities of a non extant deity by which to limit our own
abilities.
To be able to have a critical, or at least a half sound evaluation you
would have to look at it from the viewpoint that the deity depicted by your
church may not have existed, otherwise you will never be able to evaluate
the value of other viewpoints.
{Snip}

> >>
> >[Rasmus Writes]
> >I can not bring it to the newsgroup. It is far too much material. I can
not
> >hold up a mirror in front of you and say "look, there you are". because
you
> >are not reflected in anything material. Like the person on the two
> >dimensional surface which you would desire to help, I have a problem. I
do
> >not know how to communicate so that you will understand me. I try on my
> >pages, but there is an awfully lot of garbage we carry about in form of
> >preconceptions and these impaire our vision. We must see with the eye of
> >our mind and not rely on the eyes of our body.
> >
> [MB wrote]
> Are you saying you are not capable of telling us what you mean when you
use
> the word now?
>

No, but what I am saying is that since you can not understand what I am
saying it would not do anyone any good if I was to elaborate. It would be
like saying "I can't understand addition and subtraction so lets go on to
algebra, I would like to see if it makes more sense to me then".
{Snip}

> >[Rasmus Writes]
> >The physical is the deception, or one of them. One of the places where
the
> >ancients were correct was where they stated we live in a dualistic
> >universe. There is the physical which is neither good or bad and there
is
> >the spiritual which is. The spiritual always try to do what cause good
and
> >happyness. This is where love exist.
> >The physical has urges with compulsions, repressions and fears. This is
> >where
> >obsessions come from. While neither is really evil, the interaction of
the
> >physical and the spiritual can have results which are evil.
> >
>
> [MB Wrote]
> You seem to be leaving out cognitive aspects of our reality. Or are you
> lumping cognitive in with either the physical or spiritual?
>

[Ras Writes]
Cognative aspects of perceiving reality comes under Spiritual.
{Snip}

[Ras Writes]

I am only saying that neithet you, I or whatever it is that you think of as
a god exist within the confines of the physical universe. If we did we
would not be able to perceive
it's limitations and barriers.

> [snip]
>
> >> [MB Wrote]
> >> Okay, so spiritual existence is outside of space/time. That is a
pretty
> >old
> >> idea.
> >>
> >[ Rasmus Writes)
> >It is thousands of years old, does this make it invalid?
> >
> [MB Wrote]
>
> That was not my point at all. I am little confused. I suppose my
confusion
> arises when some who calls themself an Atheist argues about the spiritual
> aspects of self. What are the sources of the our spiritual nature if not
> from God. Do you believe that the universe is God and that we are all
just
> manifestation of God the universe. I so you are not an Atheist. Please
> explain how you see the spiritual plane.
>

Why should that be surprising? The first Atheists I know if was the
Gnostics. (Not the Abilgensees and Cathars whom the catholics so
mercilessly murdered, but those who left their writings at Nag-Hammadi
about 1600 years ago.)
Since the Roman empire cared little who you believed in, they had one law
which said
everyone had to worship a god. These Gnostics said the gods of the physical
universe was but manifestations of evil and were no real gods. For this
they became lion fodder or just murdered, but these people were about as
spiritual as you can get.

To be spiritual means a person believes in himself as a spiritual being. To
be an atheist one believes no god(s) were responsible for the creation.
Thus one can be a spiritual Atheist.

> [snip]
> >[Rasmus Writes]
> >> >I
> >> >am afraid I have not fully grasped either as yet.
> >> >
> >> [MB Wrote]
> >> Let us know when you do.
> >>
> >[Rasmus Writes]
> >I fear I will have great problems communicating with you and others when
> >all the ramifications are perceived.
>
> [MB Writes]
> In the end, really, is perception not all we have to go by.
>

Yes, in the end, all we will have may be perception but the form of
communication will be entirely different.

> [snip]

> >[Rasmus Writes]
> >Once the process of creation was commenced it would have to be done from
> >within time/space. I believe my rewording of ancient Gnostic/Greek
> >philosophies explain it
> >better.
>
> [MB Wrote]
>
> I missed something along the way. Please, explain again why creation
would
> have to be done within space/time.
>

[Ras]
Once something has started it takes time to be completed, thus time. In
order to have time you have to have space in which to put forms and fors so
that you have something to measure in time.

> [snip]

>
> [MB wrote]
> Keep up your vigil. I hope I did not offend you by calling you gnostic.
> Though, so much of what you have to say seems quite gnostic to me.
>

I am not offended by being referred to as Gnostic, though the different
interpretations
people have of Gnostics may be way off the mark, so it just depends on the
connotations in the mind of the individual the term Gnostic illicits.

>
............................................................................

> ............
> "I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
> about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
> -Mahatma Gandhi
>

--

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

In article <626g4l$l...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

> [snip]
> [MB Wrote]

> >> In terms of capitalizing the word god. I only write god with a capital
> "G"
> >> when I am refering to God. God is God regardless of what anyone calls
> God.
> >> Does that make sense to anyone.
> >>

> [Fischer wrote]
> >
> > Sorry, no, that simply is not true.
> >
> > The Yahweh/Jesus of American fundamentalists has nothing in common
> >with the Allah of any sect of Islam and is distinct even from the Yahweh
> >of any modern Jewish sect--however conservative. The fundamentalist
> >Yaweh/Jesus certainly has nothing in common with the Yahweh of Reform
> >Judaism. Whether the god of any of the current religions which sprang
> >from the ancient Hebrews has anything truly in common with the Yahweh of
> >the OT is still another issue.
> >
> > And the god of the philosophers is, as I've elsewhere posted, an
> >inchoate patch of fuzzy nonsense. Your opinion may differ, but then you
> >need to articulate it, I certainly provided a long enough discourse on
> >mine, so I won't repeat it.
> >
> [MB Wrote]
> I never intended to imply that any god is God. I fully understand that
> people define God's nature in many ways. Yahweh and Vishnu are not the same
> being, I think anyway. I just say that whenever I refer to a god as being
> the creator of the universe I use a capital "G" when referring to this
> being. It really does not matter what anyone thinks. God is God or there
> is no God. Again I would never attempt to imply that my beliefs are any
> more correct than anyone else's. I would never suggest that my definition
> of God must also encompass anyone else's definition. God in the end is a
> most personal concept for anyone, even an Atheist.
>

<snip>

To tell you the truth, I rteally like the hindu idea of God as both
immanent and transcendent - very similar to what I perceive as a gnostic,
but not neccessary to label and not incompatible with the interference
patterns produced by language, conditioning, preconceptions, etc...

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <626g4l$l...@examiner.concentric.net>, mcb...@concentric.net
says...

Even that presupposes more than you seem to realize.

First, and most obvious, it presupposes that the universe is a
created thing, an artifact. Given that no information about the universe
is available for times prior to 10e-43 seconds, that is rather a large
leap in logic.

You have no evidence, and hence no _reason_ to even suppose that
the universe so much as required a cause, let alone a creator

So the above presupposition further presupposes that only an
intelligent being is a sufficient cause for the universe -- still based
on no evidence.

I'll just try and list some of the presuppositions without a
lengthy discussion of each"

the universe requires a cause

the cause is separate from the universe

the cause is intelligent

the cause has significant other powers besides just the ability to
cause the universe

this cause/being is also in some way responsible for men

this cause/being is in some way interested in mankind

this cause/being is in some way positively disposed toward mankind

knowledge of this cause/being is in some way useful

All or most of that, and probably a good deal more if I thought
about it awhile, is presupposed in your comment. And I see not a shred of
any cogent reason to accept even the first one, let alone the
increasingly detailed and ever more unlikely ones that follow.

> It really does not matter what anyone thinks. God is God or there
> is no God.

So if the universe IS a created thing, but that creator has no
ability to affect the internal happenings of his creation, then the
creator, though real and existing, is not "God'? Or is he? That would be
one situation that doesn't seem to fit your category.

> Again I would never attempt to imply that my beliefs are any
> more correct than anyone else's. I would never suggest that my definition
> of God must also encompass anyone else's definition. God in the end is a
> most personal concept for anyone, even an Atheist.

Not quite. An atheist is pretty much only defined by what the
surrounding theists propose as being the deity. Otherwise were just
philosophical empiricists/materialists/pragmatists/something like that,
who happen to be free of superstitions.

A question; why would you hold to a belief in or about anything if
you didn't think it justified? And if your belief is justified, why isn't
it, being thus more likely to be true, at a minimum more correct than
someone else's improperly formed opinion? Do you habitually take
unjustified beliefs in regard to the world?

I'm an unrepentant atheist for the very reason that I have long
since come to the conclusion that "god" is a nonsense word referring to
nothing real, like leprechaun or big foot or Nessie or fairy. If I wasn't
sure of it, why would I hold the belief? If you are so uncertain of your
belief, and by inference the grounds for that belief, that you never
dispute anyone else's definition as a matter of course, then in what
sense do you say you even believe anything at all about the subject?
That's not tolerance, that's complete agnosticism -- the refusal of
taking any position.

Ciao.

[Raistlin Majere, Archmage]

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:39:04 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>

summoned up some courage and said:

>>> To me "The Big Bang" theory describes very well a created universe; a
>>>universe coming in to existence out of nothingness.
>>
>> It didn't come out of "nothingness". You need to do a little bit of
>>research.
>>
>
>Excuse me. You are, I think, correct on this accord. Regardless, according
>to the "Big Bang" theory all our known universe came from one point in
>space/time. What was that there/then?

We don't know. It's been posited that a "foam" of pure energy existed. But
we can only go back to 10e-43 seconds after the Big Bang.

>
>>> I suppose one could say that the universe is expanding and contracting so
>it only seems to becoming
>>>in to existence out of nothingness. But, then I wonder what started this
>>>process in the first place.
>>
>> "Start" can be likened to "cause", and "cause" is inapplicable to the
>>universe as a whole. Read up on the cosmological arguments and their
>>refutations.
>>
>As a Physics student I read many cosmological arguments about the
>possible/probable beginnings of the universe.

Cosmological arguments for the existence of "god".

> None that I recall mentioned anything about refuting causality of the universe as a whole. Would you
>mind pointing one out for me.

Sure---cause can only happen within the universe. The
universe--existence--sets the stage for cause, defines cause. Not to mention
that to cause is to have time, and before the Big Bang time did not exist.

>>>The direction I am speaking of here is life. And more specifically I am
>>>referring to the persistence of life. Life persists by the process of
>birth
>>>and death. On a cellular level, using microscopes, we can see cells
>>>combining and dividing. We can easily say this is no different then the
>way
>>>atoms bond with one and other to form molecules. In other words, there is
>>>nothing more at work than the electromagnetic forces of nature. But, I do
>>>not think we can say the same thing when we look the gestational
>processes.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>If you will, give me some examples of non biological processes that start
>with separate entities, like the sperm and egg, that combine to form a
>single entity that continues to evolve. Life as can be seen in biological
>entities is very different than the life of any other aspect in the
>universe.

It is? Isn't it bio-chemical reactions? Yes. Isn't that *natural*? Yes.

>The male/female nature of most creatures and the resulting offspring is not
>likened in any other aspect of the universe. I suppose the birth of a star
>is the closest thing to it. But, as far as I know, two stars do not come
>together for the purpose of producing an offspring.
>
>Why is this process not simply attributable to electromagnetic forces?

I see the problem. I meant in an analogical way--not strictly EMF.

>>>No animal, including humans, are cognitively capable of moving a
>fertilized
>>>egg from cell division through birth.
>>
>> Does this mean that creatures actively and intelligently direct the
>>process? I hope you don't mean that. If so, you definitely need a refresher
>>course in biology.
>>
>>>I guess the basic question here is what causes life to keep reproducing
>>>itself.
>>
>> An evolutionary trait to preserve the species.
>
>What is the physics happening here?

We aren't talking about physics here.

>>> The gestational processes are very complicated.
>>
>> So?
>
>2nd law of thermodynamics

So?

If you are correct, life could not exist. But you aren't. Here's why:

From _Physics_, 3rd ed, Douglas C. Giancoli, 1991 (my college physics
book)

Section 15-9. "Evolution and Growth; 'Time's Arrow' "

"An interesting example of the increase in entropy relates to biological
evolution and to growth of organisms. Clearly, a human being is a highly
ordered organism. The process of evolution from the early macromolecules and
simple forms of life to homo sapiens is a process of increasing order. So, too,
the development of an individual from a single cell to a grown person is a
process of increasing order. Do these processes violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics? No, they do not. In the process of evolution and growth, and
even during the mature life of an individual, waste products are eliminated.
The small molecules that remain as a result of metabolism are simple molecules
without much order. Thus they represent relatively great disorder or entropy.
Indeed, the total entropy of the molecules cast aside by organisms during the
process of evolution and growth is greater than the decrease in entropy
associated with the order of a growing individual or evolving species".

Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51

"Bother" said Pooh as he stuffed Piglet's corpse into the box

<dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>

[AltWay]

In article <MPG.eafc4f7f...@news3.cts.com>, mwfi...@cts.com

(Michael W. Fisher) wrote:
> > the point I wish to make is this :- It is a description of an observed
> > process. But what is the force or power which makes the Universe obey
> this description?

> The question presupposes that the Universe needs to be compelled
> or controlled. How could we ever, from inside the system where it seems
> quite self sufficient, acquire the necessary information to support such
> a proposition?

I merely wondered whether you recognised any reality apart from definitions
and descriptions.
It seems to me that if we describe something and the object or event
described persists or repeats itself, then there is some force or power
outside the description which is responsible. This is the definition of
Objectivity. If it does not then we have fantasy.

> > Does it describe all the various experiences we have?
> It is sufficient to do so.

I do not find it so, nor do many other people. Meanings and values are
excluded, and even facts are useless without interpretation. We have
faculties other than sensation and intellect, e.g feeling.

> It's impossible, at a practical level to, from a quantum
> mechanical description alone, predict the behavior of water at standard
> temperature and pressure, or to even derive the concepts of standard
> temperature and pressure. Complex systems are like that. It is impossible

> from a lower level description alone to infer (at least in any "simple" .

> manner) what the higher level properties of the whole will be.

Exactly. The whole of something is always more than the sum of the parts
owing to its organisation, and the feed back mechanisms existing in it.

> Using the word creation sets you up for equivocation fallacies in
> a big way. Creation _implies_ a creator, a fact simply not in evidence.

I do not agree with you. I find the word "epi-phenomena" a cop out. The same
objectivity which gives reality to the description also "creates" the
epi-phenomena.

> The whole structure is bound by the limits set by the most
> fundamental phenomena, but to it is a fallacy to say that the whole
> structure is somehow "driven" by the fundamental properties. The
> fundamental properties determine limits and potentials, but their is no
> control by quantum phenomena any more than transistors doing what
> transistors do "control" a computer. The computer is more than any given
> transistor or group of transistors. Without the transistors, you don't
> have a computer, but there is no "control" exerted by the transistors --
> they simply follow the laws of physics and do what the applied voltages
> compel them to do.

Agreed. The fundamental properties exert a constraint and limit the number
of possibilities. But you say the transistors follow the Laws of physics.
Why do they do this if not compelled to do so?

> > Since there are only four dimensions in our experience, the others are

> > regarded as being folded in in tight circles. This may well account for
what we call inner experiences.

> Your making a leap in reasoning unsupported by facts or logic, and
> unnecessary in the face of the sheer complexity of the brain. Neural
> structures are difficult to understand even when they're simple. Very
> simple, numerically, networks exhibit some quite amazing properties, it
> is simply not necessary to postulate anything more than neurons doing
> what neurons do to explain human psychology, at least not yet.

I am making a conjecture, something done in science all the time, and
responsible for its advance. The purpose of this to try to prove or disprove
it.

> > Thus human beings are able to function at the quantum level as well
> > as the electro-magnetic, electronic, chemical and mechanical level. Each

> has different possibilities.

> This last pair of sentences is simply a faith statement based on
> the already noted invalid inferences above. It is just and simply without
> meaning.

This surely is an absurd statement. We can lift our limbs and manipulate
objects mechanically and communicate through gestures and sound; the
endocrine system works through chemicals and we interact through chemicals
such as feramins. We even exchange organic matter through viruses and
bacteria. Out nervous system and brain process electric currents. We emit
and react to electromagnetic radiations such as light. Is all this unproved
faith?

On the other hand you yourself appear to have tremendous faith in the word
os scientists, in Logic and on mathematics while admitting that not all
things can be calculated. If they cannot, how do you know what factors are
involved in complex processes. You are applying Occam's razor - that no
concepts should be introduced if existing ones can explain a phenomena. But
this is not a fact about nature, it is a value or instruction. It is useful
in order to retain consistency and prevent the free flow of fantasy. There
is, however, no guarantee that some other concept cannot provide a better
explanation.

You obviously have no faith in the statements of numerous mystics who
describe a different world which also corroborate each other. This world is
also accessed by following certain instructions and proceedures, language
and conditions just as the world of science is. But this is entirely up to
you. One of the more general implications of the Realitivity Theory should
have been that what a person experiences depends on the framework and
conditions in which he exists. But never mind, no matter.

[Michael Burns]

[snip]

>> [MB Wrote]
>>
>> Everyone has preconceptions. Conceptions of anything come to us via
>> experiences. All experiences by nature are viewed/experienced through
>some
>> sort of filter/vantage point. This is because we are not omnipresent or
>> omniscient.
>>
>> In our searches for truth we all have stumbling blocks. Whether they
>arise
>> from a limited vantage point or some other self-induced filter. Feeling
>> sorry for another person's perceived handicap is a sure way of pulling a
>bag
>> over one's own head.
>

>[Ras Wrote]
>You are misapplying the concept of preconceptions!
>To have preconceptions is but to have a pint from which to view and true
>enough this
>is necessary in order for perceptions to occurr. This point should be a
>floating point which can change as evidence is accumulated.

[MB Worte]
By our nature our lives are riddled with perceptions/preconceptions; we are
limited both by locality and time. Yes, as we grow/change our
perception/preconceptions also grow/change, but in the end our limitation
remain. As of yet we humans have not found method for overcoming these
limitations. So, we can only speculate on this matter.

[Ras Wrote]
>No one needs a point of view that some ancient, refuted book has to be a
>truth.

I do not recall asking to accept anything as truth. This discussion because
we are speculating on the nature of the univers deals with many elements of
truth, but what we ought to be interjecting are own views on this topic.

>That is beyond preconceptions and goes into fixed ideas. No excuse for it.
>I have assembled 52 reasons why the bible has to be wrong/rewritten at
>http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm
>This is a page where christians do not dare walk because the material is
>based on facts. Facts recovered over the last few hundred years and when
>christians can not
>look at facts they can not refute it means they are unable to elevate
>themselves above fixed opinions which has nothing to do with the type of
>preconceptions one
>must have to view.
>
>Christians are even afraid of looking at my home page because it contains
>facts instead of myths and a cult which dare not delve into facts has no
>merit as a guide for mankind!!

[MB Wrote]

Well, I visited you homepage. I saw nothing that has not been hashed out in
most Christian newsgroups already. You are welcome introduce your points
for discussion. However, I would prefer, if you do, that those discussions
remain ancillary to this topic.

There are a number of individuals who frequent the Catholic newsgroups who
would enjoy going through each of your assertions. Myself, I have grown
weary of this activity. I have been there enough times already.

What I look forward to in this thread is to discuss the human condition as
it relates to the structure of our universe; what would be the required
nature of a god/God to actually have created our universe.

...........................................................................

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."

[janet]

In article <3447347c...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere,
Achmage" <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes

>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood

><s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Raistlin Majere, Achmage wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>

>>> summoned up some courage and said:
>>>

>>> >[MB Wrote]
>>> >[Rasmus Wrote]
>>> >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>> >>either.
>>> >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
>>> >without time.
>>>
>>> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.

>>Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation be
>>an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have
>>been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of Creation
>>being the *start of time*.
>
> The *act* itself is an act in time.
>

Only once time has been created, and even then, the time constrains only
the creation, not the creator: in a general sense, one is not normally
constrained by one's own creations. Why should this be any different
for God?

>
>Raist
>alt.atheism atheist #51
>
>"Bother" said Pooh as he stuffed Piglet's corpse into the box
>
><dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>

--
janet

Creator of all things, ...graciously let a ray
of your brilliance penetrate into
the darkness of my understanding...
Aquinas, Prayer before Study

[Michael Burns]

>Michael Burns wrote:
>
>> The existence of a god?
>>

>> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
>> the
>> nature of such a being.
>>
>> I have asked permission via posting from all of the newsgroups
>> included in
>> this discussion. Not all have responded; so, I assumed it to be tacit
>> permission.

>
>Definitions are critical. If someone says "There is no God", that's one
>argument. If someone says "I don't believe there is a God" that's
>another.
>

>Simplification is also important. Is the question, "Is there or is there
>not God?"? Or is it "What is God to you?" or "Why do you believe that
>there is no God?".
>
>The discussion will tangent off into meaningless loops otherwise
>
>Jiva Goswami
>
The question is, " what is the nature of God?". What are the required
natures of a being who could be the creator of the universe?

This thread has been spread across a number of newsgroups with the same
question being asked of propenents of each newsgroup. I ask that someone
from each newsgroup contribute a desription of the God, if there is one,
that would best suit the your groups beliefs. Beliefs are quite personal.
Each of us as an individual has our own interpretation. I would like as
many interpetations posted as there are individuals who would want to share
their own.

If you are atheist says so and explain why. I you are Islamic say so and
describe your beliefs as they pertain to Islamic tradition; also, explain
how you own beliefs differ from traditional Islam. Is this understandable?

[Michael Burns]

[snip]

>> [MB Wrote]
>>
>> Well, I visited you homepage. I saw nothing that has not been hashed out
>in
>> most Christian newsgroups already. You are welcome introduce your points
>> for discussion. However, I would prefer, if you do, that those
>discussions
>> remain ancillary to this topic.
>>

>[Ras Wrote]
>Just frustrated I guess, those are items I have not found anyone willing to
>take up.
>As you define the topic I see that there is no need to bring those in. By
>the way, that is not my home page, just one of the auxiliary pages. I do
>not believe there is any
>way to discover the truth by discrediting other viewpoints.
>
[MB Wrote]
Again I say bring your points into discussion with a Catholic newsgroup. I
am sure you will receive all kinds of explanations/arguments on these
points. I am pretty much sure these topics will be taken up. Do it on
another thread is all I ask.

[snip]
[MB Wrote]

>> What I look forward to in this thread is to discuss the human condition
>as
>> it relates to the structure of our universe; what would be the required
>> nature of a god/God to actually have created our universe.

[Ras Wrote]
>There my opinion is that there is nothing of the physical which has a life
>of it's own.

[MB Wrote]
I am somewhat more of a Zen spirit than you are. I personally find life in
most everything. To me everything is filled with something. A park has a
life of it's own; each day or part of a day has life as well; saying that a
day has life, also means time itself has life/spirit. Spirit in my view
fills the universe and we are included.

[Ras Wrote]
>The physical exist in time and that which provides the "elan vital" for the
>physical manifestations must exist apart from time. This applies to the
>individual thinking of himself as a body. Any god who had created the
>physical would also have had to be apart from time, and thus there is no
>manner by which it can be ascertained if the
>god is not the control behind the image looking back from the mirror while
>brushing
>ones teeth in the morning.

[MB Wrote]
I would say, yes, the physical does exist in space/time, but I would also
say that the physical exists outside of space/time. There is a definite
space/time nature to say music. But, there is also a more consciousness
level to music as well. You might choose give consciousness a space/time
reality; if so, I would change my meaning to the unconscious existence.
Which I would say is outside of space/time

[Ras Wrote]
>A clear measuring and insight can not be obteined while doing all measuring
>by
>physical means.
>

[MB Wrote]
Agreed. As long as we are speaking in spiritual terms and terms of the
mind.

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<6280a3$7...@examiner.concentric.net>...

The most important concept and the one I was looking for. You say: " As of

yet we humans have not found method for overcoming these limitations".

Now that is more like it, you do not say that those are things we can not
know. I would like to apologize because I most often associate Christians
with those who
say that those things are things only God can know, therefore it is useless
to speculate about them and thus they leave the situation.
To overcome the situation is not easy, some give up an old line of thought
too fast in order to proove to themselves they are not stuck in an old mode
and others allign all information with their old line of thought way past
the point where it should have been abandoned.
To say what is correct for others is impossible because what oneself is
doing may not be correct.

> [Ras Wrote]
> >No one needs a point of view that some ancient, refuted book has to be a
> >truth.
>
> I do not recall asking to accept anything as truth. This discussion
because
> we are speculating on the nature of the univers deals with many elements
of
> truth, but what we ought to be interjecting are own views on this topic.
>

All right, again I may have been out of line, As long as we do not measure
the validity of any findings by whether or not they allign with material
which can not be varified.

> >That is beyond preconceptions and goes into fixed ideas. No excuse for
it.
> >I have assembled 52 reasons why the bible has to be wrong/rewritten at
> >http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm
> >This is a page where christians do not dare walk because the material is
> >based on facts. Facts recovered over the last few hundred years and when
> >christians can not
> >look at facts they can not refute it means they are unable to elevate
> >themselves above fixed opinions which has nothing to do with the type of
> >preconceptions one
> >must have to view.
> >
> >Christians are even afraid of looking at my home page because it
contains
> >facts instead of myths and a cult which dare not delve into facts has no
> >merit as a guide for mankind!!
>

> [MB Wrote]
>
> Well, I visited you homepage. I saw nothing that has not been hashed out
in
> most Christian newsgroups already. You are welcome introduce your points
> for discussion. However, I would prefer, if you do, that those
discussions
> remain ancillary to this topic.
>
[Ras Wrote]
Just frustrated I guess, those are items I have not found anyone willing to
take up.
As you define the topic I see that there is no need to bring those in. By
the way, that is not my home page, just one of the auxiliary pages. I do
not believe there is any
way to discover the truth by discrediting other viewpoints.

[MB Wrote]

> There are a number of individuals who frequent the Catholic newsgroups
who
> would enjoy going through each of your assertions. Myself, I have grown
> weary of this activity. I have been there enough times already.
>

> What I look forward to in this thread is to discuss the human condition
as
> it relates to the structure of our universe; what would be the required
> nature of a god/God to actually have created our universe.

There my opinion is that there is nothing of the physical which has a life
of it's own.

The physical exist in time and that which provides the "elan vital" for the
physical manifestations must exist apart from time. This applies to the
individual thinking of himself as a body. Any god who had created the
physical would also have had to be apart from time, and thus there is no
manner by which it can be ascertained if the
god is not the control behind the image looking back from the mirror while
brushing
ones teeth in the morning.

A clear measuring and insight can not be obteined while doing all measuring
by
physical means.

>
>

..........................................................................
> "I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
> about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
> - Mahatma Gandhi
>

--

[Michael Burns]

[Jiva Wrote]

>>Definitions are critical. If someone says "There is no God", that's one
>>argument. If someone says "I don't believe there is a God" that's
>>another.
>>

>>Jiva Goswami
>>
>
[Z-hack Wrote]

>What's the difference?
>What assumptions are you making for there to be a difference?
>

[MB Wrote]

Sounds like the difference between a fundamentalist Atheist and an atheist
with an open mind.

[janet]

In article <344304c...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere, Achmage"
<Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes

>On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>
>summoned up some courage and said:
>
>>[MB Wrote]

>>>> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
>>>the
>>>> nature of such a being.
>>>

>>[Rasmus Wrote]
>>>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>>either.
>>
>>Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
>>without time.
>

Actually, if you take the idea that God has no limits, (God is that than
which nothing greater can be imagined), then time, being a limit, can
not constrain God, unless God so chooses.

> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
>

Creation is only an act in time, once time has been created. But is it
necessary for the creator of time to be in time? Surely not: I can
create someting that does not bind me.

Certainly, to our understanding, there is a "time" "before" the creation
of time; but that just shows both the paucity of the human intellect and
the problems we have when we try to talk about such concepts. It
doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about them, just that it gets messy.

>> After all such a being created existence.
>
> And creation only makes sense coupled with existence/the universe.
>Creation/cause does not apply to the universe as a whole.
>
Ah, but remember the theistic premise that God IS existence...

>
>>>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a part
>>>of time.
>>
>>Why?
>
> As above, creation is an act *in time*.
>

As above, only because we have trouble conceiving it to be otherwise,
does it seem so. In point of fact, the creation of time can NOT have
been an act in time, because the time which was being created did not
exist "before" it was created. I SAID the wording gets messy...
>>
>>>Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the physical
>>>universe.
>>>This but means we are not our bodies.
>>
>>In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
>>other dimensions we might be something else.
>
> This dimension? There are 4 dimensions--length, height, width and
>position
>in time.
>
Now, those are the four we PERCEIVE. Our perception limits our
perception of reality, it does not, however, limit reality.

>> When one believes in a soul one might consider that a soul exists uniformly
>in all dimensions,
>>including time.

I would say that the soul exists in time only when and as it is linked
to a body, which experiences time...

>
> But then one is obligated to prove that such a thing as a "soul" exists.
>
This is something that I think can be discussed, pondered, and argued
over, but not "proven"....

[Greg Gyetko]

Michael Burns wrote:

> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
> >nature of such a being.
>

> The existence of God: A Christian view:
>
> I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is to
> simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
> following is called the Nicene Creed:
>

[snip]

Thank you. After seventeen years of brainwashing, I don't need someone to read
either the Apostle's or the Nicene creed to me. It's bad enough there's an
indoctrinated reaction to bow my head every time someone says 'let us pray'. I
really don't need to read it.

> There are a number of assumptions (beliefs) about the existence of God that
> can be drawn from the Nicene Creed. I will list only a few:
>
> 1. A God does exist

Unproven assertion.

> 2. There is only one God; though this one God by humans is seen as three
> entities yet being one God

Which always confused me. If they were one God, why did Jesus need to cry out
for his father on the cross, huh? You'd think that they would have a telepathy
sort of thing going.

> 3. The God Christian's worship is considered to be the creator of the
> universe

So is everybody else's God.

>
>
> 4. God does interact with God's human creation

In a non-repeateable, not testable, non-verifiable way.

> 5. God became man via a birth resulting from the union of the Holy Spirit
> and woman named Mary

If you want to take the mistranslation of 'young woman' as 'virgin' as correct,
yes.

> 6. The human aspect of God was slaughtered by man in fulfillment of the
> Scriptures; the Scriptures being the texts/Traditions kept by the Jewish
> culture (the chosen people of God

Check those prophetic predictions please. The ones in which Jesus was
predicted to be the messiah never actually made that prediction.

> 7. The Holy Spirit is God's venue for interacting with man; thought by many
> (including the Catholic Church) to be personally man's conscience as well as
> the driving force behind God's Church here on Earth.

If that thing is our conscience, why should we have to do penance for its
failure to be strong enough?

> 8. Man is separate from God; man is a created being; yet in union with
> God through the Holy Spirit
>
> Well, this ought to be enough to start the discussion about the existence
> and nature of God as seen by Christians.

I imagine you'll get more creative responses shortly ...Greg.

--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"

[Rockett Crawford]

Michael Burns wrote:
>
> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
> >nature of such a being.
>
> The existence of God: A Christian view:
>
> I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is to
> simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
> following is called the Nicene Creed:
>

> We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
> of all that is seen and unseen.

I was a christian for a long time before I eventually realized that
the need to believe in "God" is the simply the need we all have
subconsciously for a parental figure.

It's not something you are aware of until you realize it's going on.

What I kept focussing on was my realationship with "God". Of course
this was the best father figure I could wish for because pretty much
all believer's image of God is just that.

I thought I was being touched by, and talked to by "God". I found
out later that it is a phenomena known as "self stroking".

What really enhances this "self stroking" can be private meditation
or an alter call with repetitive singing, eyes closed, (at our church
they also lowered the lights). This I found out later is hypnotic.
In this state people become very suggestable.

Someone under doctor induced hypnosis can imagine he is touching
or being touched by someone who isn't there. This imagined interaction
seems perfectly real. This is much the same situation with prayer
and meditation although the phenomena can occur at anytime.

--
Capella #5

It's new and it's blue
See the cow-in-the-moon at Capella's Observatory

http://web2.airmail.net/sybil/capella/

[Rev. Illuminatus Maximus]

In article <628dfb$3...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Michael Burns"
<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:

> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
> >nature of such a being.
>
>
> The existence of God: A Christian view:
>
> I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is to
> simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
> following is called the Nicene Creed:
>
> We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
> of all that is seen and unseen.
>

> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally
> begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true
> God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the father. Through him all
> things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
> by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became
> man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died
> and was buried. On the third he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his
> kingdom will have no end.
>
> We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from
> the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through
> the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We
> acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the
> resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

>
> There are a number of assumptions (beliefs) about the existence of God that
> can be drawn from the Nicene Creed. I will list only a few:
>
> 1. A God does exist
>

> 2. There is only one God; though this one God by humans is seen as three
> entities yet being one God
>

> 3. The God Christian's worship is considered to be the creator of the
> universe
>

> 4. God does interact with God's human creation
>

> 5. God became man via a birth resulting from the union of the Holy Spirit
> and woman named Mary
>

<snip>

Just a quick note, it talks about this in the Gospel of Philip, since Mary
and the Holy Spirit are both female, how could two women produce a man?

[Michael Burns]

[snip]
[MB Wrote]

>>
>> 5. God became man via a birth resulting from the union of the Holy Spirit
>> and woman named Mary
>>
><snip>
>

[Reverend Wrote]

>Just a quick note, it talks about this in the Gospel of Philip, since Mary
>and the Holy Spirit are both female, how could two women produce a man?
>

Interesting, the bishop from my home town often leads prayers: "God the
mother almighty"
I think any concerns about Gods abilities in this matter are unnecessary,
Rev.

............................................................................

............
"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."

-Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the
first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

............................................................................
............

[Michael Burns]

>Michael Burns wrote:
>>
>> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
>> >nature of such a being.
>>
>> The existence of God: A Christian view:
>>
>> I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is
to
>> simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
>> following is called the Nicene Creed:
>>
>> We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and
earth,
>> of all that is seen and unseen.

[Rockett Wrote]

>
>I was a christian for a long time before I eventually realized that
>the need to believe in "God" is the simply the need we all have
>subconsciously for a parental figure.

[MB Wrote]
Often as a response to my postings I have been told that I should not hoist
my thoughts and feelings on others, rarely if at was that my intention. I
think you might have had a need for a parental figure in a God, but the same
is not true for me.

[Rockett Wrote]

>
>It's not something you are aware of until you realize it's going on.
>
>What I kept focussing on was my realationship with "God". Of course
>this was the best father figure I could wish for because pretty much
>all believer's image of God is just that.

[MB Wrote]
Praying to God the Father might be comforting to some, but those whose
father's beat them as children might not feel the same sort of comfort with
this analogy. By the way, my father did not beat anyone in my family.

[Rockett Wrote]

>
>I thought I was being touched by, and talked to by "God". I found
>out later that it is a phenomena known as "self stroking".
>
>What really enhances this "self stroking" can be private meditation
>or an alter call with repetitive singing, eyes closed, (at our church
>they also lowered the lights). This I found out later is hypnotic.
>In this state people become very suggestable.

[MB Wrote]
My point about self stroking is the same as your comment about needing a
parental figure in a God. The last thing I need/want, personally, is self
stroking.

[Rockett Wrote]

>Someone under doctor induced hypnosis can imagine he is touching
>or being touched by someone who isn't there. This imagined interaction
>seems perfectly real. This is much the same situation with prayer
>and meditation although the phenomena can occur at anytime.
>

[MB Wrote]
I suppose if one uses prayer for self stroking purposes the would likely
induce such a phenomena.

[Stephen M. Dodd]

Mo wrote:

> Good point ! God is nothing but trouble -especially if there is only
> one .

Perhaps now that you acknowledge Him he will test you too ...

Omar
--
-
- Stephen M. Dodd
- New World Productions
- 541 754-7757; http://www.sdodd.com

[Michael Burns]

>Michael Burns wrote:
>
>> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
>> >nature of such a being.
>>
>> The existence of God: A Christian view:
>>
>> I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is
to
>> simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
>> following is called the Nicene Creed:
>>
>

>[snip]
[Greg Wrote]

>
>Thank you. After seventeen years of brainwashing, I don't need someone to
read
>either the Apostle's or the Nicene creed to me. It's bad enough there's an
>indoctrinated reaction to bow my head every time someone says 'let us
pray'. I
>really don't need to read it.

[MB Wrote]
I am sorry this pains you.

>
>> There are a number of assumptions (beliefs) about the existence of God
that
>> can be drawn from the Nicene Creed. I will list only a few:
>>
>> 1. A God does exist

[Greg Wrote]
>
>Unproven assertion.
>
Unproven belief.

[MB Wrote]

>> 2. There is only one God; though this one God by humans is seen as three
>> entities yet being one God

[Greg wrote]

>
>Which always confused me. If they were one God, why did Jesus need to cry
out
>for his father on the cross, huh? You'd think that they would have a
telepathy
>sort of thing going.
>

Christians believe Jesus was a man; that he suffered, felt joy, hungered,
had all the usual human needs. Jesus spent much of his time in the act of
prayer. Why would he have to pray? Wouldn't he just be praying to himself?
Well, when you understand that Jesus was a man and not just God it starts to
make sense.

>> 3. The God Christian's worship is considered to be the creator of the
>> universe
>

[Greg Woe]

>So is everybody else's God.
>

[MB Wrote
Mostly that is true.

>>
>>
>> 4. God does interact with God's human creation
>

[Greg Wrote]

>In a non-repeateable, not testable, non-verifiable way.
>

I think there quite a few people who testify to the interaction with their
God. In prayer I myself have started feel the presence of God. Is this
presence the God of Christianity? I choose to believe so.

>> 5. God became man via a birth resulting from the union of the Holy Spirit
>> and woman named Mary

[Greg Wrote]

>
>If you want to take the mistranslation of 'young woman' as 'virgin' as
correct,
>yes.
>

[MB Wrote]
I have seen this assertion take reams of newsgroup discussion. I will avoid
having it repeated here.

>> 6. The human aspect of God was slaughtered by man in fulfillment of the
>> Scriptures; the Scriptures being the texts/Traditions kept by the Jewish
>> culture (the chosen people of God

[Greg Wrote]

>
>Check those prophetic predictions please. The ones in which Jesus was
>predicted to be the messiah never actually made that prediction.
>

[MB Wrote]
As you wish. This is a lot to accept; especially for one who does not want
any part of it.

>> 7. The Holy Spirit is God's venue for interacting with man; thought by
many
>> (including the Catholic Church) to be personally man's conscience as well
as
>> the driving force behind God's Church here on Earth.

[Greg Wrote]

>
>If that thing is our conscience, why should we have to do penance for its
>failure to be strong enough?
>

[MB Wrote]
Penance is simply one way of making amends for sins. If one always listened
to one's conscience then there would be no need for penance.

Also, there is the human aspect of freewill.

>> 8. Man is separate from God; man is a created being; yet in union with
>> God through the Holy Spirit
>>
>> Well, this ought to be enough to start the discussion about the existence
>> and nature of God as seen by Christians.

[Greg Wrote]

>
>I imagine you'll get more creative responses shortly ...Greg.
>

............................................................................

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article

<625ot4$b...@examiner.concentric.net>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote in article
> <01bcda50$1a78e260$b0e04382@compaq-presario>...

> >Raistlin Majere, Archmage <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
> >wrote in article <34496cbe...@news.execpc.com>...

> >> >Raistlin Majere, Achmage
<Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com>
> >> >wrote in article <3447347c...@news.execpc.com>...

> >> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood
> >> >> <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:
> >> >> >Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could
> >Creation

> >> >be in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would

> >have
> >> >> >been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of
> >> >Creation
> >> >> >being the *start of time*.
> >> >>

[Raist Wrote}

> >> >> The *act* itself is an act in time.
> >>

[Ras Wrote]

> >> >There you got it Raist, I wonder why it is so difficult for
creationists to
> >> >perceive anything which makes them see?
> >>

[Raist Wrote]

> >> Bugger all if I know.

> [Rasmus Wrote]

> >
> >I think it has to do with the ability to perceive through
preconceptions.
> >I feel sorry for those who really desire to know the truth, it would be
> >hard
> >desiring something and then erecting your own stumbling blocks.
> >
> >
>

> [MB Wrote]
>
> Everyone has preconceptions. Conceptions of anything come to us via
> experiences. All experiences by nature are viewed/experienced through
some
> sort of filter/vantage point. This is because we are not omnipresent or
> omniscient.
>
> In our searches for truth we all have stumbling blocks. Whether they
arise
> from a limited vantage point or some other self-induced filter. Feeling
> sorry for another person's perceived handicap is a sure way of pulling a
bag
> over one's own head.

[Ras Wrote]
You are misapplying the concept of preconceptions!
To have preconceptions is but to have a pint from which to view and true
enough this
is necessary in order for perceptions to occurr. This point should be a
floating point which can change as evidence is accumulated.

No one needs a point of view that some ancient, refuted book has to be a
truth.

That is beyond preconceptions and goes into fixed ideas. No excuse for it.
I have assembled 52 reasons why the bible has to be wrong/rewritten at
http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm
This is a page where christians do not dare walk because the material is
based on facts. Facts recovered over the last few hundred years and when
christians can not
look at facts they can not refute it means they are unable to elevate
themselves above fixed opinions which has nothing to do with the type of
preconceptions one
must have to view.

>
..........................................................................

> "I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
> about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
> - Mahatma Gandhi

Christians are even afraid of looking at my home page because it contains

facts instead of myths and a cult which dare not delve into facts has no
merit as a guide for mankind!!

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <na.036b8f47d...@argonet.co.uk>, ha...@argonet.co.uk
says...

> In article <MPG.eafc4f7f...@news3.cts.com>, mwfi...@cts.com
> (Michael W. Fisher) wrote:
> > > the point I wish to make is this :- It is a description of an observed
> > > process. But what is the force or power which makes the Universe obey
> > this description?
>
> > The question presupposes that the Universe needs to be compelled
> > or controlled. How could we ever, from inside the system where it seems
> > quite self sufficient, acquire the necessary information to support such
> > a proposition?
>
> I merely wondered whether you recognised any reality apart from definitions
> and descriptions.

Definitions and descriptions are not reality. Do not mistake the
finger (to borrow from Taoists) for the thing pointed at.

> It seems to me that if we describe something and the object or event
> described persists or repeats itself, then there is some force or power
> outside the description which is responsible.

Obviously. Our abstract representation of a/the thing is not the
thing itself. Indeed, our perception of the thing must be separated from
the thing in itself, the two are easily and often confused.

> This is the definition of
> Objectivity.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that follows, or at least I don't
follow where you're trying to go. That the object has existence apart
from its description of our perception of it seems almost too obvious,
but your adding quantities/qualities of a "force or power" is unnecessary
and needlessly complicates an already complex situation without
increasing our ability to understand.

> If it does not then we have fantasy.

You've skipped too many steps. A particular horse exists apart
from my perception or description of that horse. No other "force or
power" apart from the horse itself actually existing is necessary to make
the horse any more real. If my perceptions are skewed for some
reason,that has no effect on the horse

>
> > > Does it describe all the various experiences we have?
> > It is sufficient to do so.
>
> I do not find it so, nor do many other people. Meanings and values are
> excluded,

Not at all.

Meaning and value are concepts, human concepts, but they are real
to the extent that humans recognize and act and believe in them. They are
as real as any other mental construct of humans, such as the language
used to describe them or the systems of philosophy used to discuss and
analyze them.

> and even facts are useless without interpretation. We have
> faculties other than sensation and intellect, e.g feeling.

Never the less, "feeling" is still a part of our physical selves.
Many so called "mental" illnesses have turned out to be a physical
illness of the brain, including such emotional problems as depression. We
are a complex integrated whole, and emotions and intellect cannot be
cleanly separated either analytically or physically since both depend
upon the same physical machinery to exist at all.

>
> > It's impossible, at a practical level to, from a quantum
> > mechanical description alone, predict the behavior of water at standard
> > temperature and pressure, or to even derive the concepts of standard
> > temperature and pressure. Complex systems are like that. It is impossible
> > from a lower level description alone to infer (at least in any "simple" .
> > manner) what the higher level properties of the whole will be.
>
> Exactly. The whole of something is always more than the sum of the parts
> owing to its organisation, and the feed back mechanisms existing in it.
>
> > Using the word creation sets you up for equivocation fallacies in
> > a big way. Creation _implies_ a creator, a fact simply not in evidence.
>
> I do not agree with you. I find the word "epi-phenomena" a cop out. The same
> objectivity which gives reality to the description also "creates" the
> epi-phenomena.

You've made an inchoate reification out of "objective" that is
analytically pointless, as near as I can tell. At a minimum you've got a
lot of work to do to explain just what it is you mean by the above
comment, which seems to be merely a meaningless string of words which
just happens to not violate any rules of grammar. "Objectivity" cannot
"give reality to" anything. That which is, is; that which is not, is not;
that which has concrete material existence has concrete material
existence; and that which is an abstraction built by the mind is a
product of mind and remains abstract; and regardless of how "objective"
one is, if one is wrong about the actual material or abstract existence
of a thing, or confuses the two and commits a reification fallacy, then
one is wrong. No magic here.

>
> > The whole structure is bound by the limits set by the most
> > fundamental phenomena, but to it is a fallacy to say that the whole
> > structure is somehow "driven" by the fundamental properties. The
> > fundamental properties determine limits and potentials, but their is no
> > control by quantum phenomena any more than transistors doing what
> > transistors do "control" a computer. The computer is more than any given
> > transistor or group of transistors. Without the transistors, you don't
> > have a computer, but there is no "control" exerted by the transistors --

> Agreed. The fundamental properties exert a constraint and limit the number

> of possibilities. But you say the transistors follow the Laws of physics.
> Why do they do this if not compelled to do so?

They simply cannot do anything else. The quarks and such are all
limited by their properties to those properties. One can ask where those
properties "came from" or why they have just the properties they do, but
those questions simply cannot be answered yet, if they ever will.

But to leap from the inability to explain a particular phenomena
to a preferred supernatural planation simply because no material one is
available is to commit the fallacy of the argument ad ignorantiam. That a
good explanation does not exist for a particular phenomena does not give
you license to make up whatever explanation suits you.

> > > Since there are only four dimensions in our experience, the others are
> > > regarded as being folded in in tight circles. This may well account for
> > > what we call inner experiences.

> > You're making a leap in reasoning unsupported by facts or logic, and

> > unnecessary in the face of the sheer complexity of the brain. Neural
> > structures are difficult to understand even when they're simple. Very
> > simple, numerically, networks exhibit some quite amazing properties, it
> > is simply not necessary to postulate anything more than neurons doing
> > what neurons do to explain human psychology, at least not yet.

> I am making a conjecture, something done in science all the time, and
> responsible for its advance. The purpose of this to try to prove or disprove
> it.

Your "conjectures" provide not even a mechanism by which they are
supposed to produce their supposed effects, and as such are not proper
"scientific" hypothesis, which must be amenable to investigation and
disproof.

> > > Thus human beings are able to function at the quantum level as well
> > > as the electro-magnetic, electronic, chemical and mechanical level. Each
> > > has different possibilities.

> > This last pair of sentences is simply a faith statement based on
> > the already noted invalid inferences above. It is just and simply without
> > meaning.

> This surely is an absurd statement. We can lift our limbs and manipulate
> objects mechanically and communicate through gestures and sound; the
> endocrine system works through chemicals and we interact through chemicals
> such as feramins. We even exchange organic matter through viruses and
> bacteria. Out nervous system and brain process electric currents. We emit
> and react to electromagnetic radiations such as light. Is all this unproved
> faith?

Your statement included the phrase "able to function at the
quantum level" as an integral part of the description, yet that part --
which is what prompted the comment, is not defended. And it is that part
which renders the statement nonsense. The brain is a massively parallel
inherently "fuzzy logic" processor. It can absorb a tremendous amount of
damage in terms of loss of neurons and continue to function without
noticeable impairment. We can lose hundreds of millions of brain neurons
with no measurable affect on intellectual or physical ability or
emotional impairment. A structure that robust, which can lose that many
entire neurons without missing a beat is NOT susceptible to quantum
influences.

Unless you have specific facts to the contrary to offer.

> On the other hand you yourself appear to have tremendous faith in the word

> o[f] scientists, in Logic and on mathematics while admitting that not all

> things can be calculated. If they cannot, how do you know what factors are
> involved in complex processes. You are applying Occam's razor - that no
> concepts should be introduced if existing ones can explain a phenomena. But
> this is not a fact about nature, it is a value or instruction. It is useful
> in order to retain consistency and prevent the free flow of fantasy. There
> is, however, no guarantee that some other concept cannot provide a better
> explanation.

Certainly not, however it is a caution to not accept any
explanation someone offers. Science has advanced one small step at a
time, and however flawed the individuals tends to root out error
eventually since part of the method involves being able to repeat the
result of the experiment whose inferences you wish to check (otherwise
you can't be sure if you obtain a negative result it wasn't just the
result of experimental error -- so first you have to duplicate the prior
result to know that you've sufficiently controlled the variables). As
such anything which prima facie conflicts with science so painstakingly
built, or which attempts to make leaps too far away from what can be
tested, bears the burden of proof.

> You obviously have no faith in the statements of numerous mystics who
> describe a different world which also corroborate each other. This world is
> also accessed by following certain instructions and proceedures, language
> and conditions just as the world of science is.

All this certainly tells us is that if a human nervous system is
subjected to certain stimuli, that certain perceptions flow from that
stimulation.

Proving that the experience is anything more than a
psychological/neural event is the problem of the proponent of the mystic
experience. And work in neuroscience is rendering any such proof ever
more difficult as we find out just how the brain renders experience ever
more of those "mystic experiences" turn out to be closely corroborated
with particular unusual brain states.

> But this is entirely up to
> you. One of the more general implications of the Realitivity Theory should
> have been that what a person experiences depends on the framework and
> conditions in which he exists. But never mind, no matter.

More like, no matter then no mind.

Ciao.

[Mo]

Good point ! God is nothing but trouble -especially if there is only
one .

Rockett Crawford <Rockett_...@Datamatic.com> wrote:

>Michael Burns wrote:
>>
>> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and the
>> >nature of such a being.
>>
>> The existence of God: A Christian view:
>>
>> I think the best way to state how Christians view the existence of God is to
>> simply type out one of the creeds that most Christians adhere with. The
>> following is called the Nicene Creed:
>>

>> We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
>> of all that is seen and unseen.

>I was a christian for a long time before I eventually realized that

>the need to believe in "God" is the simply the need we all have
>subconsciously for a parental figure.

>It's not something you are aware of until you realize it's going on.

>What I kept focussing on was my realationship with "God". Of course
>this was the best father figure I could wish for because pretty much
>all believer's image of God is just that.

>I thought I was being touched by, and talked to by "God". I found

>out later that it is a phenomena known as "self stroking".

>What really enhances this "self stroking" can be private meditation
>or an alter call with repetitive singing, eyes closed, (at our church
>they also lowered the lights). This I found out later is hypnotic.
>In this state people become very suggestable.

>Someone under doctor induced hypnosis can imagine he is touching

>or being touched by someone who isn't there. This imagined interaction
>seems perfectly real. This is much the same situation with prayer
>and meditation although the phenomena can occur at anytime.

>--

[Raistlin Majere, Archmage]

On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:36:06 +0100, janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> summoned up some courage and said:

>In article <344304c...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere, Achmage"
><Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>

>>summoned up some courage and said:
>>

>>>[MB Wrote]

>>>>> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
>>>>the
>>>>> nature of such a being.
>>>>

>>>[Rasmus Wrote]
>>>>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>>>either.
>>>
>>>Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within or
>>>without time.
>>
>
>Actually, if you take the idea that God has no limits, (God is that than
>which nothing greater can be imagined), then time, being a limit, can
>not constrain God, unless God so chooses.

That idea, however, is utter nonsense. The idea of a limitless being is a
cop-out created to paper over contradictions. However, those "limitless
abilities" themselves create contradictions.

>
>> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
>>
>
>
>
>Creation is only an act in time, once time has been created.

No. The act itself is an act in time. To create is to act within time.

>Certainly, to our understanding, there is a "time" "before" the creation
>of time;

No there isn't.

>but that just shows both the paucity of the human intellect and

No it doesn't. It shows just how little you think of humans.

>>> After all such a being created existence.
>>
>> And creation only makes sense coupled with existence/the universe.
>>Creation/cause does not apply to the universe as a whole.
>>
>Ah, but remember the theistic premise that God IS existence...

It is?

All theists posit that?

No, they do not.

>
>>
>>>>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a part
>>>>of time.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> As above, creation is an act *in time*.
>>
>
>As above, only because we have trouble conceiving it to be otherwise,
>does it seem so.

<sigh>

Please do learn something about physics, cosmology, etc.

Nutshell: time began with the big bang. There was no "time" "before" the
big bang, and in fact "before" the big bang is illogical anyway being that time
did not exist.

>>>>Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the physical
>>>>universe.
>>>>This but means we are not our bodies.
>>>
>>>In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
>>>other dimensions we might be something else.
>>
>> This dimension? There are 4 dimensions--length, height, width and
>>position
>>in time.
>>
>Now, those are the four we PERCEIVE.

With the other 12 (or 22 the other way) dimensions being compactified
(string theory) into what we see...

> Our perception limits our perception of reality, it does not, however, limit reality.

We perceive reality as it is.

Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51

"Bother" said Pooh as he stuffed Piglet's corpse into the box

<dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>

[AltWay]

Islam is defined as the direct surrender to Allah. Islam is a deliberately
constructed conscious (as opposed to an accidental or automatic)
all-inclusive, fully unified and self-consistent way of life centred around
Allah, an Arabic term which is usually translated as God. This is why God is
described in much greater and comprehensive detail in the Quran than in any
other scripture. It is impossible to do justice to this idea in a relatively
short article like this. However, attempts will be made to deal with some of
the more important points.

The meaning of the word "Allah" is "that which alone is worthy of worship."
This has the same signifiance as "The Tao that can be named is not the real
Tao." That is, every name imposes limits of which Allah is free. The Hebrews
too, were very reluctant to use a name for God.

The first thing we must do is to distinguish between the Reality of God, the
experience of God which is only partial to various degrees, and the concept
or idea of God. This tends to create three levels of Islam between which
misunderstandings are almost inevitable. However, each level exists to
provide the conditions which will lead to the next.

(1) Allah is the fundamental self-existing reality which bestows reality on
things, from which all things derive, and with respect to which everything
else can be explained.

The Reality of God can be understood from the following verses :-

"Allah, He is Reality, and that which they invoke besides Him is the False."
31:30

"There is no God save Him, the One, the Absolute." 38:66

"Say: He, Allah, the One. Allah, the Eternally besought of all. He begets
not nor was begotten. And there is non comparable unto Him." 112:1-4

From these definitions it becomes clear that it is impossible for a Muslim
to doubt the existence of God or to be agnostic.

Other ideas about Allah are contained in the following verses :-

"The originator of the Heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He
saith unto it only: Be! And it is." 2:117 and 6:73

"He is the First and the Last, and the Outer and the Inner, and He is the
Knower of all things." 57:3

"Allah is independent of all creatures." 3:97

"Thy Lord, He is the goal." 53:42

"Unto Allah belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth. Allah ever
surrounds all things." 4:126 and 41:54

"Naught is as His likeness." 42:11

"Vision comprehends Him not, but He comprehends all vision. He is the
Subtile, the Aware." 6:104
"Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds." 1:1

"Unto Allah belongs the East and the West, and wheresoever ye turn, there is
Allah's countenance. Lo, Allah is all-embracing, all knowing." 2:115

"So coin not similitudes for Allah..." 16:74

"He is Allah, apart from whom there is no other god, the Sovereign Lord, the
Holy One, Peace, the Keeper of Faith, the Guardian, the Majestic, the
Compeller, the Superb, Glorified be Allah from all that they ascribe as
partners unto Him. He is Allah, the Creator, the Shaper out of naught, the
Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and
the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise." 59:23-24

"Then He fashioned him ( man ), and breathed into him of His own Spirit: and
appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye." 32:9
and 15:29

"We have created everything by measure, and Our commandment is but one, as a
twinkling of an eye." 54:49-50

"We verily created man and We know what his soul whispers unto him, and We
are nearer unto him than his jugular vein." 50:16 and 56:85

"Allah, He is the Truth. Lo, He quickens the dead." 22:6#

"And unto Allah falls prostrate whosoever is in the heavens or the earth,
willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the morning and evening
hours." 13:15

"There is no strength save in Allah." 18:40

"He casts the Spirit of His command upon whom He will of his servants, that
He may warn of the Day of Meeting." 40:15

"There is no changing the Words of Allah." 10:65

Thus Allah is transcendental, imminent as well as personal. He is
Omni-present, Omniscient and Omnipotent. He is Absolute, Infinite and
Eternal. He is continually creating and recreating.

This is not an anthropomorphic God. The pronoun "He" is used only to
indicate that he is active in relation to the Universe which is passive, and
that life and consciousness are also His attributes. Indeed, no distinction
is made between matter (inertia), life and consciousness in Islam - there
are only different degrees of these

(2) The concept of God, as will be made clearer below, can probably be only
understood in relation to the rest of Islam. It has the function of
providing a unitary framework within which a muslim can interpret all his
experiences and with respect to which all his motives and actions must be
made to conform. This should create inner (psychological or spiritual)
integration as well as interactive (social) unity and external harmony (with
the environment and the rest of the cosmos). It follows that if the concept
of God is rejected then the individual and the society become prone to
disintegration. It follows also quite naturally that Idolatry is the worst
of errors. This term is understood as meaning the self-submission of a
person to any thing less than the all-comprehensive Allah, consciously or
unconsciously.

Another significance of the concept of Allah, besides integration, is
absolute objectivity in thought, motivation and action since Allah is
reality. This is achieved by increasing awareness (con=together
sciousness=awareness). In particular, it implies that we recognise the
existence of people and things other than ourselves who have equal
significance, and that the whole has priority over the parts which have no
meaning except with respect to the whole.

A distinction is made between the Essence of Allah, the Attributes of Allah
and the Commands of Allah.

In Essence Allah is absolute and cannot be known (since all knowledge is
relative depending as it does on comparisons, interactions and
relationships.)

Allah creates the Universe and all things in it by His Word or Command. The
Spirit is, or is by, His Command. It is that by which the Universe is
created from nothing (some force probably underlying the electro-magnetic),
and it also informs the Prophets who have been sent throughout the world at
different times to guide mankind, and it also exists in man where it creates
consciousness, conscience and will. Since the spirit in man has become
dormant, being trapped by attachments (greed, lust, addictions, sensuality
etc and the rationalisations based on this distort his perceptions, motives
and actions - a condition known as spiritual death), it is the task of these
Prophets to re-awaken man - a condition known as spiritual resurrection.

A distinction is also made between the Commands, Ordinances and Permission
of Allah. This distinction can probably best be understood as follows :-
Commands refer to Laws which everything must obey. E.g gravity exists
everywhere. However, this does not make it necessary that there should be so
many planets and their orbits must be such and such. This is what Allah
ordains. Conditions or situations contain a number of potentialities or
possibilities. The occurance of an event then is not necessary but happens
by permission. E.g it is not necessary that a particular apple should fall
off the tree and hit you on the head. And yet it takes place by the Law of
Gravity. Thus Islam does not require determinism in the classical sense, and
yet denies the notion of randomness and chance which are considered to be
names given to the results of human ignorance, limitations or inability to
calculate.

Allah manifests in the created world through His Attributes. These can be
regarded as categories of thought by which we see and understand things, as
well as general qualities to which created things conform. Thus a
relationship and interaction between ourselves, created things and Allah can
be established. There are said to be 100 Attributes, but they are not
separate things but rather aspects or points of view about the same thing.
This can be explained as follows :-

We can classify the Attributes into four main categories - Truth, Goodness,
Power and Beauty. It is not difficult to see that all these notions derive
from Unity - e.g consistency, harmony, co-operation, co-ordination etc. The
four main value systems derive from these. We may loosely call them the
Scientific, the Ethical, the Economic and the Aesthetic.

Human beings do not live by facts alone, but also have to process an input
(materials, energy and information) and produce an output, thereby changing
the world. This gives them the title vicegerent. The World not only is, but
is becoming. Therefore they need facts, meanings and values. It is evident
that facts are connected with the notion of Truth, values with Goodness and
meaning with power - the ability to process and connect facts with values.
The notion of Beauty refers to the overall harmony between these three
factors.

(3) The universe has a purpose or direction of development. This follows
from the fact that if the original totality is God, then it can have no
external cause. The internal cause is defined as a purpose. The purpose of
the Universe was defined by the Prophet (S.A.W) in the formula :- "Allah
said :- I was a hidden treasure. I wished to be known, therefore I created
the Universe."

The purpose is, therefore, increasing consciousness. The Universe was
created in seven levels (the 7 Heavens 65:12). Human beings can ascend
through 7 levels ( 23:17 84:19). The world they see depends on the level of
consciousness. Heaven can be regarded as the real world while earth
represents the restricted view of reality which human beings have owing to
the limits of their consciousness, motives and activities. To see the real
world they must purify their faculties. In particular, they must get rid of
what we might in modernistic jargon call "satons", i.e ideas, behaviour
patterns and motives which come from idolatory, the attachment to things
(greed, lust, addictions, prejudices, fantasies and the rationalisations
which these produce and by which perception and motivation is corrupted.) To
do this we have been given the teachings, the moral law and the religious
techniques.

This is a short summary. Those needing further information should consult
the book mentioned below.

H.S.Aziz

[AltWay]

In article <3447C5...@Datamatic.com>, Rockett Crawford

<Rockett_...@Datamatic.com> wrote:

" I was a christian for a long time before I eventually realized that
the need to believe in "God" is the simply the need we all have
subconsciously for a parental figure.
It's not something you are aware of until you realize it's going on."

I am glad you realise that one must examine the motive underlying ones
beliefs and actions. They can produce fantasies, illusions, delusions and
even hallucinations.

It is, however, necessary thereafter to remove them and begin to see reality
which was not possible before.

The fact that you had a distorted concept of God does not imply that there
is no real God, just as the existence of an illusion does not mean that
there is something real which you have misinterpreted. But to discover this
reality depends entirely on your motives again - do you want the truth or
merely to deny what does not suit you.

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article

<628goh$9...@examiner.concentric.net>...
> [snip]
[Snip]

> [MB Wrote]
> Again I say bring your points into discussion with a Catholic newsgroup.
I
> am sure you will receive all kinds of explanations/arguments on these
> points. I am pretty much sure these topics will be taken up. Do it on
> another thread is all I ask.
>

Time will tell, I may just ask a question or two.

> [snip]
> [MB Wrote]

> >> What I look forward to in this thread is to discuss the human
condition
> >as
> >> it relates to the structure of our universe; what would be the
required
> >> nature of a god/God to actually have created our universe.
>

> [Ras Wrote]

> >There my opinion is that there is nothing of the physical which has a
life
> >of it's own.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> I am somewhat more of a Zen spirit than you are. I personally find life
in

> most everything. To me everything is filled with something. A park has
a

> life of it's own; each day or part of a day has life as well; saying
that a
> day has life, also means time itself has life/spirit. Spirit in my view
> fills the universe and we are included.
>

I look on it a little bit different than you do.
I see the life in a three, a stream, and all other things as but symptoms
of life.
That which create the bouty all around us is present in these symptoms
because of the spirituality we put there.

> [Ras Wrote]

> >The physical exist in time and that which provides the "elan vital" for
the
> >physical manifestations must exist apart from time. This applies to the
> >individual thinking of himself as a body. Any god who had created the
> >physical would also have had to be apart from time, and thus there is no
> >manner by which it can be ascertained if the
> >god is not the control behind the image looking back from the mirror
while
> >brushing
> >ones teeth in the morning.
>

> [MB Wrote]
> I would say, yes, the physical does exist in space/time, but I would also
> say that the physical exists outside of space/time. There is a definite
> space/time nature to say music. But, there is also a more consciousness
> level to music as well. You might choose give consciousness a space/time
> reality; if so, I would change my meaning to the unconscious existence.
> Which I would say is outside of space/time
>

I think of music as purely spiritual. It is spiritualiy in time. (Except
rap and a few other things called music today) The conscious awareness of
any type of bouty is spirituality. Recognizing something is there is
physical, recognizing it's bouty is spiritual.
But, I choose to state it the other way around from what you say you will
except.
I believe the conscious recognition and reflection is outside of time
space.
The subconscious is to my way of looking at it a primitive recording of
events based on the DNA structure which helps animals survive. It is where
we get our primitive feelings from, it is where our compulsions and fears
lie. To me it is the mentality which reacts without examination of the
results which it can't do because reflection is not possible to a mentality
existing in time.
>
> [Ras Wrote]

> >A clear measuring and insight can not be obteined while doing all
measuring
> >by
> >physical means.
> >
>

> [MB Wrote]
> Agreed. As long as we are speaking in spiritual terms and terms of the
> mind.
>
>

[Michael Burns]

>>>>[MB Wrote]
>>>>>> Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god
and
>>>>>the
>>>>>> nature of such a being.
>>>>>
>>>>[Rasmus Wrote]
>>>>>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>>>>either.
>>>>

[MB Wrote]

>>>>Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either
within or
>>>>without time.
>>>
>>

[Janet wrote]

>>Actually, if you take the idea that God has no limits, (God is that than
>>which nothing greater can be imagined), then time, being a limit, can
>>not constrain God, unless God so chooses.
>

[Raist wrote]

> That idea, however, is utter nonsense. The idea of a limitless being is a
>cop-out created to paper over contradictions. However, those "limitless
>abilities" themselves create contradictions.
>

[MB Wrote]
That an idea is utter nonsense does not necessarily make it wrong. Ask our
Zen fellows to explain that nonsense does nothing to make an argument
incorrect. One need only change one's senses/perspective to begin to
understand.

>>
>>> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
>>>
>>
>>

[Janet wrote]

>>
>>Creation is only an act in time, once time has been created.

[Raist Wrote]

>
> No. The act itself is an act in time. To create is to act within time.
>
>

[MB Wrote
Why? This has never been explained properly.

[Janet Wrote]

>>Certainly, to our understanding, there is a "time" "before" the creation
>>of time;

[Raist wrote]
>
> No there isn't.
>
[Janet Wrote]

>>but that just shows both the paucity of the human intellect and

[Raist wrote]

>
> No it doesn't. It shows just how little you think of humans.
>

[MB Wrote]
After two world wars, the killing fields in so many wars, treachery
perpetrated by so many, the idiocy that allows so many to starve and so on,
it is no wonder that one could think so little of humans.

>
>
>>>> After all such a being created existence.
>>>
>>> And creation only makes sense coupled with existence/the universe.
>>>Creation/cause does not apply to the universe as a whole.
>>>

[Janet wrote]

>>Ah, but remember the theistic premise that God IS existence...

[Raist Wrote]

>
> It is?
>
> All theists posit that?
>
> No, they do not.
>

[MB Wrote]
I would suppose that is the difference between theism and atheism.

>>
>>>
>>>>>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a
part
>>>>>of time.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>> As above, creation is an act *in time*.
>>>
>>
>>As above, only because we have trouble conceiving it to be otherwise,
>>does it seem so.

[raist wrote]

>
> <sigh>
>
> Please do learn something about physics, cosmology, etc.
>
> Nutshell: time began with the big bang. There was no "time" "before" the
>big bang, and in fact "before" the big bang is illogical anyway being that
time
>did not exist.

[MB (Physics Major) Wrote]
The study of Physics is limited to this universe, to time. Encapsulating
God in such a limit totally overlooks the faith most theist hold. You need
address the issue of God living outside of this universe and having the
ability to also act on or be a part of this universe as well. If you will
not address this issue we will not get past this point. You need to explain
why God would be limited to this universe.

>>>>>[Rasmus Wrote]

>>>>>Our physical bodies must exist in time as they are a part of the
physical
>>>>>universe.
>>>>>This but means we are not our bodies.
>>>>
>>>>In this dimension, or time frame we are our physical bodies and more; in
>>>>other dimensions we might be something else.
>>>
>>> This dimension? There are 4 dimensions--length, height, width and
>>>position
>>>in time.
>>>

[janet wrote]

>>Now, those are the four we PERCEIVE.

[raist wrote]

>
> With the other 12 (or 22 the other way) dimensions being compactified
>(string theory) into what we see...
>

[janet wrote]

>> Our perception limits our perception of reality, it does not, however,
limit reality.
>

[raist wrote]

> We perceive reality as it is.
>

[mb wrote]
Certainly, if ever I need a lawyer you will be the last person I call. Of
all those other dimension you listed above (12/22) explain how you perceive
them; explain how a child of four years perceives them.

...........................................................................

"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."
- Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,

[Michael Burns]

[MB Wrote]
For me, this a lot to take in all a once. I will respond with
questions/comments only to the first part of three in this posting. Later
I will respond to the remaining two parts.

[HAziz Wrote]

>Islam is defined as the direct surrender to Allah. Islam is a deliberately
>constructed conscious (as opposed to an accidental or automatic)
>all-inclusive, fully unified and self-consistent way of life centred around
>Allah, an Arabic term which is usually translated as God. This is why God
is
>described in much greater and comprehensive detail in the Quran than in any
>other scripture. It is impossible to do justice to this idea in a
relatively
>short article like this. However, attempts will be made to deal with some
of
>the more important points.

[MB Wrote]
That is probably why there is more than one newsgroup devoted to discussions
about God.

[HAziz Wrote]

>
>The meaning of the word "Allah" is "that which alone is worthy of worship."
>This has the same signifiance as "The Tao that can be named is not the real
>Tao." That is, every name imposes limits of which Allah is free. The
Hebrews
>too, were very reluctant to use a name for God.

[MB Wrote]
It seems the definition of Allah/God as written here would also serve as a
good definition of God for Chistians or Hebrews.

[HAziz Wrote]

>
>The first thing we must do is to distinguish between the Reality of God,
the
>experience of God which is only partial to various degrees, and the concept
>or idea of God. This tends to create three levels of Islam between which
>misunderstandings are almost inevitable. However, each level exists to
>provide the conditions which will lead to the next.
>

[MB Wrote]
In other religions this aspect of the nature of God tends to create
splinters or denominations of faith groups. I realize what you are talking
about levels of awarness of God, but understanding/faith are elements of
awareness.

[HAziz Wrote]

> (1) Allah is the fundamental self-existing reality which bestows reality
on
>things, from which all things derive, and with respect to which everything
>else can be explained.
>
>The Reality of God can be understood from the following verses :-
>
>"Allah, He is Reality, and that which they invoke besides Him is the
False."
>31:30
>
>"There is no God save Him, the One, the Absolute." 38:66
>
>"Say: He, Allah, the One. Allah, the Eternally besought of all. He begets
>not nor was begotten. And there is non comparable unto Him." 112:1-4
>
>From these definitions it becomes clear that it is impossible for a Muslim
>to doubt the existence of God or to be agnostic.

[MB Wrote]
Doubt about the existence of God or nature of God to me seems to be at the
heart of man's relationship with God. My point is that because we are
limited in our abilities to comprehend God's being we are at somewhat of
loss in our abilities to internalize God completely in our understanding.
God would be so boundless and our scope of reality so limited by comparison
we find it difficult at times to believe that such a being exists. It
requires a leap of faith to accept God; this leap of faith is what many
Christian's call the mystery of faith.

[HAziz Wrote]

[MB Wrote]
Is this quickening of the dead anything like how Christian's see the raising
of the dead at the end of time?

[HAziz Wrote]

>"And unto Allah falls prostrate whosoever is in the heavens or the earth,
>willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the morning and evening
>hours." 13:15

[MB Wrote]
Besides God/Allah what else exists in the heavens. Is heaven in the end to
journey to where a follower Islam is headed.

[HAziz Wrote]

>
>"There is no strength save in Allah." 18:40

[MB Wrote]
What is meant by strength? I suppose one would wonder why followers of
Islam are not solely dominant in this world.

[HAziz Wrote]

>
>"He casts the Spirit of His command upon whom He will of his servants, that
>He may warn of the Day of Meeting." 40:15

[MB Wrote]
What is the "Day of Meeting"? The collection of souls in the after life?

[HAziz Wrote]

>
>"There is no changing the Words of Allah." 10:65
>
>Thus Allah is transcendental, imminent as well as personal. He is
>Omni-present, Omniscient and Omnipotent. He is Absolute, Infinite and
>Eternal. He is continually creating and recreating.
>
>This is not an anthropomorphic God. The pronoun "He" is used only to
>indicate that he is active in relation to the Universe which is passive,
and
>that life and consciousness are also His attributes. Indeed, no distinction
>is made between matter (inertia), life and consciousness in Islam - there
>are only different degrees of these

[MB Wrote]
Do you mean that Allah/God is interactive today with his creation?

[janet]

In article <344938f...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere,
Archmage" <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes
>On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:37:12 +0100, janet

><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> summoned up some courage and said:
>

>>In article <3447347c...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere,
>>Achmage" <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes

>>>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:06 +1000, Jonnie Underwood

>>><s34...@student.uq.edu.au> summoned up some courage and said:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Raistlin Majere, Achmage wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:49:34 -0400, "Michael Burns"
><mcb...@concentric.net>
>>>>> summoned up some courage and said:
>>>>>
>>>>> >[MB Wrote]

>>>>> >[Rasmus Wrote]
>>>>> >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>>>> >>either.

>>>>> >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either within
>or
>>>>> >without time.
>>>>>

>>>>> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.

>>>>Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation be

>>>>an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have

>>>>been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of Creation
>>>>being the *start of time*.
>>>

>>> The *act* itself is an act in time.
>>>
>>Only once time has been created,
>

> <sigh>
>
> You just don't get it, do you?
>
Do I understand the nature of the universe and of time itself? No. Do
I feel worried about that? No. Does Hawking understand it? No. Is he
worried about it? No. Is he intrigued, and one whole heck of a lot
smarter than I am? Yes.

> Why do you have a problem understanding that the very act of creating
>means that you act within time?

I'm sorry, but I think that you don't understand what I am getting at
here, and it may well be due to my faulty explanation.

Part of what I am saying is that time is a perception...

There was another response to my post which explains this far better
than I can, I am not a physiscist.

>Time, and indeed the universe, is the context
>of "create". Divorce "create" from the context, and the word becomes
>meaningless.

>
>
>Raist
>alt.atheism atheist #51
>
>"Bother" said Pooh as he stuffed Piglet's corpse into the box
>
><dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>

--

[Raistlin Majere, Archmage]

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 09:35:48 -0400, "Michael Burns" <mcb...@concentric.net>
summoned up some courage and said:

>>>>>> >[Rasmus Wrote]
>>>>>> >>No God can exist in time, and no one who can read this exist in time
>>>>>> >>either.
>>>>>> >Why wouldn't a god be able to exist whenever the god wants; either
>within or
>>>>>> >without time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that is illogical. Creation is an act *in time*.
>>>>>Well, i've missed the earlier parts of this thread, how could Creation
>be
>>>>>an in time? If there was nothing before Creation, then there would have
>>>>>been no time before that as well... so it would more be a case of
>Creation
>>>>>being the *start of time*.
>>>>
>>>> The *act* itself is an act in time.
>>>>
>

>[janet wrote]

>>>Only once time has been created,
>>
>

>[raist Wrote]

>>
>> You just don't get it, do you?
>>

>> Why do you have a problem understanding that the very act of creating

>>means that you act within time? Time, and indeed the universe, is the

>context
>>of "create". Divorce "create" from the context, and the word becomes
>>meaningless.
>>
>

>[MB Wrote]
>If I recall you were unable to explain much of anything to us.

I do think you're confusing me with a mystic.

> I do not believe it is fair for you take such a stance at this point. If it was
>Rasmus who was unable to explain the idea of now, I apologize for getting
>your arguments mixed up.
>
>Instead of saying, "You just don't get it, do you?" take a posting to
>explain what is meant.

I have my own style. If you don't like it: tough.

[Michael Burns]

Raistlin Majere, Archmage wrote in article
<344e255...@news.execpc.com>...

[Raist Wrote]

> I do think you're confusing me with a mystic.
>
>> I do not believe it is fair for you take such a stance at this point. If
it was
>>Rasmus who was unable to explain the idea of now, I apologize for getting
>>your arguments mixed up.
>>

[MB Wrote]

>>Instead of saying, "You just don't get it, do you?" take a posting to
>>explain what is meant.

[Raist Wrote]

> I have my own style. If you don't like it: tough.
>

[MB Wrote]
You are right; it is not my place to tell you how to respond to others in a
newsgroup posting. For this I apologize.

............................................................................

...........
"I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow
about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet by any."

-Mahatma Gandhi

He said to them, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the
first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
-Christ, Matthew 22:37-40

............................................................................
............

[Gordon Ansell]

In article <3448372...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere,
Archmage" <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes

>>>>>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a part
>>>>>of time.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>> As above, creation is an act *in time*.
>>>
>>
>>As above, only because we have trouble conceiving it to be otherwise,
>>does it seem so.
>

> <sigh>
>
> Please do learn something about physics, cosmology, etc.
>
> Nutshell: time began with the big bang. There was no "time" "before" the
>big bang, and in fact "before" the big bang is illogical anyway being that time
>did not exist.
>

Not quite.

'Before' the big bang, all spacetime points occupied zero volume and had
infinite mass. This is the singularity. The general theory of relativity
breaks down when dealing with singularities. The distinction should be
drawn that this only means that we cannot use relativity to describe
physics 'before' the big bang - not that it is indescribable.

Quantum time is a very different animal. Such things as 'imaginary time'
(which is a well-defined mathematical concept) can be used to give us
descriptions of the universe that can transcend the barriers of the
singularity. It means abandoning our intuitive concept of linear time
when dealing with the (very) early universe, and this is an important
point - the 'beginning' we are trying to describe is rooted in the
concept of 'linear time'. Mathematically, at least, time does not need
to be nearly so linear in the early universe.

Another concept to bear in mind is that of the 'rebounding universe';
that is, the perpetual big bang - big crunch - big bang - big crunch
scenario. This is a very popular concept amongs physicists because
certain experiments/observations that we can do now may lend weight to
the theory. *If* this is the case then the concept of a 'beginning' is
once again meaningless - the universe just is and has always been.
It is thought that we will be able to see if this is at least possible
in the not to distant future (ie. when (if?) work on dark matter and the
density of the universe resolves itself).

The rebounding universe theory throws a spanner in the works when
talking about 'Creation', because there simply didn't need to be such an
event. This does not say anything about God's nature, though, merely
that he does not *need* to have done any creating.

What am I trying to say here? Well, it's just that we may not be able to
rely on relativity to define our description of time (that's why quantum
theories of gravity are currently so important) . We must also bear in
mind that linear time is very much a 'psycho-intuitive' concept which
may be an over-simplification in the same way that Newton's laws of
gravity are a simplification of Einstein's laws of gravity.
--
Gordon Ansell
<newsm...@di-soft.demon.co.uk> Bristol, UK.
Remove '.nospam' from end of e-mail address to reply.
http://www.di-soft.demon.co.uk

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article

<62ae3r$4...@examiner.concentric.net>...

> If I recall you were unable to explain much of anything to us. I do not

> believe it is fair for you take such a stance at this point. If it was
> Rasmus who was unable to explain the idea of now, I apologize for getting
> your arguments mixed up.
>

> Instead of saying, "You just don't get it, do you?" take a posting to
> explain what is meant.
>

[Rasmus Writes]
It is not that "Now" can't be explained, the problem is that people seem to
be unwilling to understand.
First of all, as I stated it would be impossible to view anything without a
place to
view it from. That I call now and now can not exist in time or we would not
be able to view time.
Let me try again to see if I may be able to get you to understand.
If you picture a quadrant. At origin is where the X and the Y axis
intersect, only here
you would also have to have a Z axis.
Let us say that you view from origin, then time as we understand it in the
physical
universe would be a movement along just one of the axis, from - to +, let
us say the X axis.
What we then in our physical universe perceive is only the past, - on the X
axis and we envision a future, + on the X axis. What has been difficult for
me to see is why we only can perceive along this one linear line, yet I now
believe I have it, and when you understand what I just wrote, I may attempt
to explain that also.

[Rasmus Gjesdal]

Gordon Ansell <newsm...@di-soft.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote in article
<NNPyEDAi...@di-soft.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <3448372...@news.execpc.com>, "Raistlin Majere,
> Archmage" <Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com> writes
> >>>>>A God who created the physical universe could not either have been a
part
> >>>>>of time.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why?
> >>>
> >>> As above, creation is an act *in time*.
> >>>
> >>
> >>As above, only because we have trouble conceiving it to be otherwise,
> >>does it seem so.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Please do learn something about physics, cosmology, etc.
> >
> > Nutshell: time began with the big bang. There was no "time"
"before" the
> >big bang, and in fact "before" the big bang is illogical anyway being
that time
> >did not exist.
> >
>

[Gordon Wrote]

> Not quite.
>
> 'Before' the big bang, all spacetime points occupied zero volume and had
> infinite mass. This is the singularity. The general theory of relativity
> breaks down when dealing with singularities. The distinction should be
> drawn that this only means that we cannot use relativity to describe
> physics 'before' the big bang - not that it is indescribable.
>
> Quantum time is a very different animal. Such things as 'imaginary time'
> (which is a well-defined mathematical concept) can be used to give us
> descriptions of the universe that can transcend the barriers of the
> singularity. It means abandoning our intuitive concept of linear time
> when dealing with the (very) early universe, and this is an important
> point - the 'beginning' we are trying to describe is rooted in the
> concept of 'linear time'. Mathematically, at least, time does not need
> to be nearly so linear in the early universe.
>

I read your response with interest and amazement and at first I thought
"What an amazing consept", and still do, but I desired to ask you if this
doesn't
allign with my earlyer interpretations?
If we picture a quadrant which in addition to the X and Y axis has a Z axis
we can say we view from Origin which I call "now". Origin would not be a
part of time.
Time as we see it in the physical universe would be the movement along just
one of these axis from minus (past) to + (future).
At first I thought, then how on earth do we perceive the entirity, yet
after reflecting on it a little more it alligned with something else which
I have speculated about.
The question would not be how enormous would the mind be which would
perceive the entirity? it would be "What prevents us from seing the
entirity?"

> Another concept to bear in mind is that of the 'rebounding universe';
> that is, the perpetual big bang - big crunch - big bang - big crunch
> scenario. This is a very popular concept amongs physicists because
> certain experiments/observations that we can do now may lend weight to
> the theory. *If* this is the case then the concept of a 'beginning' is
> once again meaningless - the universe just is and has always been.
> It is thought that we will be able to see if this is at least possible
> in the not to distant future (ie. when (if?) work on dark matter and the
> density of the universe resolves itself).
>

[Rasmus Wrote]
In other words, a dark hole would be a collapsed mass, when this mass
became
of sufficient force the whole thing would explode in a seperate big bang
with a
time space of it's own and universes such as this with Galaxies and time
space of it's own would exist much like soap bubbles. Independent of each
other, yet indefinate in
number.
If this was the case this may allign with the other speculation of mine as
well as with another ancient saying which states that it all came from a
seed smaller than a mustard seed. Should we speculate that each of these
black holes may explode in this fashion what would be the guarantee that
life forms would be developing?
Would the nature of these be such that they would develope life naturally
or would
another seed within the "mustard seed" be necessary? and if so, why?

[Gordon Wrote]

> The rebounding universe theory throws a spanner in the works when
> talking about 'Creation', because there simply didn't need to be such an
> event. This does not say anything about God's nature, though, merely
> that he does not *need* to have done any creating.
>
> What am I trying to say here? Well, it's just that we may not be able to
> rely on relativity to define our description of time (that's why quantum
> theories of gravity are currently so important) . We must also bear in
> mind that linear time is very much a 'psycho-intuitive' concept which
> may be an over-simplification in the same way that Newton's laws of
> gravity are a simplification of Einstein's laws of gravity.
> --
> Gordon Ansell
> <newsm...@di-soft.demon.co.uk> Bristol, UK.
> Remove '.nospam' from end of e-mail address to reply.
> http://www.di-soft.demon.co.uk
>

[Rasmus Wrote]
Now the reason why we would only be able to see the one axis may be quite
simple.
We may have a "Soul"!
Now what would the nature of this "Soul" have to be in order to answer the
questions?
Let me first say that if it is correct that we all inherently exist at
origin in the fashion I tried to say, there would be but one insignificant
detail we would possibly
desire. We would never be able to see ourselves, or locate ourselves.
If we on the other hand had a "Soul" we could "exist" and this Soul to be
really of any value would have to be......... or could quite easily
be...... the DNA chain!

Now if this is correct, there would be enough space for innumerable of us
within the black hole before it expanded into another universe.
In order to "make" ourselves and feel we existed we would have to get life
as it is
defined within the DNA chain to exist in this new universe.
The magnitude of this speculation is something which I would not want to
try and define here, but I allready have explained it, and how life then
would evolve on another of my pages on the net. (
http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/genesis.htm )
Here I employ ancient Greek, Gnostic and other philosophies and come up
with
the same theory.

Thus, when the ancient Pharaoh went to become a star in Egyptian mythology,
perhaps they were right all along. Instead of becoming a star he could
after his body
died create life around some other star somewhere on a distant star in an
unnamed galaxi which would make another saying mean a little more.
Thruth is indeed stranger than fiction!
But remember, this is no more absurd than the Christian explonation!
In the end, science, philosophy and religion may indeed merge.

[Nijjhar, Rajinder]

Hello,

The article is too long to read. First of all, there is hardly a person
who can define a "Hindu" in the context of Bhagat Naam Dev's Saying:-

"HINDU ANNAH(BLIND); TURKOO KAANA(SQUINTED EYE CLEVER PERSON);
GIANI(KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON) DOHAN TAE SIANA(WISER THAN BOTH).

A person who knows why HARMANDIR SAHIB(Holiest of Holy Temple of God) in
Amritsar is built in the middle of the water tank has the answer.

--
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.
Retired Senior Lecturer in Metallurgy,
Gnostics are the living christs (satgurus) and NOT Christians, of Living
Allah (Spirit),
http://www.saqnet.co.uk/users/cheapflights/index.htm
http://www.saqnet.co.uk/users/cheapflight/gnostic.htm

Michael Burns <mcb...@concentric.net> wrote in article

<623pcn$p...@examiner.concentric.net>...

> >Purpose: To open a broad conversation about the existence of a god and
the
> >nature of such a being.
>

> The existence of God; a Hindu's view
>
> I am not fully versed in the traditions/history and culture of Hinduism;
so,
> I ask someone who is fully versed in Hindu tradition to describe how a
> typical Hindu would view the nature of God.
>
> Following are excerpt from a web site called the Spirit Web. The
following
> texts answers nine typical questions asked about Hinduism:
>
> 1) What is the Hindu definition of God-monotheistic or polytheistic?
>
> Introduction
>
> There is much confusion about this, not among Hindus but among those on
the
> outside looking in. Learn the right terms, and the subtle differences in
> them, and you can explain the profound ways that Hindus look at Divinity.
> Others will be delighted with the richness of the ancient concepts of
God.
> You may wish to tell inquiring minds that some Hindus believe only in the
> formless Absolute Reality as God, others believe in God as personal Lord
and
> Creator. Hinduism gives us the freedom to approach God in our own way,
> without demanding conformity to any dogma. This freedom makes the concept
of
> God in Hinduism the richest in all the world's religions.
>
> Answer #1: Hinduism is both a monotheistic and a henotheistic religion.
> Hindus believe in one supreme God who created the universe and who is
> worshipped as Light, Love and Consciousness. Hindus were never
polytheistic,
> but were always henotheistic. Henotheism is defined by Webster's as "the
> belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of others."
>
> Answer #2: We Hindus believe that there is one all-pervasive God which
> energizes the entire universe. We can see Him in the life shining out of
the
> eyes of humans and all creatures. This concept of God as existing in and
> giving life to all things is called "panentheism." It is different from
> pantheism, which is the belief that God is the natural universe and
nothing
> more. It is also different from theism which says God is only above the
> world. Panentheism is a beautiful concept. It says that God is both in
the
> world and beyond it, both immanent and transcendent. That is the Hindu
view.
> Hindus also believe in many devas who perform various kinds of functions,
> like executives in a large corporation. These should not be confused with
> God. There is one Supreme God only. What is sometimes confusing to
> non-Hindus is that we may call this one God by many different names,
> according to our tradition. Truth for the Hindu has many names, but that
> does not make for many truths.
>
> Answer #3: Hindus believe in one God, one humanity and one world. People
> with different language, different cultures have understood this one God
in
> their own way. This is why we are very tolerant of all religions, as each
> has its own path to this one God. One of the unique understandings in
> Hinduism is that God is not just far away, living in a remote heaven, but
is
> also inside of each and every soul in the heart and consciousness,
waiting
> for you and me to discover. Knowing the One Great God in this intimate
and
> experiential way is the goal of Hindu spirituality.
>
> Summary
>
> In summary, if by this time you have a little group around you very
> interested in what you have to say, ask them if they have ever seen God.
> Most will say "No, never." Then explain that you are now going to give
them
> the experience of seeing God. Go on to explain that God is the Life of
our
> lives, and the life within each of us is the same as the life within all
of
> us. Then carefully explain that that Life which is God can be seen by
> looking in one another's eyes. Ask each one to look into each other's
eyes
> trying not to see the person but to just see the life, the pure
> consciousness, of the person instead. Then explain that when we are
seeing
> the life in others eyes we are actually seeing God.
>
> 2) Could you describe the process of reincarnation?
>
> Introduction
>
> Reincarnation, known in Sanskrit as samsara, is a very openly discussed
> subject these days. Shirley MacLaine went "out on a limb" on this subject
> and made popular throughout the United States. Now nearly every
television
> script has standard statements written into it such as "See you in the
next
> life," or "I must have known you in a past life." The TV serial "Quantum
> Leap" is a great example of a program that is bringing this knowledge of
a
> one soul inhabiting many bodies to the forefront of mass consciousness. I
> talked with Shirley a few weeks ago in San Francisco and told her what a
> fantastic job we all thought she is doing in spreading this knowledge,
and
> assured her that she has the full support of Hindus.
>
> Now to three answers that you can memorize to give when this question is
> asked of you. Don't forget to precede your answer with your sweet smile
and
> confident prologue.
>
> Answer #1: Reincarnation, yes, carnate means flesh. The word reincarnate
> means to "reenter the flesh." We Hindus believe the soul is immortal and
> keeps reentering a fleshy body time and time again in order to resolve
> experiences and thereby learn all the lessons life in the material world
has
> to offer.
>
> Answer #2: There have been many recorded out-of-the-body experiences.
These
> have been researched by scientists, psychiatrists and parapsychologists
> during the last decade and documented in some very good books. Even
science
> is discovering reincarnation.
>
> Answer #3: Yes, we Hindus believe in reincarnation. To us, it explains
the
> natural way the soul evolves from immaturity to spiritual illumination. I
> myself have had many lives before this one and expect to have more.
Finally,
> when I have it all worked out and all the lessons have been learned, I
will
> attain mukti. This means I will still exist but no longer be pulled back
to
> incarnate in a physical body.
>
> Summary
>
> I would like to explain the process of reincarnation in a little more
> detail. When the soul leaves the physical body never to return, the soul
> does not die but lives on in another subtle body called the astral body.
The
> astral body lives on another plane of consciousness called the astral
plane.
> Here we continue to have experiences until we are reborn again in another
> physical body as a baby. The soul chooses a home and a family which can
best
> fulfill its next step of maturation. Hindus understand the natural growth
of
> all humans as they experience evolution because they know these facts.
After
> enlightenment, however, we do not have to re-experience the baseness of
> human existence but go on in evolution in our other bodies. As an
example:
> After we graduate from school we don't have to-nor do we want
to-re-enroll
> in the fifth grade. We are beyond that in understanding.
>
> If you choose to use answer number three, be prepared that it might lead
> into a very interesting discussion, and you might want to invite your
> new-found friend and the little group that has perhaps gathered around to
> further pursue reincarnation over a cup of coffee or tea.
>
> Reincarnation is a vast subject and there are many books written about
it.
> Get them and read them. They will enlighten on the subject you and keep
you
> informed. We would be happy to send you pamphlets on karma and
> reincarnation, which gives the central facts of our Hindu belief and a
book
> list, names of authors, publishers, etc. You should also know that most
all
> of the worlds religions believe now or once believed in reincarnation.
Even
> the early Christian church believed in reincarnation. But an early King
> Justininan took it out of the Bible to affect better control of the
people.
> Even now many Christians are attempting to get back to those early
> teachings. We have some of these books, too, and can refer them to you if
> you are interested. Should you be in a hurry, we have a 36-hour
turn-around
> response to every fax that comes in. They come in daily from at least
three
> or four countries. We don't do as well with paper mail. About a 15 or 30
> days turnaround for that. So, fax us if you are in a hurry.
>
> 3) What is karma?
>
> Introduction
>
> Karma is another word we hear about quite often on television. "This is
my
> karma." or, "It must have been something I did in a past life to bring
such
> good karma to me." In more liberal schools of Hinduism, karma is looked
upon
> as something bad. Just two days ago a Hindu guest from Guyana in South
> America came to visit us in Hawaii and mentioned that karma means "sin,"
and
> that this is what the Christians in his country are preaching that it
means.
> Karma actually means "cause and effect." Here is an example: I have a
glass
> of water sitting in front of me on a table. Because the table is not
moving,
> nor is the glass, the water is calm. Shake the table, the water ripples.
> This is action and reaction, the basic law of nature. The process of
action
> and reaction on all levels-physical, mental and spiritual-is karma.
>
> Here is another example: I say kind words to you, you are peaceful and
> happy. I say harsh words to you, you become ruffled and sad. This is
karma.
> It names the basic law of the motion of energy. An architect thinks
> creative, productive thoughts, and draws plans for a new building. But
were
> he to think destructive, unproductive thoughts, he would soon not be able
to
> accomplish any kind of positive task even if he desired to do so. This is
> karma, a natural law of the mind. We must be very careful about our
thoughts
> because thought creates and thoughts also make karmas, both good, bad and
> mixed. Here are three answers to memorize and later explain to beautiful
> souls who are seeking higher consciousness and look to you for mystical
> knowledge of the Far East.
>
> Answer #1: Karma is one of the natural laws of the universe. It simply
means
> "cause and effect." Our religion is made up of many natural laws of the
> universe. Karma is just one of them. (This is a simple answer for a
casual
> seeker. After you have said this, smile and ask if they want to know
> anything more.)
>
> Answer #2: Karma is basically energy. I throw energy out through
thoughts,
> words and deeds, and it comes back to me (in time) through other people.
We
> Hindus look at time as a circle. I think professor Einstein came to the
same
> conclusion. He saw time as a curved thing and space as well. This would
> eventually make a circle. Karma is a very just law, too, as it is equal
in
> re-payment. Like gravity, it treats everyone the same.
>
> Answer #3: God does not give us karma. We create our own. Bad karma is
> because we have done something bad in the past to someone, and now
someone
> is doing something bad to us. Good karma means that we have done
something
> good in the past and now others are doing something good to us now.
Because
> we Hindus understand karma, we do not hate or resent the people who do us
> harm. We understand they are giving back the effects of the causes we set
in
> motion at an earlier time. At least we try not to hate them or hold hard
> feelings, by reminding ourselves of the law of karma.
>
> Summary
>
> A coffee shop might be in order here if you want to continue discussing
this
> subject. There are many souls in America seeking higher consciousness and
> they are all very interested in knowing more about karma. We can supply
you
> with as much background literature as you need.
>
> Our fax number is 822-4351. Above all, don't be shy. Speak with authority
> and with a smile. Don't think you have to know everything about karma,
> reincarnation, God or gods in order to answer casual questions. Just do
your
> best.
>
> 4) Why do Hindus regard the cow as sacred?
>
> Introduction
>
> We cannot give anything away but that it comes back to us. A few years
ago
> in Madras an American devotee said to me, "Shall I give money to the
beggar
> who is asking?" I said, "Give him ten rupees. You may need the fifty
rupees
> when karma pays you back, just as he needs the ten rupees now." The
karmic
> law pays higher interest than any bank when you give freely with no
strings
> attached.
>
> Rhetorical question: "Who is the greatest giver on planet earth today?"
Who
> do we see on every table? At every country of the world, breakfast, lunch
> and dinner? It is the cow. The golden arches made a fortune on the cow.
When
> we were in Moscow in March we learned that MacDonalds is opening 11 of
its
> cow-vending machines there.
>
> The generous cow gives milk and cream, yogurt and cheese, butter and ice
> cream, ghee, buttermilk, sirloin, ribs, rump, quarterround, porterhouse,
> beef stew. Its bones are the base for soup broths. It gives us our
leather
> belt, leather seats, leather coats and shoes, beef jerky, cowboy hats,
you
> name it. The cow is the most prominent giving animal in the world today.
>
> And now the question: Why do the Hindus regard the cow as sacred? (Don't
> forget to give the proper prologue before you answer this question. This
> will break down any resistance to the answer you are about to give.)
>
> Answer #1: People who ask if cows are considered sacred should understand
> that Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred-mammals, fishes, birds
and
> more. The cow symbolically represents all other creatures to the Hindu.
>
> Answer #2: The cow represents life and the sustainance of life to the
Hindu.
> It represents our soul, our obstinate intellect, our unruly emotions, but
> the cow supersedes us because it is so giving, taking nothing but grass
and
> grain. It gives and gives and gives, as does the soul give and give and
> give.
>
> Answer #3: The cow is so vital to life, the virtual sustainer of life for
> humans. In a society if you only had cows and no other domestic animals
or
> agricultural pursuits, you could still survive and the children could
> survive with the butter, the cream and the milk to feed the children. The
> cow is a complete ecology, a gentle creature and a symbol of abundance.
>
> Summary
>
> Yes, the cow is considered very sacred in our religion and for very good
> reason. It's good qualities are those that we can emulate.
>
> 5) Are Hindus idol worshippers?
>
> Introduction
>
> No Hindus are not idle worshippers. I have never seen a Hindu worship in
a
> lazy or idle way. They worship with great vigor and devotion, with
> unstinting regularity and constancy. There's nothing idle about our ways
of
> worship! (A little humor never hurt when answering a silly question.)
>
> But, of course, the question that is being asked is not about this. It is
> about graven images, like the Christian cross with Jesus hanging on it,
or
> statues of Mother Mary and Saint Theresa, or the holy Kabaa in Mecca, or
the
> Adigranth enshrined in the Golden Temple in Amritsar, or the Arc and the
> Torah of the Jews, the image of a meditating Buddha, the totems of the
> indigenous faiths (the so-called primitive faiths throughout the world),
the
> artifacts of the many holy men of all religions. All these graven images
are
> stood before in awe by the followers of these religions. The tooth of the
> Buddha in Sri Lankan town of Kandy is another loved and respected image.
All
> religions have their symbols of holiness. The question is, Does this make
> all the above religions idol-worshippers? The answer is, No.
>
> Answer #1: No, Hindus are not idol worshippers in the sense implied. They
> are intelligent people, and intelligent people do not worship stones or
> statues. Hindus invoke the presence of great souls living in higher
> consciousness into stone images so that we can feel the presence of God.
> Though we may have a stone image of a God, we are invoking the physical
> presence of the God into the stone image to bless us. Invocations of this
> nature can be performed by invoking God's presence in a fire, or in a
tree,
> or in the enlightened person of a Sat Guru.
>
> Answer #2: The human mind releases itself from suffering, as shown by all
> the religions, through the use of forms and symbols that awaken reverence
> and evoke sanctity. Even a fundamentalist Christian who rejects all forms
of
> idol worship, including those of the Catholic Church and Episcopal
Church,
> would resent someone who threw his Bible on the floor. This is because he
> considers it sacred. In Hinduism one of the ultimate attainments is that
the
> seeker transcends the need of all form and symbol. This is the yogi's
goal.
> In this way Hinduism is the least idol-oriented of all the religions of
the
> world. There is no religion that is more aware of the transcendent,
> timeless, formless, causeless Truth. Nor is there any religion which uses
> more symbols to represent Truth in preparation for that realization.
>
> Answer #3: No, no. Ten thousand times no. We do not worship idols. We
invoke
> God within our temple through our highly trained priests into the
sanctum.
> We invoke God within us through or highly trained Sat Gurus who teach us
> yoga. Yoga means to yoke oneself to God within.
>
> Summary
>
> If after all that the questioner is still interested, invite him or her
to
> the Lemont temple and explain the process of the puja and the experiences
to
> be had. Tell him or her that you don't have to be born a Hindu to be a
> Hindu. This is ridiculous Christian propaganda. You are a Hindu if you
> believe in karma, reincarnation, the existence of God everywhere in all
> things, and the existence of beings that are on a greater evolutionary
path
> than ourselves. As a Hindu you are the converter, the one who can never
be
> converted. Could anyone ever convince you that the law of gravity is an
> untrue law or that heat from a stove would not burn your hand? These are
> pragmatic laws we all know. Karma, reincarnation, invocation of the Deity
> are equally pragmatic laws known to Hindus who believe in these eternal
> Truths. Smile, have confidence as you give these answers. Don't be shy.
> There is no question that can be put to you in your karma that you cannot
> rise up to and fully satisfy the seeker.
>
> 6) Is there a rule about Hindus eating meat?
>
> Introduction
>
> This is a very touchy subject.
>
> When you are asked this question, there are several ways that you can go,
> depending on who is asking the question and the background in which they
> have been raised. Basically, there is a rule, an overlying rule, which
gives
> the Hindu answer to this query. It is called ahimsa, refraining from
> injuring-physically, mentally or emotionally-anyone or any living
creature.
> The Hindu who wishes to strictly follow the path of non-injury to all
> creatures naturally adopts a vegetarian diet.
>
> We have collected many scriptural quotes which counsel Hindus not to eat
> meat. There are references in the Vedas and Manu Dharma Shastras to this
> effect, as well. As in other matters, Hinduism has very few rigid "do's
and
> don'ts." Rather, its injunctions are called restraints and observances.
The
> ultimate authority for answers to such questions is one's own guru, or
our
> religious community and sampradaya and our own understanding of the
> spiritual benefits from abstaining from eating meat. Let me put it this
way.
> There are good Hindus who eat meat, and there are bad Hindus who are
> vegetarians.
>
> Today in America and Europe there are literally millions of vegetarians.
> This is because they want to live a long time and be healthy. Many feel a
> certain moral obligation to their own conscience which they wish to
fulfill.
> There are some good new books on vegetarianism, such as Diet for a New
> America by John Robbins. If you want to know about vegetarianism from the
> American perspective, write to us and we can refer you to some excellent
> books. Perhaps at your next meeting you can invite some of these
authorities
> to come and speak to your group. There is also a fine magazine dedicated
to
> the subject, "Vegetarian Times," which comes out monthly. Now to some
> answers that you can memorize when asked about vegetarianism and its
> relationship to Hinduism.
>
> Answer #1: Simply put, vegetarians are more numerous in the south of
India
> than in the north. This is because of climactic conditions and the
Islamic
> influence within the north of our country. Our religion does not lay down
> rigid "do's and don'ts." There are no commandments. Our religion gives us
> the wisdom to make up our own mind on what we put in our body, for it is
the
> only one we have, in this life at least.
>
> Answer #2: All of our priests and religious leaders are definitely
> vegetarian, because they have to awaken the more refined areas of their
> nature in order to perform their work. Our soldiers and law-enforcement
> people are generally not vegetarians. This is because they have to keep
> alive their aggressive forces in order to perform their work. To practice
> yoga and be successful in spiritual life it is advisable to become a
> vegetarian. It is a matter of wisdom. Wisdom is the application of
knowledge
> at any given moment.
>
> Answer #3: Today, about twenty or thirty percent of all Hindus are
> vegetarians and the rest are not.
>
> Summary
>
> Through my forty years of presenting the eternal Truths of Hinduism, I
have
> found that families who are vegetarian have fewer problems than those who
> are not. This is because when we eat meat, fish, fowl and eggs, we absorb
> the vibration of the instinctive creatures into our nerve system and this
> amplifies our own lower nature. Our lower nature is prone to fear, anger,
> jealousy, confusion, resentment and the like. We advise all members of my
> Saiva Siddhanta Church to be well-established vegetarians prior to
> initiation into mantram and then remain vegetarian afterward. However, we
> don't insist upon members becoming vegetarian if they are not seeking
> initiation.
>
> 7) Why do Hindu women wear the dot on the forehead?
>
> Introduction
>
> Not only women, but Hindu men also wear a dot on the forehead, indicating
> their third eye. The pottu is a very auspicious symbol, reminding those
who
> ear it of their spiritual heritage and ideals, wherever they may be. It
also
> serves to identify a Hindu among the members of all other religions.
Muslim
> girls often cover their face with a veil. Christian girls wear a cross.
> Jewish boys wear small leather cases holding scriptural passages. Men and
> women of a particular faith often wish to identify themselves to each
other,
> and they do so by wearing religious symbols which generally are blessed
in
> their temples, churches and synagogues. In many cases a dot on the Hindu
> woman's forehead is similar to a beauty mark, just as European women used
to
> wear a black dot on their cheek as a beauty mark. An unmarried girl wears
a
> black dot, and a married girl a red one. Nowadays the dot's color
> complements the color of a lady's sari. "Wearing a dot on the forehead is
> largely a cultural symbol or a beauty symbol." This may be a good answer
to
> this question if the person who asked the question is a little shallow
and
> possibly antagonistic.
>
> Answer #1: The dot in the middle of the forehead of the Hindu woman is a
> beauty mark not unlike the beauty marks European and early American women
> used to wear on the cheek. Let me put one on you right now and then you
can
> look in the mirror and see how it enhances your natural beauty.
>
> Answer #2: In the old days, Hindu men and women wore these marks, and
they
> both also wore earrings. The dot has a mystical meaning, for it
represents
> the Third Eye or spiritual sight which Hindus seek to awaken through
yoga.
> Today, only the most traditional men observe this, but women continue to
> follow these traditions.
>
> Answer #3: There are many marks other than the dot that we Hindus use.
Each
> mark represents a different sect or denomination of our vast religion. We
> have four major sects, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saktism and Smartaism. By
these
> marks we know what a person believes, and therefore know how to begin
> conversations.
>
> Summary
>
> Do not be ashamed to wear the pottu on your forehead in the United
States.
> It will distinguish you from all other people as very special person, a
> Hindu, a knower of eternal Truths. You will never be mistaken as
belonging
> to another nationality or religion. For both boys and girls, men and
women,
> the dot should be small or large depending on the circumstance, but
should
> always be there under appropriate circumstances. Naturally, we don't want
to
> flaunt our religion in the face of others. We observe that Christian boys
> and girls take off or conceal their crosses in the corporate business
world.
>
> 8) Is the memorization of slokas and mantras essential to being a good
> Hindu?
>
> Introduction
>
> This is a question that obviously you won't be asked by anybody, so it
will
> be answered just for all of your here today. Most mantras and slokas are
in
> the Sanskrit language, and your knowledge of Sanskrit is probably like my
> own. Nil! We must realize that slokas are like affirmations and are
spoken
> in the language the speaker understands. Though Sanskrit has a tremendous
> value because it is a spiritually powerful language, we should combine
two
> languages, English and Sanskrit, when we are learning slokas. Repeat the
> sloka first in Sanskrit and then in good American English. This is like
> repeating affirmations. Affirmations remold our subconscious mind and
keep
> us mentally alert. They remind us of the goal of life, they give us
strength
> and power but, of course, only if we understand their meaning. If we do
not
> know Sanskrit, the key is to speak the sloka first in Sanskrit and then
> speak it out again in English. Yes, of course, slokas are extremely
> important. Without them we would tend to forget our religion. They are
> capsules of our enlightenment heritage, much like E=MC2 capsulates the
> physicists' truth. These sacred utterances are to be said before sleep,
upon
> awakening, in the shrine room in the morning, in the temple and before
any
> important event.
>
> Mantrams are different. They are sound vibrations seen in the inner
astral
> atmosphere as light and color. Mantrams awaken latent brain cells. Some
> mantrams such as AUM can be said before initiation and others should not
be
> used. The simple yet powerful mantram Aum harmonizes the physical forces
> with the emotional forces with the intellectual forces. When this
happens,
> you begin to feel like a complete being. There are different mantrams
taught
> within the four major sects of Hinduism. Mantrams are most generally
given
> by the Sat Guru. Many of the most powerful mantrams need no translation.
> They are what they are. Their power is supreme. There is one great
mantram
> at the very center of the Vedas which has the five syllables: "Na ma si
va
> ya."Memorizing slokas and repeating mantras definitely is a vital part of
> our personal religious life. They should be memorized for a mystically,
> profound purpose. A mystical Hindu places stress on quality and not
> quantity. There are Sanskrit scholars who believe that their salvation
lies
> in the numbers and complexity of the mantras and slokas they have at
their
> command. Among themselves, they judge that those who know the most verses
> are necessarily the most enlightened.
>
> The mystical Hindu knows that this is a false concept. He comprehends
that a
> devotee can know but a single mantra, use it perfectly and wisely to
reach
> God consciousness. Under no circumstances should we judge a person's
> attainment by how many verses he has memorized. Rather, we should judge
it
> by how he uses the verses that he knows. Some of the greatest of all
Hindus
> did not know a single syllable of Sanskrit or any other sacred language.
>
> 9) How can we use scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita or religious books as
a
> practical guide to growing up in the United States?
>
> Introduction
>
> This, too, appears to be a personal question for the entire group to
ponder.
> I will answer it simply, first by first asking if you ever heard of a
> religion called Jordanism? No, you haven't. But let us juxtapose it to
> Hinduism. Along the Jordan River Christianity, Islam and Judaism came up.
> Jordanism could become a modern word to name all three of these
religions,
> which do have similar beliefs and practices. But, like the denominations
now
> under the banner name of Hinduism, they are also three separate
religions.
> Well, it was the Persian explorers attempting to explain a very
complicated
> set of cultures and values around the Indus River which gave rise to our
> religion's modern name. They called it "Induism," which later became
> Hinduism. Hinduism is not really the name of our religion, but that is
what
> it has come to be called in the media, history books, etc. So, we have to
> accept this. It would be impossible to change. There are four important
> surviving religions under the banner word Hinduism. These are
Vaishnavism,
> Saktism, Saivism and Smartaism. So, nowadays, we say, "I am a Sakta
> Hindu...a Smarta Hindu...a Saivite Hindu...a Vaishnava Hindu."
>
> Scriptures are very important to read. The four Vedas are the bible of
all
> Hindus. Use scripture when you feel lonely or sad or not quite perfect.
> Listen to the wisdom of our forefathers and try to see how they would
have
> faced a situation like yours. Use scriptures to meditate upon. Use
> scriptures to read on the bus on your way to work, or at night just
before
> sleep. They will be like a compass, guiding you along the right path as
you
> go through the experience of growing up in the United States.
>
>
............................................................................

> ............

[Ron]

IMO The existence of God is self evident, it's His nature
(and His name), we keep arguing about. Nature and names
are human conceptions that may or may not have validity.
Science says one thing, Religion says many others. Our
problem boils down to finding His True Nature, as this may
have importance for us (not important to Him, as He Knows)
Again, my opinion,
ron

[AltWay]

Re: Articles on Time and Creation: e.g.

"Creation is an act *in time*.
"How could Creation be an in time? If there was nothing before Creation,

then there would have been no time before that as well... so it would more
be a case of Creation being the *start of time*. The *act* itself is an

act in time." etc etc.

At the risk of confusing the issue further, I would like to throw a few
ideas into the arena.

If I a create a clock on 3.10.1997, and it starts clicking then and begins
to measure time, do you think that there was no time before it began
clicking?

According to Einstein's Theory, the faster a particle moves the slower the
time on it and the shorter the space. But a person sitting on the particle
wouldnot notice the change. If then we go backwards to the Big Bang and
things become congested and things speed up then time slows down. At the Big
Bang Time does not become zero but infinite, Eternal. There are, therefore,
a great number of different time scales between now and the Big Bang.

Now try to work out what this means.

[AltWay]

In article <62alg8$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Michael Burns"

<mcb...@concentric.net> wrote:
"Doubt about the existence of God or nature of God to me seems to be at the
heart of man's relationship with God. My point is that because we are
limited in our abilities to comprehend God's being we are at somewhat of
loss in our abilities to internalize God completely in our understanding.
God would be so boundless and our scope of reality so limited by
comparison we find it difficult at times to believe that such a being
exists. It requires a leap of faith to accept God; this leap of faith is
what many Christian's call the mystery of faith.

Reply :- Reality exists. If it did not, then we ourselves would not be real.
Nor would anything else be. It is the first and basic certainty. However, I
can see verbal and philosophical arguments coming up which I want to avoid
since they cannot have any validity if they do not refer to something real.

> [MB Wrote]
> Besides God/Allah what else exists in the heavens. Is heaven in the end

> to journey to where a follower of Islam is headed.

Reply :- Since I am not there I do not know. It all depends on your state of
consciousness. An animal I presume cannot perceive the world of culture
created by man, and the concepts he uses have no meaning for it.

> What is meant by strength? I suppose one would wonder why followers of
> Islam are not solely dominant in this world.

Reply :- All the forces by which things are done come from God. This applies
particularly to spiritual forces by which we can surmount those other
biological, social, psycho-mechanical forces which compel or restrict us.
Surely, even Christianity teaches this! I do not understand what you are
trying to get at. We all know that the followers of Islam, like those of
every other religion have degenerated and most people do not behave
consciously, but according to automatisms induced by cultural conditioning
and habit, instinct or reflex.

> Do you mean that Allah/God is interactive today with his creation?

Reply : As one of the verses quoted shows the Command of Allah filters
through the various levels. It differentiates into the various forces
spiritual, electromagnetic, electronic, organic, chemical, mechanical. Draw
your own conclusions.

May I say that some of your questions - criticisms? - could not have arisen
if all parts of the article were understood together.

Islam as Christianity has fallen into sects precisely because each has
a different partial view of the whole. This is inevitable as long as people
do not realise that knowledge and understanding is or ought to be a
progressive thing from small parts by increasing synthesis to the whole,
that they cannot at any time assert with justice that they know the whole
truth. They ought, therefore, to be humble and suspend judgement instead of
becoming attached to a particular partial view which militates against their
growth - This is Idolatry. Different people have different kinds and
quantities of knowledge and synthesise them to different degrees. We are all
in the same boat. Argumentation is futile.

[Paul Andrew King]

In article <na.036b8f47d...@argonet.co.uk>,
AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <MPG.eafc4f7f...@news3.cts.com>, mwfi...@cts.com
>(Michael W. Fisher) wrote:
>> > the point I wish to make is this :- It is a description of an observed
>> > process. But what is the force or power which makes the Universe obey
>> this description?
>
>> The question presupposes that the Universe needs to be compelled
>> or controlled. How could we ever, from inside the system where it seems
>> quite self sufficient, acquire the necessary information to support such
>> a proposition?
>
>I merely wondered whether you recognised any reality apart from definitions
>and descriptions.

>It seems to me that if we describe something and the object or event
>described persists or repeats itself, then there is some force or power

>outside the description which is responsible. This is the definition of
>Objectivity. If it does not then we have fantasy.
>

To assume that there must be some power outside the nature of the object
described is unnecessary and foolish. Why does the contolling power act as
it does ? Because it is controlled by a power outside of itself ? Which
is controlled by a power outside of itself ? Which is... ad nauseum.

--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")

Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply

Paul K.