Jesus rose from the dead

[The Starmaker]

Jesus rose
from the dead to
spread the word
to aliens on
other planets.

Jesus just goes on
constantly incarnating and
dying on different aliens planets...

spreading the word of God
like a good Christian should.


Jesus is probably right now
walking on water on some
underground ocean on another planet.

[The Starmaker]

You know, it's possible
that an atheist manages to slip by
and enter Heaven...
but God is checking everybody out
and if God sees an atheist tryin
to get in..God is going to tell him,

"WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE??"

[Smiler]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other planets.

That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

<snip more nonsense>

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[The Starmaker]

Smiler wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other planets.
>
> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it doesn't seem much)


Maybe this would help..


http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/historical-jesus.html


https://thepiratebay.org/search/ttc%20jesus/0/99/0


http://www.thegreatcourses.com/category/science.html?CFM=footer

[a425couple]

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message ...

> Smiler wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other planets.
>>
>> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
> Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it doesn't seem
> much)
>
> Maybe this would help..
> http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/historical-jesus.html

Tough to argue with:
"Who was Jesus of Nazareth? What was he like? For more than 2,000 years,
people and groups of varying convictions have pondered these questions and
done their best to answer them. The significance of the subject is apparent.
From the late Roman Empire all the way to our own time, no continuously
existing institution or belief system has wielded as much influence as
Christianity, no figure as much as Jesus."

> https://thepiratebay.org/search/ttc%20jesus/0/99/0
> http://www.thegreatcourses.com/category/science.html?CFM=footer

But then, Arthur C. Clarke would not approve.

[The Starmaker]

John Locke wrote:

>
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 00:57:53 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> >> Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other planets.
> >
> >That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
> >Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
> >

> ..this troll is really bonkers. He's got his imaginary Jesus preaching
> to sinful microbes on alien planets. I don't think even Androol or
> Hemoriod have stretched the Jesus nonsense that far.


What are you tryin to say, aliens from other planets are all atheist??
There are certaintly not all atheist on Earth.

[Jonathan Doolin]

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 7:58:02 PM UTC-5, Smiler wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other planets.
>
> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>

Has Starmaker made any reference to holy books? If he did, then one might compare, for instance, the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to that of John, and whether these writings constitute evidence to support an fruitful opinion or fruitless opinion.

As for this premise "Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other planets." sounds rather fruitless. However, to acknowledge a possibility that some phenomenon may exist whereby life seems to defy the second law of thermodynamics, and create memory, organization, emotion...

To me, the gospels present a puzzle which asks the question of whether morals come from identity, or if morals come from behavior.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, all argue that righteousness is derived from good behavior. In regards to the identity of "The King" “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40)

Peter and Paul argue for both identity and behavior; Paul argues different ideas to different audiences, sometimes saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about" and other times saying "all knowledge and wisdom are embodied in Christ." Peter argued that while salvation is guaranteed through belief, that the believers ought to behave well, anyway. John argues only for the identity of the christ--leaving out any clear advice or guidelines about proper behavior, encouraging followers of Jesus to be self-righteous jerks.


The nature of obedience to a "lord" figure vs. belief in a "lord" figure is present in nature, whenever there is a domesticatible animal, such as a dog. I would suspect that most, if not all cultures that will come to advanced technologies have some sort of guiding principles that are not unlike the moral teachings of Jesus, appearing in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

In a strong society, there may also be some elements of obedience to a great leader... In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the great leader in embodiment of Jesus was obedient to his own guidelines. In John's gospel, he was not. So the puzzle of Christianity is whether the Messiah was a man, who should obey his own moral restrictions, and fulfill the Torah, or if Christ was a God who does not need moral restrictions, or the obedience of humans, or the testimony of humans, or the Law or the Prophets.

> <snip more nonsense>
>
> --
> Smiler, The godless one.
> aa #2279
> Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
> to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

One of the definitions of "prejudice" is "discrimination" and one of the definitions of "discrimination" is "distinction"

I wonder what you would say of someone who made distinction between "good and evil", "truth and falsehood" "fact and fiction"

Such a person would probably not persecute others for saying "There is no God" but does he have a responsibility to say to the would-be-followers of God--those who do not distinguish between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction... Does it behoove them to proclaim "There is no God!" or should they ask the believers, "Is it really God whom you are following?"

When you say you are "Smiler, the godless one" do you simply deny all distinction between good and evil, or are you merely saying the God(s) most people call God is not God?

[Smiler]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:14:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Smiler wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other
>> > planets.
>>
>> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
> Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it doesn't
> seem much)

My knowledge on that subject is the same as my knowledge on anything else
that didn't exist.

> Maybe this would help..

<snip links to beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, none of which are
evidence of any sort>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:31:48 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> ....

> if Christ was a God who does not need moral restrictions,

What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <3c0951ed-36a4-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,

What makes you believe any god has any "moral" code!

[Gary Harnagel]

That's an interesting topic. First, we'd have to decide what we mean
by "God." After all, there is a wide range of opinion on that matter.
I'm willing to argue either John's "God is love" or Arthur C. Clarke's
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

[The Starmaker]

Smiler wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:14:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Smiler wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other
> >> > planets.
> >>
> >> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
> >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
> >
> > Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it doesn't
> > seem much)
>
> My knowledge on that subject is the same as my knowledge on anything else
> that didn't exist.
>
> > Maybe this would help..
>
> <snip links to beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, none of which are
> evidence of any sort>

What I meant by "Maybe this would help..", I meant..maybe it will help others, certaintly not You.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

You're too stupid to ever understand it,
but the construction of moral code makes
it clear: it's community oriented.
God would have no use of it.

[Gary Harnagel]

What makes you believe God is NOT a community? :-)

So maybe YOU are the stupid one.

Actually, there's no "maybe" about it. You prove it over and over again.

[Jonathan Doolin]

My only problem with the whole "God is Love" thing.... 1 John 4:8... Is that John defines the GREATEST love in John 15:13... The greatest love is laying down your life for your friends.

Now, to Jesus, whom God especially loves because he can do this over and over and over (John 10:17), this method of loving is unproblematic. There's not any particular reason for Jesus to teach anyone how to do right, because they can kill him over and over again and he'll be just fine.

So what do you think... When you say "God is Love" do you mean in the sense of 1 Corinthians 13? Paul describes a Love:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

But John-Gospel-Jesus describes love this way:

John 15:12-13
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (John 10:17-18) The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

So when John says in 1 John 4:8 that God is Love, he is not referring to the love described by Paul, but to his own concept of Love--which is to die for other people.

You can also get an idea of John's concept of Love, and Teaching, in John 13:10-17.

10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean. 12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

This is the concept he has of teaching... He asks "Do you understand what I have done for you?" Would it be honest to say "Yes"? I don't think so.

My answer to that question is "Maybe... It looks like you have insisted on washing our feet, when we asked you not to. Then you criticized us for not wanting you to wash our feet. Then either you were trying to say one of us stinks, or you prophesied a betrayal against you, leaving each and every one of us wondering if we were the one whom you were accusing. In any case, you washed everyone's feet, who didn't need it, and the one whose whole body was unclean, you just washed his feet, leaving his whole body unclean. So apparently you're telling us to ignore real problems, and just focus on some sort of obsessive compulsive behavior about proper feet-washing."

> What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?

Now, since Jesus can lay down his life and take it back up again, any time he wants, he does not have the same restrictions on making self-fulfilling prophesies of betrayal. If love is dying for your friends, then it behooves you to ambiguously accuse them all of their future betrayal. Because then they'll testify against you, and you'll have the opportunity to lay down your life for them, which is "Love" by John's definition.

You can see in John 13:34-38 the discussion of "Love one another"... What John is saying they're talking about here is laying their lives down for each other. John is not keeping a record of a "patient, kind" love, but a "boastful, proud, self-seeking love" that dishonors others, and keeps a record of wrongs. It does not show trust. It does not show hope. It does not protect, and it does not persevere.

Laying down your life might, on extremely rare occasion be one possible method of showing love--for instance, running into a burning building to save a child... But this is not an act of seeking death for self... It is an act of forgetting self and seeking life for another.

So what do you think, then? If John defines "God is Love" in 1 John 4:8, and John says "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." Isn't John also saying "God is Death"?

If John defines love in this way, we should recognize the whole of John's concept of God, and Love, rather than mix-and-matching Paul's understanding of what Love is, with John's.

Paul has very different concepts of what Love is. I agree with 1 Corinthians 13, that "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

If I am to Love God with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind, and all my strength, then I should expect that my love for God is the sort of love that Paul described here.

I would say that God has some of these properties that Paul lists about God. God is patient. God does not envy, or boast. God is not proud. God doesn't dishonor. God does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. God always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

I'm not exactly saying there is some entity out there in the universe that actually exists as a physical manifestation, who actually HAS these properties--rather I am saying that this is the entity we should seek, as our Lord, God, and Savior... And the entity that Jesus spoke of when he pointed to his "Heavenly Father" I am not trying to argue regarding "true facts" here, but to convey what represents "good opinion".

What I've left out... God does keep a record of rights and wrongs... It's called "the past". God does not always protect. We are largely left to our own devices when it comes to protecting ourselves from beasts and weather, and earthquakes and wrecks and asteroids and each other.

Love, on the other hand does protect, and forgive. I can forgive God for designing a universe with beasts and weather, and earthquakes, and asteroids. I can even say "How can you record a wrong?" regarding those same beasts, and weather, and earthquakes, and asteroids. This is part of the universe which created us.

So no, I don't think that God and Love are the same, as John claims in 1 John 4:8. Nor do I think that Love and Seeking Death are the same as John claims in John 15:12-13. Nor do I think that this Life-Hating, Death-Loving eternal cynicism that John preaches, teaches, and practices is "good" (John 12:25)

So this is why I said John describes "Christ" as a God without a moral code. Because he encourages this eternal cynicism... God is Love... Love is Death. Hate Life.... Keep for Eternity.... Wash your servants feet even when you know their whole body is filthy, Rinse, Repeat.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:54:20 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:11:47 PM UTC-6, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3c0951ed-36a4-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:31:48 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ....
> > > > > if Christ was a God who does not need moral restrictions,
> > > >
> > > > What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?
> > >
> > > What makes you believe any god has any "moral" code!
> >
> > That's an interesting topic. First, we'd have to decide what we mean
> > by "God." After all, there is a wide range of opinion on that matter.
> > I'm willing to argue either John's "God is love" or Arthur C. Clarke's
> > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
>
>
> My only problem with the whole "God is Love" thing.... 1 John 4:8...
> Is that John defines the GREATEST love in John 15:13... The greatest
> love is laying down your life for your friends.
>
> Now, to Jesus, whom God especially loves because he can do this over
> and over and over (John 10:17),

You are badly misinterpreting that scripture. He's not talking about
reincarnation.

> this method of loving is unproblematic. There's not any particular
> reason for Jesus to teach anyone how to do right, because they can
> kill him over and over again and he'll be just fine.

As I said, dying once and being resurrected once is not doing it "over
and over."

> So what do you think... When you say "God is Love" do you mean in the
> sense of 1 Corinthians 13? Paul describes a Love:
>
> 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
> it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking,
> it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not
> delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects,
> always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
>
> But John-Gospel-Jesus describes love this way:
>
> John 15:12-13
> "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love
> has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (John
> 10:17-18) The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only
> to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own
> accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.
> This command I received from my Father.”
>
> So when John says in 1 John 4:8 that God is Love, he is not referring to
> the love described by Paul, but to his own concept of Love--which is to
> die for other people.

Why can't they both be consistent?

> You can also get an idea of John's concept of Love, and Teaching, in John
> 13:10-17.
>

> [Sorry. Too boring for me]

>
> > What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?
>
> Now, since Jesus can lay down his life and take it back up again, any
> time he wants,

This is YOUR assumption and is contrary to the record. Did He ever die
again? No, He did not. Ergo, you have NO justification for your assertion.

> [Bo-o-o-oring]

>
> Laying down your life might, on extremely rare occasion be one possible
> method of showing love--for instance, running into a burning building
> to save a child... But this is not an act of seeking death for self...
> It is an act of forgetting self and seeking life for another.

Which is exactly what Jesus did.

> So what do you think, then? If John defines "God is Love" in 1 John 4:8,
> and John says "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
> Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
> friends." Isn't John also saying "God is Death"?

Nope. It's saying eternity is better than mortality.

> [Excessive wordage ignored]

[Jonathan Doolin]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:48:28 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:54:20 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:11:47 PM UTC-6, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3c0951ed-36a4-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:31:48 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > > if Christ was a God who does not need moral restrictions,
> > > > >
> > > > > What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?
> > > >
> > > > What makes you believe any god has any "moral" code!
> > >
> > > That's an interesting topic. First, we'd have to decide what we mean
> > > by "God." After all, there is a wide range of opinion on that matter.
> > > I'm willing to argue either John's "God is love" or Arthur C. Clarke's
> > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
> >
> >
> > My only problem with the whole "God is Love" thing.... 1 John 4:8...
> > Is that John defines the GREATEST love in John 15:13... The greatest
> > love is laying down your life for your friends.
> >
> > Now, to Jesus, whom God especially loves because he can do this over
> > and over and over (John 10:17),
>
> You are badly misinterpreting that scripture. He's not talking about
> reincarnation.
>

It's hard to tell. I think John 6:52-66 suggests he's talking about the way meat is eaten. If Jesus was eaten then his body could be said to have lived again.

> > this method of loving is unproblematic. There's not any particular
> > reason for Jesus to teach anyone how to do right, because they can
> > kill him over and over again and he'll be just fine.
>
> As I said, dying once and being resurrected once is not doing it "over
> and over."
>

Okay. He died once, and he lived again once. But he boasted in John 10 that the reason God loved him was because he could come BACK from the dead.

What people mean by "boring" is that it is exhausting to try to parse and interpret, and assign meaning to words. I don't find it boring because I have acknowledged the possibility that the words might not be true. You find it boring because you are insisting the words are true, but you cannot find an interpretation that seems fitting.

It is this "reading without judgment" that you find booring. Because you have been taught over and over and over again that what Jesus did here, washing his servant's feet, pointing out his betrayer, telling them what a great teacher and lord he is... You think these are "the right thing to do" but it's just so awfully boring. It's not boring because it's true, though. It's boring because the brain protects itself from absurdity and stupidity by closing off to the ideas presented. Refusing to acknowledge what is actually being said.

> >
> > Laying down your life might, on extremely rare occasion be one possible
> > method of showing love--for instance, running into a burning building
> > to save a child... But this is not an act of seeking death for self...
> > It is an act of forgetting self and seeking life for another.
>
> Which is exactly what Jesus did.
>

It's exactly what Jesus did in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

But it's not what Jesus did in John's gospel.

> > So what do you think, then? If John defines "God is Love" in 1 John 4:8,
> > and John says "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
> > Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
> > friends." Isn't John also saying "God is Death"?
>
> Nope. It's saying eternity is better than mortality.
>
> > [Excessive wordage ignored]

John 12:25 does not say that eternity is better than mortality. It says that hatred of life is kept for eternal life. John 12:25 doesn't grant immortality either. It just says, if someone hates their life, that hatred will be inherited by eternal life.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:33:45 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:48:28 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:54:20 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, to Jesus, whom God especially loves because he can do this over
> > > and over and over (John 10:17),
> >
> > You are badly misinterpreting that scripture. He's not talking about
> > reincarnation.
> >
>
> It's hard to tell. I think John 6:52-66 suggests he's talking about the
> way meat is eaten. If Jesus was eaten then his body could be said to
> have lived again.

You're not REALLY that stupid, are you?

> > > this method of loving is unproblematic. There's not any particular
> > > reason for Jesus to teach anyone how to do right, because they can
> > > kill him over and over again and he'll be just fine.
> >
> > As I said, dying once and being resurrected once is not doing it "over
> > and over."
>
> Okay. He died once, and he lived again once. But he boasted in John 10
> that the reason God loved him was because he could come BACK from the dead.

You REALLY do misinterpret things.

> > > So what do you think... When you say "God is Love" do you mean in the
> > > sense of 1 Corinthians 13? Paul describes a Love:
> > >
> > > 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
> > > it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking,
> > > it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not
> > > delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects,
> > > always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
> > >
> > > But John-Gospel-Jesus describes love this way:
> > >
> > > John 15:12-13
> > > "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love
> > > has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (John
> > > 10:17-18) The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only
> > > to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own
> > > accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.
> > > This command I received from my Father.”
> > >
> > > So when John says in 1 John 4:8 that God is Love, he is not referring to
> > > the love described by Paul, but to his own concept of Love--which is to
> > > die for other people.
> >
> > Why can't they both be consistent?

* Sounds of crickets chirping *

> > > You can also get an idea of John's concept of Love, and Teaching, in John
> > > 13:10-17.
> > >
> > > [Sorry. Too boring for me]
> > >
> > > > What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?
> > >
> > > Now, since Jesus can lay down his life and take it back up again, any
> > > time he wants,
> >
> > This is YOUR assumption and is contrary to the record. Did He ever die
> > again? No, He did not. Ergo, you have NO justification for your assertion.
> >
> > > [Bo-o-o-oring]
>
>
> What people mean by "boring" is that it is exhausting to try to parse and
> interpret, and assign meaning to words.

Yes, I tire of endless nonsense quickly.

> I don't find it boring because I have acknowledged the possibility that
> the words might not be true.

That would be even more boring.

> You find it boring because you are insisting the words are true, but you
> cannot find an interpretation that seems fitting.

You are dead wrong, pretending one. I do have a fitting interpretation.

> It is this "reading without judgment" that you find booring. Because you
> have been taught over and over and over again that what Jesus did here,

followed by more boring stuff, as well as crass idiocy.

> > > Laying down your life might, on extremely rare occasion be one possible
> > > method of showing love--for instance, running into a burning building
> > > to save a child... But this is not an act of seeking death for self...
> > > It is an act of forgetting self and seeking life for another.
> >
> > Which is exactly what Jesus did.
> >
>
> It's exactly what Jesus did in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
>
> But it's not what Jesus did in John's gospel.

Only according to your misguided misinterpretations.

> > > So what do you think, then? If John defines "God is Love" in 1 John 4:8,
> > > and John says "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
> > > Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
> > > friends." Isn't John also saying "God is Death"?
> >
> > Nope. It's saying eternity is better than mortality.
> >
> > > [Excessive wordage ignored]
>
> John 12:25 does not say that eternity is better than mortality. It says
> that hatred of life is kept for eternal life. John 12:25 doesn't grant
> immortality either. It just says, if someone hates their life, that
> hatred will be inherited by eternal life.

Again, you misinterpret. "Not loving" isn't the same thing as "hate."
There is no point continuing this discussion until you learn that your
own interpretations aren't God's:

I Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is
of any private interpretation."

[HGW]

On 25/09/16 05:01, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jesus rose from the dead

...I wondered what that smell was...

[Jonathan Doolin]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 2:25:25 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:33:45 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:48:28 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:54:20 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now, to Jesus, whom God especially loves because he can do this over
> > > > and over and over (John 10:17),
> > >
> > > You are badly misinterpreting that scripture. He's not talking about
> > > reincarnation.
> > >
> >
> > It's hard to tell. I think John 6:52-66 suggests he's talking about the
> > way meat is eaten. If Jesus was eaten then his body could be said to
> > have lived again.
>
> You're not REALLY that stupid, are you?
>

In the light of the Law of the Torah, cannibalism is a sign of a curse or great distress among the people(Lev.26:29,Deut.28:53-57,Jer.19:9,etc.), so one might think Jesus wouldn't have literally recommended something like this... And if you start questioning John 6:52-56, one might have reason to distrust John as a reliable witness.

These are the two possibilities... Either Jesus DID, or Jesus DIDN'T tell his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yes I am "that stupid" in your words, that I cannot come up with any other possibilities.

In the first case, Jesus DID ask his followers to cannibalize his body, and it would be reasonable to wonder WHY Jesus would request such a thing. In the latter case, Jesus DID NOT ask this, then John's account is fictional, and it means John is not a reliable witness.

Love is patient. Love is kind, Love does not boast. Love is not proud. Love does not keep a record of wrongs. Love always perseveres.

Dying for other people is not patient. It is not kind. It does boast. It is proud. It keeps a record of wrongs. It does not persevere.

> > > > You can also get an idea of John's concept of Love, and Teaching, in John
> > > > 13:10-17.
> > > >
> > > > [Sorry. Too boring for me]
> > > >
> > > > > What makes you believe God doesn't obey a moral code?
> > > >
> > > > Now, since Jesus can lay down his life and take it back up again, any
> > > > time he wants,
> > >
> > > This is YOUR assumption and is contrary to the record. Did He ever die
> > > again? No, He did not. Ergo, you have NO justification for your assertion.
> > >
> > > > [Bo-o-o-oring]
> >
> >
> > What people mean by "boring" is that it is exhausting to try to parse and
> > interpret, and assign meaning to words.
>
> Yes, I tire of endless nonsense quickly.
>
> > I don't find it boring because I have acknowledged the possibility that
> > the words might not be true.
>
> That would be even more boring.
>

That is the way I sometimes feel about cooking. I trust the grocery store to put good food into the package. It would be boring, I think to check the ingredients, or to confirm the manner in which it was made. I sometimes just shovel the food into my mouth, with the faith that the experts are making sure that there's nothing unhealthy in the food. I have better things to do, I think, than to analyze every ingredient.

Do you find it boring to sniff the food before you eat it, to check whether it is rotten? When I find something that stinks, it isn't exactly boring, but it is unpleasant.... And I don't eat it.

You feel the same way about your religious texts, that you believe every word in them... This isn't entirely your fault. If you only believed in good and true things in the Bible, you'd be accused of "cherry picking". So you mix bad and good, true and false, together in one giant vat of indistinguishable "boring" You believe whatever you find, whether it is cherries or crap. It's this mix of cherries and crap that gives the scripture you believe in its "boring" flavor.

> > You find it boring because you are insisting the words are true, but you
> > cannot find an interpretation that seems fitting.
>
> You are dead wrong, pretending one. I do have a fitting interpretation.
>

You may share, if you like. You may feel free to express it, if you so desire. Jesus asks a question in John 13:12. He asks "Do you understand what I've done for you?"

You have a fitting interpretation... Is it a private interpretation, or a public one. My interpretation is that Judas, by taking 30 pieces of silver and telling some Roman soldiers where Jesus was, went and did something really fairly symbolic and harmless. But Judas provided a scapegoat for John, so that John could break the "Staff of Union" mentioned in Zechariah 11.

Jesus also said he was only washing the feet, even though some people's minds, and hands, and whole bodies were unclean. Do you understand what John Gospel Jesus has done for us? He's allowed the wheat and the weeds to mix up together. Matthew 13:24-30

The trouble is, Jesus may not even have know who was going to betray him. He just knew, according to Zechariah, a bad Shepherd was going to rise up, (Zechariah 11:16). Jesus knew he was bringing up his twelve disciples to be shepherds, and he knew of this prophecy in Zechariah. And he intended that the weeds would grow up with the wheat, until the time of harvest.

Washing of the feet-without fixing the mind, the hands... It's like when people on TV say "Religious views must be respected, even though they're obviously stupid and wrong."

True, ignoring people's beliefs is better than persecuting them, shouting them down, and killing them. But it is not as good as understanding, and questioning, and offering better beliefs. Yes, wash their feet. But look at their hands. Question their minds. Check the health of their bodies. If they do evil works with their hands, and have false beliefs in their minds, and their bodies are filthy and stink, it is not enough just to wash their feet.

> > It is this "reading without judgment" that you find booring. Because you
> > have been taught over and over and over again that what Jesus did here,
>
> followed by more boring stuff, as well as crass idiocy.
>
> > > > Laying down your life might, on extremely rare occasion be one possible
> > > > method of showing love--for instance, running into a burning building
> > > > to save a child... But this is not an act of seeking death for self...
> > > > It is an act of forgetting self and seeking life for another.
> > >
> > > Which is exactly what Jesus did.
> > >
> >
> > It's exactly what Jesus did in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
> >
> > But it's not what Jesus did in John's gospel.
>
> Only according to your misguided misinterpretations.
>
> > > > So what do you think, then? If John defines "God is Love" in 1 John 4:8,
> > > > and John says "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
> > > > Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
> > > > friends." Isn't John also saying "God is Death"?
> > >
> > > Nope. It's saying eternity is better than mortality.
> > >
> > > > [Excessive wordage ignored]
> >
> > John 12:25 does not say that eternity is better than mortality. It says
> > that hatred of life is kept for eternal life. John 12:25 doesn't grant
> > immortality either. It just says, if someone hates their life, that
> > hatred will be inherited by eternal life.
>
> Again, you misinterpret. "Not loving" isn't the same thing as "hate."
> There is no point continuing this discussion until you learn that your
> own interpretations aren't God's:
>

I am what I am. I believe in acknowledging hypotheses, and recognizing when the facts are uncertain. Whereas most people who study the Bible are quick to say "miracle" I generally try to find a more likely explanation... Either that the author is so impressed by something in human behavior that it seems miraculous, or that someone has performed a trick which many believe is a miracle.

I have fairly firm prejudices on these things... I don't believe God changes laws of physics or biology from day-to-day to punish, to reward, or to impress. So my interpretations have to fit these criteria. I believe that words have actual intent... a meaning they convey, even if that meaning is to demonstrate meaninglessness.

If the words of the Bible appear to say one thing, but all the believers of the Bible report that it means something else, then I think it is reasonable to point this out.

You say I need to learn that my own interpretation aren't God's. Or perhaps you need to learn that your own interpretation isn't Gods. Do you find Christians saying "Jesus is the Messiah"? Have you found many Jews lining up to say "Jesus is the Messiah?" Have you found many Muslims, lining up to say "Jesus is the Messiah?"

If all Judeo Christian religions were united under this banner, then I might think their interpretation was God's. As it is, though, it looks like there's something wrong, because these three groups who should be allied under the banner of "Judeo-Christian-Religions" are persecuting one another for blasphemy.

I think NONE of them have God's interpretation in mind, so when you say I need to learn that my own interpretation is not God's, I am perfectly aware of this... I might not have it right. But I also know that few people are trying to fix it, or seem to be aware that there is a problem.

Both KJV and NIV use the word "Hate" here.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2012%3A25&version=NIV;KJV

> I Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is
> of any private interpretation."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A20&version=NIV;KJV

2 Peter 1:20 differes greatly in meaning, between NIV and KJV.

KJV says that no one is allowed to come to their own understanding of the Bible. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

NIV says that no prophet understood exactly how their own prophecy was going to be fulfilled: " Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things."

Where NIV and KJV differ significantly on meaning, I tend to favor the NIV meaning. In this case, 2 Peter 1:20 says that the prophets do not always know exactly how things are going to pan out.

Did Zechariah think that he prophesied Jesus and John? Did John think that he prophesied Paul, or Mohammad? Do the prophets know the difference between a billion years, a thousand years and a day? I don't think they do.

But those who fulfill prophesy decide to fulfill prophesy. Mary and Joseph moved around to lots of different places, so the Messiah could come from different places prophesied. If enough people decide they want to take part in the fulfillment of the book of Revelations, then everything in Revelations will come true.

I, personally, think that it is best to make a well-informed decision, before jumping in to fulfill prophecies. I choose not, for instance, to be part of the group asking for "Mountains to fall on us, rocks to hide us, to save us from the wrath of the Lamb."

I choose, instead, the "other" wise... To see with my eyes, hear with my ears, turn, and be healed."

[Jonathan Doolin]

John 11:39-44

Funny how in John's gospel, Lazarus was raised from the dead, but didn't say anything.

But in Luke 16:27-31 Lazarus doesn't say anything to the rich people's family, because he wasn't raised from the dead.

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Yes, fiction was very popular even in those days.

[Jonathan Doolin]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:36:37 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 27/09/16 23:01, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> >> On 25/09/16 05:01, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Jesus rose from the dead
> >>
> >> ...I wondered what that smell was...
> >
> > John 11:39-44
> >
> > Funny how in John's gospel, Lazarus was raised from the dead, but
> > didn't say anything.
> >
> > But in Luke 16:27-31 Lazarus doesn't say anything to the rich
> > people's family, because he wasn't raised from the dead.
> >
>

> Yes, fiction was very popular even in those days.

But whether the texts on which the religions are based are fictional or not, "Today, around 3.4 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religions are the largest group, and these consist mainly of Christianity, Islam, Judaism (and the Bahá'í Faith?). They are named for the patriarch Abraham, and are unified by the practice of monotheism. Several Abrahamic organizations are vigorous proselytizers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

I think it is quite plausible that this figure, Jesus of Nazareth existed, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Paul, all were real people who wrote accounts of his life, and/or teaching.

I'm not saying I believe in "impossible things". The impossible parts of the gospels are surely fiction, or exaggeration, or perhaps irony. "Miracle" does not have to mean "impossible". It can just mean " a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the miracles Jesus performed always brought welcome consequences. In John's gospel, though, what miracles Jesus performed were just "impossible things"; and almost NEVER with wholly welcome consequences. I would say every miracle that Jesus performed in John's gospel was performed primarily to divide believers from nonbelievers, and to create argument between them. Every miracle that Jesus performed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke was performed primarily to heal the sick and feed the poor, or to give courage to the fearful.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is never accused of the exaggeration. In each of these gospels, Jesus never says "Hey, I just did a miracle." It is always the authors of the gospels saying he did a miracle. Jesus frequently brushes it off, saying "It is your faith which saved you."

In John's gospel, it is almost always Jesus saying "Hey, I did a miracle, and you didn't believe it". Rather than encouraging faith, he discourages reason.

If Jesus really existed, we should make a distinction between the testimonies, and be asking, which disciples are testifying FOR Jesus, and which is testifying AGAINST Jesus.

But even if Jesus didn't exist, then the story should be recognized as one with an important moral question, which is just as important today as it was when it was originally asked. Which presentation of Jesus is "good?" or at least, which is "better?".

They are both good, in the sense that neither of them ever ever killed anyone... But we should "Highlight" the differences, because Neither "Goofus or Gallant" ever killed anyone either.

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/476/ "We couldn't have Gallant without Goofus," said Highlights Editor Kent Brown, "Without Goofus, Gallant would be bland and no one would pay attention. But kids see parts of themselves in both characters. No one is as good as Gallant, and no one is as bad as Goofus. But being more like Gallant is something to strive for." Brown, a grandson of the magazine’s founders, claims he was the inspiration for Goofus.

Goofus says "I breathed Holy Spirit on you, so do whatever you feel like doing." (John 3:8, John 20:22-23). Gallant says "Forgive and forgive and forgive...", (Matt 18:21-22, Mark 11:25, Luke 17:2-4).


If you feel you have authority NOT TO FORGIVE, you're looking to your rights to punish, to abandon, or to forcibly collect debt. You will pray for the punishment, abandonment, and suffering of those who do wrong, rather than their repentance.

If you feel you have the authority TO FORGIVE, then you're looking for ways to fix the problems that made the injustice and debt happen in the first place. People who feel they have this sort of authority might have to do some "miracles" (Miracle: a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.) to fix the problems that cause pain and suffering.

There are dozens, or hundreds of other Goofus and Gallant comparisons one could make between John-Gospel-Jesus and Synoptic-Gospel-Jesus. It hardly matters whether a real person inspired the gospels, because we all see parts of ourselves in both characters.

[HGW]

On 29/09/16 00:12, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:36:37 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc.

>>> But in Luke 16:27-31 Lazarus doesn't say anything to the rich
>>> people's family, because he wasn't raised from the dead.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, fiction was very popular even in those days.
>
>
> But whether the texts on which the religions are based are fictional
> or not, "Today, around 3.4 billion people are followers of Abrahamic
> religion. Abrahamic religions are the largest group, and these
> consist mainly of Christianity, Islam, Judaism (and the Bahá'í
> Faith?). They are named for the patriarch Abraham, and are unified by
> the practice of monotheism. Several Abrahamic organizations are
> vigorous proselytizers."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
>
> I think it is quite plausible that this figure, Jesus of Nazareth
> existed, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Paul, all were
> real people who wrote accounts of his life, and/or teaching.
>
> I'm not saying I believe in "impossible things". The impossible
> parts of the gospels are surely fiction, or exaggeration, or perhaps
> irony. "Miracle" does not have to mean "impossible". It can just
> mean " a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or
> accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
>

snip..

Few people could read or write in those days and news was spread largely
by word of mouth....Just a News Limited can sway public opinion today,
so could a handful of clever men then who could put together a good story.

I imagine the bible and similar writings were fictional works based on
what highly distorted facts were handed down through generations. They
only concern the very small communities that existed around the eastern
Mediterranean. I suppose it has some historical value but I don't know
why anyone bothers to attach any significance to these writings. A good
book about geology or a paleontology text would be far more interesting
and relevant to anyone interested in our origins.

The world certainly needed reforming 2000 years ago just as it does now
and there were plenty of people who were aware of that.
I doubt if the god part was ever meant to be anything more than a
publicity stunt and a way of appeasing the Romans. ...but it didn't work
too well for some time.

[Jonathan Doolin]

Just how clever though?

> I imagine the bible and similar writings were fictional works based on
> what highly distorted facts were handed down through generations. They
> only concern the very small communities that existed around the eastern
> Mediterranean.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. To some extent, I would think that New Testamant is of concern to all 3.4 billion people who claim a Judeo-Christian religions. And it is also of concern to anyone who might become a involved in laws or wars or deeds that are wholly, or in part, religiously motivated.

> I suppose it has some historical value but I don't know
> why anyone bothers to attach any significance to these writings. A good
> book about geology or a paleontology text would be far more interesting
> and relevant to anyone interested in our origins.
>

Sure, a good book about geology and paleontology will tell you what happened in history... These books are based on evidence, statistics, visible and measurable signs. Goofus argues the truth about humanity, saying (John 4:48) "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will never believe." In essence, it sounds like he's criticizing just those who seek to see miracles and impossible things. But actually he's criticizing the very nature of scientific, evidence based study. Or perhaps, he's acknowledging the very nature of scientific, evidence based study. But we have closed our eyes, and we cannot see... We take praise as criticism, and criticism as praise.

Gallant encourages faith. (Matt 21:21) Goofus discourages reason. (John 4:48)

Gallant says that the measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens. (Matt 25:31-46) Goofus says The measure of a society is whether each individual believes in the Name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18)

Goofus sees belief as the end-product of faith. (1 Cor 15:17) Gallant sees faith as a tool to accomplish good deeds. (James 2:19-20).

> The world certainly needed reforming 2000 years ago just as it does now
> and there were plenty of people who were aware of that.
> I doubt if the god part was ever meant to be anything more than a
> publicity stunt and a way of appeasing the Romans. ...but it didn't work
> too well for some time.

Well, in the world then, perhaps people were looking into faith... Some saw faith as belief; and an end in itself. Others saw faith as a means to an end. Then some use faith to fight what they fear. Some use faith to create what they love.

Money is a proxy for faith. Today we have the same sorts of issues with money. Some see money as intrinsically valuable, and an end in itself. Others see money as a means to an end. Some use money to fight what they fear. Some use money to create what they love.

[HGW]

On 29/09/16 21:53, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:

>>>
>> snip..
>>
>> Few people could read or write in those days and news was spread
>> largely by word of mouth....Just a News Limited can sway public
>> opinion today, so could a handful of clever men then who could put
>> together a good story.
>>
>
> Just how clever though?
>
>> I imagine the bible and similar writings were fictional works based
>> on what highly distorted facts were handed down through
>> generations. They only concern the very small communities that
>> existed around the eastern Mediterranean.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. To some extent, I would think
> that New Testamant is of concern to all 3.4 billion people who claim
> a Judeo-Christian religions. And it is also of concern to anyone who
> might become a involved in laws or wars or deeds that are wholly, or
> in part, religiously motivated.

That is what is wrong with the world today. Religious belief still
exists. Humanity will never become civilized until all religion has been
eradicated.
But the ancient religions wont last much longer. The worship of MONEY is
even greater than that of any imaginary god.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:39:06 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> That is what is wrong with the world today. Religious belief still
> exists. Humanity will never become civilized until all religion has been
> eradicated.

If all religion is eradicated, humanity will cease to exist. You stupid
atheists don't realize that you have no reason whatsoever to justify
your empty existence. Consciousness becomes a cruel joke perpetrated by
a malicious cosmos and you are left holding the bag, too chicken to
commit suicide as retaliation against the wrong it has done you.

> But the ancient religions wont last much longer. The worship of MONEY is
> even greater than that of any imaginary god.

Rather, like Satan, you want to make everyone as miserable as you are.

[The Starmaker]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins+jesus+christ

[The Starmaker]

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


Oh, btw, if you go to thepiratebay.org to learn more about Jesus Christ...don't forget The Magnificent Seven is just out.

[Jonathan Doolin]

What rubric or standard are you using to claim that the worship of MONEY is greater? Did you mean great as in "dominant" or great as in "superb".

Worship of money is more dominant in the world than the worship of other false gods. But money is not a god to be worshiped, it is a tool to be used.

I find it illuminating to compare the circulatory system blood in the body, to the circulatory system of money in the economy. Now, blood does some real stuff based on physics and chemistry... Money is based on promises and faith and human law.

Neither blood nor money are good substances to be worshiped. You shouldn't celebrate clots in the bloodstream for the clot's ability to accumulate blood. Rather, clots should be treated by medicine (changing the chemistry), so that the clot doesn't destroy the body.

Similarly, people who hoard money shouldn't be envied or emulated. Rather, they should be treated by legislation (changing the laws) so that their selfishness doesn't destroy the economy.

Gallant says "Heal the sick." (Matt 10:8)

A worshiper of money would say "How much money does the patient have? If it is profitable to me, I will make him live indebted to me. If it is not profitable, let him die."

Goofus says "Quick, get the patient to say 'I believe the name of the one and only begotten son of God is Christ' so that he doesn't spend eternity in hell!" (John 3:18)

I would put the worshipers of money in the "Goofus" category, myself. Money-worshipers may be "great" as in commonplace. They are not "great" as in better. Yet, I would give the money-worshipers credit... They may be able to annihilate faith and hope in any greater principle...

But I would ask this... Is the worm who kills the tree "greater" than the tree? (Jonah 4:7-10)

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/09/16 12:53, Gary Harnagel wrote:
...."I admit I am just a snivelling deluded wimp. I'm such a failure
that I desperately want to believe I get another chance when I die."

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Very little in your ancient scriptures applies to what has happened in
the last 100 years.
Largely because of religion, the Earth has become vastly overpopulated
and in spite of the rise of science and social awareness, human and
environmental problems are causing civilization to break down worldwide
as all the symptoms of overcrowding become more and more apparent each day.
Because of money, humans have lost touch with nature. Their lives are
totally artificial and laws aimed at protecting money dominate over
those relating to personal values. Man's greatest need, security, is
becoming progressively harder to gain and without money no individual
has much hope of functioning successfully.
It is quite obvious to all thinking people that acceptable living
standards can never be achieved while organized religion is allowed to
flourish. It is the gigantic hoax that lies at the heat of all poverty
and oppression and which divides the world into the antagonistic groups
that are already fighting over the world's dwindling resources.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> "I admit I am just a snivelling deluded wimp. I'm such a failure

> that I desperately want to believe nothing matters at all."

[Smiler]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:17:48 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Smiler wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:14:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> > Smiler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other
>> >> > planets.
>> >>
>> >> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
>> >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>> >
>> > Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it doesn't
>> > seem much)
>>
>> My knowledge on that subject is the same as my knowledge on anything
>> else that didn't exist.
>>
>> > Maybe this would help..
>>
>> <snip links to beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, none of which are
>> evidence of any sort>
>
> What I meant by "Maybe this would help..", I meant..maybe it will help
> others, certaintly not You.

It won't help anyone sane.

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[The Starmaker]

Smiler wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:17:48 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Smiler wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:14:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Smiler wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other
> >> >> > planets.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
> >> >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it doesn't
> >> > seem much)
> >>
> >> My knowledge on that subject is the same as my knowledge on anything
> >> else that didn't exist.
> >>
> >> > Maybe this would help..
> >>
> >> <snip links to beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, none of which are
> >> evidence of any sort>
> >
> > What I meant by "Maybe this would help..", I meant..maybe it will help
> > others, certaintly not You.
>
> It won't help anyone sane.

Do you know anyone...sane??? i bet you got a crazy mom! i like to meet
your crazy sister, is she hot?

>What I meant by "Maybe this would help..", I meant..maybe it will help others, certaintly not You.

[Smiler]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:17:55 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Smiler wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:17:48 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> > Smiler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:14:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Smiler wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Jesus rose from the dead to spread the word to aliens on other
>> >> >> > planets.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That would be the supposed Jesus for which you have no evidence.
>> >> >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I don't know the extent of your knowledge on Jesus..(it
>> >> > doesn't seem much)
>> >>
>> >> My knowledge on that subject is the same as my knowledge on anything
>> >> else that didn't exist.
>> >>
>> >> > Maybe this would help..
>> >>
>> >> <snip links to beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, none of which are
>> >> evidence of any sort>
>> >
>> > What I meant by "Maybe this would help..", I meant..maybe it will
>> > help others, certaintly not You.
>>
>> It won't help anyone sane.
>
> Do you know anyone...sane???

Yep. Most of the atheists here are sane.
They don't believe in unevidenced super-beings, unlike you.

> i bet you got a crazy mom! i like to meet
> your crazy sister, is she hot?

You lose your bet.

[Jonathan Doolin]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 01/10/16 01:39, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 6:39:06 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>
>
> > Goofus says "Quick, get the patient to say 'I believe the name of
> > the one and only begotten son of God is Christ' so that he doesn't
> > spend eternity in hell!" (John 3:18)
> >
> > I would put the worshipers of money in the "Goofus" category, myself.
> > Money-worshipers may be "great" as in commonplace. They are not
> > "great" as in better. Yet, I would give the money-worshipers
> > credit... They may be able to annihilate faith and hope in any
> > greater principle...
> >
> > But I would ask this... Is the worm who kills the tree "greater" than
> > the tree? (Jonah 4:7-10)
>
> Very little in your ancient scriptures applies to what has happened in
> the last 100 years.
> Largely because of religion, the Earth has become vastly overpopulated

I don't understand why you would say that religion is a primary cause of overpopulation.

> and in spite of the rise of science and social awareness, human and
> environmental problems are causing civilization to break down worldwide
> as all the symptoms of overcrowding become more and more apparent each day.
> Because of money, humans have lost touch with nature. Their lives are
> totally artificial and laws aimed at protecting money dominate over
> those relating to personal values.

Are you saying that is a good thing, or a bad thing? You want laws that protect money, or do you want laws that protect people and their personal values?

> Man's greatest need, security, is
> becoming progressively harder to gain and without money no individual
> has much hope of functioning successfully.

Again, do you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing? You seem to believe I know good from evil, but to know good from evil we would have to acknowledge that these ideas are real.

So if I said to you "possession is 9/10 of the law" would you say "it should be higher" or "it should be lower"?

> It is quite obvious to all thinking people that acceptable living
> standards can never be achieved while organized religion is allowed to
> flourish. It is the gigantic hoax that lies at the heat of all poverty
> and oppression and which divides the world into the antagonistic groups
> that are already fighting over the world's dwindling resources.

It's quite obvious to all thinking people that trying to stamp out organized religion is rather like attacking a bees' nest. A lot of those bees won't mind sacrificing themselves to protect their nest. To many religious people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as their beliefs hold them.


What you're not noticing here are that you are being critical without really standing up for anything. Some of the things you seem to value:

(1) Protecting personal values
(2) Comfort and safety
(3) Unity
(4) Conserve the world's dwindling resources
(5) Distinction of truth vs. fiction
(6) being in touch with nature.



(1) "laws aimed at protecting money dominate over those relating to personal values"
(2) "Man's greatest need, security, is becoming progressively harder to gain"
(3) and which divides the world into the
(4) "antagonistic groups that are already fighting over the world's dwindling resources.
(5) "gigantic hoax that lies at the heart of all poverty and oppression"
(6) "humans have lost touch with nature. "


I feel I share most of these values with you... Yet you speak about these values as though they can be taken for granted. That we should all value the protection of peoples personal values. We value the comfort, safety, and health of all. We want to conserve dwindling resources so that our descendants will have lives as good or better than ours. We want to be authentic, recognizing truth. We want to preserve the beauty of nature. And we want to live in unity and without unnecessary strife.

You find these values to be so self-evident, that instead of advocating for them, you simply protest against those who you wrongly think don't share them.

If we were to make a list of all of these shared values, and bind them into a book, we might put a label on this book called "Secular moral principles". And we'll make another book called "Religious moral principles" and it will contain the exact same values.

The only difference between these books is, one of them says "The name of God is Our-Father-in-Heaven" and another says "The name of God is Allah" and another one of them says "There is no God" and another says "The names of the Gods are Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu" and another says "Don't speak the name of G-d in vain."

Certainly, there are other differences between religions besides the name(s) of their gods, but for the most part, they all promote the same common-good that the secular atheist religions promote.

Have a look here at an article about Secular Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

You see that the Dalai Lama says "even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."

But this is a CAPACITY, not a GIVEN. Worshipers of money do not generally promote unity except in a hypocritical way. (If you can get everyone around you to behave as sheep, its easier for the wolf to take advantage)

But when demonstrating that capacity to promote positive secular ethics, are you promoting fact: "is, does, and did", or are you promoting opinion: "should, should have, and shouldn't have".

When you talk about the way we "should behave" and values we "should share" or virtually any sentence fragment containing the word "should" you are espousing a value or proseletyzing for a value that may or may not be shared by your audience.

To many secular people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as their beliefs hold them.

Perhaps the secular "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are 'better', sometimes than the religious "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". But is it 90% of the time? 99% of the time? I don't know... But I don't think it's 100%. Unfortunately, we don't get to perform the experiment over and over again. There might be millions of other planets with intelligent life on them, but Earth only gets one chance to get things right.

[Jonathan Doolin]

I also like Richard Dawkins quite a bit. But I don't have any idea what point you were making that is supported by a google search that gave me 105,000 results.

Is it your point to say "This man, Jesus, really existed"?

Is it because 2 John 1:7 would have you believe that anyone who says that Jesus didn't "come in the flesh" is the antichrist?

Is being labeled antichrist by John a major concern to you?

If so, we should very carefully parse what John could possibly mean by "antichrist" and compare that to the word "antilabel" or "anti-false-labeling"

How does 2 John 1:7 define "liar"?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20John%201%3A7&version=KJV;NIV

Do we even know for sure what John means by "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" or "Acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,"

I would say it is more dishonest to pretend to know exactly what this lunatic, John, meant, or pretending to know for sure anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It is also a lie to put a label on something that just means "Labeled".

So your concerns about whether Jesus existed or not are mostly of merit to a Goofus named John, who lived and died 2000 years ago. Today we should be concerned, I think, about the merit of his teachings, rather than "signs and wonders" that prove he actually existed.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 02/10/16 00:06, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc.
> wrote:
>> On 01/10/16 01:39, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 6:39:06 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Goofus says "Quick, get the patient to say 'I believe the name
>>> of the one and only begotten son of God is Christ' so that he
>>> doesn't spend eternity in hell!" (John 3:18)
>>>
>>> I would put the worshipers of money in the "Goofus" category,
>>> myself. Money-worshipers may be "great" as in commonplace. They
>>> are not "great" as in better. Yet, I would give the
>>> money-worshipers credit... They may be able to annihilate faith
>>> and hope in any greater principle...
>>>
>>> But I would ask this... Is the worm who kills the tree "greater"
>>> than the tree? (Jonah 4:7-10)
>>
>> Very little in your ancient scriptures applies to what has happened
>> in the last 100 years. Largely because of religion, the Earth has
>> become vastly overpopulated
>
> I don't understand why you would say that religion is a primary cause
> of overpopulation.

Then you know very little about the world. Why do you think both the
pope and the muslims force their female to produce many children? A)
because they are trying to outbreed each other. If birth control is
encouraged, as it obviously should be, the numbers will drop and the
other one will dominate.
It is stated muslim policy to get a foothold in a country then outbreed
the locals so they can take over.
The catholics have been doing it for years, like they are in Mexico
right now (ask Donald Trump). Breed like Drosophila then export the
surplus. Ireland and Italy did the same for hundreds of years.

>> and in spite of the rise of science and social awareness, human
>> and environmental problems are causing civilization to break down
>> worldwide as all the symptoms of overcrowding become more and more
>> apparent each day. Because of money, humans have lost touch with
>> nature. Their lives are totally artificial and laws aimed at
>> protecting money dominate over those relating to personal values.
>
> Are you saying that is a good thing, or a bad thing? You want laws
> that protect money, or do you want laws that protect people and their
> personal values?

In regard to security, money has replaced 'physical territory'. Whilst
once, humans had to defend their physical space, their main priority now
is to protect their money.
So whether we like it or not, money laws are as important as personal
ones... because to lose ones money virtually means losing one's ability
to survive...

>> Man's greatest need, security, is becoming progressively harder to
>> gain and without money no individual has much hope of functioning
>> successfully.
>
> Again, do you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing? You seem
> to believe I know good from evil, but to know good from evil we would
> have to acknowledge that these ideas are real.
>
> So if I said to you "possession is 9/10 of the law" would you say "it
> should be higher" or "it should be lower"?

There is no absolute right or wrong. Before humans became moderately
civilized, virtually whatever was good for survival was regarded as
acceptable. The same applies in the natural world today.

Today, individual rights and freedom are important to everyone and laws
are made for the purpose of preventing one persons freedom from
interfering with another's. Often the laws are wrong and there is no
satisfactory solution.

>> It is quite obvious to all thinking people that acceptable living
>> standards can never be achieved while organized religion is allowed
>> to flourish. It is the gigantic hoax that lies at the heat of all
>> poverty and oppression and which divides the world into the
>> antagonistic groups that are already fighting over the world's
>> dwindling resources.
>
> It's quite obvious to all thinking people that trying to stamp out
> organized religion is rather like attacking a bees' nest. A lot of
> those bees won't mind sacrificing themselves to protect their nest.
> To many religious people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as
> their beliefs hold them.

I understand that. Taking away a person's religion would be like
removing their whole culture. The only way to do it is through
education....but I think it is too late. Homo sapiens will wipe itself
out before that can happen.

> What you're not noticing here are that you are being critical without
> really standing up for anything. Some of the things you seem to
> value:
>
> (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3) Unity (4)
> Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of truth vs.
> fiction (6) being in touch with nature.

Yes, what is wrong with that. Property has to be protected too. ...but
confidence tricksters who make fortunes selling seats in a non-existent
after life should be quietly exterminated like drug dealers and
pedophile priests.

> (1) "laws aimed at protecting money dominate over those relating to
> personal values" (2) "Man's greatest need, security, is becoming
> progressively harder to gain" (3) and which divides the world into
> the (4) "antagonistic groups that are already fighting over the
> world's dwindling resources. (5) "gigantic hoax that lies at the
> heart of all poverty and oppression" (6) "humans have lost touch with
> nature. "
>
>
> I feel I share most of these values with you... Yet you speak about
> these values as though they can be taken for granted. That we should
> all value the protection of peoples personal values. We value the
> comfort, safety, and health of all. We want to conserve dwindling
> resources so that our descendants will have lives as good or better
> than ours. We want to be authentic, recognizing truth. We want to
> preserve the beauty of nature. And we want to live in unity and
> without unnecessary strife.
>
> You find these values to be so self-evident, that instead of
> advocating for them, you simply protest against those who you wrongly
> think don't share them.

Sorry, I spend plenty of time advocating such things.

> If we were to make a list of all of these shared values, and bind
> them into a book, we might put a label on this book called "Secular
> moral principles". And we'll make another book called "Religious
> moral principles" and it will contain the exact same values.

Organized religion has no morals. It preaches good but acts with evil.
Religious nuts are too brain dead to realize how they are being conned.

> The only difference between these books is, one of them says "The
> name of God is Our-Father-in-Heaven" and another says "The name of
> God is Allah" and another one of them says "There is no God" and
> another says "The names of the Gods are Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu"
> and another says "Don't speak the name of G-d in vain."

THere is another fundamental difference. One is based on logic and fact
the other entirely on lies and fiction. There are no gods...never were...

> Certainly, there are other differences between religions besides the
> name(s) of their gods, but for the most part, they all promote the
> same common-good that the secular atheist religions promote.

There is no such thing as a secular atheist religion.

> Have a look here at an article about Secular Ethics.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
>
> You see that the Dalai Lama says "even as nonbelievers, we have the
> capacity to promote these things."

Buddhism is hardly a religion. ..more like a reasonable code of ethics.

> But this is a CAPACITY, not a GIVEN. Worshipers of money do not
> generally promote unity except in a hypocritical way. (If you can
> get everyone around you to behave as sheep, its easier for the wolf
> to take advantage)
>
> But when demonstrating that capacity to promote positive secular
> ethics, are you promoting fact: "is, does, and did", or are you
> promoting opinion: "should, should have, and shouldn't have".
>
> When you talk about the way we "should behave" and values we "should
> share" or virtually any sentence fragment containing the word
> "should" you are espousing a value or proseletyzing for a value that
> may or may not be shared by your audience.

Of course. There will always be differences of opinion. Humans form
opinions very early in life and they are hard to change. That's why
religions grab young kids as soon as they can so they can scare the
daylights out of them with stories of the terrible punishments they will
receive at the hands of the omniscient god thing.
How do you think a 4yo kid feels when his mother tells him he will burn
forever if he doesn't spend his whole life groveling to this infinitely
sadistic god thing?
You should know the answer because it obviously happened to you.

> To many secular people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as
> their beliefs hold them.
>
> Perhaps the secular "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are 'better',
> sometimes than the religious "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". But is it
> 90% of the time? 99% of the time? I don't know... But I don't think
> it's 100%. Unfortunately, we don't get to perform the experiment
> over and over again. There might be millions of other planets with
> intelligent life on them, but Earth only gets one chance to get
> things right.

Unfortunately, the basic evolutionary principle, survival of the
fittest, more or less guaranteed competition and war. Modern medicine
and MONEY have changed that principle somewhat to often imply "survival
of the richest, most devious or the most dishonest". People who would
never have lived to reproduce successfully are now openly encouraged to
do so.
To achieve a truly civilized society, evolution has to be completely
bypassed and replaced with the kind of genetic engineering that will
weed out the bad genes and maybe promote the good....but not in the ways
that Adolph Hitler tried to do it.

[Jonathan Doolin]

Ah.. I was thinking technology has allowed us to overpopulate the planet, much more than religion. But you're right.. Religion encourages "having lots of babies". Any value system that encourages having lots of babies will cause having lots of babies.


Some religions value "be fruitful and multiply" over personal rights. Capitalist systems sometimes value "career" over "family" which leads to a reduction in population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power.

> >> and in spite of the rise of science and social awareness, human
> >> and environmental problems are causing civilization to break down
> >> worldwide as all the symptoms of overcrowding become more and more
> >> apparent each day. Because of money, humans have lost touch with
> >> nature. Their lives are totally artificial and laws aimed at
> >> protecting money dominate over those relating to personal values.
> >
> > Are you saying that is a good thing, or a bad thing? You want laws
> > that protect money, or do you want laws that protect people and their
> > personal values?
>
> In regard to security, money has replaced 'physical territory'. Whilst
> once, humans had to defend their physical space, their main priority now
> is to protect their money.
> So whether we like it or not, money laws are as important as personal
> ones... because to lose ones money virtually means losing one's ability
> to survive...
>

Sure... That was why I made the analogy with blood. The liquidity of assets made possible by money, and the non-liquidity of assets caused by lack of money.

Laws that make it harder for people to get access to money are like clots that prevent blood from reaching parts of the body.

> >> Man's greatest need, security, is becoming progressively harder to
> >> gain and without money no individual has much hope of functioning
> >> successfully.
> >
> > Again, do you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing? You seem
> > to believe I know good from evil, but to know good from evil we would
> > have to acknowledge that these ideas are real.
> >
> > So if I said to you "possession is 9/10 of the law" would you say "it
> > should be higher" or "it should be lower"?
>
> There is no absolute right or wrong. Before humans became moderately
> civilized, virtually whatever was good for survival was regarded as
> acceptable. The same applies in the natural world today.
>
> Today, individual rights and freedom are important to everyone and laws
> are made for the purpose of preventing one persons freedom from
> interfering with another's. Often the laws are wrong and there is no
> satisfactory solution.
>

You say there is no absolute right or wrong, yet you say that pedophiles, con-artists, and drug dealers ought to be exterminated, as though this is self-evident.

There are absolutes, but these absolutes are directional rather than locational... You cannot BE absolute good, or BE absolute evil, but you can move in those directions. Doing what you "know" is wrong and in conflict with your own principles is wrong. Doing what you "know" is right, and in harmony with your own principles is right.

However, there may be inescapably evil positions, such as "Existential Self hatred." In this case, you might believe everything you know is true and feel is right is false, and hence you would consistently act against the best interest of yourself and everyone around you.

An absolute right direction is "Doing right things for the right reasons"

Then there are the grey areas, where we don't know how to do right without doing wrong... For instance, spanking a child to get him to stop hitting. Or where we commit to something we think is good, which turns out to be a horrible decision. Or when we make unnecessary sacrifices to achieve what we need. Or when we argue bitterly and it only leads to more misery and strife.

One might say these grey areas exist because there is no absolute good. I say these grey areas exist because we do not know the path to absolute good. We may still lack the knowledge or technology to get to the right place in the right way. But to give up on doing good because it has never been done before, is folly.

> >> It is quite obvious to all thinking people that acceptable living
> >> standards can never be achieved while organized religion is allowed
> >> to flourish. It is the gigantic hoax that lies at the heat of all
> >> poverty and oppression and which divides the world into the
> >> antagonistic groups that are already fighting over the world's
> >> dwindling resources.
> >
> > It's quite obvious to all thinking people that trying to stamp out
> > organized religion is rather like attacking a bees' nest. A lot of
> > those bees won't mind sacrificing themselves to protect their nest.
> > To many religious people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as
> > their beliefs hold them.
>
> I understand that. Taking away a person's religion would be like
> removing their whole culture. The only way to do it is through
> education....but I think it is too late. Homo sapiens will wipe itself
> out before that can happen.
>

Indeed, the only way to do it is through education. But part of education is that the teacher doesn't just say "wrong" but tries to understand exactly what mistake the student is making.

If you stand in front of a Christian and say "Everything you know is wrong... Here let me burn that book for you." it is not going to be terribly effective. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

> > What you're not noticing here are that you are being critical without
> > really standing up for anything. Some of the things you seem to
> > value:
> >
> > (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3) Unity (4)
> > Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of truth vs.
> > fiction (6) being in touch with nature.
>
> Yes, what is wrong with that. Property has to be protected too. ...but
> confidence tricksters who make fortunes selling seats in a non-existent
> after life should be quietly exterminated like drug dealers and
> pedophile priests.
>

You did not say "Yes, I take it for granted that we share these values." Instead you asked "Yes, What is wrong with that?"

Well, if you really share the same values, then the only argument is how to seek those values. If everyone agrees that comfort and safety, is a good thing, then whether two people agree on whether god exists is not a major consideration, unless the belief in god or not-god requires something inconsistent with comfort and safety of others.

As for "protecting property" it depends on how that is defined. From the perspective of the drug-dealer, the pedophile, or the trickster, "protecting property" means protecting their rights to own and sell goods, such as drugs, children, or false hopes. In that sense, I am against protecting property.

But if you explain how "property has to be protected" is consistent with > (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3) Unity (4)

Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of truth vs.
fiction (6) being in touch with nature.

I think that "protecting property" quickly comes into conflict with all six of those things, and property ownership should only be protected when such property ownership is not in conflict with a higher moral principle.

One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

Buddhism seeks enlightenment.

I guess it would be hard to pin secular atheism down with a singular pursuit or interest. It varies. Wealth, coolness, popularity, fame, truth, science, etc might be individual interests that people pursue...

I'll accept, because secular atheism doesn't have any ONE supremely important pursuit, I'll agree that it isn't a religon.

The paradox here, is that science actually is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." That interest is verifiable truth. Imagine that. Science is Religion.

> > But this is a CAPACITY, not a GIVEN. Worshipers of money do not
> > generally promote unity except in a hypocritical way. (If you can
> > get everyone around you to behave as sheep, its easier for the wolf
> > to take advantage)
> >
> > But when demonstrating that capacity to promote positive secular
> > ethics, are you promoting fact: "is, does, and did", or are you
> > promoting opinion: "should, should have, and shouldn't have".
> >
> > When you talk about the way we "should behave" and values we "should
> > share" or virtually any sentence fragment containing the word
> > "should" you are espousing a value or proseletyzing for a value that
> > may or may not be shared by your audience.
>
> Of course. There will always be differences of opinion. Humans form
> opinions very early in life and they are hard to change. That's why
> religions grab young kids as soon as they can so they can scare the
> daylights out of them with stories of the terrible punishments they will
> receive at the hands of the omniscient god thing.
> How do you think a 4yo kid feels when his mother tells him he will burn
> forever if he doesn't spend his whole life groveling to this infinitely
> sadistic god thing?
> You should know the answer because it obviously happened to you.
>

It was actually my grandmother, and I was about five, when she introduced me to Pascal's wager. (Of course my grandmother did not call this Pascal's wager.)

The idea is that we should grovel to this "infinitely sadistic god thing," and "If our faith is wrong, we are safe, but if our faith is right, then we are still safe."

I do agree that any religion which is based on Pascal's wager is a deeply flawed religion. Not just flawed. These people who base their beliefs on Pascal's wager are actually literally worshiping a totally cynical idea of God, and calling it faith.

> > To many secular people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as
> > their beliefs hold them.
> >
> > Perhaps the secular "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are 'better',
> > sometimes than the religious "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". But is it
> > 90% of the time? 99% of the time? I don't know... But I don't think
> > it's 100%. Unfortunately, we don't get to perform the experiment
> > over and over again. There might be millions of other planets with
> > intelligent life on them, but Earth only gets one chance to get
> > things right.
>
> Unfortunately, the basic evolutionary principle, survival of the
> fittest, more or less guaranteed competition and war. Modern medicine
> and MONEY have changed that principle somewhat to often imply "survival
> of the richest, most devious or the most dishonest". People who would
> never have lived to reproduce successfully are now openly encouraged to
> do so.
> To achieve a truly civilized society, evolution has to be completely
> bypassed and replaced with the kind of genetic engineering that will
> weed out the bad genes and maybe promote the good....but not in the ways
> that Adolph Hitler tried to do it.

This is an awkward subject. You have already criticized religious organizations for encouraging their people to have lots of babies. Do you think it is WRONG, then, for humanity to attempt to influence humanity's future genetics, or do you think it is RIGHT?

For instance, I think it might be nice if people's IQ's averaged higher than 100. It would also be good if people were not cruel to each other. But which is more important, intelligence or kindness? I would prefer our descendants to be both intelligent and kind.

We have already used technology to influence humanity's genetics. Vast numbers of people have lived because of technology. Many people have died because of human technology... but we've never DECIDED collectively to use technology to influence humanity's genetics,

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 03/10/16 03:54, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc.
> wrote:

>>
>> Then you know very little about the world. Why do you think both
>> the pope and the muslims force their female to produce many
>> children? A) because they are trying to outbreed each other. If
>> birth control is encouraged, as it obviously should be, the numbers
>> will drop and the other one will dominate. It is stated muslim
>> policy to get a foothold in a country then outbreed the locals so
>> they can take over. The catholics have been doing it for years,
>> like they are in Mexico right now (ask Donald Trump). Breed like
>> Drosophila then export the surplus. Ireland and Italy did the same
>> for hundreds of years.
>>
>
> Ah.. I was thinking technology has allowed us to overpopulate the
> planet, much more than religion. But you're right.. Religion
> encourages "having lots of babies". Any value system that encourages
> having lots of babies will cause having lots of babies.

> Some religions value "be fruitful and multiply" over personal rights.
> Capitalist systems sometimes value "career" over "family" which leads
> to a reduction in population.

Capitalism and most autocracies have always relied on religion to subdue
the masses. Convincing them the bad people will 'rot in hell' has
probably prevented many a revolution.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics A major criticism of eugenics
> policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive"
> policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria
> of selection are determined by whichever group is in political
> power.

Correct...but we know enough now to at least rid the world of many
genetic defects. That is already happening. No kid should be born
deformed or handicapped in any way... A wide range of people should be
prevented or discouraged from having children that would carry
deleterious genes.

>>
>> There is no absolute right or wrong. Before humans became
>> moderately civilized, virtually whatever was good for survival was
>> regarded as acceptable. The same applies in the natural world
>> today.
>>
>> Today, individual rights and freedom are important to everyone and
>> laws are made for the purpose of preventing one persons freedom
>> from interfering with another's. Often the laws are wrong and there
>> is no satisfactory solution.
>>
>
> You say there is no absolute right or wrong, yet you say that
> pedophiles, con-artists, and drug dealers ought to be exterminated,
> as though this is self-evident.

It is in our current society. There might be other animal kingdoms where
such behavior is of benefit overall. For instance there are spiders that
eat their own mothers...and it benefits them. I don't think humans would
recommend that kind of thing.

> There are absolutes, but these absolutes are directional rather than
> locational... You cannot BE absolute good, or BE absolute evil, but
> you can move in those directions. Doing what you "know" is wrong and
> in conflict with your own principles is wrong. Doing what you "know"
> is right, and in harmony with your own principles is right.

there are certain basic rules that are relevant to every society.

> However, there may be inescapably evil positions, such as
> "Existential Self hatred." In this case, you might believe
> everything you know is true and feel is right is false, and hence you
> would consistently act against the best interest of yourself and
> everyone around you.
>
> An absolute right direction is "Doing right things for the right
> reasons"

For many it takes a lifetime to learn those reasons.

> Then there are the grey areas, where we don't know how to do right
> without doing wrong... For instance, spanking a child to get him to
> stop hitting. Or where we commit to something we think is good,
> which turns out to be a horrible decision. Or when we make
> unnecessary sacrifices to achieve what we need. Or when we argue
> bitterly and it only leads to more misery and strife.

What is not widely accepted is that our genes are largely responsible
for our basic motivations and priorities. That's why we are all so
different. it si also why worker ants and drone bees are all the same.
They are cloned. One day humans might be similarly cloned...who knows?

> One might say these grey areas exist because there is no absolute
> good. I say these grey areas exist because we do not know the path
> to absolute good. We may still lack the knowledge or technology to
> get to the right place in the right way. But to give up on doing
> good because it has never been done before, is folly.

If one doesn't do anything bad, one should be able to feel perfectly
satisfied. Many people do 'good', ie., charitable acts, for their own
long term glorification and benefit.
Even drug riddled bikie gangs go round collecting money for kid's cancer
so the police wont be able to touch them. 'Never trust a charity
worker', is something I have learnt....not that they are all bad...there
are plenty of genuine ones.

>> I understand that. Taking away a person's religion would be like
>> removing their whole culture. The only way to do it is through
>> education....but I think it is too late. Homo sapiens will wipe
>> itself out before that can happen.
>>
>
> Indeed, the only way to do it is through education. But part of
> education is that the teacher doesn't just say "wrong" but tries to
> understand exactly what mistake the student is making.
>
> If you stand in front of a Christian and say "Everything you know is
> wrong... Here let me burn that book for you." it is not going to be
> terribly effective. It's like throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater.

There is a fine line between education and indoctrination...
The difference is the same as between scientific method and religious faith.

>> Yes, what is wrong with that. Property has to be protected too.
>> ...but confidence tricksters who make fortunes selling seats in a
>> non-existent after life should be quietly exterminated like drug
>> dealers and pedophile priests.
>>
>
> You did not say "Yes, I take it for granted that we share these
> values." Instead you asked "Yes, What is wrong with that?"
>
> Well, if you really share the same values, then the only argument is
> how to seek those values. If everyone agrees that comfort and
> safety, is a good thing, then whether two people agree on whether god
> exists is not a major consideration, unless the belief in god or
> not-god requires something inconsistent with comfort and safety of
> others.

The belief that some kind of non-existent god thing is maintaining the
Earth's environment is the main cause of the environmental disaster that
is going to wipe out homo sapiens and justa baout eb=very other life
form very soon.

Catholics in particular are well known as the enemy of green movements.

Whether it is right or wrong it is bound to happen out of sheer
necessity. There will be a lot more Donald Trumps appearing in the
future, I'm sure.

> For instance, I think it might be nice if people's IQ's averaged
> higher than 100. It would also be good if people were not cruel to
> each other. But which is more important, intelligence or kindness?
> I would prefer our descendants to be both intelligent and kind.

No, that is not the right approach. We need a full range of IQ's except
the seriously handicapped. IQ is not a real factor any more anyway.
There are hundreds of different categories of ability and humanity needs
specialists right across the board.

> We have already used technology to influence humanity's genetics.
> Vast numbers of people have lived because of technology. Many people
> have died because of human technology... but we've never DECIDED
> collectively to use technology to influence humanity's genetics,

I don't have time to answer long messages any more. I have nearly
finished a book about life that will answer your questions.

[Jonathan Doolin]

Okay

> > If you stand in front of a Christian and say "Everything you know is
> > wrong... Here let me burn that book for you." it is not going to be
> > terribly effective. It's like throwing the baby out with the
> > bathwater.
>
> There is a fine line between education and indoctrination...

I think there are a list of things that really do need to be "indoctrinated"
(1) you shouldn't use violence or shouting to get your way.
(2) Words have actual meaning.
(3) Intelligence is malleable

> The difference is the same as between scientific method and religious faith.
>
>

I probably don't disagree with you in content. By your definition of religious faith--people use indoctrination to convince people of falsehoods and call it religious faith. I don't want to ignore the fact that people have, through history done this, quite a lot. (Goofus uses indoctrination to convince people of falsehoods and calls it religious faith.)

But is this what faith really is? Is it what religion really is? Or is it a corruption of language by a few bad apples? (I think it is the corruption of one bad apple--the author of John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelations... and everyone who has not recognized the falseness therein)

One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." The scientific method is a pursuit which ascribes supreme importance to verifiable truth. So in that sense, science is a religion. A person following the scientific method is motivated by a spirit of truth.

If faith is the opposite of reason then it is incompatible with the scientific method. A person motivated by faith in opposition to reason is motivated by a spirit of falsehood.

But if faith is the opposite of cynicism, then it is still compatible with the scientific method. I guess perhaps the best modern description of non-cynical approach is "win-win". The expectation that an undiscovered "win-win" solution should exist in any particular circumstance is faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:1. You might not see the win-win scenario, but you have confidence that it is there.

So... it just occurred to me that the "Sign of God" and "Golden Rule" might be parsed as follows.

Love God with all your heart (commitment to life - love), all your mind (truth and scientific method - spirit of truth), all your strength (confidence in what you hope for - faith), and all your soul (identity- holy spirit). Second, treat others as you would have them treat you--because if you are NOT committed to life, don't believe in truth, don't have any hope, and/or don't respect individual identity, it hardly matters if you treat others as you would have them treat you.

Is this education or indoctrination? Am I forcing you to believe as I do, or am I saying "I believe this is a better belief."

The spirit of truth (the scientific method) compels you to look closely at the first and second word... "Love God." That's perfectly appropriate to do so, because the existence of God is not a verifiable truth, and Love is not an empirically measurable quantity.

But the WAYS in which you are asked to love God put restrictions on the nature of God.

For instance, the God of Pascal's wager is infinitely sadistic, and nobody could possibly love it with any one of their heart, mind, soul, or strength, let alone all four simultaneously.

If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is probably not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God. The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that CAN be loved in this way, by everyone.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:00:58 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is probably
> not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.

exactly.

> The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet
> undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that CAN be
> loved in this way, by everyone.

Or perhaps secular scientists are right that the "Cosmic All" is insensate
and chaotic, but God is a part of the CA and is trying (has succeeded?) in
bringing order out of chaos. Have you considered that even in our Milky
Way neighborhood, we are just new kids on the block? The MW is about 9
billion years old and our planetary system has only been around half that
time (and there's a red dwarf star only 150 light-years away that is nearly
as old as the universe itself. Thus it is not at all inconceivable that
civilizations billions of years older than ours exist within the MW, and
maybe not so far away.

What would be the technology, ethics and morality of such a civilization?
Would they stoop to helping people like us on a backward planet? Might
we even be their cousins, or even offspring? Sounds a lot like God, does
it not?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 04/10/16 00:00, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

>
> If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is
> probably not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.
> The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet
> undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that
> CAN be loved in this way, by everyone.

It is already defined and called Mother Nature and the Principle of
Evolution.

[Jonathan Doolin]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:42:17 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> What would be the technology, ethics and morality of such a civilization?
> Would they stoop to helping people like us on a backward planet? Might
> we even be their cousins, or even offspring? Sounds a lot like God, does
> it not?

Hmmm.


On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:32:34 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> On 04/10/16 00:00, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> >
> > If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is
> > probably not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.

> > The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet
> > undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that
> > CAN be loved in this way, by everyone.
>

> It is already defined and called Mother Nature and the Principle of
> Evolution.

Hmmm.

You say aliens are God... or the principle of evolution is God... I might go so far as to say, in some sense, these are "Lords" but I wouldn't go so far as to say "God". One can't willingly disobey the principle of evolution, and perhaps, if aliens decided to come take over the earth, one might be compelled to obey aliens.

But I don't worship either of these things as God.

I'm reminded of Deuteronomy 13:1-5

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+13%3A1-5&version=NIV

This says that even though prophets, dreamers--perhaps scientists as well--can show signs and wonders, if they say to worship other Gods, they ought to be put to death.

To soften this sentiment, Jesus offers the parable of the weeds in Matt 13:24-29

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-29&version=NIV

It points out that we don't necessarily have the ability to distinguish between weeds and wheat, and we ought to try to live together... perhaps we can even get each other to grow heads.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 04/10/16 01:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was
a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the
action is".

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:34:39 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> "I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was
> a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the
> action is".

Raunchie-boy just gets raunchier with every post. How can anyone accept
his DirtyBaThWater when he behaves this way?

And all I was doing was engendering a philosophical discussion about God.
Atheists seem to be so full of hate.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

religion is the cloak of the con-artist.
>

[Gary Harnagel]

Just more hateful rhetoric, but what can you expect from someone who
swims in DirtyBaThWater?

[Jonathan Doolin]

Falwell v. Flynt

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/falwell/trialaccount.html