Religion, Atheism and Mental Illness
Shuggy
children ostensibly because God told her to do it. This opens an
important issue-- one in which I think we atheists are progressive
enough to take the lead.
First, I want to state up front that I am an atheist; make no mistake
about that.
But I don't think being a fundamentalist Christian makes people murder
their children. These women who murdered their children were mentally
ill, and anyone can be mentally ill. Atheists can be mentally ill.
I know a few about whom I have questions... Mental illness is an
entirely separate issue from religious issues.
And just because mental illness was not diagnosed in the past does not
mean it was never there. It is possible for bouts of irrational
thinking and behavior to come on suddenly. It is possible that the
mental illness was there all along, but just never diagnosed. Then
something triggered an extreme episode recently.
It is very possible that a misguided mentally ill person would turn to
religion for some much-needed help. I suspect this the main reason we
have heard about several supposedly religious women who perform
murders.
But here's where I think we, as progressive thinkers, can make a big
difference:
I think it is wrong and dangerous to interconnect religion and mental
health issues in any way because doing so can encourage people who
need clinical help to remain in religions that cannot help them and
cause them to miss out on clinical help that would really do something
for them.
If religious issues and mental health issues had been kept as separate
issues for these women who murdered their children, they might have
sought clinical help instead of religion, and their children might be
alive today.
So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
I think keeping mental health issues and religious issues separate can
start right here, right now.
Shuggy
Robert Rice
"Shuggy" <jil...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cb98d700.03051...@posting.google.com...
I'm sorry Shuggy, In my own philosophical and psychological thinking, mental
and spiritual growth are almost one and the same thing.
Problem is, most people can't navigate through the duality, or just have a
simple faith or non-faith, whatever that is. I don't really understand what
that means yet.
My own theory of mental illness, is that while they ARE chemical imbalances,
these brain states originated as a result of sin. That's right, sin, on the
part of the parents, who were on the receiving end of it from their parents
and so on and so forth. Other types of mental breakdown are as a result of
the stresses of societal expectations, and the vast majority are in my
opinion the result of what are fundamentally sensitive people, unable to
cope with and reconcile themselves to the more hypocrisy of the world in
which they live, both from a familial and from a societal perspective. Once
again, however the culprit is not the person themselves, but the sin in the
world, in their family, perpetrated upon them. Sin basically being the
misuse and abuse of POWER, political power in every shape and form.
Therefore, the solution to the problem is decidedly of both a psychological
AND of a certain theological nature, through the application of authentic
love.
In my experience and from what I've seen in working with mentally ill and
addicted people, there is much hope in an authentic theological belief
system no matter how simple, or how small the start.
If they believe in a power greater than themselves, and if they believe, and
experience that power as love, then much progress can be made to having a
transformative experience rooted in a radical forgiveness.
However, mix this political power and abuse in an inappropriate way with
religion particularly of the more fundamentalist variety, and the tendency
to fall within the duality of an enhanced perception of forces of good and
evil, can definitely lead to breakdown.
So it's a strange paradox really, the whole concept of religion and mental
illness.
I think that mental illness, in terms of it's symptoms, is a manifestation
of the grace of God actually.
I once had a breakdown, or a crackup if you will, twice in my life for three
weeks each time, and in retrospect it was the best thing that ever happened
to me, and the experience served to strengthen my faith in God, and my
understanding of His will for me in my life.
Alex
>So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
>fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
I'm quick to agree but my own experience (with religion and mental
illness) points in the opposite direction. My mother suffered from a
form of dementia and her religious leanings shone right through. She
thought, among other things, that she was going to have a part to play
in the end of the world (Mary part II) and that Satan's forces were
conspiring to kill her.
So if evidence was to come out tomorrow, linking religion with failure
to recognize psychological problems in oneself - it wouldn't surprise
me one bit. I'm hesitant to say I believe that without the evidence.
Alex
atheist #2007
Robibnikoff
snippage
>My own theory of mental illness, is that while they ARE chemical imbalances,
>these brain states originated as a result of sin. That's right, sin, on the
>part of the parents, who were on the receiving end of it from their parents
>and so on and so forth.
Which parents? Biological? Adoptive? Step? If I became mentally ill, should I
blame my biological parents or my adoptive? If my husband becomes mentally ill,
should he blame his mother or his step-father?
snippage
>
>I think that mental illness, in terms of it's symptoms, is a manifestation
>of the grace of God actually.
So, when that guy went crazy on campus at the University of Florida 20 years ago
and believed he was a vampire and started biting people in the neck, that was a
manifestation of your god's grace? Do you actually believe that in the recent
case of that woman bashing her kids' heads in?
Now, THAT'S sick.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
J Forbes
> "Shuggy" <jil...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:cb98d700.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
>>So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
>>fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
>>
>>I think keeping mental health issues and religious issues separate can
>>start right here, right now.
>>
>>Shuggy
> In my experience and from what I've seen in working with mentally ill and
> addicted people, there is much hope in an authentic theological belief
> system no matter how simple, or how small the start.
>
> If they believe in a power greater than themselves, and if they believe, and
> experience that power as love, then much progress can be made to having a
> transformative experience rooted in a radical forgiveness.
So, we've had input from aa and AA :)
I agree with Shuggy that mental health issues affect religious and
non-religious people, and that "getting religion" or consulting a
religious service provider is not necessarily an effective treatment for
mental illness.
I also agree with Robert that *belief* in a "power greater than
themselves" might help some people in certain situations. The fact that
the power is just a figment of the imagination doesn't seem to prevent
the healing processes. But the real cure is forgiving ones self (as
Robert said)....the religious aspects are window dressing, as far as I
can tell.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
stillsunny
Hi, Shuggy.
I tend to agree with you, in general. Insanity of all sorts isn't
limited to religious manifestations. This lady thought devils were
talking to her; Andrea Yates thought God was talking to her; and the
Son of Sam thought a dog was talking to him. Religion may indeed
provide the framework to categorize voices or impulses, but it's not a
prerequisite.
That said, I'd like to draw a parallel to the recent Catholic priest
abuse scandals.
Statistically, according to one priest who's been documenting this
stuff for years before the scandals broke, the priesthood has a far
higher proportion of homosexuals and pedophiles (not the same, okay?)
than the overall population.
Why?
Well, I don't know, but I'd suggest there are several factors. Given
a child raised in a faith which absolutely condemns homosexuality, and
even thoughts associated with it, as evil; and given a constantly
reinforced message of punishment for these sorts of tendencies, it's
not difficult to speculate that some of these young men grow up with
fear, conscious or unconscious, regarding their own impulses. I
imagine that, for at least some, the rule regarding chastity in the
priesthood seems like salvation. They do not have to come to terms
with their own sexual natures. Instead, they are encouraged to
suppress all thoughts in that vein. I don't think it's different with
pedophiles, though I can also speculate that _some_ pedophiles may
enter the priesthood specifically for the access to children that the
veneer of respectability of the priesthood offers.
Combine a rigorously repressive approach to strong human inclinations
with the power associated with being God's personal representative on
earth, the priority given the body of the church itself over the
individual problems of its parishoners, the notion that confession
means absolution (rendering further punishment unnecessary), the aura
of secrecy, and it's no wonder there are problems.
Did you know that the second highest indicator of child abuse in the
home, after alcohol abuse, is hyper-religiosity?
To haul this back to your comment, I don't think insanity is the
exclusive domain of the fervently religious. However, I would
cautiously suggest that some of the messages *in* that religion may
not help. Poor Andrea Yates suffered what was obviously extreme
depression, but was given a consistently reinforced message that a
good Christian mother kept having babies, and home schooled them, and
didn't complain, and that God would take care of things. There is no
room for weakness, when that weakness is perceived as unGodly, and
that which is ungodly is "of the devil." Further, if you are already
predisposed to think that voices no one else can hear are the norm,
then you are not quite so likely to seek help if you hear them, and
may well be more inclined to do as they say.
I don't think religion *causes* insanity, all by itself.
I do think it's possible some features of it attract the insane, as it
gives them the means to make sense of their particular psychosis, and
make it normal. And to be frank, I think it's very likely that some
of the behaviors exhibited to and expected from the very young can,
indeed, cause certain neuroses which may well slip into full fledged
psychosis.
Religion, for most, is simply a means to explore one's own morality
and place in the world. It works, for most, because the power of its
symbols touch places deep in the human psyche. For some, however, it
seems a vehicle which only feeds whatever else may be happening
internally.
Sunny
Wayne Aiken
: But I don't think being a fundamentalist Christian makes people murder
: their children. These women who murdered their children were mentally
: ill, and anyone can be mentally ill. Atheists can be mentally ill.
: I know a few about whom I have questions... Mental illness is an
: entirely separate issue from religious issues.
I have to disagree here. I'd wager that there are quite a few mentally
ill people walking around out there who don't get the help they need
because their illness manifests itself as devout religious behavior.
If you claim that UFOs are beaming messages into your head, people will
rightly think that you're crazy. If you say that angels speak to you,
you can turn that into a lucrative career.
Religion per se might not be a mental illness, but its a really good
simulation of it, and as we've seen, a convenient cover for the real thing.
----------
Wayne Aiken (#304) / NC Director \ Getting AANEWS? Send msg to:
PO Box 30904 / American Atheists \ <AANE...@atheists.org> to
Raleigh, NC 27622 / wai...@atheists.org \ start your Free subscription
(919) 954-5956 / http://www.atheists.org /nc/ AIM: slackx42
Mike Ruskai
>There have been several posts about the Christian woman who killed her
>children ostensibly because God told her to do it. This opens an
>important issue-- one in which I think we atheists are progressive
>enough to take the lead.
>
>First, I want to state up front that I am an atheist; make no mistake
>about that.
>
>But I don't think being a fundamentalist Christian makes people murder
>their children. These women who murdered their children were mentally
>ill, and anyone can be mentally ill. Atheists can be mentally ill.
>I know a few about whom I have questions... Mental illness is an
>entirely separate issue from religious issues.
[snip]
>So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
>fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
>
>I think keeping mental health issues and religious issues separate can
>start right here, right now.
I didn't see anyone saying she murdered her children because she's a
fundy.
The important point is that she's a fundy, and she murdered her children.
That doesn't demonstrate the tendency of fundamentalists to murder people,
but it does disprove the notion that religion prevents murder.
In other words, morality does not derive from Christianity, as all fundies
would have you believe. The case of a fundamental Christian who
demonstrates a distinct lack of morals simply demonstrates the falsity of
such a claim.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
DR
"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
news:PTlwa.2051$I83.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> In my experience and from what I've seen in working with mentally ill and
> addicted people, there is much hope in an authentic theological belief
> system no matter how simple, or how small the start.
>
> If they believe in a power greater than themselves, and if they believe,
and
> experience that power as love, then much progress can be made to having a
> transformative experience rooted in a radical forgiveness.
Oh sure. Proselytize to people who are down on their luck already. Makes
'em more susceptible I guess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I think that mental illness, in terms of it's symptoms, is a manifestation
> of the grace of God actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can I nominate this bit for the TQOTM?
DR
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
>news:PTlwa.2051$I83.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> I think that mental illness, in terms of it's symptoms, is a manifestation
>> of the grace of God actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Can I nominate this bit for the TQOTM?
It's sure stupid enough.
---
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Andrew Lias
> First, I want to state up front that I am an atheist; make no mistake
> about that.
It's a bit of a shame that you have to preface such a thoughtful and
intelligent post with this, but I do know that we have our share of
knee-jerkers who will automatically assume that any post that doesn't
bash religion must be from a theist. I've had that accusation thrown
at me a number of times.
> But I don't think being a fundamentalist Christian makes people murder
> their children. These women who murdered their children were mentally
> ill, and anyone can be mentally ill. Atheists can be mentally ill.
> I know a few about whom I have questions... Mental illness is an
> entirely separate issue from religious issues.
[...]
You raise a lot of good questions. Ultimately, it boils down to that
old conundrum of causation and correlation.
One of my own brothers suffers from profound schizophrenia and it has
often manifested itself in terms of religious expression, but, in his
case, I think that his illness simply tends to latch upon potent
symbols (he's also had delusions regarding the CIA, Hitler, etc), and
I think that religious symbology simply fits the bill.
Overall, I think that the evidence has been pointing towards the
conclusion that profound mental illness is largely biological (whether
genetic or natal). As such, I think that it's very likely that
religion is simply a tertiary manifestation of illness in most of
those cases.
That said, I do suspect that religion (specifically, specific types of
religion, especially the fundamentalist strains) can have a very
detrimental effect on people who are suffering from borderline
illnesses. As an obvious example, if one is experiencing voices, but
is otherwise rational, having a trusted preached tell you that you are
experiencing demonic possession could, I think, flip you over the edge
into a full blown dulusionary fantasy.
I think that reasearch into repressed memory therapy has demonstrated
that people who are almost entirely sane may never the less be
suggestable when in the care of trusted authority figures and that
they may be led into a delusional state even without being
specifically prone to such states, which, again, suggests that there
are certain strains of religion that may lead otherwise sane
individuals down the path to insanity.
Finally, I don't think that it's possible to underestimate the effects
of mass belief on individuals. Take snake handlers, for instance. I
doubt that most people who participate in that sect are *clinically*
insane, but they, never the less, are engaging in a profoundly
irrational activity because their religion, and their religious
community, has deemed it to be a sacrament. Indeed, when it comes to
manifestations of mass delusion, it is difficult to find a more
frequent culprit than religion.
--
Andrew Lias
Robibnikoff
As much as it absolutely galls me as my father is mentally ill, g'head. I'll
second it ;P
santa
"Andrew Lias" <anrw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d60aaf8.03051...@posting.google.com...
: jil...@prodigy.net (Shuggy) wrote in message
You're missing the point. In USA the land chosen by god all people are
perfect as are all god's creations such as tornadoes, floods etc. and thus
there are no mentally ill or insane or emotionally handicapped people. There
are only good guys and criminals. Criminals must surely be good god
creations who have been seduced by Satan. I'm sure spending 10 million then
murdering the unfortunate woman in the name of the state will square it up
with god.
claus
Robert Rice
"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:F8Owa.4907$95....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <Bgywa.14486$NC4....@news1.mts.net>, DR says...
> >
> >
> >"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
> >news:PTlwa.2051$I83.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> In my experience and from what I've seen in working with mentally ill
and
> >> addicted people, there is much hope in an authentic theological belief
> >> system no matter how simple, or how small the start.
> >>
> >> If they believe in a power greater than themselves, and if they
believe,
> >and
> >> experience that power as love, then much progress can be made to having
a
> >> transformative experience rooted in a radical forgiveness.
> >
> >Oh sure. Proselytize to people who are down on their luck already.
Makes
> >'em more susceptible I guess.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> I think that mental illness, in terms of it's symptoms, is a
manifestation
> >> of the grace of God actually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >Can I nominate this bit for the TQOTM?
What I mean by that statement is that it is the symptoms are what tells the
person that there is something wrong.
Neurosis is always the substitute for legitamet suffering. ~ Jung.
Now if reality as it is, can speak through the symptoms to the fact that the
mentally ill person is not based in reality, or is not, as I like to say
operating in congruent allignment with it, then that would imply, by
extension that there is such a thing as an objective reality to which we are
all of us in relation TO.
To the extent that our maps are not in perfect congruent allignment with
reality as it is, then we are all of us, to some extent, metally ill, to a
greater or lessor degree.
Get it? Do you grok?
So it is from that perspective that I say that symptoms of mental illness
are an outcropping, kinda from a negative perspective of the grace of God,
which is the love that implores us to learn and to grow and to become
better, and healthier in the manner in which we relate to the world around
us, and to the nature of reality and truth, as it is in its full objective
perfect conscious awareness.
Thus what we are looking at is a type of rising equillibrium of love leading
us to increasing levels of conscious awareness, or to pscyhological and
spiritual growth and well being.
Robert Rice
To be is to be percieved.
Perhaps the schitzoid personality is merely trying to invent their own truth
to explain this fundamental and paradoxical mystery, and then what happens
is that they invariably get lost or fall within the fundamental duality of
it.
I think that most mentally ill people are merely intelligent and perhaps
more sensitive individuals who have been hurt by the reality in which they
find themselves emersed, and unable to reconcile it, or in finding it too
painful, they come up with any number of falacious ideas, substituting
neurosis or psychosis for a life lived on life's own terms.
As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with God as the
very height of reality, is IMO, the more curagious path, to increasing and
authentic psychological and spiritual growth, putting aside, of course
mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Sure there's no way around the fact that masks must be placed upon objective
truth, but to think that you've removed the mask by saying that there is no
God, is well, to try to escape the mytery of life, without assigning any
value upon it, and I would say that ultimately, to refrain from a final
judgement is impossible, if you haven't merely thrust your head in the sand.
Robibnikoff
snippage
>As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
>really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
>outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
Two questions:
Why do you care about the reasons why people are atheists (we're all born that
way); and
Why should we care what you have to say on the subject?
juliekale
"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
news:eqQwa.4546$I83.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
> I think that most mentally ill people are merely intelligent and perhaps
> more sensitive individuals who have been hurt by the reality in which they
> find themselves emersed, and unable to reconcile it, or in finding it too
> painful, they come up with any number of falacious ideas, substituting
> neurosis or psychosis for a life lived on life's own terms.
Gotta know...have you ever been mentally ill?
> As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
> really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
> outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
Not really. It's merely a position based on lack of evidence. It is one of
the most ego-less positions you can take.
There are plenty of things that are greater than me, and I really don't
understand any of them to any great degree. There is the whole of humanity,
the vastness of the universe, and the workings of everything around me.
These things are the totality of life, and the individual is nothing but a
raindrop. Nobody really understands these things, and everybody asks the
same questions, as "where did it all begin?" ect.
The difference between myself and the theist is that I am not willing to
name my ignorance by calling it god. It's okay by me to simply just admit
that there are some things humanity just isn't going to figure out in my
lifetime.
> Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with God as
the
> very height of reality, is IMO, the more curagious path, to increasing and
> authentic psychological and spiritual growth, putting aside, of course
> mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Not really. You are reaching for something that may not even be there.
Every theist creates "god" and makes "god" into whatever they want it to be,
as evidenced by all the various faiths that exist in the world today. So
striving for a relationship with something basically made up to suit your
own needs, is in MY opinion, really kind of nutty...
> Sure there's no way around the fact that masks must be placed upon
objective
> truth, but to think that you've removed the mask by saying that there is
no
> God, is well, to try to escape the mytery of life, without assigning any
> value upon it, and I would say that ultimately, to refrain from a final
> judgement is impossible, if you haven't merely thrust your head in the
sand.
We are all agnostics in the end. But really, based on the complete lack of
evidence, I think it's pretty safe to stick with atheism.
--
From alt.atheism only....Julie Kale (aa#1029)
http://www.geocities.com/juliekale - poetry, ect.
http://www.mp3.com/juliekale - music
DR
> What I mean by that statement is that it is the symptoms are what tells
the
> person that there is something wrong.
Generally, yeah.
> Neurosis is always the substitute for legitamet suffering. ~ Jung.
Perhaps, I would disagree with that. What about psychotic or schizophrenic
reactions?
> Now if reality as it is, can speak through the symptoms to the fact that
the
> mentally ill person is not based in reality, or is not, as I like to say
> operating in congruent allignment with it, then that would imply, by
> extension that there is such a thing as an objective reality to which we
are
> all of us in relation TO.
Let me rephrase your paragraph here:
"If reality shows through the symptoms, to illustrate a person's thoughts
aren't based in reality, then there is an objective reality of which we are
a part."
That's logically nonsense.
> To the extent that our maps are not in perfect congruent allignment with
> reality as it is, then we are all of us, to some extent, metally ill, to a
> greater or lessor degree.
Assuming one defines mental illness as: 'having a mental construct of
reality that is not perfect', then I guess I'd have to agree. I don't
define mental illness that way myself.
> Get it? Do you grok?
I get what you are saying, but I think it's rubbish.
> So it is from that perspective that I say that symptoms of mental illness
> are an outcropping, kinda from a negative perspective of the grace of God,
> which is the love that implores us to learn and to grow and to become
> better, and healthier in the manner in which we relate to the world around
> us, and to the nature of reality and truth, as it is in its full objective
> perfect conscious awareness.
Until you are satisfactorily able to prove the existence of a god, I see
little point in discussing the nuances of humanity as they relate to god.
If you wish to do that, the best method would be to thoroughly define all
your terms (God, existence, acausal, universe, etc), then put forward your
premises (which will only lead to a convincing argument if your audience
agrees with them). From there, you logically develop statements toward your
conclusion, based on these premises.
It's a fools errand, AFAIC, but you are welcome to try.
> Thus what we are looking at is a type of rising equillibrium of love
leading
> us to increasing levels of conscious awareness, or to pscyhological and
> spiritual growth and well being.
Uh oh. "rising equil[l]ibrium of love"? Remember, concise language is our
friend.
DR
aa #2137
Mike Painter
>
><snip>
>
> As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
> really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
> outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
>
> Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with God as
the
> very height of reality, is IMO, the more curagious path, to increasing and
> authentic psychological and spiritual growth, putting aside, of course
> mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
>
> Sure there's no way around the fact that masks must be placed upon
objective
> truth, but to think that you've removed the mask by saying that there is
no
> God, is well, to try to escape the mytery of life, without assigning any
> value upon it, and I would say that ultimately, to refrain from a final
> judgement is impossible, if you haven't merely thrust your head in the
sand.
Provide objective truth of a god and we'll talk.
Robert Rice
> In article <eqQwa.4546$I83.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Robert Rice
says...
> snippage
>
> >As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
> >really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
> >outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
>
> Two questions:
>
> Why do you care about the reasons why people are atheists (we're all born
that
> way); and
Because Christianty has gotten a bad name, and I want to set the record
straight or straighter. Contempt prior to uinvestigation, and/or negative
and prejudiced bias, based on perhaps a bad experience in childhood is why
most atheists seem to abhor religion in general and specifically
Christianity. There ARE other way of looking at it, which are not at all
incongruent with deep and fundamental principals or truths but which can,
contrary to popular opinion actually demonstrate them, and render them large
on the canvass of life. When Jesus referred to Himself as the light of life,
He wasn't speaking from only a metaphorical perspective, but was speaking
the truth, that he had walked straight out of the darkness which imprisons
us, and which ultimately leads to various forms of delusion and even
dementia. That moral quagmire of the causality of sin which I've been
attempting, obviously in vain, to describe.
>
> Why should we care what you have to say on the subject?
You are astute observers, for the most part, or at least that's what I think
most of you pride yourselves on. Though I may be verbose, and do not always
properly clarify terms, I am sure that you are capable of reading between
the lines and deciding for yourself whether or not what I have to say has
any meaning, or any inherent value at all. I know it does, and I think that
you can acknowledge that at least some of what I am trying to drive at in
fact does "ring a bell" so to speak.
If everyone went on personal opinions alone, then we would have no
"corporate" culture.
I would even go so far, and be so bold as to suggest that the principals
illuminated in the teaching, character, and in the death of Christ, point to
a certain Universal Principal of Civil Liberty which, properly interpreted,
even in the light of modern science, can point a sturdy finger in the
direction of a truly authentic individual freedom, within the framework of a
civilized society.
In fact, I would go even further to suggest that within the overall larger
framework of not only a civilized society, but in terms of a collective,
just, and noble historical pursuit, which might offer the hope to one day
pave the way by which society might begin to transcend the moral hypocrisy
and fundamental moral contradiction and paradox of the "dialectic" of good
vs. evil (hang in there with me and ignore shitty sentence structure please)
- that the ONLY authentic individual freedom which can be effectively
demonstrated, both philosophically and psychologically, thereby forming the
basic underpinnings or cornerstone of our entire civilization IS the very
principal of Civil Liberty for which Christ gave his own life, and went to
great length, out of love, to describe, though he did so much better than I,
who am but a follower of his teachings.
Aside from your obvious and I would have to say somewhat justified revulsion
toward organized religion, I think what many of you fail to recognize is
that what I am trying to describe, in my own verbose way, is that the very
cornerstone on which our whole civilization is founded, and which serves as
the steps or the ladder from which we strive toward progress, both
spiritually and psychologically IS made up of, among other more minor
details, this very same transcendent principal of Civil Liberty which is
deeply imbedded in the teachings, the character and epic of Christ's life,
his death, and yes, even His resurrection from the dead. At the very least
it is imbedded in the myth, which the mind of man could not have produced,
it being so alien to human principals of civil liberty and justice for all.
What Christianity says, in no uncertain terms, is that death itself, is not
the end of the story, nor is death, or the force of entropy, the final
sovereign over our lives, and over the whole historical causality of good
and evil in which we are emersed as participants in the historical process.
It is our spirit or our transcendent "I am" which testifies to what I am
talking about here.
What I am saying is that there is, imbedded within the symbolic and
mythological and yes, the historical fact, of the cross of Christ, a great
crossroads if you will, which is representative of the end of evil, and the
end of victimhood, the end of judgement, and perhaps, understood in a
certain light, the end of time itself, since the very principal at the heart
of it all, is that infinate and transcendent vicarious love, poured out by
the power of grace from the very governing center of existence, as a
formative causation, in this case, at the very least of a social justice,
but if it works there, amid our own human nature and tendency toward sin,
then it surely applies also to a force of nature as well, driving evolution
toward certain ideal forms. A formative causation, if you will.
If you do not think, when it boils right down to it, that there is not an
intentionality of fate, or a final will, or what I call a final attachment
to an outcome, or an end game which paves the way to progress and to a truly
just and noble historical pursuit, leading to a final disclosure of God's
will, and of God's own interpretation of Civil Liberty or individual
freedom, then I say that you've missed the whole point of what Christianity
signifies, what it means, and what it suggests in terms of it's implications
for us all and for the fate of humanity in general.
Bullshit you say? I say that if what I am suggesting has absolutely no
meaning to you that you are either a poor philosopher, or that you are
willfully thrusting your head into the sand, refusing to see what I am
driving at in all this.
Why should you care?
Number one, it affects you personally in so far as you are yourself enmeshed
within the historical process, and are a victim at some level, to sin, and
to evil, within your own family, and within the larger social sphere in
which you have your being and all of your connections as a human being, who
lives in this world. If you want to reconcile yourself, with complete
integrity within these spheres of influence, then it may be of importance
and interest to you, what I am saying, and have unearthed through much
struggle and heartache. If there's a boon to share in having gone further
afield and if there are warning beacons, surely I owe it to my brothers and
sisters to share that boon. You know, like Aristotle's alegory of the cave.
Number two, if it is true, then the implications in terms of what social
progress really entails, is absolutely astounding.
If we have been shown what the picture looks like, and can actually see
God's will rendered in Jesus's birth, life, death and resurrection, and have
a general idea of what His intentions are, toward us, and toward our
individual and collective fate, and even that of the world at large; if
there is an image in the cross of a Universal Constant, demonstrating a
fundamental principal of a Universal Civil Liberty, which is transcendent of
the historical causality of good and evil, then wouldn't you and everyone
want to see it.
People keep asking for proof of God, and so he offered it, and I content
that it reveals a force of nature, to which nature is herself in subjective
obediance, and that it points the way to authentic progress toward a just
end, for me and for you, and for the world and even the Universe as a whole.
It there not a hiearchy of things, of compexity, or are we merely stuck in
the quagmire of an unending cycle of birth and death, and of creation and
destruction? Because if that is the highest expression of reality, a
duality - if that's as far as it goes; a darwinian evolutionary survival of
the fittest within the framework of the law of the jungle, then I would say
that there is little hope for a just outcome, but an outcome is unavoidable,
and woven right into the very fabric of reality. Are we merely animals, and
is our free will a delusion. Do we have no power at all to enact a role in
history? For what is power if not the power to choose? Fuck that I say, and
screw the jungle. That will always and forever lead inexorably to war and to
death and destruction. What Christianity says is that is not how it shall
end, nor does death and nihilism have the last word in where we are headed.
Christianity says so loudly that there is a spiritual storehouse, which is
no less real than the realm of a materialist monism, which we mistakenly
think is all there is.
Whoever is the most powerful person on earth is not MY master, nor is the
totality of me, in terms of my own transcedent "I am" bound within the law
of man, nor even the ten commandments. No, the highest law of life is love,
and in human terms, from God's own perspective there is no better
demonstration of that will than the cross of Jesus Christ.
atheism is hopeless, in terms of our collective pursuit of a just outcome,
and being social creatures, as being born, and in being alive, we MUST, by
neccesity get together, not just in a collaborative competition for
resources driven by the pursuit and motive force of a rational self interest
alone, because THAT will always and forever fail in the end, in ruin. We owe
much, if not all of our progress as a civilization on theistic principals of
civil liberty and justice.
It is my contention that Jesus Christ as a personification through which the
will of God has been rendered transparent, without shame, IS the king of the
jungle, and a perfect expression of the sovereign will of God.
His conflict with the lawyers and the ruling elite of his day, made him much
more than a hero of his day. Given what he was fighting for, and what he
died for, I say that Jesus Christ, was and is a hero of Cosmological
Proportions.
The historical reality of it all may indeed have been somewhat imbellished,
but the seed of it is still there intact, and it IS still growing, and since
there is nothing which can violate the inviolate, then it will remain, and
will bear fruit.
To that extent, the myth of Christianity is a God approved mythology. Why?
Because it is entirely congruent with a principal which operates as a force
of nature, and as the formative causation, of a truly just and infinitely
loving outcome.
The supreme challenge, and the "work" of the Christian, is not to be a "do
gooder" and to prove their faith by works, through faith without works is
dead. No, it is simultaneously much lazier AND much ore couragious than
that. The supreme challenge of Christianity is merely to accept in all
humility merely what God is offering, which is a gift of incalulable value,
which is completely unearned yet completely freely given, by the hand of God
Himself, so to speak.
It isn't easy to "grok in fullness" but neither is it entirely in-conceivale
either.
And remember this too. In the quantum realm, given enough time, anything,
anything at all can and ultimately will happen. That is happened only 2000
years ago on THIS planet is what boggles the mind. There is a strong
anthropic solipsism in Christianity, I'll admit, but at a fundamental level,
there is a strong anthropic solipsism by the very nature of our existence,
and conscious awareness itself.
One other thing. The full implications of modern physics states that, - to
be, is to, at some level, at the most basic level of all, to be percieved.
"God" sees the little sparrow fall he meets its tender view. If God so loves
the little things, I know he loves me too."
You should care because I care. What you are courting in writing the whole
thing off as a bunch of bunk, while it may have been born of some sort of
rebellious teenage angst, runs the risk, intellectually, of ultimately
turning your heart to stone and of willfully rejecting, once and for all
time, the greatest gift known to man. God's love.
Strang as this may sound, I love you, and that my friends, is not being
intellectually dishonest.
Why? Because you are my brothers and sisters. I myself was raised in a
churchy family, and went far afield to escape it. I have gone to great
lenghths in rebellion, and in intellectual mind flips, and even a couple of
sever breakdowns to try to reconcile some of the most fundamental problems
of our existence. I am a survivor, and have come into this boon, this fire
stolen from the Gods of the heavens, by some strange fate, and all I wish to
do is to somehow get it out there, for your inspection.
It belongs not to the learned and the wise, nor to the learned intellectuals
and the ruling "elite". It is a gift of God to one and all.
Regards,
Rudolf
>;0)
Robert Rice
"DR" <dr...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:x5Twa.14995$NC4....@news1.mts.net...
Progress, as on a Bell curve. If there is progress, in terms of approaching
something which is MORE in congruent allignment with reality as it is, then
that implies, that there is an objective reality to which we are moving
approaching. That's no nonsense. It makes perfect sense. It's sound. And
it's good psychology.
> DR
> aa #2137
>
>
Shuggy
> and spiritual growth are almost one and the same thing.
That may be true for you, but not necessarilly for others. You may
even THINK it is true, but that doesn't mean it is true when it comes
to God. Because there is no definitive evidence that there is a God,
so your recovery may be strictly due to placebo effect.
> In my experience and from what I've seen in working with mentally ill and
> addicted people, there is much hope in an authentic theological belief
> system no matter how simple, or how small the start.
I have experince working with such people, too. And it is not
necessarily true that they get better with spiritual healing. There
are many, many methods of healing that have absolutely nothing to do
with religion and spirituality in which people recover from mental
illness. Examples: Talk therapy and psychiatric medication.
> If they believe in a power greater than themselves, and if they believe, and
> experience that power as love, then much progress can be made to having a
You are refering to a twelve step programs. And while these are good
for some addicts, they are not good for all. And are definitely not
good for many people who suffer from mental illness.
This sounds like someone who perpetuates the heinous myths that
religion can cure mental illness, and that is what I am against.
I repeat: Had these women seperated mental health issues from
religious issues, their children might be alive today. These women
probably needed medicine that addressed their mental health issues,
NOT Sunday mornings in the local church. But they, like you,
probably thought religion was the answer. And tragically, it was not.
> I think that mental illness, in terms of it's symptoms, is a manifestation
> of the grace of God actually.
Atheists become mentally ill and they don't have any god(s) in their
lives. Buddhists become mentally ill and they don't have god(s) in
their lives, either.
Conversely, there are many Buddhists and atheists in the world who
have excellent mental health and never for a day believed in god(s).
> I once had a breakdown, or a crackup if you will, twice in my life for three
> weeks each time, and in retrospect it was the best thing that ever happened
> to me, and the experience served to strengthen my faith in God, and my
> understanding of His will for me in my life.
I am sorry to hear that you have had such an experience, However,
this is your personal experience. And while I will not diminish the
value of your experience, I also will not agree that your's is the
experience of many other people who have mental health issues.
I also feel some concern for you. I hope that you have seriously
looked into psychiatric medication and therapy for help and don't just
rely on spirituality or religion to help you.
Shuggy
Shuggy
> ill people walking around out there who don't get the help they need
> because their illness manifests itself as devout religious behavior.
> If you claim that UFOs are beaming messages into your head, people will
> rightly think that you're crazy. If you say that angels speak to you,
> you can turn that into a lucrative career.
I think they don't get the help they need because they think the
religion they practice will be their salvation, when, of course, it is
not. They may need help that only psychiatric medication can give
them.
> Religion per se might not be a mental illness, but its a really good
> simulation of it, and as we've seen, a convenient cover for the real thing.
Some Christians that I have known who were "borderline" sane did not
know they were mentally ill. They didn't even know they had problems.
Let alone trying to hide behind religion.
They were obsessive about religion, but they were obsessive about
other things, too, so it wasn't a religious thing, it was a mental
illness issue.
Shuggy
Shuggy
> illness) points in the opposite direction. My mother suffered from a
> form of dementia and her religious leanings shone right through. She
> thought, among other things, that she was going to have a part to play
> in the end of the world (Mary part II) and that Satan's forces were
> conspiring to kill her.
But delusions like that have nothing to do with religion. They are
merely delusions that happen to have a religious cast to them. Your
mom could just as easily thought she was Abraham Lincoln's wife and
that the Union Army was out to get her!
(I don't mean to make fun of your mom, just point out that her
problem was with delusions, not with religion.)
Shuggy
Andrew Lias
[In reply to me]
> You're missing the point. In USA the land chosen by god all people are
> perfect as are all god's creations such as tornadoes, floods etc. and thus
> there are no mentally ill or insane or emotionally handicapped people. There
> are only good guys and criminals. Criminals must surely be good god
> creations who have been seduced by Satan. I'm sure spending 10 million then
> murdering the unfortunate woman in the name of the state will square it up
> with god.
Perhaps you are laboring under the mistaken belief that I'm either a
theist or an apologist for theism. Otherwise, it's difficult to
fathom why you are directing this to me.
--
Andrew Lias
DR
> Because Christianty has gotten a bad name, and I want to set the record
> straight or straighter. Contempt prior to uinvestigation, and/or negative
> and prejudiced bias, based on perhaps a bad experience in childhood is why
> most atheists seem to abhor religion in general and specifically
Not me. I've never been a believer. I think you like to beleive that in
order to feel more justified in your faith.
> on the canvass of life. When Jesus referred to Himself as the light of
life,
> He wasn't speaking from only a metaphorical perspective, but was speaking
> the truth, that he had walked straight out of the darkness which imprisons
> us, and which ultimately leads to various forms of delusion and even
> dementia. That moral quagmire of the causality of sin which I've been
> attempting, obviously in vain, to describe.
Which is a metaphor.
> > Why should we care what you have to say on the subject?
>
> You are astute observers, for the most part, or at least that's what I
think
> most of you pride yourselves on. Though I may be verbose, and do not
always
> properly clarify terms, I am sure that you are capable of reading between
> the lines and deciding for yourself whether or not what I have to say has
> any meaning, or any inherent value at all. I know it does, and I think
that
> you can acknowledge that at least some of what I am trying to drive at in
> fact does "ring a bell" so to speak.
Nope. Not yet.
> If everyone went on personal opinions alone, then we would have no
> "corporate" culture.
>
> I would even go so far, and be so bold as to suggest that the principals
> illuminated in the teaching, character, and in the death of Christ, point
to
> a certain Universal Principal of Civil Liberty which, properly
interpreted,
> even in the light of modern science, can point a sturdy finger in the
> direction of a truly authentic individual freedom, within the framework of
a
> civilized society.
Perhaps those *principles* could be (an assertion on your part), but even if
true, that would lend no credibility to the existential claims of the bible.
<snip bullshit>
> Bullshit you say? I say that if what I am suggesting has absolutely no
> meaning to you that you are either a poor philosopher, or that you are
> willfully thrusting your head into the sand, refusing to see what I am
> driving at in all this.
False dichotomy.
> Why should you care?
>
> Number one, it affects you personally in so far as you are yourself
enmeshed
> within the historical process, and are a victim at some level, to sin, and
> to evil, within your own family, and within the larger social sphere in
> which you have your being and all of your connections as a human being,
who
> lives in this world. If you want to reconcile yourself, with complete
> integrity within these spheres of influence, then it may be of importance
> and interest to you, what I am saying, and have unearthed through much
> struggle and heartache. If there's a boon to share in having gone further
> afield and if there are warning beacons, surely I owe it to my brothers
and
> sisters to share that boon. You know, like Aristotle's alegory of the
cave.
Assertions.
<snip more bullshit>
> And remember this too. In the quantum realm, given enough time, anything,
> anything at all can and ultimately will happen. That is happened only 2000
> years ago on THIS planet is what boggles the mind. There is a strong
> anthropic solipsism in Christianity, I'll admit, but at a fundamental
level,
> there is a strong anthropic solipsism by the very nature of our existence,
> and conscious awareness itself.
More assertions. You are just telling us what you think. You aren't giving
any reasons to accept what you think.
DR
aa #2137
DR
> > > Thus what we are looking at is a type of rising equillibrium of love
> > leading
> > > us to increasing levels of conscious awareness, or to pscyhological
and
> > > spiritual growth and well being.
> >
> > Uh oh. "rising equil[l]ibrium of love"? Remember, concise language is
> our
> > friend.
>
> Progress, as on a Bell curve. If there is progress, in terms of
approaching
> something which is MORE in congruent allignment with reality as it is,
then
> that implies, that there is an objective reality to which we are moving
> approaching. That's no nonsense. It makes perfect sense. It's sound. And
> it's good psychology.
Well, it kind of begs the question:
"If awareness of objective reality increases, then objective reality
exists."
It does make perfect sense. But it doesn't suggest anything. You'll also
note how concisely the sentiment *could have* been written, had you chosen
to.
I note you addressed nothing else from my post.
DR
aa #2137
Alex
>But delusions like that have nothing to do with religion. They are
>merely delusions that happen to have a religious cast to them. Your
>mom could just as easily thought she was Abraham Lincoln's wife and
>that the Union Army was out to get her!
>
>(I don't mean to make fun of your mom, just point out that her
>problem was with delusions, not with religion.)
That's why I'm agreeing with you, when you said:
"So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
I think keeping mental health issues and religious issues separate can
start right here, right now."
No offense taken - after I saw delusions like my mom experienced,
there's no example that seems all that far-fetched anymore.
Alex
atheist #2007
Alex
>> I'm quick to agree but my own experience (with religion and mental
>> illness) points in the opposite direction. My mother suffered from a
>> form of dementia and her religious leanings shone right through. She
>> thought, among other things, that she was going to have a part to play
>> in the end of the world (Mary part II) and that Satan's forces were
>> conspiring to kill her.
>
>But delusions like that have nothing to do with religion. They are
...
In retrospect, I should have written "I'm quick to agree even if my
own experience..." to make what I said less ambiguous (even if I did
clarify it in my second paragraph).
Alex
atheist #2007
TCS
>> I'm quick to agree but my own experience (with religion and mental
>> illness) points in the opposite direction. My mother suffered from a
>> form of dementia and her religious leanings shone right through. She
>> thought, among other things, that she was going to have a part to play
>> in the end of the world (Mary part II) and that Satan's forces were
>> conspiring to kill her.
>But delusions like that have nothing to do with religion. They are
>merely delusions that happen to have a religious cast to them. Your
>mom could just as easily thought she was Abraham Lincoln's wife and
>that the Union Army was out to get her!
Religion teaches a set delusions: invisible beings that tell you what
to do; invisible beings out to get you; invisible beings there to save you.
If a believer is following an erroneous train of thought such as that there are
entities out to harm the believer that don't really exist, religion reinforces
those thoughts rather than discounts them.
I've seen too many borderline mental cases where religions takes them over
the line.
Robert Rice
What I mean by that from an individual perspective is simply, progress.
Increasing conscious awareness and mental / spiritual health *in relation
to* objective truth or reality as it IS.
Much like a function, it is a curve which may increase but never fully
approach the infinite. However in the cross of Christ, I suggest that it did
approach and move through the infinite, transcending the sovereign over
history which is death (the price of sin).
Where it is a type of "rising equillibrium of love" is when the individual
is placed within a social context, of two or more. Since we are born into a
family social unit, this too is an inescapable reality of life. As it
relates to the mental health and functioning of society at large, it
operates as an emergent informative causation of good and evil.
From this perspective, I believe that I can in fact put forth a case for
Civility and Civil Liberty as operating as a transcendent principal "among
us" - transcendent in terms of rising above mere competition for resources
amid the duality of Darwinian evolutionary theory, driven by rational self
interest alone.
Therefore the image might be one of two rising Bell curves, which in my
interpretation, within the framework of the historical causality of evil,
actually join together at the point of Christ's cross, and then, behond the
vail, whether it be that of the observing subjective ego, or even the
quantum vail, I am suggesting that there is an equality or a equivalent
reflection, whereby those lines intersect and then move out in increasing
spheres to the infinite. Much like a blake hole / white hole paradox, in
which the eye in the needle so to speak has been threaded, by Christ as God,
since only God could squeeze through the infinite.
The image of Christianity then, as a type of guide to social progress,
reflects in cosmological terms, a cosmological constant of infinite love,
serving as a Universal Spearhead of progress in terms of Civil Liberty, and
increasing civil conscious awareness.
Before you jump on this and discount it as absurd and rediculous, allow me
to come back and go through what I have in mind, in terms of a transcendent
principal of civility within the framework of organization behavioral
dynamics, and the application of authentic power, which, from a principaled
perspective is not only temporal but spiritual in nature.
It is my contention that this overarching dynamic of love, is at the very
heart of God, and through God all life, operating as a formative causation
driving progress to increasing complexity and ultimately, perfection.
"The Kingdom of Heaven is among you."
Robert Rice
Care to know how and why I say that?
"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
news:Ng7xa.6273$I83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
She-Called-Me-A-Jerk
> I don't think religion *causes* insanity, all by itself.
> I do think it's possible some features of it attract the insane, as it
> gives them the means to make sense of their particular psychosis, and
> make it normal.
For the first time this bitch is being reasonable. This one was well put.
Well done
Robibnikoff
>
>Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
>
>Care to know how and why I say that?
Heck no ;)
Robert Rice
"She-Called-Me-A-Jerk" <Feminis...@codemaster.com> wrote in message
news:458f5891.03051...@posting.google.com...
I agree, though from a slightly different angle. As I have said, we are all
of us mentally ill to a greater or lesser degree, placing as we do, and as
we must, masks upon the ineffable.
However, it is my contention that the only normative context, in which a
person can reconcile themselves to the moral hypocrisy and to the moral
historical contradiction in which we find ourselves immersed as participants
within the historical process, is to develop an effective theological ground
from which to stand in relation to history, and to what I call the sins of
the father, the earthly father that is, without forever falling victim at
some level, somewhere down the line.
I don't think the individual has any real choice any longer but to throw
themselves headlong long into "the fray" with their entire being, as an
individual. Surely we can no longer hide behind the veil of the mass man, in
any context or in any setting, and so we are left with nothing else to do
but to contemplate the extent or lack thereof of our own virtue, and to
wrestle with the concepts of sin, free will, and of power and control.
Some declare their own subjective observing ego, the very height of it, and
their own rational faculties as the final pre-eminent force of nature, and
say at core that they themselves are the great I am.
Others try to come to grips with, and come to terms with reality and life,
as being at the most fundamental level a power greater than themselves, and
then attempt to reconcile themselves with it through whatever mechanism that
they can find which works for them.
It would appear to me, that the atheist eschews this courageous journey into
increasing conscious awareness, and accepts the mundane and the mediocre,
and leaves truth in the sole hands of the domain of science.
I don't think throwing away thousands of years of deep thought on the
subject of the great reality, is the best way to go, and make no mistake,
almost all of that thought posits the notion at some level of a supreme
being, a prime mover or first cause, and a just judge, or a last cause,
along with a whole spectrum of moral certitudes underneath a sovereign
universal will or intelligence.
There is no daring in atheism, no passion, no highs and lows. it's luke warm
at best.
stillsunny
Thank you, cod breath.
Sunny
who is beginning to think she's a troll magnet
Wbarwell
>
> "Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
> news:YHVwa.3326$nT5.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Because Christianty has gotten a bad name, and I want to set the record
>> straight or straighter. Contempt prior to uinvestigation, and/or negative
>> and prejudiced bias, based on perhaps a bad experience in childhood is
>> why most atheists seem to abhor religion in general and specifically
>
> Not me. I've never been a believer. I think you like to beleive that in
> order to feel more justified in your faith.
>
They do that a lot.
I too, never believed, I hated being lied to about the Easter Bunny,
tooth fairy, Santa Claus and the bizarre tall tales silly nuns
thrust at me at age 5, 6 and 7 in catechism classes.
>> on the canvass of life. When Jesus referred to Himself as the light of
> life,
>> He wasn't speaking from only a metaphorical perspective, but was speaking
>> the truth, that he had walked straight out of the darkness which
>> imprisons us, and which ultimately leads to various forms of delusion and
>> even dementia. That moral quagmire of the causality of sin which I've
>> been attempting, obviously in vain, to describe.
>
> Which is a metaphor.
Jesus claimed he'd soon be presiding over judgment day and the end of the
world, (Matthew 16:27-8, Matthew 24-5, Luke 21, Mark 13)
And not 200 myears later but back then in the time of "This generation",
in the lifespans of Some standing here" (Matthew 16:27-8) in "the lifespan
of the high priest at Jerusalem (Matthhew 24;31, Matthew 26:64).
None of this happened as promised.
So whatever outlandish, over the top, metaphorical or preachy double talk
you wanna point out in the gospels is so much irrelevancy.
You might as well belt hymns of praise to the Easter Bunny at the top
of your lungs 6 hours every day for all the good it would do you, Jesus in
any form is just as big a waste of time and effort, though personally, I
find the Easter Bunny the more pleasant personality of the two.
Jesus preachy flowery metaphysical waffle jabber is sooooo tiresome.
The claims Jesus made are not metaphorical and failed.
I wish the Jesus babblers would take notice, give it up
and leave us alone to contemplate our dark chocolate easter
eggs of infinite love in peace.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Wbarwell
> On 15 May 2003 19:16:44 -0700, jil...@prodigy.net (Shuggy) wrote:
>
>>But delusions like that have nothing to do with religion. They are
>>merely delusions that happen to have a religious cast to them. Your
>>mom could just as easily thought she was Abraham Lincoln's wife and
>>that the Union Army was out to get her!
>>
>>(I don't mean to make fun of your mom, just point out that her
>>problem was with delusions, not with religion.)
>
> That's why I'm agreeing with you, when you said:
> "So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
> fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
>
No, fundamentalist madness often takes this form, about once
a month in Texas, some fundamentalist pulls this stunt.
And have been for decades.
There is a steady drizzle of exactly this sort of stuff from people
who are mentally unstable and partake of mentally destabilizing
hard core extremist christian teachings.
>
>
> Alex
> atheist #2007
stoney
Message ID: <PTlwa.2051$I83.5...@news20.bellglobal.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
>"Shuggy" <jil...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:cb98d700.03051...@posting.google.com...
>> There have been several posts about the Christian woman who killed her
>> children ostensibly because God told her to do it. This opens an
>> important issue-- one in which I think we atheists are progressive
>> enough to take the lead.
>>
>> First, I want to state up front that I am an atheist; make no mistake
>> about that.
>>
>> But I don't think being a fundamentalist Christian makes people murder
>> their children. These women who murdered their children were mentally
>> ill, and anyone can be mentally ill. Atheists can be mentally ill.
>> I know a few about whom I have questions... Mental illness is an
>> entirely separate issue from religious issues.
>>
>> And just because mental illness was not diagnosed in the past does not
>> mean it was never there. It is possible for bouts of irrational
>> thinking and behavior to come on suddenly. It is possible that the
>> mental illness was there all along, but just never diagnosed. Then
>> something triggered an extreme episode recently.
>>
>> It is very possible that a misguided mentally ill person would turn to
>> religion for some much-needed help. I suspect this the main reason we
>> have heard about several supposedly religious women who perform
>> murders.
>>
>> But here's where I think we, as progressive thinkers, can make a big
>> difference:
>>
>> I think it is wrong and dangerous to interconnect religion and mental
>> health issues in any way because doing so can encourage people who
>> need clinical help to remain in religions that cannot help them and
>> cause them to miss out on clinical help that would really do something
>> for them.
>>
>> If religious issues and mental health issues had been kept as separate
>> issues for these women who murdered their children, they might have
>> sought clinical help instead of religion, and their children might be
>> alive today.
>>
>> So I think it is wrong to say it was because the woman was a
>> fundemental Christian that she murdered her children.
>>
>> I think keeping mental health issues and religious issues separate can
>> start right here, right now.
>>
>> Shuggy
>
>I'm sorry Shuggy, In my own philosophical and psychological thinking, mental
>and spiritual growth are almost one and the same thing.
>
>Problem is, most people can't navigate through the duality, or just have a
>simple faith or non-faith, whatever that is. I don't really understand what
>that means yet.
>
>My own theory of mental illness, is that while they ARE chemical imbalances,
>these brain states originated as a result of sin. That's right, sin, on the
>part of the parents, who were on the receiving end of it from their parents
>and so on and so forth.
Sorry, Robert, but sin doesn't exist. The myth of the couple in the
garden and the magic apple and talking snakes indicates that, if you
read the text. According to the myth, the two were infants in adult
bodies. It would be like you telling your infant son about some
intricate technical problem you ran into and how you solved it. The
sounds would be heard but without meaning.
The same thing comes into play with the mythical couple. They didn't
have any idea about right and wrong until *after* they ate the apple
which provided them with the information required. Now, it would have
been a different story if the two then headed for the magic tree of
life. But even then only they are responsible for their own actions.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, your g-g-grandfather was a horse
thief who was hung for stealing. But before that happened he
impregnated his wife. It's ludicrous for a posse to appear to drag you
off to be hung for that generations ago theft.
The story is an excellant example of the lies of the xtian god. The
tome also indicates the son is not responsible for the sins of the
father. It also says responsibility continues for seven generations.
The Original Sin rubbish continues forever.
(snip)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
Message ID: <eqQwa.4546$I83.7...@news20.bellglobal.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
>"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message
>news:FnPwa.4076$I83.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
(snip)
>As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
>really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
>outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
Since you and reality haven't met, it really doesn't matter what
strawman you construct to sooth your personal insecurities and fears.
Are you really that uneducated not to realize that in the U.S. most
atheists were once of one, or more, brands/sects of theism? That in the
main they were of Christian variants?
You can postulate Leprechauns and Little People all you like, but until
you provide coherant definitions and objective supporting evidence
you're just one more crackpot at the end of a very very very long line
of the same.
>Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with God as the
>very height of reality, is IMO, the more curagious path, to increasing and
>authentic psychological and spiritual growth, putting aside, of course
>mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with the Elf
King as the very height of reality, is IMO, the more courageous path,
to increasing and authentic psychological and spiritual growth, putting
aside, of course, mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with Santa
Claus as the very height of reality, is IMO, the more courageous path,
to increasing and authentic psychological and spiritual growth, putting
aside, of course, mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with the
Tooth Fairy as the very height of reality, is IMO, the more courageous
path, to increasing and authentic psychological and spiritual growth,
putting aside, of course, mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with the
Keebler Elves as the very height of reality, is IMO, the more courageous
path, to increasing and authentic psychological and spiritual growth,
putting aside, of course, mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
Attempting to reach for and to grope towards a relationship with the
Artesians as the very height of reality, is IMO, the more courageous
path, to increasing and authentic psychological and spiritual growth,
putting aside, of course, mental illness born of excessive religiosity.
>Sure there's no way around the fact that masks must be placed upon objective
>truth, but to think that you've removed the mask by saying that there is no
>God, is well, to try to escape the mytery of life, without assigning any
>value upon it, and I would say that ultimately, to refrain from a final
>judgement is impossible, if you haven't merely thrust your head in the sand.
(laughing at you) The only ones who must put a mask upon objective
truth are theists. You're vastly projecting your insecurities onto
others as well as bearing false witness. The statement "There is no
God" can be made and supported (if someone cared enough about it) in the
same light as; Santa Claus, Tooth Faeire, Elves, Kobolds, Ra, Odin,
etc..
The 'mystery of life' you mumble about is meaningless gibberish as it
stands. You might as well state; "The aricantive of Qualiraue is quite
puitarg."
As for 'value,' Christianity is the one that indicates that they are
repugnant and totally without worth. As for the meaningless 'ultimate'
term, such is again false witness on your part. Please provide a
coherant and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string. Then
provide objective supporting evidence it exists as well as for each item
you attribute to it. Until then, there's nothing to look for or
consider.
stoney
Message ID: <YHVwa.3326$nT5.4...@news20.bellglobal.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
>"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:eUQwa.4946$95....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <eqQwa.4546$I83.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Robert Rice
>says...
>> snippage
>>
>> >As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
>> >really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
>> >outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
>>
>> Two questions:
>>
>> Why do you care about the reasons why people are atheists (we're all born
>that
>> way); and
>
>Because Christianty has gotten a bad name, and I want to set the record
>straight or straighter. Contempt prior to uinvestigation, and/or negative
>and prejudiced bias, based on perhaps a bad experience in childhood is why
>most atheists seem to abhor religion in general and specifically
>Christianity.
Once again, most U.S. atheists were once theist. In the main, they were
of one or more of the xtian sects. They've, many if not most, read the
bronze age tome of malevolent idiocy and seen it for what it is.
They're also versed on history and the actions taken by 'loving' xtians
as well as the actions and attitudes of current ones.
Xtianity and Islam *are* totally abhorrant. Christianity gets the focus
as that's generally the one they're most familiar with and it's the one
running things in the West.
> There ARE other way of looking at it, which are not at all
>incongruent with deep and fundamental principals or truths but which can,
>contrary to popular opinion actually demonstrate them, and render them large
>on the canvass of life.
Christianity is a monstrous faerie tale from start to finish. That is
the 'deep and fundamental principle or truth' of the matter.
>When Jesus referred to Himself as the light of life,
>He wasn't speaking from only a metaphorical perspective, but was speaking
>the truth, that he had walked straight out of the darkness which imprisons
>us, and which ultimately leads to various forms of delusion and even
>dementia. That moral quagmire of the causality of sin which I've been
>attempting, obviously in vain, to describe.
Jesus is a character in a poorly written snuff book by ignorant,
superstitious, and barbarous savages.
>> Why should we care what you have to say on the subject?
>
>You are astute observers, for the most part, or at least that's what I think
>most of you pride yourselves on. Though I may be verbose, and do not always
>properly clarify terms, I am sure that you are capable of reading between
>the lines and deciding for yourself whether or not what I have to say has
>any meaning, or any inherent value at all. I know it does, and I think that
>you can acknowledge that at least some of what I am trying to drive at in
>fact does "ring a bell" so to speak.
The only inherent value of what I've read of your stuff is that of vast
ignorance. You're polite enough, which imo is a hefty plus.
>If everyone went on personal opinions alone, then we would have no
>"corporate" culture.
>
>I would even go so far, and be so bold as to suggest that the principals
>illuminated in the teaching, character, and in the death of Christ, point to
>a certain Universal Principal of Civil Liberty which, properly interpreted,
>even in the light of modern science, can point a sturdy finger in the
>direction of a truly authentic individual freedom, within the framework of a
>civilized society.
You're not even versed in your own 'Holy Writ!' Christianity is based
on absolute obediance to heirarchial directives. Pavlov's knee-jerk
obediance to perceived 'authority.'
>In fact, I would go even further to suggest that within the overall larger
>framework of not only a civilized society, but in terms of a collective,
>just, and noble historical pursuit, which might offer the hope to one day
>pave the way by which society might begin to transcend the moral hypocrisy
>and fundamental moral contradiction and paradox of the "dialectic" of good
>vs. evil (hang in there with me and ignore shitty sentence structure please)
>- that the ONLY authentic individual freedom which can be effectively
>demonstrated, both philosophically and psychologically, thereby forming the
>basic underpinnings or cornerstone of our entire civilization IS the very
>principal of Civil Liberty for which Christ gave his own life, and went to
>great length, out of love, to describe, though he did so much better than I,
>who am but a follower of his teachings.
Blatant false witnesses on your part. Christianity is the diametric
opposite of; liberty, love, justice, reason, compassion, empathy, or any
other human attribute. Christianity is the epitome of selfishness and
greed.
(snip rest unread)
stoney
Message ID: <6c562d094b5fc80f61fe0f5f0f8293c6@TeraNews> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Once needs a coherant and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string
first.
stoney
Message ID: <Jfaxa.5067$95....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>In article <tH9xa.3733$nT5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Robert Rice says...
>>
>>Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
>>
>>Care to know how and why I say that?
>
>Heck no ;)
Christianity and Civilization are diametric opposites.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
If you're using the verb you shouldn't have capitalized it.
>Care to know how and why I say that?
Why would we care to know WHY you're wrong? It's enough to know that
you are.
---
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
rukbat at optonline dot net
Yarrido
<in...@rcscorp.ca> writes:
>Much like a function, it is a curve which may increase but never fully
>approach the infinite. However in the cross of Christ, I suggest that it did
>approach and move through the infinite, transcending the sovereign over
>history which is death (the price of sin).
Not the price of sin....death is the wages of sin. It is what you earn by
trying to work your way to heaven.
Do you know what you are talking about?
Yarrido
<iro...@bham.rr.com> writes:
>Gotta know...have you ever been mentally ill?
>
>> As far as I am concerned, atheism is a cop out, born of a lack of courage
>> really to come to grips with something that is far greater than the
>> outermost sphere of the subjective observing ego self.
>
>Not really. It's merely a position based on lack of evidence. It is one of
>the most ego-less positions you can take.
>There are plenty of things that are greater than me
Are you then willing to admit that although you, yourself, are not in posession
of such evidence, it is possible that someone else is...or are you simply
saying, as it seems by the wording that you use, that there simply is no
evidence?
If you say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, then I can say
that I can think of many...one of them revolves around what it takes for the
universe to exist. Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
other things to exist outside ourselves. Think about it...we need air,
water...etc. in order to exist on this planet. In order for them to exist on
this planet, there has to be gravity..so they depend on gravity not to escape
into space and dissipate. Well, for them to exist at all, not just on this
planet, they depend on other things in this universe that in turn depend on
other things in the universe for their existence and the chains extend to the
limits of the universe. So, going back to our original question...What does it
take for the universe to exist? What it takes for the universe to exist must
transcend that universe...that is to say...both space and time. If everything
would need to be given being, but there would be nothing capable of giving it,
there would not exist what it takes for anything to exist. So there must exist
something that does not exist conditionally; something that does not exist only
if something else exists; something which exists in itself. I see this as
evidence of God. While not conclusive, it is certainly one piece of evidence in
favor for the existence of God.
Yarrido
writes:
>> afield and if there are warning beacons, surely I owe it to my brothers
>and
>> sisters to share that boon. You know, like Aristotle's alegory of the
>cave.
>
>Assertions.
>
><snip more bullshit>
>> And remember this too. In the quantum realm, given enough time, anything,
>> anything at all can and ultimately will happen. That is happened only 2000
>> years ago on THIS planet is what boggles the mind. There is a strong
>> anthropic solipsism in Christianity, I'll admit, but at a fundamental
>level,
>> there is a strong anthropic solipsism by the very nature of our existence,
>> and conscious awareness itself.
>
>More assertions. You are just telling us what you think. You aren't giving
>any reasons to accept what you think.
>
This one is an odd one. He is so focused on himself that he notices little else
around him. A Christian focuses on Christ and the truth...this odd individual
has himself as the center of his life, yet he claims to beleive....peculiar.
Elroy Willis
> Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
> other things to exist outside ourselves.
Why doesn't that apply to some god? How did some god just
always exist and not need to be born? How did it learn how to
create? Trial and error?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Yarrido
<e...@airmail.net> writes:
>yar...@aol.com (Yarrido) wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
>> other things to exist outside ourselves.
>
>Why doesn't that apply to some god?
The definition of God denies it.
>How did some god just
>always exist and not need to be born?
This question is meaningless to an eternal being.
How did it learn how to
>create? Trial and error?
>
This question is not relevant to an omniscient and eternal being.
Robert Rice
"Yarrido" <yar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030519074120...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Ah so there is someone out there or in here who shares one solid part of my
own argument for God.
Though I do not think that God can exist entirely separate from the ground
of being, as wholly apart from it.
Instead the image that I have is one a hierarchy of causation, the very
height of which is God, who exists beyond but not apart from the quantum
veil.
This realm or this kingdom is therefore an equivalency for the natural
process we see operating in this realm of being and becoming.
Therefore, God is the unconditioned being, and his "kingdom" is a realm
which operates according to certain universal principals as a formative
causation driving all things, including evolution to perfection or back into
himself, presumably to create a field in which the action of love might
expand forever, knowing no end in time or in space.
Surely this apex of existence, to which we are in a relationship to, would
also serve as the formative causation of civilized progress, through the
vicarious outpouring of love, which is the way I interpret the old and new
testament.
What the bible illuminates is that God is love and that love is action
directed toward progress who's ultimate goal is union or communion with God.
In so far as the law was insufficient to civilize God's people, Christ came,
or was sent, to complete the law, and to transcend it, and to pave the way
by which the individual as a participant in history might also transcend the
law, and follow him Godward.
"In so far as my father hath sent me, even so send I you." (paraphrased)
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> writes:
>> yar...@aol.com (Yarrido) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
>>> other things to exist outside ourselves.
>> Why doesn't that apply to some god?
> The definition of God denies it.
So you just "define" a problem away? How convenient...
>> How did some god just always exist and not need to be
>> born?
> This question is meaningless to an eternal being.
Another question just "defined" out of existence or
possibly "magicked away" or hidden deep down in the minds
of those people who are terrified of not living forever or of
some supreme being not really existing and there's no real
"plan" of things. Oh dear...
>> How did it learn how to create? Trial and error?
> This question is not relevant to an omniscient and eternal being.
Imagine that. Another important question just "shuffled under
the rug."
All you've managed to do is to avoid several important questions
and then box them all up into something called "God," which is
a completely unpredictable thing.
Yarrido
<in...@rcscorp.ca> writes:
It is quite possible that we agree on the fundamentals. But we are hardly
alone. Theologians of centuries ago had the same view of God. Some of the
greatest theological thinkers came to those conclusions that I described
through the facility of reasoning.
Robert Rice
"Elroy Willis" <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3ukhcvoga2t9oco5l...@4ax.com...
> yar...@aol.com (Yarrido) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
> > other things to exist outside ourselves.
>
> Why doesn't that apply to some god? How did some god just
> always exist and not need to be born? How did it learn how to
> create? Trial and error?
Probably from an eternity of thought, and then, the light came on, and the
word was spoken.
A word is an utterance, conveys meaning and intention, and it communicates
something of the character of the one speaking.
If there is no communication, then there is no meaning, and if no meaning,
no purpose.
Given our existence, and the anthropic principal, we can clearly see that
that is not the case.
But since there is meaning, through progress, through the very process of
being and becoming, then there is the word, there is meaning, and there is
communication.
To be is to be percieved. ~ QM.
The best analogy, I suspect is that of a royal family, where the sovereign
builds up wealth, and then shares all through an inheritance.
The other allegory, is one of marriage, or of a great and passionate
pursuit, as in a romance.
It is a relationship between the lover and the beloved, between subjective
observer and objective reality.
This life is like an implicately ordered holographic image or reflection of
an explicate objective reality or truth.
See the quantum physics of David Bohm to better "grok" this.
Read allegorically and not just literally, the Bible is a story of an
unfolding of this higher truth and historical causality.
In so far as Christian principals illuminate and inform our modern
civilization, we are not, contrary to popular belief removed from the
biblical narrative. The Biblical and Christian interpretation of the nature
of man is sound, phycologically and from a socio-political-economic
perspective.
Jesus was an arrow fired from the infinite ground of being which hit the
mark.
What we are left with is how to interpret in within the framework of our
present reality, and this IS possible to do, however radical the conclusion
and implications of it are.
There is good news inherent in it, and this information surely ought to be
available to one and all.
I do not think that it can be contained any longer in the institution of the
temporal church.
Christ's cross is for all people and for all time. It is the all inclusive
cosmological constant of being and becoming leading straight up and into the
infinite Godhead.
That God would make such a provision reveals that he is actively in pursuit
of us, and that there is nothing, no height and no depth or width which can
separate us from his love.
The "work" of Christianity therefore, more than anything else, is to
develope the capacity to receive what God is offering through the "begotten"
son, Jesus.
My contention is that it is and must be possible to blend belief and faith
with knowing and knowledge. That there is a tautalogical system founded on
universal truth which can be built with the information imparted through the
biblical narrative, which leads inexorably to the final disclosure of God's
sovereign will OVER history, as transcendent, yet filled and overflowing
with vicarious love.
For there to BE love, there must be two, or more, and there must be action.
The life of Christ from this ultra-rational perspective is therefore an
image of God diving down to the very bottom of the tree of life in so far as
he became a zygote, and then to the extent that he gave all for the sins of
the many, we have an image of a vicarious outpouring of his love and
lifeblood, pouring itself out on the cross of good and evil, of creation and
destruction, where He actually threw Himself, through the beloved,
altogether into the fire, but as God, came through it, threading the needle
or the paradox, to rise back up to the apex of life and reality, drawing all
people and all things to himself, at that highpoint of observation.
Now if we can fathom the structure of such a kingdom, then we have a binding
law of life and love in which to relate ourselves, to ourselves, to each
other, to the world around us and to God, whereby we need not any longer, to
the extent that we can recieve what's being offered, fall victim to the
moral hypocrisy and historical contradiction of good vs. evil.
The cross of Christ represents, both symbolically and historically, the
crossroads, where good and evil met, once and for all time, and in which
good triumphed over evil, and even death itself.
If time itself is at some level a play of opposites, then from this
standpoint, the cross of Christ is a cosmological constant of love at the
very centerpoint or governing center of reality, and is an image of a
formative historical, social and even heavenly progress.
Wow. What a friend we have in Jesus, since there is no greater love than
that of a man who willingly lays down his life for his friends.
To reject it outright, is simply to reject an image of God's infinite love
toward us.
Christianity, as it really is, (as opposed to the church's own hypocrisy) is
offensive only to the extent that it impinges directly on our own sense of
self esteem, or how we view our own supremecy and virtue.
It is the truth as God sees it contending with the truth as men see it.
However, to the extent that Jesus is a transparent image of the will of God
toward mankind, individually and collectively, it is possible to see,
through it, just what God was thinking and doing.
Focusing strictly on the literal and the purely historical fails to read
between the lines what was and is really going on.
There is more to people, and reality, and a his-story, than meets the eye.
I believe, I know that it is possible to, with a careful examination of the
principal inherent in the Bible and in Christianity, and at the very heart
of it, to pierce the vail, which is gone now, and to walk straight into the
holy of holies following as desciples of Jesus Christ, blending our will
with the will of the unconditioned ground of being and becoming.
The cross of Jesus Christ is nothing less than a singularity of love, which
preserves and upholds all things which are good.
God is a builder, and a creator. He is not a destroyer. His agents, no
matter who they are, you, me, Jesus, angels, aliens, beings of light, are
those who do his will.
The kingdom of heaven is like a great net, and we ought all be pulling on
the ropes working together to haul in a bountiful catch.
However, to be effective fishermen, we must move out into deeper waters
first, as directed by God's own son.
"Let it be by your will, and not mine, that it is done"
"In so far as my father hath sent me, even so send I you."
You guys will get it yet. You are not fools. You are smart and are capable
of grasping these higher truths I know.
Regards,
RR
Yarrido
<e...@airmail.net> writes:
>yar...@aol.com (Yarrido) wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> writes:
>>> yar...@aol.com (Yarrido) wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>>> Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
>>>> other things to exist outside ourselves.
>
>>> Why doesn't that apply to some god?
>
>> The definition of God denies it.
>
>So you just "define" a problem away? How convenient...
>
>>> How did some god just always exist and not need to be
>>> born?
>
>> This question is meaningless to an eternal being.
>
>Another question just "defined" out of existence or
>possibly "magicked away" or hidden deep down in the minds
>of those people who are terrified of not living forever or of
>some supreme being not really existing and there's no real
>"plan" of things. Oh dear...
>
>>> How did it learn how to create? Trial and error?
>
>> This question is not relevant to an omniscient and eternal being.
>
>Imagine that. Another important question just "shuffled under
>the rug."
>
>All you've managed to do is to avoid several important questions
>and then box them all up into something called "God," which is
>a completely unpredictable thing.
He is predictable to the extent that he acts according to his nature and his
plan for mankind. The extent to which you understand both will determine how
well you can predict his responses to any given situation.
I did not avoid the questions asked, I answered them in the only way they can
be answered...honestly and accurately.
If you wish to label your rejection of those answers as "not answering them",
feel free.
Robert Rice
Yes, however difficult, it is not entirely inconceivable.
If the atheists are smart, they will come to see this possibility, and may
curagiously be willing to throw away the no God hypothesis.
Occams razor in the end slices in favour of a supreme being and an
unconditional and unconditionally loving creator, who to us is more life a
create parental figure, than an untouchable unknowable something existing
outside of the known universe. .
Robert Rice
You do not see what I am driving at do you? I am talking a necessity of God,
as it or he relates to our very being, and to the dependent causal
relationships in which we have our being.
I am talking about God as a final attachment to a just outcome, in infinite
unconditional love, but not without action and an intentional will.
What I am driving at is that there are certain principals which operate as a
force of nature driving it toward progress, which implies a value judgment,
and that in observing the manifestations of this "grace" including the cross
of an innocent man, we can begin to see a picture emerge, which is much more
suggestive of a loving God above all, as being a real being, than it is
suggestive that there isn't.
Therefore if I can put forth a well reasoned argument which is supportive of
the God hypothesis, and which is congruent with reality as it is, then
occam's razor will begin to slice in my favor.
I see no one offering any evidence to the contrary.
Surely you have at least some burden of proof to show that the no God
hypothesis is the superior one, but I have seen almost nothing from any of
you along that line.
I still maintain that if you reject a prime mover and creator and supreme
being, that by extension you MUST also reject, at some level, the very
ground of being and becoming and in so doing reject existence itself as
having no meaning, and no value.
Random chaos, as the primary force of creation is patently absurd, and you
ought to know that.
Unless there is design, there is nothing at all.
Your own existence is prima facie objective evidence of the existence of
God.
Why are you not smart enough and philosophically minded enough to see that
as a logical premise and conclusion, though there are a few steps which must
be taken in the process.
This is a pyramid of truth, and a hierarchy of life, and it is possible to
begin the journey.
To extrapolate a God to which we are in relation to, and then to begin a
journey in that direction, does not have to presuppose the final
destination, in order to follow sound logical and rational steps, on step at
a time. These steps do exist, and they can be founded and then built up,
step by step all the way to the very threshold where rational gives way to
the supra-rational, and a faith which transcends even faith into knowledge.
What you are saying is that the destination must be known in it's entirely
first and that no matter how solid the first steps, that you either cannot
or will not, step up onto them, lest they lead you to a place that you would
rather not go, which is a place which will ultimately transcend rational
thought processes.
There are I believe seven steps to the temple, and in the holy of holies
there is a veil.
Now if these steps can be taken, and if the veil is as I have suggested be
torn down, then it is possible to come up with a rational and then
ultra-rational interpretation of Christianity which any man can follow.
Shit I'll just go ahead and try to write a book on it, and then if you want
you can buy the book.
It all "groks". I know it does, but there'll be a lot of hard work making
the case, but all the threads and all the pieces of the puzzle are there.
it's the turning points in each step leveraged into place that is the hard
part, but they are NOT insurmountable obstacles.
Mind you atheists would reject it all outright, right from the start because
they have deluded themselves into believing that the effort is an effort in
futility, and that a priori, God cannot and never will be demonstrable, but
you see, that is where you are just plain wrong.
The temple can and will be rebuilt, for all to see, and freely enter,
whether through me or someone else who has grokked what I have.
I think it's high time that the genie was let out of the bottle.
Freemasons and Priests no longer have the monopoly on God. The table is set
for every man and woman no matter who they are, and it is no longer beyond
our capacity to understand and to integrate or "grok" as Heinlein so aptly
coined the word, which means "to drink deeply".
I say that it is you, the atheist who is the stubborn narrow minded one, not
the other way around.
You all remind me of sophisticated and somewhat rebellious twenty
somethings, who fancy themselves astute observers, and yet you are blinded
by your own doubting Thomas syndrome, such that you cannot get even as far
as the first step in the structure, without seeing and placing your hands in
the wound.
"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:f4b670abcbc0124e74d8ed6f90587775@TeraNews...
Robert Rice
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 18:39:37 GMT, Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com>,
> Message ID: <Jfaxa.5067$95....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism;
>
> >In article <tH9xa.3733$nT5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Robert Rice
says...
> >>
> >>Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
> >>
> >>Care to know how and why I say that?
> >
> >Heck no ;)
>
> Christianity and Civilization are diametric opposites.
>
No you are plain wrong about that.
Why don't you take the time to read the parable of the Good Sameritan. It's
about maybe ten to fifteen lines of text, and in one foul swoop illuminates
the very heighest principal of Christianity and the law of Moses, the heart
of which is mercy.
That is the transcendant principal at the heart of a civilized order, not
rational self interest in a survival of the fittest competition for
resources Darwinian law of the jungle might is right framework.
Mind you that dynamic DOES play an important role, but the underlying
principal of Civil Liberty, in accordance with Biblical and Christian
thinking and philosophy IS the more dominent, in terms of the process of
civilization, and I CAN prove it to you, that is if you didn't suffer from
contempt prior to investigation.
Robert Rice
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:abagcvks32iu416lq...@Pern.rk...
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 14:01:11 -0400, "Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
>
> If you're using the verb you shouldn't have capitalized it.
>
> >Care to know how and why I say that?
>
> Why would we care to know WHY you're wrong? It's enough to know that
> you are.
I am wrong only if the principal of rational self interest is dominent OVER
the principal of Civil Liberty as a formative historical causation.
And, see here's the problem that YOU have. I am not wrong about that, AND,
given enough time, and enough well founded ideas, I can actually prove that,
logically AND rationally.
I tell you, you've met your match. And I don't mean that just to be self
contragulatory. It's a fact.
You my friend are wrong.
And I can use the very words from Jesus own mouth to demonstrate my case,
and win it, before critical observers.
Robert Rice
Yes, pretty much, I do. Price, wages, same difference really. Point is, that
a rich man cannot pass through the eye of a needle.
Christ was rich and overflowing in heavenly treasure, and gave all to
reconcile us to himself and to God the first father.
When you look closely at his character, in terms of fate, and see where that
fate ultimately led, you have a picture, which is transparent, revealing
God's will and loving grace and mercy in action, and love is action.
Christianity, properly interpreted is the highest symbol of the very
principal of Civil Liberty which binds heaven, and our civilization
together.
In so far as it is a binding and inviolate principal of God's justice, it is
the central governance and administration of such justice, transcendent of
the law of man, and even the law and the prophets.
The parables of Jesus capture the point perfectly, but they must be
unraveled somewhat, to find the kernel of truth at the heart of each of
them.
Yes, I do, for the most part know what I'm talking about here.
Yarrido
<in...@rcscorp.ca> writes:
Much of what you say has truth in it.
Did you arrive to these conclusions yourself without any other human sources of
information?
Robert Rice
If there is no such thing as sin, then my Shaggy friend, you are nothing but
an animal, and to the extent that you are more than that, you therefore
MUST, by logical extension exist within a realm of isolate consciousness and
nothing more than your own moral relativism, in which nothing more than you
yourself assigns the supreme value on all things.
Surely that cannot be the foundation for a civilized structure, which
ironically begins at home where the heart is, in the social sphere of the
family.
Thus all sin, set within the social reality in which we are immersed, arises
as an emergent phenomenon from the human heart, and where is it's origin?
Generationally, going all the way back to the first individual with a
conscience and an awareness of right and wrong.
Sorry buddy, you are wrong.
And if I had more time here, I could proceed to prove it.
We stand in relation to a history which is mired by the moral hypocrisy and
contradictions of good and evil, and there is no way of threading the
paradox.
We all fall victim at some level, except at the cross of Christ, who
threaded the eye in this storm we call human history.
Robert Rice
At core I am a center of sorts, yet I circle the star. I am trying to
describe something which is not easy to describe, in terms of that relation.
The height of the argument however focuses not on me, but on God as an
emergent phenomenon in the space between people, and I am suggesting between
stars as well.
What I am seeking is a description of the turning point within this
relationship which gives rise to creation, and to the process of
civilization.
Contrary to some, I do not believe myself or the outermost or innermost self
or my own consciousness as God.
God for me is the other, who is unconditional love.
In a way I am using an aspect of myself as a type of foil to reflect an
image of Christ as I see Him, and the principal on which he stands tall, TO
you, through a meaningful relationship which we can agree upon.
No easy task, mind you, but it IS possible.
For a willing heart all things are possible, and there is nothing which is
hidden that cannot be revealed.
Jesus Christ is proof of that principal.
Robert Rice
Some of my sources are:
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukov.
"The Road Less Traveled, a New Psychology of Love and Spiritual Growth", by
M. Scott Peck
"A World Waiting to be Born, Civility Rediscovered", also by Peck
"The Nature and Destiny of Man" by Reinhold Neibuhr 1st pub 1941
The collective works of Carl Jung.
Various information on Quantum Physics taken from the Internet, like the
work of David Bohm and some of the stuff from the likes of Rupert Sheldrake
which are more speculative.
Some of the ideas of Tilliard de Chardin and his notions of the noosphere
and the omaga point.
The New Testament and the words, teachings, and character of Jesus Christ.
Uh what else - the works of Joseph Campbell like "The Hero with a Thousand
Faces" and "The Masks of God" three volume series.
And then information taken from my own philosophical wanderings, and certain
spiritual experiences, and then reconciled to the above ideas and
information.
Frankly, I am not really all that well read or educated. Some of these
thoughts I believe come out of my own struggle in terms of my own
relationship with God as I understand God.
Oh and also my knowledge, awareness and experience, as a recovered addict,
and the practical spiritual teachings and principals inherent in 12 step
program and the book "Alcoholics Anonymous".
I have also been hospitalized twice in my life, trying to put these things
together in a meaningful way which is not incongruent with reality. To do
that, let's just say I had to ride the edge, and to find that edge I had to
cross the line here and there.
And so I am back, and I believe have a "boon" to share with my friends.
I call atheists my friends because I am the scientific and practically
minded person, who abhorred such nonsense, and the will which would hope to
impose it upon others.
I am the quintessential prodigal son, which means that I was particularly
bad, but having been so far afield, I understand better than most the value
of God's merciful grace.
I now believe in all honestly that grace CAN and will be described in terms
which are as much physical, as they are spiritual, in the same way that we
cannot really separate spiritual and mental growth and well being, neither
can we cleave the body from the spirit, or matter from energy.
What it all boils right down to I believe are issues of power and influence,
and control issues around domination and submission.
It's about a leadership paradigm really, as a force of nature, motivated by
the highest standards of "a rising equilibrium of love".
Civility.
Love.
These are the terms which Christianity is supposed to have dealt with,
though I think we are still trying to catch up in terms of what it really
means and how it ought to impinge on our modern worldview today.
What we really have is a progression of thought, from the classical, and
stoic, through the Greek and Hellenistic, all the way through a hobbesian,
modern and post modernism.
It is my contention that the Judeo-Christian and Biblical interpretation of
the nature of man is the dominant one as a force of change and progress, and
that it is the one that is most congruent, understood correctly, with
reality as it is, as that formative causation that I've been trying to
describe as residing at the heart of the matter, and very likely at the
heart of matter and the void itself as well.
If as I strongly suspect, that Christianity in terms of a supra-rational
interpretation of the nature of man and of man's relation to God - is the
very highest expression of the principal at the very heart of Civil Liberty
or individual freedom, then the implications of that in terms of our modern
world view, is simply astounding, and offers great hope for the future of
human civilization. From this perspective, which I cannot call my own, since
it is just a new rendering and repackaging of the same thinking which has
very likely driven civilization from the beginning of human civilized
history, probably going back ten or twenty thousand years ago all the way to
the present moment - Jesus Christ is the culmination or the most mature
expression of God's own version of Civil Liberty as a formative causation
which is humanly possible, since it comes from a realm beyond our own ideas,
and our own concepts of social justice, and even evolutionary theory. In
short, Jesus is not only my personal savior but he saves the whole world,
and actually has the decency to allow us as individuals to actively
participate in the great just and noble historical pursuit.
Christianity in my view, is the only possible way to reconcile ourselves to
the infinite that we are already in relation to, and it is the only way, as
a transcendent principal of Civil Liberty through which we might both have
our individual freedom, and simultaneously participate in such a way that we
too can thread the fundamental paradox and hypocrisy of good and evil,
bounded within the law and politics.
Revealing the structure at the very heart of it, IS possible, to the extent
that such a provision has been made by God.
In other words through Christianity, we can if we so choose, walk straight
through the paradox, and into the holy of holies, making of the average
individual a high priest of sorts.
To the extent that what I am saying is in fact true, which it is, ironically
all authority bounded within the institution of the church, is pulled free
from the stone, and is then handed over to the lone individual journeyer,
and this I believe is what God and Jesus had in mind, which the church only
serving as the message in a bottle passed over the last two millennia to us,
for rediscovery.
Furthermore, to the extent that I am in a relation to Christ, as a new
height priest of sorts, Christ is speaking directly and individually to me,
and through me, to you, and in so far as he was sent, and sends us and me,
so to I send you.
It is an organic and even holographic implicately ordered image of an
explicate reality. It groks.
Christ is the true vine, and we are only braches, yet as a branch we are an
integral part of the tree of life.
In the timeless and spaceless reality of the present moment, what that means
is that the kingdom of heaven is here, now, in so far as we are "in Christ"
or in God, with He in us, and so it continues down the line, drawing things
along a progressive timeline toward a truly just and noble historical
pursuit of justice.
From a quantum perspective, to the extent that I am bound up and entangled
if you will, as a subjective participant in the historical process, there is
no way, by my own subjective resources alone, to find that radical
forgiveness, which enables the ascension into increasing civil conscious
awareness, and the corresponding increase in mental and spiritual growth.
To the extent that I or we are an emergent force of nature, Christianity
properly interpreted, is therefore the keystone of a royal arch of
civilization through which mere individuals may pass to freedom, and as we
leave ourselves behind, and increasingly over time move further and further
into the holy of holies, blending our will with God's own will, we "bubble
up" or well up, from our innermost being or consciousness, into eternal
life.
What I like about Christianity, as opposed to Eastern Traditions, is that it
never violates our innermost essential character.
Christianity states that when I am fully with God, that I will also still be
my truest self, where all treasure and all that is good in me will "be
stored in heaven where neither thief nor woodworm can destroy"
To the extent that this must include, by necessity, this present moment, I
must may my start, now.
The paradox of guilt and shame born of sin, is still there mind you, but
there is also on the other side and coming through the veil, a transcendent
principal of infinite love and radical forgiveness which, while it is not
permissive of my sin, it invites me, through that love and forgiveness to
enter, and one fine day, to no longer BE needful of doing things in my old
willful way, which always just gets me in shit.
Bottom line, God wins in the end. He won with Saul, he's won with me, and he
will one day win with you too.
Just be open to all possibilities is all I am asking, and to thine own heart
be true, because where heart is, there will your treasure be also.
This my friends is the more appropriate interpretation of Christian
doctrine.
The xtian fundies are so fascinated by the devil and Christ's triumph, that
I fear they've let the devil into their house, and though they traverse the
oceans proselytizing, they run the grave risk of only making their converts
twice as fit for hell as they are.
Sin with courage.
Mike Painter
<snip>
...one of them revolves around what it takes for the
> universe to exist. Everything in this universe, including you and me,
depend on
> other things to exist outside ourselves.
F for only a partial presentation of the argument from cause.
You can earn a D by stating it fully, a C if you can show where it becomes
arbitrary and an A if you can tell what comes next.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:abagcvks32iu416lq...@Pern.rk...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2003 14:01:11 -0400, "Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
>> If you're using the verb you shouldn't have capitalized it.
>> >Care to know how and why I say that?
>> Why would we care to know WHY you're wrong? It's enough to know that
>> you are.
>I am wrong only if the principal of rational self interest is dominent OVER
>the principal of Civil Liberty as a formative historical causation.
Since religion - any religion - is a DESTABILIZING force, it can't be
a stabilizing force as well, so calling it one makes you incorrect.
>And, see here's the problem that YOU have. I am not wrong about that, AND,
>given enough time, and enough well founded ideas, I can actually prove that,
>logically AND rationally.
And given enough evidence which, unfortunately for your argument,
doesn't exist.
>I tell you, you've met your match. And I don't mean that just to be self
>contragulatory. It's a fact.
>You my friend are wrong.
>And I can use the very words from Jesus own mouth to demonstrate my case,
>and win it, before critical observers.
Using the words in a work of fiction to prove your point dooms your
argument from the start.
Maybe if you tried presenting actual evidence? (Not that there is any
that backs up your claim.)
---
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
stoney
Message ID: <BR6ya.1396$cq1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Look, sport, post underneath the paragraph(s) you are responding to or
your posts will quickly be bypassed by folks.
>Stoney indeed.
>
>You do not see what I am driving at do you?
Pure unadultrated idiocy.
(snip)
stoney
Message ID: <0W6ya.1399$cq1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
>"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
>news:4a0b1eaac39ee0bd25a9d23b4532fb22@TeraNews...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2003 18:39:37 GMT, Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com>,
>> Message ID: <Jfaxa.5067$95....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in
>> alt.atheism;
>>
>> >In article <tH9xa.3733$nT5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Robert Rice
>says...
>> >>
>> >>Christianity is therefore, a force of Civilization (the verb).
>> >>
>> >>Care to know how and why I say that?
>> >
>> >Heck no ;)
>>
>> Christianity and Civilization are diametric opposites.
>
>No you are plain wrong about that.
Not at all, such is clearly indicated in the putrid stupidity called
"The Bible."
>Why don't you take the time to read the parable of the Good Sameritan. It's
>about maybe ten to fifteen lines of text, and in one foul swoop illuminates
>the very heighest principal of Christianity and the law of Moses, the heart
>of which is mercy.
/sarcasm
RRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttt.
Which is why a person picking up sticks on the sabbath was stoned to
death.
>That is the transcendant principal at the heart of a civilized order, not
>rational self interest in a survival of the fittest competition for
>resources Darwinian law of the jungle might is right framework.
The 'might makes right' framework is just what xtianity boils down to.
>Mind you that dynamic DOES play an important role, but the underlying
>principal of Civil Liberty, in accordance with Biblical and Christian
>thinking and philosophy IS the more dominent, in terms of the process of
>civilization, and I CAN prove it to you, that is if you didn't suffer from
>contempt prior to investigation.
You are an ignorant fool. I *was* a Christian of both the RCC and
Lutheran sects.
stoney
Message ID: <tb7ya.1411$cq1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
I see you lack the ability to read for comprehension as well as lack in
education. I am not 'shuggy.' We *are* animals. Morality *is*
relative and is dependant upon time, culture, and situation. I *do*
assign the value of things as I encounter them. (and so do you)
>Surely that cannot be the foundation for a civilized structure, which
>ironically begins at home where the heart is, in the social sphere of the
>family.
Sure it can, and it can be a very solid and supporting structure.
>Thus all sin, set within the social reality in which we are immersed, arises
>as an emergent phenomenon from the human heart, and where is it's origin?
Once again, there is no such thing as 'sin.' It is, at best, a
construct of the xtian superstition which only applies to adherants of
said superstition.
>Generationally, going all the way back to the first individual with a
>conscience and an awareness of right and wrong.
Which is dependant upon time, culture and situation.
>Sorry buddy, you are wrong.
So you mindlessly drool.
>And if I had more time here, I could proceed to prove it.
Not in a million years.
>We stand in relation to a history which is mired by the moral hypocrisy and
>contradictions of good and evil, and there is no way of threading the
>paradox.
Provide a concise definition of good and evil as well as demonstrate
objective standards. Until you do so you're urinating upwind.
>We all fall victim at some level, except at the cross of Christ, who
>threaded the eye in this storm we call human history.
The mythical Christ character was an prideful amoral monster.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> writes:
<snip>
>> All you've managed to do is to avoid several important questions
>> and then box them all up into something called "God," which is
>> a completely unpredictable thing.
> He is predictable to the extent that he acts according to his nature
> and his plan for mankind.
Neither of which you can define in any meaningful way.
> The extent to which you understand both will determine how
> well you can predict his responses to any given situation.
IOW, you don't have a clue as to some nature of god or to
its supposed plan.
> I did not avoid the questions asked, I answered them in the only
> way they can be answered...honestly and accurately.
With more questions, or simple avoidance of the questions?
Just say "I don't know" and you'll at least be honest. If you tally
up all the "I don't know's" and they start piling up bigtime, you
might wanna take a second or third look at your beliefs.
> If you wish to label your rejection of those answers as "not
> answering them", feel free.
I doubt you could stop me, but feel free to try. :-)
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> yar...@aol.com (Yarrido) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Everything in this universe, including you and me, depend on
>>> other things to exist outside ourselves.
>> Why doesn't that apply to some god? How did some god just
>> always exist and not need to be born? How did it learn how to
>> create? Trial and error?
> Probably from an eternity of thought, and then, the light came on,
> and the word was spoken.
What light?
> A word is an utterance, conveys meaning and intention, and it communicates
> something of the character of the one speaking.
So who was this god talking to? Itself?
> If there is no communication, then there is no meaning, and if no meaning,
> no purpose.
Are you talking about verbal communication of some kind, or any
type of communication at all?
> Given our existence, and the anthropic principal, we can clearly see that
> that is not the case.
What's not the case? That no communication between living organisms
takes place without your make-believe god?
> But since there is meaning, through progress, through the very process of
> being and becoming, then there is the word, there is meaning, and there is
> communication.
There is birth, life, reproduction and death. It doesn't take the
supposed word of some god to realize that. What it does take to
make something so simple into something horribly wrong is to plant the
idea that something went wrong somewhere, and that some god put a
curse on people and that's the reason we aren't immortal and that we
die. The people who believe such a stupid idea are idiots, and
although I try to have patience with them, it's most often a losing
battle.