Religion on Mars?

[RootVegetable]

As religiosity is an irrepressible human instinct, I propose we first
send the world's religious leaders (archbishops, popes, imams,
rabbis ,etc) to do initial the groundwork at the Mars base station.
Hopefully all communication will be lost through an unfortunate
technical hitch and we can then quietly get on with our lives back on
Earth.

[Lendz]

i just sent an email to the pope

[michaelsei]

Your opinion (you are welcome to it) is not intelligently articulated.

I am a religious individual and was actually wondering how the social
dynamic(s) would work in a Martian colonial situation. It would be
interesting to note if the people chosen to go to mars were
predominantly not religious in order to reduce possible conflict.
Religion is not the only source of conflict, keep that in mind...

[gmx0]

First of all, all humans have a tendecy to worship something. For
proof, see experiments performed by the Oxford university. If your are
atheist, you worship yourself. The point is, atheism is against our
heredity as humans. So even if all religious leaders went to Mars,
people will take their place. And if you put atheistic people up
there, you might as well never start, because it will be doomed to
failure. Look at the Soviet Union. China is kinda an exception, but
humans dont really have rights there. All socialism will lead to an
economic collapse. Atheism will destroy because it does not see value
to morals, because if there was no God, there would be no morals that
He made(e.g. Ten Commandments, Bible), and everyone can just kill
everyone if they felt like it. But I dont care if you send anyone, its
a free planet.

I speak as a 14 year old.

[WasBT]

I feel that their will be many more religions or cults which will form
once people start going away from earth as many major religions depend
on the moon's rotation... also their is a religion in place called
scientologist or what ever and similar religions will start like
that...

even thought a religion is a final religion to many it will still not
be limit to the future generation from creating their own
philosophical ways.

[Lendz]

tut tut tut...

all of you need to read atlas shrugged. if you havnt already.

this still doesnt stop the fact that an email has been sent to the
pope.

personally, im going to take a risk here and state something...

i worship... ::sweat on brow::

google!

whoo... with THAT out of the way! no, all of you have your points, and
yet... all of you are wrong. the only correct answer is an answer that
carries all correct and relevant points. so thus, collectively the
message of this forum this message board, can be considered right!

[Lewis Nitzberg]

Hmm good call. And if we do find other life, and supposing they have a concept of religion, how much different would it be from our major religions?
And if getting off Earth is possible... Well then what IS God's plan??

--
"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.

[eRevolution.us]

Perhaps Google could release a hint of its top-secret "page-rank"
process so that it could be adopted by religionists in the new
colony. "Religion-rank" would instantly (in 0.0042 seconds) produce
the most user-relevant religious options for colonists to enjoy. This
would cut through the religious marketing and self-described meta-data
and provide people with the truth, once and for all. For those who
don't wish to deal with the hard choices of sifting through the top
ten results, an "I'm Feeling Religiously Lucky" button could be made
available.

[p3t3]

When I get to Mars, my first act as planetary colonist will be to
enact Martian Law. Under Martian Law religion will be strictly
forbidden. Anyone found practicing religion will be dealt with
swiftly and mercilessly by Sir Phobos and Sir Deimos, Knights of Mars
and Beaters of Ass.

-p3t3
Mars Planetary Colonist

[spoon47]

Claiming that atheists worship themselves is a gross misstatement and
an overgeneralization on atheism. The Soviet Union didn't fail
because they were "Godless Commies". They failed because they didn't
effectively handle their natural resources. Now that Putin has
capitalized on their wealth of oil and natural gas, the Russian
economy has significantly strengthened. You claim that atheism will
destroy, but religious fanatics claim more lives each year by
percentage than atheists. The Crusades? The six days war? The
crisis in Sudan? 9/11? All religious conflicts.

Oh and atheist and socialist are not synonyms, even though you pretend
that they are.

Also the line about "I don't care if you send anyone..."
You do realize this whole thing is an April fool, right?

[Lewis Nitzberg]

I'm thinking Microsoft should go in and declare Windowism (tm) as the Religious Standard.

[WasBT]

If I can answer what's God's plan is, then I would be leading the
marshian's... lolz

[eRevolution.us]

You anti-Mars-religion guys aren't getting the whole "open-source
community" idea. Go back and read the plan again.

[Lewis Nitzberg]

True... true...


duuuuude! OPEN SOURCE RELIGION!!
GENIUS!! Think about it: you give the user your religion, and the right to change the bible any way the want.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM, eRevolution.us <dja...@lifeaction.org> wrote:

You anti-Mars-religion guys aren't getting the whole "open-source
community" idea.  Go back and read the plan again.

[gmx0]

> > I speak as a 14 year old.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what if it was an April Fools! IT is still a good thing to discuss.
Socialism is a byproduct of atheism. Religious fanatics are a result
of people who do not understand God truly. Look at America when it was
religious country. When France fell to the Revolution because of
atheism, Alex Tocquiville visited here. He saw all the churches. He
said 'America is great because America is good'. And now, when we
removed prayer from schools in 196-something, crime doubled.

Mishandling resources is socialism. Socialism is a byproduct of
atheism. Capitalism was a byproduct of Christian principles of
liberty. Now we are moving to socialism and globalization because of
this evil world, the evil Devil, and our evil selves.

Atheists at least worship something. They just dont know it.

[mouser]

ok. you're sort of using numbers here. you say 196-something, which
isn't terribly precise considering your claim that crime doubled at
that time. what time? and what crime? do you have the facts? or
are some adults telling you this stuff with fake statistics to back
them up? please look into the 1960s thing and the crime rates. at
least investigate some of this stuff. you seem bright- use it.

> Atheists at least worship something. They just dont know it.- Hide quoted text -

[Lewis Nitzberg]

ya, I agree.... many evangelicals I've met and talked to (no, i am NOT making a generalization, so please don't go on about tolerance, understanding, open-mindedness, etc.) make the same claims: when they took prayer out of school, kids got lower grades and crime went up. OF COURSE it has nothing to do with all the other factors that go in to crime, poverty, and poor education. No, prayer is the one thing that will set our schools straight. ESPECIALLY since we have SOO many heathens! HOW DO YOU EXPECT A SCHOOL TO FUNCTION WITH ALL THOSE JESUS-LESS JEWS, BUDDHIST, HINDUS, ETC.?? Too big a mystery for me!

[pete]

Nice plan.
Religion keeps the world at war lets not export it.

[Lewis Nitzberg]

Hmm... I don't think it's religion that keeps us at war, but people IN the religion taht take things outta context (or put them into their own context).
Religion, as an idea, is actually very good: you're giving people hope, something to believe in, and really religion just trys to make people happy. It's when people enforce their ways to "happiness and enlightenment" on others that it becomes a mess...

[mouser]

i regret not looking over my message. i was talking about smarts and
using them. i should have said- you seem to have smarts- use them.
my sentence didn't make sense. the kid can't use bright. the kid has
to use the kid's smarts. which i'm sure the kid has. i do feel an
urge to respond to this gmx0 character since the aforementioned is by
the aforementioned's claim, 14 years old. i think it's great to get
online and talk about religion and mars and i think it shows some
initiative. i strongly urge you, gmx0, to just look into some of
these scientific-sounding pronouncements. use whatever source
material you trust. trust, not like, not agree with. trust. look at
some hard facts and come up with your own guesses and then check those
out. and then, or before, see what other people think about the same
things. a nice variety of people, and people who also spent some time
figuring out whatever you're trying to figure out. i'm not asking you
to turn your back on the people you've been dealing with, but it's a
big world out there. if you want to be a thinker, do it. if you want
to be a christian thinker, do it. there are christian thinkers who
really deal with facts and heavy ideas. check out some of them. ask
your parents or teachers or church people for some names of christian
philosophers. ok? cheers!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lewis Nitzberg]

Wow, nicely put!
I totally agree - you don't have to question your beliefs, but ask yourself this (wel, if you wanna): what is it about those beliefs make me feel (right? good? holy? whatever it is that you like about them). And yes, there are many Christian thinkers, many christian scientists too (not the sect, but actual scientists who are christians). There are christians who believe in socialism, too. Being whatever religion you want to be shouldn't affect EVERY aspect of your life, and your political views shouldn't stem from your religious views. Both should stem from your LIFE views.

[Jared Croft]

It is interesting to imagine precisely what kind of race the martians
would be, given that they would not genetically be a slice of the
entire human race. If they were selected by merit, they would be more
intelligent, healthy, and adventurous than the average Earthling.
Perhaps the planets through interbreeding would get genetically evened
out eventually, but if Mars'es population grew significant first, then
the whole human race would benefit from "virgle selection"-no genocide
or psuedo science involved.

And now for some refutation...

gmx0:

"First of all, all humans have a tendecy to worship something. For
proof, see experiments performed by the Oxford university."

Humans have a natural tendency to slip into personifying fate/the way
of things. However, humans are sentient creatures, and are capable
realizing that natural law governs the universe, and are capable of
leaving their habit at: "Why did that have to happen!?" as opposed to
continueing it to: "Why did god do that!?". It isn't all that tough
to honestly.

Yes Mars will have religion if it is colonized, even if the first
generation is completely atheist. However, even if generation one is
made up of religious fanatics, Mars will still have Atheism. Just as
pre-Darwin colonial Massachusetts produced notable deist Benjamin
Franklin. It is the nature of humanity to be diverse.

"The point is, atheism is against our
heredity as humans."

Humans are greatly nature, but they are greatly nurture as well. We
are reasoners, possessing cultures, experiences, and knowledge which
inform our behaviour and internal lives.

"So even if all religious leaders went to Mars,
people will take their place."

True.

"And if you put atheistic people up
there, you might as well never start, because it will be doomed to
failure. Look at the Soviet Union. China is kinda an exception, but
humans dont really have rights there. All socialism will lead to an
economic collapse."

Most communists are atheists, but not all atheists are communists.
Most American atheists, and I know quite a few, are not communists. I
personally view communism as something a lot like a religion, because
it is faith based in that at its core is the unreasonable belief that
humans can be purely good.

"Atheism will destroy because it does not see value
to morals, because if there was no God, there would be no morals"

Compassion, gregariousness, love, and empathy are natural human
emotions, held by people of any creed or no creed. Humans are social
animals, predisposed to live in community, and to care for the well
being of the community just as they care for themselves. Their
survival is produced by a symbiotic relationship with others.

Morality is written in the heart, not in the laws of universe.
Morality is clarified by the mind, but reason is not its
foundation.

"I speak as a 14 year old."

Well, keep this mind:

Humility is the key to wisdom.

Neither you nor I nor the bible itself, is inerrant. Consequently, we
should always be questioning our own beliefs, so as to make them more
accurate. When we stop refining our beliefs, we become documents
rather than minds. A closed mind is a dead mind.

[1000101]

Atheists do not worship themselves, I speak as an atheist. Humans may
have a tendency to worship somthing, however that does mean that
humans HAVE to worship somthing. Atheists worship nothing.
Worshiping ones self is more along the lines of narcisism that,
however, is a psycological condition and not a religion (but we won't
go there).
You also seem to have the misconstrued idea that Atheists have no
morals, OF COURSE WE HAVE MORALS!! Think of it this way: if there is
no God, and he is just an invention of man (as I believe) then the
ideals and morals that god created would have been created by man
aswell. What I'm trying to get at, is that there are about as many
bloodthirsty lawless atheists as there are in any other religion. And
as for what you're saying with "atheism is against our heredity as
humans" I think that I should correct you, atheism WAS against our
heredity as humans, as we begin to learn more about science, and what
we can understand as fact, the need for relegion (which is nothing
more than a crutch to explain the unexplainable) is quickly
disapearing. Hold on to it well you can, because it won't be all that
long until relegion is considered a thing of the past.

I should also add, that I in now way claim to be right, there's as
much chance of atheism bieng right as there is for Sobek being the
omnipotent ruler of the universe
I speak as a 15 year old

[Lewis Nitzberg]

May I point out that age REALLY shouldn't be an issue? I've met people who are 35 and still act like they're 15... while I've met 14 year olds who act as though they're over 18 (which is wrong imho - if you're kid, enjoy it while you can!).
Also, religion isn't an age thing - you can search for the answer your whole life and not find anything, or you could find it at the age of 6. The mind is an amazing thing...!

[athée]

First off, how about you explain the correlation between atheism and
the causation of socialism. This is rather impossible, as socialism
was the idea of a Frenchman named Pierre Leroux, who just so happened
to be a Pantheist, not an atheist. Furthermore, followers of socialism
tend to believe in God more than communists. This is interesting
because when these were new ideas, religion was used to separate the
two, with socialism being the theistic ideology and communism as the
atheistic ideology. Another thing is that the French Revolution was
brought around not by atheism, as you have ignorantly claimed, but as
a byproduct of years of famine and poverty. Not to mention that the
Catholic Church, of all things, played a large factor in this war,
with its tactics of taxing farmers who worked the land belonging to
the Church, as well as stifling the idea of freedom of religion and
freedom from religious persecution. As for removing prayer from
school, the question is why not sooner, as, unless the school is a
private one, forcing children to pray is against the Constitution.
There are also many other reasons as to why the crime rate went up,
such as increased urbanization and shifting societal and cultural
values. Also, mishandling resources is not socialism, as it occurs in
every country in the world, and all countries are clearly not
socialistic. The fact that you blame all the atrocities and hardships
in the world upon the devil shows your naiveté when it comes to human
nature, not to mention your lack of evidence for your rather
incoherent argument. Also, the statement that, " Atheists at least
worship something" shows your lack of knowledge when it comes to the
actual meaning of the word "atheism." What you have is an oxymoronic
statement, as atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of any
theological entity. Your statement that, "They just don't know it"
shows your intolerance and conviction that atheists are not truly
people and cannot live their life correctly as they are. What do you
guys think? Is it better to look at the universe in an objective
manner and choose for yourself not to believe in an entity there is no
proof of, or is it better to be indoctrinated in your infancy and
raised in a manner that forces the belief of an entity with no proof
of its existence? I, for one, have no problems with religion as long
as others do not try to force it upon me or show intolerance towards
those with different beliefs. In fact, religion spreads hope to those
who otherwise have no reason to hope. Of course, these are just my
opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own.

- From the mind of a 17 year old atheist.

From the

On Apr 1, 5:20 pm, gmx0 <mfx...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jared Croft]

And I am an old crumdgeon of 18 if anyone cares to know. *cough*
*cough*

1000101:

"I should also add, that I in now way claim to be right, there's as
much chance of atheism bieng right as there is for Sobek being the
omnipotent ruler of the universe"

I'll elaborate a bit. You should be critically questioning the your
own beliefs and working out the answers to your questions.

You do need to be willing to be proven wrong, and that is humility.
You also need to be curious though. Refining and expanding, are
activities. You need motivation to engage in them. You probably are
curious. Generally speaking i'd presume anyone who cared about being
wise would be a curious person. Learn, consider, integrate, and
possibily apply.

Love the truth, not your conception of it. That way you'll pursue it
objectively...I don't know, i'm being too didactic. Back to post-high
school.

[Randeye]

Well, at least there won't be any televangelists there because there
won't be any money to hoard at first. Everyone that reads this post
should read the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee.
I'd love to go somewhere where I'm not continuously hounded and/or
shamed into adopting a religion, but I'd guess that Mars won't be that
place.
Here's a neat idea: Maybe we can send people from all religions up
there and then they can start hounding and killing each other so that
we can all make money from the war on Mars: Biggest Zealot Wins!
Maybe we can enlist the help of politicians NOW so that when humans do
arrive they can have their lives squeezed out of them by the laws that
could be written before the trip is made. We should start planning the
wall that we will build to divide the colony and start arguing about
who is an immigrant on Mars.

I would only go to Mars if I could be free of all the Bu%%sh#t that we
experience in our 'ahem' Modern society.

Ah, to he!! with it all, let's just start arguing and killing each
other now and get it over with. There is no way that our current
systems would be able to create a fully sustainable civilzation on
Mars. We'll be lucky to all be alive long enough to see this come to
pass anyway.

Religion on Mars=Death on Mars, just like it does here on terra firma.
Wake up and grow up people, all of you.

On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, athée <tsks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off, how about you explain the correlation between atheism and
> the causation of socialism. This is rather impossible, as socialism
> was the idea of a Frenchman named Pierre Leroux, who just so happened
> to be a Pantheist, not an atheist. Furthermore, followers of socialism
> tend to believe in God more than communists. This is interesting

> because when these were new ideas,religionwas used to separate the

> of its existence? I, for one, have no problems withreligionas long

> as others do not try to force it upon me or show intolerance towards

> those with different beliefs. In fact,religionspreads hope to those

[1000101]

I completly agree that age should not be an issue, I simply used my
age to show that I'm not someone who is older than ther person who's
post I replied to, with more experience defending their views. I
wanted to show myself as a peer rather than someone superior (although
age does not necessarily bring superiority with it).

> "Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.- Hide quoted text -

[seek_truth_seek_Jesus]

The idea of 'religion on Mars' subject does not hinge on whether or
not it would happen. Historically, people explore religion in much the
same way they explore the map... with purpose and design, yet with
absolute unknowns beyond the known boundaries. We are limited by our
very nature. Since we are limited (in mind and body) we are inherently
forced to adjust to our surroundings, and driven toward expanding
toward new and exciting life. That is why we keep growing and changing
as an Earthly population, much the same way we will when/if we get to
Mars. Likewise religion - truth, eternity, and belief in spiritual
beings - are often beyond our understanding so we seek them (and may
even plan to explore other planets in search of what we might find
that will bring us closer to newness, to grandness, to higher
knowledge, to the ultimate idealism, to perfection).

I would also like to bring some clarification on what constitutes
religion. Religion takes on many faces, sometimes even ideologies are
seen as religion. Let's not forget one detail that may help shed some
light on the subject. There is one person who is often attributed to
religion who spent years fighting against it. Jesus (the historical
Jesus of Nazareth) opposed religion, most of his teachings were anti-
religion. Catholism is not what Christ taught. Protestantism is not
what Christ taught. Islam is not what Jesus taught. Mormonism is not
what Christ taught. Christ taught his truth to those who would hear it
and promised that those who seek truth will find it. It doesn't make a
difference what planet you happen to be on for his words to apply. If
he is who he claims to be then he is God. If he is not, then he is
insane. You either follow Jesus and believe what he says is pure truth
or you don't follow him and run the risk of believing what he said
wasn't true. Moral relativism is what mankind often chooses as a
substitute for God's truth. That means if you believe your truth is
truer than God's truth then you have elevated yourself to an
omniscient plane that you are willing to risk all eternity on.

On a personal note, I made the decision to follow Jesus and live a
blessed (not perfect) life. Every day I put my trust in the words of
Jesus I live my life with a hope and a future. I have experienced a
very meaningful and valuable relationship with God and have no
regrets. I urge you to seek truth, wherever you are.

[Jared Croft]

I sure hope writing code is as fun for you guys* as writing stuff like
that.

*-Or for the Google writers, if you aren't one of them.

[mike1937]

I played the rama pc games, im amazed anyone remembers the books.
anyway, anyone out there that is convinced mankind needs religion for
purpose needs to read "the myth of sisyphus" by Albert Camus, and
anyone who thinks atheism is more harmfull than religions should refer
to god is not great by cristopher hitchens for a mind-numbing list of
atrocities caused by religion.

> > > Atheists at least worship something. They just dont know it.- Hide quoted text -

[budospirit]

I think that, once on mars, the first thing one must do is grok one's
environment.

On Apr 1, 4:15 pm, RootVegetable <stephanfow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As religiosity is an irrepressible human instinct, I propose we first
> send the world's religious leaders (archbishops, popes, imams,

> rabbis ,etc) to do initial the groundwork at theMarsbase station.

[wizard of aas]

On Apr 1, 4:10 pm, "Lewis Nitzberg" <lnitzb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True... true...
>
> duuuuude! OPEN SOURCE RELIGION!!
> GENIUS!! Think about it: you give the user your religion, and the right to
> change the bible any way the want.
>

Isn't this sort of what already happens?

What constitutes the "bible" differs per religion, translation is not
a science, the significance of the book differs depending on your
perspective, interpretation can be selective, it contains the notion
that previous texts could be "wrong" (why did Jesus have to come and
explain that the nature of God as seen in the "Old Testament" was not
quite right? Certainly the whole Trinity thing was a new concept...),
and it is "progressive" in the sense that later writing supercedes
older writing if there is a conflict.

I'm all for including the open source version in a massive Martian
Quote-of-the-Day scrolling banner around the planet - along with other
great quotes to show that moral, spiritual, practical, and wise
sayings can be found everywhere if one is simply willing to look... :)

[ImagineThat]

I sincerely hope that you are joking. This post only perpetuates the
stereotype of the ignorant and intolerant Bible-hugging Christians. It
is true that Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are without of knowledge of
Christ, but we are without Ala or Nirvana. The problem with
intolerance is it breeds unspeakable horrors. Take the Spanish
Inquisition for example, or Modern Terrorism. Convert or Die. Religion
has been at the root of many, many conflicts through out history. It
has cost millions their lives. Why is that, do you think, when almost
all religions teach us not to steal, lie, commit adultery or kill our
fellowman? It is simply because of intolerance and ignorance.

Forced Religion is no religion at all. No one likes being forced to do
anything, even if it is for their good. God has given each of us our
Free Agency to choose our actions. When you force children to say a
prayer of a faith they are no a part of you do no good. If it's a
Christian prayer, is it a Catholic Prayer, an evangelical one or even
a LDS (AKA Mormon) Prayer? You would be in an uproar probably if the
schools had a daily prayer from the Koran. The thing I'm getting at is
that no everyone thinks the same way; in fact almost no one thinks or
believes the same way. There are over 1000 sects of Christianity for
that reason.

I agree that taking Religion out of schools is a terrible thing and
has been a part of the decay of public moral standard, but no one
should ever be forced to pray in public schools, there should how ever
be a time set aside in school for matters of religion. The golden rule
is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You don't want
Jews, Muslims, or anyone else forcing their way on you, just as they
don't want it forced on them.

It has taken me many years to see past all the Christians that have
tried to "save" me, and all the gossip and intolerance before I came
to know our Savior so if this post seems a little upsetting I
apologize. It frustrates me to see people being called Heathens and
have religious forced upon.

> "Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.- Hide quoted text -

[michaelsei]

Based upon my minute amount of research:
Forms of socialism can be found in history in the Inca Civilization
and in ancient Egypt.
But the "Christian" Anabaptists really brought it to our attention in
the Western world (I personally think it was a misreading of the
Bible).
When their movement largely dissipated, atheist philosophers picked it
up.

A form of communism was attempted at in one of the early colonies but
failed economically.
The colonists went to Scripture to ascertain whether God had anything
to say about money (trying to be lighthearted here)...Really they were
looking for principles on which to base an economy. The result was
the progenitor of today's free market capitalism, with ideas of de-
centralization at its core. I would say that Austrian School of
economics comes closest to mirroring a Bibblical form of economics.

Also note:
In these sorts of discussions civility is key. So far we have seen
much.

Social issues are complex.
Yes, atheists have morals. But I would ask, on what basis do you
determine right and wrong?
No, removing prayer did not cause a crime wave. But I would say that
acknowledgment of God will promote moral restraint in society. And
whereas forcing prayer may be un-Constitutional allowing prayer is not
(i.e. "free exercise clause")
Atheists do not worship themselves. This statement may be rendered
true or false based on your definition of worship. I do not think
most Christians intend a narcissistic definition but a definition of
priority. To a Bible-believing Christian God is presuppositional
(necessarily the starting point), we worship Him as such (i.e. God,
the creator, etc). And it is not simply the case that atheists "don't
know it" but that they say "there is no God" and that they "deny the
truth in unrighteousness," that is the Biblical viewpoint.
&c.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

[Jared Croft]

Imaginethat:

"I agree that taking Religion out of schools is a terrible thing and
has been a part of the decay of public moral standard"

Taking moral philosophers, religious or otherwise, out of public
schools has decayed our morals. Mind you, we no longer burn witches
and keep slaves. Jesus by himself isn't a good a teacher.

Michaelsie:

"I would say that Austrian School of
economics comes closest to mirroring a Bibblical form of economics."

What about leaving unharvested food in your fields for the poor to
eat? What about the church? Tithes and all, effectively a government
dedicated to pleasing the lord with good behaviour and butchered
livestock. Pay unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, which is at least a
salad. Dude, have you read the bible? I've read some of it.

Matthew 6:24:

Jesus:
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love
the other, or he will be devoted to the one and love the other. You
cannot serve both god and money."

[wizard of aas]

On Apr 1, 11:58 pm, michaelsei <msdavis1...@gmail.com> wrote:
.....

>
> The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

I get that people are going to have their own view of God, or even
their own word(s) (Yaweh, etc)

----
Fear, however, is a loaded word for me. Fear is not the beginning of
a good relationship nor a good reason to stay in one (the "ends" do
not justify the "means").

One might say it is about knowing what to fear, which presumes one
already has the wisdom to know. If fear is motivated by ignorance (we
fear that which we do not understand), then I think it is neutral to
say: Ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.
------
Personally I think God is Love is a much more compelling way to get
people to think about entering a relationship with God. Whatever that
means for them.

[Jared Croft]

Let Exodus 20:20 clear this blasephemic leprosy from ye my brother!:

"Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test
you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from
sinning."

[wizard of aas]

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world
giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let
it be afraid.
(John 14:27)
In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto
me.
--Psalm 56:11
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because
fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
--I John 4:18
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of
love, and of a sound mind.
--II Timothy 1:7


So..... looks like the New Testament and the Old have a different take
on things :)

[ImagineThat]

One of the Frustrations of the Bible is that it has been translated
many many times. Hence, there are slightly differing translations that
have two very different meanings.

This is from the King James Version

And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove
you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

I don't know how you read this but the way I read this, is that God
does not want us to sin, he fears for us as a parent fears for their
child. I belive that Wizard of aas has a good point in saying,

" Fear is not the beginning of a good relationship nor a good reason
to stay in one (the "ends" do not justify the "means"). "

I believe that any relationship if it is to be good must be born of
love. Fear and Coersion do not lead to joy, but Misery.

The Love of God is what should prompt you to action. Psalms 97:10 "Ye
that Love the Lord, Hate evil..." John 14:15 "If ye love me keep my
Commandments"

This is one of many examples of where the bible is interpreted in
different ways and takes on vastely differing meanings.

Anyways getting back to the original discussion of Religions role in a
Society, I liked Wizard's Idea that Ignorence is the beginning of
Wisdom, it's so very true. I don't know who said this but I've always
like it. "True wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." On that note
I'd like iterate the fact that I really don't know anything and that
the things I write are simply to engage is this discussion so that I
may learn from all of you, and help me to gain a better understand.

I think that Religion's importance to society is essential, and I also
Firmly believe in Freedom of Religion. I wish to worship as I choose
and for you to worship, or not, as you choose. Contending with people
on religion and trying to force people to follow the way that you
think is wrong and will only lead to conflict. Everyone believes they
are the ones that are right and you'll never convice them otherwise. I
think this is a large reason why Religion has been at the root of so
many conflicts in our history because people and nations can't put
aside their differences and agree to disagree.

I see nothing wrong with people putting their ideas out there for the
people to decide to follow them or not, but no one should be forced
into any religion. Forced religion is no religion at all, it is Tyrany
and people will revolt against it one way or another.

On Apr 2, 7:13 pm, Jared Croft <wyj...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ja.nizzle.fo.sheezy]

I have come to the conclusion that there is a god. Not just a god but
the one and only
God while still being three persons.
Three persons, one God.


Jesus ♥s me.
And he ♥s you to.

[Jared Croft]

ImagineThat:

"One of the Frustrations of the Bible is that it has been translated
many many times. Hence, there are slightly differing translations
that
have two very different meanings."

The bible is self contradicting in any single version. For one of the
more straight forward examples: Jesus's father is detailed as having
two completely different ancestories between him and David.

"This is from the King James Version"

The King James Version is oudated. Since it was written we have
discovered older versions some of of the ancient biblical texts, and
have achieved a better understanding their languages. Translations
like: "Though shalt not kill" as opposed to "though shalt not murder"
display what can only be described as a product of the ignorance of
the times, or else wanton incompetence. Furthermore, stylistically
the ancient bible is informal and full of slang, whereas the Kings
James Version is just the opposite.

The new international version of the bible is certainly better than
King James, though I don't know whether or not NIV is the peak of the
modern crop. Now if you want to find out what a tricky passage
actually means, you should probably look up translation information
about it. If the meaning isn't directly in that information, at least
you'll be able to make the most educated guess at it that you can.

"I don't know how you read this but the way I read this, is that God
does not want us to sin, he fears for us as a parent fears for their
child. I belive that Wizard of aas has a good point in saying, "

That would stylistically seem out of place for Exodus. At that point
God was harsh and self absorbed, whereas his chosen people were for
the most part ridiculously thick. God usually liked Moses I guess*,
but in general God's people seemed to irritate him. He smited them a
lot. He even offered to blot them all out while speaking to Moses on
Sinai.

*-Almost killed him in Egpyt. Didn't let him see the promise land
because of a small infraction. But besides that relations were good.

"I believe that any relationship if it is to be good must be born of
love. Fear and Coersion do not lead to joy, but Misery."

Christianity is a religion of not just the carrot, but the stick as
well. The bible is full of rewards and punishments

"Anyways getting back to the original discussion of Religions role in
a
Society, I liked Wizard's Idea that Ignorence is the beginning of
Wisdom, it's so very true. I don't know who said this but I've always
like it. "True wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
On that note I'd like iterate the fact that I really don't know
anything and that
the things I write are simply to engage is this discussion so that I
may learn from all of you, and help me to gain a better understand."

To know something, is to be absolutely certain of it. To believe
something, is to assume it is true. I suppose beliefs are what we
should have, as they are simply what we have deduced.

"I think that Religion's importance to society is essential,"

I know from experience that it isn't essential to an functioning and
happy life, so I don't see why it would be essential to a functioning
and happy society. As I understand it, religion's affects on people
are a mixed bag. Religion produces both good and evil, comfort and
fear, oppression and charity. It isn't obvious that religion is
overall beneficial, but it may be. I am glad certain people are
religious, and I am not happy that certain others are.

"Contending with people on religion and trying to force people to
follow the way that you
think is wrong and will only lead to conflict."

You can't directly force people to believe as you do, and shouldn't
try to. However, one of the many freedoms of a free society, is the
freedom to challenge. I think that to challenge in an honest and
understanding manner is to influence positively.

"Everyone believes they
are the ones that are right and you'll never convice them
otherwise."

That isn't really true. Some people are metaphorically very blind and
stagnant. Others less so. Beliefs regarding religion tend to be
entrenched, particularly in the face of confrontational arguement, but
they are not immovable.

"I think this is a large reason why Religion has been at the root of
so
many conflicts in our history because people and nations can't put
aside their differences and agree to disagree."

Religion deals with big questions, and so is usually taken very
seriously. However, it is not unique in its ability to produce
violent tension. I think the real enemy is people believing in
something to such a great extreme that they are willing to and do
violate humanitarian morality for its sake.

Civil discourse tends to provide moderation, understanding, and
homogeniety at some basic level.

America is prejudiced against Atheists. According to a recent poll,
Americans would sooner elect an homosexual to be president than an
Atheist. Goerge H.W. Bush said Atheists shouldn't be permitted to be
citizens.

Evidently, America needs to learn more about Atheism. Maybe then many
people will stop making spurrious claims like the one that Atheists
have no morals.

[michaelsei]

Jared Croft said:

What about leaving unharvested food in your fields for the poor to
eat? What about the church? Tithes and all, effectively a government
dedicated to pleasing the lord with good behaviour and butchered
livestock. Pay unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, which is at least a
salad. Dude, have you read the bible? I've read some of it.

wizard of ass:

Fear is not the beginning of a good relationship nor a good reason to
stay in one (the "ends" do not justify the "means").

Jared Croft said:

To know something, is to be absolutely certain of it. To believe
something, is to assume it is true. I suppose beliefs are what we
should have, as they are simply what we have deduced.

Jared Croft said:

The bible is self contradicting in any single version.

I say:

I have nothing against generosity.
I believe it is a duty of the individual to be generous (taught by
both the OT & NT).
I also believe it is not the State's role to redistribute wealth
charitably (Biblically, the state protects the citizens, bears the
sword punishing evildoers and upholding the law, & maybe a few other
things but that is it).

If God requires 10% then it is immoral for the State to ask for more.

Don't muzzle the ox...(OT law turns into a NT economic principle, id
est pay your pastor a double salary)

Note: The Bible is full of specifics and full of principles. Much
overlaps. In many cases the specifics cease but the principle lives
on, especially in NT times.

Yes. I have.

Here is the verse to which I referrred:
Pro 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools
despise wisdom and instruction.

If you understand Proverbs, wisdom/knowledge/words of instruction etc.
are all synonyms and the redundancy serves to bolster its message.
God knows we will not get it all the first time and He "repeatedly"
repeats himself throughout the OT and into the NT over and over same
message; redemption.

To "know" that God exists by your definition would seem highly
unlikely. Yet most Christians are certain of His existence and that
they are numbered with the elect. To prove this is difficult.
Although it can be done with a logically sound argument; it is
nonetheless a philosophical one. And even if I could "prove" it, that
would not cause any conversions on this message board seeing that the
devils "know" God exists and they can only tremble. Thus, it is with
great clarity and coherence that God says that He uses the foolish
things of this world to confound the wise.

I do not think the Bible is self contradicting. Now I am NOT
espousing the idea that every version is a good one. I enjoy the
literary style of the KJV so I use the Geneva Bible (my quotes are
from an online ESV, but I would not be averse to using RSV, NASB,
NKJV, KJV & others). And as a promotional plug (no I get nothing for
saying this) I would suggest all serious students of God's Law-Word
get themselves a copy. It has been reprinted in modern English as far
as some word choices and spelling.

Debating the text? Not a scholar of that level. But I will say there
are very good reasons to use Bibles based on the "Majority" text
versus the "Older" text. The agreement between majority texts...They
are nearly identical. But the older texts introduce greater
variations. The variations in the majority text overwhelmingly are
simple spelling/grammar/etc mistakes. That is, NONE fundamentally
change Christianity. On the other hand older texts seem to come from
certain Gnostic sects and being sequestered away for centuries of the
Churches most crucial years, are better preserved (I call that
providence). Thus we have bad copies that are older and we have lost
old good copies that have been destroyed by use (check out some old US
currency), but in their place we have MANY pieces of text that are in
complete doctrinal harmony (as I understand it).

Thank you for bearing with me; many points to address; not singling
out Jared Croft but you had much to say (...multitude of words...) so
I had much to provide counter point for, though I like what you had to
say on other points; if there are still more questions on God and
money ask and I will try to answer and/or provide the answer from my
resources (I have been studying economics for the last six months and
have much fresh in my mind, BTW prepare for recession if you haven't
and still think the markets will rebound).

Coram Deo

[Jared Croft]

"I have nothing against generosity.
I believe it is a duty of the individual to be generous (taught by
both the OT & NT).

I also believe it is not the State's role to redistribute wealth."

charitably (Biblically, the state protects the citizens, bears the
sword punishing evildoers and upholding the law, & maybe a few other
things but that is it).

If God requires 10% then it is immoral for the State to ask for more."

Morality is the law in the part of the OT I was refering to. The part
of the NT I was refering to may not be pro-government, but it is
certainly anti-capitalism. Furthermore, who is to say that whatever
the bible does not dictate it prohibits?

What about the government of Solomon. He made tens of thousands work
in forced labour camps, but was only rebuked by god when he became
idolatrous.

If the bible had views about the proper size of government, Jesus
would have specified what was Ceaser's.

"I do not think the Bible is self contradicting."

If the bible isn't self contradicting then how can you explain Joseph
having two conflicting ancestories detailed between him and David.

Mathew 1:1-17
Luke 3:23-37

"Debating the text? Not a scholar of that level.  But I will say there
are very good reasons to use Bibles based on the "Majority" text
versus the "Older" text.  The agreement between majority texts...They
are nearly identical.  But the older texts introduce greater
variations.  The variations in the majority text overwhelmingly are
simple spelling/grammar/etc mistakes.  That is, NONE fundamentally
change Christianity.  On the other hand older texts seem to come from
certain Gnostic sects and being sequestered away for centuries of the
Churches most crucial years, are better preserved (I call that
providence).  Thus we have bad copies that are older and we have lost
old good copies that have been destroyed by use (check out some old US
currency), but in their place we have MANY pieces of text that are in
complete doctrinal harmony (as I understand it)."

Stuff of this depth: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
is sometimes worth refering to.

Jared Croft

[Randeye]

Mike, you and I could totally hang out :-')

On Apr 1, 9:36 pm, mike1937 <arid_sha...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I played the rama pc games, im amazed anyone remembers the books.
> anyway, anyone out there that is convinced mankind needs religion for
> purpose needs to read "the myth of sisyphus" by Albert Camus, and
> anyone who thinks atheism is more harmfull than religions should refer
> to god is not great by cristopher hitchens for a mind-numbing list of
> atrocities caused by religion.
>

[michaelsei]

"Morality is the law in the part of the OT I was refering to. The
part of the NT I was refering to may not be pro-government, but it is
certainly anti-capitalism. Furthermore, who is to say that whatever
the bible does not dictate it prohibits?

What about the government of Solomon. He made tens of thousands work
in forced labour camps, but was only rebuked by god when he became
idolatrous.

If the bible had views about the proper size of government, Jesus
would have specified what was Ceaser's."

I don't see where the NT is anti-capitalist.
I do not maintain unequivocally that what it "does not dictate it
prohibits." But in many cases what it does not dictate it prohibits
by principles already laid down. While other things are simply not
expedient. Laying aside "freeweights" so to speak.

Have you read what Solomon wrote late in his life? Vanity of vanities;
all is vanity. God had already provided him with the law. Solomon
like us was to reach a conclusion based upon careful study of God's
Law-Word. He should have been able to apply the principles gained
from the Law; in a word: casuistry.

Why does Jesus, God the Son, have to reiterate in the NT what God the
Father Himself revealed in OT times? In fact many conservative
scholars would say that the epiphanies in the OT were really
Christophanies...Thus that would mean the pre-incarnate Jesus
delivered the Law-Word of the OT.

Note: Biblical blueprints were laid down in the OT. Everything from
the OT carries into the NT unless otherwise stated by Scripture.

"If the bible isn't self contradicting then how can you explain Joseph
having two conflicting ancestories detailed between him and David.

Mathew 1:1-17
Luke 3:23-37 "

To make you ask why. And I mean that sincerely. That is, it is part
of Biblical prophecy if you must know. I was going to explain it but
thought otherwise (a pearl). Suffice it to say that it was done
intentionally. Note: there are 42 generations in this passage and
there are 42 months in 3 and a half years (time, times and half a
time, let him who has ears to hear).

"Stuff of this depth: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
is sometimes worth refering to. "

I didn't expect this...I'm assuming that you correctly referred to
this page concerning abortion...Here is my response:

Exodus 21:22,23 "Also if men strive and hurt a woman with child, so
that her child depart from her and 1death follow not, he shall be
surely punished, according as the woman's husband shall appoint him,
or he shall pay as the 2Judges determine. But if death follow, then
thou shalt pay life for life."

Footnotes: "1Of the mother or the child. 2 Or, arbiters."

1599 Geneva translation. It is more clear from this version that the
reference to lex talionis is also applied to the unborn unequivocally.

BTW, I don't know what version of the NASB STR is using; here is what
I found that the NASB says. I quote:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that
she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely
be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as
the judges {decide.}" Exodus 21:22

Similar wordings are used in the KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV. I did run
across the interpretation "miscarriage" versus "premature birth"...But
what point are you trying to make. I am no Hebrew scholar. I wish I
was so I could read it myself and see what it says...I will maintain
that I trust the integrity of the majority text for the previously
stated reasons. I trust that the wording is to be translated
"premature birth."

Christus Vincit
Christus Regnat
Christus Imperat

[Randeye]

And I have come to the conclusion that god is a dwarfish lady with
five ears and permanent clown makeup. Now, try to invalidate my
beliefs by overstating yours; meanwhile, I'll be busy having fun
whilst hurting noone. (sticks thumbs in ears and says) neener neener
neener! I don't care who's right and who's wrong, just that we all
stop proselytizing. Faith cannot create Proof, and Proof is no good
reason for Faith. Meanwhile, the Texans are at it again: invading a
community because their religious beliefs 'shock and offend' ahem,
'sensible people'. (no, I'm not quoting anyone) Just for the record,
the concept of gender in deity is evidence of our anthropomorphic
nature. Ok, getting down off the soap box now... NEXT!

On Apr 2, 11:05 pm, "ja.nizzle.fo.sheezy" <janizzl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Randeye]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

[Randeye]

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-
edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the
mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood
boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need
in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused
with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights
unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

-- Julius Caesar

[Randeye]

OHHHH yeah, sing it, Root! (whistles, claps, stomps feet)

On Apr 1, 4:15 pm, RootVegetable <stephanfow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As religiosity is an irrepressible human instinct, I propose we first
> send the world's religious leaders (archbishops, popes, imams,

> rabbis ,etc) to do initial the groundwork at the Mars base station.

[Paradigm Shift]

If there is any religion on Mars, then I'm not going... The reason is
simple, with such a small community on Mars, religious people will
probably be quite zealous about it in order to preserve their beliefs.
It's bad enough having people coming around knocking on your door once
a week trying to save my soul. Can you imagine what it would be like
stuck on a small rocket for 12+ months with these losers, let alone
living with them in a pod on mars for the rest of my life. Stuff that.
I'd rather stay here. Thanks for destroying my dream. Or
alternatively, all the religious people could go to mars, and leave us
atheists to inherit the earth, then we might actually start to get
along with each other.

On Apr 2, 6:34 am, athée <tsks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off, how about you explain the correlation between atheism and
> the causation of socialism. This is rather impossible, as socialism
> was the idea of a Frenchman named Pierre Leroux, who just so happened
> to be a Pantheist, not an atheist. Furthermore, followers of socialism
> tend to believe in God more than communists. This is interesting

> because when these were new ideas, religion was used to separate the

> of its existence? I, for one, have no problems with religion as long

> as others do not try to force it upon me or show intolerance towards

> those with different beliefs. In fact, religion spreads hope to those

[Scottyoman]

Religion on Mars will cause problems...
if you think about it people first of all would use resources to make
religious objects like Bibles, crosses, pentagrams, Toras, Quarns
at the same time if I am on Mars I don't think you should ban
religion. The we will have Secret Mars Cults

[Randeye]

Hey, wait a minute...isn't that what Christians already do? ;)

On Apr 1, 5:10 pm, "Lewis Nitzberg" <lnitzb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True... true...
>
> duuuuude! OPEN SOURCE RELIGION!!
> GENIUS!! Think about it: you give the user your religion, and the right to
> change the bible any way the want.
>

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM, eRevolution.us <djar...@lifeaction.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You anti-Mars-religion guys aren't getting the whole "open-source
> > community" idea. Go back and read the plan again.

[scorpiov]

All I'd say is this.

1. In the frontier, religion is the last thing people will be
following.
2. Religion tends to divide rather than unite (persona experience)
3. Is religion what humanity needs? or air, water and food?

Im not an athiest, but I dont see religion playing any major role on
Mars.

[Gorgonzola]

SEND...? When did one need to send a Missionary anywhere ? When the
First Settlers land on Mars , they will already find them there !

[Gorgonzola]

No one ever said that "The Soviet Union " failed ; a country is not an
enterprise, to either fail or succeed . But Communism & Socialism as
practised in the USSR most certainly failed , because they failed to
do what they claim is their objective -- distribution of wealth
amongst all !
Anyone who destroys , is an atheist , not the other way round ! The
terrorists you name are all "professedly" religious , not so in
reality . A person who has no love for another creation of the
Creator , is not religious . Thus , Terrorism is not a crime against
Man , but a crime against God !
The Atheist & Socialist may not be synonymous , but most Socialist/
Communist States claim to be atheist , or "free thinkers" which is an
euphemism for the same !
As for your last line , you are only trying to cover your back in case
it is a prank , right ?
A last word --
Whether or not this enterprise is for real , it is a great idea , if
only for the reason that it has brought so many of us together in
discussion of new & venturesome ideas , out of which may grow
something else ......

[ben]

On Apr 5, 9:17 am, Paradigm Shift <llign...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there is any religion on Mars, then I'm not going...

Our first open display of intolerance, and it's scored by... an
athiest. Not a good start there.

[ben]

On Apr 5, 9:25 am, Scottyoman <Scottyyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Religion on Mars will cause problems...
> if you think about it people first of all would use resources to make
> religious objects like Bibles, crosses, pentagrams, Toras, Quarns

Can't have that, can we? The idea that people might use resources to
make things of their own choice, that make them happy? What a waste!
While we're at it lets prohibit anything at all of a frivolous nature-
games and toys, anything decorative. Dyes and Pigments are a waste,
everything can be produced in a nice uniform sludge gray, we don't
need colors. In fact, just to make sure, let's make sure nothing gets
produced at all except a very narrow range of Approved Necessary
Things. I'm sure we'll have no problem getting people to serve on the
Board of Approvers, since they'll have access to all sorts of things
the peons won't. For purposes of analysis, of course.

Mars... who would have thought George Orwell got there first?

[Paradigm Shift]

Well it's probably a good job I'm not going then... ; -) However, in
my defense, I was kind of hoping that people would detect the comical
tone of my comments. I don't hate religion or religious people, I just
think it is a complete waste of my time, and would rather watch dog
crap dry in the noon day sun that listen to their highly speculative
assertions that there is a god who created, blar, blar blar...
Boooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg.
People should stick to what they actually know, admit what they don't
know, and try to find out what you can, instead of giving up and
saying god did it.

[Scottyoman]

I say this if we go to mars lets make a new religion one that's better
then anyone on Earth, we can have everything awesome in it.

[Scottyoman]

Oh, and ben forgot to respond before, yes if we go to mars nothing can
be wasted and I suggest that we do use everything without color at
first because colors and dyes are not needed.

[Gorgonzola]

Now , that's a positive idea !
And that is the sort of attitude a potential Virgler should have ....

On Apr 8, 6:04 am, Scottyoman <Scottyyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I say this if we go to mars lets make a new religion one that's better
> then anyone on Earth, we can have everything awesome in it.
>
> On Apr 7, 8:11 am, Paradigm Shift <llign...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well it's probably a good job I'm not going then... ; -) However, in
> > my defense, I was kind of hoping that people would detect the comical
> > tone of my comments. I don't hate religion or religious people, I just
> > think it is a complete waste of my time, and would rather watch dog
> > crap dry in the noon day sun that listen to their highly speculative
> > assertions that there is a god who created, blar, blar blar...

> > Boooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg­.

> > People should stick to what they actually know, admit what they don't
> > know, and try to find out what you can, instead of giving up and
> > saying god did it.
>
> > On Apr 7, 7:54 am, ben <levybenath...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 5, 9:17 am, Paradigm Shift <llign...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If there is any religion on Mars, then I'm not going...
>
> > > Our first open display of intolerance, and it's scored by... an

> > > athiest.  Not a good start there.- Hide quoted text -

[Paradigm Shift]

Make up a new religion?????

The free dictionary defines religion as:
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.

So you can't really just make up a new religion (although I would
argue that this is what was done for all the other ones). Surely you
have to believe in the religion, and how can you do that if you just
made it up? You'd have to be delusional or mad. I think what you have
in mind are called cults.

The free dictionary defines a cult as:
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or ***false***, with its followers often living in an unconventional
manner [err, like on Mars] under the guidance of an authoritarian,
charismatic leader [like me].
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

Maybe this thread should be renamed "CULTS ON MARS".

Here are some ideas for some cults:
* The "I'm to afraid of death to accept reality and believe in heaven"
cult. These guys I call "The Sacredies"
* The "I'm to stupid to follow the rules, and have to believe in hell
to keep me in line" cult. These guys I call "The Thickies"
* The "I was brainwashed at an early age so it's not my fault I
believe in god" cult. These guys I call Christians, Jews, etc
(basically all the main stream religions :-).

If anyone finds my comments offensive, then vote me off the mars
mission. Alternatively, if you do agree with me, then make me your
cult leader and give me all your money. There is only one rule (for
now at least) in my cult, and that is that you have to repeat this
5000 times before going to bed "All hail Paradigm Shift, supreme
spiritual leader of Mars. For he is the one that brings us closer to
god. Through Paradigm Shift we see god, and with Paradigm Shift we
will have eternal happiness. Only by giving all our money to God (via
Paradigm Shift) can we be free of sin and live happily on Mars."
Actually that's a bit long... Better just say that 50 times before
bed. Don't want you all getting dry throats and drinking all the Mars
water up ;-)


P.S. Is this supposed to be a serious discussion? If it is... Are you
guys serious???

P.P.S. If you want another stupid reply from me, then reply to me. If
you don't then please don't reply. The reason is that us cult leaders
always have to get the last word in. It's because we are so
charismatic you see :-)

[Scottyoman]

We can make a cult and 1000-2000 years later with enough hard work, it
will be a religion and a reason to attack the Earth.
Teach them not to follow our beliefs...

[Paradigm Shift]

OK, now you are talking my language Scottyoman. You can be my right
hand man, and body guard (although you will be obliged to dive in
front of me to shield me from bullets should anyone on Mars try to
assassinate me ;-) You OK with that?

Obviously in return you can have a lot of the money we "collect for
god" (how does 25% sound?), and the rights to... the water (I'll have
the air rights though). Then our great, great, great x10 grandchildren
and the "Supreme Order of the Parascotts" can invade earth and start
first inter planetary government cult dictatorship! By then we will
have the technology to take over and inhabit the entire solar system.

OK it's a small step to ruling the universe, but you got to start
somewhere right?

And remember boys and girls, if you want to drink and breath on Mars,
then give us all your money, and remember to repeat those magic words
at bed time...

That reminds me... there is actually an opening for someone who will
control the food rights! Who wants in?

Then there is the power rights, and transport. Basically, if your not
in the Parascott cult, or one of our mates, you're screwed... Unless
you give us all your money obviously and work for free, then you'll be
OK. By OK I mean we will feed you and let you breath etc. It's a good
deal. You get to go to heaven. Honest. I mean come on, we all know
heaven is up in the sky, so if we are on Mars, then surely you will be
closer to god right? And all thanks to Paradigm Shift and Scottoman.

P.S. I just hope that this Scottoman dude doesn't realise that this
inventing a religion thing was all his idea in the first place and try
and take over.

[arthur pierce]

This sounds like the Nigerian scam to me. No matter, I am however open I believe folks are here The indigo child for one and these folks do not travel by spaceships. I admire Richard B. and Virgin he is an awesome innovator.

[arthur pierce]

My reply was in regards to Mrs. V. Bissou I inadvertently pressed the wrong key. sorry scottyoman

[Scottyoman]

Damn right, I'll give you a cubic foot of water for 11 cubic feet of
air...

On Apr 9, 9:58 am, "arthur pierce" <ablu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My reply was in regards to Mrs. V. Bissou I inadvertently pressed the wrong
> key. sorry scottyoman
>

> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:54 AM, arthur pierce <ablu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This sounds like the Nigerian scam to me. No matter, I am however open I
> > believe folks are here The indigo child for one and these folks do not
> > travel by spaceships. I admire Richard B. and Virgin he is an awesome
> > innovator.
>

[michaelsei]

We can make light of any topic and not debate issues (does not offend
me)...But for those who are interested in debating issues, they ought
to continue in a parallel conversation on this message board.

Rhetoric is important to humans. As social creatures I think we have
a certain drive to be a part of a "clan" if you will. Thus we require
a common language. That is rhetoric/catchphrases/slogans etc.
Disparaging religion with emotional language may subvert the
intellectual queries of some, but I hope of not all.

I take religion seriously. It defines me. Not religion per se, but
my belief system and the same is true of all of you. You may believe
it is all speculation, that defines you. Case in point, the persona
you bring to bear upon this message board. Maybe I am too highly
philosophical, introspective, analytical...Maybe.

Conflict exists. Religion is not the cause, humans are. I have had
intellectual conversations with atheists, agnostics, cultists,
wiccans, pagans and others. It did not devolve into name calling or
other such nonsense. (Besides people of identical beliefs have
conflict.) Conflict is what happens when people do not know how to
resolve (or at least agree to disagree) differences of belief,
opinion, perspective, assumptions, knowledge, experience, etc.

We have an example of a difference of opinion right here: I say it is
not a waste of time to search out these issues while another may say
that it is a waste of time and that these "issues" are merely
speculation. Which one is right? Wrong? Can both be right? Wrong?
Considering the highly subjective nature of the statements, it will be
very difficult to reach a conclusion in a few posts. But what can be
concluded is [that if they do have merit in an objective sense then it
can be concluded at a minimum] that one must be right and the other
wrong due to the mutual exclusivity of the claims. (Simple symbolic
logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic and/or use of
Venn diagrams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram can be used to
prove this last assertion.)

[Scottyoman]

Look just for the hell of it I'll be serious just for this moment:
Religion is not what people are really talking about at all on this
board. I don't think that anyone really has a problem with religion
itself. What people are saying are they don't want other religions
forced on them. If you believe that your beliefs are right they are to
you, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to force them on
others. If people did go to mars I am sure there would be religions
there, but I don't think that anyone would really want to do a big
push towards "uniting" everyone. If people were on the other hand told
that people were able to practice religion on mars no one would
actually pass up the chance, because of it.
Ok, I am done with the rambling.

P.S. The name of our cult will be called Matianisum until a better
name comes along

> Venn diagramshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagramcan be used to
> prove this last assertion.)

[Paradigm Shift]

I actually agree with you. There shouldn't really be a thread on
religion on mars at all, as whether there is or isn't a religion,
multiple religions, or no religions on mars should be purely
incidental.

If people NEED there to be a religion on mars, then you are going for
the wrong reasons. Going to mars should be about pushing the frontiers
of human endeavor, and our ability to use science to survive in an
alien environment. It should also be about working together as a team
regardless of our background, race, religion, colour, or hair-style,
so we can be proud of being citizens of mars so that we can truly say
that WE did it, not God, but US. Maybe then we will really learn the
value of life (our own and others), and stop squabbling over what
honestly amounts to just theories over the origin of life on earth,
because at last we will be able to focus on something we actually know
for sure. The origins of life on Mars. US!

> > Venn diagramshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagramcanbe used to
> > prove this last assertion.)

[Scottyoman]

I strongly disagree with the race part, no one other than whites and
blacks....

Not you, you damn Purples

> > > Venn diagramshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagramcanbeused to
> > > prove this last assertion.)

[mike1937]

I assumed this thread would die into obscurity two hours after it was
started. Theirs really no issue: religious freedom just like in
america. Problem solved.

> > > > prove this last assertion.)- Hide quoted text -

[Silent]

On 4/4/08, Randeye <ebaya...@gmail.com> wrote:

the Texans are at it again: invading a
community because their religious beliefs 'shock and offend' ahem,
'sensible people'.

 

I just want to point out that I am a Texan and I am also a sensible, reasonable atheist. I detest mysticism and I have plenty of friends here in Texas that are also rational human beings that believe in objective reality, so I would very much appreciate it if you would be a little more sensitive and keep your generalizations down a bit.

 

Nah, I'm just joshin' ya! I'm the only one. Had you goin' for a second there, though, didn't I? :-p

[Paradigm Shift]

Religious freedom in america... Not if Bush could help it. One nation
under GOD, all the ties between those TV evangelists and the
republican party. You're living in denial. Haven't you read "The God
Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

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

[mike1937]

Parts of it. I prefer slightly older philosophers, Nietzsche, Camus,
and Husserl, for example. I'm not living in denial because I am an
atheist and have never had anyones views pushed on me. I live 2 miles
away from the "focus on the family" headquarters in CO Springs, which
is basically the ultra chrisian capital of the world. All of my
friends, peers, and neighbors knows I'm an atheist, and no one cares.
Thus, religious freedom.

Things like under god don't bother me, I can even see the symbolism in
them without their actualy being a god. I agree its wrong, but its
nothing to get worked up about. Besides, athiests are winning, slowly.
Its inevitable as the population becomes more educated that they will
realize how rediculous it all is, I remember reading that the percent
of american atheists has gone from something like 1-9% over the last
century. Why get all riled up about something thats working itself
out? I hate debating religion, more often than not all parties
involved come out looking like morons.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Scottyoman]

No, everyone looks like an idiot when our media is dominated by things
like the no god in the pledge instead of important things like you
know THE WAR

[Paradigm Shift]

Really! The ".. media is dominated by things like the no god in the
pledge." That's surprising. I wouldn't know because I'm in Australia
(although technically I'm English). Religion hardly registers at all
over here.

I agree, things like the war are more important topics. Maybe we need
a thread called "War on Mars"!

[Scottyoman]

Oh, well I live in the Midwest, of America and well all we hear about
is how some kid didn't say the pledge, because it has god in it and
well I think he was just lazy. and NO WAR till we have neutron bombs.

[Bryan Bishop]

Please kill this thread.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/Roadmap

[Paradigm Shift]

But your a bishop! You should be right into religion...

[Scottyoman]

I'll kill the thread when you stop advertising yourself Bryan.