Re: virus:Logic

chardin (
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:11:38 CST+6CDT

> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:19:09 -0400
> From: Sodom <>
> Organization: Hedonism Unlimited
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> Reply-to:

> Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
> > b) Sodom's Dictionary defines insight as: A not-absolute
> > conclusion
> > reached by reflecting upon experiences, experimentation, or
> > information.
> > Thoughts, based on observation, strung together to reach a theory,
> > without the full strength of a theory, probably including jumps in
> > logic
> > and therefore not entirely accurate.
> >
> > When discussing religios insights, I men insights into the natural
> > world, not supernatural world. Human behaviour being a good example.
> > (Sodom)
> >
> > Sodom,
> >
> > So are you asking for "A not-absolute conclusion reached by reflecting
> > upon
> > experiences, experimentaion, or information" which applies to "the
> > natural
> > world, not supernatural"...but which originates from a "divine source"
> > with
> > the further criteria that it should not have multiple interpretations
> > or be
> > a hallucination...?
> >
> > The first problem I see with this request is that if it originates
> > from a
> > "divine source" then must it be "supernatural"?
> > Next, if it is religious and has *multiple interpretations* it would
> > not
> > seem too different from that "not-absolute" conclusion you require
> > (But you
> > seem to make a distinction between the first and the the
> > difference here due to the fact that it is presented as religious, or
> > is it
> > that your definition of "conclusion" is more specific than
> > "interpretation"?)
> >
> > Next, can something gained from experiences, experimentaion, and
> > information
> > ALSO be "divine"?
> >
> > SO:
> >
> > Is religion not natural? Is religious experience and information not
> > the
> > source for religious insights? Are religious insights (based on a
> > "natural"
> > religion with experience and information) different from any other
> > "insight"
> > the way you use the term?
> >
> > Is a statement like "God is Love" not a religious insight based on
> > religious
> > experience and religious information? It's proof will be in the form
> > of
> > more religious information and experience...not in the form of
> > science-fact;
> > but can it be accepted as an insight, or even a theory, and
> > experimented on
> > using religious criteria (not scientific criteria)?
> >
> > What are you really asking for here? Are you saying can we put god in
> > a
> > maze and run timed tests to see if he learns? Would you use the same
> > tests
> > to test human behavior as you would animal behavior? Couldn't you
> > design
> > tests to determine religious phenomenon based on what they perport to
> > measure?
> >
> > Brett
> >
> > Returning,
> > rBERTS%n
> > Rabble Sonnet Retort
> > Rule of the Great:
> > When people you greatly admire appear to be thinking deep
> > thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.
> 1> That is what I am asking for. Better defined, what I am really
> asking for:. Thought processes are electre-chemical in nature. I want
> proof that the change in thought is not due to the mind itself, but due
> to external divine influence.
> 2> NO, It can only be divine if influenced by god directly. Not
> through experience, experiment and observation.
> 3> Religion is natural only in the sense that it is generated by
> fear, which is natural. Fear of the unknown is what created the rain
> gods, moon gods, ocean gods and sky gods. As man could explain more and
> more the need for gods disapeared, slowly at first, but continuuing
> until there was one god who was only responsible for things that can't
> be explained. Today it is fear of death, lack of purpose, control of
> others that drives the need for gods. As long as fear is the main factor
> in human thought processes, gods will plague us.
> 4> God is Love? Love is an electro/chemical process with specific
> neurotransmitters and actions on the brain, and I am DEFINATELY not
> interested in the love shown by religious people ( in this i mean love
> for humanity, not love for one another, as I can love, and respect love
> for me by a religious person) as the price is too high. Christians have
> shown their love by slaughtering by the millions all non-believers.
> Enslaving entire races, subjugating women, gays, heritcs etc... Even
> today i cannot get a job in Government, spend money or praise my country
> without acknowledging your god. The concept of "God is Love" is
> definately without statistical or historical precedence.
> 5> I would suggest that all phenomena are simply a lack of understanding
> on our part. Rain was a phenomena people sacraficed their children for,
> then we understood and that practice stopped. Religion is willing to
> sacrafice the hearts and minds of millions to garner power for itself.
> It is willing to legislate it's morals even it it results in oppression
> and death of others who do not believe.
> i am willing to guess that religion will never be able to bring a
> "miracle" under scientific scrutiny because the fear of discovering that
> there is a scientific answer is overwhelming. Religion is in a constant
> backbpeddle. I would love it to be otherwise, and would not mind living
> in the world you would like to exist. According to the bible and all
> other texts of this nature, lots is said about the miracles that
> happened before people knew why the grass was green or the sky was blue.
> Now the scriptures aren't written, and miracles are kept from the public
> eye. Does your god need to hide his work? Perhaps smoke and mitrrors
> don't work on us like they used to, and the aliens that faked everyone
> out 2000 years ago fled for their skins?
> Sodom

Sodom, you are a character! You constantly bait the spiritual
element of this list hoping against all hopes someone will prove you

Speaking of backpeddling. "Scholarship" suffers from a heavy dose
of backpeddling. What sort of miracle would you like God to
perform for you to prove His existence? Suppose there is such proof.
If you are merely curious, I don't think you can see it. If you are
sincere, and investigate further you might.

I used to dismiss the Bible as just a dusy old book written by a
bunch of men with beards so I understand how you feel. Have you ever
examined the Bible closely? If so, you will know that the Old
Testament is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures and is not a
Christian contrivance. I think you will agree that the Jews believe
that those scripture promise a coming Messiah who will make things
right for the Jewish people. The Bible is made of different books
written by different prophets, yet they all have a central idea: He
who is coming. These prophecies, written long before the advent of
one Jesus of Nazareth tell us some things. I can look up the exact
quotes if you like--at the risk of being called lazy again by one of
the members of the group--I will put it in scientific jargon "references
available upon request."

Anyway, I would like someone with good math skills to give me some
probabilities--I'm terrible with math. Those prophets, hundreds and
up to a thousand year before he came tells us that the promised
Messiah to be sent by God would:

1) be born in Bethleham
2) be called a Nazerene
3) meek in character he will ride into Jerusalem on the back of an
ass and be declared Messiah (the book of Daniel tells you WHEN he
would ride in (a certain number of days after the going forth of a decree to rebuild
Jerusalem)--check it out in the secular books - there are two decrees
to rebuild Jerusalem--take either one of them and you are brought to
the time of Christ
4) he will die but not for his own sins but for his people
5) he is Mighty God yet lowly, poor, despised and rejected (well, it
confused the Jews too--for a long time they thought there might be
two Messiahs--one as King of an Army another as spiritual leader)
6) he will be rejected by his own people
7) he will be a light unto the Gentiles (the light you ridicule
constantly, Sodom)

All of this was predicted by JEWISH prophets up to at least a
thousand years before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
God is outside of time so he can tell you what is going to happen
before it happens. What does "scholarship" do. It backpeddles. The
Book of Daniel gives you an overview of the great world
governments--Babylonian, Persian, Greek & Roman. These are so
accurate, in fact, that many "scholars" say they must have been
written after the fact--prophets can't REALLY tell the future can

The prophets also say that in the last days God will make Jerusalem a
"burdensome stone for all nations". Picked up a newspaper lately?

I would just like to know what are the probabilities that one person
could meet those prophecies (those pretaining to Messiah) above--given all the people who have ever
lived on earth? Remember, these prophecies are all from the OLD
TESTAMENT--they are not Christain in origin.

While David (our list David--not King) may doubt the physical existence of Jesus of Nazereth,
I have never heard the Jewish people as a whole doubt his existence--just his
claims which is, afterall, fulfillment of prophecy.

Now the Jewish people did not believe Christ was their Messiah because
they were looking for a king who would seriously kick Roman rear-end.
You see, there are also all those prophecies of the "Lion of the Tribe
of Judea." And David (King) said he will "smash them with a rod of
iron like a potters vessel)Psalm 2.
Ever heard of the Second Coming? Act I wasn't
all that was promised.

David was a prophet and a king --ever read the 22 Psalm? David
could hardly be part of the "Jesus conspiracy". Read what he wrote
before the fact.

After you sincerely investigate these, Sodom, I would be interested
in your comments.
It would be sad for you to sign off

P.S. I am not selling any books or tapes nor am I a member of any
church--though I participate in the postings of this "Church."--no
offense David. I don't like Promise Keepers, Pat Robinson and
think the Pope is probably a nice old man but don't care two hoots
for his edicts. I don't like groups like the Christian Coaliton at
all--they are power mad structures. I am not a part of the "religious right"of politics as Nateman
can testify--they supported Dole. I believe what I believe and though Dawkins may not
agree with my premises, I have reasons for what I believe.
I am not trying to scam you.