> > Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:15:35 -0400
> > From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
>
> > chardin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:19:09 -0400
> > > > From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> > > > Organization: Hedonism Unlimited
> > > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > > Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> > > > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
> > >
> > > > 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
> second...is 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
> > > > I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND IT TASTED BETTER
> > >
> > > Sodom, you are a character! You constantly bait the spiritual
> > > element of this list hoping against all hopes someone will prove
> you
> > > wrong.
> > >
> > > 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
> > > they?
> > >
> > > 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
> > > I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT BUT I IGNORED IT
> > > CHardin
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Gosh, so nice to be called a character,
> >
> > Ok then here we go:
> > "If you are merely curious, I don't think you can see it. If
> you are
> > sincere, and investigate further you might"
> > So, what you are saying, is that unless you believe, it is not real.
>
> > That is called a delusion. Basically if god heals someone, then
> they
> > are healed because they believe, but a disbelieving doctor would
> still
> > examine them and see an injured person? I think not! The word
> "miracle"
> > has been twisted until it has meaning only in the philosophical
> sense.
> > Even most the miracles described therin as physical happenings have
> > sceintific roots today. The Red sea still does part, There are over
> a
> > 1000 virgin births a year and the list goes on.
> >
> > Second of all, I have never seen the bible as a "dusy old book
> written
> > by a bunch of men with beards." Quite the contrary. I love the study
> of
> > religion and philosohphy and have devoted a great deal of time to
> it.
> > Most of my time in fact. I am currently spending most of my time the
>
> > first five books of Moses. I find them to be interesting plagurism
> at
> > best, since much of it was stolen directly from the Sumerian
> religion.
> >
> > Third, you are taking the prophecy as indisputable fact,
> despite the
> > fact that everything written about Christ was written a hundred or
> > hundreds of years after his passing by people with a motivated self
> > interest to do so. In a room of ten people, you could not whisper
> "there
> > is a tiger in the woods with green spots and a yellow tail" to one
> > person and have it get around the room as the same sentence. Are you
>
> > going to tell me that the first four books of the new testiment,
> written
> > by those who did not know Chirst, got it right. I'm betting that
> they
> > did not, I am even betting they made up whatever was necessary to
> make
> > it fit since there could be no checks or verifications.
> >
> > > 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)
> >
> > 1> This entire line of religion was written in this are of the
> world,
> > so of course it is limited to a few hundred miles of here
> > 2> Well Nazereth was an area, and a nazerene is self
> refrencing of
> > Jesus. For all i know, or you, he was informed of prophecy, then
> took
> > the name.
> > 3> i have read all the four gospels many times, I do not
> believe that
> > he was meek. No one does. Quite the contrary, in the gopsphels he is
>
> > well spoken and powerful over people around him.
> > 4>He died because of religious prosecution, and because he
> remained
> > silent when he could have spoken. Also, the society in which he
> lived
> > would execute people for virtually anything. AND in his name more
> > killing and sinning has been done than in any other name in history.
>
> > 5>"He is a mighty god" - what commandmant was that "Worship no
> god but
> > myself" - I left my bible in the car, and don't have it here for
> > refrence. How do I know he was a god anyways?
> > 6> aren't most forward thinkers rejected by society. Remember
> the
> > Beatles when John Lennon said "More poeple know us then Jesus
> Christ".
> > Then tens of thousands of Americans crushed beatles albums. How many
> of
> > our best have been burnt at the stake for their ideas, or thrown to
> the
> > wolves for speaking out against atrocities? More than I care to
> > remember. And mostly due to religion.
> > 7> "he will be a light unto his own people" kind of subjective
> don't
> > you think?
> >
> >
> > Accuracy of the Bible: Well, pick up a novel about gay lovers on the
>
> > east Coast (or any subject), and you might get a good and accurate
> > description of New York City. I do not question that the Bibile is
> old,
> > and that many historical refrences are valuable indicators of the
> time.
> > Of course the Bible utterly fails to mention the works of the time.
> > There is not even a single mention of the Pyramids, or the temples
> in
> > Greece. In fact, the greatest societs of the time were in America,
> India
> > and China. Of course God didn't know about them, so they are totally
>
> > neglected. Speaking of neglected, where are the dinosaurs, or the
> > galaxies, or Neptune, Pluto - Face it man, there is nothing in the
> Bible
> > that wasn't known at the time.
> >
> > Yes, I have read Psalm 22, nice poetry but other than that. I am
> willing
> > to bet that the same thing happened to everyone while being
> crucified.
> >
> > I will let pass as fact the following from the evidence I see: There
> was
> > a Man at some time around 2000 years ago named Jesus. That this man
> was
> > well spoken and capable.
> >
> > The following I suspect: Jesus was a scholar of humanity, and had an
>
> > excellent sense of social science. He may have believed he was God,
> but
> > I suspect that was added later to improve the story.
> >
> > PS. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible as a work of art, one of
> the
> > best ever. But I like Homer a lot more, his peotry makes my heart
> sing.
> > The Koran on the other hand I can't stand - It is so abusive and
> > inflamitory that I feel it is the first book since the Bible to be
> such
> > a threat to humanity that it could be called "dangerous". I'm also
> not
> > very fond of the "Gita" as it also is based on power and glory.
> Also,
> > many of my friends are Jewish or Christian. Most of them will not
> > discuss religion with me as it makes them uncomfortable to be faced
> with
> > logic or faith. They will acknowledge that their belief conflicts
> with
> > logic and that they choose faith because they are powerless not to.
> In
> > other words, they were brainwashed since childhood and admit it.
> Others,
> > who can't bear the weight, I avoid discussion with. Fortunately,
> this
> > forum is full of critical thinkers who can examine without too much
> > emotion being involved.
> >
> > Sodom
> > I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT AND IT IS ME
> >
> Sodom,
> Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your comments and it helps me
> to see where we differ in our approaches and beliefs.
>
> There is so much to be taken into consideration when we approach the
> Bible both as history and inspirational (as I do). It has been a
> while since I have read the early writings, but I believe that you
> are wrong when you say it was hundreds of years before anything was
> written down--I used to know these things but I read them and put the
> books down and move on to other things and forget dates. I ought to
> keep better notes--it would prevent my having to reinvent the wheel.
>
> I guess my question is the same as addressed to Brett, I wonder how
> you can prove
> anything from history. I used the instance of the holocaust as an
> example with him. As you know, there are people who deny it now and
> say it was just a Jewish conspiracy. There are others who claim that
> we instigated WWII and the Japanese were only doing what a good
> Japanese ought to do by bombing Pearl Harbor, and then we had a the
> whole fiasco at the Smithsonian. If I had not talked to WWII
> veterans in the past, I might suppose the whole thing had never
> happened myself. It is rather like the man down the street from me
> who told me, in 1969, that he did not believe we had been to the moon
> at all, that all of those pictures on TV were shot in a studio
> somewhere. I was amazed at such a thinking process at the time, but
> I may get to that point myself.
>
> Perhaps we are proving Dawkings point that "nothing is certain" but I
> would suspect that that goes for all of his evolutionary "facts" as
> well.
>
> I certainly am not opposed to discussing religion at any time. I
> just don't see how we can get to anything concrete unless we go
> compare religious and secular history and see what we can and cannot
> "prove" from documents and texts and since the very texts and
> douments can be denied, I don't see how we can prove anything
> religous or secular. If we don't give some credence to eye witness
> accounts, even if after the fact, how can we do anything? Doesn't
> the jury system have this same problem? Those 12 jurors just have to
> listen to it all and go with that which is most credible to them,
> given their own experiences? Scary isn't it?
>
> I can say that when I have read books in the past regarding the
> historicity of Jesus, I was convinced (and remain so) that he was a
> real person, that
> he did exist, and there were enough witnesses based on information
> that I found the fact of His existence credible. Taken with all the
> other
> information, certainly including the Hebrew Scriptures, I think it
> forms a coherence that is logical. In addition, I am impressed with
> some of the prophecies which I yet see coming to pass: for example,
> the mark of the beast, when no one can buy or sell or have a job in
> the marketplace without it. In addition, that this will be in the
> RIGHT hand (hear me Brett) and I think it kind of weird( i.e.
> supernatural) , when I hear they are
> debating right now which hand would be the better one to implant a
> biochip in. It will be the RIGHT hand according to John's
> Revelation. Well, I guess even I can figure out the probabilities on
> that one 50/50--and Nateman doubts the public school system!
>
> At the risk of getting Brett after me again, have you tried to get a
> job
> without a Social Security Number? Even tried to enroll your kids in
> school without one? I don't think the Social Security Number is the
> mark of the beast, but I believe it is a foreshadowing of the fun yet
> to come.
>
> Thanks again for the discussion. Cathy
Cathy,
I believe, and by this I mean think, I don't have the reference
handy, that the first gospel was written about 90 years (three
generations) after the fact, and the other three much later. To answer
your question about proof from History, well, you can't really prove
anything about anything. Our senses are too flawed. On the next level, I
choose to believe that which has a "Preponderance of evidence" and has
the "simplest" answer. I believe that the Holocaust took place because
the evidence to support this conclusion is overwhelming. There are
accounts from millions of people, there are records kept of the
incident, the locations where the holocaust took place still exist, and
this list goes on and on etc... Anyone who disagrees with that the
holocaust took place, would be hard pressed to find evidence and string
it together in a logical and simple manner, in the same way that anyone
who said the Earth was only a few thousand years old would be hard
pressed to find evidence to support this conclusion. Also, it seems the
prophecy of "The mark of the beast" is unfounded. I don't think there
are many people on the planet who aren't seen as a number today. In many
countries, carrying a passport or papers to move about is common place.
It is a necessity in today's world. Even in biblical times, records of
people were kept for taxation purposes, land ownership, slaves kept. The
social security number is just one in a long list of numbers, and the
next will be the same. You can be tracked by every credit card purchase
you make, every plane you get on, every paycheck you collect. This is
the price of high technology and freedom. Some may question the freedom
part, even I do a little (i am not as free as i would like to be - no
atheist is) but freewill implies that some people will abuse this will,
and choose to be evil with it. I think that sometimes we are over
zealous in our efforts to control those who wish to abuse "freewill",
and this leads to some negative issues. Overall though, the
preponderance of evidence squarely sits on the side of the Big Bang,
stellar evolution, expanding Universe, Expanding space-time, solar
system formation, active complex geological earth, amino acid chains,
life, evolution, sentience. As the evidence in the direction of
non-divine evolution is so abundant, here is why I choose against
religion:
1> There is no, 0, ZERO physical evidence to support it
2> It is so full of obvious plagiarism, and tampering
3> We can trace most of the religions back to their originators who all
came at least 150,000 years after mankind was Homo Sapiens Sapiens
4> The probability of accurate translation and information gathering at
the time is VERY suspect
If god is omniscient, then he knew the terms we use today to describe
things. Instead of number of the beast, he could have said "social
security number". Many will say that people 2000 years ago wouldn't
understand, yet they can make the conversion to beast, and expect us to
properly translate. I'm sorry, but there is something afoul about the
whole religion thing.
I do find, and in this we can agree, that the bible and most other
writings of it's nature, there is a great deal of insight into the
nature of humanity, and a great deal of good that can come from some of
the information within, BUT, I find that the negative actions of
biblical followers in general are worse than the benefits. If it was up
to me, only the stable and non-violent should have access to it's
information.
Bill Roh
AKA Sodom
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND COULD SEE MY BONES THROUGH IT