I'm taking a risk in posting this link of starting yet another religion thread.. but.
www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/06/14/tomorrows.god/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/06/14/tomorrows.god/index.html)

I've always heard some of you (L2, some others) talking about your faith in this manner. The author, by saying things like:
For Walsch, that means letting go of "yesterday's God" -- as in an omnipotent and separate entity from humanity. For Walsch, God represents Creation itself. "Tomorrow's God," as described in the book, is without the characteristics of an individual living being; separate from nothing; and "the extraordinary process called Life

Might be going a bit farther, but there is no question that this idea might better represent the general trend of some theists to disengage from traditional organized religions.

Thoughts?

Forgive me for being a cynic, but this sounds very much like "Lets take good old Deism and claim that it's something new so we can make more money then we would if we were honest about it" :rolleyes

Then again, Deism is a good idea. And I guess it could use the PR. :D

Personally I prefer secular humanism. We believe in a life BEFORE death. ;)
www.iheu.org (http://www.iheu.org)

And Bahai is kinda cute! :D
www.bahai.org (http://www.bahai.org)

He was raised Catholic, of course he's going to have issues with organized religion in one way or another(to the point of obsession it looks like).

Poor guy was probably an "altar boy" or something.

This author isn't saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times - and often said by organized religion.

Agreed. It's really nothing new, just the wrapping is different. The "he's going to burn in hell" commentary is more telling than anything the author says.

Personally I prefer secular humanism. We believe in a life BEFORE death.
www.iheu.com

Link no worky :/

My bad.

It's www.iheu.org (http://www.iheu.org)

Awesome, Edeina, thanks for the link. I'm sneaking in from class (they're taking a quiz atm) but will hopefully have more time to read the newsletter later...

Warm regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

Secular Humanism is great... but it is a great step to move away from a viewpoint that holds a concept of life after death to one that lacks such a safety net.

The role of "god" in the lives of many people in the Western World is on the decline; however, people still latch onto some concept of "god" and life everlasting in many cases.

That was more of the point I wanted to explore, really.

This a topic that I have a lot to say on, so much so that I was kinda intimidated on posting on it.
I guess the only way to tackle it is in segments.

First, we all have to acknowledge that we live in a new age. This is unlike any other time in history. But it shares similar characteristics. Society will produce what it needs. It is a symbiotic relationship that humans have with this structure that it has taken the multitude of mans collective lives to construct. It has done what it has always done and will always do.
Let me expand.
In regards to America.
Education, many will say that this is machine which creates the engines for our nation. The Young. It molds them and shapes them and gives them the tools and skills they need to be fruitful and add to the collective need of society.
Lets look at what education has been.
Back in the first part of our nations history, the model of the school was the one room school house in which all grades were taught.
This worked then. We were a agricultural society and only a certain level of education was needed. Education defined by literacy. The standards for which were the ability to sign and recognize your name.
Percentage of Americans who finished school to the 12th grade?
2%
Average grade completed?
The 4th grade.
Thats all that was needed.
What other level was needed? To work on the farm to be a good citizen.. If you wanted religion, to understand the Bible, you had the pastor/priest to read it to you, to explain the meaning to you. Interpretation came from him.
Education was succesful only because of minimal requirements

Then things changed. Around 1870 a little thing called the Industrial Revoltion happened. Society suddenly had a different need for its denizens.
Factory workers. People living together in large numbers in the city, close to each other. The very model of education changed to reflect the times.
It became an assembly line model. You moved from grade to grade, with different teachers each adding a little part until you moved to the end and presumably we had a complete model.
The standards for literacy were changed too. We needed people who could read. But not with any depth, the kind of reading that society called for was the reading of Manuels and instructions. Tools to work in a factory. People still worked with their sweat.
In 1950, American schools had a 59% graduation rate. The needs of society were filled.
Religion? more people could read, but the ability to draw out meaning and interpret was not there, it wasnt widely taught as it wasnt needed. The need for someone to give meaning was still there.

Welcome to a new age. The Information Age.
Society has again changed. Its needs have changed. The majority of Americans earn their living with their minds. And the number is growing. Schools have been in the process of change, ever trying to keep up with the rapidily advancing society, but in the last few years it has made more dramatic leaps and bounds.
The need today is for people who can compute! Not just work computers, but work with DATA. INformation, to decifer it, to draw inference and meaning. TO BE INDEPENDANT! Maximum literacy!
Schools now have that as a goal.
In the year 2000 American schools graduated 80%, when the age was extended to 25, the number grew to 90% of its population.
Education is important, its getting more and more so every single day.
People are becoming more and more skilled at critical in depth reading.
We no longer need nor WANT someone to give us meaning to the bible or definition of our spituality. We HAVE those skills now, they are being given to us from this gift of the age we live in.

Attack the systems of the old, fine, they are irrelevant. They exist to meet needs that no longer exist.
If you want to attack faith, you can no longer attack the church, because the point is moot, who cares. We have this gift of spirtual freedom. We are no longer confined by the edicts of Rome or the interpretation of a few.
Americans are discovering it for themselves, finding meaning for themselves.
Its is a new spirtual awakening. Its a new and exciting time for religious thought and belief. The old ways hold on but they are being swept away by a flood of independance.

We can find our OWN meanings, we are no longer trapped.

As humans, we have grown, and will continue to grow, our spirtuality is PART of us. An intergral part of WHO WE ARE.

Thormir, I respect you, I think your knowledge is amazing, and you clarity of thought is awesome. I am struck by your ability to make a passionate, articulate and fleshed out arguement.
But,
I have to call you on your view point.
Your knowledge is great and encyclopedic, but I think you wouldnt argue with me when I said it was from a Machevilleian viewpoint, "Those who understand their opponents win wars."
I say this to you. You are at war. But it is not with Catholism, you are at war with Spirtuality and merely look to catholism as weak point to press your attack. Discredit chrisianity and by proxy you discredited those around who only have Christianity in reference with faith. If we were Buddists, or Islamics, or whatever, your attack would shift there.

As people like me and a few others have been screaming
"RELIGION AND SPIRTUALITY ARE NOT THE SAME THING"
You reject that. You make every effort to tie the two into the same entity.
Saint Paul said "One mans meat is another mans poision" We KNOW that one form of religion is not for everyone, we as a society are coming to a greater and greater understanding of this fact every day.
When you reject the inclusion of the "In God We trust" on the dollar bill or the inclusion of religion in our society or pinnings of our morality and laws what you are doing is rejecting NATURAL LAW. You are declaring that no law has any hold on you besides the ones you make for yourself.
Nature, spirtuality, faith and their expression through religion is PART of who we are, part of the greater cycle of our existance.
Christ said:
"I have come to fulfil the Law"
he knew THIS, he knew his fate, he knew what he HAD to do, yet THREE TIMES even Christ asked for dispensation.
"May this cup pass from me"
"May this cup pass from O God"
and Finally.
"GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME.

According to the lesson, even he was denied, even he had to follow laws greater than Himself.
yet, we have people who try to hide and deny and reject this.

Our country is so out of whack.

We have a President who denied wrong doing by declaring he had done nothing ILLEGAL
We have a another who seeks the use of Torture by justification that it isnt ILLEGAL
Fools
to say that is to admit to the knowledge that you KNOW its wrong. To exclaim that an action is Ok because is ISNT ILLEGAL is an admission of a violation Its wrong by laws above the ones we create..
The SPIRITUALITY of our laws.
Our founding fathers KNEW this when they were designing this nations. The Constitution is the letter of the law, the Declaration of Independence is the SPIRIT of the law. The duality of these two forces exist in conjunction for the completion of the whole man.
Duality that exists in all of us. We are not complete without the dual sides of our nature.

When we ignore or deny the spirtual side of our selves all decision become pragmatic. We are all lumps of clay, use each other as you would see fit in order to achieve your means. Lie, torture, who cares, no laws apply to you other than the ones you create to govern yourself, and if you dont like those, we can always change them.
Our founding fathers knew better.

www.law.indiana.edu/uslaw...ation.html (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html)
Read that if you havent or havent for a while. Remind yourself.

A higher morality guided them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Aristitole knew this way back in Ancient Greece.
"Happiness is Peace between Man and his Pattern"

You seek to avoid control over you Thormir, yet I say to you that this path is corrupt and false. Your purpose is to an extent noble, yet it will lead if followed, to ultimate ruin.
Not damnation, but the ruin of mans spirit and the corruption of our ingrained morality.
We are more than lumps of clay, we are more than accidental animals.
I will hold onto this with my life and every dying breath. MAN IS NOBLE. We have a worth and value inherant to our selves. You actions are guided by a higher force that while we struggle to understand, we deny to our peril. Humanity demands spirituality, to remove that aspect from a man and you dehumanize him. Anything becomes acceptable, any action: Just, if you so choose to define it as such.

A ship captain by tradition is expected to go down with his ship. This is not a acceptance or resignation to fate. IT IS A BATTLECRY. If the ship sinks it will not be from lack of effort, I will fight with my dying breath.
This line and not one inch farther. Here we make our stand. I will die for a just cause.
Our ships are our family, our values, morality and spirtuality.

Things greater than ourselves.

Sweet jesus, at least you used the enter key on that novel.

I know, I know.

Its tough, I dont think I can write something like that in any other way though. Its hard to come up with a way thats easy and fast to read and delinates points fast in the rapid fire manner that E-communication moves. I want to make it as accessable as I can, and often times people find large traditional blocks of paragraphs intimidating. I guess Im trying to develop an informal style that conveys the information im trying to express as best as I can in a relatively new medium.

If I'm writing something out, and go over a paragraph, I don't bother posting it. No one honestly gets the jist of what you're saying after the first paragraph, it's usually skimmed. A great person once said, "If you can't make a point in under a paragraph, don't make a point."

You are a math guy eh?

Concrete and Sequential would define your personality I would guess

I think Zehn would laugh if he saw that.

Thats interesting why?

I'm the unholy opposite of a "math guy", Zehn is a math guy basically.

I'm not sure how being a math guy is related to keeping things to under a paragraph. We take pages and pages to prove mathematical statements that are obviously true. :P

For those of you that don't know, Palarran invented math.

Palarran, you should prove to Xeck that 22 != 4. :(

L2, I'm not seeing how religion and spirituality are needed to define man as man.

One can reach their full potential without recognizing any greater power than themselves- indeed, one could say that it is only when we realize there IS no greater power than ourselves that we can begin to realize our full potential.

Secular humanism is based on something like that. To that end, could one's religion be such that they embrace their own personal responsibility and hold it so high that it becomes their diety?

Dear L2:

I've had a long day, but am procrastinating a deadline atm, so I'll bite :) .

I take issue with your point that humanism can't possibly be truly 'moral', or that human beings *need* something 'larger than themselves (something *supernatural* larger than themselves, that is), in order not to be morally bankrupt or less than whole.

Secular Humanism is *not* necessarily hopeless, or 'spiritually' bereft, and pragmatism is not at odds with 'virtue'. Human beings do not, either, require either the threat of eternal damnation or the carrot of external 'salvation' to be 'whole', although the desire for some sort of spiritual reassurance/overarching explanation for the workings of the universe seems to be extremely pervasive (but not universal, and in *many* cases not intended to be a literal explanation) throughout human history, and even some animals have shown evidence of 'religious' awe. I'd submit that, like other regions of our brain (such as the limbic system), that the capacity for 'spiritual' or 'religious' experience held some survival value for early humans, reinforced bonds (and hence, mutually supporting activities) between small groups of humans by reinforcing the 'tribal' bond, and so has been preserved by natural selection.

One of the appeals (to me) of my sometime-practice, Theravada Buddhism, is that it doesn't seek any external source of salvation (other than insight one might obtain via considering the teachings of Gautama Buddha or other texts/discourses or via meditation). The message of Buddhism, in its purest form, is: Save yourself! I've found it a very useful tool for both dealing with the despair that makes up much of the human experience and for breaking down the constructions (traps) of ego that we, as humans, as so prone to make - but to practice doesn't require belief in a deity or life after death (although some sects more or less deify the Buddha and/or boddhisatvas and most espouse the transmigration/reincarnation of 'souls' in some form).

I would submit that human beings *are* capable of behaving in a moral, 'whole', and 'spiritually' complete and satisfying way without the need for supernatural hand-holding, and I'd submit to you that many of the so-called 'Deists' were merely paying lip service to the Christian faith in order to escape ostracism and persecution in a largely Calvinist age. What's amoral, or 'spiritually lacking', of thinking in terms of 'enlightened self-interest'? I'd argue that considering the long term interests of humanity as a species, (which many of us in the Humanist camp are hoping for :) ) is a very moral thing to do, and the undisputed fact is that religious groups/texts have a nasty habit of acting/directing human beings to act in all sorts of ways that do *not* benefit humanity as a whole or the planet that we live on.

When you reject the inclusion of the "In God We trust" on the dollar bill or the inclusion of religion in our society or pinnings of our morality and laws what you are doing is rejecting NATURAL LAW.

What do you base this 'Natural Law' on, exactly? And how might one measure this 'Natural Law'? I'm not belittling you, I'm asking a serious question here - after all, lots of people have tried :) .

As a biologist, it's very easy for me to be awed by the incredible beauty and complexity of interactions that make up the dance of life on our planet; but I don't find it necessary to believe that a 'higher power' than solar radiation, planetary rotation and axial tilt, plate tectonics, and the kinetic energy of randomly colliding molecules was responsible for the diversity and complexity of that life. Does this make me less than 'morally whole', or spiritually bereft? I don't think so. In fact, I'm going to go out and celebrate the effects of the maximum day length on my hypothalamus, endocrine system, and the dance of interactions in the biosphere around me (in other words, the summer solstice) this weekend... ;)

Best of luck in your own search for meaning and context (and I very much respect the process of free inquiry :) )... but I think that you're dead wrong when you cross that line and declare that 1) there just 'has' to be a Higher Power and 2) that refusing to acknowledge this (belief) must by definition be morally bereft or lead to 'damnation' or 'spiritual ruin'...

Sincerely,
Deborah A. Dixon
"Nydia Ywalmoriel"

The first thing I want to say in response is that I do NOT think that humans need Religion. What I do think is that spirtuality, however, is an intergral part of the nature of man. Religion is an expression of spirtuality. Flawed, it is usually an anacronism that does not change with times. While at its inception it may have accuratly expressed the fundamental beliefs and met the needs of those at that time, the hanging on to it, through time, eventually strips the expression of the relevant meanings it had at one time. Find something that you can express your spirtuality accuratly with, something that speaks (logos) to your soul (psyche).

The subject of natural law is a pretty complicated one. Mostly is addresses "self evident" truths. There are laws which govern our every day lives. Laws we have no control over. Attraction, Repulsion, Balance, lots of these types of universal rules of thumb for human nature.
As humans we have needs and desires that motivate us, we have higher thoughts that guide our actions and propel us through life and relationships. Human beings have requirements that no other organisms on this planet have.
When these needs are not being met, a human being is thrown out of whack. Behavior becomes abberant. The NATURE of man is out of balance.

Your nature is your soul. Its the thing about you that creates uniqueness, that gives you spark, the thing that makes you believe you are worthy of love, or you deserve to be hated, depending on its condition.
Its fragile, it requires attention, and thought and care.
Feed your soul. Its your mind, its how you think, how you reason, your morality.
Its you, but its greater than you. Its more than your needs. Its universality.
E Plurbus Unum
Out of many, one.
or
We are all brothers.

Man KNOWS this, he feels it passionatly. You reach out, you grab blindly in the darkness looking for... something?

This is your soul. Your mental well being. Your morality. Your love. Its what seperates you from everyone else. Man has known this and felt this for ages, from the time a man first climb to the top of a mountain and screamed at the sky that he was more than the sum of his parts, spirtuality was given voice.

When you deny spirtuality, you deny the humanity of man. You say there is nothing special about him. OUr needs are illusions. Good and Evil do not exist. There is no right or wrong besides what I feel like defining them as.
Spirtuality cries out, NO there is order, things matter, we are all related, connected. What we do matters.

Spirtuality goes deeper than the book you read, it is actually the voice of your soul. The expression of its needs and its desires to be fed, to grow with you.
We've seen souless art
We've read souless writings
and we have been exposed to the horrors of the actions of men who deny their soul.

There is a duality of the nature of man, there is a higher power and the beginnings of coming to grips with that is the acknowledgement of its expression through ourselves.

Fazin is just a cynicist.

Anyways, he has a point. If this thread goes on longer then 3 pages, anything that's said that's more then a paragraph will most likely not be read unless they've been reading from the beginning. It's the downside of debating on the internet. Only the two on the opposite sides of the argument read everything....everyone else, the people that could best benefit from the argument, skim the stuff.

I find that when I argue, I argue for myself. Debating stuff, especially on the internet, helps me to better understand what and how I think. I have no hope of convincing anyone to ever think like me. That first of all, is a scary thought in and of itself...but it's also impossible with a few rare exceptions...mostly in the form of people who had no opinion before now having one.

Let's put it this way. When was the last time you -won- an argument and when was the last time you -think- you won an argument.

Goodness, I never thought a couple of offhand sentences would generate such verbiage. But I suppose L2's post is more a comment on my oevre on this board.

If you're not a multiparagraph kind of person, this post isn't for you. ;) For the quick answer, look for "Summary" in bold below.

I say this to you [meaning, me, Thormir]. You are at war. But it is not with Catholism, you are at war with Spirtuality and merely look to catholism as weak point to press your attack. Discredit chrisianity and by proxy you discredited those around who only have Christianity in reference with faith. If we were Buddists, or Islamics, or whatever, your attack would shift there.
This is all strange. Catholocism is rarely the target of my posts, unless we're talking about the pre-Reformation church or the topic is specifically Catholic. I'm much more concerned with literalist/fundamentalist Christianity such as that practiced by Southern Baptists (the largest denomination in our country) and other conservative sects. I find Christianity to be so full of weak points that it strikes me as invalid as a basis of belief in a worldview. It espouses some individual tenets that are worthy, but they aren't original to Christianity. If you were Buddhists, you wouldn't care about the criticism that I wouldn't care enough to write (rather fond of Buddhism actually). If you were Muslims, I'd probably have been tracked and assassinated by now. ;)

Nature, spirtuality, faith and their expression through religion is PART of who we are, part of the greater cycle of our existance.
Well...humanity has made them part of who many humans are, but so have evolution, xenophobia, basic needs (food, shelter, security), natural disasters and other less wonderful aspects of existence.
The SPIRITUALITY of our laws.
Our founding fathers KNEW this when they were designing this nations.
I think, as Nydia alluded, they were more concerned with creating laws that the religious culture of our incipient nation could identify with while applying Grecian principles designed to avoid the tyranny that characterized most of Europe.

I think a definition of "spirituality" is in order. It's easy to talk about, but specifics are vague. Usually it's referred to in the traditional religious sense, such as a "feeling of closeness to a supreme being." However, I think one can feel similarly with regards to one's fellow man, a closeknit circle of friends, one's nation, nostalgia, and zeigeist, none of which require a supernatural explanation or source.
When we ignore or deny the spirtual side of our selves all decision become pragmatic. We are all lumps of clay, use each other as you would see fit in order to achieve your means.
This is a common theistic assessment of atheistic morality, but it's hyperbole. We're social animals, and survived the perils of our evolution in large part because we are social. Absolute selfishness on the scale you allude to would end our species real quick. But again, we don't know what we're talking about when we say "spirituality." What you mean could be very different that what I think you mean.

You seek to avoid control over you Thormir, yet I say to you that this path is corrupt and false.
Control from...who? If you mean a god, well...I see no more reason to be controlled by a god than by Santa Claus. What is corrupt and false is blind belief in ill-defined and unseen magical forces and those who would interpret their edicts. If you refer to government, well...the government should have [/i] some control over me...the same control it has over everyone else. You say my purpose (which you don't seem to understand) will lead to spiritual ruin (whatever that is) and talk of us as being lumps of clay, but I don't hold that view, and the I see no reason why the triumph of my belief system would lead anyone to hold that point of view.
I will hold onto this with my life and every dying breath. MAN IS NOBLE. We have a worth and value inherant to our selves. You actions are guided by a higher force that while we struggle to understand, we deny to our peril.
Christianity disagrees with this view, however, stating that we are all venal sinners deserving damnation unless we repent those sins and accept the mediation of their alleged savior. Without repentance, your "higher force" sentences us to eternal torment. Now, you may not accept these concepts, but yours is a sort of "Choose your own adventure" version of Christianity that would be regarded as heretical (or at least misguided) by most denominations.

Summary: You say man needs spirituality, but we need to know just what you mean by that. You also say man is inherently spiritual, but if we already have that, how can anything I do remove it? You mischaracterize my viewpoint as leading to a reinterpretation of mankind as robotic and selfish lumps of clay, but that is incorrect. Your viewpoints are at odds with traditional Christianity, and your choice of quotes from the gospels suffer when compared to other quotes from the gospels (and other references).

Thanks for the compliments, btw. I enjoy our discussions.

Couple random things:
Out of many, one. or We are all brothers. Man KNOWS this
But largely this applies only to man's own grouping. We're very much an "us vs. them" kind of people. Look at how often the "you liberals" ad hominem is thrown around on these forums alone. Remember "peace on earth, and goodwill toward men?" It's a mistranslation due to the loss of a sigma from an earlier copy. The actual phrase is "peace on earth toward men of goodwill" (i.e., other Christians). From the great wars of history to high school cliques, "us vs. them" is an over-arching theme, and "we are all brothers" empty rhetoric. Neither you nor I want this, of course. I simply find secular humanism a better overall vehicle for espousing the notion of universal brotherhood.
Christ said:
"I have come to fulfil the Law"
he knew THIS, he knew his fate, he knew what he HAD to do, yet THREE TIMES even Christ asked for dispensation.
The Law Jesus refers to is that of the Old Testament. I find it difficult to reconcile his "pass this cup" requests with his alleged divinity, especially that which you see in John, where the heavens open up and trumpets sound from the very start. Of course, you have to 1) assume the incarnation, which you seem to equivocate on; and 2) assume that the gospels record history, which I certainly do not.
According to the lesson, even he was denied, even he had to follow laws greater than Himself.
yet, we have people who try to hide and deny and reject this.
Rhetorical question: If you believe in the Trinity (1+1+1=1), how can god be greater than himself? Cheers,

That's pretty accurate I think, Vhex. Whether or not I've actually changed my mind because of a debate I was involved in, it still helps me to better understand a lot of things about the issue itself. It gives me a greater understanding of my side of the story, and a greater understanding of my opponent's; both of those are good things. Also, having someone question your own beliefs, even to the point of questioning your own definition of reality, can be a very, very healthy thing.

Anyone who read that verbose piece of prose that L2 wrote would probably find it, at the very least, an interesting read. If you are in fact skimming this whole thing, go back and read it word for word.

I dont debate to win. Thats not point, nor should it be..

We "learn":

* 10% of what we read
* 20% of what we hear
* 30% of what we see
* 40% of what we hear and see
* 50% of what we discuss
* 70% of what we experience
* 95% of what we teach

To teach, the entamology of the term goes back to its latin roots. Basically, "To throw out tokens".. take them, accept them or dont.
Post strong, researched, powerful opinions.. research your posts, dig up knowledge, teach yourself to stay afloat in a difficult debate.
Thats the joy. Thats the gain.

This is your soul. Your mental well being. Your morality. Your love. Its what seperates you from everyone else. Man has known this and felt this for ages, from the time a man first climb to the top of a mountain and screamed at the sky that he was more than the sum of his parts, spirtuality was given voice.

Replace "soul" with "intellect" or "reason" and I'll agree with you.

It also reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "You are a unique and special individual- just like everybody else."

Once again, why climb a mountain and scream at the sky? It seems (to me) a gesture of absolute frustration and futility- and the person doing it is out of balance with themselves.

Of course he was frustrated,
Early man. The frustration lead to the creation of faiths, faiths which helped put the man back in balance :D

The thing with the soul is that it is the acceptance of an EXTERNAL force working in conjunction with our internal selves.
To say intellect is to say that man is a self contained unit. There is no guiding force other than who we are. Intellect lends itself to Brain, which seems to limit itself to the chemical processes of the hormones implanting themselves on the brain. Soul lends itself to mind, mind lends itself to spirit. The mind is an emantion of the soul. We look at how man has viewed it for thousands of years. The Psyche. look at that word.
psyche :
n 1: that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason; "his mind wandered";"I couldn't get his words out of my head" [syn: mind,head, brain, nous]
2: the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life [syn: soul]

then we can look at the word Logos.

logos : \Log"os\, n. [NL., fr. Gr. ? the word or form which
expresses a thought, also, the thought, fr. ? to speak.]
1. A word; reason; speech. --H. Bushell.

2. The divine Word; Christ.

And when man gets all twisted and out of balance, where does he go? A PSYCHE LOGOS.. a psychologist
Its the spirt of the man that is broken.
Drugs.. sure, drugs can rememdy some of this, but lots of it is bringing a man into happiness and well being.
And I think its important to start looking at the entamology of words we use with thoughtless commonality.

Good. by definition
Fit and Suitable to natural design.

Evil. by definition
Exceeds due and proper boundries and depravation.

Think about these things, the duality of man and his spirit, the themes that have run through mans concious thought since we were created. What is natural to us.
What is that makes us unique and at the same time binds us.
There is a greater style, a greater rythm and a greater pattern. We can all feel this. At times in our lives we sometimes get lucky enough to feel in tune with the universe, everything "Feels" right.
Sometimes its physical, Micheal Jordan describes "being in the zone" as almost a religious experience.
Sometimes its mental, how can Physists work out the mysteries of the universe from thought, from being in harmony.
Sometimes its insightful. An artist can speak to your soul with a great work of art. Why are some people so moved from the beauty of something like the Pieta or a Rembrant?
What did they capture.
Sometimes its natural. There are people that have such a commune and harmony with nature that it is almost mystical.

It all ties in, it is all related. Its part of the same truth and the truth tells the tale of the things we cannot touch.

Early man. The frustration lead to the creation of faiths, faiths which helped put the man back in balance
And subsequently led to that man kicking the crap out of those of different faiths! :)

The mind is an emantion of the soul. We look at how man has viewed it for thousands of years.
If a person is struck on the head and loses some faculty, was the soul struck as well? Does a mentally retarded individual have an inherently broken soul?
Good. by definition
Fit and Suitable to natural design.
Is ebola good?
Evil. by definition
Exceeds due and proper boundries and depravation.
Who decides what is due and proper?
There is a greater style, a greater rythm and a greater pattern. We can all feel this. At times in our lives we sometimes get lucky enough to feel in tune with the universe, everything "Feels" right.
I'm familiar with the sensation, but nothing about it suggests I should attribute it to some vague external source. I also do not see how I need to ascribe internal sensations to an external source in order to feel like my internal state has any meaning. It's a lot like deism. Okay, perhaps there's a supreme being out there that made us all and whatnot, but if it does not interact with us, what's the point? What utility is there in believing in such a being when doing so changes nothing?

Yes, drugs can remedy many things...indeed, in many cases drugs are the only effective remedy. Why should a soul need thorazine? The mind is inextricably bound up in the physiology of the brain. Physically harm or neurochemically adjust that physiology, and the mind suffers. No soul required.

It all sounds very pretty, but one can say, "I was totally in the zone" without needing to allude to some mystical experience. Occam's Razor..."Do not needlessly multiply entities." Naturalism covers it all just fine. =)

Of course he was frustrated,
Early man. The frustration lead to the creation of faiths, faiths which helped put the man back in balance

Only because they didn't have the knowledge to explain forces outside of their control. So they created thunder gods, and bogey men and Jesus Christ.

The thing with the soul is that it is the acceptance of an EXTERNAL force working in conjunction with our internal selves.

No, that is faith.

To say intellect is to say that man is a self contained unit. There is no guiding force other than who we are.

And the external forces put on us by environment and society. But yes, exactly. Take that thought and run with it!

Intellect lends itself to Brain, which seems to limit itself to the chemical processes of the hormones implanting themselves on the brain. Soul lends itself to mind, mind lends itself to spirit. The mind is an emantion of the soul.

All the same way of saying the same thing. One has a WILL, one is self determinate, one is in charge of their own destiny. No god(s) are needed.

We look at how man has viewed it for thousands of years.
And those views, much like other views (such as thunder being the crack of a god's hammer, world being flat, earth being the center of the universe, creation by a divine being) are outdated. As we understand more, we can explain more- and we need those thunder gods less and less.

psyche :
2: the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life [syn: soul]

There is no immaterial part of a person. We are meat bags who can control our environment. Our emotions are tools developed to aid our development as social creatures. It takes a very large step outside of your ego to accept that.

then we can look at the word Logos.

logos : \Log"os\, n. [NL., fr. Gr. ? the word or form which
expresses a thought, also, the thought, fr. ? to speak.]
1. A word; reason; speech. --H. Bushell.
2. The divine Word; Christ.

Considering how important religion has been, it isn't surprising to see that many words relating to reason and faculty are related to religion. Reason was considered the divine gift, it was that which put us above the animals and gave us sway over the earth.

Now, we begin to understand it is just a very complex adapation to intense social pressure.

And when man gets all twisted and out of balance, where does he go? A PSYCHE LOGOS.. a psychologist
Its the spirt of the man that is broken.
Drugs.. sure, drugs can rememdy some of this, but lots of it is bringing a man into happiness and well being.

The mind is broken. Chemicals are out of balance, or damage has been done. Sometimes, the social development needed to operate in today's world is out of whack- a person is a throwback, perhaps.

And I think its important to start looking at the entamology of words we use with thoughtless commonality.

Good. by definition
Fit and Suitable to natural design.

from the root:
ghedh-
To unite, join, fit.
Lengthened o-grade form *ghdh-. GOOD, from Old English god, good, from Germanic *gdaz, "fitting, suitable."

Evil. by definition
Exceeds due and proper boundries and depravation.
In other words, outside of the boundries of acceptable SOCIAL behavior. Uncivilized.

Again, I'm just not seeing the need for anything more than personal responsibility.

All the same way of saying the same thing. One has a WILL, one is self determinate, one is in charge of their own destiny. No god(s) are needed.

Tell that to Christopher Reeve. Tell that to Princess Diana. The control you have is limited and irrelevant. If death comes for you, there is no way to talk yourself out of it. If you die tomorrow because a plane crashs into you, what control did you have over that? Keep saying "Im the master of my universe" until you realize you are nothing and have no control. Life is simply an endless string of chance dice rolls and you have the sum of your rolls.

If you die tomorrow because a plane crashs into you, what control did you have over that? Keep saying "Im the master of my universe" until you realize you are nothing and have no control. Life is simply an endless string of chance dice rolls and you have the sum of your rolls.
So much for free will, eh?

But seriously, it's about the ability to make choices under a given set of circumstances, not about the ability to control the universe.

No one honestly gets the jist of what you're saying after the first paragraph


What is that, "Shewdogg's Law"?

If you can't read more than a paragraph you should probably see about getting some sort of treatment for ADD. Normal people can read more than a paragraph and still "get the jist".


So they created thunder gods, and bogey men and Jesus Christ.


Is the bogey man a pilot?

Or maybe he starred in Casablanca?

Jesus actually existed brainiac, historically... he wasn't thought up by someone to start a religion. If you are trying to say the man existed and the rest of it was created..well, you're running into that problem with expressing yourself again.

Oh, and LLeauaric..I was the one taking jabs at the Catholic church, not Mandari.

They deserve it.

Tell that to Christopher Reeve. Tell that to Princess Diana.

Both of whom made the choices that put them there. Who said life was risk free?

The control you have is limited and irrelevant... Keep saying "Im the master of my universe" until you realize you are nothing and have no control.

Did you miss, in this very thread, this statement:
L2 said:
To say intellect is to say that man is a self contained unit. There is no guiding force other than who we are
to which I replied:
And the external forces put on us by environment and society. But yes, exactly. Take that thought and run with it!

You are still in control of your destiny. All of those things you said are unfortunate accidents- but really, life has risks, to deny that is to be absurd. You accept risk every day as a part of life.

One can try an minimize those risks- wear your seat belt when driving, don't shoot heroin, don't aggravate deranged madmen and then hand them a knife.

Hell, you could be on vacation in Cancun and get bit by a mosquito, get malaria and die- but who flew to Cancun in the first place?

Jesus actually existed brainiac, historically... he wasn't thought up by someone to start a religion. If you are trying to say the man existed and the rest of it was created..well, you're running into that problem with expressing yourself again.

A person named JESUS might have lived, and done some things to shake things up. But to say he is "the Christ" implies all of the divinity and son of god stuff. His last name was not Christ, you know.

Hell, a guy named Jesus lives down the street from me. So? That doesn't make him divine.

So really, I've no problem expressing myself.

Jesus actually existed brainiac, historically... he wasn't thought up by someone to start a religion.
There are a host of good reasons to dispute this, though the question is not settled. There is no solid evidence of a historical Jesus (and I mean "solid" in the sense used by historians).

So really, I've no problem expressing myself.


You say after restating your position from implying Jesus was an imaginary entity equivalent to the bo(o)gey man to exactly what I suggested you might be trying to say, that "A person named JESUS might have lived, and done some things to shake things up." :)

Mandari, I'm not going to bother to show the historical evidence of Jesus since the person bringing up the original point acknowledges the fact.

I'd be very interested in seeing what evidence of the historical Jesus you could find. So would the bulk of the biblical scholarship community. As Albert Schweitzer put it in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Jesus could not be found in the gospel accounts at all and his "image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another."

Essentially, whatever Jesus existed in history is completely unknown to us, and more recent research suggests he may not have existed at all.

You say after restating your position from implying Jesus was an imaginary entity equivalent to the bo(o)gey man

Let’s go over this again. A man Jesus might have lived and tried to shake things up, only to get crucified for his actions.

Jesus CHRIST (as I've said twice) is an imaginary entity, much like Zeus or the Bogey man. Adding the Christ onto the end of the name sums up my meaning nicely, and makes my original statement stand. As I said before, Christ was NOT his last name, it is a kind of title.

Let me elaborate:
I can talk about the Pope. There is no question there IS a pope, and he talks about what is right and wrong in an organization called the Catholic Church.
If I refered to him as "His Holiness, The Pope" that implies that I believe what he is saying, that he is infallible and is an agent of God.

The meaning is implicit.
(edit) fixed a spelling error, you'd think I'd proofread before posting

There's a big difference in what you originally said and what you are saying now Amorach.

To put it differently, saying there really was a guy named Custer who fought some Indians and his wife created his image is different from saying some woman completely invented the idea of a guy named Custer.

I knew you were gonna do that Mandari..ok, later on when I have a bit more time I will tackle it.

I should mention that I'm familiar with the evidences usually given, so a brief summation will do. Or maybe a "What do you think of this claim?" type of post on, for example, the Thallus text. That would save us both a lot of typing (well, mainly you, hehe).

There's a big difference in what you originally said and what you are saying now Amorach.

No, there isn't. The idea of Jesus Christ is as made up as Santa Claus, Vishnu, Mithras and a host of other mythical figures.

Lets look at it again:
Only because they didn't have the knowledge to explain forces outside of their control. So they created thunder gods, and bogey men and Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is a creation- created by Jesus himself. The creation stemmed from a need for the answer to the question "what happens when I die?"

Lets look at it again:

A man named claims to be the divine son of an imaginary being (we'll call him Yahweh), born to a woman who never had intercourse, here to offer you the gates of an eternal realm of otherworldly reward if you follow a few simple rules.

And people BOUGHT IT. The best snow job in history, one that is still going on. Jesus created this nifty persona for himself, sold it to a few people and advised them to do the same (sounds like Amway) and here we are today.

I'll say it again:
Man creates religion or myth to explain that which they lack the knowledge to explain or for forces outside of their control. So they created thunder gods, and bogey men and Jesus Christ (who, as I've said, represents the answer to "what happens when I die? I don't want this to be all that there is!")

Edit:
To put it differently, saying there really was a guy named Custer who fought some Indians and his wife created his image is different from saying some woman completely invented the idea of a guy named Custer

Which is exactly what happened in the Jesus case. There was a guy named Jesus with some wild talk, and he convinced people of everything mentioned above. He created an image for himself out of whatever delusions he was having- and convinced others that it was true!

Religion is challenged by science, as a result it has to adapt. Before science there wasn't any better way to explain why things are the way they are. It was a prefect crutch to say "its God's Will that makes it so". There was no need for Humanity to be responcible for its own actions because God was so easy and ready to take the credit for it. One step further is to say "The Devil made me do it".

Knowledge has always been power, and until recent times it was the Church that usually held sway over such things as literacy. As LL said before, education has debunked past views of God and religion, and people just arn't buying what the Church says hook, line and sinker anymore. Science has brought too many tangiable results that we use in our everyday lives where as religion is, of course, based on more abstract principles. Also, compared to 2000+ years ago, there are ALOT more human being on this earth, with alot more divergent views and alot more ways of spreading information. There is no such thing as geographic isolation of information anymore. The whole idea of God and Satan and Creation and Heaven Above and Hell Below just seem like so much myth and bullshit now that religion has become more a code of morality and underlying idea than a true means of explaination for all of the experiences of Human existance. We penitrate the so called location of "Hell" with sound and launch rockets into what was considered the prime location of Heaven. Who knows what religion will say when Humans finally figure out a way to safely and efficiently travel through the stars and colonize other worlds. It will happen eventually, if we don't kill ourselves off first. The Bible so far only has an explaination of the creation of one planet. There is no mention of the millions of others out there, and whatever life they may harbor. The Bible can't even explain why there is bacteria or viruses, let alone if we discover some sentient form of dirt.

Jesus. Well, he may have lived. Its also possible that maybe he was the Superman or *Insert favorite Superhero here* of that age and time. Before then it was the mythical gods such as Zeus. All of them professed to have powers that transend ordinary mediocre Human existance. Jesus came into existance during the age of Rome, where if you didn't buy into the system, chances are your were an opposed miserable wretch. Jesus didn't have to actually exist as an actual person. All he had to do was instill the idea of hope into those who had none. If the current crop of Gods were not exactly hooking you up with food on your table and the will to get out of bed the next morning, perhaps making up a couple new ones might be just what the down and out spirit needed.

Science still doesn't have all the answers and science still doesn't provide a basic framework of morality nor a solid basis of dealing with our own mortality. The basic concepts of religion still govern our daily lives as long as its implied as a basic code of morality. Perhaps religion is nothing more than the drive to do whats best for our own kind and provide for a future for tomorrow. It could be that its nothing more than the basic animal instincts to perpetuate our own kind.

Still religious fanatics still exist, and if anything will doom our race to destruction, it has to be religious zealots. If you lose faith in Life and your fellow man and put all your efforts towards pleasing a God or attainment of rewards in the Afterlife, you are by far the most dangerous weapon ever created.

Good post, Lummus. Some thoughts:

The whole idea of God and Satan and Creation and Heaven Above and Hell Below just seem like so much myth and bullshit now that religion has become more a code of morality and underlying idea than a true means of explaination for all of the experiences of Human existance.
To me, and to many others, it seems patently obvious that the kinds of supernatural ideas proposed by the various major religions are, at best, symbolic. However, a considerable number of people believe wholeheartedly that they are real. There is a Satan who, for whatever reason, God permits to do evil. There is a Heaven where the virtuous dead ascend, and never mind the many problems with such a "place." To millons, these are very real concepts to be worshipped and feared with dread and awe. Strange but true!

Good post, Lummus. Some thoughts:

The whole idea of God and Satan and Creation and Heaven Above and Hell Below just seem like so much myth and bullshit now that religion has become more a code of morality and underlying idea than a true means of explaination for all of the experiences of Human existance.
To me, and to many others, it seems patently obvious that the kinds of supernatural ideas proposed by the various major religions are, at best, symbolic. However, a considerable number of people believe wholeheartedly that they are real. There is a Satan who, for whatever reason, God permits to do evil. There is a Heaven where the virtuous dead ascend, and never mind the many problems with such a "place." To millons, these are very real concepts to be worshipped and feared with dread and awe. Strange but true!
Jesus didn't have to actually exist as an actual person. All he had to do was instill the idea of hope into those who had none.
Very true. And this idea didn't necessarily have to come from Jesus himself; it could be (and has been) transmitted by his followers or those who believed in him, whatever his nature may have been.
Science still doesn't have all the answers and science still doesn't provide a basic framework of morality nor a solid basis of dealing with our own mortality.
The view that science can answer all questions is called scientism, and you'd have to look long and hard to find anyone -- scientist or not -- who believes it.

I think when you start talking about good and evil you need to start considering its base in the duality of man.
Its a great topic. And the expression of a devil and a god as opposing forces ties right in with the internal conflict of man. All inward forces have an outward expression.

Its as if man took everything inside him, and super imposed it on the sky, painted abstract backgrounds on it and called it religion. But thats honest. Religion, faith, its all an internal quest. We arent going to find God or Faith in a cloud bank, or some distant universe. Thats one of the ultimate ironies. "Seek and Ye Shall find", and "To thine own self be true".. they say the same thing. Religion is mans statement of understanding about himself. Sure, yes, its about lightning and thunder, but less about that. Its about the things he REALLY cant explain. Not What I am, or how I got here. Those arent the immediate questions. Those arent the question that keeps a man up at night. WHO am I. A question that seems so simple, yet is impossible to answer.

Let science be outward, let faith be inward. BOTH are needed in mans life I believe. Both play to the duality of man.

Both play to the duality of man.

It is facinating that every religion has this concept in it. The Veil of Maya takes this even farther and says that the universe will balance everything to 0. Every joy balanced with a grief.