Cobol - OT - Religion

Author

OT - Religion

William M. Klein

2005-04-16, 8:55 pm

Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.

When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
almost unheard of combination in this (that) century. One of my good friends
was a Jehovah's Witness. I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right and I
could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith). (In recent years, she
is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
"fundamentalist")

***

If you start with a belief (or knowledge) common in many (most?) western
religions, that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is POSSIBLE (but not
required - IMHO) that He/She

1) Can (could) create a world "roughly" 5000 years ago - but with "physical
evidence" that it was much older

2) Can (could) create humans "from scratch" but also create physical evidence of
evolution

3) Can (could) create any amount of "scientific" evidence of any "theory" -
regardless of its truth

Now, my current beliefs are that this is NOT how God did (does) work - but to
say that She/He could create the world (the universe) but could NOT do these
things does NOT seem consistent to me. (Of course, I also believe that neither
God nor Religion *requires* consistency - on the other hand, I do - personally -
tend to LIKE consistency in my beliefs and faiths.)

... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement that
*if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone directory
while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would have.

***

Now (in answer to another posted question)
*IF* *> note very big IF
you either "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
then it does become VERY important to you to "convince" others to read the same
"conclusion" (knowledge, belief).

If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith, whatever) is
"TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a
"child", then it becomes important that you act upon that knowledge/belief -
including how it impacts others. Similarly, if your religion does NOT make that
claim but either give no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth, then
you accept and/or preach other messages.

However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your religions, e.g.
- polygamy is "right"
- human sacrifice is "required"
- bread and wine physically become body and blood
- marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
- etc, etc

I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me. However, as
long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not knowledge, then I
(personally - regardless of what my religion tells me) TEND to accept that
others have different views of the world, morality, truth, etc.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-16, 8:55 pm

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bse8e.116058$za2.19356@news.easynews.com...
> Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
> When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
> almost unheard of combination in this (that) century. One of my good
friends
> was a Jehovah's Witness. I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right
and I
> could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith). (In recent
years, she
> is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
> "fundamentalist")
>
> ***
>
> If you start with a belief (or knowledge) common in many (most?) western
> religions, that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is POSSIBLE (but
not
> required - IMHO) that He/She
>
> 1) Can (could) create a world "roughly" 5000 years ago - but with
"physical
> evidence" that it was much older
>
> 2) Can (could) create humans "from scratch" but also create physical
evidence of
> evolution
>
> 3) Can (could) create any amount of "scientific" evidence of any
"theory" -
> regardless of its truth
>

OK, so God has a sense of humour... :-)

> Now, my current beliefs are that this is NOT how God did (does) work - but
to
> say that She/He could create the world (the universe) but could NOT do
these
> things does NOT seem consistent to me. (Of course, I also believe that
neither
> God nor Religion *requires* consistency - on the other hand, I do -
personally -
> tend to LIKE consistency in my beliefs and faiths.)

Well test your consistency on this one... If God is omnipotent (as you seem
to be suggesting) could God create an effect that He could not be unaffected
by. Like, could He make a boulder so heavy that even HE could not move
it...?

>
> ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement
that
> *if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone
directory
> while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would
have.
>
> ***
>
> Now (in answer to another posted question)
> *IF* *> note very big IF
> you either "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
> RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
> then it does become VERY important to you to "convince" others to read
the same
> "conclusion" (knowledge, belief).
>

Disagree here, Bill. That is only true for SOME people and it has more to do
with the personality and development level of the person concerned. I
absolutely believe that there is no God and I live by a system of ethics and
morals based on what I hope is common sense. I believe that people who
believe in God are simply wrong, but I have ABSOLUTELY no desire to persuade
them to my point of view, or indulge in arguments with them that may end up
shaking their faith. (Note, I am quite secure that these arguments would not
shake MY faith... (that is the arrogance of Religion) :-)).

In my experience people 'evangelize' their beliefs for one of the following
reasons:

1. The more people who agree with them, the more secure they can feel that
they are 'right'.
2. They are required to evangelize by the faith to which they adhere.
3. Some of them are kindly souls who feel as Howard mentioned, that they
don't want to see anyone burning in eternal torment. I have a number of
friends who are devout Christians (I have even attended Church with some of
them on special occasions when they wanted their friends with them) and they
are genuinely concerned for me that I shall never reach salvation. I
understand and appreciate their kindness, but we all know it is never going
to happen. So we get on with our lives and enjoy each others company while
we can... I do not indulge in religious discussions with them unless they
initiate it. One in particular drops in on me for coffee after church on
Sunday. (Her church is very near to where I live). We discuss the text and
the sermon from that morning, and exchange views and ideas, not on Theology,
but on the practicality of how what was preached that morning can be
implemented within both Christian and atheist belief systems. I enjoy these
discussions (and so does she).
4. There are some who believe they accumulate Brownie points with God if
they persuade others to the faith.

> If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith, whatever) is
> "TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a
> "child", then it becomes important that you act upon that
knowledge/belief -
> including how it impacts others.

Careful. It varies by individual. I know some Christians who see their
belief (while deeply held) as personal and private. They will reject the
parts of the faith that they 'disagree' with. If they happen to favour the
'right to choose' they will accept abortion with a clear conscience. I
discussed this with one of them some years back and asked how he could
manage to reconcile the teaching of his church with the fact that he would
not obey it. (His daughter had had an abortion and he supported her.) My
question was not as agressive as it sounds when written here, and was asked
in a genuine spirit of enquiry... he knew that he was not under attack or
being judged on any way by me... The response was interesting and I have
carried it since then. He said that when he was called to account he would
simply tell God why he did what he did. He would make his case and let God
decide whether his motives were pure or not.

Sometimes I think (purely speculatively and as a hypothetical scenario) that
if I am wrong, and there IS a God, and I am called to account, how would I
present my case?

No problem. (But I have no intention whatsoever of divulging here what my
arguments would be... :-))

> Similarly, if your religion does NOT make that
> claim but either give no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth,
then
> you accept and/or preach other messages.
>
> However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your religions,
e.g.
> - polygamy is "right"
> - human sacrifice is "required"
> - bread and wine physically become body and blood
> - marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
> - etc, etc
>

Well, theoretically it SHOULD if you are devout. In practice, people tend
not to implement the teachings of their church if they don't can't see sense
in it or if they find it difficult. (Faiths that allow regular "forgiveness"
or confession sessions are particularly prone to the pragmatism of Human
Beings.... Catholics who practise birth control, Jews who eat bacon and
lobster, Muslims who frequent strip joints and drink alcohol, Hindus who
don't practise Suttee (fortunately a growing number, and I was interested to
see that the State has legislated against it... A triumph of common sense
over accepted belief.))

> I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me.
However, as
> long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not knowledge, then I
> (personally - regardless of what my religion tells me) TEND to accept that
> others have different views of the world, morality, truth, etc.
>

That seems like a kind of "double think", Bill. You hold beliefs but you
don't believe them. Nevertheless, I think your position is a 'correct'
one...

Pete.

James J. Gavan

2005-04-17, 3:55 am

William M. Klein wrote:
> Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
> When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
> almost unheard of combination in this (that) century. One of my good friends
> was a Jehovah's Witness. I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right and I
> could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith). (In recent years, she
> is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
> "fundamentalist")
>
And from hereon in I got absolutely

as to what Mr. Klein was or
currently is :-)
>
> ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement that
> *if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone directory
> while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would have.

Seems some people don't think God has a sense of humour. He has to have,
if you look at all the human shapes around us. I can see your suggestion
going down like a lead balloon - still same would have applied if you
had said it at a Catholic seminary. BTW - I'm quite sure He could have -
but he had more pressing matters on His mind at the time.

Seems to me you missed out on your vocation. Robin Williams illustrated
it so well, how humour could be used in hospitals with kids. Just think,
had you persisted, you could have had 'em rolling in the aisles - the
Patch Adams of the pulpit :-)

Jimmy

HeyBub

2005-04-17, 3:55 am

William M. Klein wrote:
> Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
> When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian
> - an almost unheard of combination in this (that) century. One of my
> good friends was a Jehovah's Witness. I really ENVIED her as she
> "knew" she was right and I could only "believe" that I was right
> (i.e. have faith). (In recent years, she is no longer a Jehovah's
> Witness and I am no longer even slightly "fundamentalist")

Episcopalian "fundamentalist?" Heh! I once had an Epicopalian priest tell
me: "The women in my church don't worry about dying - they worry about Bill
Blass dying."

> ***
>
> Now (in answer to another posted question)
> *IF* *> note very big IF
> you either "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
> RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
> then it does become VERY important to you to "convince" others to
> read the same "conclusion" (knowledge, belief).

Not necessarily. The Jewish tradition teaches that a Baptist, a Catholic, a
Muslim, a Buddist, and (most of) the rest are on a good and holy road to
God. Further, that God does not want "belief" but instead wants righteous,
ethical conduct. It is possible to be a "Good Jew" and simultaneously be an
athiest. In short, it is irrelevant what one believes, only what one does.

>
> If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith,
> whatever) is "TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and
> that a fetus is a "child", then it becomes important that you act
> upon that knowledge/belief - including how it impacts others. Similarly,
> if your religion does NOT make that claim but either give
> no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth, then you accept
> and/or preach other messages.

Certainly.

>
> However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your
> religions, e.g. - polygamy is "right"
> - human sacrifice is "required"
> - bread and wine physically become body and blood
> - marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
> - etc, etc

Of course.

>
> I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me. However,
> as long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not
> knowledge, then I (personally - regardless of what my religion tells
> me) TEND to accept that others have different views of the world,
> morality, truth, etc.

Exactly. My religion teaches me to say: "I don't CARE what you believe -
what can you PROVE?"

SkippyPB

2005-04-17, 3:55 pm

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:20:23 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> enlightened us:

>Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
>When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
>almost unheard of combination in this (that) century. One of my good friends
>was a Jehovah's Witness. I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right and I
>could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith). (In recent years, she
>is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
>"fundamentalist")
>
> ***
>
>If you start with a belief (or knowledge) common in many (most?) western
>religions, that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is POSSIBLE (but not
>required - IMHO) that He/She
>
>1) Can (could) create a world "roughly" 5000 years ago - but with "physical
>evidence" that it was much older
>

How did you arrive at 5000? Gensis just says, "...in the
beginning...". No time frame is ever given as to the start.

>2) Can (could) create humans "from scratch" but also create physical evidence of
>evolution
>

Not from scratch..from the dirt of the earth.

>3) Can (could) create any amount of "scientific" evidence of any "theory" -
>regardless of its truth
>

I don't think God created scientific evidence per se. That is for us
(humans) to discover. What was created were the rules of nature, some
set in stone, some variable. Kind of like some of the data I have to
handle in programs I write. Regardless, it is human understanding
that defines truth. It was once held as true that the earth was flat.
It was once held as true that the earth revolved around the sun. Of
course those truths are no longer held because we (humans) discovered
different truths.

>Now, my current beliefs are that this is NOT how God did (does) work - but to
>say that She/He could create the world (the universe) but could NOT do these
>things does NOT seem consistent to me. (Of course, I also believe that neither
>God nor Religion *requires* consistency - on the other hand, I do - personally -
>tend to LIKE consistency in my beliefs and faiths.)
>
> ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement that
>*if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone directory
>while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would have.
>
> ***
>

Good one. I'm pretty sure Jeasus had other things on His mind at the
time and just how

would the Roman Centurians that were
standing guard at the time have been when Jeasus would have said,
"Caesar, James...telefono 212-515-9652"?

>Now (in answer to another posted question)
> *IF* *> note very big IF
>you either "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
> RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
>then it does become VERY important to you to "convince" others to read the same
>"conclusion" (knowledge, belief).
>
>If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith, whatever) is
>"TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a
>"child", then it becomes important that you act upon that knowledge/belief -
>including how it impacts others. Similarly, if your religion does NOT make that
>claim but either give no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth, then
>you accept and/or preach other messages.
>
>However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your religions, e.g.
> - polygamy is "right"
> - human sacrifice is "required"
> - bread and wine physically become body and blood
> - marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
> - etc, etc
>
>I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me. However, as
>long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not knowledge, then I
>(personally - regardless of what my religion tells me) TEND to accept that
>others have different views of the world, morality, truth, etc.

Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
--Robin Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Howard Brazee

2005-04-18, 3:55 pm

On 17-Apr-2005, SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

>
> How did you arrive at 5000? Gensis just says, "...in the
> beginning...". No time frame is ever given as to the start.

Genesis 1 & 2 should not be read together by someone who really wants to be a
literalist. Also, how do you measure time before day and night were created?

Anybody who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible "count", because he
"knows" the Truth shouldn't tout the Bible. This includes all of those who
say homosexuals are going to Hell.

Chuck Stevens

2005-04-18, 3:55 pm

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:dhu4611vsf6oh23479jgmotrdk5ub1bph7@
4ax.com...

> How did you arrive at 5000? Gensis just says, "...in the
> beginning...". No time frame is ever given as to the start.

The most famous author Christian author to establish a date for the Creation
was James Ussher, a seventeenth-century (Anglican?) Archibishop of Armagh,
Ireland, who worked backward from an assumed date for the accession of Saul
to the throne of 1095 BC to those who take this position think the creation
occurred sometime in 4004 BC. Ussher's dates "were inserted in the margins
of the authorized version of the English bible and were soon practically
regarded as equally inspired with the sacred text itself.".

However, his publication was preceded by some ten years by that of one Dr.
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), an Anglican clergyman, rabbinical scholar and
vice-chancellor at Cambridge, who arrived at 9:00 AM on October 23, 4004 BCE
as the time at which the Universe was created.

Both estimates relied heavily on the Old Testament records of how long
people lived and how old their fathers were when they were born.

Other dates arrived at similarly range from 3613 BCE by Rabbi Lipman (1579 -
1654) to 6984 BCE by Alfonso XII of Spain during the 12th century CE.

Interestingly, the Mayan calendar has creation occurring on February 10,
3641 BCE.

The above information is condensed from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm .

-Chuck Stevens

Richard

2005-04-18, 8:55 pm

> ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there)
statement
> that *if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York
> Telephone directory while He was on the cross - that He could have

That implies that 'free will' doesn't exist, and 'Allah has written
everything that was and will be'.

That is, if the fact that a person existed or did not exist in 1960 via
all his ancestors and through all the 'choices' and accidents or
illnesses that may befall all of them through the centuries so that
they are in the place at the specific place and time for them to be in
that phone book then the world is just a movie that is in playback
mode.

That further means that there is no 'good' or 'bad' and that you
actions or inactions have no meaning, because no matter what it is you
do it has already been determined at the start.

But then that is the thing about 'beliefs', you can just make up
whatever takes your fancy at any time, whatever is a 'good idea', or
even a crap one, as long as it is interesting. You can pick and choose
what you prefer to believe: ressurrection, reincarnation, tooth fairy,
24 virgins if you kill jews, and if you don't find anything you do
like, just start a new religion and make up something else.

It's not like it has anything to do with reality.

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-19, 3:55 am

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1113851402.527538.154180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> statement
>
> That implies that 'free will' doesn't exist, and 'Allah has written
> everything that was and will be'.
>
> That is, if the fact that a person existed or did not exist in 1960 via
> all his ancestors and through all the 'choices' and accidents or
> illnesses that may befall all of them through the centuries so that
> they are in the place at the specific place and time for them to be in
> that phone book then the world is just a movie that is in playback
> mode.
>
> That further means that there is no 'good' or 'bad' and that you
> actions or inactions have no meaning, because no matter what it is you
> do it has already been determined at the start.
>
> But then that is the thing about 'beliefs', you can just make up
> whatever takes your fancy at any time, whatever is a 'good idea', or
> even a crap one, as long as it is interesting. You can pick and choose
> what you prefer to believe: ressurrection, reincarnation, tooth fairy,
> 24 virgins if you kill jews, and if you don't find anything you do
> like, just start a new religion and make up something else.
>
> It's not like it has anything to do with reality.
>
:-) I enjoyed that.

Having encountered people who believe fervently in pre-destination
(Fatalists), I realised fairly early on in the piece that their position is
logically unassailable. There is no point in arguing (or even discussing
with them) because it is impossible to show logically any flaw in their
belief system.

That doesn't mean they are correct; just that they are logically valid. They
have to be, because their belief system has a single truth value (The will
of God). There is therefore no possibility for error or 'right' or
'wrong'...everything is the will of God and therefore 'right', exactly as
Richard described quite eloquently above.

This system of belief worked very well for thousands of years in one form or
another, across geographically dispersed cultures. It wasn't until Aristotle
came along and decided a two valued logic system (True/False) might more
realistically approach 'Reality' , that people in the Western world even
started to think about thinking...(In Asia they had been working on multi
valued systems for centuries... everything was relative, with no real
absolutes. Something could be 'truer' than something else, but there was no
absolute Truth.)

The above is a gross oversimplification of the development of philosophy,
but the point is that there are still people to this day (particularly in
Islamic countries) who adhere to Fatalism.

Anyone who has ever driven in Turkey (for instance) will understand
immediately what I'm talking about. :-)

And every example I can cite of free will, is seen by them as simply the
will of God being exercised (irrespective of what choice was made.)

Pete.

HeyBub

2005-04-19, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 17-Apr-2005, SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
> Genesis 1 & 2 should not be read together by someone who really wants
> to be a literalist. Also, how do you measure time before day and
> night were created?

Use a watch and a calendar. I can tell you've never been on spring break.

>
> Anybody who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible "count",
> because he "knows" the Truth shouldn't tout the Bible. This
> includes all of those who say homosexuals are going to Hell.

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that homosexuals will go to Hell - there
is no "Hell" in the Old Testament. The Bible does say, however, that
homosexuals shall be strangled to death.

SkippyPB

2005-04-20, 8:55 pm

Herwig Huener

2005-04-21, 3:55 pm

2005-02-21 17:27:37 MEST

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> schrieb:

> ...

> 3. Some of them are kindly souls who feel as Howard mentioned, that they
> don't want to see anyone burning in eternal torment. ...

I made shock treatment to such an individual in that I
claimed I look forward to damnation because I like big fires.

> ...

> Sometimes I think (purely speculatively and as a hypothetical scenario)
that
> if I am wrong, and there IS a God, and I am called to account, how would I
> present my case?

I would ask him to present *his* case
- after all, there are a few things in his
creation I don't quite agree with.

Herwig

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-21, 3:55 pm

In article <d48goe$voj$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com>,
Herwig Huener <Herwig.Huener@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
>2005-02-21 17:27:37 MEST
>
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> schrieb:

[snip]

>
>I would ask him to present *his* case
>- after all, there are a few things in his
>creation I don't quite agree with.

A bit stronger, perhaps, but remarkably similar to a sentiment attributed
to Alfonso the Wise (13th cent), sometimes translated as 'Had I been
present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the
better ordering of the universe.'

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-04-21, 3:55 pm

On 16-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> Sometimes I think (purely speculatively and as a hypothetical scenario) that
> if I am wrong, and there IS a God, and I am called to account, how would I
> present my case?

It depends on what God or gods is/are like. There are lots of people who KNOW
what He is like - and he's loving or terrible or vengeful, or able but unwilling
to stop people from being tortured forever and ever without hope of parole, or
wants to have a good time fighting all day, and deflowering virgins at night...

Basically, any argument I can have is that I've tried to be a good man. If He
prefers someone that likes to kill, then that's too bad. I hope He won't be
interested in having me look at people being tortured in Hell, but instead will
let me die peacefully. But it won't be my choice - I won't have the power to
change His mind.

If it comes to a vote - there is no majority religion. Everybody's religion is
a minority. Those religions that believe everybody else will be punished, are
hoping that *most* people are punished for being born the wrong place.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-21, 3:55 pm

In article <3cdjpuF6h9r1dU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Sometimes I think (purely speculatively and as a hypothetical scenario) that
>if I am wrong, and there IS a God, and I am called to account, how would I
>present my case?
>
>No problem. (But I have no intention whatsoever of divulging here what my
>arguments would be... :-))

Mr Dashwood, if the deity to which you refer is omniscient - in the sense
of 'knowing all that which is, was and will be, see-eth into the heart of
hearts, numbereth the hairth... *hairs* of thy head' and suchlike - then
it seems there'd be little need to say anything.

(Come to think of it... if said diety is omnibeneficent it seems there'd
be little need, as well.)

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-04-21, 3:55 pm

On 21-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Mr Dashwood, if the deity to which you refer is omniscient - in the sense
> of 'knowing all that which is, was and will be, see-eth into the heart of
> hearts, numbereth the hairth... *hairs* of thy head' and suchlike - then
> it seems there'd be little need to say anything.

There'd be little reason for the Universe either (He knows the process, He
doesn't need to go through the process, He knows every little detail about what
will happen, why not start with the end?). It is interesting that Jehovah
tested Abraham, maybe because testing is good for him.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-21, 3:55 pm

In article <d48n2h$7mi$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 21-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>There'd be little reason for the Universe either (He knows the process, He
>doesn't need to go through the process, He knows every little detail about what
>will happen, why not start with the end?). It is interesting that Jehovah
>tested Abraham, maybe because testing is good for him.

Or perhaps because walking through the garden in the

of the day got
boring... gotta be careful with those early Old Testament
anthropomorphisms... or the problems that might be generated by the use of
the first-person singular in Gen.III:11 and the use of the third-person
plural in Gen.III:22.

It is religion, it is *not* science.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-21, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d48llm$hog$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <3cdjpuF6h9r1dU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
that[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
>
> Mr Dashwood, if the deity to which you refer is omniscient - in the sense
> of 'knowing all that which is, was and will be, see-eth into the heart of
> hearts, numbereth the hairth... *hairs* of thy head' and suchlike - then
> it seems there'd be little need to say anything.
>
> (Come to think of it... if said diety is omnibeneficent it seems there'd
> be little need, as well.)
>
Precisely. :-)

But then again, he might want me to just run through my defence for my own
edification... :-)

Pete.

> DD
>

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-21, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d48psk$6ke$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d48n2h$7mi$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
sense[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
then[color=darkred]
He[color=darkred]
about what[color=darkred]
Jehovah[color=darkred]
>
> Or perhaps because walking through the garden in the

of the day got
> boring... gotta be careful with those early Old Testament
> anthropomorphisms... or the problems that might be generated by the use of
> the first-person singular in Gen.III:11 and the use of the third-person
> plural in Gen.III:22.
>
> It is religion, it is *not* science.
>
Is there ultimately a difference?

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-22, 3:55 am

In article <3cqormF6p38p9U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d48psk$6ke$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Is there ultimately a difference?

Mr Dashwood, I do not know how you intend 'ultimately'... but most of the
science I can recall being taught had, as its basis, a tenet of
'reproducibility of results', that if one person performed a particular
set of actions under a given set of circumstances then another person
performing those same actions under similar circumstances would get the
same result.

I am unaware of any religion - *especially* when it comes to claims of an
afterlife - which can be validated by this.

DD

LX-i

2005-04-22, 3:55 am

Herwig Huener wrote:
> 2005-02-21 17:27:37 MEST
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> schrieb:
>
>
>
> that
>
>
>
> I would ask him to present *his* case
> - after all, there are a few things in his
> creation I don't quite agree with.

Did your kids try that with you? How did you respond?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-22, 3:55 am

In article <3cqoopF6p4hobU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d48llm$hog$1@panix5.panix.com...
>that
>I
>Precisely. :-)
>
>But then again, he might want me to just run through my defence for my own
>edification... :-)
>
>Pete.
>
>
>
>
>

Jeff York

2005-04-22, 8:55 am

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d48psk$6ke$1@panix5.panix.com...

>Is there ultimately a difference?

I *sincerely* hope so!

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d49hve$a1a$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <3cqormF6p38p9U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
news:d48psk$6ke$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
>
> [snip]
>
process, He[color=darkred]
about what[color=darkred]
Jehovah[color=darkred]
got[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
>
> Mr Dashwood, I do not know how you intend 'ultimately'... but most of the
> science I can recall being taught had, as its basis, a tenet of
> 'reproducibility of results', that if one person performed a particular
> set of actions under a given set of circumstances then another person
> performing those same actions under similar circumstances would get the
> same result.
>
> I am unaware of any religion - *especially* when it comes to claims of an
> afterlife - which can be validated by this.
>
> DD
>
Ultimate goal of Science: Knowledge and understanding of 'life the universe
and everything'. No mysteries, everything known and understood. All the laws
of nature and all the exceptions, explained and known. The 'mind of God'
revealed.

Ultimate goal of Religion: Oneness with the Creator. And in that Oneness,
knowledge and understanding of 'life the universe and everything'. No
mysteries, everything known and understood. All the laws of nature and all
the exceptions, explained and known. The 'mind of God' revealed.(The
religious experience involves actually becoming part of this mind.)

You correctly spotted that it depends on what is meant by 'ultimately'...

My observation was simply meant to suggest that when Science and Religion
attain their ultimate goals (if they ever do) they will be
indistinguishable.

The differences are on the path, not in the destination.

Pete.
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

In article <3ctj2dF6pil0sU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d49hve$a1a$1@panix5.panix.com...
>Ultimate goal of Science: Knowledge and understanding of 'life the universe
>and everything'.

[snip]

>Ultimate goal of Religion: Oneness with the Creator.

[snip]

>You correctly spotted that it depends on what is meant by 'ultimately'...
>
>My observation was simply meant to suggest that when Science and Religion
>attain their ultimate goals (if they ever do) they will be
>indistinguishable.
>
>The differences are on the path, not in the destination.

With all due respect, Mr Dashwood, and I intend this with all
gentleness... what you state here seems neither science nor religion.

Perhaps closer to poetry...

DD

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d4c7a6$hnr$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <3ctj2dF6pil0sU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
news:d49hve$a1a$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
news:d48psk$6ke$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
process, He[color=darkred]
detail about what[color=darkred]
Jehovah[color=darkred]
got[color=darkred]
use of[color=darkred]
third-person[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
an[color=darkred]
universe[color=darkred]
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> With all due respect, Mr Dashwood, and I intend this with all
> gentleness... what you state here seems neither science nor religion.
>
> Perhaps closer to poetry...
>
> DD
>
Thanks :-)

I have no intention of arguing it, but am grateful for your gentlenss (I did
write it in all seriousness.)

If you perceive it as poetry, perhaps it is communicating at a level I
didn't anticipate.

I started writing poetry about a year ago as part of the Writers Group I
belong to. My first efforts were pretty dreadful and I am embarrased by
them, but I have seen a steady improvement. While I do not consider myself a
poet by any definition of the word, I have learned much about what poetry is
and isn't. I didn't intend the above to be poetic, but I can see why you
suggest that it might be.

I'll try and transfer what I did unconsciously here, consciously to the next
poetry I write... :-)

Nothing is wasted.

Pete.

Pete.

Sponsored Links