Cobol - OT - Religion

Author

OT - Religion

William M. Klein

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

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

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

"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.

HeyBub

2005-04-23, 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?"

Howard Brazee

2005-04-23, 8:55 am

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

2005-04-24, 3:55 am

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

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-24, 8:55 am

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

Howard Brazee

2005-04-25, 8:55 am

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.

Howard Brazee

2005-04-25, 3:55 pm

On 22-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> 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.)

I don't see that this is true. Unless, "ultimate" means - after all the
important goals have been met, that's OK to solve too. How many religious
people seem to have this as a priority?

Chuck Stevens

2005-04-25, 3:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3ctj2dF6pil0sU1@individual.net...

> Ultimate goal of Religion: Oneness with the Creator. And in that Oneness,
> knowledge and understanding of 'life the universe and everything'.

Not necessarily. I think many adherents to Buddhism would disagree; harmony
with "that which is" ranks rather higher. "Alcoholics Anonymous" 3rd
edition page 449 reads something like "And acceptance is the key to all our
problems today. ...". ( Note that some would claim AA is a religion in and
of itself -- and, insofar as one takes the archaic definition for
"religion" as "conscientious exactness" as far as conformance to
suggestions of actions goes, then they might well be right.) Even the
Serenity Prayer attributed to Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr doesn't
s

oneness with the *creator*, it points toward harmony with *life*.

-Chuck Stevens

Howard Brazee

2005-04-25, 8:55 pm

On 25-Apr-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>
> Being a complete cynic, my take on the 'ultimate goal' varies with what
> part of 'religion' you are talking about. Many 'religious
> organizations' seem to have their ultimate goal as social control of
> whoever they can bring within their range.

"Making the universe right" seems to be a much more common goal than
"understanding the universe". Sometimes, it is only a subset of "Making the
universe right", namely "making people right". Often "understanding the
universe", is by definition not a goal.

I want to force everybody to be tolerant of people who won't tolerate people not
tolerating differences.

Richard

2005-04-25, 8:55 pm

>> Being a complete cynic, my take on the 'ultimate goal' varies with
what
[color=darkred]
> "Making the universe right" seems to be a much more common goal than
> "understanding the universe". Sometimes, it is only a subset of
"Making the
> universe right", namely "making people right". Often
"understanding the
> universe", is by definition not a goal.

That seems to mean that you agree with me.

"making people right" is what the Spanish Inquisition did.

Howard Brazee

2005-04-25, 8:55 pm

On 25-Apr-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> "Making the
> "understanding the
>
> That seems to mean that you agree with me.
>
> "making people right" is what the Spanish Inquisition did.

Oh yes. Some people use the word "self righteous" to describe people who use
want to make things right in ways they disagree with, but "righteous" for those
who want to make things right in ways they agree with.

But I haven't been able to tell the difference between the two. Both scare me.
What is more dangerous than a "righteous" enemy?

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d4j0i8$8b6$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 22-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
Oneness,[color=darkred]
all[color=darkred]
>
> I don't see that this is true. Unless, "ultimate" means - after all the
> important goals have been met, that's OK to solve too. How many
religious
> people seem to have this as a priority?
>
Exactly the same number who understand 'ultimate'.

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d4j4u1$2fr2$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3ctj2dF6pil0sU1@individual.net...
>
Oneness,[color=darkred]
>
> Not necessarily. I think many adherents to Buddhism would disagree;
harmony
> with "that which is" ranks rather higher. "Alcoholics Anonymous" 3rd
> edition page 449 reads something like "And acceptance is the key to all
our
> problems today. ...". ( Note that some would claim AA is a religion in
and
> of itself -- and, insofar as one takes the archaic definition for
> "religion" as "conscientious exactness" as far as conformance to
> suggestions of actions goes, then they might well be right.) Even the
> Serenity Prayer attributed to Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr
doesn't
> s

oneness with the *creator*, it points toward harmony with *life*.
>
> -Chuck Stevens

Buddhism is not a religion. We already established that.
Alcoholics Anonymous is certainly not a religion (your definition is archaic
as you noted)
Niebuhr would see God as Life and Love and Everything, in its ultimate
form...

Pete.
>
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1114455693.863875.180490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Being a complete cynic, my take on the 'ultimate goal' varies with what
> part of 'religion' you are talking about. Many 'religious
> organizations' seem to have their ultimate goal as social control of
> whoever they can bring within their range.
>
> The inviduals (the controlees) seem to have their ultimate goal as some
> sort of tooth fairy prize of 'reincarnation', or 'the pleasure of
> watching their critics burn for eternity in hell'.
>
>
> So, when you get to be interviewed by Shiva, how are you going to
> explain why you even considered following that upstart ...
>
> mind.)
>
> The 'religious experience' may _seem_ to become 'part of something's
> mind', but given that thousands of completely different religions and
> drug takers claim completely different things it should be obvious that
> there is not one mind, but as many as there are experiencers.
>
>
no argument :-)

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d4jggi$pr1$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 25-Apr-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> "Making the universe right" seems to be a much more common goal than
> "understanding the universe". Sometimes, it is only a subset of "Making
the
> universe right", namely "making people right". Often "understanding the
> universe", is by definition not a goal.
>
> I want to force everybody to be tolerant of people who won't tolerate
people not
> tolerating differences.
>
Then you are pragmatic, not religious. :-)

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1114459037.498866.85670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> what
>
> "Making the
> "understanding the
>
> That seems to mean that you agree with me.
>
> "making people right" is what the Spanish Inquisition did.
>
>
NOBODY expects... (oh what the Hell... I give up :-))

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d4jj71$shn$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 25-Apr-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Oh yes. Some people use the word "self righteous" to describe people who
use
> want to make things right in ways they disagree with, but "righteous" for
those
> who want to make things right in ways they agree with.
>
> But I haven't been able to tell the difference between the two. Both
scare me.
> What is more dangerous than a "righteous" enemy?
>
An enemy with a bigger gang?

Pete.

Jeff York

2005-04-27, 3:55 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).

Herwig Huener

2005-04-27, 8:55 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

2005-04-27, 8:55 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

2005-04-27, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-04-27, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2005-04-27, 8:55 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

2005-04-27, 8:55 pm

Kindrick Ownby

2005-04-27, 8:55 pm

William M. Klein wrote:
[...]

> ... 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.

After watching this thread for a while, another old COBOL programmer
offers a NSHO:

I agree with this (unpopular) statement. Its unpopularity stems from the
fact that the majority of the practitioners, including the clergy, fail
to understand the scripture of their faith. Or, if they understand the
words, they think they cannot be true.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,..." John 1:14

The Word, called by various names in the scriptures of other
religions, is the vibrational force, the only begotten, that
sustains the creation.

From as far back as Lao Tsu (and this is not necessarily an
exact quote):

"The One made Two,
The Two made Three,
And the Three made the
ten thousand things"

God, the source of our consciousness, came into expression -
the Word. God and the Word produced the Word made flesh.

So the being, Jesus, was God, albeit in a form visible to
humans.

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

Which is why I believe that Jesus could have recited the
telephone directory if he chose to.

The Word made flesh is identical to God, who transcends the
limitations of time and space.

Many people believe that the Saint, or Word made flesh, has
always been with us. Many scriptures state this as fact.
Jesus seemed to state this as well:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56

"Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58

"... and, lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world." Matthew 28:20

Again, all IMNSHO.

Kindrick

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-28, 8:55 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.
>

Pete Dashwood

2005-04-29, 3:55 am

Kindrick Ownby

2005-05-01, 8:55 pm

Sparky Spartacus

2005-06-05, 8:55 pm

LX-i wrote:

> Herwig Huener wrote:
>
>
>
> Did your kids try that with you? How did you respond?

When in the middle of a heated argument my teen age son yelled "I didn't
ask to be born!", I replied, without missing a beat, "good thing,
because if you had I'd have said NO!".

;)

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-06-05, 8:55 pm

In article <wMIoe.3191$hg.3027@fe12.lga>,
Sparky Spartacus <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:

[snip]

>When in the middle of a heated argument my teen age son yelled "I didn't
>ask to be born!", I replied, without missing a beat, "good thing,
>because if you had I'd have said NO!".

The response of that great philosopher, Benny Hill, to 'I didn't ask to be
born' was 'You couldn't bloody well have stayed where you were, could
you?'

DD

Sponsored Links