| Author |
Message |
    
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2506
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 04:32 am: |   |
In my experience as a book reviewer, I've noticed a marked difference in the tone of books from Europe compared to American novels.
I should qualify this by saying that I only review mystery novels. Non-fiction might be entirely different.
British murder mysteries seem to be more brutal than others and in the few that I've read from Russian authors, they tend to lack detail.
In all cases the pace is noticeably quicker in American novels.
It's probably a reflection of the cultures.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
2957
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 10:34 pm: | |
JT,
I told you not to use those big words on me. Keep em simple. |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
2964
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 11:24 am: | |
JT,
"...condemned to Hell because of the way they were born."
A study done to find a correlation between homosexuality and genes in identical twins:
This study was conducted in Australia and I found the information at www.narth.com (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexualtiy). The study can be found in the section "Is Homosexuality Genetic?" The investigation was done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland.
To start, the data that was gathered came in a round-about way. The twins were recruited for other reasons but, during the study, they were asked about their sexual preference. Out of a 14,000+ twin collection the results were as follows: (1) If a twin was homosexual then 38% of the time the brother was also. (2) If a twin was lesbian then 30% of the time their identical sibling was also. From this large study it shows that whether it be 30% or 50% concordance it is clearly not 100%. As is clearly understood, identical twins have identical genes. Since there has been debate about the weight genes carry in the determination of homosexual behavior this study has given me clear evidence that genes are not, always, the end-in-all factor for a sexual preference. To end the essay there were five conclusions that were made:
1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny .
2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.
3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
5. Change is possible. |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1916
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 01:21 pm: | |
Hey Bill, you posted a link! "Therapy of Homosexuality" sounds like they already have made up their mind about homosexuality.
From Wiki, where you can follow the references to the studies yourself.
"Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians
Recent studies have found notable differences between the physiology of gay people and non-gay people. There is evidence that:
* The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.
* The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men, the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.
* The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men, but a subsequent study found no such difference.
* Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.
* Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.
* The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).
* The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.
* Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.
* Gay and non-gay people emit different armpit odors.
* Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl pattern.
* Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).
* Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women."
And even if all this were not the case? So what? Why should we interfere with other people's sexuality? And I can't imagine that people would voluntarily become gay in a homophobic society? |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2082
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 12:04 am: | |
I certainly would not want to "interfere with other people's sexuality." But I do object to an aberration being held up as a role model for others to follow. There is far too much "why not try it?" going on during the formative years of young people to suit me.
http://www.fdungan.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1917
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 03:04 am: | |
I don't think being gay has anything to do with being a role model. If you are not gay you will not feel the urge to try it.
When I was young there was already lots of liberty for gay people in my nation. It never ever inspired me to have sex with a man as that thought revolts me; I'm simply not wired like that. A purely gay man would probably be revolted at the thought of having sex with a woman. (I know a few gay people and will ask next time we meet...)
Only bi-sexuals might give it a try in a more relaxed society, while they would suppress that side of them in a more repressive society.
What would be the danger in the 'why not try it,' for, I think, bi-sexuals? |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2086
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 07:43 pm: | |
Kids today party with alcohol and drugs which short-circuit the wiring. I definitely don't want us to become any more permissive than we already are. The pendulum needs to swing the other way. Decadence is a disease and society needs to suppress it before it can suppress society. Public displays of gay or bisexual behavior are inappropriate to the vast majority of American communities. They also receive more press than they deserve and thus the threat of emulation.
http://www.dunganbooks.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1921
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2008 - 03:26 am: | |
Being gay is a natural state, believe it or not. Among animals there is often a certain percentage gay. It's a biological situation, not a choice, except for bi-sexuals who do have a choice. Those you can 'cure' more easily. Part of being gay is genes and the other development in the womb.
Being gay has nothing to do with decadency. And I still can't understand what is exactly wrong with being gay? In what way will it hurt society? What is the danger? |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2088
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2008 - 06:13 pm: | |
There is nothing natural about being gay. It sometimes occurs when a child doesn't have a role model of the same sex around (single parenting comes to mind). The danger to society is the accelerated demise of traditional families on whose work ethic our continued existence depends, along with the spread of STD's.
There is nothing glorious about buggery. We could do without it. I might also mention that it negatively affects the birthrate. Furthermore, it threatens to reduce the gene pool, thereby threatening evolution and - when carried to the extreme - the continued existence of our species.
Sex is OK the way it is. If you feel a need to get kinky and short circuit it, be my guest. All I ask is that you don't encourage others (particularly teenagers) to try it.
http://www.fdungan.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1925
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 - 09:33 am: | |
Science shows biological differences between gay and heterosexuals (caused by genes and development in the womb,) and I believe that is correct. The social aspect only comes to play with bi-sexuals; they can choose to some point.
I never heard of a link between single parenting and children turning gay for that reason. Two parents are usual better than one of course, but not to prevent homosexuality. Statistically you can expect that several children of single parent families will turn out gay, but they would also have been gay in a two parent family.
I don’t see a connection between work ethics and homosexuals. At most homosexuals tend to be found more in nursing homes and hospitals than at construction sites. A gay man is taking good care of my mother in the nursing home. It could only become a problem when employers fire people for their homosexuality.
I don’t think there is anything glorious about being gay (buggery seems to mean anal sex, which can be also between a man and a woman, and bestiality, thus not quite the same) but I also don’t think it is something you should despise people for. Homosexuality has always been there. The old Greeks on whose society ours is based didn’t think it was a problem.
Only when Christianity became the main religion in the West, homosexuality became ‘wrong.’ The bible says that gay people should be killed. But so should people who work on a Sabbath, people who have sex before marriage, and quite a few more. I had sex before marriage and worked at Sabbaths, I even had sex on Sabbaths and worked before marriage: I should have been killed a long time ago. Perhaps even you should have been killed?
If all people were gay the birthrate would indeed be affected in a negative way, no doubt about that. But homosexuality is not contagious; the percentage of gay people does not differ much trough time and society. Only the percentage of openly gay behavior does differ as this is affected by what society accepts as the norm.
So no matter what there will always be enough hetero or bi-sexual people to keep the birthrate up. If you look at the world population it is certainly not a problem. In Western society the birthrate went down as most couples have less children than before, the number of homosexuals did not increase.
If teenagers are not already gay or bi-sexual themselves they will not be inclined to try their own gender by watching homosexuals. It’s not like drugs or alcohol.
I think STD’s are one of the negative aspects of the need to go ‘underground.’ Besides that many gay couples are very faithful. Only yesterday I met an older gay couple at a party who were together for perhaps 20 years and this is certainly no exception.
We could do without homosexuality I suppose. We could do without a lot of aspects of life. But this rich variation among people makes our life colorful. And don’t forget there are and have been many great homo and bi-sexuals. Just a few picks:
Alan Turing, computer technology pioneer. (Turing test)
Walter/Wendy Carlos, musician and co-developing synthesizer.
Oscar Wild, author, poet.
Walt Whitman: essayist, poet, journalist.
Joan Baez, singer
Roy Simmons, former New York Giants tackle
David Bowie, rock star and actor
John Ashbery, Pulitzer Prize-winning poet
Marlon Brando, actor
Midge Costanza, White House aide to President Carter
Elton John, pop star
Melissa Etheridge, rock star
And many, many more…
Of course you could also compile a list of homosexual idiots and criminals; homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals. There is nothing wrong with them, they just differ from the majority. |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2515
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 - 06:30 pm: | |
Harry... What biblical scholar have you been listening to. Do you get your info from the Westboro Baptist Church website? Sounds like it's the same guy who interprets the Koran for the Taliban. And when did "Jihad" come to mean holy war? That's not what the "Pillars of Islam" says.
You ever hear of Dr.Laura Schlessinger? She's got some definite views on homosexuality.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1929
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 10:21 am: | |
Dennis,
Except for amusement I never listen to biblical scholars, certainly not to those Westboro Baptists nuts with a screw loose. I try to get as close to the source as I can: I read the bible, the word of your God.
Homo(bi)sexuality:
Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
People who work on a Sabbath:
Exodus 35:2: ““For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”
Everybody who is mowing the lawn and polishing the family car on a Saturday (Sabbath): YOU MUST BE PUT TO DEATH! It IS a horrible crime of course. But perhaps a good lawyer could argue about the Sabbath being Saturday or simply a day of rest and all that. But in that case you should never do any work on a Sunday or you still should be put to death!
Sex before marriage:
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If any man takes a wife, (...) and says, "I took this woman, (...) I didn't find in her the tokens of virginity;" (...) if this thing be true, (...) then they shall bring out the young lady to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, (...)
Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Adulterers =death, see Leviticus 20:10 below)
A few more:
Leviticus 20:10: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
There is lots of putting to death in Leviticus by the way. This is just one of them. Lots of lonely farm boys and their sheep ‘shall be put to death’ too. Don’t know why the sheep need to die though, they probably can’t help it? Perhaps for flaunting their attractive behinds?
Deut 21:18-21.
“If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. (…) Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. (…)”
And that’s the end of quite a few teenagers during puberty. To some teenagers ‘getting stoned’ might sound like fun until they find out what it really means…
Please don’t believe me on my word but look it up in your own bible. I looked them up on the internet and then checked them against my own bible.
And I do think all of this is silly, it’s just a small part of the reason why I’m not religious. Anyway: I’m dead meat!
I own and read the Koran too; Jihad simply means something like ‘effort.’ You can put your ‘effort’ in lots of activities; from clipping your toe nails to a holy war. And I deserve to die according to that book too of course…
Only Buddhists let me live!
I’m glad that most Christians, Jews and Muslims don’t take their holy books too literally, or that they don’t really read their holy books.
I never heard of Laura Schlessinger and had to look it up. (Did you know she had some naughty pictures on the net?) Many people have definite views on homosexuality. It seems that Laura was first supportive to gays, but then became increasingly religious and changed her position. Perhaps she read the same parts of the bible that I did? Except for the sex before marriage part I guess, most people seem to skip that.
I think science is the only hope to find the truth, nothing else. And we do need a clear picture of our reality to be able to deal with the problems we have. It will be hard enough to keep science on track even without religious influences. It is difficult for all people to accept the consequences of data without misinterpreting it. |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2516
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 01:45 pm: | |
Harry...
Experience has taught me the futility of arguing with you because of your aptitude for warping logic and twisting facts to suit your position. So this will be the last time I respond to any one of your posts.
Unless you were reading your Bible in Hebrew or Latin, you were not reading the actual Bible; you were reading a translation of the Bible that was taken from the handwritten translation of some Monk centuries after the Bible was actually written. Many words and meanings were difficult, if not impossible to accurately translate. That is why we have biblical scholars.
I guess that rather than take a chance on some Biblical Scholar misinterpreting the Bible, you'd rather misinterpret it yourself.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2089
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 07:43 pm: | |
Harry,
I note that you chose to cite passages from the Old Testament, particularly from the older books of the Old Testament. One must remember that at the time at which they were set down in writing (most of them were recorded by Moses, circa 1420 B.C.) monotheism was a relatively new concept competing with savage idol worship (Baal, the golden calf, and so forth). Looking back at it today, Jehovah may seem harsh, but he did not require human sacrifices and his priests were not corrupt and did not oppress the people. According to the standards of the day, Jehovah was a loving God who actually cared about His chosen people. That the times were harsh and the penalty for breaking the rules was usually death is beside the point. The death penalty was far more prevalent in early 19th century Britain than it was in 1420 B.C. among the Jews.
As the Old Testament progresses, Jehovah becomes more and more like we know Him to be today. Some biblical scholars say God is evolving, but I don't think so. It is society that is changing. Civilizations have become commonplace and lots of Jews reside in cities. Also, monotheism is no longer in abject danger of losing out to graven images. Maintaining religious discipline no longer requires putting large numbers of people to death. God is merciful and people are more apt to pray to secure His bounty than out of fear or in response to threats.
In the New Testament, God is love. But even so, tradition has to be respected. Thus, when an unfortunate woman is sentenced to be stoned to death in public as prescribed by Jewish law, Jesus says that the first stone must be thrown by a person without sin and the angry crowd slowly melts away. Please note that he does not say that stoning an adultress or a prostitute to death is wrong, he merely questions if the crowd is qualified to do it. Thus God remains the same - it is man who has changed. A millennium of social evolution has brought about change in the way Jews live, their educational level - so much so that the population no longer has to be kept in a constant state of fear to keep them in line. It is only fitting that the New Testament recognizes the change.
One more thing, if "jihad" doesn't mean holy war and the Koran doesn't require Muslims to wage continual war against their infidel neighbors, then something must have been left out in the Dutch translation.
http://www.fdungan.com/book.htm |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1932
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 12:50 pm: | |
Dennis:
“Experience has taught me the futility of arguing with you because of your aptitude for warping logic and twisting facts to suit your position.”
My position follows the facts, not the other way around. I simply took some quotes from the Bible, nothing more. You have probably checked every one of them? Did you find any twisting or warping? Don’t you trust your own Bible? Don’t you trust your own eyes and mind? I can’t twist and warp your Bible, eyes or the logic of your own mind. I’m not God.
It is completely true that I did not read the Bible in Hebrew (did you?) Sure a translation will never be completely accurate, but the general meaning remains clear. I very much doubt it that there is any ambiguity about a phrase like ‘put to death.’ If that would be the case you could throw out all translated Bibles as they would be completely worthless. What else could the phrase translated as ‘put to death’ mean? ‘Lovingly sang to sleep?’
Besides that, Biblical scholars DID translate the Bible and not a bunch of shoe polishers or lumberjacks.
You can always check what your Biblical scholars say about the quotes I mentioned?
The English translation and my from Hebrew translated Dutch version are completely consistent: ‘put to death,’ ‘ter dood gebracht worden.’
If God made sure that his Word would keep pure through time, wouldn’t he make sure that His Words keep pure (enough) in serious translations by religious scholars too?
“So this will be the last time I respond to any one of your posts.”
Dennis, YOU have asked ME about my remarks on religion and I have answered your question. What could I have done not to anger you without me becoming a hypocrite? I did not mean to anger you, and I would regret it if you would ignore me in the future.
Realize that I never started any of the (many) more sensitive subjects after ‘Musings’ was removed. I simply responded to remarks and questions. And I WILL keep on speaking my mind. If that means you will never respond to my posts again so be it.
I know I come across as an irritating asshole, perhaps I even am an irritating asshole, but think about it: what would Mindsight be without me; your trusted antagonist who forces you all together in your fight against my sheer evil and stupidity? |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1933
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 12:56 pm: | |
Fred,
People claim the Bible is the word of God. God made sure that the Bible did not get corrupted through the ages. As you mentioned there seems to be a bit of a difference in attitude between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
One would expect the word of God to be more consistent and suitable for all times. How will mortals be able to tell which words in the Bible are suitable for which time frame?
There is quite a difference between ‘put to death,’ and ‘love each-other.’ Does this mean that we should do away with the Old Testament as it is out-dated by the New Testament? Or is the Old Testament still valid for some more primitive peoples or in some situations but not for others? And how do we know?
As a non-religious person it is extremely difficult to understand this as it is very easy to cherry-pick anything you like from the Bible, ranging from death to love all in the name of God.
One should expect that a society should adapt to God’s directive, but now it seems that God’s directive adapts itself to society, even in matters of life and death.
Why does God let this confusion happen by providing us with such a wide range of opinions, directives and laws?
In your example some might argue that a woman should be stoned to death, while others would quote Jesus and let her go, depending on their point of view, all supported by the Bible. Think of the death penalty today: will the executioners be without sin? Or is the ‘putting to death’ part still more important?
“One more thing, if "jihad" doesn't mean holy war and the Koran doesn't require Muslims to wage continual war against their infidel neighbors, then something must have been left out in the Dutch translation.”
‘Jihad’ means ‘effort.’ That’s it. Sure you could interpret it as a Holy War and some do. You can also have a peaceful Jihad as a struggle to improve yourself for example.
In the Koran you can find the same kind of quotes as in the Old Testament, as part of the Koran is based on the Old Testament and contains many elements of it. There is lots of ‘putting to death’ in the Koran too.
And also quite a bit of ‘love each-other’ in the newer parts of the Koran where their prophet Isa (Isa=Jesus in Arab, Jesus in Hebrew = Isau) comes into the picture, just like in the Bible.
In the Koran you can indeed find statements against infidels, but in the Bible you can find statements that other religions should be violently suppressed too. (Just tell me if you need a quote.)
So, some Christians like to quote certain parts of the Koran to show it is violent and primitive in nature. As you have seen you can do the same with the Bible.
You could say that something must have gone wrong in translation and that you should read the Bible in Hebrew. The Muslims claim the same: you should read the Koran In Arab.
You could say that the Bible contains elements from a more primitive time; today you should not take that literally. Muslims can claim the same.
If you attack the Koran you will be able to use the same arguments against the Bible and the other way around. If you defend the Koran you can use the same arguments to defend the Bible and the other way around.
The two Books are connected in the same Jewish roots. What is going on is propaganda on both sides that set a black and white image of reality. |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2090
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 - 01:02 am: | |
Harry,
Religion is a matter of faith, not logic. It is not God, nor His word that has changed, rather it is man. We have slowly evolved and have largely (but not completely) left our brutish past behind. God - and His word - still rings true despite the 3,500+ years that have gone by since Moses talked to God atop Mount Sainai. Is this what upsets you?
Think of it in mathematical terms. God is a constant, we are the variables. It takes a leap of faith to solve the equation.
http://www.fdungan.com/sent.htm |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1934
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 - 09:46 am: | |
Fred:
“Religion is a matter of faith, not logic.”
Personally I would rather start with a fairly logical framework and only make a few small leaps of faith to fill in the gaps, but that aside.
If there is a God than He has given us a brain to solve problems and find answers in a logical manner. There is no need for God to worry about a logical approach of his religion if He and His religion is consistent, humain and logical.
There are many different religions on this planet. They can’t all be right as some religions seriously differ from the rest; like Gods who demand human sacrifices and such.
You grew up in a Christian society or family, the main reason why you are a Christian. Most Hindus are Hindu because they grew up in a Hindu society/family.
How do you know that you are worshiping the right God if logic does not apply and one should only have faith? Why don’t you have faith in the Hindu Gods? How do you determine who is the right God without using logic and reason?
“It is not God, nor His word that has changed, rather it is man.”
Let’s go with this for a while to get a glimpse of who God is, and keep in mind that He has not changed:
Exodus 11:5
"And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that [is] behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts."
In the Old Testament God murders the oldest child of all Egyptian families. God even kills the children of slaves and animals, just to pressure the Pharaoh. These innocent families, children and animals have nothing to do with the decisions of the Pharaoh, (they didn’t even vote for him.) A few things come to mind I rather not mention.
Ex:11:10
"And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land."
God hardened the Pharaoh' heart so he would not let the Israelites leave, so even the Pharaoh is clearly innocent at this point. This seems like a rather cruel game: God creates an excuse to kill innocents? He makes sure the Pharaoh refuses to let the Israelites go, so God can kill innocent children to punish the Pharaoh for something God made the Pharaoh do in the first place?
I do need a Biblical scholar to explain this one to me, it's way beyond my understanding.
“We have slowly evolved and have largely (but not completely) left our brutish past behind.”
Perhaps we have changed (sort of, on the surface.) But should a true God not guide the people away from a brutish existence towards a more civilized society? Now the guidelines of God indicate that a brutish existence is the correct way to live. If God has adapted his directives to the existing society, how can he expect the people to become more civilized? Today it rather holds us back if we take the Old Testament seriously: it gives many people an excuse to behave brutish. The Bible was even used to support slavery not that long ago.
“God - and His word - still rings true despite the 3,500+ years that have gone by since Moses talked to God atop Mount Sainai.”
The God of the Old Testament, who you claim has not changed, does not seem very fair: he deliberately kills innocent children to get His way (we have a word for that,) he punishes people for things God Himself forces them to do. He demands that we kill homosexuals, kill people who work on Sabbaths, kill people who gather sticks for a fire or light a fire on a Sabbath, kill woman who are not a virgin on their wedding night, kill obstinate teenagers and so on.
And when he who is without sin who obeys these commands, will he be immediately a sinner for breaking the “thy shall not kill” command? I would expect it by now…
Is this the God you worship? Are these the Words you are willing to obey? What would a true God of love think of all of this?
“Think of it in mathematical terms. God is a constant, we are the variables.”
Perhaps we are indeed the variables, but I don’t like the violent and irrational nature of the constant.
“It takes a leap of faith to solve the equation.”
I’m not willing to take a leap of faith based on the God described in the Bible. He does not come across as a God of love. |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2091
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 - 09:29 pm: | |
I do incorporate Hindu philosophy as well as that of the other great religions of the world. That is why DUNGAN BOOKS published Gitanjaly Express, http://www.fdungan.com/alex.htm, and Such Stuff We Are Made Of by Dr. Alex Paikada of Kerala, India. Christianity is made richer by the thoughts of the great philosophers and theologans and is in no way limited by national borders and different ways of thinking. I long ago expanded my horizons and my faith thereby became stronger. Please stop thinking and start feeling. Allow the spirit to possess you. Roll in the aisles, talk in tongues, and dance with Sufi mystics. The more you experience, the more you have to write about. Logic only goes so far. The Gita says that we are not whole until we experience the oneness of the universe. Translated from Sanskrit into English: We share a common bond that can only be accessed by a leap of faith. Reading can only get you so far. You must do something with the knowledge you gained from books. Do something positive to make the world a better place - take the path that has been least traveled and leap the chasm that seperates God and Man. You will be a better man for the effort.
http://www.fdungan.com/such.htm |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1935
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 03:42 am: | |
Well, I could use some more logical arguments and you will tell me to roll in the aisles, talk in tongues and make leaps of faith. And it also takes a leap of faith to make the correct leap of faith.
Suppose I tell you there is a huge spaceship circling the earth. They are so advanced that we don't see them. Sometimes people do see them, but then the aliens make sure such people are put away in mental asylums. These aliens control every move we make. I ask you to believe this, just make a leap of faith and not use logic as these beings are way ahead of our futile logic. If you do make that leap of faith you will understand how beautiful and good these aliens really are. Will you make that leap of faith?
All our ancient books are a true treasure; I own and read many of them, from the Mayan Popol Vuh to the Finnish Kalevala, and the Bhagavadgita too. Their contents range from cruel insanity to deep wisdom, sometimes they agree, sometimes they contradict. Sometimes they inspire, sometimes they bore me to sleep.
They have been written by people trying to find their way in life and reflect clearly the life they were leading.
But what I want to know is what really is going on. How the world came to be, who we are, our place in the world. That might be a very natural thought as understanding the world and yourself will give you a better chance to survive and make something out of it.
But our minds are the product of millions of years of evolution to suit a world we do not live in anymore.
We can't always trust our perception: our brains do all kinds of funny things with the limited information that enters it and can even generate a whole world on its own, disconnected from reality. We are influenced by what others think, are easily turned into sheep.
So seeking the truth in yourself and avoid logic, is a shaky path that might easily lead to a world that might seem pleasant but has little to do with reality.
If you have the wrong model of the world in your mind it will be increasingly difficult to understand the real world and deal with the problems that might rise. Science provides you with tools to at least make a serious attempt to understand reality and deal with it the right way.
For example the question of homosexuality: the Bible wants all gays dead, while science shows that gays can not choose unless the are bisexual.
When you roll in the aisles and speak in tongues, that what you already believe in your subconscious will enter your conscious, which might very well be dead wrong depending on the information you have been subjected to before.
Such difference in viewpoint will determine the way we treat people.
"(...) take the path that has been least traveled and leap the chasm that seperates God and Man."
I am taking that path Fred.
Christians 33.32%, Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32%
There is no chasm between God and Man, as Man created God. That is why God is Man. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page