h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have read through a few key articles in this club, and I have some problems with it that I would like to share.

I will not describe my background, but I will touch briefly on my theory of reality as it relates to these discussions.

Reality results from the interaction of three forces, or worlds, which I will describe as Form, Soul, and Spirit. Form is the dominant force on this plane. I reality hate using the word "plane", it sounds so New Age, perhaps level will do, but that denotes one being superior to another, which is not so. Either way, Form is dominant, whereas Soul and Spirit are subtle and can only be discerned if you know what to look for. Form can be described in either/or terms through scientific method. Form is about Fact, whereas Soul is about Truth, and Spirit is about Being.

I believe that is enough adequate background information.

Politics falls under the patronage of Form, whereas Nationalism involves the Soul, and Religion is under the auspices of Spirit. Each must be in balance, without any one force gaining superiority, for a society to be healthy.

When people attack religion or nationalism, what they are really attacking is politics, the world of Form overflowing its banks into the other worlds and thus disturbing the balance with catastrophic results. I need only point towards the Nazi bastardisation of nationalism or the Fundamentalist Christian or Islam corruption of religion.

My point is that when people attack nationalism or religion, they are really attacking politics. Politics is about the acquisition of physical power, the accumulation of wealth, and the manipulation of the masses to bolster their power-base. These are all the basic points of complaint against Christianity and its history. These are instances when people use religion to achieve their political aims. In short, people seem to be attacking apples, when it’s the oranges causing all the fuss.

Second point: It’s Not What You Think

Many people think that they know Christianity, but what they really know is Judeo-Christian mythology. Like pseudo-science, there is a pseudo-Christianity based on widely held misunderstanding of Christian teaching, the Bible, or theology. I read articles in which people attacked Judeo-Christian mythology, which is fine, but do not fool yourself into believing that you are really discussing Christianity. In defence, many self-professed Christians adhere to and vigorously defend this Judeo-Christian mythology in their ignorance.

For example: The Bible is not clear on the existence of Satan.

Satan only appears by name twice in the Old Testament, in the books of Job and Numbers. There is no evidence that the Serpent in the Garden of Eden story was a depiction of Satan. He does play the role of Satan, which means Adversary in Hebrew, but we know from archaeological evidence that the story was based on an older Sumerian myth.

Prior to the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews, Satan was an agent of God used to test mankind, as in Job’s case, or to prevent mankind, as in the story of Balaam in Numbers. The Babylonians were conquered by the Persians, which placed the Jews in contact with the native Persian religion of Zorosteranism which believed in equal opposing forces of Good and Evil. The Jews assigned the role of Good to God and Evil to Satan. This belief was very popular in Jesus’ time, but was later discarded by Judaism.

Now, is Satan Fact? Probably not, but is Satan Truth. Yes. The idea of Satan is as a force that challenges us in order to promote our spiritual growth through struggle. There is a passage in the New Testament in which Jesus prophesies his coming crucifixion, and Peter says that he would not let that happen. Jesus replies with, "Get thee behind me Satan." Was Peter Satan? In a way yes, but not as commonly held. Satan is within the human heart.

The theory of Satan works symbolically, but not literally. Oh, and by the way, Lucifer is not Satan either. He is only referred to once in the Bible as the Prince of Babylon. Princes are one of the choirs of angels that are essentially guardian angels of specific nations, and Lucifer was the Prince of Babylon. The passage can be read as a political commentary.

Another Example:

One article I read challenged Jesus’ "turn the other cheek" message with him overturning the money changers tables in the temple. Jesus also said that I do not come to bring peace, but with a sword to separate families (paraphrased).

When we look at the actual "turn the other cheek" passage, it is very specific which hand you are being struck with and on which cheek. It’s the right hand on the left cheek. Since most people are right handed (sorry lefties), Jesus is describing being struck with the back of the hand. This method of striking someone further degrades the victim. It says that you are not even worth being hit properly. You are inferior to me. Remember Jesus’ audience. Their land was under foreign occupation by the Roman armies. When the Romans backhand you, turn the other cheek so they have to hit you properly. Jesus was actually advocating an act of defiance. Don’t strike back, but don’t back down. Stand your ground. Jesus was advocating non-violent resistance.

The Point: Christianity is more complicated than you might think, so don’t believe everything you hear or everything you think know.

Third Point: God will not fit in a box.

The first Church council in Jerusalem asked whether one should be a Jew to be a Christian. The answer was no. As a result, Christianity first spread by incarnating into various cultures to create different styles of Christianity. The major ones being Roman, Greek, Celtic, Syro-Chaldean, and Coptic. Each had a different take based on their culture. The two I want to focus on are the Greek and Romans forms

Greek culture was philosophic, therefore Greek Christianity, later termed Eastern Orthodoxy, is very philosophical. Roman culture was law oriented, therefore so was Roman Christianity. They wanted a clear cut answer to everything. They wanted to put God in a box, unlike the Greeks who were willing to accept mysteries. The problem with putting God in a box is that He keeps breaking out. When we over-define things, we are not prepared for what happens when we are proven wrong and our world view comes crashing down.

That’s what happened to Roman Christianity, aka Catholicism. The Catholic Church said that the sun revolved around the Earth, there’s nothing about that in the Bible by the way, and then it was found not to be the case. The philosophical East said, "yeah, right, whatever." It did not affect their faith. But in the West, it paved the way for a complete split in the Catholic Church. God broke out of the box, and people said, "See, their religion is wrong." Well, the religion never said anything about astronomy, but the institution did.

I am speaking in generalities, I know, but I am abbreviating a point. Mankind defines God and we blame religion when we are proven wrong. When the Catholic Church was proven wrong, some people tried to salvage the situation by creating Protestantism which said that certain aspects of the faith were symbolic, such as transubstantiation. But being in the Roman tradition of defining God, the Protestants fell into the same trap, because God broke out of their box too.

Now we have the American Fundamentalist Church, which grew out of Protestantism. Whether they are aware of it or not, Fundamentalist Christianity has its recent roots with Lewis Sperry Chaffer, the author of the eight volume book Systematic Theology. He states in his work, "The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind, to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches." But first…

Another aspect of Protestantism is that it elevated the individuals right to reason the scriptures for themselves without the need for a priest. This evolved into this forum we have here today. On one hand, its great, but the flip-side is that we assume we know everything about everything because we have a right to an opinion. We have become arrogant. So in a sense, Protestantism provided the means by which modern societies seek to destroy it. By doing away with priests, we also did away with respect for educated authorities whose research and work should give them the right to guide others, but instead they are rejected because we feel they are wrong or we don’t like what they are saying.

…and now. This happens to be the root evil of American Fundamentalism. We do away with theologians, church history, and even science. We assume an anti-intellectualism approach to Christianity that clings to such myths as the Garden of Eden story just because it is in the Bible. Jesus gave only one commandment, "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself." That is it. Following all the laws in the Old Testament will not make you a good Christian, but it will make you a good Jew. The Solo Scriptorum (Bible alone) approach to Christianity espoused by Fundamentalist Christianity in addition to their anti-intellectualism forms a dangerous cocktail often lacking the love Jesus commanded.

Side note: I was accused of "the sin of intellectual arrogance" on several occasions by diverse Fundamentalist Christians. I guess that must be the eleventh commandment. In one instance, the problem was that I mentioned St. Augustine’s creation of the idea of original sin. This person had never heard of St. Augustine, and therefore did not appreciate his role in the evolution of Christian doctrine in the West.

New word for some: Hermeneutics

This word means a person’s approach to the Bible. One end of the spectrum says the Bible is total myth, while the other side says that it is the 100% word of God. The truth is somewhere in-between. If I was a used car salesman and told you that a car I was selling would fly, then you tried it and it didn’t, then you would be justified in calling me a liar. Maybe I actually meant that the car would go really really fast, which is true. It all depends on how you interpreted my words. Fundamentalist Christians really expect the car will fly, because they take things too literally. You’ll get fulfilment from the car that goes fast, unless you spoil the ride by brooding on the fact that it did not live up to your expectations of literal flight.

The Eastern Church teaches that the Bible is an adequate vessel for the faith, and not the be all and end all of Christianity as the Fundamentalists claim. The Orthodox Church says the car goes fast, and the Fundamentalists say that it flies.

I’ll close with a pet theory of mine:

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Church is the body of Christ in the world. That being the case, does it not stand to reason that the Antichrist is actually the anti-church? A church with the appearance of Christianity, but lacking the love which is key to the Christian message? I have met plenty of good, moral, kind people who have rejected the Christian faith on perfectly valid moral grounds, usually based upon bad experiences with Fundamentalist Christians. I cannot blame them. I actual prefer the company of non-Christians. But I know from my life experiences and study that the Christian message and faith is true. My regret is that so many people misunderstand it or reject it out of hand based upon their bad experiences or faulty perceptions.

> "My point is that when people attack nationalism or religion, they are really attacking politics."

Nazism would not have been possible without nationalism. Fundamental Christianity, the crusades, the inquisition - all impossible without a guy named Jesus. Borrowing your language, this is the realm of Spirit overflowing into the realm of Form, not vica versa.

Of course, the disastrous history of monotheism is really just one reason to dislike it.

> "[educated authorities] are rejected because we feel they are wrong or we don't like what they are saying."

Pot-kettle-black.

You're rejecting the fundies, and many other 'educated authorities' because you feel they are wrong, and you don't like what they are saying.

What gives you the arrogance to claim that you are right and they are wrong?

I have been accused of being arrogant for a good portion of my life, and I have had to learn to accept that. In my youth I played on it, but not so much now. These days it disturbs me, but then something happened a few weeks ago that changed my mind.

I was is a debate with someone on a minor subject that I knew quite a bit about. In fact, I had studied the subject thoroughly. The other person knew absolutely nothing about the subject, but rather than accept that I knew something she did not, her pride got the better of her, her feelings were hurt (which was not my intention), and she accused me of being arrogant. After days of soul searching, I realised that she was the arrogant one, not me. She thought she knew more than she did and could not accept that I knew more on that particular subject.

You asked, "What gives you the arrogance to claim that you are right and they are wrong?"

Well, issues are very complex. I just think that I have pieces of the puzzle that others don’t. They think we are making a picture of a barn, but the pieces in my hand tell me it is a country house. Someone else may have pieces that say it is a bridge over a stream, but I won’t know that until I hear what someone else has to say. So I try to keep an open mind, but I do know that when you have studied a particular subject with an honest mind to seek the truth, it’s hard to sit by and listens to someone who you know is wrong. My hope is that you can say, "Ah, but have you thought of this, " and their reply might be, "wow, no I haven’t, that is interesting, but have you thought of this." I might then say, "No, wow that is interesting." That is how it should be. The problem is that people have too great an emotional investment in certain opinions and ideas, and therefore are too arrogant to compromise their point of view, or are incapable of seeing another point of view. That is my experience, at least.

My comment on educated authorities and my attack on the fundies. I know the fundamentalist teachings, I know how their churches operate, and I know the history that they do not teach in church. Therefore I feel justified in rejecting their educated authorities. After all, how can you have educated authorities in an anti-intellectual movement? So, no pot-kettle thing here. Besides, in general you might not agree with the educated authorities in any given field, but I feel that they should be given the benefit of the doubt and respect for the work they have done.

"Nazism would not have been possible without nationalism. Fundamental Christianity, the crusades, the inquisition - all impossible without a guy named Jesus. Borrowing your language, this is the realm of Spirit overflowing into the realm of Form, not vica versa."

Human politics is such that without nationalism or Jesus, these people would have found another excuse for committing their atrocities. One might argue that the Crusades stem from the warrior culture of the Germanic tribes, but I won’t go into that. Look at the history of non-western civilisations, and you will find cruel behaviour that makes Europe seem like a child’s birthday party. Chinese history is filled with emperors killing of tens of thousands of their own people without any attempt at justifying it with religion. That is not so common knowledge as the Crusades or the inquisition because it is not part of our immediate history.

It is the world of Form flowing into that of Spirit because Spirit is not interested in conquest or material gain. The problem comes when religion because institutionalised into the world of Form, and therefore must follow the rules of survival dictated by that path. During the Nazi era, we see Spirit at work in organisations such as the White Rose Society and other Christian and non-Christian groups which sought to protect the victims of Nazism, and not in the Vatican that did nothing to prevent the Nazis. Also, it was nationalism institutionalised that fed the Nazis, but it was also non-institutionalised nationalism that bound Britain together as a people to defend their island and eventually, with American aid, save the world from the Nazi’s.

Hmm - well lets regress a bit...

What life experiences and study lead you to believe the xtian message and faith is true?

> "It is the world of Form flowing......."

So, to summarise:
1) If it's good, then it's Spirit.
2) If it's bad, then it's Form overflowing into the realm of Spirit.
3) Therefore Spirit is Good, and Form is Bad.

Both sides of WW2 spread propoganda to their own people to enthuse them, and they both spread propoganda to their opponents to demoralise them. The people of both states victimised Conscientious Objectors and ethnic minorities, including the Jews. Both summarilly executed "deserters", both bombed civilians, both used submarines to sink civilian shipping. Both did extremely dubious research on prisoners of war. Both used poison gas, landmines, and 'barren earth'. Both tried to develop nuclear power - though the Germans tried to make it into a power station, while the US made it into a weapon of mass destruction, and used it once more than was needed. Both used spies, both used torture of captured spies, both obtained spies by morally dubious means. Both occasionally sacrificed stupid numbers of troops for little real gain.

Explain to me how one side had 'institutional' nationalism, and the other didn't exactly?

Oh and for the record, the Russians saved the world from nazism, not the UK, and certainly not the USA. Oh, and the various resistances did a fair amount of work too.

In answer to your queries...

What life experiences and study lead you to believe the xtian message and faith is true?

That's a tough one. I could give you a long list, but would that change your opinion? I do not believe personal experiences influence debates unless being used as examples to illustrate a point. I honestly doubt that I could say anything that would make you say, "Really, that's amazing, I guess I'll stop being an atheist now."

As far as study goes, I find the Christian message, not the fundamentalist rubbish most people are familiar with, but the actual message to be one of the best philosophies of life. Of course the problem with that statement is that the very term Christian is so diverse as to render the word obsolete. I define Christianity differently from others, and I usually agree with the criticism I hear concerning other people's perceptions of Christianity.

I guess my point, and the original point, is that Christianity cannot be justly criticised as a cohesive whole, because it is too diverse to lump it all together.

Next item

>So, to summarise:
1) If it's good, then it's Spirit.
2) If it's bad, then it's Form overflowing into the realm of Spirit.
3) Therefore Spirit is Good, and Form is Bad.

I'm sorry if I did not communicate my theory correctly. None of them are good or bad. Each has its own goals and niches. The problem is when they are out of balance.

As for the horrors of war, well, war is hell. The bottom line is your side winning.

>Explain to me how one side had 'institutional' nationalism, and the other didn't exactly?

I saw from your bio that you are down south in England. Did you see Michael Wood's documentary on the Nazis that was repeated a few months ago? He discusses how the Nazi ethos drew heavily on the ideas of nationalism and history which they twisted into ideas of national superiority. Sure, every nation or nation-state thinks that they are great, but its another to press the point with war and genocide.

I'll admit that I'm being brief here. I could give a more thorough answer, but this forum is about religion, and not nationalism. I'm sorry if you think I'm copping out. (also I'm running out for the night)

>Oh and for the record, the Russians saved the world from nazism, not the UK, and certainly not the USA. Oh, and the various resistances did a fair amount of work too.

Fair cop. You got me on that one.

I think most people here would agree that the only really dangerous form of xtianity is fundieism - the rest is occasionally rather laughable, but generally harmless.

The problem with non-fundie xtianity is that, in general, it doesn't know quite *what* it believes, or why - without a rocksolid statement that the bible is true, I do wonder on what basis they accept *any* of it. Just for an example, if you don't think Satan is literal truth, why do you think that the ressurection is literal truth? Both concepts have been blatantly stolen from other religions. Both concepts are accepted by many 'educated authorities' and rejected by many others.

Hence my question - what gives you the feeling that your version of christianity is in any way superior to the fundies? what life experiences and study do you have that they don't?

Lucinda,

It turns out that I am not going out tonight after all.

The question of the resurrection is really just a matter of faith. I believe in it, but cannot defend it. I think anyone attempting to is fooling themselves. I define faith as accepting as fact something that cannot be either proven or disproven. Yes, it is illogical and contrary to reason that a person can resurrect, so you could easily play it safe and deny it's validity. However, just because it is improbable does not prove without question that it never happened as a one off. So, it is faith.

Why do I accept it? Well, the resurrection is the key to Christianity. I personally do not believe someone can call themselves a Christian without believing in the resurrection, however I have met some who consider it to be symbolic and they see no contradiction in their beliefs. As far as Satan goes, he is one of those extraneous belief that the fundies cling to, but really has no bearing on the Christian faith.

Now about the thievery, yes, there are striking parallels in other cultures to Christianity. One of the most striking being the resurrection of, if I remember correctly, Osirus in Egyptian mythology.

My answer to this is that Truth can be described as a large mountain set in the midst of a plain which can be reached via various routes. When I see commonalities between religions, I tend to look deeper to see if their might be a greater Truth hidden somewhere. Now I have considered these parallels between Christianity and other beliefs.

My personal belief is that human spirituality is evolving. I realise that many atheists might say that we have evolved to a stage where we no longer need religion. However, spiritualty is intristic to being human. With the decline of Christianity in the West, I have noticed the rise of alternative and New Age faiths. So I think that we are stuck with religion as a species. Anyways, I believe that the higher power(s) commonly known as God is guiding this evolution.

The parallels in other religions could be interpreted as being foreshadowing Christianity. I'll admit that this is arrogance. The other explanation is that there is something universal in the human psyche, perhaps archetypes, from which these common tales emerge. If that is the case, then why do we create such tales of resurrected gods, virgin births, and even crucifixions?

Another interesting point is the persecution of the innocents when Herod attempted to kill Jesus. We have the same story in the birth of Moses, for the Jews, and in Islamic stories about Abraham.

I do not believe that these were stolen, so much as they capture a spiritual, if not literal, truth about humanity.

Finally you asked,
>Hence my question - what gives you the feeling that your version of christianity is in any way superior to the fundies? what life experiences and study do you have that they don't?

I was a religious child prodigy. I was put into a fundamentalist church as a youth, knew the scriptures inside and out by the time I was seven or eight, and was being taken to other churches to preach when I was fourteen or fifteen. I was well on my way to becoming a minister. However, I saw the man behind the curtain, so to speak. I saw the hypocracy of the preachers. I saw what affect the message was having on people. People became arrogant and self-righteous, using their morality to justify prejudices and personal opinions. They sent missionaries to New Guinea while security officers of the church drove the homeless of the doorsteps. That is not Christianity.

I left the church saying that I loved Jesus too much to be a Christian, and I became a pagan. I studied Wicca which led me to Druidry, but I knew that I was still a Christian, even after six years. I could not run away from it. Druidry led me to Celtic Christianity, one of the earliest styles of Christianity. I have been a devout Celtic Christian, or Culdee, ever since. It puts me in an interesting position. Because of the pagan roots of Celtic Christianity, I am often called a pagan by Christians, while the pagans call me Christian. The Catholics call me a Protestant, because we do not recognise papal authority, but the Protestant call us Catholics, because we believe in transsubstantiation.

I believe my approach to Christianity is superior to the fundamentalist because I have been in their shoes, but they have never been in mine. They use emotionalism to rouse the congregation, but the side-effect is that people start to equate emotion with the spirit of God. When that is gone, they feel that they have fallen away from God, and become even more self-righteous to regain the emotional high. They try to be more Christ-like than Christ. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. He was like Norm on Cheers. Jesus would walk into a place and everyone was glad to see him. Why? Because he cared. He was a nice guy, and probably fun to be with. The only people he called sinners were the religion establishment. Whereas I have witness street preachers call teenage girls whores and tell them that they are going to hell simply because they have short skirts on. When I see this I get angry. Here are these people preaching in Jesus name, but they are really emotionally or psychologically f****d-up individuals using Christianity as their excuse to attack people in society that they do not agree with.

The life experiences I have that they do not is a literally lifetime trying to figure out what is Truth with an open mind. No knowledge is a sin. I know God is there, because everytime I tried to run away, I deteriorated as a person, but then I return and I find that there is something in my psychological make-up that is attuned to this. It is something I need.

I was raised in Los Angeles, moved to Oregon, where I met a Scottish girl on holiday. We were married after a two year long-distance romance, and I came to Glasgow with all my belongings in three suitcases. Two years later she left me for an American, who I considered to be my best friend. So I was alone, rejected, friendless, unemployed, and felt totally isolated in a foreign country without any support from friends or family, as they were 6,000 miles away. Suffice to say that I went through a hell I wish on no person. In the face of this, my native spirituality kicked-in, and God led me through the crisis. I did it by my own strength, but I cannot deny that would not be the whole person I am today without my faith and God's assistance. A faith that I rejected to a large degree when I first came to Scotland nearly four years ago.

Someone might look at this objectively and say that I was weak and needed something to hold-on to for sustanance. Life experiences are very personal matters, and as such require a subjective approach to fully appreciate. I accept no judgement from anyone. I was stripped of everything. This is a priveledge few have had. There is a location in Wales where according to legend, if you spend the night there you will awake the next morning either dead, mad, or a poet. I'm the latter, but without faith I may have killed myself or gone crazy.

I believe that the human body is the harware and the soul is the software. You upgrade the software through life experience, and some upgrades can be pretty expensive. I paid a hell of a lot for mine, and it took nearly a year to install, but I think that it was worth it.

Does that answer your question?

So what life experiences have you had that make you an atheist? Do you just not believe in God, or do you reject the existence of all spritual reality? I understand the logic behind rejecting a spiritual reality, but I have been aware of it intuitively since I was a child, so I am curious as to how someone cannot believe in its existence.

I'd hate to think I was keeping you in...

You can't have it both ways - you can't reject the truth of Satan because it was stolen from other religions, while claiming that the commonalities between religions point to there being a deeper, common truth.

You can't reject Satan as an "extraneous belief that fundies cling to", while accepting transubstantiation based on faith. The fundies have faith in the literal existance of Satan, and many would say that transubstantiation is an extraneous belief.

Well, you can do what you want, but you're setting yourself up for accusations of double standards.

> "I believe that the higher power(s) commonly known as God is guiding this evolution."

Yet you see (correctly, I think), at least in the western world, this evolution being away from christianity, and towards new age religions (and atheism, I might suggest).

> "I believe my approach to Christianity is superior to the fundamentalist because I have been in their shoes, but they have never been in mine."

Wrong. There are plenty of fundamentalists who used to be of your opinion, but were "born again" with the whole rebaptism and suchlike.

Seems to me that you consider your approach superior because you find fundies arrogant and self-righteous - in other words you're judging the truth of the religion on it's consequences. I don't need to tell you that this is about as logical as me judging the truth of xtianity on it's consequences?

Of course, if that's a valid judgement to make, then I have to point you to the Buddhists, who've consistently been the most peaceful, adapative, and tolerant religion in existance. Why not that religion?

> "someone might look at this objectively..."

To be perfectly frank, looking at this objectively, I'd say you've been brainwashed. Remember 'Give me a boy of seven years and he is mine for life'? Listen to yourself...

> "I was put into a fundamentalist church as a youth, knew the scriptures inside and out by the time I was seven or eight"
> "I was still a Christian, even after six years. I could not run away from it."
> "In the face of [period of great stress], my native spirituality kicked-in"
> "I know God is there, because everytime I tried to run away, I deteriorated as a person"
> "There is something in my psychological make-up that is attuned to this. It is something I need."
> "I have been aware of [spiritual reality] intuitively since I was a child."

Oh well - coulda been worse, the fundies coulda got you.

> "So what life experiences have you had that make you an atheist?"

Well, my beliefs are based on two things: firstly my upbringing as a non-fundie xtian like yourself. Typical UK xtianity - there's a God, he moves in mysterious ways. Do good, ask for forgiveness if you do bad. Work out what is good with your god-given intuition. Christ lived, died, rose again. Everything else optional.

The other thing would be the realisation that this was a large pile of pants - there was no reason to think there was a God, my guts were decidedly unhappy at the concept of a big guy in the sky havesting souls, and the only thing intuitively obvious was that the world sucked big time.

So I deconverted to strong atheism. Slowly, because it takes a long time to weed out the garbage that being a commited xtian from 0-14 chucks in your head. I was pretty much clear of it by about 20 - though I don't think you ever totally get rid of it.

Over the last year, with my anger at the religion for filling my mind with rubbish receding, I'm slowly moving back towards weak atheism. Either that or I've become wishy-washy from hanging around too many agnostics...

Oh, and I've taken to worshipping Lady Luck recently. It's probably just a phase.

> "Do you just not believe in God, or do you reject the existence of all spritual reality?"

Come up with a definition of "spiritual reality" which means something, and I'll answer...

By the way, if you slap someone with your right hand on *his left* cheek, you do *not* do it with the back of your hand.

And, the USA endet WWII, as they kept the Japanese busy, who had an alliance with Germany. Russia would never have managed to fight both, Germany and Japan. Hitler and Stalin were the worst, killing millions of jews. Germany started WWII and is to blame.

No, I wanted to stay in anyway, but tonight I am definitely going out.
On to business.


>You can't have it both ways - you can't reject the truth of Satan because it was stolen from other religions, while claiming that the commonalities between religions point to there being a deeper, common truth

I accept the existence of Satan symbolically. I do not believe that the Jews "stole" the idea of Satan from the Persians. It was a matter of Persian culture influencing Jewish culture. Christianity started as a Jewish sect, and therefore accepted the notion of Satan, but much of what people think of Satan today was developed during the Middle Ages. Satan is a terrific means of demonising, literally, your opponents, and aids in justifying attrocities against them. Such as the witch trials.

As far transsubstantiation goes, this has always been a core aspect of Christianity since the very beginning. The Romans actually allowed freedom of religion, as long as you also worshiped the emperor. The Christians did not do this at the focal ritual of their religion, the eucharist. It was not illegal to be a Christian, but it was illegal to perform the eucharist.

The Celtic Christian view on transubstantiation is unique. Rather than bread magically turning into human flesh (yuk!)or wine into blood, we believe that all matter consists of form, spirit, and soul (there it is again). In the ritual of the eucharist, we become focused on the fact that the host is both bread (on the form level) and the body of Christ (on the spirit level) both at the same time.

A great deal of Celtic philosophy is based on the relationship between apparently contradictory points. Perhaps that is why you say, "you're setting yourself up for accusations of double standards."

Its like this. The worst thing for a revolutionary is to be alive at the end of the revolution (in most cases). The reason is that the type of person who has the gifts to organise a revolution does not necessarily posses the skills to organise and run a country.

We need all types of people in the world. Society, in my opinion, is like an environment. We need all the animals and plants in their particular niches to make everything run smoothly. We need lions to eat the antelopes, we need flies to eat sh*t, we need plants for oxygen. You get the point.

I guess that is why I view the world the way I do. We need balance, so I might argue several different points of view to achieve that. All members in society either work together or in opposition for the greater good of balance.

I hope that explains my apparent duality, but I assure you that it all fits together from my perspective.

You also said...


>Wrong. There are plenty of fundamentalists who used to be of your opinion, but were "born again" with the whole rebaptism and suchlike.

No, actually I was un-born again. It's one thing to be converted, but another to grow up in a faith and then reject it.

>Seems to me that you consider your approach superior because you find fundies arrogant and self-righteous - in other words you're judging the truth of the religion on it's consequences. I don't need to tell you that this is about as logical as me judging the truth of xtianity on it's consequences?

Not really. My judgements are based on actions and to a lesser degree intent.

I remember seeing a documentary in which holy men in India roamed about naked and preaching. According to the fundies, these people are going to hell, eternal damnation. I have trouble with the fact that these people are going to some hell, but the rich, and at times cruel, fundies are going to heaven because they said a magic formula. I do not believe that is what God is about.

You mentioned the whole brainwashing thing. I disagree. I know many people in the Church who blindly swallow what they have been told. I do know the people they are talking about. But I was not one of them. There is no way to convince you otherwise. I did test the brainwashing theory to see if it might be true, and I concluded it was not. I was spiritually aware since I was a child, before I was put into the church. The only reason my family ever went was because they thought it was the place I should be. I grew spiritually as I got older, and in a way grew beyond the shallow depths of American fundamentalism.

However, to argue the opposite point of view.

I was held in high regard in the church. Adults sought me out and ask me to pray for them. What an ego boost. I had respect in that arena. So I came to psychologically attach my personal sense of worth to Christianity, or at least spirituality. Not exactly brainwashing, but at least a bit of Skinnerian behaviour modification, or perhaps Pavlov would be acurate.

Which one is correct? I say both.

I do respect Budhism, but I cannot get into that whole bend like the reed thing. I respect those who can, but I would be fooling myself if I thought it was me.

Take Care

All this fascinating stuff was going on, and I missed it. Oh well, let's remedy that situation...

Scotameri: I've noticed that you have quite a bit of criticism for other xtian sects. It's a trend among all sects. "The only real Christian is the one with whom you are speaking." What makes you right and them wrong?

I've also noticed that you seem to know an awful lot about this god character, and about all sorts of things of which I am unfamiliar, including this "form" and "spirit" stuff. What is your basis for this knowledge? Can you cite sources? Can your experiment results be repeated?

On brainwashing: I was a part of a deliberate attempt at brainwashing by an xtian cult. They invited me to play football, and I accepted. Then they drove me two hours away. We played for hours, and went back to get some food. That's when they took us to the church, where about a dozen tired, hungry young men had fire and brimstone browbeaten into themselves for about 90 minutes. Many broke into tears. Eleven of them confessed how horrible they were, and begged for the forgiveness of a long-dead desert theologian. Only after they promised to be baptised the next day was everyone fed.

What about the twelfth, you ask? I'm never THAT tired and hungry, and I was still a doubting believer at the time.

The Irish Catholics do have some interesting ideas on xtianity. They developed them entirely on their own, mostly by creating a hybrid of St. Patrick's slightly educated Roman Catholicism and the pagan Celtic beliefs, and they seem to be the only heresy that Rome ever tolerated. I find one of their beliefs quite interesting. It deals with death. Everyone goes to the wake and cries their eyes out, then goes to the funeral the next day, and wrings out the last of it. Then they go directly to a funeral reception and have a massive party. No mourning is permitted... everyone gets piss drunk and has a good time. The reason: you're not feeling sorry for the dead, who has allegedly gone on to a better place. You're feeling sorry for yourself, so dry up your tears and get over yourself.

And on the subject of balance, I'm something of a fan of it myself, which is why I hate religion. Xtianity is homocentric, with the arrogant assumption that we are the purpose behind life, the universe, and everything. Such arrogance is evident in the way we treat the planet, other forms of life, and even each other. The planet requires balance to sustain life, and humans are an enemy to balance. And we will continue to do so as long as homocentric philosophies are bandied about as if they had any real truth to them.

And while I'm at it, I might as well indulge in the bit of topic drift on US involvement in WWII. When the US invaded Africa, the Brits were getting their butts kicked there. The Brits held Egypt and pushed back precisely because they had been infused with American tanks, which were vastly superior to the ones Rommel had been decimating all along the Mediterranean's southern coast. Fresh arms also helped the Russians turn back the Germans in the winter of '42, but by this time they were reduced to using the old and the young in their army. Had the Americans and British failed to liberate North Africa and Italy, the full brunt of the Wehrmacht would have been brought to bear on the Soviets in the winter of '43. They would not have survived a second winter.

As for the two detonations of nukes: elements of the Japanese government were prepared to overlook Hiroshima, because they believed that, between there and Bikini Atoll, the US had used up every bit of spare plutonium. In those early days, it took months to produce enough plutonium to make a single atomic bomb. The US hit the much less populated Nagasaki to demonstrate that it had the capability to hit Tokyo, unless the surrender was effected immediately. It proved the naysayers wrong, and the surrender was made.

Interesting side note: the bomb that hit Nagasaki used the last bit of spare plutonium. If the Japanese failed to fall for the ruse, the expensive and bloody invasion of Honshu would have had to go forward. The Americans chose to go for the bluff and hit Nagasaki, rather than go straight for Tokyo, with their last bomb. So the outcome was far less damaging than it could have been.