| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"alen" |
| Date: |
24 Jul 2005 11:34:50 PM |
| Object: |
Adam and Eve etc. |
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
The material Cosmos we can see was not the original
creation, but is connected with the fall of Lucifer,
which is another story, but God prepared the Earth as
purified from the fallen matter in order to be suitable
for use by the first human, Adam. Since a particular
spirit can be expressed in more than one individual, Adam
was actually of the spirit of Lucifer, and was to be the
spirit of Lucifer returning to God, after passing a second
free-will test in his incarnation on the Earth. All the
things Adam needed had been prepared for his use, and he
thus enjoyed and experienced them in a pure form, but the
forbidden tree had not been blessed by God for his use.
That is, its living energies had not been purified of their
fallen nature. Thus, God warned Adam about this. He also
gave Adam the power to procreate, but told him not to use it
until His return, when Adam had passed his free-will test.
When Eve brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he
experienced, through its unblessed nature, a sensuality
previously unknown to him, which apparently contaminated his
nature, including his sexuality, which led him to experience
the first sexual act in a fallen and sensual manner, and
not in the pure manner intended by God. God had wanted to
be present in order to subject the first procreative act to
His presence and His necessary blessing, but Adam and Eve
excluded God from it, becoming unfaithful to His Love, and
spoiled God's work in the final step, as it was almost
complete. Thus, in effect, in Adam, the spirit of Lucifer
failed to pass the second test, and thus return to God.
However, Adam repented, and the Love in God forgave him,
by the promise that a Redeemer would be sent to rescue
the creation from its second fall.
This was given in 'The Household of God', Jakob Lorber, c.1840
Alen
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
24 Jul 2005 11:54:40 PM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> said:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
Here, I'll help you make a description of what you understand, even
shorter.
<snip>
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 12:10:49 AM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1122266090.772598.231060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
<snip>
Wow. That is bat ***** crazy.
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
26 Jul 2005 11:33:46 AM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1122266090.772598.231060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
The material Cosmos we can see was not the original
creation, but is connected with the fall of Lucifer,
which is another story, but God prepared the Earth as
purified from the fallen matter in order to be suitable
for use by the first human, Adam. Since a particular
spirit can be expressed in more than one individual, Adam
was actually of the spirit of Lucifer, and was to be the
spirit of Lucifer returning to God, after passing a second
free-will test in his incarnation on the Earth. All the
things Adam needed had been prepared for his use, and he
thus enjoyed and experienced them in a pure form, but the
forbidden tree had not been blessed by God for his use.
That is, its living energies had not been purified of their
fallen nature. Thus, God warned Adam about this. He also
gave Adam the power to procreate, but told him not to use it
until His return, when Adam had passed his free-will test.
When Eve brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he
experienced, through its unblessed nature, a sensuality
previously unknown to him, which apparently contaminated his
nature, including his sexuality, which led him to experience
the first sexual act in a fallen and sensual manner, and
not in the pure manner intended by God. God had wanted to
be present in order to subject the first procreative act to
His presence and His necessary blessing, but Adam and Eve
excluded God from it, becoming unfaithful to His Love, and
spoiled God's work in the final step, as it was almost
complete. Thus, in effect, in Adam, the spirit of Lucifer
failed to pass the second test, and thus return to God.
However, Adam repented, and the Love in God forgave him,
by the promise that a Redeemer would be sent to rescue
the creation from its second fall.
This was given in 'The Household of God', Jakob Lorber, c.1840
Alen
Sounds like ***** to me, man. Keep it out of alt.atheism, you freaky
little theist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
24 Jul 2005 11:44:15 PM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in news:1122266090.772598.231060
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
The material Cosmos we can see was not the original
creation, but is connected with the fall of Lucifer,
which is another story, but God prepared the Earth as
purified from the fallen matter in order to be suitable
for use by the first human, Adam. Since a particular
spirit can be expressed in more than one individual, Adam
was actually of the spirit of Lucifer, and was to be the
spirit of Lucifer returning to God, after passing a second
free-will test in his incarnation on the Earth. All the
things Adam needed had been prepared for his use, and he
thus enjoyed and experienced them in a pure form, but the
forbidden tree had not been blessed by God for his use.
That is, its living energies had not been purified of their
fallen nature. Thus, God warned Adam about this. He also
gave Adam the power to procreate, but told him not to use it
until His return, when Adam had passed his free-will test.
When Eve brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he
experienced, through its unblessed nature, a sensuality
previously unknown to him, which apparently contaminated his
nature, including his sexuality, which led him to experience
the first sexual act in a fallen and sensual manner, and
not in the pure manner intended by God. God had wanted to
be present in order to subject the first procreative act to
His presence and His necessary blessing, but Adam and Eve
excluded God from it, becoming unfaithful to His Love, and
spoiled God's work in the final step, as it was almost
complete. Thus, in effect, in Adam, the spirit of Lucifer
failed to pass the second test, and thus return to God.
However, Adam repented, and the Love in God forgave him,
by the promise that a Redeemer would be sent to rescue
the creation from its second fall.
This was given in 'The Household of God', Jakob Lorber, c.1840
Alen
So, Jakob Lorber was a fiction writer!
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 06:43:07 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
....
I tried to interpret your interpretation of Lorber's interpretation,
which is supposedly different from someone else's interpretation of what
some deity supposedly said.
I couldn't make heads or tails of it so I translated it into Yoda:
With the fall of Lucifer, which, the material Cosmos we can see was not
the original creation, but is, connected. On the Earth, since a
particular spirit can be expressed in more than one individual, Adam was
actually of the spirit of Lucifer, and was to be the spirit of Lucifer
returning to God, after passing a second free-will test, in his
incarnation. In a pure form, but the forbidden tree had not been blessed
by God for his use, all the things Adam needed had been prepared for his
use, and he thus enjoyed and experienced them. That is, its living
energies had not been purified of their fallen nature. About this, thus,
God warned Adam. Until His return, when Adam had passed his free-will
test, he also gave Adam the power to procreate, but told him not to use
it. Through its unblessed nature, a sensuality previously unknown to
him, which apparently contaminated his nature, including his sexuality,
which led him to experience the first sexual act, in a fallen and
sensual manner, and not in the pure manner intended by God, when Eve
brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he experienced,. In the
final step, as it was almost complete, god had wanted to be present in
order to subject the first procreative act to His presence and His
necessary blessing, but Adam and Eve excluded God, from it, becoming
unfaithful to His Love, and spoiled God's work. In effect, in Adam, the
spirit of Lucifer failed to pass the second test, and thus return to
God, thus,. In God forgave him, by the promise that a Redeemer would be
sent to rescue the creation, from its second fall, however, Adam
repented, and the Love.
It is still as clear as mud, but at least now I know why.
Regards,
Josef
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 10:41:52 PM |
|
|
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
...
I tried to interpret your interpretation of Lorber's interpretation,
which is supposedly different from someone else's interpretation of what
some deity supposedly said.
I couldn't make heads or tails of it so I translated it into Yoda:
Very amusing I'm sure!
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
26 Jul 2005 01:14:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:43:07 -0400, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
I couldn't make heads or tails of it so I translated it into Yoda:
With the fall of Lucifer, which, the material Cosmos we can see was not
the original creation, but is, connected.
No, no, that won't do at all: Yoda would phrased it more like "not the
original creation was the material Cosmos we can see, but connected it
is". Five consecutive viewings of Episode V for you!
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Red Rum" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
24 Jul 2005 11:53:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1122266090.772598.231060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "alen"
<alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
When Eve brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he
experienced, through its unblessed nature, a sensuality
previously unknown to him, which apparently contaminated his
nature, including his sexuality, which led him to experience
the first sexual act in a fallen and sensual manner, and
not in the pure manner intended by God.
Please publish full details for jw's benefit he might like to get into
writing this stuff himself
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 12:49:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:53:48 +1100,
(Red Rum) wrote:
In article <1122266090.772598.231060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "alen"
<alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
When Eve brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he
experienced, through its unblessed nature, a sensuality
previously unknown to him,
So he and his first wife, Lilith, never got their naughty on? Their
daughters would be surprised to hear that.
which apparently contaminated his
nature, including his sexuality, which led him to experience
the first sexual act in a fallen and sensual manner, and
not in the pure manner intended by God.
Please publish full details for jw's benefit he might like to get into
writing this stuff himself
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
26 Jul 2005 12:11:15 PM |
|
|
maf1029 (=A92001-2008) wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:53:48 +1100,
(Red Rum) wrote:
In article <1122266090.772598.231060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "ale=
n"
<alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
When Eve brought Adam the fruit of the forbidden tree, he
experienced, through its unblessed nature, a sensuality
previously unknown to him,
So he and his first wife, Lilith, never got their naughty on? Their
daughters would be surprised to hear that.
which apparently contaminated his
nature, including his sexuality, which led him to experience
the first sexual act in a fallen and sensual manner, and
not in the pure manner intended by God.
Please publish full details for jw's benefit he might like to get into
writing this stuff himself
Lilith was censored and removed from the Authorised Versions of the
Bible.
B C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
30 Jul 2005 09:37:52 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jul 2005 21:34:50 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
*****, oh brainless wanker and do your wanking in the Jesus
masturbation groups! Fecking Tosser!
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 02:39:35 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jul 2005 21:34:50 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
Please take your hallucinating ***** off alt.atheism, thank you very
much.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 09:54:51 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 21:34:50 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
Please take your hallucinating ***** off alt.atheism, thank you very
much.
What is your complaint? My impression is
that there are atheists all over Christian
NGs.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 05:01:27 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jul 2005 07:54:51 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 21:34:50 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
Please take your hallucinating ***** off alt.atheism, thank you very
much.
What is your complaint? My impression is
that there are atheists all over Christian
NGs.
99.999% of them there because some Christian cross-posted a thread to
alt.atheism, like you just did. Now kindly leave us the pluck alone.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
25 Jul 2005 10:35:59 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 07:54:51 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 21:34:50 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
The Father, knowing what the condition of man would be
in modern times, and that he would need something more
than the old Bible, gave a more detailed re-Revelation
to a seer, Jakob Lorber, in the 19th century. I give,
in this post, what I understand from that Revelation
about Adam and Eve, making it as short as I can.
Please take your hallucinating ***** off alt.atheism, thank you very
much.
What is your complaint? My impression is
that there are atheists all over Christian
NGs.
99.999% of them there because some Christian cross-posted a thread to
alt.atheism, like you just did. Now kindly leave us the pluck alone.
OK - You stop atheists initiating anti-Christian
posts on Christian NGs, and I'll stay out of
atheist NGs.
Even if atheists were attacking only fascist
Christians on Christian NGs, I would stay away,
but they are attacking all Christians, and the
Christian Faith as such.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
26 Jul 2005 01:07:34 AM |
|
|
On 25 Jul 2005 20:35:59 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
What is your complaint? My impression is
that there are atheists all over Christian
NGs.
99.999% of them there because some Christian cross-posted a thread to
alt.atheism, like you just did. Now kindly leave us the pluck alone.
OK - You stop atheists initiating anti-Christian
posts on Christian NGs, and I'll stay out of
atheist NGs.
Go back and re-read the above. Several times if necessary. The
overwhelming majority of cross-posted threads (nearly all of them, in
fact) are initiated by Christians who feel the need to stir up trouble
in alt.atheism. It's extremely rare that an atheist initiates a
cross-post to a Christian group. If you don't want us on your groups,
stop cross-posting to a.a; it's as simple as that.
Even if atheists were attacking only fascist
Christians on Christian NGs, I would stay away,
but they are attacking all Christians, and the
Christian Faith as such.
If you and your buddies would stop initiating the cross-posting of
threads to alt.atheism, I guarantee you, the atheist traffic on your
NGs would almost disappear in a matter of a week or two.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
01 Aug 2005 05:05:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:07:34 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 20:35:59 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
What is your complaint? My impression is
that there are atheists all over Christian
NGs.
99.999% of them there because some Christian cross-posted a thread to
alt.atheism, like you just did. Now kindly leave us the pluck alone.
OK - You stop atheists initiating anti-Christian
posts on Christian NGs, and I'll stay out of
atheist NGs.
Go back and re-read the above. Several times if necessary. The
overwhelming majority of cross-posted threads (nearly all of them, in
fact) are initiated by Christians who feel the need to stir up trouble
in alt.atheism. It's extremely rare that an atheist initiates a
cross-post to a Christian group. If you don't want us on your groups,
stop cross-posting to a.a; it's as simple as that.
Even if atheists were attacking only fascist
Christians on Christian NGs, I would stay away,
but they are attacking all Christians, and the
Christian Faith as such.
If you and your buddies would stop initiating the cross-posting of
threads to alt.atheism, I guarantee you, the atheist traffic on your
NGs would almost disappear in a matter of a week or two.
The brainless sychophants haven't the cognitive functions to rent a
clue.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
26 Jul 2005 03:19:26 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Even if atheists were attacking only fascist
Christians on Christian NGs, I would stay away,
but they are attacking all Christians, and the
Christian Faith as such.
Christianity in any form is merely superstition, just like all the
other religions of the world. In no way is it, or should it be, immune
from attack by rational people. The sooner we get rid of *all*
superstitions, including Christianity, the better off we'll be.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
26 Jul 2005 10:36:01 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
alen wrote:
Even if atheists were attacking only fascist
Christians on Christian NGs, I would stay away,
but they are attacking all Christians, and the
Christian Faith as such.
Christianity in any form is merely superstition, just like all the
other religions of the world. In no way is it, or should it be, immune
from attack by rational people. The sooner we get rid of *all*
superstitions, including Christianity, the better off we'll be.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
OK - but those who attack can expect the like in reply.
I don't object to disputation, but some descend to
outright mockery and hatred, and I am thinking really of
these in using the word 'attack'.
You call religion 'superstition', and then comment as if
it is so, but belief and superstition are not the same
thing. The Christian faith will never die. Even if the
old Christian Churches fall, which is possible, the
actual faith itself will never disappear.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
01 Aug 2005 05:21:03 PM |
|
|
Alen wrote:
You call religion 'superstition', and then comment as if
it is so, but belief and superstition are not the same
thing.
From www.dictionary.com:
"Superstition:
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
All religions rely on circumstances and actions - and sometimes on
objects - that are not logically related to events or that influences
their outcomes. Faith in something that has absolutely no objective
evidence and the belief that such faith can influence the outcome of
events is just such a superstition. Christianity fills this bill
perfectly.
"2. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance
of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or
irrationality. Idolatry."
As above, Christianity, along with all other religions, has its roots
in the ignorance of the laws of nature and the fear of the unknown,
namely, death. It is the practice of certain rituals, prayers, and
devices whereby the practitioner seeks to avert bad events or induce
good ones, through placating/pleasing supernatural forces for which
there is no credible evidence.
The Christian faith will never die. Even if the old Christian Churches fall, which is >possible, the actual faith itself will never disappear.
Yes it will - all belief systems eventually fall away. Christianity
has only been a popular superstition for 2,000 years, and that's
*nothing* in terms of human history. Christianity *seems*
overwhelmingly powerful to you because you're right in the middle of
it, and happen to live in a culture that promulgates it. Someday, if
we can keep from killing ourselves off, Christianity will go the way of
Zoroastrianism or the animist beliefs of the Neanderthals.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
02 Aug 2005 10:09:32 AM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
Alen wrote:
You call religion 'superstition', and then comment as if
it is so, but belief and superstition are not the same
thing.
From www.dictionary.com:
"Superstition:
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
All religions rely on circumstances and actions - and sometimes on
objects - that are not logically related to events or that influences
their outcomes. Faith in something that has absolutely no objective
evidence and the belief that such faith can influence the outcome of
events is just such a superstition. Christianity fills this bill
perfectly.
No, it doesn't. It is not an 'irrational' belief.
"2. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance
of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or
irrationality. Idolatry."
As above, Christianity, along with all other religions, has its roots
in the ignorance of the laws of nature and the fear of the unknown,
namely, death. It is the practice of certain rituals, prayers, and
devices whereby the practitioner seeks to avert bad events or induce
good ones, through placating/pleasing supernatural forces for which
there is no credible evidence.
No. It has it roots in matters that transcend
all possibility of physical evidence, and faith
is the only possible way of dealing with such
matters. Any criticism based on lack of evidence
is therefore nonsensical by definition.
The Christian faith will never die. Even if the old Christian Churches fall, which is >possible, the actual faith itself will never disappear.
Yes it will - all belief systems eventually fall away. Christianity
has only been a popular superstition for 2,000 years, and that's
*nothing* in terms of human history. Christianity *seems*
overwhelmingly powerful to you because you're right in the middle of
it, and happen to live in a culture that promulgates it. Someday, if
we can keep from killing ourselves off, Christianity will go the way of
Zoroastrianism or the animist beliefs of the Neanderthals.
The stature of the figure of Jesus is too
great for that to happen.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
02 Aug 2005 11:36:50 AM |
|
|
alen wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
Alen wrote:
You call religion 'superstition', and then comment as if
it is so, but belief and superstition are not the same
thing.
From www.dictionary.com:
"Superstition:
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
All religions rely on circumstances and actions - and sometimes on
objects - that are not logically related to events or that influences
their outcomes. Faith in something that has absolutely no objective
evidence and the belief that such faith can influence the outcome of
events is just such a superstition. Christianity fills this bill
perfectly.
No, it doesn't. It is not an 'irrational' belief.
(snip)
Define "rational" and then show how Christian faith and practice falls
within this definition.
I am happy to see you flailing around in a futile attempt to avoid
admitting that your religious faith is an act of profound
irrationality. As long as you are unwilling to admit that this is the
case, you may still be thinking, and have some hope of thinking your
way out of the trap you find yourself in.
Best wishes for your progress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
02 Aug 2005 10:35:30 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
No, it doesn't. It is not an 'irrational' belief.
(snip)
Define "rational" and then show how Christian faith and practice falls
within this definition.
By a rational belief I mean a belief that is
a better explanation for reality that other
alternatives. An intelligent Creator is a much
more rational explanation of our existence than a
giant explosion. And it is further reasonable to
believe that an intelligent Creator might well
communicate with His creatures etc.
I am happy to see you flailing around in a futile attempt to avoid
admitting that your religious faith is an act of profound
irrationality. As long as you are unwilling to admit that this is the
case, you may still be thinking, and have some hope of thinking your
way out of the trap you find yourself in.
Best wishes for your progress.
Your description is, to me, only a gratuitous
self-satisfaction of your own, and nothing to
do with me.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
02 Aug 2005 04:54:35 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
Alen wrote:
You call religion 'superstition', and then comment as if
it is so, but belief and superstition are not the same
thing.
From www.dictionary.com:
"Superstition:
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
All religions rely on circumstances and actions - and sometimes on
objects - that are not logically related to events or that influences
their outcomes. Faith in something that has absolutely no objective
evidence and the belief that such faith can influence the outcome of
events is just such a superstition. Christianity fills this bill
perfectly.
No, it doesn't. It is not an 'irrational' belief.
It absolutely is an irrational belief, it's a belief with no evidence
supporting it, thereby making it irrational.
"2. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance
of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or
irrationality. Idolatry."
As above, Christianity, along with all other religions, has its roots
in the ignorance of the laws of nature and the fear of the unknown,
namely, death. It is the practice of certain rituals, prayers, and
devices whereby the practitioner seeks to avert bad events or induce
good ones, through placating/pleasing supernatural forces for which
there is no credible evidence.
No. It has it roots in matters that transcend
all possibility of physical evidence, and faith
is the only possible way of dealing with such
matters. Any criticism based on lack of evidence
is therefore nonsensical by definition.
This is mere handwaving and special pleading. Translation: "I can't
provide evidence for it but I want to believe it, so *you* have to make
special allowances for it." *****. There's no evidence supporting
such belief, and it is therefore irrational and superstitious.
The notion that "faith" is the only way of dealing with matters having
no evidence is fallacious, because there's another way: critical
thinking.
You have *no* evidence to support your belief, and you know it.
Asserting "faith" is just another way of saying "I believe it because I
want to." Faith is not a virtue, it's a character fault.
The Christian faith will never die. Even if the old Christian Churches fall, which is >possible, the actual faith itself will never disappear.
Yes it will - all belief systems eventually fall away. Christianity
has only been a popular superstition for 2,000 years, and that's
*nothing* in terms of human history. Christianity *seems*
overwhelmingly powerful to you because you're right in the middle of
it, and happen to live in a culture that promulgates it. Someday, if
we can keep from killing ourselves off, Christianity will go the way of
Zoroastrianism or the animist beliefs of the Neanderthals.
The stature of the figure of Jesus is too
great for that to happen.
No, it isn't. The figure of Jesus is a *myth*. It will eventually die
out, as will the mythic figures of other religions.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
02 Aug 2005 05:02:51 PM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1123019675.419915.73550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
alen wrote:
<snip athiest foolishness>
No, it isn't. The figure of Jesus is a *myth*. It will eventually die
out, as will the mythic figures of other religions.
You'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
--
Terrell D Lewis
Free MP3s
http://www.lastofall.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
02 Aug 2005 10:57:36 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
No, it doesn't. It is not an 'irrational' belief.
It absolutely is an irrational belief, it's a belief with no evidence
supporting it, thereby making it irrational.
Believing in an intelligent Creator is more rational
than saying we were created by a giant explosion.
By your definition, scientists are therefore
more irrational than believers.
No. It has it roots in matters that transcend
all possibility of physical evidence, and faith
is the only possible way of dealing with such
matters. Any criticism based on lack of evidence
is therefore nonsensical by definition.
This is mere handwaving and special pleading. Translation: "I can't
provide evidence for it but I want to believe it, so *you* have to make
special allowances for it."
Translation; yes; yours. I have never said
any such thing to anyone.
There's no evidence supporting
such belief, and it is therefore irrational and superstitious.
Physicists believed in the aether, and then disbelieved
in it. They must also be irrational. Then we are all
irrational and superstitious, which deprives the word
superstition of any special meaning at all.
The notion that "faith" is the only way of dealing with matters having
no evidence is fallacious, because there's another way: critical
thinking.
Where did I ever define faith to exclude
critical thinking? It can be argued that
reality must have a necessarily existent,
self-observing observer, and I have posted
such arguments before.
You have *no* evidence to support your belief, and you know it.
What do you think the word 'belief' means?
Asserting "faith" is just another way of saying "I believe it because I
want to."
Again, that is your translation, not mine.
The stature of the figure of Jesus is too
great for that to happen.
No, it isn't. The figure of Jesus is a *myth*. It will eventually die
out, as will the mythic figures of other religions.
We will have to wait and see, won't we?
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
03 Aug 2005 01:04:29 AM |
|
|
alen wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
No, it doesn't. It is not an 'irrational' belief.
It absolutely is an irrational belief, it's a belief with no evidence
supporting it, thereby making it irrational.
Believing in an intelligent Creator is more rational
than saying we were created by a giant explosion.
By your definition, scientists are therefore
more irrational than believers.
No. It has it roots in matters that transcend
all possibility of physical evidence, and faith
is the only possible way of dealing with such
matters. Any criticism based on lack of evidence
is therefore nonsensical by definition.
This is mere handwaving and special pleading. Translation: "I can't
provide evidence for it but I want to believe it, so *you* have to make
special allowances for it."
Translation; yes; yours. I have never said
any such thing to anyone.
There's no evidence supporting
such belief, and it is therefore irrational and superstitious.
Physicists believed in the aether, and then disbelieved
in it. They must also be irrational. Then we are all
irrational and superstitious, which deprives the word
superstition of any special meaning at all.
The notion that "faith" is the only way of dealing with matters having
no evidence is fallacious, because there's another way: critical
thinking.
Where did I ever define faith to exclude
critical thinking? It can be argued that
reality must have a necessarily existent,
self-observing observer, and I have posted
such arguments before.
You have *no* evidence to support your belief, and you know it.
What do you think the word 'belief' means?
Asserting "faith" is just another way of saying "I believe it because I
want to."
Again, that is your translation, not mine.
The stature of the figure of Jesus is too
great for that to happen.
No, it isn't. The figure of Jesus is a *myth*. It will eventually die
out, as will the mythic figures of other religions.
We will have to wait and see, won't we?
Alen
Scientists do not believe that we were created in a giant explosion.
"Belief" belongs to religious cults and has no place in science.
Scientists accept the best possible explanation to all the known facts
at a particular time. When new facts emerge the explanation may have to
be adjusted.
It does seem that in the remote past a Big Bang occurred in this part
of the Universe. Scientists are now considering what happened before.
There may be a pendulumm effect with a giant nucleus exploding into
expanding constellations and then like a pendulum they recede to reform
the nucleus which then explodes again. This would be in accordance with
Newton's Laws.
We can only surmise about the part of the Universe which is accessible
to our vision and calculations. If the Universe is infinite and eternal
we may never have a complete view of our origins.
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
03 Aug 2005 10:23:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Scientists do not believe that we were created in a giant explosion.
"Belief" belongs to religious cults and has no place in science.
Scientists accept the best possible explanation to all the known facts
at a particular time. When new facts emerge the explanation may have to
be adjusted.
Scientists always construct a 'best possible explanation',
and this is never a 'belief', whereas people who accept
an intelligent creator are always constructing a 'belief',
and this is never a 'best possible explanation'.
What an exhibition of prejudice and biased semantics!
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
03 Aug 2005 12:00:48 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Scientists always construct a 'best possible explanation',
and this is never a 'belief', whereas people who accept
an intelligent creator are always constructing a 'belief',
and this is never a 'best possible explanation'.
What an exhibition of prejudice and biased semantics!
Are you emotionally attached to your religious beliefs? Do you get
emotionally upset at the thought that someone might logically prove to
you that those beliefs are mistaken? If so, you are more interested
in holding on to your prejudices than you are in knowing what is real.
Scientists get attached to their understanding of reality, because of
the time and energy they have invested in it, but give prizes to those
who logically prove that some part of the current best explanation is
wrong, or add a significant new aspect to that understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve etc. |
04 Aug 2005 12:36:02 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
alen wrote:
Scientists always construct a 'best possible explanation',
and this is never a 'belief', whereas people who accept
an intelligent creator are always constructing a 'belief',
and this is never a 'best possible explanation'.
What an exhibition of prejudice and biased semantics!
Are you emotionally attached to your religious beliefs? Do you get
emotionally upset at the thought that someone might logically prove to
you that those beliefs are mistaken? If so, you are more interested
in holding on to your prejudices than you are in knowing what is real.
A welcome and, perhaps, astonishing sign of flexibility
in an atheist. Your question suggests an awareness of
the possibility that one believer could actually be
different from another. Such flexibility would be
a step forward for atheists generally.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
