I believe if I ever see god the serial killer, I am going to KILL HIM. I
hate MURDERERS like god. I hate idiots like god that allow priests to
molest young children. .

god confesses to MURDER:
Genesis Chapter 8, verse 21:
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again
will I curse the ground because of man, even though [ Or man, for ] every
inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I
destroy all living creatures, as I have done

well, good, since god the jerk in ":his own bible"(lmao) says that never
again will he MURDER all living creatures, then I guess that judgement day
***** is out, huh?

I believe if I ever see god the serial killer, I am going to KILL HIM. I
hate MURDERERS like god. I hate idiots like god that allow priests to
molest young children. .


god confesses to MURDER:
Genesis Chapter 8, verse 21:
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again
will I curse the ground because of man, even though [ Or man, for ] every
inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I
destroy all living creatures, as I have done

well, good, since god the jerk in ":his own bible"(lmao) says that never
again will he MURDER all living creatures, then I guess that judgement day
***** is out, huh?

DEATH TO GOD THE SERIAL KILLER
"somebody" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c593a6f6.0502201730.2810bd60@posting.google.com...

I have a choice in how I act upon my thoughts.

It sounds reasonable enough, and I think the majority of people would
agree with me. Do you?

But what would it mean in the world we live in today?

The world I live in is moving away from the idea of a creator. The
atheist population is expanding rapidly, and the ideology of
selfishness is widespread.

The reason for this?

Scientists.

Many people would argue that science is neutral, and that it is just a
method of investigation in pursuit of knowledge. Science simply being
the application of Hypothesis (a description of the experiment and
what the scientists think will happen), Observation (the part where
the scientists perform and observe the experiment), Result (where the
scientists makes notes on what they observed), Conclusion (where the
scientists write up what they think the results meant in regard to
their hypothesis, and what it might mean with regards to any new
hypothesis), to experimentation.

So where is the bias in that?

Imagine a scenario where scientists couldn't explain something, and
someone came along with the hypothesis: 'Because God chose it to be
so.'

Would it be generally accepted by the scientific community as an
acceptable answer, 'No need for further investigation there then' ?:)

I don't think so. If it was, the scientists that make up this
community would never have discovered the properties of the universe
to the depth that they have.

As the idea that science can ultimately know and explain all
properties of the knowable universe without the need to resort to the
hypothesis 'Because the God chose it to be so' is inherent in the
scientific community, so is the idea that 'We don't need God to be
able to explain everything knowable, and we don't expect to find it in
our investigations.'

This is not to say all scientists disbelieve in God, some might
consider science as an investigation into the initial thought that
created the universe we live in.

Though there are the atheists, and they are expanding in number.
Atheists have the belief 'We don't need a God to be able to explain
everything knowable, and we don't believe there is one'. Though to be
an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you have much understanding
of a field of scientific research, you just have to believe in the
idea (and presumably atheist scientists) more than you do in a God.
They believe scientific investigation is the torch that will shine a
light into the shadows of ignorance and reveal the truth.

If the atheist scientists' investigations came to fruition and they
finally discovered the equation(s) that described the creation of the
universe and all it's behaviour thereafter (big 'if' I know), then
they could predict everything. They would have the means to predict
the position of any given atom at any given time. If the equation(s)
could be processed quickly enough, in theory, they could show you a
video footage from the model created by their equation(s) of yourself
10ms (one hundredth of a second) in the future. No matter what you
did, if you pulled faces, waved your arms around and went 'bla bla bla
blub alub alub', the image in the video footage would do exactly the
same, it all being predicted by the equation(s). They could predict
everything from beginning to end. We would simply be a mass of
predictable chemical reactions.

That's assuming the scientific model didn't predict time travel. If it
did the time gap could be bigger and I could be shown a picture of
what I was doing in an hours time. My common sense tells me that on
being shown the image, I would always have the choice not to be doing
whatever it was that I was shown to be doing (assuming I wasn't
strapped to a table in a mental asylum etc).

Atheism is on the increase, and they often consider themselves
intellectually superior over those that believe there may be something
more than their atheist scientific perspective can provide. They
'Don't have faith' apparently.

Does that mean that all atheists believe they don't have a choice, and
that a machine that could predict what people were going to do could
one day be invented? Surprisingly no. If you ask them if they have a
choice, many will answer 'Yes, ...' (as some of you may have done at
the beginning of this ramble). Yet when they have the scenario of the
prediction machine explained to them, and if they understand it, they
often change their mind, and accept that they don't have a choice.
'Don't have faith' my *****, that is blind faith if every I saw it.

If you don't believe you have a choice, and it is possible that one
day a machine truly could be built that could predict what you were
going to do, then I guess it's just destiny for you, whether you read
on or not.

Atheists are either those that believe in a fixed destiny (down to
when you smile) (as opposed to those who might believe in a vague
destiny governed by probability that could be predicted by the
Creator, e.g. people will move closer to the Truth), or those that
don't really understand the implication of the idea 'We don't need a
God to be able to explain everything knowable, and we don't believe
there is one.'

Some atheists might try to add randomness into the equation, to avoid
believing the fixed destiny approach (it would also attempt to explain
why a prediction machine could never be produced, and thus escape the
paradox, without the need for choice).

I would argue that if things seem random, either the equation is
wrong, or choice is being demonstrated.

For those of you that may believe in choice, what does it mean?

To have a choice, means that there is something else, that atheist
scientists will never be able to predict with one hundred percent
accuracy. It means you must be more than a chemical reaction.

Various religions have said that throughout the ages, and yet many in
the world are moving away from those teachings. Why?

One of the reasons is that early on religion clashed with science.
Let's take the argument the Catholic Church had about whether the Sun
rotated around the Earth. The ancient texts didn't say the Sun rotated
around the Earth. Scientists didn't prove the texts wrong, they proved
men wrong who said they spoke for God.

Many thought that if the religious leaders were wrong, then couldn't
the religion be? After all the religious leaders spoke on God's
behalf. The God they talked of wouldn't have been wrong, so they can't
have been talking for God. Maybe God is something they made up, etc.

Some might argue that the following passage Matthew 16:17-20 (taken
from the BibleGateway.com), which are words from Jesus to Peter, does
indeed give the Catholic leadership the right to talk for God:

'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you
by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will
not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

However in Galatians 2:11 Paul, who many would consider to be the
founder of the Catholic Church, says:

'When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was
clearly in the wrong.'

This was concerning Peter preaching that converted Christians from a
non-Jewish background should still have to follow the Jewish Law.

Paul seems to be questioning the judgement of Peter, and therefore of
Jesus. The Jewish Law was supposed to be the law of God, who was Paul
to say that the law of God could be ignored?

God said to Moses, Numbers 9:14 : 'An alien living among you who wants
to celebrate the Lord's Passover must do so in accordance with its
rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the
alien and the native-born.'

Which I think suggests that it is the same laws for all, which is what
Peter said. Both the Jews and the Muslims have this concept. For
example:

Genesis 9:4 God says to Noah, 'But you must not eat meat that has its
lifeblood still in it.'

Peter never said to Paul '...whatever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
Let alone add on 'and your followers can nominate who carries the
mantle after that'.

So I would argue that the fact the Pope was wrong about the Sun going
around the Earth didn't effect the validity of the texts. Only Peter
could speak for Jesus and therefore for God.

In people's perception though, there was an ongoing battle between the
church leaders (who represented God), and science.

It soon became clear to people that scientists could explain things
better, and with their explanations do things which before would have
been seemed as miraculous. Was it not indeed a shining light. Belief
in the Catholic religion really required faith, especially when on top
of the church leaders inability to explain and predict things as well
as scientists, it turned out that these leaders were often corrupt and
out for themselves.

Science has done so well, and produced so many things, for some, it is
symbolic of mankind's superiority over any other living thing (on
earth at least). Many people feel proud of it, and believe that even
if there are some questions the scientists can't answer, it is likely
they would be able to in the future.

With this in mind it would seem predictable that people would start to
doubt religions, ancient texts, and for many, the existence of any
kind of Creator?

That disillusioned children might sell their loyalty for toys is not
unforeseeable.

Are they right to do so though?

What about choice? If mankind went on forever, and we genetically
enhanced our brains (to ludicrous proportions), why would atheists
expect the building of the prediction machine to be impossible? For
those of you that were thinking of it, don't bring the uncertainty
principle into it, the equation(s) should predict the position of the
electron, and the correctness of the simulation would validate the
equation(s).

If you believe in choice, it would seem to me, that you must believe
there is knowledge beyond the realms of scientific investigation.

Though what lies beyond the realms of investigation is up for grabs.

One possibility is the God as revealed in the ancient texts.

That God to me, represents a God of Love, Truth, and Justice.

I imagine this God to be made up of some unknown form of energy.

If, as our scientists tell us, energy cannot be created or destroyed,
then it must have been there forever.

I think, according to scientific theories, matter is a form of energy.
Therefore we are living proof that energy can become organised in such
a way that it is conscious.

At one point, the energy that makes up God, must have become
conscious.

Here is one possible story:

In the beginning was the void.

The beginning of time as it can ever be know was a question.

The question was 'What aren't I'.

The answer was 'There is nothing I am not, I am the Void'.

From the concept of two thoughts came numbers.

From there mathematics.

From there universes of thought.

The void was selfless, having no concept of another, it saw beauty in
selfless acts.

From beauty grew love,

From love grew knowledge of hate.

As threads and universes of thoughts grew out ever quicker, no thought
being missed, universes were created of such beauty, but for each of
these were also ones of such horror. For one that knew such love, the
visions of horror caused pain. As thoughts expanded so did the depth
of love and hate, and therefore so did the pain. The pain grew
exponentially until it became unbearable.

The void screamed out.

With the scream, Love split from Hate, the Selfless One and the
Selfish One parted.

Though within the Selfless One are thoughts that contain the concepts
of selfishness, though they all have a happy ending in that
selflessness prevails. Within the Selfish One there is the concept of
selflessness, though in all thoughts, selfishness prevails (which in
Selfish One's view is also a happy ending).

Thus in the Selfless One grew the love of Justice and within the
Selfish One the love of Injustice.

There was another difference between the Selfless One and the Selfish
One. The Selfless One new the Truth of what had happened, and what it
was like to be the Void. When the Selfish One was 'born' there was
itself and another (the Selfless One).

The Selfish One did not believe the Selfless One was ever the Void. It
believed the story to be made up by the Selfless One to appear
superior. The Selfish One only has the concept of selflessness and
does not understand it's true nature.

Instead the Selfish One believed itself to be superior to Selfless
One. What Selfless One saw as brave, the Selfish One saw as stupidity.

The Selfish One said to the Selfless One:

'Your love is for selflessness, my love is for the self. They are both
our loves. You have a preference for being you, and I for being me, so
we are both as selfish in our views of perfection as each other. I
think it is better to be me, for I have the love you give me, and my
love of myself. You are loved by no one other than yourself.

If you are as truly selfless as you claim, if it is better to be me,
should you not pass your energy over to me? I would pass my energy
over to you if it were indeed better to be you, which I know, and you
suspect, that it isn't... and yet I'm the one you call selfish.

To find out once and for all who it is better to be, I suggest we
agree on a universe unbiased towards one point of view or another, and
in it place a multitude of finite, conscious energies, made up of
conscious energy from ourselves, and let these finite energies view
the universe for a period of time and decide what gives most pleasure.

To make the game more interesting, let us both be allowed to try to
influence their choices. Though ultimately nothing can be revealed to
effectively eliminate their choice.'

It was Just, so the Selfless One agreed.

The Selfless One has no self doubt for it knows itself as the Truth.

So the game began, the universe of thought was created and shown to
the primal energies.

Summary explanation:

From the stories perspective, what we live in now would be a vision of
a part of the game for primal energy, going on between the Selfless
One and the Selfish One. It would be rather like a piece of conscious
energy (your soul) being placed in a virtual reality machine, and
being allowed to choose between being selfless or selfish.

Anyway on with the story, and with what might happen when the soul's
time is up (they died):

On reaching the end of their time in the universe the souls become
conscious entities in the void.

Unlike Love and Hate, very few are perfectly divided and so the
transit to the Selfless One or Selfish One may take some time, as they
have not yet chosen to be on the wavelength of either.

While in transit both the Selfless One and Selfish One try to lead the
energies to themselves. Though ultimately no energies actually go over
to the Selfish One, as to be on the Selfish One's wavelength is
impossible. A soul would have to love the Selfish One as much as the
Selfish one loves itself, and to love another at all, is to be on a
different wavelength to the Selfish One.

The Selfish One torments those in transit. These are primal entities
other than itself, and the Selfish One has no love for them. To a
human soul for example it might communicate to them, via thoughts and
visions, every hateful thought they ever had, every hateful thought
anyone ever had about them, and hateful thoughts they didn't. It would
remind them of every hateful action ever done against them and every
hateful action they ever did. It would create a false universe
designed to cause hate and pain, based on what they knew of existence,
and communicate that universe to them.

The Selfish One derives a lot of pleasure out of this.

Summary explanation:

In biblical terms, transit, as described in the story could be
considered hell. If it doesn't actually sound that bad, imagine
floating in the void under the Selfish One's skilful torment, as being
an immortal buried alive with a multitude of voices in your head, the
majority of which attempt to cruelly twist your perception of reality
and drive you mad. After a few thousand years of that, you could
imagine wishing you were dead.

On with the story:

The pain of the souls tormented in transit is felt by the Selfless
One, and it also communicates to the souls to encourage them to
towards selflessness. Though Truth cannot be untruth, the Selfless One
must agree with the Selfish One on every hateful thing that done to
you, as well as everything hateful thing you ever did, both in thought
and deed. The Selfless One can communicate to the souls visions and
thoughts of love directed at them, which they knew about, and visions
and thoughts of love directed at them which they didn't, it can show
them beautiful landscapes of imagination, but they have to ultimately
come to the wavelength of the Selfless One, and meet the Selfish One's
untruths with Pity.

The ultimate outcome of the game was never in doubt, eventually all
souls will join the Selfless One, and transit will seem like a blip in
infinite sea of bliss.

(The End)

The above vision of hell coincides with Matthew 16:28 where Jesus
(after his resurrection) said to his disciples 'I tell you the Truth,
some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the
Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' Death is what the lost souls in
transit wish for, though really all they want is release from transit.
So, in the passage, death could actually symbolise release from
transit. It seems to go on to say and that people (including some of
the disciples whom he was talking to) won't be released from transit,
until their soul is filled with the selfless love shown by Jesus, and
realise this selfless love comes from the Kingdom of God.

So in this story the battle within the human soul is depicted as being
between selflessness and selfishness. Selflessness equates to 'good',
and selfishness equates to 'evil', though acts themselves are not good
or evil, it is whether the intention behind them is selfless or
selfish.

What selfish intention would Jesus have? What selfless one would Satan
have?

Whatever you believe in, believe you have a choice.

For those who have bothered to read this far, thank you, if you wish
to indulge me a little further, chose to read on.

When giving children a story about a rainbow, the following biblical
one is I think better than the one about pots of gold at the rainbows
end.

Genesis 9: 8 ? 17:

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 'I now establish my
covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every
living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the
wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living
creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will
all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there
be a flood to destroy the earth.'

And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will
be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring
clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will
remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of
every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all
life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and
remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures
of every kind on the earth.'

So God said to Noah, 'This is the sign of the covenant I have
established between me and all life on the earth.'



If the world does ever flood again, I hope the scientists get the
blame, and no one accuses God of breaking its covenant.

Also, in my opinion (it is my ramble after all), Christmas should be
about the depth of selflessness that Jesus showed the world, not a red
and white Santa Claus, a flying sleigh, and presents. For one thing,
when children find at Santa is make believe, they might think the same
about God.

With regards to justice (including justice to animals) Genesis 9: 4-6
says this:

' But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And
for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand
an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth
and increase upon it.'

In regards to the last bit (increasing in number), I think we've done
that now, and the fact that we are modifying (via genetics) God's
creations to support our numbers, seems to me to suggest that maybe we
have gone a little too far.

Who did God tell not to worship Mammon?

All of us.

I believe if I ever see god the serial killer, I am going to KILL HIM. I
hate MURDERERS like god. I hate idiots like god that allow priests to
molest young children. .


god confesses to MURDER:
Genesis Chapter 8, verse 21:
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again

I curse the ground because of man, even though [ Or man, for ] every
inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I
destroy all living creatures, as I have done

well, good, since god the jerk in ":his own bible"(lmao) says that never
again will he MURDER all living creatures, then I guess that judgement day
***** is out, huh?

DEATH TO GOD THE SERIAL KILLER
"somebody" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c593a6f6.0502201730.2810bd60@posting.google.com...

I have a choice in how I act upon my thoughts.

It sounds reasonable enough, and I think the majority of people would
agree with me. Do you?

But what would it mean in the world we live in today?

The world I live in is moving away from the idea of a creator. The
atheist population is expanding rapidly, and the ideology of
selfishness is widespread.

The reason for this?

Scientists.

Many people would argue that science is neutral, and that it is just a
method of investigation in pursuit of knowledge. Science simply being
the application of Hypothesis (a description of the experiment and
what the scientists think will happen), Observation (the part where
the scientists perform and observe the experiment), Result (where the
scientists makes notes on what they observed), Conclusion (where the
scientists write up what they think the results meant in regard to
their hypothesis, and what it might mean with regards to any new
hypothesis), to experimentation.

So where is the bias in that?

Imagine a scenario where scientists couldn't explain something, and
someone came along with the hypothesis: 'Because God chose it to be
so.'

Would it be generally accepted by the scientific community as an
acceptable answer, 'No need for further investigation there then' ?:)

I don't think so. If it was, the scientists that make up this
community would never have discovered the properties of the universe
to the depth that they have.

As the idea that science can ultimately know and explain all
properties of the knowable universe without the need to resort to the
hypothesis 'Because the God chose it to be so' is inherent in the
scientific community, so is the idea that 'We don't need God to be
able to explain everything knowable, and we don't expect to find it in
our investigations.'

This is not to say all scientists disbelieve in God, some might
consider science as an investigation into the initial thought that
created the universe we live in.

Though there are the atheists, and they are expanding in number.
Atheists have the belief 'We don't need a God to be able to explain
everything knowable, and we don't believe there is one'. Though to be
an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you have much understanding
of a field of scientific research, you just have to believe in the
idea (and presumably atheist scientists) more than you do in a God.
They believe scientific investigation is the torch that will shine a
light into the shadows of ignorance and reveal the truth.

If the atheist scientists' investigations came to fruition and they
finally discovered the equation(s) that described the creation of the
universe and all it's behaviour thereafter (big 'if' I know), then
they could predict everything. They would have the means to predict
the position of any given atom at any given time. If the equation(s)
could be processed quickly enough, in theory, they could show you a
video footage from the model created by their equation(s) of yourself
10ms (one hundredth of a second) in the future. No matter what you
did, if you pulled faces, waved your arms around and went 'bla bla bla
blub alub alub', the image in the video footage would do exactly the
same, it all being predicted by the equation(s). They could predict
everything from beginning to end. We would simply be a mass of
predictable chemical reactions.

That's assuming the scientific model didn't predict time travel. If it
did the time gap could be bigger and I could be shown a picture of
what I was doing in an hours time. My common sense tells me that on
being shown the image, I would always have the choice not to be doing
whatever it was that I was shown to be doing (assuming I wasn't
strapped to a table in a mental asylum etc).

Atheism is on the increase, and they often consider themselves
intellectually superior over those that believe there may be something
more than their atheist scientific perspective can provide. They
'Don't have faith' apparently.

Does that mean that all atheists believe they don't have a choice, and
that a machine that could predict what people were going to do could
one day be invented? Surprisingly no. If you ask them if they have a
choice, many will answer 'Yes, ...' (as some of you may have done at
the beginning of this ramble). Yet when they have the scenario of the
prediction machine explained to them, and if they understand it, they
often change their mind, and accept that they don't have a choice.
'Don't have faith' my *****, that is blind faith if every I saw it.

If you don't believe you have a choice, and it is possible that one
day a machine truly could be built that could predict what you were
going to do, then I guess it's just destiny for you, whether you read
on or not.

Atheists are either those that believe in a fixed destiny (down to
when you smile) (as opposed to those who might believe in a vague
destiny governed by probability that could be predicted by the
Creator, e.g. people will move closer to the Truth), or those that
don't really understand the implication of the idea 'We don't need a
God to be able to explain everything knowable, and we don't believe
there is one.'

Some atheists might try to add randomness into the equation, to avoid
believing the fixed destiny approach (it would also attempt to explain
why a prediction machine could never be produced, and thus escape the
paradox, without the need for choice).

I would argue that if things seem random, either the equation is
wrong, or choice is being demonstrated.

For those of you that may believe in choice, what does it mean?

To have a choice, means that there is something else, that atheist
scientists will never be able to predict with one hundred percent
accuracy. It means you must be more than a chemical reaction.

Various religions have said that throughout the ages, and yet many in
the world are moving away from those teachings. Why?

One of the reasons is that early on religion clashed with science.
Let's take the argument the Catholic Church had about whether the Sun
rotated around the Earth. The ancient texts didn't say the Sun rotated
around the Earth. Scientists didn't prove the texts wrong, they proved
men wrong who said they spoke for God.

Many thought that if the religious leaders were wrong, then couldn't
the religion be? After all the religious leaders spoke on God's
behalf. The God they talked of wouldn't have been wrong, so they can't
have been talking for God. Maybe God is something they made up, etc.

Some might argue that the following passage Matthew 16:17-20 (taken
from the BibleGateway.com), which are words from Jesus to Peter, does
indeed give the Catholic leadership the right to talk for God:

'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you
by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will
not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

However in Galatians 2:11 Paul, who many would consider to be the
founder of the Catholic Church, says:

'When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was
clearly in the wrong.'

This was concerning Peter preaching that converted Christians from a
non-Jewish background should still have to follow the Jewish Law.

Paul seems to be questioning the judgement of Peter, and therefore of
Jesus. The Jewish Law was supposed to be the law of God, who was Paul
to say that the law of God could be ignored?

God said to Moses, Numbers 9:14 : 'An alien living among you who wants
to celebrate the Lord's Passover must do so in accordance with its
rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the
alien and the native-born.'

Which I think suggests that it is the same laws for all, which is what
Peter said. Both the Jews and the Muslims have this concept. For
example:

Genesis 9:4 God says to Noah, 'But you must not eat meat that has its
lifeblood still in it.'

Peter never said to Paul '...whatever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
Let alone add on 'and your followers can nominate who carries the
mantle after that'.

So I would argue that the fact the Pope was wrong about the Sun going
around the Earth didn't effect the validity of the texts. Only Peter
could speak for Jesus and therefore for God.

In people's perception though, there was an ongoing battle between the
church leaders (who represented God), and science.

It soon became clear to people that scientists could explain things
better, and with their explanations do things which before would have
been seemed as miraculous. Was it not indeed a shining light. Belief
in the Catholic religion really required faith, especially when on top
of the church leaders inability to explain and predict things as well
as scientists, it turned out that these leaders were often corrupt and
out for themselves.

Science has done so well, and produced so many things, for some, it is
symbolic of mankind's superiority over any other living thing (on
earth at least). Many people feel proud of it, and believe that even
if there are some questions the scientists can't answer, it is likely
they would be able to in the future.

With this in mind it would seem predictable that people would start to
doubt religions, ancient texts, and for many, the existence of any
kind of Creator?

That disillusioned children might sell their loyalty for toys is not
unforeseeable.

Are they right to do so though?

What about choice? If mankind went on forever, and we genetically
enhanced our brains (to ludicrous proportions), why would atheists
expect the building of the prediction machine to be impossible? For
those of you that were thinking of it, don't bring the uncertainty
principle into it, the equation(s) should predict the position of the
electron, and the correctness of the simulation would validate the
equation(s).

If you believe in choice, it would seem to me, that you must believe
there is knowledge beyond the realms of scientific investigation.

Though what lies beyond the realms of investigation is up for grabs.

One possibility is the God as revealed in the ancient texts.

That God to me, represents a God of Love, Truth, and Justice.

I imagine this God to be made up of some unknown form of energy.

If, as our scientists tell us, energy cannot be created or destroyed,
then it must have been there forever.

I think, according to scientific theories, matter is a form of energy.
Therefore we are living proof that energy can become organised in such
a way that it is conscious.

At one point, the energy that makes up God, must have become
conscious.

Here is one possible story:

In the beginning was the void.

The beginning of time as it can ever be know was a question.

The question was 'What aren't I'.

The answer was 'There is nothing I am not, I am the Void'.

From the concept of two thoughts came numbers.

From there mathematics.

From there universes of thought.

The void was selfless, having no concept of another, it saw beauty in
selfless acts.

From beauty grew love,

From love grew knowledge of hate.

As threads and universes of thoughts grew out ever quicker, no thought
being missed, universes were created of such beauty, but for each of
these were also ones of such horror. For one that knew such love, the
visions of horror caused pain. As thoughts expanded so did the depth
of love and hate, and therefore so did the pain. The pain grew
exponentially until it became unbearable.

The void screamed out.

With the scream, Love split from Hate, the Selfless One and the
Selfish One parted.

Though within the Selfless One are thoughts that contain the concepts
of selfishness, though they all have a happy ending in that
selflessness prevails. Within the Selfish One there is the concept of
selflessness, though in all thoughts, selfishness prevails (which in
Selfish One's view is also a happy ending).

Thus in the Selfless One grew the love of Justice and within the
Selfish One the love of Injustice.

There was another difference between the Selfless One and the Selfish
One. The Selfless One new the Truth of what had happened, and what it
was like to be the Void. When the Selfish One was 'born' there was
itself and another (the Selfless One).

The Selfish One did not believe the Selfless One was ever the Void. It
believed the story to be made up by the Selfless One to appear
superior. The Selfish One only has the concept of selflessness and
does not understand it's true nature.

Instead the Selfish One believed itself to be superior to Selfless
One. What Selfless One saw as brave, the Selfish One saw as stupidity.

The Selfish One said to the Selfless One:

'Your love is for selflessness, my love is for the self. They are both
our loves. You have a preference for being you, and I for being me, so
we are both as selfish in our views of perfection as each other. I
think it is better to be me, for I have the love you give me, and my
love of myself. You are loved by no one other than yourself.

If you are as truly selfless as you claim, if it is better to be me,
should you not pass your energy over to me? I would pass my energy
over to you if it were indeed better to be you, which I know, and you
suspect, that it isn't... and yet I'm the one you call selfish.

To find out once and for all who it is better to be, I suggest we
agree on a universe unbiased towards one point of view or another, and
in it place a multitude of finite, conscious energies, made up of
conscious energy from ourselves, and let these finite energies view
the universe for a period of time and decide what gives most pleasure.

To make the game more interesting, let us both be allowed to try to
influence their choices. Though ultimately nothing can be revealed to
effectively eliminate their choice.'

It was Just, so the Selfless One agreed.

The Selfless One has no self doubt for it knows itself as the Truth.

So the game began, the universe of thought was created and shown to
the primal energies.

Summary explanation:

From the stories perspective, what we live in now would be a vision of
a part of the game for primal energy, going on between the Selfless
One and the Selfish One. It would be rather like a piece of conscious
energy (your soul) being placed in a virtual reality machine, and
being allowed to choose between being selfless or selfish.

Anyway on with the story, and with what might happen when the soul's
time is up (they died):

On reaching the end of their time in the universe the souls become
conscious entities in the void.

Unlike Love and Hate, very few are perfectly divided and so the
transit to the Selfless One or Selfish One may take some time, as they
have not yet chosen to be on the wavelength of either.

While in transit both the Selfless One and Selfish One try to lead the
energies to themselves. Though ultimately no energies actually go over
to the Selfish One, as to be on the Selfish One's wavelength is
impossible. A soul would have to love the Selfish One as much as the
Selfish one loves itself, and to love another at all, is to be on a
different wavelength to the Selfish One.

The Selfish One torments those in transit. These are primal entities
other than itself, and the Selfish One has no love for them. To a
human soul for example it might communicate to them, via thoughts and
visions, every hateful thought they ever had, every hateful thought
anyone ever had about them, and hateful thoughts they didn't. It would
remind them of every hateful action ever done against them and every
hateful action they ever did. It would create a false universe
designed to cause hate and pain, based on what they knew of existence,
and communicate that universe to them.

The Selfish One derives a lot of pleasure out of this.

Summary explanation:

In biblical terms, transit, as described in the story could be
considered hell. If it doesn't actually sound that bad, imagine
floating in the void under the Selfish One's skilful torment, as being
an immortal buried alive with a multitude of voices in your head, the
majority of which attempt to cruelly twist your perception of reality
and drive you mad. After a few thousand years of that, you could
imagine wishing you were dead.

On with the story:

The pain of the souls tormented in transit is felt by the Selfless
One, and it also communicates to the souls to encourage them to
towards selflessness. Though Truth cannot be untruth, the Selfless One
must agree with the Selfish One on every hateful thing that done to
you, as well as everything hateful thing you ever did, both in thought
and deed. The Selfless One can communicate to the souls visions and
thoughts of love directed at them, which they knew about, and visions
and thoughts of love directed at them which they didn't, it can show
them beautiful landscapes of imagination, but they have to ultimately
come to the wavelength of the Selfless One, and meet the Selfish One's
untruths with Pity.

The ultimate outcome of the game was never in doubt, eventually all
souls will join the Selfless One, and transit will seem like a blip in
infinite sea of bliss.

(The End)

The above vision of hell coincides with Matthew 16:28 where Jesus
(after his resurrection) said to his disciples 'I tell you the Truth,
some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the
Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' Death is what the lost souls in
transit wish for, though really all they want is release from transit.
So, in the passage, death could actually symbolise release from
transit. It seems to go on to say and that people (including some of
the disciples whom he was talking to) won't be released from transit,
until their soul is filled with the selfless love shown by Jesus, and
realise this selfless love comes from the Kingdom of God.

So in this story the battle within the human soul is depicted as being
between selflessness and selfishness. Selflessness equates to 'good',
and selfishness equates to 'evil', though acts themselves are not good
or evil, it is whether the intention behind them is selfless or
selfish.

What selfish intention would Jesus have? What selfless one would Satan
have?

Whatever you believe in, believe you have a choice.

For those who have bothered to read this far, thank you, if you wish
to indulge me a little further, chose to read on.

When giving children a story about a rainbow, the following biblical
one is I think better than the one about pots of gold at the rainbows
end.

Genesis 9: 8 ? 17:

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 'I now establish my
covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every
living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the
wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living
creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will
all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there
be a flood to destroy the earth.'

And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will
be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring
clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will
remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of
every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all
life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and
remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures
of every kind on the earth.'

So God said to Noah, 'This is the sign of the covenant I have
established between me and all life on the earth.'



If the world does ever flood again, I hope the scientists get the
blame, and no one accuses God of breaking its covenant.

Also, in my opinion (it is my ramble after all), Christmas should be
about the depth of selflessness that Jesus showed the world, not a red
and white Santa Claus, a flying sleigh, and presents. For one thing,
when children find at Santa is make believe, they might think the same
about God.

With regards to justice (including justice to animals) Genesis 9: 4-6
says this:

' But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And
for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand
an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth
and increase upon it.'

In regards to the last bit (increasing in number), I think we've done
that now, and the fact that we are modifying (via genetics) God's
creations to support our numbers, seems to me to suggest that maybe we
have gone a little too far.

Who did God tell not to worship Mammon?

All of us.