To get a pragmatic POV about religion from a true Priest I advice to see 
a scene of the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven (2005)' in which a Priest that 
was about to go into a certain-death battle addresses his last words to 
the main Character (Legolas in Lord of The Rings, can't remember his name).

Those words and "never take compassion away from your heart" have set my 
  spiritual path for life.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Forgot to say, beautiful videos, fascinating all of them, just cruelly 
> short, specially the DNA one.

There's actually a lovely long one about 15 or 20 minutes long that goes on 
about the system's response to infection. I couldn't find that, but I'll 
post it if I run across wherever I wrote it down.

Awe-inspiring that we actually know (for example) how fast DNA replicates 
and such.

> One more thing there are things that only God can provide and yes 
> somehow it shapes your perception of "spirituality, sense of
> beauty, or their knowledge of good and evil"... Makes them better... :-)

Hmmm... Hard to understand what you mean without the punctuation, but I'm 
inclined to disagree.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover, 
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from 
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
> 
>   Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
> 
>   You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
> 
>   Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
> 
>   But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
> 
QFT

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> there are things that when you analyze 
> them has subtle spiritual features if you are willing to admit such a 
> possibility

I'm willing to admit such a possibility. I'd like to hear some of your 
suggestions, tho.

I'll note, however, that "spiritual features" does not mean "my personal 
invisible friend has caused it."

> I believe there is more than meets the eye and more 
> than science in the Universe.

Of course there is. That doesn't mean it's (a) your God, (b) anyone else's 
God, or (c) unnatural.

> Is not something me or anyone can convince you, is something you have to 
> search for yourself, search the truth about spirituality, make your 
> spiritual homework and see what happens.

And here, once again, is the "if you disagree, you didn't think about it 
hard enough, or you're stupid" approach to argument. Do you really think 
that neither Patrick nor I have searched for the truth about it?

Just look at what you're saying, and see if you don't recognise how 
obnoxious you're being.

"I wonder what you're afraid of that keeps you from agreeing with me?"

"You really should think about it pretty hard, and then you'll see I'm right."

> Finally I'm sorry but I won't read what the Atheist ex-Priest wrote 

"Because I know I'm already right, I won't listen to anyone like you, but 
I'll assume you never listened to anyone like me, because if you did, you'd 
obviously already agree."

> since I think Atheist are short sighted spiritually and they just 
> speak/write from that POV, maybe later as a curiosity.

"And besides, you already agree, you're just too stupid to notice it."

Obviously I'm exagerating this, but it really is essentially what you're 
saying by continuing to argue like this.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

OK Darren, I see how you see me now, and I'm not a pretentious 
religious/spiritual prick that thinks that anyone not believing in some 
sort of divinity is a stupid of some kind, inferior or with less dignity 
  than anyone deserves. I might be a little obnoxious at some point 
assuming too much and for that I apologize.

By the way everyone here expresses their thoughts and beliefs I think 
you all are very educated and smart people, no doubt, and my intention 
was never to offend or humiliate anyone or anyone's beliefs if I did, 
again, I sincerely beg your pardon.

I would like to clarify my intentions:
I'm not trying to prove you wrong and me right, is not about that is 
just I believe that there is a spiritual world and yes I'd like you to 
see it and believe it too, but not because of I'm right and "you are 
just too stupid to see it", no, not at all, is just because I 
think/believe is there and would like to you to see it too, that is all.

And this is the breaking point I think because nobody can actually show 
it to you or anybody else and is only rational to not believe is such a 
world, I understand that that is your point of view and I'm fine with 
it. All I'm writing about it is that is not something you think and you 
find, see? you think I was always a believer? you think I didn't have 
the same doubts and logical analysis of this stuffs and I found myself 
annoyingly and completely out of place in the middle of believers? I did 
and is just the wrong approach towards it, is not something you think or 
just a feeling is something you experience and realize it has to be God 
and there is the testimonials of other people that some you realize are 
just delusional and some that makes you think that it must be God that 
helped/manifested/spoke to that person.

Those are only other's experiences until something happens to you and 
you know that you were blind to some stuff that were there the whole 
time, and you didn't see it because you didn't looked/thought well but 
because it needed certain conditions to get revealed to you, so you can 
experience it in your life. Is a perception, you can always question it, 
YES, YOU CAN ALWAYS QUESTION IT, and ultimately discard it for a 
rational explanation or not enough evidence but if you actually go for 
the facts and don't get stuck so much of the how it happened, you can 
see yourself changed by that experience and became a believer, because 
you experienced something that no rational thinking can explain not even 
your own.

Darren, I'm just describing here what mostly happened to me and other 
spiritual/religious people, I'm not saying: "this is an irrefutable 
deduction and if you don't agree with it then you are some kind of 
retarded moron".

For rational thinking is endless nebula that never clears, for the 
believer is a certainty called faith. The closest approach to 
spirituality or being is contact with God I can give you: is like being 
in-love; no matter how or how many times I describe the feeling you can 
only know it by experiencing it yourself.

If you experienced other religious and/or spiritual situations which I 
don't know of and still you find yourself an Atheist it may well such a 
world be inexistent. That and other stuff will be known when we die, so 
is not something

I think nobody but yourself can get you to a spiritual world, once you 
experience it you know is there. A spiritual guide, and I don't pretend 
to be one, can only do that show you what you could do to experience 
spirituality, not give you a magical recipe or some kind of mechanism or 
exercise to get there.

Once I heard an Anglican Priest said that we don't get to God, God comes 
to us hen we call(pray to) Him, like a 3 year old child to his Mom/Dad.

One "proof" of spirituality could be this experiment made to prove the 
healing power of prayers(was an International news on TV you probaly 
have saw it): doctor made a wound in the arms of 2 small groups each 
with men and women on them, like a 1" "volcano" type of wound made by 
Doctors, all nice and controlled by professionals in a medical center, 
both groups didn't know what is it all about for real just that they 
were going to see how a new drug cured injuries or some story I don't 
recall clearly(it's not important either), they went for about 10 days, 
daily to the medical center for routine check up and to take the 
"experimental drug"(placebo), each person has to go to an isolated room 
where He/She put her arm through a hole and leave it there on a small 
table to support it for a few minutes, on 1 group nothing was made, on 
the other group people came to pray for a few minutes, in silence, 
approaching their hands about 7 cms (3") above the injured arm, the the 
prayers went off in silence. At the end of the experiment the would that 
received prays healed 2 times faster than normal wounds. Both groups 
were gather and told the truth and all were AWED :-)

Healing energy transmitted? could be... we don't order individually ever 
muscle fiber to do and exact amount of effort to move our body, we give 
"general orders" this could be one... for me... it came from God, as a 
gift all humans have, or as spiritual people receiving healing powers 
from God, what ever, I believe it came from God.

Some others short example could be Mother lifting 1+ Ton. car in flames 
to save her son, and stuff that has no rational explanation but 
intervention of a Creator, like a father taking care of His(/She/Its) 
children. I've read/heard/seen(on TV) many testimonials of people 
blessed by God that clears the doubt and puts a sense of belief on me.

I only recommend religion/spirituality because sometimes the world is 
cruelly unmerciful, and people loose hope, faith, even the will to do 
things or even live, because this reality can't be it, I resist that 
idea, for many reasons, so much suffering and struggle in life has to 
pay a better faith than just cease to exist, my life has to worth 
something else, has to be a testimony and a justification of my 
existence on this planet and the goodness and wrongness of my deeds and 
misdeeds, IT HAS BE/MEAN MORE!

Maybe is a necessary voluntary mass brain wash for some of us, to relief 
pain and daily burden of our normal troublesome existence, like smoking 
or taking a beer but I feel, my reason says my feeling is OK and then I 
believe in this Divine Power, in my daily life, in my good deeds on 
unexpected rewards that later you realize later it has to be from God 
because there is a connection.

I believe He is out there, watching us, with love, with caring, with 
goodness, like a father to his 3 year old child :-)

Why God then doesn't get us all that we want? because what we need is 
enough. Comes to my mind a song: Rolling Stones - You can't always get 
what you want.

Peace brothers.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> OK Darren, I see how you see me now, and I'm not a pretentious 
> religious/spiritual prick

You are again conflating religion and spirituality in an inappropriate way.

You're being as annoying in this post as you would be if you were a 
Christian walking up to a Jew and telling him he's neither spiritual nor 
religious just because he hasn't accepted Jesus in his life. Do you see 
where I'm coming from?

I believe in spirituality. I have thought about these things long and hard 
for many years. I've studied what others have said.

I believe in souls, immaterial things that define who you are and help 
control your behavior and provide the spiritual part of your life, that 
reside in your body and flee when you die, and that guides your morality. I 
believe in a limited form of life after death. I just don't believe any of 
this needs a supernatural explanation or an invisible sky daddy. I believe 
in a completely rational and materialistic explanation for these things 
that's fairly easy to express at a surface level and which can be (and to 
some extent has been) measured scientifically.

I simply take offense at religious people who do *not* understand their 
soul, their god, and their religion telling me that being rational and 
scientific prevents me from being spiritual.

> assuming too much and for that I apologize.

No problem. I also apologize for sounding like I didn't recognize your good 
intentions. It's that whole "road to hell" part that is the problem, tho.

> was never to offend or humiliate anyone or anyone's beliefs if I did, 
> again, I sincerely beg your pardon.

Understand that you haven't offended me. I recognize your good intentions, 
and I'm simply trying to explain why you might offend someone you said these 
things to who hasn't already forgiven you for them. :)

> just I believe that there is a spiritual world and yes I'd like you to 
> see it and believe it too,

But I've already told you I see it and believe it. You're just not believing 
that's true because I don't believe in your diety.

> And this is the breaking point I think because nobody can actually show 
> it to you or anybody else and is only rational to not believe is such a 
> world,

Depending on what "such a world" you speak of, it may or may not be irrational.

> All I'm writing about it is that is not something you think and you 
> find, see? 

How do you know?

And even if it isn't, what makes you think a spiritual world isn't one you 
can investigate rationally?

> Those are only other's experiences until something happens to you and 
> you know that you were blind to some stuff that were there the whole 
> time, 

Yes. Oddly enough, the same is true of a bad drug trip. :)

> YES, YOU CAN ALWAYS QUESTION IT, and ultimately discard it for a 
> rational explanation or not enough evidence 

And I have.

 > but if you actually go for
> the facts and don't get stuck so much of the how it happened, you can 
> see yourself changed by that experience and became a believer, 

Right. So it's OK to think about it and question it and ultimately discard 
it. But I'm wrong, because I haven't become a believer.

> you experienced something that no rational thinking can explain not even 
> your own.

Here's the difference. I don't feel the need to explain everything that 
happened to me or the rest of the universe. I would rather have no answer 
and say "I don't know" than make up a useless and incorrect answer.

If someone asks me how many white cars are on the continent of Africa right 
now, I'd far rather say "I don't know" than to say "I'll ask God and get 
back to you."  Wouldn't you?

> Darren, I'm just describing here what mostly happened to me and other 
> spiritual/religious people, I'm not saying: "this is an irrefutable 
> deduction and if you don't agree with it then you are some kind of 
> retarded moron".
> 
> For rational thinking is endless nebula that never clears,

Because it's impossible to come to the right conclusion simply by thinking 
rationally about it?  In the first paragraph, you say you don't want to 
imply those who aren't religious are insufficiently intelligent. In the next 
sentence, you say "it's impossible for a rational person, no matter how 
smart, to have better answers than a believer."

> If you experienced other religious and/or spiritual situations which I 
> don't know of and still you find yourself an Atheist it may well such a 
> world be inexistent. That and other stuff will be known when we die, so 
> is not something

I already believe in life after death, and I'm an atheist. So?

> I think nobody but yourself can get you to a spiritual world, once you 
> experience it you know is there.

Yet, because I don't believe in your God, you disregard my repeated 
statements that I am already in a spiritual world, and even posted links, 
continuing to speak as if I'm missing something. Simply because I *know* how 
spirituality works, rather than making up stories that make no sense.

> One "proof" of spirituality could be this experiment made to prove the 
> healing power of prayers(was an International news on TV you probaly 
> have saw it): 

No. I'd enjoy seeing a link to any actual scientific proofs of the efficacy 
of prayer on healing. So far, I've not seen any such thing.

> Some others short example could be Mother lifting 1+ Ton. car in flames 
> to save her son, and stuff that has no rational explanation but 
> intervention of a Creator,

Are you saying that the intervention of a Creator is the only rational 
explanation? Or are you saying there's no rational explanation, so it must 
have been a Creator?

> I only recommend religion/spirituality because sometimes the world is 
> cruelly unmerciful, and people loose hope, faith, even the will to do 
> things or even live, because this reality can't be it, I resist that 
> idea, for many reasons, so much suffering and struggle in life has to 
> pay a better faith than just cease to exist, my life has to worth 
> something else, has to be a testimony and a justification of my 
> existence on this planet and the goodness and wrongness of my deeds and 
> misdeeds, IT HAS BE/MEAN MORE!

It sounds to me like you're the one afraid to face rationality, actually, 
rather than me being the one afraid to face the possibility of spirituality. 
I used to be afraid of the world, thinking there must be more than there is. 
Then I figured out how the world works, and now I don't fear that stuff any 
more.

> Maybe is a necessary voluntary mass brain wash for some of us, to relief 
> pain and daily burden of our normal troublesome existence,

I believe that's the source of much belief in personal deities.

> I believe He is out there, watching us, with love, with caring, with 
> goodness, like a father to his 3 year old child :-)

I'm glad it's comforting. I feel that you should understand that such a 
situation is not necessarily comforting to someone who has come to different 
conclusions about life, just like the idea that Jesus died for your sins 
isn't particularly comforting to a Buddhist monk.

> Peace brothers.

And I thank you for your reasonable discussions. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-Jan-09 2:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 
> andrel, the Bible was written as "poetry" in some points to better 
> describe God deeds, so you are taking it the wrong way.

Thanks, I was sort of aware of that. I haven't got the slightest idea 
why you think that would be a relevant remark, though. Was it something 
I said?

Post a reply to this message

I am not always happy with the style of Patrick but I myself have never 
been able to let two persons that seem to take the bible as the Word of 
God admit that there is a context to the bible. Not even that but even a 
condemnation of selective quoting. So, a deep bow to Patrick by me. And 
of course a deep bow of respect to Warp and Saul. I never fully realized 
that even the theists are different in p.o-t.

On 14-Jan-09 1:46, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover, 
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from 
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
> 
>   Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
> 
>   You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
> 
>   Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
> 
>   But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
>

Post a reply to this message

On 14-Jan-09 10:30, Saul Luizaga wrote:
[snip]

If I read this I get the impression that you moved from a 'standard' 
Christian faith to a gnostic version, is that correct?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover, 
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from 
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
> 
>   Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
> 
>   You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
> 
>   Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
> 
>   But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
> 

Oh, sorry, did I fail to mention that part of "reading it cover to 
cover", usually entails them going, "This makes no sense", and thus... 
reading the contextual data about the time periods and ideas people had 
when its parts where written? Silly me. I kind of assumed that was a given.

That said, why is some modern priests claims about what people thought 
or believed back then more valid than the people that wrote back then, 
or the historical and archaeological evidence from then, or... pretty 
much 100% of everything that both the average church goer, *and* 90% of 
the priesthood never *ever* read either? You will find that, in most 
case, if someone brings up a quote, those "radical atheists" you seem to 
think don't get it can not just quote a passage, they can tell you when, 
how, under what circumstances, and fairly often, even what the 
"original" untranslated text said, and why thus the modern version 
contradicts, in many cases, the original meaning, not to mention how 
little sense the ancient version made itself, in context of anything 
other than its own mythology.

Case in point, somethings as simple as "taking the lords name in 
vein."/cursing The modern interpretation is Protestant, and lumps 
anything from references to bodily functions, to saying 'damn it', into 
the same category. Its the interpretation that almost all Christians 
support are factual, including nearly all priests. A few take an older 
variation of it, which makes cuss words just some category of things 
"God" doesn't like, while "real" cursing is reserved for using gods 
name, but again, in "any" context that doesn't involve praising him. A 
tiny few actually understand the original context, and, despite still 
being all fainty over cuss words, apply prayers to the purpose of... I 
am not sure what, since I never understood what the point of going, "I 
lost my job, have cancer, will probably die in less than five years, but 
praise you for being up there and let thy will be done!", does that is 
at all useful. In that old "original" context, the kinds of 
interventionist prayer that nearly all Christians follow, in which they 
pray to their god to help them find a new crib for the coming baby, or 
cure their cancer, or ask god to put a stop to the actions of some 
terrorists, or even for him to "strike down those who are unjust", 
**all** fall into the original principle of "taking his name in vein and 
cursing", by which you attempt to cajole, conjure, command, or demand of 
ones god that he "do something" for you. You are not supposed to do 
that, according to the *original* meaning, but probably less than 20% of 
supposed Christians bother to understand the original text, context, or 
meaning, so as to realize this, and that *includes* priests.

So, yeah. You are absolutely right. Its not a self contained text. The 
problem is, examining it in the "correct" context tends to make it a) 
more obviously a myth, b) more obviously made up to support tribal 
ambitions, not as a factual source, and c) often "undermines" all modern 
presumptions about what its god is like, wants people to do, or his 
willingness to reward/forgive various actions. Not that (a) isn't 
sufficient reason, by itself, to set in on the shelf next to Tolkien's 
books, instead of your copy of "How to Build a Shelf".

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message