Fascinating reading.
So much judgement!!
So many of us who "know" we have found "the path" and therefore see the way of others are mistaken in some way!
Like the spokes of a wheel, there are many many many different ways. They all go to the same place. They all lead us to divinity, to truth.
One of the lessons I am most grateful for is that of non-judgement.

And we need to be careful about giving God and ego - assuming that God would dislike certain human behaviour.

"That which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is not vulnerable to threat or emotional upset; thus God is not prone to revenge, jealousy, hatred, violence, vanity, egotism, or the need for adulation or compliments. The beneficiary of worshipping is the worshipper.
God is not injured by anybody's wrongdoing.
The infinite mercy and forgiveness of God is beyond any and all conception and is totally unconcerned with the trivialities of world events.
God is not half of a duality. There is no "this" (bad) to react to, nor "that".
The love of God in unconditional. It is not arbitrary or evanescent, nor is it parceled out to the deserving.
God is not a disturbed child or parent. He does not read the news or punish the wicked. No arbitrary judgement is required in a universe which is innately just and self-balancing.
Perfection does not see imperfection or lack.

from "The Eye of the I"

Fascinating reading.
So much judgement!!
So many of us who "know" we have found "the path" and therefore see the way of others are mistaken in some way!

Greetings, Carol! I couldn't have said it better about those Hawkinophiles.

You really do come a preachin, don't you. As the "Eye of the I." Any relation to "I" who posts here from time to time?

Since you presume to know so many things about what God is like, God's attitudes, etc., maybe you could tell us a little more about yourself and where you're coming from, here.

You write: The infinite mercy and forgiveness of God is beyond any and all conception and is totally unconcerned with the trivialities of world events.

I don't doubt that any of our conceptions of God are inadequate, as the Church, in fact, teaches, but I don't know how you can say that God is "totally unconcerned with the trivialities of world events." How do you know that? This is certainly not the Christian understanding of God.

Carol, thank you very much for your excellent post, and the quote from The Eye of the I. You are absolutely right about non-judgment. This little nugget would have helped me out immensely a few days ago ...

"Perfection does not see imperfection or lack."

I love it! I'm ordering "The Eye of the I" through amazon today.

Brad, thank you very much for correcting the information about the Great Library of Alexandria. Contrary to what I've studied before, there appears to be controversy over when it was destroyed - whether in the first few centuries AD or during the Crusades. Some writers even claim the Library is only a legend - that it did not exist at all.

In any case, the moral of the story here appears to be - when studying history from either a die-hard pagan, die-hard secular or diehard "Christian" source, Believe At Your Own Risk!

Re Phil's claim about every positive advancement in modern society being due to Judeo-Christianity, this article outlining how the Christian Church stifled literacy, public education and the advancement of scientific thinking for centuries in Europe appears quite credible. Even Galileo was branded a "heretic" for presenting information contrary to the Church's teachings at the time!

http://www.studyworld.com/news...rspective-382057.htm

quote:

The lack of acceptance of scientific knowledge also plagues Christianity. One good historical example of this can be seen in the heliocentric theory developed by Nicholas Copernicus and later endorsed by Galileo. This theory went directly against the dogmatically accepted notion, which was supported by the Catholic Church, that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Church went so far as to personally order Galileo not to defend or teach the heliocentric theory. This is definitely not the correct approach the Church should take, although it is clear why they would take such an action. If any doctrines were to be proven wrong, then the legitimacy of the doctrines of the Church could be in jeopardy. In June 1633 Galileo was to be imprisoned for life due to suspicion of heresy. All of his works were deemed illegal and all printers were ordered to cease printing any of his works. This is one of the best examples of suppression of empirical scientific evidence by the Church which, at the time, had the power to do so.

Another questionable act of Christianity is the way in which the people of the New World were forced to convert to Christianity. European culture, as well as European religions, have almost completely erased the existence of the religions and cultures of the New World ...

Regarding this latter point - for an intriguing 17th century glimpse into just one example of of an ancient culture and people exterminated at the hands of the (so-called) "Christians", please consider the destruction of the Incas as recorded in this unique and fascinating first-hand account by Guaman Pomo 1535- 16??.

Pomo was a "converted" Inca native who beseeched the Pope and King Philip III of Spain through this 1200-page handwritten and illustrated book to halt the slavery and genocide of his people - and of the imported African slaves - by the (Church-supported) Spanish Conquistadores

http://www.kb.dk/elib/mss/poma/index-en.htm

Pomo's beautiful manuscript, circa 1615, collected dust for centuries at the Royal Library, Copenhagen before it was rediscovered in the 1900's. It is doubtful whether Philip of Spain or the Pope ever perused the document.

This book is the only surviving first-hand account of the ancient culture of the Incas. The poignant illustrations and text do not really require much "interpretation". It speaks for itself imo.

Pomo's efforts certainly did nothing to dissuade the Spanish from their brutal colonization, enslavement, forced "conversion" and genocide of the Andean people. He was branded a heretic by the Spaniards, imprisoned and tortured, then banished for life from his community. There's a scholarly review of Pomo's life and work here ...

http://www.millersv.edu/~colum...ata/art/ADORNO01.ART

quote:

He framed his outcry against injustice and his formal plans for imperial reform on the basis of his concern over various sources of native suffering. Three of these were particularly important to him. The first was the steep population decline among Andeans through miscegenation, abusive treatment from the colonists and disease. The second was the genocidal character of the massive deportations of forced indigenous labor to the mercury and silver mines at Potosi and Huancavelica. The final calamity which he catalogued with bitterness concerned the campaigns of "extirpation of idolatries" of Francisco de Avila in Huarochiri. These large-scale campaigns, organized in 1610 to end the adherence of Andeans to traditional beliefs, terrorized the native citizenry and ruthlessly confiscated their properties. To unmask the excesses of colonialism and to defend the cultural and historical dignity of his race were the literary tasks to which Guaman Poma applied himself.

Regarding patriarchy, misogny and the status of women in the Old Testament:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

This article gives Biblical references demonstrating how "Yahweh's" women were treated. If this is what you call the "healthy" Jewish attitude toward sex and sexuality, Phil, well � I feel nothing but compassion for the women in your life!

According to he Old Testament, women are inferior to men, sexual predators, an item of property; deceitful and untrustworthy; singled out for special punishment, �unclean� during menstruation and after childbirth, not permitted inside the Holy of Holies and barred from positions of social / spiritual authority. Here�s some examples of Biblical passages sanctioning misogynist abuse of women:

Ecclesiasticus 25:18,19 & 23 �And a man will choose � any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman � Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we must all die.

Ecclesiasticus 7:26 "And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her�.

Deut 22:13-21 A bride who was presented as a virgin, and not proven to be one, was to be stoned to death by the men of her village. There appears to have been no simlar penalty for men who had engaged in consensual premarital sexual activity.

Numbers 5:17-31 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water..... This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. In that era when medical treatment was almost unknown, the treatment would probably have resulted in her death.

If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery ...

Genesis: Women occupy a precarious place in the Old Testament. Eve's eating from the Tree of Knowledge gave birth to centuries of religious-based misogyny. She was convinced by the serpent, a creature created by God. She corrupted her husband by giving him the fruit. This sort of relationship between women and sin is sustained throughout the Old Testament.

Leviticus: Laws concerning women are very prominent in this book. They are unclean during menstruation and after giving birth. A woman who is a whore and the child of a priest is to be put to death by burning. A woman's 'uncleanness' may be contracted during sexual intercourse and the man is considered unclean for seven subsequent days.

Numbers: In the law, women are put in a precarious position. While they were given the benefit of inheritance in lieu of the fact hat many women were ending up in severe poverty as a result of deaths in their family, they do not have true legal autonomy. A woman's vow may be considered legal only if her husband supports it.

Deuteronomy More laws are given concerning women. These also mainly cover sexual transaction and exclusivity. A woman may be brought into the tribes from another if she mourns and converts. A woman may also marry again if she is divorced. If she has no child with her husband before he dies, she is to marry his brother. If a women is married to a man as a virgin and it turns out that she is not one, she may be stoned.


Also relevant here is this information about rape, violence and the Old Testament:
http://www.infidels.org/librar...ael_martin/rape.html

quote:

Christians seem to assume that God condemns rape and that this His condemnation can be supported from reading the Bible. In addition, they assume that God condemns rape on the same grounds that rape is condemned in contemporary society. However, the Biblical position is complicated and only supports the common view that rape is wrong because it harms the victim to a very limited extent. To be sure, one can find rape condemned in the Bible. However, one can also find passages where God seems to be tacitly approving of rape and other passages where rape is condemned but without regard for the victim's welfare.

First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Num. 31: 18)." God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Num. 31: 25-27).

Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored.[15] For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29)." Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her.

Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught.

In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he violated his neighbor's wife and the victim because she did not cry for help (Deut. 22: 23-25). Again the assumption is that the rapist dispoiled the property of another man and so must pay with this life. Concern for the welfare of the victim does not seem to matter. Moreover, it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape.

On the other hand, according to the Bible, the situation is completely different if the rape occurs in "open country." Here the rapist should be killed, not the victim. The reason given is that if a woman cried for help in open country, she would not be heard. Consequently, she could not be blamed for allowing the rape to occur. No mention is made about the psychological harm to victim. No condemnation is made of a rapist in open country, let alone in a city, who does not get caught.

And here are some views of notable Christian Theologians/Scholars on the Status of Women. They demonstrate how the �healthy� sexual legacy inherited from the Hebrew patriarchs continued to be propagated by Christian thinkers into modern times;

St Tertullian, about 155-225 CE
Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE): (Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1)
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):
If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there.


Lastly, here�s a link from St Michael�s College at the University of Toronto, where my son studied introductory philosophy/theology in preparation for the seminary. It�s encouraging to note that at least SOME Christian theologians do recognize that the Biblical stories / historical accounts were derivations of the ancient myths of the much older, more advanced cultures neighboring the Israelites � and not to be confused with historical fact or �Divine Revelation�. There is also mention made here of the first "editing", "revising" and "deleting" of Biblical texts for economic/political purposes.

http://academics.smcvt.edu/rel...ks_on_the_hebrew.htm

quote:

The Babylonians in Mesopotamia had an almost identical flood story, but with different characters (the Babylonian "Noah" is named Utnapishti, and in the most ancient Sumerian version, the hero is called Atrahasis. Gods other than Yahweh cause the floods in these versions). It is almost certain that the Israelites borrowed the flood tale from their neighbors.

The Egyptians and Babylonians told numerous creation stories, many with echoes in the Genesis account. The point of all this is that none of these cultures was reciting "history" as we think of it today, but rather they were spinning myths that helped define their culture, explain reality, and teach moral lessons. The fictional characters Adam, Eve, Noah, Utnapishti, and Atrahasis never existed, but the stories about them may still have great value�

The name Israel comes from the name of a god, El. "Israel" means "El fights" in Hebrew. The people at Ugarit, Syria, also worshipped El along with his wife, the goddess Asherah, and a younger god Ba'al. Their very name indicates that the early Israelites worshipped El. Some of the tribes who became Israelites, however, appear to have had a different tradition. They worshipped Yahweh, and there is some evidence (Judges 5:4-5; 1 Kings 19) that Yahweh's original home was an unspecified mountain to the south of Judah, bordering on the Sinai peninsula. Whenever you see the words "the LORD" in all caps in the Hebrew Bible, they are translating the word Yahweh. Whenever you see "God," they are translating the word El or the more generic plural form Elohim. In the course of time, Yahweh and El came to be identified with each other, so that the Israelite people perceived them to be the same god. That's why we read in the Bible so often "the LORD God;" i.e., "Yahweh Elohim."

By about the year 1000 BCE, it is clear that Yahweh was seen to be the chief god of the Israelites, and we know from archaeological evidence that some Israelites assumed Yahweh had a goddess-wife, Asherah. We can guess that Ba'al was also worshipped in Israel, because many of the people mentioned in the Bible from this time have names honoring him and other gods and goddesses. Thus, the majority of people in early Israel were probably polytheists, meaning they worshipped more than one god, even if they acknowledged that Yahweh was the chief god, the most powerful. The belief in monotheism, namely that Yahweh is the only God there is, is a belief that developed and took hold only gradually in Israel.

Interesting to note that the Hebrews did have their Goddess (Asherah was of Sumerian origin, about 1750 BCE) � and that the patriarchs spent at least a millennia or two trying to violently wipe Her worship out. The ancient fertility rites / festivals dedicated to Her and Her God (which did employ sacred sexuality and animal sacrifice, among other things) were damned as �idolatry� and �prostitution�. The priestesses were denounced as �whores�, and all things sexual and carnal � especially women � became loathsome to the mind - �unclean� and �sinful�.

Hmm, on that note I'm off to take a shower!

And my "Ponderment" of the day will be ... is it not high time to outgrow and replace this barbaric, stone-age understanding of Divinity as a gendered, chauvinist and exclusivist "God-who-fights" (Israel)? I, for one, really think so - for the sake of the whole planet and everything/one on it!

Blessings to all,

daylia

daylia, I'll be responding (maybe) to some points in your post, eventually, but I'm sure it will do no good. You tend to ignore my rebuttals (e.g. Thomas Aquinas and my comments on the evolutionary/developmental perspective on Scripture) and pick and choose incidents from Scripture and history that prove your points. You also continue to portray "exceptions" as rules and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity as somehow condemnatory of Christianity itself.

Then there's your closing comment: ... is it not high time to outgrow and replace this barbaric, stone-age understanding of Divinity as a gendered, chauvinist and exclusivist "God-who-fights" (Israel)? I, for one, really think so - for the sake of the whole planet and everything/one on it!



You're not talking about Christianity, here, but early Judaism -- or Islam! The Christian understanding of divinity can hardly be characterized as you indicate, unless on reads the New Testament with a biased mind and totally ignores the developments in Christian theology since the Enlightenment.

Good luck in formulating your new, improved understanding of the divine. You've shot down enough straw men to justify the project to yourself.

Phil

P.S. I never said that "every positive advancement in modern society being due to Judeo-Christianity" What I actually said was Surely you know what the pagan, Mediterranean/European world was like before Christianity spread? Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching. You haven't refuted that at all; several links to essays I've posted substantiated my position quite well. Also, I hope you note that, more often than not, excesses initiated within the Church are eventually corrected by the Church. That would certainly apply to some of the examples you cited.

Daylia:

You won't find perfection in any institution, religious or otherwise, or even among individual saints, for that matter. All we can hope for are institutions capable of pluralisms that generate increasing tolerance and self-scutiny, and Christianity, for the most part, qualifies as such, or its countless demoninations in non-violent dialogue with each other simply wouldn't exist.

You seem to have a rather transparent agenda, and lack either the intelligence, or the willingness, to engage Phil in an honest conversation. IOW, you display the very duplicities you attack.

Phil, I didn't post what I did to try to convince you of anything. It's quite clear that you already know everything there is to know about these important matters!

I posted those links and quotes so that interested readers can peruse those sites, as well as the ones you posted, weigh the evidence for themselves and come up with their own conclusions.

Here's Carl Sagan's "baloney detection kit", which some readers may find very helpful as they wade through the conglomeration of historical "facts" and interpretations on this thread.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/baloney.htm
Some examples of "Baloney" are

ad hominem attacks -- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g. The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously);

(See w.c.'s post above for a good example of this ... and btw, you're most welcome to your opinions, wc!)

observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);

(My own posts appear to be a good example of this, if one diregards the fact that Phil does an excellent of providing the balance of 'positive' arguments for Judeo-Christianity for me ...)

special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion -- to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)


suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted "prophecy" of the assassination attempt on President Regan is shown on television; but � an important detail -- was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?);

I do like Sagan's advice ie
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Arguments from authority carry little weight. "Authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

Enjoy your journeys, everyone!

daylia

Daylia:

You've yet to make much of an argument, which leads soem of us to wonder whether you are only able to post links in the place of a real discussion. And your definition of "ad hominem" curiously neglects the most important part: "Appealing to one's prejudices rather than to reason . . . " Since I don't share all of Phil's views, but find yours cursory, at least as you express them here, it would be interesting to even have a discussion, and drop most of the citations that Phil is describing as "straw men."

I have no way of estimating your intelligence except by the impressions you leave via your posts. But so far you mostly avoid questioning your own assumptions, especially those about institutional Christianity, which, like any institution, is ripe for an easy and cheap shot, unless you go further and show how you would improve it, supporting it to that end, rather than summarily dismissing it as evil or unworthy of any merit at all. And so you've painted a black and white picture of your own, which you appear to be comfortable with. That I take as a lack of intelligence, or unwillingness to learn/unlearn your own biases. We all have them.

Now how about a real discussion?

Like I said wc, you're most welcome to your judgments and opinions, of course. And if you want to waste your personal time and energy making guesstimates about my intelligence (or anyone else's for that matter) - well, that's your Divine Right to Choose (Free Will) in action, I guess. Enjoy!

daylia

Phil, I didn't post what I did to try to convince you of anything. It's quite clear that you already know everything there is to know about these important matters.

Sure nice to know you're steering clear of ad hominems.

Like I said . . . you've been rebutted and haven't really countered, except to throw up more mud. For you, Christianity has been a kind of Taliban-movement through the ages, so I'm sure nothing I can say will convince you of the good it has brought forth.

I will note, here, your apparent romanticizing of Incan culture. Do a quick search on the net about human sacrifice and cannibalism; you'll see what I mean. This doesn't justify the cruel treatment they received from the Spanish in the name of Christianity, of course, but it does sort of hint at what the Spanish were dealing with. Of course, if one doesn't think the Spanish should have been there in the first place . . .

- - -

Let me just pick out one part of your recent post, daylia, as I don't have time to reply to all your points.

quote:

special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion -- to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)

Are those your questions, or Sagan's? Do you really want to discuss them? If so, start threads on them; some we already have going. I won't resort to "special pleadings;" the Church certainly hasn't.

Am I supposed to see myself in those question? I don't. I'm not afraid of them at all.

btw, this one is especially ignorant: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Christianity doesn't teach that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in the same Person. Check out this thread for an example of how we have reflected on the topic, here.

------

Back to thread-topic, now: I'm still waiting for Hawkins' admirers to respond to my posts (previous page) about how he concluded global warming wasn't happening using AK, then of finding the science to back his conclusion. Also, his using AK to see if presence was communicated through audio-visuals. Appropriate?

How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person?

Sagan uses the question and response only as a simple example of "special pleading", Phil.

Why do you post that kind of thing here? What possible relevance does it have to our exchanges, except that you continue to try to paint me and indeed all Christians as narrow-minded, judgmental irrational, etc.? I'm not guilty of any of Sagan's baloney-kit infractions, so far as I can tell.

Back to one of your themes in a post above on Judaism and sexuality.

quote:

Regarding patriarchy, misogny and the status of women in the Old Testament:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

This article gives Biblical references demonstrating how "Yahweh's" women were treated. If this is what you call the "healthy" Jewish attitude toward sex and sexuality, Phil, well � I feel nothing but compassion for the women in your life!

My goodness! You are quite the flame-artist, you know.

But have you read *anything* I've written about the Bible? Do you really think the ancient Hebrews should have been 21st Century Candadian progressives in their outlook? I don't! What I do expect is that they should have been a tad better than surrounding cultures as they grew in their response to God's progressive revelation to them. That's a point I keep making, but you keep ignoring.

Try this link, for a more nuanced discussion of the topic of the bible and sexuality. You'll note, I hope, the distinction between the Hebrews and other cultures, which leads to this summary:

quote:

The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (The Five Books of Moses), has done more to civilize the world than any other book or idea in history. It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God; ethical obligations to this God; the need for history to move forward to moral and spiritual redemption; the belief that history has meaning; and the notion that human freedom and social justice are the divinely desired states for all people. It gave the world the Ten Commandments, ethical monotheism, and the concept of holiness (the goal of raising human beings from the animal-like to the God-like). Therefore, when this Bible makes strong moral proclamations, I listen with great respect.

Why respect?

The article begins with the following, which it goes on to substantiate:

quote:

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

Here's a short course on Judaism and sexuality. I'll quote from it liberally, since I'm not sure you'll visit it.

quote:

In Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful or obscene. Sex is not a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. Although sexual desire comes from the yetzer ra (the evil impulse), it is no more evil than hunger or thirst, which also come from the yetzer ra. Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner. But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah.

Sex is permissible only within the context of a marriage. In Judaism, sex is not merely a way of experiencing physical pleasure. It is an act of immense significance, which requires commitment and responsibility. The requirement of marriage before sex ensures that sense commitment and responsibility. Jewish law also forbids sexual contact short of intercourse outside of the context of marriage, recognizing that such contact will inevitably lead to intercourse.

The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason. Sex between husband and wife is permitted (even recommended) at times when conception is impossible, such as when the woman is pregnant, after menopause, or when the woman is using a permissible form of contraception.

In the Torah, the word used for sex between husband and wife comes from the root Yod-Dalet-Ayin, meaning "to know," which vividly illustrates that proper Jewish sexuality involves both the heart and mind, not merely the body.

Nevertheless, Judaism does not ignore the physical component of sexuality. The need for physical compatibility between husband and wife is recognized in Jewish law. A Jewish couple must meet at least once before the marriage, and if either prospective spouse finds the other physically repulsive, the marriage is forbidden.

Sex should only be experienced in a time of joy. Sex for selfish personal satisfaction, without regard for the partner's pleasure, is wrong and evil. A man may never force his wife to have sex. A couple may not have sexual relations while drunk or quarreling. Sex may never be used as a weapon against a spouse, either by depriving the spouse of sex or by compelling it. It is a serious offense to use sex (or lack thereof) to punish or manipulate a spouse.

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah.

There are links explaining the meaning of many of the Jewish words if you don't know them. The article does go on . . .

Again, what is important is to compare all this with the surrounding cultures. Most of what I just quoted is actually very much ahead of the times.

- - -

Again, I ask, daylia: what's really going on, here? All this lashing out! If you like Hawkins, AK, the Map of Consciousness, it's really fine with me! It almost seems like you're needing to trash Christianity to give yourself permission to do so. I don't have the time nor inclination to continue to respond to all your justifications for rejecting Christianity, but I hope you can see that many of them are quite superficial and based on misinformation or at least a highly biased viewpoint.

"ad hominem attacks -- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g. The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)";

"(See w.c.'s post above for a good example of this ... and btw, you're most welcome to your opinions, wc!)"

"Like I said wc, you're most welcome to your judgments and opinions, of course. And if you want to waste your personal time and energy making guesstimates about my intelligence (or anyone else's for that matter) - well, that's your Divine Right to Choose (Free Will) in action, I guess. Enjoy!"

_________________________

Try not to wear it like a veil, Daylia.

Just a wild guess, here, but . . .

I'm reading The Da Vinci Code these days as I've been asked to be part of a panel that discusses it sometime next spring. I'm finding a lot of similar themes:
- the oppression of Catholic leadership
- conspiracies against the truth initiated by the Church;
- Opus Dei, which has become the Vincent Price of many novelists;
- the wisdom of goddess mythology and religious practices; their closeness to nature and keen insights into balancing the excesses in human nature;
- the Church's suppressing goddess mythology

Hmmm. . .

We had a brief discussion of that book on this thread and so far I haven't much to add to it.

If this book (along with Hawkins) is what's behind some of the attitudes shared by daylia and others, it would be good to know. I do see the parallels.

- - -

BTW, in the 9-14-04 radio interview with Hawkins, he was asked about President Bush's integrity and the war in Iraq. It was during that exchange that he shared how he had used AK to determine if the earth was warming, and was surprised to learn the answer was no. He did seem to have a rather sympathetic view of Bush's efforts in Iraq, however, which goes against the absolute non-violence that others posting here have implied his stance to be. The last 10 min. of the interview are all you need to see what I mean on these issues.

- - -

What I'm really suspecting is going on is that people disgruntled with Christianity (for a wide variety of reasons, some good, I'm sure) are delighted to find in AK a non-religious method to access Universal Mind. New Agey types, in particular, think they have a friend in Hawkins, especially with his emphasis on enlightenment. Not yet completely content to leave behind the religious traditions they grew up with, however, they post here to convince themselves that Christianity really is despicable, oppressive, and unworthy of informing one's spiritual aspirations. They also hope the responses from Christians here will confirm their view that Christians are narrow-minded, rigid, judgmental, anti-science, etc.

All very interesting, but most of us have been around those blocks so many times in countless discussions. I only hope the exchanges help readers to think twice before scrapping their faith in Christ and membership in the Church.

I've never heard of the Da Vinci Code, Phil, and please don't give Hawkins any credit for any of my points of view above either. While I've been exploring psychology, history and spirituality all my life, I never even heard of Hawkins until a few weeks ago!

My view of organized religions - of which Christianity is only one example, even if it is one I am most familiar with - is not the product of any one outside source, but rather a lifetime of experience and study from various secular and non-secular perspectives.

That being said, I still don't see why anyone would want to waste their time and energy making personal judgments or assumptions about me, my motives, or what's really in my heart of hearts (or anyone else's, for that matter). I am just a "work in progess", like everyone else here! Trying to "figure me out" is really quite irrelevant - what's important is the message, not the messenger (imho of course!)

Besides, no human being can possibly know the mind or heart of another. We are barely qualified to judge ourselves, let alone each other - and even judging oneself is VERY unwise, unless one is under the direct guidance and auspice of their Higher Power (whatever one conceives that Higher Power to be).

So, why not spend time and energy where it's really important and might do some good - on sorting out the confusing array of "facts" and discovering the Truth for oneself - using whatever means/methods one is comfortable with?

Whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, a pagan, a new-ager, an atheist, a Hawkinsphile, a Phil-ophile or whatever - is quite the moot point. If your spiritual or religious persuasion (or lack thereof) truly benefits you by motivating you and giving you "tools" that really work to help you become a wiser, kinder, more giving, loving and nonjudgmental person - thereby serving the highest good of everything and everyone around you as well as your own, well - that's all that counts, imo.

It is interesting that Hawkins' views on Iraq seem to contradict what he teaches about spirituality and non-violence. Up here in the Great White North I couldn't tune into that radio broadcast mentioning global warming, Phil, so I can't comment on it unless there's a transcription online somewhere. But I did find a couple interesting recent interviews with Dr Hawkins online, including this one mentioning his position on Iraq;

http://www.newconnexion.net/ar...e/09-04/hawkins.html

quote:

MK: When one is faced with force, what is the higher level reaction? Take Iraq for example. Do we support war or peace?

DH: Yes, I have friends who had family members blown up on 9/11. Sometimes to support peace you have to make war � have a little war to prevent a big war. That�s called triage. I was in WWII, so we understand triage. That means you sacrifice a certain number of combatants on this side to save the life of many millions.

MK: So how does that relate to your premise that operating through expediency �the end justifying the means � sows confusion in society? How do we get a proper perspective?

DH: Usually the situation is much more complicated. Usually society gives a political knee-jerk reaction without any comprehension of the basic underlying issues. For instance the country doesn�t understand the basic ideological foundation of what they call Militant Islamic Triumphalism, and its historic origins, and its philosophic basis, and its alignment around the world, and how the distortion of the Koran came about, and who distorted it and when. So to understand the current situation, you have to understand the impact of Wahabism, and then you have to understand the philosophic force propelled by a philosopher named Kutub who gave the contextualization that terrorism is a holy act. Now that you�ve completely perverted a religion into practically its opposite, it then hides behind religion, and it�s nothing but militant fascism with a whole new decorative color. We saw it in Hitler as Nationalism. All these things are malignant. If you calibrate them you�ll find that Wahabism calibrates at an incredible 30; bin Laden calibrates at 60 and Militant Islamic Triumphalism calibrates at about 80.

Well, Hawkins is only human like everyone else, and he does have his personal biases obviously. Those biases may explain this statement too;

DH: Well in America, the overall calibration is at 421 � the highest in the world.

In another interview at this link http://www.inlightimes.com/2004/11/f1.htm he claims that Canada is next highest (at 410) , England and Australia running close behind. Sorry, but I'll need some real hard evidence to convince me that any of this is true!

Phil, I did go over the material at your link re Judaism and sexuality. It appears to be a slight improvement on what's found in the Bible or in the writings of the Christian "saints" and scholars I posted. But I am very grateful not to be Jewish, if the following claims from your article are really true --

1. a Jewish woman cannot refuse to have sex with her husband. So, a Jew can rape his wife without sanction, according to Jewish law? Well, it's good that at least the secular laws regarding rape have been changed in the last couple decades. Canadian husbands have not been permitted to rape their wives since 1981 - regardless of religious orientation.

2. Jews are forbidden to masturbate; and sex outside of marriage is forbidden. Well, if you're unmarried this would really set you up for a lifetime of sexual repression and perversion, wouldn't it? Unless you "calibrate" over 600 like a saint, that is ...

3. A Jewish woman must have an abortion if a pregnancy threatens her life. This is downright invasive and brutal, imo.

4. All forms of homosexuality are reviled as "evil". Wow, this still sounds so repressive, authoritarian, intolerant, judgmental, neurotic, sexist and (quite pathetically) archaic to me!

Unfortunately I don't see that the article about Thomas Aquinas addresses the sexism in his writings. Instead, it "okays" his obvious hatred of women - as evidenced by the one (of many) quote I posted above! And I haven't even mentioned yet the most obvious fruits of his attitudes - indeed, the fruits of a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity's "healthy" approach to sex and sexuality. I'm talking about the dreadful, sorry legacy of physical / sexual abuse of women and children of both sexes by the "sexually healthy" Christian (especially Catholic) clergy over the centuries.

I could post a few links documenting the abuse suffered by generations of innocent Native children in my country. For decades in the 1900�s, Native children were forcibly removed from their homes and families by the gov't and forced into Church-owned and administrated residential schools. Many of these children suffered years of sexual abuse and rape at the hands of the (so-called) �Christian� clergy. And all of these children had their Native language, customs and spirituality literally beaten out of them from age 6 up. This didn't happen centuries ago either - it was still going on up till the 1990's.

Do you really think these children deserved it somehow? Just like the Incas, the Celts, the ancient Germanic peoples and the millions of others exterminated, exploited and forcibly converted by the (so-called) "Christians" and their secular cohort over the course of the last 2 millenia?

And by the way, re your charge of "cannibalism", I could draw some interesting and historically viable parallels with the symbolism of the Christian Eucharist, but Joseph Campbell does that a lot better that I ever could. I've stirred up the pot enough here I think, so I'll leave that up to Campbell!

Many blessings to all,

daylia

PS - I never wear veils, wc. Too darn cold up here for that! But if I did, please be assured I'd wear 7 of them while dancing with lush and wild abandon around and around Solomon's Twelve Pillars ....

I only hope the exchanges help readers to think twice before scrapping their faith in Christ and membership in the Church.

Phil, my views on Christianity have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Himself! And I do give the Church credit for my initial introduction to Jesus, of course.

But in all honesty it is IN SPITE OF the Church and it's theologies, catechisms, ongoing wars, forced "conversions", Inquisitions, intolerance, sexism, suppression of science etc that my own love, knowledge (notice I'm not using the word "faith" but "knowledge" here - there's a Mighty Important Difference between the two!) and direct personal experience of Jesus and His teachings have only grown deeper and more profound over the years.

I'm so grateful that I did NOT fall into the trap I've seen witnessed so many disgruntled ex-Christians fall into - you know, the one where you throw the Baby out with the bathwater.

I posted the personal information about my relationship with Jesus above in an attempt to make this clear to readers. Sorry you missed it, Phil.

quote:

How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person?

Sagan uses the question and response only as a simple example of "special pleading", Phil.

How can light be both a particle and a wave?

Hmm . . . daylia, it's becoming increasingly difficult to sort things out, here. It does seem that you've come here to grind your axe about Christianity, and I don't see where your sharing about your commitment to Jesus has any bearing on this. As you note, you wouldn't even know about Jesus if it weren't for the Church. Bingo! Would you also be willing to concede that just a bit of positive formation has come through the Church as well? I hope so.

Yes, bad things have been done in the name of Christianity. But . . . so much, much more has come to the world because of it. Your continual posting of bad episodes doesn't change that, nor does it alter the fact that Judeo-Christian thinking lies at the root of Western culture, science, modern medicine, and even all the positive movements unto justice that have come about. As I've noted, the problems generated in the name of Christianity were eventually corrected by the Church itself.

It seems we're only "passing in the night" with regard to all the points I've made about how the Bible and Christian theology are a developmental project. This is important, and so the articles on Judaism and sexuality ought to be viewed in that light. You might consider, too, that prior to Mr. Kinsey's work, virtually every religion considered masturbation sinful; could Mr. Kinsey be the one who was wrong about this? Also, if one doesn't understand that Thomas Aquinas could conclude nothing other than what he concluded about men/women relations given the Biblical and scientific understandings he received, then there is no way for me to try to explain that he really DIDN'T hate women. In fact, he was quite ahead of his time in many areas, so much so that his writings were considered suspect for some time. Thomas wouldn't be saying what he said then about many things if he had access to today's Scripture exegesis and modern biology.

I didn't mean to personalize the issues, when asking about where you're coming from. Sometimes it helps to know, however.

Re. Hawkins and Iraq, I really don't think he's being inconsistent. Identifying principles is one thing, but their application is quite another. In Catholic moral theology, we stress the importance of context and intention as well. I think that's what Hawkins is doing re. Iraq. He's not really saying that violence is OK; sometimes it's the lessor of many other evils.

And by the way, re your charge of "cannibalism", I could draw some interesting and historically viable parallels with the symbolism of the Christian Eucharist, but Joseph Campbell does that a lot better that I ever could. I've stirred up the pot enough here I think, so I'll leave that up to Campbell!

We have a thread going on Cambpell and mythology. I'm not following your point, however. There's all kinds of cannibalism, and, yes, there are mythologies where it's a kind of sacred meal. But so what? Does that mean that the Christian idea of Eucharist is *merely* another instance or that the pagan mythologies anticipated the reality somehow? You will note also, I hope, significant moral differences between the Eucharist and pagan cannabilism. Check out this link, which makes some good points. Also, this one is very good, and I quote from it below:

5. If we took Jesus� words literally, wouldn�t that imply cannibalism?

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another�s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

- - -

This big question for me, daylia, is why you give people like Joseph Campbell priority in understanding these matters rather than your own Christian tradition? We really do know more about Jesus, the implications of his life and teaching, and the way he came to teach us to live than Joseph Campbell or any non-Christian source. If you really are intent on considering a variety of perspectives on such issues, I would hope you would try to understand what the Church really teaches before condemning or ridiculing it.

"PS - I never wear veils, wc. Too darn cold up here for that! But if I did, please be assured I'd wear 7 of them while dancing with lush and wild abandon around and around Solomon's Twelve Pillars ...."


O.K. Then could I recommend a hair shirt?

"Jews are forbidden to masturbate; and sex outside of marriage is forbidden. Well, if you're unmarried this would really set you up for a life of repression and perversion, wouldn't it? Unless you 'calibrate' over 600 like a saint, that is..."

Not necessarily. Elizabeth Elliot was single for decades in her adult life and wrote books on topics such as Loneliness, Passion and Purity, and Discipline the Glad Surrender. One of my favorite
contemporary Christian teachers, here are some of her programs dealing with the topic of Singleness:

http://www.backtothebible.org/...t.htm?cat=Singleness

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Good point, MM. There's a long, venerable tradition extolling chastity and celebacy in all the world's religions. People who don't masturbate or have affairs aren't necessarily repressed and perverted (no disrespect to Dr. Kinsey intended, of course . . . ahem ). Chasity in spirituality transmutes sexual energy, diffusing it throughout our body-mind making it possible to more fully embody higher states of consciousness. That's the true meaning of Jesus' teaching on becoming a eunich for the sake of the reign of God.

- - -

I am requesting, now, that the primary focus of this thread be evaluation of AK, Hawkins' teaching and the map of consciousness. Not that I'm a control freak or wanting to suppress what has been a lively discussion, but people who browse thread topics will have no clue what's going on here if we stray too far afield for too long. Also, those looking for a good discussion on the merits/demerits of Christianity won't think to look here. This thread would be a far better place to discuss Christianity.

quote:

You seem to view Christianity as having been a kind of Taliban-like governance, giving only passing lip service to the good that it's done.

Aloha nui loa Phil; my brother

I DO see a difference between the Taliban and Christianity.

People of the Church in Europe accused men and women of witchcraft, then they either burned them or drowned them. Then the Church stole their posessions. The "good" Church people could not "suffer a witch to live"; but the Church had no problem with stealing the persons posessions to make the Church richer. The traditional picture of a witch during halloween is based on the Cocney women if memory serves. They look like that because they has their fingers broken, and their faces bashed, their noses broken while the "witch" was being tested before sentence was carried out.

At least the Taliban give people a quick painful death.

The Church gave their victims a SLOW, TORTURED, and PAINFUL death.

quote:

which Pope John Paul II acknowledged and apologized for a few years ago

Excuse me Phil; BUT ARE YOU BLIND?

Appologies are just words I could say them a thousand times, and remain COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.

Does the appology change the way those pitiful souls (entrusted to the Church) were mistreated? No I don't think so.

When the Church appologizes, AND reinburses the surcivors of those people with the riches that was stolen from them (I am not even asking for any interest on the money); I will accept the Catholic Church is serious in it's appology.

Until then; I consider the Catholic church to have blood on it's hands. The money stolen from the victims was blood money. Those poor souls paid a high price so the Catholic church could get rich.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[QUOTE]You seem to have a rather transparent agenda, and lack either the intelligence, or the willingness, to engage Phil in an honest conversation. IOW, you display the very duplicities you attack.

Aloha nui loa WC; my brother?

This is just like my old days as a Computer Anti-Virus research back in the 1990s.

You have done EXACTLY the same thing that was common there "If you can not attack the message; attack the messenger.

Do you point out parts od Daylia's message so show people where you find fault? NOOOOO you just attack Daylia and impugn her intelegence. This is supposed to make me ASSUME that YOU have a higher level of intelegence?

So far you have not shown me any more intelegence than an angry five year old having a temper tantrum.

Apparently your side of the debate that it can not withstand debate.

Two Bears, it sounds like you think Christianity has been worse than the Taliban. I have no response to offer that would make any difference, I'm sure.

Let me say again that those of you who want to come here to discuss the pros and cons of Christianity ought to do so on this thread. Otherwise, the impression being given here is that a very strong anti-Christian bias characterizes people who like Hawkins' work. I'm already convinced of that, although I don't think Hawkins would approve.

Originally posted by Phil:

quote:

Sure nice to know you're steering clear of ad hominems. QUOTE]

Well I am glad to see that SOMEONE is avoiding adhominem attacks. I wish you and WC were!

Nice to meet you Daylia. My name is Two Bears. I am a HUNA teacher, and energetic healer.

If you are open to energy work; feel free to check my website. It gives the Hawai'ian perspective of lifeforce energy, and how the universe works.

[QUOTE]Like I said . . . you've been rebutted and haven't really countered, except to throw up more mud.

Aloha nui loa Phil; my brother.

That is only your opinion.

You DON'T want to know my opinion of you (so far), and I SINCERELy HOPE that assumption is WRONG!

quote:

For you, Christianity has been a kind of Taliban-movement through the ages, so I'm sure nothing I can say will convince you of the good it has brought forth.

I have no idea of Daylia's opinion of Christianity because I skiped a lot of messages instead of replying to old messages; that may be irrelevent now. I think Christianity is WORSE than the Taliban!

quote:

but it does sort of hint at what the Spanish were dealing with. Of course, if one doesn't think the Spanish should have been there in the first place . . .

Phil; YOU ARE SICK! that is saying the ends justifies the means.

Am I supposed to see myself in those question? I don't. I'm not afraid of them at all.

quote:

btw, this one is especially ignorant: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person?

Phil; the answer is EXTREMELY simple.

God (Creator, Jehovah, E'O, Manitou, Wakan Tanka, etc) can be all three in one person because God can have male characteristics, female characteristics, then have other characteristics that goes beyond understanding.

In my opinion the Lakota Sioux, and the preChristian Hawaiians had a MUCH healthier attitude to God than the three great faiths that begins with Abraham.

The Sioux and the Hawaiians said it was a holy mystery beyond the understanding of man and did not waste their time and life-force energy in trying to solve the unsolveable.

quote:

Christianity doesn't teach that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in the same Person. Check out [URL=http://shalomplace.com/cgi-

Does this mean that I am supposed to take Shalom Place as a fair and unbiased researcher?

No because EVERYONE has biases; because of the way we were taught as children.

[QUOTE]Back to thread-topic, now: I'm still waiting for Hawkins' admirers to respond to my posts (previous page) about how he concluded global warming wasn't happening using AK, then of finding the science to back his conclusion. [QUOTE]

As far as I am concerned; global warming ISN'T happening.

If Global warming was reported in outer Mongolia; I would be willing to accept the premise is real.

Global warming is reported in the U.S.; and the U.S. is the WRONG place to check for global warming. This FACT is because EVERYONE has stood next to a brick wall at sundown and felt the heat emanating from the brick walls. Before the 1940s; there was not hundreds of thousands of square miles of interstate roads, concrete parking lots, millions of brick or concrete buildings, etc.

When the NWS personel decided to track the weather of the planet; they placed most of their weather stations some distance from the cities fo they could obtain accurate readings. With improvements in technology, and urban sprawl, and the before mentioned interstate highways; the distant NWS stations are being affected by all of these paved surfaces, and proviting misleading information (the heatsink effect).

The ONLY way to determine if global warming is real or not would be to evaluate the temperature of the planet from Satellites.

Right now the global warming debate makes as much sence as two fleas arguing over which one of them owns the dog they live and feed on.

quote:

Just a wild guess, here, but . . .

I'm reading The Da Vinci Code these days as I've been asked to be part of a panel that discusses it sometime next spring. I'm finding a lot of similar themes

Aloha nui loa Phil; my brother

I read the Davinci Code, and found it IMMENSELY entertaining. I liked the emotions, and intrigue. Now about the book's accuracy; I agreed with parts of the book; but over all; I found the book to be overly critical on the Church. No one opens minds when Christians feel EVERYTHING in the book as an attack against them, and their faith.

One does not make friends by treating the other side as enemies. They only make MORE enemies.

Admitedly the Church of the last millenium has been a plague on humanity; but as bad as they were; the Church was made of individuals; and MOST of them were just human beings doing the best they could with the limitedfacts they had been given.

quote:

If this book (along with Hawkins) is what's behind some of the attitudes shared by daylia and others, it would be good to know. I do see the parallels.[QUOTE]

I have not read the Hawkins book yet, and will reserve comment until I have.

However; when considering the amount of information I have HEARD; I will only say that I agree with parts of it, and I disagree with parts of it.

Number 1. I COMPLETELY disagree with his premise that ghosts and hauntings do NOT exist. I have knowledge that ghosts are real.

Number 2. I DO agree that it is possible to test one's level of consciousness. I have knowledge that one can use Kinnesiology to evaluate the consciousness of another person; because as an energy healer, and directing energy (ch;i, Itaki, ki, mana, Reiki, etc) to the person for a few minutes; I begin to feel EVERYTHING the client is feeling (whether they tell me or not), then I can scan the energy pathways of the body (the Chinese call these energy pathways meridians), Then by using Kinesiology, scanning the pathways with my hands, or dowsing rods, or something as simple as a pendulum to find the energy blockages. and clear them up so the energy can move smoothly, then going back to the problem area so the person's own energy system can help heal itself.

[QUOTE]I only hope the exchanges help readers to think twice before scrapping their faith in Christ and membership in the Church.

I'm not sure who said it; but I agree with this quote COMPLETELY.

A person's faith is only important to that one person, and is none of anyone else's business.

If a faith works for person, and teaches them the way of right relationship (For the Christians; that would be the fruits of the spirit as specified by Paul in the fifth chapter of Galatians); it is none of my business, and I don't care what faith they practise.

I am busy enough to make sure that *I* demonstrate the way of right relationship.

If You are interested; I live by two simple rules that express the two great commandments given by the young carpenter (which are paraphrased say "#1. Love the Lord with all of might strength and soul. #2 Love your neighbor as yourself."

My rules are

1 Harm nothing with hatred.

2. Always remember rule number 1.