I think Christianity is WORSE than the Taliban!

I know you want this thread to get back on track, Phil, but that assertion by Two Bears is just absurd. Christianity is, in effect, being damned for having high ideals and sometimes falling short of them while the Taliban is given a pass or considered superior although one wonders how one could ever violate their ideals � by allowing people to fly kites or for women to laugh loudly?

quote:

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 understand this completely.

I have 0 regard for Christianity as practised in the last milennium; but I have VERY high regard for the gentle teachings of the young carpenter. I just wish the Church called in his name did. ;-(

QUOTE]How can light be both a particle and a wave? [/QUOTE]

It is; because humanity is not wise enough to ask the questions that would bring our species to the realization of absolute truth yet.

Two Bears, you're just all over the place, here, dropping ad hominems right and left, back-peddling to express a back-handed compliment, replying in non-sequitors/other logical fallacies, and making some pretty amazing statements about global warming. I'll let it go on awhile longer, as it seems to be contained on this Hawkins thread, which is already something of a circus, imo. You're edging closer to moderated status with every post, however. Just thought I'd give you advance warning.

quote:

As you note, you wouldn't even know about Jesus if it weren't for the Church. Bingo!

Phil' my brother; this is as illogical as asking a rape victim to thank the rapist so she could aquire knowledge of the crime of rape.

There is a right way to share the good news, and there is a wrong way to share the good news.

Unfortunately; Christianity chose the WRONG way to share the good news with the people for more than a milennium.

quote:

Would you also be willing to concede that just a bit of positive formation has come through the Church as well? I hope so.

I would be willing to concede that spreading Christianity has done *some* good.

But that *some* amount of good could have been shared with the indigenous peoples without the holocaust done by the Church in the name of the young carpenter.

quote:

Yes, bad things have been done in the name of Christianity. But . . . so much, much more has come to the world because of it.

Exacly which equasion did you use to reach this assumption. Did you say the gift of written language was worth the atrocities done to the Native Americans, and the gift of a civilized society is equal to the decimation of the "witches", and the decimation of the hundreds of indigneoud cultures was worth sharing the plan of salvation, or something like that?

Christianity could have shared the good news without ANY of those atrocities, and in my opinion NO AMOUNT of good from Christianity is enough to wipe the slate clean even if Christians were to walk on water now.

quote:

Your continual posting of bad episodes doesn't change that,

Here I agree with you, and I pointed the same thing out to Daylia.

quote:

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.

Phil: Christianity is NOT responsible for modern medicine. Modern medicine is an unintended consequence of Christianity. Modern medicine happened ONLY because of the spread of a written language, and a more intelegent populace.

To say that Christianity is responsible for modern medicine is just as illogical as the Church keeping laws that made it illegal for any individual to have a copy of the bible for almost 100 years AFTER Gutenberg invented the printing press.

If the people had been allowed to own bibles, and taught to read the good news for themself; almost 100 years of Christian atrocities could have been prevented!

quote:

As I've noted, the problems generated in the name of Christianity were eventually corrected by the Church itself.[QUOTE]

I'm sorry Phil; but you are wrong here. Only appologizing, asking for forgiveness, and trying to make ammends is sfficient to clean the bloody hands of the Church.

[QUOTE]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 true; but Christianity could have been shared WITHOUT the atrocities at all (if they had done it the right way (The same way the Christians did it in the first century CE!)

quote:

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[QUOTE]

I DO understand this Phil. Thomas Aquinas was only teaching Christianity as he understood it.

The real problem is that Christianity "the religion OF the young carpenter" was hijacked, and replaced with "The religion ABOUT the young carpenter" in the 4th - 7th centuries CE by greedy, and power hungry Priests.

The very same thing is happening today in the religion of Islam. Wahabism (the most extreme and radical form of Islam) is trying to hijack the religion of Islam, and make everyone take the Kuran literally (and this makes just as much sence as the fundamentalist Christians trying to insist the bible be taken literally.

I will give kudos to the fundamentalist Christians one thing.

They have not started killing their Christian brothers and sisters because they do not take the bible literally yet.

I myself was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist home. I was beaten, and yelled at for endless disputes; but I was not killed.

It is solely the responsibility of fundamentalist Chriatians that I lived most of my life as an athiest. If they were representatives of Christianity; I wanted NOTHING to do with the religion or the young carpenter.

There is a right way and a wrong way to share the good news.

In my opinion Christianity should be hijacked back to the religion OF the young carpenter, and be shared the same way Christianity was shared in the first century CE.

[QUOTE]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.

I could neither (say it better or agree more)! well done!

quote:

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

.

Phil: The symbolism of the Eucharist IMPLIES canibalism. Why do you have trouble understanding something so simple?

quote:

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.[/i]

You are correct; but that does not wipe out the implied canibalism in the symbology. If the Young carpenter had said "Every once in a while get together and enjoy a meal in my memory." This would not have the implied canibalism, and make Christianity *appear* to be backward and irrelevent.

In the first century CE; people were knocking on the doors to be let INTO the club. After the 7th century CE; people were knocking on the doors to be let OUT of the club and try to peacefuly co-exist with the new religion of Christianity. Chriatianity has too much blood on it's hands

quote:

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.

Excuse me Phil; but how can you be so naive, and it is obvious that you are educated.

95% of Christians know nothing about the young carpenter other that the religious propoganda that has been foisted upon them.

Do modern Christians heal the sick, cast out demons, or share the good news in a non threatening and non invasive way (as practised in the first century CE)? Absolutely not!

In my opinion; modern Christians have done their best to overlook the gentle teachings of the young carpenter, and tried to deny the power of GOD!

quote:

really teaches before condemning or ridiculing it.

.

Excuse me; but lets see if the church practises what the young carpenter actually taught the disciples first.

quote:

Excuse me Phil; but how can you be so naive, and it is obvious that you are educated.

95% of Christians know nothing about the young carpenter other that the religious propoganda that has been foisted upon them.

Do modern Christians heal the sick, cast out demons, or share the good news in a non threatening and non invasive way (as practised in the first century CE)? Absolutely not!

In my opinion; modern Christians have done their best to overlook the gentle teachings of the young carpenter, and tried to deny the power of GOD!

What bull! I've given you enough of a soapbox and don't intend to have my forum trashed any more with your hysterical rantings. Adios. You will note that no one here called you "master."

I'll try to help refocus this thread now by re-posting something I wrote two pages back:

quote:

All you Hawkins fans, I want you to think long and hard about that example I gave above about how Hawkins used AK to inquire if the earth was warming. Having ascertained a negative reply, he then set out to find the science to justify his position. What do you think of that? Do you really think that's an appropriate use of AK? Whatever happened to hypothesis, method, experimentation, review of results, tentative conclusion (i.e., the scientific method)? If we begin with the conclusion, then look for data to back it up, that's not science and is even something akin to divination.

During that interview, someone asked if spiritual presence could be communicated via a video, TV or even audio presentation? He said he didn't know, but then whipped out his arm, did a resistance test, and stated that yes, presence could be so communicated. What do you all think of that? What happened to actually checking your experience to see if presence was communicated?

So what do you all think -- Hawkins fans and others? Is this an appropriate use of AK?

Following up on the post above, I am again referring the forum to this thread to discuss issues concerning Christianity per se. I have posted a link form that thread to this one to reference the relevant discussions that have taken place here. Posts on this thread that continue to hash out the pros and cons of Christianity will be deleted.

Comments on the relationship between Hawkins' teaching/writing and Christianity are fine for this thread. Please note again the thread title and general focus.

Phil, Michael � thanks for the link and comments about celibacy/chastity. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you both said, and would like to add this perspective inspired by Hawkins' Power vs Force.

When celibacy and chastity are freely chosen as a lifestyle, with Joy and Love for the highest good of all (including oneself) � then yes! I can certainly vouch for the fact that it is a most wonderful, healthy, truly empowering (and certainly energy-efficient) way to live!

However, when this lifestyle is FORCED through laws (religious or otherwise) upon an entire population of individuals who may or may not be ready for it, then it can and often does become a breeding ground for shame, guilt, misery, repression and all manner of perversions (like pedophilia). Any attempt to interfere with the free will of another, including trying to control the personal sexual behavior/orientation of another person (cases of violence like rape, incest and sexual abuse most definitely excluded!) breaks the spiritual laws of non-interference! Control measures of this type calibrate well under the level of 200 (the level of Force) and thus are negative, ineffective, counter-productive and disease-producing.

So what do you all think -- Hawkins fans and others? Is this an appropriate use of AK?

Yes it is. All scientific investigation carries the burden of reproducibility, and any result must be replicated to be valid. It seems wisest to leave the intricacies of scientific methodology / replicability up to the good doctor (and Nobel Prize winner) anyway.

And the only other thing I have to say about global warming is please oh PLEASE be so kind as to send any of your unwanted or excessive global warming my way asap!

Phil, I�ve yet to encounter an anti-Christian bias in any of Hawkins� work! He has nothing but laurels for Jesus Himself, and you�re absolutely right � he certainly would NOT endorse judgmentalism of any kind.

I do wish you�d given Two Bears more than 50 minutes to shape up, though. He probably didn�t have time to read your warning before you barred him! (Look at the time of his last post). While his words are blustery and even shocking, there is much wisdom in his posts. He has the best and simplest explanation of the Trinity (not just the Christian Trinity but all the other Three-fold understandings of the Divine I've encountered to date, such as the Maiden/Mother/Crone of the Goddess traditions, the Father/Mother/Child of Egypt (Isis/Osiris/Horus) etc.

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

Wonderful!

And I like this wise response �.

quote:

How can light be both a particle and a wave?

It is both; humanity is not wise enough to ask the questions that would bring our species to the realization of absolute truth yet.

Right On!

I don�t think Two Bears was being hysterical just because he mentioned healing the sick and casting out demons!

Do you think Jesus was wrong about casting out demons etc?

Phil, you asked why I accept Campbell�s explanation of the origins of the ritual of the Eucharist more readily than the catechism put forth by the Church. Well, you probaly won't like this, but it�s because Campbell doesn�t present himself as an unquestionable authority, or give me dubious-sounding explanations I have to accept on faith alone. Faith alone is very shaky ground, at least for me! For that reason, I�ve learned to make it a point NOT to �believe� much of anything at all these days! I don�t have to take Campbell on faith, and what he says makes more sense, is historically valid and resonates with Truth, to me.


Blessings to all,

daylia

PS wc, I doubt you meant this style of hair shirt http://www.buffalorobe.com/Lakota-shirt.jpg These were fashioned and worn as a symbol of highest honor among the Lakota Sioux, and I�m sure that honoring me in any way is the last thing you wanted to do!

I think you meant this type, right? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm
Well, forget it. I�m not into masochism or any other form of self-abuse. I think these customs are another pathetically misguided, sickening product of the rejection of the Divine Feminine over the last few millenia of patriarchal rule-by-Force. Rejecting the Goddess, the "Mother" of the Universe and all Life implies the rejection and profanation of all physical life as well - even including one�s own body!

No, the only hair shirt in my life is this one http://www.cat-alog.com/clothing/covered_s01_big.jpg.

Leave it to daylia to find a "New Age" hair shirt . . . .

wc, that's actually a very "old age" hair shirt - if you're talking about the traditional Lakota shirt of honor!

The last link was supposed to show you a picture of a shirt covered with cat hair. Sorry it doesn't work, it was funny But it IS the only kind of hair shirt you'll find adorning me these days!

Love, daylia

What does PETA think of your Cat Hair shirt, daylia? Careful where you wear it! Or is it cultivated only during the shedding summer season . . . . ?

Hi daylia. Thanks for replying to my questions about Hawkins' test for global warming. It sounds like you're favorably disposed to his method of obtaining the answer then finding research to back it up. As you might expect by now, I disagree with you. This is not the scientific method -- hypothesis, method of research, experimentation, results, conclusion. You don't begin with a conclusion and work backwards.

All scientific investigation carries the burden of reproducibility, and any result must be replicated to be valid. It seems wisest to leave the intricacies of scientific methodology / replicability up to the good doctor (and Nobel Prize winner) anyway.

Oh, please! That's an odd response from one who seems to so despise appeals to faith! I am a trained scientist -- M.S. in biology and all the coursework for a Ph.D. Reproducibility only applies after working the scientific method; it doesn't mean getting the same calibrations again and again.

Re. Two Bears: that was my call. Too many loose screws, ad hominems and logical fallacies accompanying whatever might have been helpful. Did you not see all that?

- - -

The rest of your post continues the discussion on Christianity, which I will not reply to on this thread. I'll reply to some of them here in a little while.

- No warm weather to send your way, daylia; it's snowing in Wichita today.

Well, not to worry wc. All my Hair Shirts are cultivated 24/7 year round, thanks to continual and unsolicited generousity of my fuzzy feline co/habitante. If you REALLY must know.

Which reminds me ....

quote:

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

I'm curious ... what does personalizing the issues help you to know, Phil?

Personalizing the issues in a discussion like this distracts readers and diverts their energy from the most important, beneficial task at hand - investigating and carefully discerning the discussion material, in order to learn, to discover the Truth for themselves!

Guessing at / assuming / analysing / questioning where people may or may not be "coming from" lends itself very easily to ad hominen attacks. In fact, this type of questioning can itself BE a (thinly veiled) form of hominum attack.

Hey, maybe Phil's the best candidate to "wear it like a veil" around here!

daylia

This is not the scientific method -- hypothesis, method of research, experimentation, results, conclusion. You don't begin with a conclusion and work backwards.

Do you mean it's not "scientific" to check and see how other research results / conclusions compare with your own? That sounds dubious to me!

Oh, please! That's an odd response from one who seems to so despise appeals to faith!

uh, Phil, maybe it seems odd because I don't "despise" appeals to faith. See what happens when you ASSUME something about someone else? It makes an ASS out of U and ME.

In fact, I do make it a point not to descend to the level of "despising" anything. And unlike yourself, I do not consider myself qualified to make comment on Dr Hawkins' research methods.

Re. Two Bears: that was my call. Too many loose screws, ad hominems and logical fallacies accompanying whatever might have been helpful. Did you not see all that?

No. I see bluster, a most unusual and intriguing perspective, a lot of Wisdom, an unfortunately very common tale of childhood abuse at the hands of "Christians" leading to an obviously spiritual recovery from the Hell on Earth he describes!

"Loose screws" ... now THAT is an ad hominem attack!

It might be interesting to check out any examples you might most kindly provide of Two Bears' "logical fallacies" and "ad hominems".

Otherwise, "your Call" sure says a LOT about you, Phil, and absolutely nothing about Two Bears.

daylia

Re. personalizing issues. Hey, I have my bio here, my list of pubs, and have shared a great deal of my personal story on this board. I could just grind away, expressing my viewpoints, but somewhere in all of this I think it does help to know where one is coming from.

You've had to work pretty hard to find a way to take offense about that simple request I made. As I've noted, no offense intended.

. . . And unlike yourself, I do not consider myself qualified to make comment on Dr Hawkins' research methods.



Phil: So what do you all think -- Hawkins fans and others? Is this an appropriate use of AK?

daylia: Yes it is. All scientific investigation carries the burden of reproducibility, and any result must be replicated to be valid. It seems wisest to leave the intricacies of scientific methodology / replicability up to the good doctor (and Nobel Prize winner) anyway.

You sure didn't hesitate with that "Yes it is."

So, then, let's see. Using Hawkins' approach, one's arm becomes a veritable truth-o-meter. Is there global warming? Bam! No! Do audiotapes communicate presence (no need to check your experience, here). Bam! Yes! Universal Mind knows all things . . . reveals itself through integrous questioning. Yahza!

Earlier in a discussion with MM, I said I didn't think this was divination. As I learn more, I'm not so sure. Why shouldn't we consider this use of AK divination, daylia? It's not science, that's for sure, nor is it inductive or deductive reasoning.

It might be interesting to check out any examples you might most kindly provide of Two Bears' "logical fallacies" and "ad hominems".

Just whip out your arm and go through his/her posts sentence-by-sentence and ask Ultimate Mind if it's a logical fallacy you've just read. Then go through this list of them and ask yes/no questions about each one. You'll see, I'm sure.

That failing, you can read up on logical fallacies, examine Two Bears' posts, and see if you can spot a few that aren't simply "blustery." You might even notice that you use a few in your own posts from time to time.

Like this kind of crappola!

Otherwise, "your Call" sure says a LOT about you, Phil, and absolutely nothing about Two Bears.

If . . . then . . . (causal fallacy)
Otherwise (ad hominmen)

Sweet!

Not a comment about how personal prying (ie veiled ad hominems) distract people from the Truth. I'm not surprised. You really don't get it, and you don't want to get it either, do you Phil?

And what's your problem ... can't you spot the "logical fallacies" or personal attacks in Two Bear's posts on your own? Then why did you ban him?

Like I said, this says a WHOLE lot about you, Phil - and absolutely nothing about Two Bears except that You can't bear to consider the Truth he speaks.

I do know enough about scientific method to know it's EXPECTED for scientists to consider and compare their results with those of other researchers.

Kinesiology IS scientific, Phil. And if you had even an smidgeon of personal experience with it .. or had even bothered to read Dr Hawkins work before you sling mud at him ... then you might have something of intelligence, interest and perhaps even of importance to share about it.

But you obviously don't. So, carry on folks ... it's you're own time you're wasting here.

Blessings to all,

daylia

Not a comment about how personal prying (ie veiled ad hominems) distract people from the Truth. I'm not surprised. You really don't get it, and you don't want to get it either, do you Phil?

No, I don't get it. Sorry. 'Twasn't meant to be such a big deal. I just thought you'd say something like you were an ex-Catholic who'd been burned by the Church, was searching, liked Hawkins, etc. No ad hominems veiled or otherwise intended. I'm positive.

Kinesiology IS scientific, Phil. And if you had even an smidgeon of personal experience with it .. or had even bothered to read Dr Hawkins work before you sling mud at him ... then you might have something of intelligence, interest and perhaps even of importance to share about it.

Hey, I was quoting examples from one of Hawkins lectures. You think that's all scientific, fine with me. I don't and I stated why. I didn't sling any mud at "him," just this method of making decisions and clarifying perceptions, which really IS looking more and more like divination.

So, carry on folks ... it's you're own time you're wasting here.

Maybe they can make up their own mind about that. . . which raises the question of why you've been "wasting" your time here? You've obviously decided Hawkins work is scientific, credible, etc. Discussing this with you hasn't gone very well as you resort to references to his authority, his Nobel prize, and imply that criticisms of his work are somehow throwing mud at him. You've also taken every opportunity to bash Christianity -- this on a site you know to be a Christian web site. I'm confused about what you want from us, why you keep coming back, and what you're hoping to accomplish?

No, I don't get it.

Well, I'll explain it for you, then. Distracting people from investigating and discovering the Truth by constantly diverting their attention to irrelevant and trivial personal issues is a time-worn (and nauseatingly familiar) tactic used by "authorities" (secular or religious) to propogandize, delude and devour the public. It's worked for millenia - see the novels "Animal Farm" or "1984" or "Brave New World" - or hey, just watch CNN for more examples!

Intelligent people really interested in discovering and sharing the Truth don't get all steamed up and ban it when it appears in a different form or style than they are familiar with, Phil.

And intelligent people don't make public comments about, or least of all sling mud at books or scientific methodologies they have no knowledge or direct personal experience of! Intelligent, kind-hearted people do not automatically smear someone else's lifework or spiritual insights when these appear to differ from their own.

True spiritual seekers honestly investigate and joyously embrace those differences! I count them as divine opportunities to expand my own perspective and understandings.

That's why I, for one, will no longer be wasting my time and energy on a forum moderated by someone as arrogant, uninformed, intolerant, judgmental and hopelessly biased as you have proven yourself to be time and time again on this thread.

And btw, my decision has nothing to do with Christianity, either. Just with you, Phil.

Blessings to all,

daylia

That's why I, for one, will no longer be wasting my time and energy on a forum moderated by someone as arrogant, uninformed, intolerant, judgmental and hopelessly biased as you have proven yourself to be time and time again on this thread.

Okey dokey.

If you ever decide to change your mind and actually discuss Hawkins work, you're more than welcomed here.

I gave this thread the A/K test and a Kleenex was more then my poor biceps could take.

And just for the record I want to say that I think Phil has handled these disagreements with class, restraint and magnanimity. There are plenty of bad guys and squelchers in this world, but Phil�s not one of them. (And I consider myself somewhat of an expert on the subject.)

Hey Phil . . . as long as your arrogant, and Two Bears isn't around anymore, why not add a moniker to your name:

Master Phil . . .

"I have received title "master" eight times and STILL working on self mastery."

Hey daylia, it's ok by me, but weren't you saying this forum was a waste of your time? Yet we can see your still hanging around. You might want to muscle test that.