Yoga - Is Pontif really a holy man?

Author

Is Pontif really a holy man?

puma

2006-09-16, 4:26 pm

Upon the last talk of Pontif this question came to my mind. And same
time I have recalled
Bothisatwa Avalokiteshvera,,,____ Untill all the sentient beings are
free, I will not get into nirvana____

No discrimination even within any of sentient being,,,A real HOLINESS
to everyone...

With compassion,

Puma

howdydave

2006-09-16, 4:26 pm

howdydave

2006-09-16, 4:26 pm

howdydave

2006-09-16, 4:26 pm

howdydave

2006-09-16, 4:26 pm

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

2006-09-16, 4:26 pm

howdydave wrote:
> puma wrote:
>
> Howdy Puma!
>
> I don't know about "holy", but he is certainly a
> "naïve" man!
>
> He should know that every word that comes out of his
> mouth will be taken out of context and treated as an
> "official position of the Church" by SOMEBODY!

He's far from naive.
Of course, the irony is of Muslims attacking Xians because one of the
latter claimed they were a violent religion!
They are all enslaved to a vile and petty god and we should have nothing
to do with their ugly squabbles over who can kiss YHVHs arse the best.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-17, 2:26 am

>> I don't know about "holy", but he is certainly a
>
> He's far from naive.

I had a poor view of the new Pope until I saw a documentary that examined
his life and views. While his personality type is the most accessible, I
have some appreciation of his intellectual credibility and desire to avoid
damaging social upheaval.

I think, he means well even if he does drop an occasional clanger. I'm not
expecting it to be his last but neither am I expecting the wilder rhetorics
to escape without getting their asses scorched. My guess is, ultimately,
this exchange is going to end better than not.

I'll get me popcorn.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

howdydave

2006-09-17, 2:26 am

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> howdydave wrote:
>
> He's far from naive.
> Of course, the irony is of Muslims attacking Xians because one of the
> latter claimed they were a violent religion!
> They are all enslaved to a vile and petty god and we should have nothing
> to do with their ugly squabbles over who can kiss YHVHs arse the best.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

Howdy Dirk!

You figure he fully expected/anticipated a quotation made to an
eccleastical
audience would be given the full spin treatment?

Hmmmm....

If that's the case, "I think I'll have to think it out again!"

Dave

howdydave

2006-09-17, 2:26 am

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> howdydave wrote:
>
> He's far from naive.
> Of course, the irony is of Muslims attacking Xians because one of the
> latter claimed they were a violent religion!
> They are all enslaved to a vile and petty god and we should have nothing
> to do with their ugly squabbles over who can kiss YHVHs arse the best.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
Howdy Dirk!

You figure he fully expected/anticipated a quotation made to an
eccleastical
audience would be given the full spin treatment?

Hmmmm....

If that's the case, "I think I'd better think it out again!"
-- From "Oliver"

I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist by not siting
my sources!!!

Dave

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

2006-09-17, 9:33 pm

howdydave wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Howdy Dirk!
>
> You figure he fully expected/anticipated a quotation made to an
> eccleastical
> audience would be given the full spin treatment?

I think he was 'sending a message'.
I expect, in the not too distant future, that somewhere some Xians are
going to bomb a mosque.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-18, 8:26 am

puma wrote:
> Upon the last talk of Pontif this question came to my mind. And same
> time I have recalled
> Bothisatwa Avalokiteshvera,,,____ Untill all the sentient beings are
> free, I will not get into nirvana____
>
> No discrimination even within any of sentient being,,,A real HOLINESS
> to everyone...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma

If people were really listening they would have realized that the Pope
was arttacking the principle of unreason in beliefs. He has gone on
record as being against Intelligent Design a key belief not only of
Islam but also of American Evangelicals.

The Koran is supposed to have been dictated by the Archangel Gabriel.
Gabriel came up with Adam, Eve and the stare rib. Mohammad was never
told that his DNA was 98-99% chimp, and that stronly suggests an
alternaive view of human origins.

If the Koran (together with the life of Mohammad) was not divinely
dicated where does this leave the exclusive claims of Islam. The Koran
now appears in a historical and theological context. There are sects of
Islam - Bahai, Sufi, Druze which are regarded as heretical by
mainstream Islam and which have taken on board philosophy and theology
from other religions.

This is really what I feel we should all be addressing ourselves to.
Iran wants to be a great nation as it was in the time of the great
Persian kings. Do do this it needs Science. Qom will have to do some
hard thinking..

puma

2006-09-18, 8:26 am

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
> puma wrote:
>
> If people were really listening they would have realized that the Pope
> was arttacking the principle of unreason in beliefs. He has gone on
> record as being against Intelligent Design a key belief not only of
> Islam but also of American Evangelicals.
>
> The Koran is supposed to have been dictated by the Archangel Gabriel.
> Gabriel came up with Adam, Eve and the stare rib. Mohammad was never
> told that his DNA was 98-99% chimp, and that stronly suggests an
> alternaive view of human origins.
>
> If the Koran (together with the life of Mohammad) was not divinely
> dicated where does this leave the exclusive claims of Islam. The Koran
> now appears in a historical and theological context. There are sects of
> Islam - Bahai, Sufi, Druze which are regarded as heretical by
> mainstream Islam and which have taken on board philosophy and theology
> from other religions.
>
> This is really what I feel we should all be addressing ourselves to.
> Iran wants to be a great nation as it was in the time of the great
> Persian kings. Do do this it needs Science. Qom will have to do some
> hard thinking..

Hi Ianparker,

BTW, with your permission, I would like to make an inportant correction
regarding your claim that BAHAI was a sect of Islam... The same mistake
were carried on up to a recent time by some fanatical muslims...

But now, it is clear and, it is a reality that BAHAIZM is a completely
new religion,,,Its prophet is his holiness Bahaullah,,,and the name of
their holy book is THE BOOK OF CERTITUDE,
(KITAB-I IKAN) ..it has no relation whatsoever with Islam...So please
kindly correct your info.

With compassion,

Puma

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-18, 4:29 pm

puma wrote:
> ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Ianparker,
>
> BTW, with your permission, I would like to make an inportant correction
> regarding your claim that BAHAI was a sect of Islam... The same mistake
> were carried on up to a recent time by some fanatical muslims...
>
> But now, it is clear and, it is a reality that BAHAIZM is a completely
> new religion,,,Its prophet is his holiness Bahaullah,,,and the name of
> their holy book is THE BOOK OF CERTITUDE,
> (KITAB-I IKAN) ..it has no relation whatsoever with Islam...So please
> kindly correct your info.
>
> With compassion,
>
It is technically a new religion. It arose however out of Shia Islam
and is located in the Shiite areas of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.
It started in the 19th century in Iran.

The Koran is still a holy text nut not dictated and there are elements
of other religions. In moral terms only Western style monogamous
marriage is allowd. More than 1 wife together with /tempoorary
marriages (allowed in Shia but not Sunni) is not allowed.

puma

2006-09-18, 4:29 pm

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
> puma wrote:
> It is technically a new religion. It arose however out of Shia Islam
> and is located in the Shiite areas of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.
> It started in the 19th century in Iran.
>
> The Koran is still a holy text nut not dictated and there are elements
> of other religions. In moral terms only Western style monogamous
> marriage is allowd. More than 1 wife together with /tempoorary
> marriages (allowed in Shia but not Sunni) is not allowed.

Hi Ianparker,
Bahai religion comes from BAB faith (GATE of GOD)

Just arosal in Iran does not necessitates it to come from Islam...

As all the other Middle East religions they have to accept their
previous religion in order
to show that they are coming from the same source... Christians accept
Judaism, Muslims accept, Christianism and Judaism, Baha`is accept
Islam,Christianism and Judaism...

But to accept these religions and thier holy books does not mean they
use those books in their rituels...Therefore Bahai`s have their own
profet his holiness BAHAULLAH and they have their own holy book,KITAB-I
IKAN (the book of certitute)

In Islam, in Shia or in Sunni sects, more than 1 wife is permitted...
This is for sure,,, as Holy Koran states this permission. If you may
check Hz. Mohammed`s life ,you may see that he had many wifes all
together 13 .

I have been living in an Islamic country, and I know Islam pretty
well...In this wife matter Shia or Sunni does not make any
difference... Koran lets them have many, 4 wifes as only registered,
but without any registeration one can have many others...It is a matter
of MONEY....If you may afford it,,it is limitless...

Religion permits many wifes in Islam but if you live in a secular state
as Turkey then you can not get more than one wife.. this is the
reality ...Because there is a LAW...But still some people do it
secretly...

If you want any more info regarding BAHAI FAITH you can check the
following site:

http://www.bahai-religion.org/belie...s_scripture.htm

We have to accept and see the reality as BAHAI religion is a
completely separate religion and its customs are quite different from
Islam...

With compassion,

Puma

With compassion,

Puma

Bryan Olson

2006-09-18, 9:30 pm

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
> If people were really listening they would have realized that the Pope
> was arttacking the principle of unreason in beliefs.

He's well-positioned to fix quite a mass of unreason in belief,
but not within Islam.

--
--Bryan

Karl Jacob

2006-09-18, 9:30 pm

Bryan Olson wrote:
> ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> He's well-positioned to fix quite a mass of unreason in belief,
> but not within Islam.

very very well said

Sevenhundred Elves

2006-09-19, 2:27 am

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-19, 8:29 am

Karl Jacob wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
> very very well said

If you beieve all religion to be false OK. I happen to believe that
religion can be reconciled with science.

I think also that the lack oof reason amoung certain religions tends to
put people off. One interesting point - Darwin became an atheist after
the death of Mary Darwin who he deeply loved. It was NOT evolution that
tipped him.

There is the anthopic principle that no one has satisfactorally
explained. There are various propositions on "evolution in universes"
that :-

1) There are a large number of universes and statuistically one must
fit.

2) There is natural selection in universes. In other words the purpose
of humanity is to build accelerators and produce black holes and new
universes.

I know this is very much old ground but it does serve to indicate that
religion is not complete unreason.

Religions were formulated with very primitive scientific knowledge and
this is the source of the problem. Once you sta\rt a dictation by the
Archangel Gabriel you freeze Science in the 7th century. If you argue
the inspired word of God you can accept primitive Science.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

2006-09-19, 8:29 am

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
> Karl Jacob wrote:
>
> If you beieve all religion to be false OK. I happen to believe that
> religion can be reconciled with science.

True - just not the existing mainstream religions.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

mark

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

If you beieve all religion to be false OK. I happen to believe that
>
> True - just not the existing mainstream religions.

Hi everyone,
I agree with these statements. Mainstream religions are too much into
dogma. "First believe this." Well, why should we? I believe what I can
experience. Well what if what someone believes is wrong. In medieval
Japan, it was believed that it was ok for a samurai to cut off
someone's head on the spot if he perceived that that person had
offended him. I've heard that nowadays the Japanese are naturally
evasive in their speech because of this (lol). I don't know if the last
sentence is true but it is what i've heard.

Anyway, reconciliation of science and religion. Most people in the west
have trouble with this one. However, reincarnation, for instance, is
not based on belief but science. How? Well, it says in the Bhagavada
Gita that " as the embodied soul continually passes in this body from
boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another
body at death. The self realized soul is not bewildered by such a
change." So this is not a belief, we know scientifically that the body
has completely changed from when we were a boy to an adult. Most cells
have been replaced, and when we see someone who we haven't seen since
they were a boy, we hardly recognize them. There body is so different.
Yet, we still remember our boyhood because we are different from the
body. We are the conscious living force (soul) that resides inside the
body. This is logical and not based on faith.

Warmest Regards,

Mark
>

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> True - just not the existing mainstream religions.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

> I agree with these statements. Mainstream religions are too much into
> dogma. "First believe this." Well, why should we? I believe what I can
> experience. Well what if what someone believes is wrong. In medieval
> Japan, it was believed that it was ok for a samurai to cut off
> someone's head on the spot if he perceived that that person had
> offended him. I've heard that nowadays the Japanese are naturally
> evasive in their speech because of this (lol). I don't know if the last
> sentence is true but it is what i've heard.

Yes, Mark. The Samurai were a strong influence, but this was only one
influence within a background of Shinto, feudalism, and Shoganate rule.
Consider its opposite. Would you allow "freedom" for a nation to tear itself
to pieces? That is where things were heading prior to Ieyasu Tokugawa.

> Anyway, reconciliation of science and religion. Most people in the west
> have trouble with this one. However, reincarnation, for instance, is
> not based on belief but science. How? Well, it says in the Bhagavada
> Gita that " as the embodied soul continually passes in this body from
> boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another
> body at death. The self realized soul is not bewildered by such a
> change." So this is not a belief, we know scientifically that the body
> has completely changed from when we were a boy to an adult. Most cells
> have been replaced, and when we see someone who we haven't seen since
> they were a boy, we hardly recognize them. There body is so different.
> Yet, we still remember our boyhood because we are different from the
> body. We are the conscious living force (soul) that resides inside the
> body. This is logical and not based on faith.

True and valid aren't the same thing. I agree, reincarnation has its appeal
and theories but I wouldn't plan my holidays on that basis. Really, we're
dealing in uncertainties, new theories, and varying qualities of evidence.
Whether it's religion or science, too much ego attachment has its dangers.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

mark

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

Hi Charles,

I'm sorry, what uncertainties and theories are we discussing? All that
was said was that the body changes but we remain the same person.
Logically this means that we are something different than the body.
Maybe I'm not expressing myself nicely. Is this difficult to
understand?

Warmest Regards,

Mark

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> Yes, Mark. The Samurai were a strong influence, but this was only one
> influence within a background of Shinto, feudalism, and Shoganate rule.
> Consider its opposite. Would you allow "freedom" for a nation to tear itself
> to pieces? That is where things were heading prior to Ieyasu Tokugawa.
>
>
> True and valid aren't the same thing. I agree, reincarnation has its appeal
> and theories but I wouldn't plan my holidays on that basis. Really, we're
> dealing in uncertainties, new theories, and varying qualities of evidence.
> Whether it's religion or science, too much ego attachment has its dangers.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

mark wrote:
> If you beieve all religion to be false OK. I happen to believe that
>
> Hi everyone,
> I agree with these statements. Mainstream religions are too much into
> dogma. "First believe this." Well, why should we? I believe what I can
> experience. Well what if what someone believes is wrong. In medieval
> Japan, it was believed that it was ok for a samurai to cut off
> someone's head on the spot if he perceived that that person had
> offended him. I've heard that nowadays the Japanese are naturally
> evasive in their speech because of this (lol). I don't know if the last
> sentence is true but it is what i've heard.

I am in fact a Catholic, and it may surprise you to read this but there
is a lot of sense in what you say. Not completely though. When we
discuss faith we may in fact be looking at tghe wrong thing. Faith is
not a statement of intellectual assent to a set of propositions. Faith
comes from what St. Paul describes as charity. You admire a set of
principles. Your spiritual life starts off by living by these
principles and (essentially) loving God. Why do we act in this way.
Because it is in our nasture so to act. We are by nature spiritual and
altruistic beings. This is where it starts. It is not a question of -
"These are a set of propositions, you must agree to these to be
"saved".

Dogma then follows. Jesus Christ was the son of God, but it is NOT a
starting point.
>
> Anyway, reconciliation of science and religion. Most people in the west
> have trouble with this one.

The West (and the Islamic world too) has fallen into a trap. Our
religions (as I have stated earlier) were based on primitive science.
If the basis of faith is the above and mem with that faith express
themseves in the way of Genesis, Science can not invalidate their
faith, it can invalidate their scientific posture.

In the West we have Genesis, in the Far East the creation stories are
much more reconcilable with what we understand to be scientific fact.
This is really the long and short of it. Not that reincarnation has any
more truth in it than the Christian belief of the afterlife.

However, reincarnation, for instance, is
> not based on belief but science. How? Well, it says in the Bhagavada
> Gita that " as the embodied soul continually passes in this body from
> boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another
> body at death. The self realized soul is not bewildered by such a
> change." So this is not a belief, we know scientifically that the body
> has completely changed from when we were a boy to an adult. Most cells
> have been replaced, and when we see someone who we haven't seen since
> they were a boy, we hardly recognize them. There body is so different.
> Yet, we still remember our boyhood because we are different from the
> body. We are the conscious living force (soul) that resides inside the
> body. This is logical and not based on faith.
>
- Ian Parker

Bryan Olson

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
> If you beieve all religion to be false OK. I happen to believe that
> religion can be reconciled with science.

Took us thousands of years to separate them.

If you want to bring science into your religion, that's probably
harmless enough. On the other hand, religious ideas have proven
much worse than useless in science.

--
--Bryan

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

> I'm sorry, what uncertainties and theories are we discussing? All that
> was said was that the body changes but we remain the same person.
> Logically this means that we are something different than the body.
> Maybe I'm not expressing myself nicely. Is this difficult to
> understand?

Well, you're taking very well worn ground about the nature of self and
pojecting it onto equally well worn reincarnation. One does not follow the
other - a valid argument doesn't mean its a true argument. More crudely,
appealing to logic's authority made you look an XXX.

Not difficult to understand at all. And that's the sad bit.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

Bryan Olson

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

mark wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, reconciliation of science and religion.

Just say no.

> Most people in the west
> have trouble with this one. However, reincarnation, for instance, is
> not based on belief but science. How? Well, it says in the Bhagavada
> Gita

That's myth.

> that " as the embodied soul continually passes in this body from
> boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another
> body at death. The self realized soul is not bewildered by such a
> change."

Did it describe how to determine that experimentally?

--
--Bryan

mark

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

Hi Charles,

You r right. Very crude.

Warmest Regards,

Mark

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> Well, you're taking very well worn ground about the nature of self and
> pojecting it onto equally well worn reincarnation. One does not follow the
> other - a valid argument doesn't mean its a true argument. More crudely,
> appealing to logic's authority made you look an XXX.
>
> Not difficult to understand at all. And that's the sad bit.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

>> If you beieve all religion to be false OK. I happen to believe that
>
> Took us thousands of years to separate them.
>
> If you want to bring science into your religion, that's probably
> harmless enough. On the other hand, religious ideas have proven
> much worse than useless in science.

We're all swimming in the same pond. Science has its share of whacko as much
as religion does reality. If there's an issue, I think, it's less one of
science versus religion, or any other field, and more the XXXXXXX factor.

For instance, as a consultant I argued for changes with the head of a world
class universities head of department. The XXXXXXX factor ended up costing
said university 3 Million GBP in hard cash. Eventually, they buckled.

I can name a, now dead, senior religious leader who stuck his head in the
sand over goals, practice, and outcomes because the pitch wasn't framed in
religious terms. Today? After huge losses they, er, buckled.

Scientists and religious people, like businessmen and politicians, can get
an egotistical view of the world, sucked into the system, and end up doing
more harm than good. All, in their own way, have the XXXXXXX factor.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

> You r right. Very crude.

I'm not too good at spoon feeding or cuddling people.

Just in case you didn't spot it. ;-)

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

mark

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

Bryan wrote:

Did it describe how to determine that experimentally?

Yes.

Mark

Bryan Olson wrote:
> mark wrote:
> [...]
>
> Just say no.
>
>
> That's myth.
>
>
> Did it describe how to determine that experimentally?
>
>
> --
> --Bryan

Bryan Olson

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

mark wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
> Did it describe how to determine that experimentally?
>
> Yes.
>
> Mark

When will I learn not to use rhetorical questions on Usenet?

--
--Bryan

mark

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

Yes, and your mummy never taught you no manners either, eh mate.

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> I'm not too good at spoon feeding or cuddling people.
>
> Just in case you didn't spot it. ;-)
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

>> > You r right. Very crude.
> Yes, and your mummy never taught you no manners either, eh mate.

You make assertions, then fade, then lash out.

Is there something you want to tell me?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

Bryan Olson

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

mark wrote:
> I'm sorry, what uncertainties and theories are we discussing? All that
> was said was that the body changes but we remain the same person.

No, that wasn't all that was said. Just look at your post:
you had that ludicrous inference about reincarnation.

--
--Bryan

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-20, 4:28 pm

Bryan Olson wrote:
> ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Took us thousands of years to separate them.
>
> If you want to bring science into your religion, that's probably
> harmless enough. On the other hand, religious ideas have proven
> much worse than useless in science.
>
True! I think we need a few theogical juju words here. God is
transcendent and immenent. God is the creator of the Universe but we
can also know Him. Meditation/Yoga is great on the side of "immenance",
but does not do justice to God in the transcendent sense.

Religion acknowledges the trancendent, which will be shaped by our
scintific knowledge but the reason for faith is immenance. This is
described in 2 Corinthinans where Paul says that you must have charity,
otherwise everything else goes by the board. St. Paul in fact
invalidates Pascal - It does not profit you to do anything for a wager.

Islam and the Koran has a totally different view of faith and
justification and wagers apply. I would like to ask the radicals one
question. If the American Islamic Association is right in it's
interperation of the Koran and only a defensive jihad is permissible
and even then the Geneva Convention must be obeyed, then it follows
that all suicide bombers that are NOT acting defensively and/or
disregarding the GC will go downstairs. Don't we have a basis for a
wager here. Pascal's holy life will get you to paradise regardless of
the truth or falsity of the AIA. A "holy life" might involve going to
Iraq and helping in a PEACEFUL way.

puma

2006-09-20, 9:34 pm

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
> True! I think we need a few theogical juju words here. God is
> transcendent and immenent. God is the creator of the Universe but we
> can also know Him. Meditation/Yoga is great on the side of "immenance",
> but does not do justice to God in the transcendent sense.
>
> Religion acknowledges the trancendent, which will be shaped by our
> scintific knowledge but the reason for faith is immenance. This is
> described in 2 Corinthinans where Paul says that you must have charity,
> otherwise everything else goes by the board. St. Paul in fact
> invalidates Pascal - It does not profit you to do anything for a wager.
>
> Islam and the Koran has a totally different view of faith and
> justification and wagers apply. I would like to ask the radicals one
> question. If the American Islamic Association is right in it's
> interperation of the Koran and only a defensive jihad is permissible
> and even then the Geneva Convention must be obeyed, then it follows
> that all suicide bombers that are NOT acting defensively and/or
> disregarding the GC will go downstairs. Don't we have a basis for a
> wager here. Pascal's holy life will get you to paradise regardless of
> the truth or falsity of the AIA. A "holy life" might involve going to
> Iraq and helping in a PEACEFUL way.

Who says God is the creator story?

Only religions say it why? because religions want to monopolise God for
only their religious aims...

In fact if we have existance then we have an explanation of it,,, this
explanation is the real GOD...

Koran and Islam are same,,,as christians and Bible are...

Suicide bombers only indicates that how they have a strong belief to
sacrifice even their lives...If one has no free thought then this is
very reasonal...This is a religious faith...

Crusaders did the same thing hundreds of years before and now they are
still doing the same thing,,remember what Mr. Walker G. Bus is saying
when he sent his soldiers to Iraq.... So Islam or Christians are
same,,,if their God is a sort of MONOPOLISED one...

With compassion,

Puma

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-21, 8:25 am

puma wrote:
> ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Who says God is the creator story?
>
> Only religions say it why? because religions want to monopolise God for
> only their religious aims...
>
> In fact if we have existance then we have an explanation of it,,, this
> explanation is the real GOD...
>
This is to some extent a matter of definition. Here is a fasinating
definition of "the singularity"
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cr...e8ab03eff?hl=en

If you ask a computer that can answer any question the question "Is
there a God", the correct answer is "there is now!" There are many
fascinating theories, possibly the most fascinating being "the Matrix".
This can as I have demonstated be woven into a pseudo steady state
theory.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cr...c1cf9eabc?hl=en

Read the last section of my reply on "existential risks.

Religion does not enquire about how God was created or whart God is.
Indeed some of the utterings of Christ tend to the viewpoint that this
may be an improper question to ask. Anyway the exchanges here are
fasinating.
> Koran and Islam are same,,,as christians and Bible are...
>
> Suicide bombers only indicates that how they have a strong belief to
> sacrifice even their lives...If one has no free thought then this is
> very reasonal...This is a religious faith...
>
> Crusaders did the same thing hundreds of years before and now they are
> still doing the same thing,,remember what Mr. Walker G. Bus is saying
> when he sent his soldiers to Iraq.... So Islam or Christians are
> same,,,if their God is a sort of MONOPOLISED one...
>
How do they know they are going "upstairs". The American Islamic
Association implies that they are going "downstairs". As I was saying
have a wager, as Pascal would say. Go to Iraq, swing a pickaxe in 50C,
in that way you have covered the possibility.

Returning to the point about Science, Science provides us with imagery.
I put this to a friend of mine whao is a theologian, he said we should
not talk about "upstairs" and "downstairs". I said these were
expression just as in the ISS the corridors are painted like the modern
electronic artificial horizon. If you say "turn left" it is "left" with
blue at the top.

If I were to say that if you blew up a plane in a suicide attack you
would go the the brown part of its artificial horizon. That would be
imagery that would only be understood by someone familiar with the ISS.

BTW Astronauts have all flown as pilots at some time in their training
and they will instantly recogize a corridor.

- Ian Parker
>
> Puma

puma

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> puma wrote:
> This is to some extent a matter of definition. Here is a fasinating
> definition of "the singularity"
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cr...e8ab03eff?hl=en
>
> If you ask a computer that can answer any question the question "Is
> there a God", the correct answer is "there is now!" There are many
> fascinating theories, possibly the most fascinating being "the Matrix".
> This can as I have demonstated be woven into a pseudo steady state
> theory.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cr...c1cf9eabc?hl=en
>
> Read the last section of my reply on "existential risks.
>
> Religion does not enquire about how God was created or whart God is.
> Indeed some of the utterings of Christ tend to the viewpoint that this
> may be an improper question to ask. Anyway the exchanges here are
> fasinating.
> How do they know they are going "upstairs". The American Islamic
> Association implies that they are going "downstairs". As I was saying
> have a wager, as Pascal would say. Go to Iraq, swing a pickaxe in 50C,
> in that way you have covered the possibility.
>
> Returning to the point about Science, Science provides us with imagery.
> I put this to a friend of mine whao is a theologian, he said we should
> not talk about "upstairs" and "downstairs". I said these were
> expression just as in the ISS the corridors are painted like the modern
> electronic artificial horizon. If you say "turn left" it is "left" with
> blue at the top.
>
> If I were to say that if you blew up a plane in a suicide attack you
> would go the the brown part of its artificial horizon. That would be
> imagery that would only be understood by someone familiar with the ISS.
>
> BTW Astronauts have all flown as pilots at some time in their training
> and they will instantly recogize a corridor.
>
> - Ian Parker

Hi Ian Parker,

Thanks for your kind reply.

May be, we are talking about different subjects... All I am talking
about is the MONOPOLISATION of God by almost all the religions with
some exceptions of TAOISM, BUDDHISM, ZEN...

To ask anything about God from a computer should not be wise ! As
Computers have no social lives...Only ( social lives owners) has a
right and value regarding this matter...

Even the answer ""there is now "" would not be a correct reply,, as
time is a relative
picture of any movement...Please note that for human effairs computers
are helpless,in particularly this sort of phylosophical matters...I
never heard any computers` saying regarding any spiritual matter ...

In all the religions God is described as Love or revenge taker,,
forgiver,atc...

Because all the aim of these teist religions is to monopolise God for
themselves,,,as there is no respect for the other religions...As non of
them recognises the others...

But what is TRUTH then...Is there an existence? If there is, then this
is the name of GOD...But this God has no relation with any religion at
all...You may even say that there is no God,,,and this God surely will
not punish you for this saying of yourselve.

Going up or going down could only be evaluated by their beliefs...If
any belief is around, then it means that there are things that we do
not know...

In other words: If one believes,this means that he/she does not
know,,,if one knows,this means that he/she does not believe...

It is clear that no one ever is seen he/she believes in his/her name!
because he/she is sure about his/her name that he/she knows the name
and no need to believe it!

With compassion,

Puma

Charles E Hardwidge

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

> Because all the aim of these teist religions is to monopolise God for
> themselves,,,as there is no respect for the other religions...As non of
> them recognises the others...

In my experience, this is not so much a theological problem, it's more a
people problem. It's the same in team sports, organisations attitude to
customers, and any structure that becomes too obsessed. Been there, done
that, and I've seen the damage it can do on all sides. Not very useful.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

Lizz Holmans

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:41:59 GMT, "Charles E Hardwidge"
<nojunk@nojunk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In my experience, this is not so much a theological problem, it's more a
>people problem. It's the same in team sports, organisations attitude to
>customers, and any structure that becomes too obsessed. Been there, done
>that, and I've seen the damage it can do on all sides. Not very useful.

It has been noted by anthropologists that the tribal name of every
single tribal unit all over the world translates roughly into 'The
Human Beings' or 'The People'. In other words, we're human and you're
not.

The instinct toward exclusivity seems to be universal.

Lizz 'I'm selective, you're elitist, he's prejudiced' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

puma

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> In my experience, this is not so much a theological problem, it's more a
> people problem. It's the same in team sports, organisations attitude to
> customers, and any structure that becomes too obsessed. Been there, done
> that, and I've seen the damage it can do on all sides. Not very useful.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge

Hi Charles,

There is a theological problem,,, yes there is!!! Because Theist
religions in their holy books
do not accept other religions,,, They only claim that whatever that
particular holy book says or dictates,,,that is the only TRUTH !!! I
have never seen any holy book stating that
other religions are also right...

Then,,,people start to create problems depending on these
scripts,,,even Gods may fight with others as it is in Hinduism...
Muslims or Christians do think that their Gods are different...WHY ?
It is because of these holy books....Islamic God notion and Christian
God notion are completely different...They are not the same God...

On the other hand you could be right,,, because all these actions,
including religions, are completely the result of people...if the
picture is taken from this angle...As there are no other beings having
this sort of scripts...Animals do not care for this sort of actions...
May be their intellect do see it unnecessary!

With compassion,

Puma

Bryan Olson

2006-09-21, 9:36 pm

puma wrote:
> There is a theological problem,,, yes there is!!!

If and only if you decide to have one.

> Because Theist
> religions in their holy books
> do not accept other religions,,, They only claim that whatever that
> particular holy book says or dictates,,,that is the only TRUTH !!! I
> have never seen any holy book stating that
> other religions are also right...

That's just a matter of definition: when one religious text
takes a position on another, we tend not to count them as "other
religions" to the extent that disagree. The Christian's /New
Testament/ endorses the canon of Judaic scripture in the /Old
Testament/. I hear that the /Koran/ accepts a lot of Jewish
scripture. The /Book of Mormon/ tries to build upon the
Christian Bible.

> Then,,,people start to create problems depending on these
> scripts,,,even Gods may fight with others as it is in Hinduism...
> Muslims or Christians do think that their Gods are different...WHY ?
> It is because of these holy books....Islamic God notion and Christian
> God notion are completely different...They are not the same God...

It's a bunch of nonsense either way. There's no ground truth in
the matter. Might as well argue about whether Batman in the
movies the same Batman as Batman on TV.

--
--Bryan

ianparker2@gmail.com

2006-09-22, 8:31 am

puma wrote:
>
> Hi Ian Parker,
>
> Thanks for your kind reply.
>
> May be, we are talking about different subjects... All I am talking
> about is the MONOPOLISATION of God by almost all the religions with
> some exceptions of TAOISM, BUDDHISM, ZEN...
>
The Pope wishes to have a dialogue. This was how the script started. My
divinity teacher was asked a question "Does it matter what you
believe?". The relply was interestng. "On Wimbledon Common there are
mushrooms and toadstools. If you eat toadstools you will suffer the
consequences". What he meant was that if you followed another religion,
if its precepts were reasonably compatable with Chritianity you were
OK. I think we must acknowledge that there are many ways to God. If
however you were acting in an immoral way. Topically we can say that
extreme Islam is an immoral way, then you have to fact the
consequences.

> To ask anything about God from a computer should not be wise ! As
> Computers have no social lives...Only ( social lives owners) has a
> right and value regarding this matter...
>
This is a classical AI witticism. Whether God existed before the
computer is an open question, but strong AI implies that there is a God
- Strong AI! We are of course using computers all the time to refine
our knowledge of science.

BTW Buce J. Klein promised to reply. I think I and other people have
made some valid points. I am extecting a devastating response.
I did mentio
> Even the answer ""there is now "" would not be a correct reply,, as
> time is a relative
> picture of any movement...Please note that for human effairs computers
> are helpless,in particularly this sort of phylosophical matters...I
> never heard any computers` saying regarding any spiritual matter ...
>
> In all the religions God is described as Love or revenge taker,,
> forgiver,atc...
>
> Because all the aim of these teist religions is to monopolise God for
> themselves,,,as there is no respect for the other religions...As non of
> them recognises the others...
>
> But what is TRUTH then...Is there an existence? If there is, then this
> is the name of GOD...But this God has no relation with any religion at
> all...You may even say that there is no God,,,and this God surely will
> not punish you for this saying of yourselve.
>
> Going up or going down could only be evaluated by their beliefs...If
> any belief is around, then it means that there are things that we do
> not know...
>
> In other words: If one believes,this means that he/she does not
> know,,,if one knows,this means that he/she does not believe...
>
> It is clear that no one ever is seen he/she believes in his/her name!
> because he/she is sure about his/her name that he/she knows the name
> and no need to believe it!
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma

puma

2006-09-22, 9:31 pm

Bryan Olson wrote:
> puma wrote:
>
> If and only if you decide to have one.
>
>
> That's just a matter of definition: when one religious text
> takes a position on another, we tend not to count them as "other
> religions" to the extent that disagree. The Christian's /New
> Testament/ endorses the canon of Judaic scripture in the /Old
> Testament/. I hear that the /Koran/ accepts a lot of Jewish
> scripture. The /Book of Mormon/ tries to build upon the
> Christian Bible.
>
>
>
> It's a bunch of nonsense either way. There's no ground truth in
> the matter. Might as well argue about whether Batman in the
> movies the same Batman as Batman on TV.
>
>
> --
> --Bryan

Hi Bryan,

Definitely,

Puma

puma

2006-09-22, 9:31 pm

ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> puma wrote:
> The Pope wishes to have a dialogue. This was how the script started. My
> divinity teacher was asked a question "Does it matter what you
> believe?". The relply was interestng. "On Wimbledon Common there are
> mushrooms and toadstools. If you eat toadstools you will suffer the
> consequences". What he meant was that if you followed another religion,
> if its precepts were reasonably compatable with Chritianity you were
> OK. I think we must acknowledge that there are many ways to God. If
> however you were acting in an immoral way. Topically we can say that
> extreme Islam is an immoral way, then you have to fact the
> consequences.
>
> This is a classical AI witticism. Whether God existed before the
> computer is an open question, but strong AI implies that there is a God
> - Strong AI! We are of course using computers all the time to refine
> our knowledge of science.
>
> BTW Buce J. Klein promised to reply. I think I and other people have
> made some valid points. I am extecting a devastating response.
> I did mentio

My dear friend Ian Parker,

Extreem of anything is immoral! if we recall history of Vatican we
have many extreem cases as
VATICAN cheated to its poor
believers.Even they issued INDULGENCIAS To sell the keys of HEAVENS
That is how MARTEN LUTHER started in WITTENBERG....

Last year this same holiness
POPE did the same thing ,He said if people gathered in berlin all
their
sins were going to be forgiven !

To me these are also extreem cases to cheat their own peopl is far from
the extreem...

With compassion,

Puma