Way off topic - quote mining

Humans have a serious problem in *clearly* explaining a revelation from G-D thru us to others. And even if some of those revelations are written down, the written word becomes even less clear - and therfore subject to (variations of) interpretation. Then time passes, cultures and languages change, meanings of (surviving) words change, and "behold" we have even more possible interpretations! If you want fresh oats, get in front of the horse, otherwise get them re-processed at the back end. That is to say, there is only one way to get to the truth and that is to ask and receive (seems someone about 2000 years ago said that). There are few people on this ball of dust that are "close enough" to G-D to do that, and if anyone brags that they can do so, the bragging should be used as an indication of a liar.

Why are you participating in this off-topic discussion?

It cares because it has the human foible of ego?

When I come out against religion - I still think Christ had a lot of good things to say, but I don't need someone to tell me what to believe.

It isn't supposed to make sense - the people that created God didn't have a lot of the answers they were more interested in protecting and acquiring power over people. 4-5 thousand years ago they weren't too up on their science, logic had to be parked at the gate, still does - religion has its roots in superstition - how to explain what you don't understand - religion's game.

Eating pork (and shellfish) was probably because people died occasionally when they ate that stuff. Easy for the "tribes" of Israel to write it into the canon. People still died occasionally from something they eat and the idea the way a food is prepared has something to do with it - so the rabbi gets involved and there is a kosher method of preparing food that results in fewer deaths. The bible is both mystical and practical. The Koran is similar - probably more secular law than spirituality in that document - deals with laws of property ownership, marriage, behavior towards one's fellows.

The Muslim is bound by the Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran - strictly speaking.

Intelligence comes on the scene 160,000 years ago (give or take a

It is politically more expedient to unite the people and their beliefs and one god does a better job than many.

Religion still works for the political leaders directly, like Muhammad, a secular ruler, or the Pharaohs, gods themselves. Today it is still used by political leaders - the chaplain's benediction in Congress, the crowning of monarchs by bishops in cathedrals, the older practice of burying the aristocracy in cathedrals.

The Modern religions have more or less begun to treat the Old Testament as a guide not to be taken too literally. That is a practical adaptation - we can eat any meat providing it is safe, through preparation or just not harvesting shellfish from polluted water. We see a geological event and don't pray to a god as a result of superstition.

The reason God seems to have a lot less to do with us today as in the old days - people aren't turned into pillars of salt - they are inundated with pyroclastic gases from volcanoes - a natural, if undesirable, phenomena. Practically speaking, praying is less effective than running.

Another irony there - religions moving away from their roots because our understanding of natural events has improved, yet without the root one should be questioning the religion. And an irony to be quote mining the OT for political reasons as well.

It is all very fascinating to me. I'm always trying to resolve how the race that gave us Socrates, Hero, DaVinci, Bach, et al, can be so stupid when it comes to self-governance. War and destruction of the environment are both incredibly stupid things to be doing yet we take both for granted - war is always some else's fault, and environmental damage is the price of progress. Neat, no problems.

I see a lot of similarity in the behavior of lawyers, politicians, and pathological liars and again with priests, evangelical leaders, actors, marketing people. In a lot of cases the very people that would make the best leaders, want nothing to do with leading and more often the converse is true - those with the least ability seek the position - so they must be satisfying some need?

An engineer might make a good leader, because they are more likely to look for flaws in their reasoning, and be quicker to change when what they are doing isn't having the desired effect - but an engineer wouldn't be motivated to get into politics and lie his way to a position where he could attempt to change things for the better. Politicians would not be a good engineers.

You should read "Ishmael" by David Quinn if you haven't. It is spiritual, enlightening, and in spite of delving in to some very heavy subjects, very easy and satisfying to read. I doubt that a spiritual person can read it without being changed in some way. As one critic put it something like "I lump books into two categories now, those that I read before 'Ishmael' and those after."

It deals with how civilization got this way - but is written so well and easy to understand, that anyone can read and enjoy it. The book has a cult following of sorts and would likely become a religion if irony prevails again.

Quoted from a review: The story begins with a newspaper ad: "Teacher seeks pupil, must have an earnest desire to save the world". A nameless character (who is identified in a later book as Alan Lomax) responds to the ad out of nostalgia. He seeks the teacher, and finds himself in a room with a gorilla.

Why not?

He sacrificed one of the unicorns. )-;

Cheers! Rich

According to this guy, all of them are wrong:

Cheers! Rich

The God of the Bible is N-O-T the God of the Muslims. In this day and age He isn't even the God of most Christians (pseudo Christians). They pretend to be His but their actions speak otherwise.

Unknown who the Muslims worship but it's not God, there is only one and He revealed Himself to the Jews and then later when fulfilling prophesy He called believers Christians. But this notion that muslims worship the God of the Bible is false, they do not. They don't even believe Jesus IS God, he's just a prophet. They have no God and hence, no salvation. Yet I've met ex-Muslims who have heard of the God of the Bible and left their religion and became Christians. The only salvation plan is found in the Bible and it involves Christ going to hell for the sins of those he saves, sorry but, there is no salvation in the Muslim religion. Sick of hearing politicians and religious leaders make it sound like we all worship the same God. They have their agendas, I do not trust any of them.

It is. All they want is your money. If people actually read the Bible to find truth rather than trust some "man" for it, they would all come out of the churches and the denominations would go bankrupt over night. Feed the people. Jer 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. 23:2 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.

Sound like it was written for today? Any pastors jailed for fleecing their flocks recently? History is repeating itself, just read the Ot side of the Bible it's all there for us to see. Religious politics at their worse.

Perhaps you need to _read_ the Q'urran again.

Parochial poppycock. See above.

Yep, religions maintain themselves by insert their priesthood between you and the diety and taxing all transactions and idle accounts. It is hard to say whether they leart this from the moneylenders or vice versa.

Also, my Hindu friend has much the same complaints about his multi-theistic "Church".

Actually we do that from time to time, please see Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. While it is rare, there are previous examples s well.

Citation please.

OK. For starters this a USENET Newsgroup, not a website. Your apparently willful misunderstanding of the difference is a just indicator of your magnificent ignorance.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scandal.

Religion is the first.

Elmer Gantry was sharply observed.

And because it seems to be the only thing that a significant part of our population will respond to.

Pavlov used a bell with dogs. Politicians use biblical quotes with their constituents. Whatever works. The role of politics isn't to seek out the needs or wants of the public and then provide them. Its to herd the public into the direction that power brokers specify.

But if the "other side" does it, why shouldn't she?

I think the people with the agendas know full well the difference between true religion and the goals that they seek using it as a front. Its the sheeple (it was Jesus that referred to his followers as a flock of sheep) that can't be allowed to discern the difference.

News==----

Newsgroups

For conspiracy buffs, this fits right in with the dumbing-down of the schools that's been going on for almost 2 generations now. )-;

Thanks, Rich

It has been very effective. According to one long term study, the percentage of those in the US with college degrees who can follow a logical argument, such as a court case, or understand charts and tables etc., has been falling about 1% per year and is now down around 25%. For HS grads, the number is around 4% and for those with neither it is negligible.

Because there are enough people that may see the subterfuge and regard her as an idiot. Or, worse yet, believe she actually believes what she is saying and should be avoided for that reason. Or she shouldn't precisely because the opposition does and she doesn't want to play at their level.

I believe that both parties use the bible because it is easy to justify their evil idiotic behavior with a few well chosen quotes. Nancy Pelosi is no better.

If Jesus did indeed refer to his followers as a flock . . . personally I think the new testament - mostly written 3-4 centuries after Jesus died - was already being changed into a religious doctrine to serve the needs of the priests or power brokers of that day.

In the Sixth/Seventh century, Pope Gregory the Great (both religious and secular ruler) rewrote the bible to strengthen his power and consolidate his Catholic empire.

I think it wasn't until the 13th century that pope's became infallible or one pope declared himself infallible . . . and started an inquisition if you had the audacity to disagree.

Too many politicians had a hand in the bible.

Ignoring "The DaVinci Code," I never believed the "New Testament" as an accurate historical account either - just much better than the "Old Testament." For the (NT) bible to be believable to me I'd also want to see exactly what Gregory changed, and some history on the political climate he operated in.

Until such time as the real truth might (never) be revealed, I'll go on believing that "Jesus was a pretty cool dude, who has a really bad fan club."

You make a good argument that people aren't capable of self-governance or "democracy" - - - not that we have either today.

The Catholic Inquisition was terrorism at its best.

I imagine it was a pretty good deal to be a priest or bishop back then. Same deal the Muslim Imams have. I wonder if they use it to get laid?

The doctrine of infallibilty is very recent.

"This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of

"Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium."

Uh, that would be about 1985. See

Cheers! Rich

Always good to mix theology with humor . . . keeps one sane