Slammr (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:25 pm As long as we're making up gods, let's make up fun ones. I think the Greek and Roman gods were more fun -- and made just as much sense. Why did we ever do away with them?

Don't forget the Celtic Gods, and no we have not done away with them they are alive and well.

River

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:50 pm I have a plan that works pretty good.

I tell the Jehovah's Witnesses missionaries that I am a Mormon, and I tell Mormon missionaries that I am a Jehovah's Witness.

Then, if the Baptists, Assembly of God or other missionaries come around I flip a coin and heads, M, tails, JW.

Seems to work...try it.

...if you have a couple of good-looking hookers over have them go to the door naked and tell them that they are busy having sex and to just go away...

I always invite the JWs in to say a rosary. I invite the Mormon boys in for sex. The rest I just tell to fuck off. I'm really hoping for one of those Mormon boys....

kristoff wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:33 am I always invite the JWs in to say a rosary. I invite the Mormon boys in for sex. The rest I just tell to fuck off. I'm really hoping for one of those Mormon boys....

He wasn't Mormon, but he certainly was cute, probably seventeen or eighteen. He had stopped by to tell me about some religious service. I definitely wanted to invite him in. I have no doubt that Krister would have. He was that cute, an innocent kind of cute. Even an old dog like me could have taught him a thing or two.

According to what I have read, one of the more recent explanations of the Christian idea of the trinity, goes something like this.

What is described as "God the father" is an omnipresent entity. That is, God the father is present everywhere, but is not necessarily an intrinsic part of the substance of everything. Now that we know there are billions of electromagnetic waves present in all of us, all the time, but they don't constitute part of us or have any permanent effect on us; it is perhaps easier to conceptualize this idea of God than it was in the remote past. Not to say that God is electromagnetic (I don't think. You'd have to ask the theologians.) but this is the analogy I have read.

For the concept of God the son, you might note that the Bible begins with the statement, "In the beginning was the word." A word, in its most reduced form, is an altogether abstract concept. It is the expression of something. If I recall correctly, in the New Testament Jesus Christ is reported to have said something to the effect, "I am the word." So the theological explanation, as I understand it, is that Jesus is the tangible manifestation of the omnipresent God the father. That is, Jesus constitutes the expression of God as a visible being.

The holy spirit, then, is considered to be the "working presence of God." The holy spirit is God the father, manifested in an influence that works the effects of God in the world. The tongues of flame, the dove, speaking in tongues, and that sort of thing are considered to be signs of the holy spirit, but I don't think that they are in themselves considered to be the holy spirit. Charismatic or pentacostal denominations are much concerned with this sort of thing.

Besides being one theological explanation, I think this is more or less Teilhard de Chardin's view of the nature of God, as he understood it. Actually, even those of us who don't follow the Christian religion, should nevertheless read Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinus, Teilhard (though the Catholic Church more or less rejected him), Reinhold Niebuhr, and others who wrote on theology and Christian philosophy, so we have some idea of how they think and what they are talking about. (Albeit I'm not sure that they or anybody else really understand it.)

I tend to agree with Bagoas. As far as I can tell, none of us have any way of knowing what the real nature of things is. Godel and Heisenberg more or less established that we can never really know anything for sure. Interesting to speculate about the basic questions, though.

@ Slammr

That was my point. If the planchet is controlled by the user's subsconscious mind, (of which I am firmly convinced) then , if he does not believe that the thing will work, I doubt that his subsconscious mind will guide his hand to make it work. If he is convinced of its validity, he can use it for self-deception like the people who ostensibly receive letters from the dead by "automatic writing."

People can believe what they believe, but those who deny the existence of God live in a very small universe.

Terry

Falcon (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:36 pm People can believe what they believe, but those who deny the existence of God live in a very small universe.

Terry

And unfortunately, those that believe in the god of the Bible, believe in a very small god.

Well folks lets look at this in another way if you choose not to beleave their is no God and their isent then so what who cares.BUT if you are wrong then thoes who didnt trust or beleave their is a God of the universe will suffer for eternity.So as in chosing to be castrated or not you better get this right because their are no do overs.Good luck and as I always say read read read.

Bagoas (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:05 pm @ Slammr

That was my point. If the planchet is controlled by the user's subsconscious mind, (of which I am firmly convinced) then , if he does not believe that the thing will work, I doubt that his subsconscious mind will guide his hand to make it work. If he is convinced of its validity, he can use it for self-deception like the people who ostensibly receive letters from the dead by "automatic writing."

...it is when they start writing in a foreign language is when I start to get nervous...

...Vampires, Mummies And The Holy Ghost, these are the things that TERRIFY me the most...

As soon as we can uncover a God that is morally and ethically superior to ourselves, who asks only that we try to rise to his level, I will get religion.

Until then all I see are petty spoiled brats who promise one thing, but deliver hate and jealousy instead.