86 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

From my stock knowledge as a man in the street, here is what I think is philosophy, religion, and superstition.

Philosophy is the continuous and unending quest for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything by speculative thinking. For example, democracy, capitalism, communism are philosophies. They are the programmings people have thought up as good for governing humans, management of monetary resources, and the distribution of life's resources.

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

You examine any religion, say, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, even Scientology, or Buddhism, and you will find people believing in an unknown power and seeking to influence this power by relating to it with affections and actions, in order that the power will return their affections and actions with rewards.

Superstition is a behavior that is irrational, enacted to procure a benefit but more often to avoid or prevent an evil. For example, not leaving the house on a Friday that is the 13th of the month, because it can be bad luck, namely, get you in trouble or in an accident.

The essence of a superstitious behavior is the lack of reasonable basis for the behavior. In the case of Friday the 13th, there is no connection between such a day and the occurrence of an evil event overtaking you should you leave the house.

Another example of superstition is the chain letter whereby you are frightened into writing so many copies of the same letter and sending them to say 20 other recipients; otherwise you will suffer again, some accident or bad luck in business, in love, or in the family. And if you fulfill the directives in the chain letter, you will obtain a reward in some good luck.

Succumbing to the impositions of the chain letter is an irrational behavior, because there is no connection between the performance of its demands and whatever of good that will come to you, or evil should you refuse or neglect to follow its injunctions.


There are people who maintain that all religion is superstition. I for one think otherwise, namely, that religion can be freed of superstitions, if the religious person acts rationally in the practice of his religion.

I consider myself a Christian, more specifically a postgraduate Catholic. Since I believe in God, in Jesus Christ, I pray to them. And that is rational.

Why? because it stands to reason, meaning it is not unreasonable, not crazy then, on the consideration that God is good and all powerful and Jesus is His Son made man.

Hence, for a religious behavior to be rational, first the belief which is the basis for acting is reasonable, and second the action consequential upon the belief is also reasonable.

When are beliefs reasonable and consequential acts founded upon them reasonable? Suppose for the present we just say that when they are not crazy in the estimate of the average reasonable person.

And who is an averagely reasonable person? Someone you can get along with to attain a common end not objectionable to the rest of society in any serious way or degree.

The person that is not averagely reasonable is one you would not want to deal with or interact with or relate to; and you would wish that you don't get into his presence or he does not get into yours. Better, if he is gravely unreasonable, he'd better be consigned to an asylum for his own good and for the good of society.


Susma

[ocsrazor]

This is circular logic Susma, your belief in God and that Jesus Christ is the son of, or is God himself are not rational. That you pray to these unprovable entities may be a rational choice based on those beliefs, but the initial belief in them is not based on anything that is provable.

I will not argue for or against the existence of gods, because by their definition they can not be proved to exist because they would be outside the system of the universe, but to believe in them with no evidence is irrational.

btw I do think that organizations such as churches and other institutions with strict codes of behavior do function similarly as asylums for the irrational members of our culture. The danger is that the lunatics may begin running the asylum and this is an inherent danger we accept with democracy because the majority of people are irrational in a majority of their actions.

[arc3025]

In an asylum, there is, or ought to be, an attempt to bring the mentally ill to health. In the churches, however, there is the very opposite: an attempt to deepen the infection with the mind viruses that characterize the religion.

It is not reasonable to believe in an "unknown." What is truly unknown cannot provide the basis for warranted conjectures of any kind. There is no good reason to attempt to curry favor with unknown entities. The leaders of the churches do not know of any gods, yet they teach others to believe in them.

Rationality is a method, or way of thinking, allowing one to verify a chain of logical connections from one point to another. It has nothing to do with social consensus. People can agree, if they have made similar mistakes in their reasoning, or if they have correctly reasoned in the same way.

Human beings do not "program" very easily, and philosophy usually does not involve any "human programming." People come to understand things by their reasons, and act accordingly.

Regardless of what the majority of people around us believe or do, we should act in accordance with the truth for the sake of our own happiness and that of others.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Arc,

I meant that churches are for the most part like asylums in the fact that they simply warehouse people that are mentally ill without making a real attempt to help them. They do provide the rudiments of social structure necessary for maintaining order in a society, albeit a very crude one. So I mostly agree with your statement.

I think the memetic virus which you speak of can really be boiled down to the concept of religious faith, the acceptance that believing something without proof is an essentially good thing. Once this idea becomes implanted it can be used to get the believer to accept anything without proof, and see that acceptance as a virtue. This is what has allowed religion to be used as a power structure for so long.

That said, I do think the search for meaning and purpose in the universe is a valuable thing and that can be embodied in an organization of some sort. So I think it is an interesting possibility that religion could be transformed into a valuable tool for the exploration of meaning and cultural philosophy if it were purged of its faith-based core. A religion that questions its own structure? Is this completely oxymoronic? [tung] As a scientist I feel the need for an ethical complement to our science institutions, but what that institution should look like I'm not sure of yet.

I disagree that humans are not easy to program, I think most people are running programs most of the time. I meet very few people who question why they do what they do, say what they say, or think what they think.

Regardless of what the majority of people around us believe or do, we should act in accordance with the truth for the sake of our own happiness and that of others.

Yes! Incorrect assesment of environmental variables invariably causes suffering or death. I think how to express this to the general public is one of the most important questions facing us in the near. This is a lesson our culture desperately needs to learn, and fast.

[susmariosep]

What is belief and what is rational, I guess these two questions are begging for answers and for consensus, in order for believers in a religion to show that they are not superstitious.

To believe is to imagine something that is not unthinkable. For example it is not unthinkable to imagine a sphinx.

What is the rational? As a man in the street, I would like to understand the rational as something that is not intrinsically destructive of man himself or inhibitive of his advancement in improving and innobling himself.

Of course these descriptions of belief and rational are guess works. But they can in a provisional manner serve for the purpose of studying religion and superstition.

Susma

[ocsrazor]

Hi Susma

There are multiple senses to the word believe. Most fundamentally, you can believe in a true thing or relationship because of evidence for its existence or you can have faith-based belief which is not based in evidence, these two definitions are mutually exclusive.

Your definition of rationality is not correct. To make a rational arguement for something you have to have physical or logical evidence for it. The word rational comes from ratio - i.e. to compare two things. You can not make rational operations on unknowns. You are correctly interpreting one of the benefits of rationality though - it produces a correct estimation of the environment which allows people to alleviate their own suffering.

You are also correct in that nonrational thinking though causes people to believe in, at best, random non-harmful things, but at worst, extremely destructive misconceptions of reality (i.e. earth-centric universe, creationism, sexual 'morality' etc.) Incorrect models of the real world are deeply inhibitive of forward progress and definitely not ennobling.

To guess at the existence of god may be a fun pastime, but it is ultimately futile because of the unknowable nature of god, and it is arrogance in the extreme or a total disconnect with reality to claim that one knows of god's existence.

There is no need to guess at either belief or rational, they are very well defined.

Peter

PS I do think the concept of god has been necessary to define "that which we can not know" at any point in our intellectual history, it is a place holder for the unknowable. At this point the unknowable consists of human consciousness, the origin of the universe, is there meaning to the universe, and anything outside the universe. Human consciousness will become part of the knowable within this century, so it will be interesting to watch the changing concept of god at that point.

[Gewis]

Hello everybody. It's been a very long time since I've been posting around here. I've kept busy with various projects, and I found myself expending too much mental energy debating things when I wasn't going to prove anything to anybody. Not because I wasn't right, but because argument has rarely managed to convince anybody to agree with anybody else. But I've just had myself a nice holiday, and the door was wide open here.

And so, getting to the topic, I really just want to ask a question: those who don't believe God has any active role in our lives, what makes you so certain? All of this argument seems to stem from the idea that God must somehow BE unknowable or mysterious. Records (scriptures), both ancient and modern, point directly to the existence of God, with very observable manifestations of the same testified of by many people. By which standard do you decide that such testimony isn't believable evidence? With such a large body of information regarding the nature and character of God, wouldn't it make sense to start looking at it on the same level that you look at the reality of thymosin beta 4's rejuvenation benefits? I mean, I've never seen the stuff. All I have to go on is the testimony of those working with it.

We all have to trust the methods and testimony that our own observations have confirmed in the past. If somebody tells me that moving a conductor through a magnetic field will produce an electric potential, should I just believe them? Being a scientist, I'd like to see something that confirms that idea. So I take a magnet and move it quickly through the middle of a wired loop connected to a light bulb, and it lights. After a while, various ideas, kinetics, thermodynamics, acoustics, all coming from the same methodology, manage to prove themselves pretty well by observation. I learn to trust the source. I can believe it without conducting every experiment for myself. I can read about Tb4's benefits, and I can believe, without having to observe it for myself.

What if I get an infection, and I've never had antibiotics before and I know nothing about science? My doctor tells me that pennicillin will help me. How do I believe him? How do I know? All I can do is have faith, that is, have the willingness to try it, have the willingness to believe it will help. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe yet, that I have any knowledge, but it's the seedling of faith. So I take the antibiotics, and it helps enormously. I can call it a fluke, and still deny that it had anything to do with my recovery, or I can let it increase my faith in antibiotics to help with infections. Later, something similar, and the doctor again prescribes antibiotics. I take them, and I recover quickly. I still don't necessarily have absolute confidence, but I have some (if I still don't ignore the evidence that's right in front of me). This is faith. It is a belief that motivates you to action.

And what is so different about religion? Somebody tells me it's real, and that if I will have faith by praying and doing my best to fulfil my duties (much akin to taking my antibiotic, in this analogy), I'll get results. So, when I'm little, it's my parents who tell me, and I trust them. Much moreso than any doctor. So I do it, I try it, and I learn by it. Is this brainwashing? No, no more so than them teaching me about black holes, relativity, and the cellular structure of the body. Eventually, just as I get to see cells under the microscope, I finally have observables from my faith. The ways I've been preserved and blessed, the things I've learned, the revelation I've received... these are just as real to me. Not to mention the body of physical evidence out there if you bother to look for it. I could go into a large exposition, but that's for another post. Sure, I could explain it all by saying that I've induced a meditative state that has released endorphins and allowed me to see clearer what I already knew. I could also come up with various explanations as to why taking my antibiotic had nothing to do with my recovery.

Ironically, however, it seems that Occam's Razor favors the theists on this one. The enormity of the record, the variety yet consistency of the experiences, the clarity of the testimony... You have to come up with a separate complex explanation for every instance, every angel's visitation, every vision, every fulfilled prophecy, every answered prayer, if you refuse to accept it as evidence of God. Or you can take it for the simplicity that it is: we have a loving Heavenly Father who is very concerned with our progress and happiness as people (not pleasure or comfort, but happiness), and he's very well involved in our lives, if we'll only bother to follow the prescription.

[DJS]

Hey, welcome back Gewis. I've always enjoyed reading your posts because you've got a head on your shoulders and represent the conflicted theistic scientists so well. It is highly ironic that, while you are questioning the methodological consistency of secular scientific inquiry, it is in actuality your own position which is logically inconsistent.

[quote]
I really just want to ask a question: those who don't believe God has any active role in our lives, what makes you so certain?[/quote]

When it comes to ontology there is never 100% certainty, but logic dictates that one maintain a belief only if there is empirical evidence to support said belief. This stems back to the whole unfalsifiable claims argument, the burden of proof falls upon the individual making the claim, yadayada... So to flip your question, "What makes you so certain that there is a God which play and active role in your life?"

[quote]
All of this argument seems to stem from the idea that God must somehow BE unknowable or mysterious.[/quote]

What argument are you refering to? You haven't yet clearly defined the argument you are trying to debase, but I understand where you are trying to go here.


[quote]
Records (scriptures), both ancient and modern, point directly to the existence of God,[/quote]

Gewis come on, you should know by now that rational people do not base their beliefs on personal testimonials (which include scriptures). Scriptures are not evidence, they are hear say. Think about it, because you are a Christian (more specifically a Mormon) you claim that the bible reveals the true word of God, but Muslims make the exact same claim about the Koran! So which is it, Jesus or Mohammed? You see, there in lies the crux of the matter. Both Christianity and Islam are religiously base belief systems, memeplexes if you will, which make qualitiatively similar metaphysical claims. Logic therefore dictates that at least one of them must be wrong. This reality points to systemic defects in the religious memeplexe's ability to accurately formulate beliefs -- and once such a defect is identified the methodology of religious based belief must be questioned in its entirety.

[quote]
with very observable manifestations of the same testified of by many people.[/quote]

I dispute your claim that God's existence has been proven by "very observable observations". I have never made such observations, and I know many others who have not as well. Again, testimonials are not empirical evidence.

[quote]
By which standard do you decide that such testimony isn't believable evidence?[/quote]

Simple. Anytime you want to consider the veracity of a claim ask yourself, "Can the claim be indepedently verified through testing."

[quote]
With such a large body of information regarding the nature and character of God, wouldn't it make sense to start looking at it on the same level that you look at the reality of thymosin beta 4's rejuvenation benefits?  I mean, I've never seen the stuff.  All I have to go on is the testimony of those working with it.[/quote]

Again, there is zero empirical evidence for the nature , character or existence of God. The claims made about thymosin beta 4 can be independently verified (or not) through clinical testing. If you had the proper lab equipment you could verify the claims on your own!

[quote]
We all have to trust the methods and testimony that our own observations have confirmed in the past.[/quote]

To take a quote from the Gipper, TRUST BUT VERIFY. )

[quote]
If somebody tells me that moving a conductor through a magnetic field will produce an electric potential, should I just believe them?  Being a scientist, I'd like to see something that confirms that idea.  So I take a magnet and move it quickly through the middle of a wired loop connected to a light bulb, and it lights.  After a while, various ideas, kinetics, thermodynamics, acoustics, all coming from the same methodology, manage to prove themselves pretty well by observation.  I learn to trust the source.  I can believe it without conducting every experiment for myself.  I can read about Tb4's benefits, and I can believe, without having to observe it for myself.[/quote]

Yes. Yes. Yes.

[quote]
What if I get an infection, and I've never had antibiotics before and I know nothing about science?  My doctor tells me that pennicillin will help me.  How do I believe him?  How do I know?  All I can do is have faith, that is, have the willingness to try it, have the willingness to believe it will help.[/quote]

This is true, often people resort to faith as a result of their ignorance. The best way to remedy this unacceptable situation is to get educated (about penicillin [sfty] ).

[quote]
That doesn't necessarily mean I believe yet, that I have any knowledge, but it's the seedling of faith.  So I take the antibiotics, and it helps enormously.  I can call it a fluke, and still deny that it had anything to do with my recovery, or I can let it increase my faith in antibiotics to help with infections.  Later, something similar, and the doctor again prescribes antibiotics.  I take them, and I recover quickly.  I still don't necessarily have absolute confidence, but I have some (if I still don't ignore the evidence that's right in front of me).  This is faith.  It is a belief that motivates you to action.[/quote]

I agree that faith is based essentially on trust, and you do a good job of illustrating this in your analogy. However, rather than taking the doctor at his word you could, if you wanted to, confirm his advice by breaking out the lab equipment and independly verifying that penicillian combats infection. I know this sounds silly, but it is within the realm of the physical possible that you could do this. You CAN NOT do this when some one is making a claim about the existence or causal powers of Gods. This is what is meant by unfalsifiable claims. I make the claim that God is a jelly donut. But wait, you disagree. Fine, prove it. [tung]

[quote]
And what is so different about religion?  Somebody tells me it's real, and that if I will have faith by praying and doing my best to fulfil my duties (much akin to taking my antibiotic, in this analogy), I'll get results.  So, when I'm little, it's my parents who tell me, and I trust them.  Much moreso than any doctor.  So I do it, I try it, and I learn by it.[/quote]

You illustrate wonderfully the mechanism of cultural transmission. Yes, its all about trust. You trust your parents, you trust your minister, you trust your doctor.

[quote]
Is this brainwashing?[/quote]

hhhm, I'd say that's too strong. It's the transmission of cultural information (memetics). Did you ever consider the fact that if you were born in Jedda you would be worshipping Mohammed right now? As I've said before, your religious persuasion is almost completely predicated on your geographic/cultural heritage.

[quote]
No, no more so than them teaching me about black holes, relativity, and the cellular structure of the body.  Eventually, just as I get to see cells under the microscope, I finally have observables from my faith.[/quote]

No, you have simply made observations of physical phenomenon. Your statement illustrates the inherent confirmation bias human kind possesses when evaulating the world around it. You believe in the supernatural, therefore you see the supernatural in that which you observe. This is faulty logic. And yes, scientific knowledge can be transmitted, but it can also be independently verified by the recipient.

[quote]
The ways I've been preserved and blessed, the things I've learned, the revelation I've received... these are just as real to me.  Not to mention the body of physical evidence out there if you bother to look for it.  I could go into a large exposition, but that's for another post.  Sure, I could explain it all by saying that I've induced a meditative state that has released endorphins and allowed me to see clearer what I already knew.  I could also come up with various explanations as to why taking my antibiotic had nothing to do with my recovery.[/quote]

Again Gewis, I mean no disresect, but there is zero physical evidence for the Christian/Mormon faith. Just because you keep saying that there is doesn't make it true.

[quote]
Ironically, however, it seems that Occam's Razor favors the theists on this one.  The enormity of the record, the variety yet consistency of the experiences, the clarity of the testimony... You have to come up with a separate complex explanation for every instance, every angel's visitation, every vision, every fulfilled prophecy, every answered prayer, if you refuse to accept it as evidence of God.  Or you can take it for the simplicity that it is: we have a loving Heavenly Father who is very concerned with our progress and happiness as people (not pleasure or comfort, but happiness), and he's very well involved in our lives, if we'll only bother to follow the prescription.[/quote]

The only record with any "enormity" when it comes to faith based belief IS personal experience and testimonials. This is not valid evidence. Further, bringing up Occam's Razor is ludicrious. You are asking us (us nonbelievers) to believe in some magical invisible man in the sky, instead of simply believing in the infinite existence of the universe. Finally, the scientist does not have to disprove the subjective experiences of every individual. There is a schizo making claims of seeing pink elephants. Do we have to disprove his claim? You need to make the distinction between objective evidence and subjective experience. And remember, if there is no objective evidence to support your beliefs then you must ask yourself: ARE MY EXPERIENCES REAL, OR ARE THEY JUST A VESTIGIAL SIDE EFFECT OF EVOLUTIONARY FORCES ACTING UPON MY REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEMS WITHIN MY COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE?

Nice to dialog with you again

DonS

[arc3025]

Ocsrazor,
Hi- yes, religions include social behaviors which are very successful, such as promoting togetherness, pro-social values, supporting families, etc. These help human beings, and they often help the religion reproduce itself, including its superstitions. One could see this as a net neutral influence by religion on humans. But I prefer to break the religion down into very specific behaviors - some of them cultivate superstition, while others provide social structure, but these usually appear in 'packages' of behaviors that go together in a religion.

The "faith-without-proof" behavior is characteristic of Christianity, but it also spread to Islam and appears in a few other religions. It's a "hook" designed to keep the host from entertaining doubt, by invoking fear (or divine or human forces). It's especially pernicious, because, as you say, it opens the door to any possible belief being tenaciously maintained. It is also very difficult to communicate critically with someone who is exhibiting this behavior fully.

The search for meaning and purpose is a valuable activity, but it doesn't have to be religious. It can be carried out in secular life philosophies, of which there are now many. They can question their own structure, as you say. You might say they are 'closed-minded' about being 'open-minded'.

The trouble with removing a "faith-based" core to a religion like Christianity is that, afterwards, very little would be left, and what would be left would be incoherent (since faith organized and connected the pieces). This is what happens to "liberal" denominations of Christianity: they are no longer as successful, as attractive, or even as comprehensible, as the orthodox denominations. And if they keep behaviors such as identity-as-Christians or reading-the-Bible, they regularly lose members to orthodox Christian denominations, which are more authentic and have a more straightforward read of the Bible.

Programming - I was thinking of this the other way around, that it is not easy to get people to change their behaviors, especially behaviors they like. People don't program like computers (fortunately, I think, for the most part!) -- the way they adopt new behaviors is very subtle and complicated. This is one of the few drags on the spread of religious mind viruses. Even when people adopt a new religion, they can choose to practice only a few of its associated behaviors, and even continue to practice others that are contradictory to the religion (inconsistency is easy). Many Christians do not believe in some of the most fundamental 'beliefs' of Christianity, and they may not practice very many of its associated behaviors (sometimes just self-identification behaviors! - "I am a Christian").

Delusions are difficult to escape from. Even those of us who think clearly about religions and science still have to work to combat new and old delusions in ourselves. Hopefully, the delusions we harbor have only a minor impact on our own happiness and that of others. But some of the problems we face here will be fundamental human constraints. Those cannot be solved by new philosophies or cultural movements, but only by actual enhancements of the human mind/body -- for greater self-understanding, greater intelligence, greater wisdom, greater consistency in applying scientific principles, greater ability to get along with others, etc. We just need to keep pressing on, in the hope that human beings will be able to survive this great turning point.

gej

[Gewis]

Don,

Thanks for your reply and taking the time to address my post. I've started spending a lot of time looking at the forums with more practical information regarding biology, nootropics, etc., and I can say I'm glad to be back. There's a lot of useful stuff I've been missing.

I've always enjoyed reading your posts because you've got a head on your shoulders and represent the conflicted theistic scientists so well. It is highly ironic that, while you are questioning the methodological consistency of secular scientific inquiry, it is in actuality your own position which is logically inconsistent.

Conflicted theistic scientists? lol... thanks. I really don't feel conflicted at all. Sure, confusion is possible, and I've struggled at times with it, and in the end came to pretty clear conclusions. Anyway, I'm not questioning the methodological consistency of secular scientific inquiry. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are unwilling to apply that same methodology to religion, and then they come away saying there's no evidence. There's a great scripture in the Book of Mormon: "Behold, I would exhort you that when you shall read these things... I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true." (Moroni 10:3-4) Translation into geekspeak: when you find this stuff, test it for yourself. Any encouragement of belief based on a blind faith or unknowables is rather pointless.

Which is exactly doing what you were saying, minus the last sentence here:

However, rather than taking the doctor at his word you could, if you wanted to, confirm his advice by breaking out the lab equipment and independly verifying that penicillian combats infection. I know this sounds silly, but it is within the realm of the physical possible that you could do this. You CAN NOT do this when some one is making a claim about the existence or causal powers of Gods.

You CAN do this, and that's exactly what you should do. So I pray and ask if I should give my mission president a call when I've been waiting a while to hear back regarding whether or not I'd be sent home to get medical treatment (weird, but I was feeling uncertain) and the conversation goes like this:

"Should I call him?"
"No."
"Will he call me?"
"Yes."
"When?"
"Tomorrow."

And he called the next day. Okay, maybe you can discount it as coincidence. But when it happens on a regular basis and the answers I receive are always right, I would call this testable and observable by any standard. Could you give it another explanation? Probably. It's psychosomatic and tapping into parts of our thoughts that we normally ignore, or maybe there's a basis for psychic phenomenon after all, or none of it's real and I'm just finding a way to reinforce my delusions. But then you hear about "experiments" all over the place where clear voices told people exactly where to go, what to do, what to grab, and how to do things in situations to save people's lives. Or clear confirmation about the reality of God or the testimony of others.

That's what makes me so certain.

See, I can try for myself, get results for myself, results that are reproduceable for others as they've reported the same results. So, in time, just as with conventional science, I learn to trust the methodology, because I've tested it. I've observed for myself. I've tried different things. I've tested doctrines to see if they have the efficacy they promise.

To take a quote from the Gipper, TRUST BUT VERIFY.

Hooah.

As I've said before, your religious persuasion is almost completely predicated on your geographic/cultural heritage.

Then why do so many people convert to other faiths? Sure, there are many people who say, "Well, I've just always been a Catholic and always will be." But there are many who feel that what they've been given isn't the truth. They're searching, they're looking hard, and they're experimenting. You shouldn't be so quick to discount their reason, as they tend to be intelligent people. Interestingly, the same thing happens in science.

There's an ingrained physics community that will only consider the zero-point field as virtual particles and consequently ignorable for all intents and purposes. They say that this is a consequence of quantum mechanics. Okay, but what if quantum mechanics really is the consequence of particles interacting with the ZPF? What if you could add a stochastic element to classical electrodynamics and use that to obtain the ground state of a hydrogen atom? (You can, by the way.) Well, most of these people won't hear it. It's heresy to them. These are your supposed rational people, right? Intellectual elitism is death to an open and creative mind, and I'm saying the far lot of atheist scientists (i.e. the majority of scientists) have refused to accept the evidence or test it for themselves. They've become so entirely sure that no logic can confirm or deny the existence of a God that they won't bother to sincerely ask God if he's telling the truth, nor do the research about the experiments and results that others have had, even if it goes by a different name.

Rational people do base their beliefs on testimonials, actually. They're just healthily skeptical. If certain testimony doesn't sound plausible, they won't take it at face value until they've learned more for themselves. But if somebody's testimony goes like this: "The most important result so far is the observation of the suppression of high p$_T$ hadrons in central Au-Au collisions followed by the subsequent null experiment where the same suppression was not seen in deuteron-Au collisions. The observed suppression is a final state effect in which a large amount of energy is lost by the fast parton as it penetrates the medium. This observation, together with measurements of the elliptic flow, leads to the conclusion that the energy density reached is at least 10 times that of a normal nucleon. The simplest and most economical explanation of these phenomenon is that the system is a dense, locally thermalized system of unscreened color charges," (Richard Seto) you're likely to believe them. You've grown up learning to trust the methodology of conventional scientists, because far more often than not, it turns out to be true. So you trust and base your beliefs on Richard Seto's testimony.

So for a natural skeptic and scientist like myself, questions are asked, doctrines are tested, and in time it comes to be that it's trustworthy, like science is trustworthy. And once you're past that first part in either science or religion, you don't have to go testing every little thing for yourself. You understand the underlying principles and trust that if somebody has conducted things right, his results should be believable. On the other hand, if a particular methodology seems to not jive with what you can observe yourself, like chiropractors using acupressure to diagnose bacterial infections of various organs and you have no way of verifying that, you might do well to distrust their guidance.

You are asking us (us nonbelievers) to believe in some magical invisible man in the sky, instead of simply believing in the infinite existence of the universe.

That is where I was coming from in saying that you assume God should be unknowable or mysterious. [tung] I am not asking you to believe in some magical invisible man in the sky. I don't believe there is one. And I don't think that anything of revelation received from God has ever contradicted this belief in an infinite universe. I'm saying there is a knowable God, and I believe all things are knowable. You just have to allow yourself to learn about other evidence that doesn't quite fit with your meme.

Again Gewis, I mean no disresect, but there is zero physical evidence for the Christian/Mormon faith. Just because you keep saying that there is doesn't make it true.

I actually wrote something about that a long while ago that I never really finished, for these forums no less.

------------------------------------------------------
I feel it would be beneficial to the discussion if I put in my two cents advocating entirely a different opinion than those shared by perhaps the majority of those perusing these forums.

I'm going to be taking this from a Christian perspective, more specifically, as a believer and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Peter makes an excellent point, that if God doesn't want to be found, he won't be found. From the idea that he's a master creator, many of the observed laws governing our universe may be contradictory with mainstream theological ideas, but don't necessarily have to be. As I said in my introductory post in the Introduce Yourself forums, wherein entered a bit of religious discussion, there are particular questions that likely never would have been questions at all had the original text been understood better. For instance, the Greek rendition of the Old Testament, instead of being read 'create,' is more accurately read 'organize.' Certainly an organization of already existent matter into the form we see it now agrees with conservation of mass-energy. There's no reason, from a theological perspective, to believe that God, being the Creator of the universe and the Institutor of the laws governing the same, would operate within this universe in a manner inconsistent with the laws He established. That the Earth is 6,000 years old is hard to support, but that 6,000 years have elapsed since the time Adam left the Garden of Eden may be better supported, or even more loosely, that 1,000 years had numerical significance in Judaic culture, but wasn't intended to be interpereted literally, although this part is unknown to me.

The debate of creation vs. evolution tends to turn some rational thinkers off to the entire belief structure of mainstream Christian religion, as fundamentalists on the religious side refuse to see what's plainly evident for everybody to see, that evolution is a principle of nature. While the particulars of theory of evolution are still being debated among paleontologists, the idea is beyond denial, unless one chooses to throw out observational evidence. That a fossil record would be some sort of trick of God with the intention of leading mankind astray is absurd, nor can the existence of such be ascribed to the devil without contradiction of important scripturally supported doctrines. So, while still maintaining a belief in God, one has to come to the conclusion that the language of the biblical record of organizational creation includes evolution. Indeed, "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day," speaks nothing of the length of what he called day or night. Any in-depth study of Judaism, from which we get this account, will reveal that it's filled with symbolic teachings of all sorts, and even the constant washings were not points of sanitation, but of symbolic teaching. Any expectation of pure literalism in accounts from a symbolic culture are unrealistic.

For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophecying among the Jews.  For I, Nephi, have not taught them concerning the manner of the Jews... Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. - 2 Nephi 25: 1-2, 5

This is text from the Book of Mormon shortly after the Babylonians invaded ca. 600 B.C. Interestingly, this brings me to another point: God does not choose to remain unknown, and this has been demonstrated in modern times as well as ancient. For instance, the aforementioned Babylonian Captivity. Jeremiah prophecied concerning this event many years before it happened, according as he had been directed through revelation. The Book of Mormon prophet Lehi left with his family into the wilderness after being nearly killed in Jerusalem for preaching repentance, this immediately prior to the captivity. They traced a path recorded in scripture that follows very nearly along identifiable landmarks in the Arabian Peninsula, in sequential order as if they had been headed right out of Jerusalem. For those unaware of the origins of the Book of Mormon, it was translated and subsequently published by 1830... by a man with a 2nd or 3rd grade education, Joseph Smith. The history of that I'll get to, as already it seems a ridiculous notion by the way I've introduced it, but the point merely suffices that there's very little means by which a farmboy could have known so much of the geography and history of the region, particularly considering that historians and geographers in the United States were largely unaware of these details themselves at the time, which have since been discovered by archaeologists. The record details a subsequent journey to the American continent. Particular instances verifying the Book of Mormon include tribal currencies in Honduras with striking similarities to currency outlined in Alma (one of those in the Book of Mormon), and apparent Hebrew and Egpyptian linguistic roots in pre-Columbian languages, as well as the striking similarity between the pyramids of the Old and New worlds.

The Book of Mormon, unlikely a fabrication as the plausibility of a New York farmboy making up a geographically, archaeologically, and stylistically accurate text is very small, can be assumed to be a historical record. In linguistic structure, the pattern of mirroring concepts progressively forward and digressively back with a central peak, also known as a chiasmus, is strong in ancient Judaic texts. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon follows this structure through its entirety. Probability now leans heavily in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at this point.

Taking, then, the Book of Mormon as an authentic record, we can then begin to look at its contents. With the exception of large amounts of quotations from Isaiah and other Israelite prophets, the Book of Mormon departs from the symbolism traditional to Jewish prophetic styles. Nephi, quoted earlier, states that “my soul delighteth in plainness,” and seeks to explain the visions he received and their interpretations in plain language. This precedent sets the tone for the historians/prophets who follow after him. While still following a chiasmus, events are related in plain language, prophecies and warnings given clearly for any to understand. Yet, with the confusing symbolism abandoned, visions, revelation, prophecy, and miracles are recorded just as sure as political and military conflicts, including body counts and tactical maneuvers.

The God of both the New and Old Testaments was a God of miracles, angels, and revelation. Symbolism in accounts provide an instrument for teaching, but central is the idea of God communicating with His children. With so many various and independent experiences confirming this idea, one has to wonder whether every prophet from Adam to Malachi was simply making it up in recording their communications with God. Telling about this is the record of Daniel:

All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. - Daniel 5: 7

That the burning bush of Moses may have been written to symbolize something else (whatever that something else was, it was still there in the record) is conceivable, but that Daniel, a powerful and wise leader for his time, was clearly petitioning a higher power and getting results is not left vague or open to interpretation by the text. This is only one example, but a scriptural search will find multiple examples of the same thing: Communication from God to believers, who are rewarded for their faith by blessings.

Immediately consistent with Old Testament records of prophets communicating with God is the record of Jesus Christ communicating with His Father, and teaching people the manner in which they should pray. "Our Father, which art in heaven..." (Matthew 6: 9) The veracity of the independent records of the 4 Gospels (90 percent of Mark is in both Matthew and Luke, and Mark is generally regarded as first, but the agreement of the record of events separately in Matthew and Luke beyond that contained in Mark is impressive)
------------------------------------------------------
That's as far as I got. There are more things I'd like to add. In mosaics in at least one ancient cathedral (in Italy or Greece, I don't remember which, but I've seen the photographs), you have depictions of an ordinance that still has some vestigial elements in Catholic society (the Pope is the only one who does it). Except that his ordinance looks nothing like the mosaics, and those mosaics look exactly like what was revealed to Joseph Smith regarding temple ordinances, and that we still conduct today. (I won't describe them here) Do you really think that's just coincidence, though? Of course not. And if you're not going to believe it came from the source Joseph Smith said it did, then don't you have to assume he was a fraud (a fraud who healed broken bones and serious illness as so many have done since)? But fraud doesn't jive with it either. See, he got too many things right. South Carolina was the the opening shots of the civil war were, as he prophesied. Mass migration of Jews and the literal gathering of Israel in Palestine started circa 1850, shortly after the land was dedicated for their return. Nations are now increasingly gathering against Israel as prophesied by Ezekiel, anti-semitism is rampant. Since seismology and weather tracking have begun with conventional science, there has been a steady increase in significant events worldwide. Even accounting for increases in technological sensitivity, frequency and severity of earthquakes have increased. "Wars and rumors of wars" are accelerating in frequency.

No observables, eh? You can believe what you like, and in the end your foundation is just as arbitrary as those you consider "irrational." People throughout time have managed to deny what was right in front of them.

And remember, if there is no objective evidence to support your beliefs then you must ask yourself: ARE MY EXPERIENCES REAL, OR ARE THEY JUST A VESTIGIAL SIDE EFFECT OF EVOLUTIONARY FORCES ACTING UPON MY REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEMS WITHIN MY COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE?

[thumb]

I've already asked that question. In the end, it was far inadequate.

[stranger]

Pardon me all. I've been following this thread for quite a while now.

Don,
You raised a question,"Logic therefore dictates that at least one of them must be wrong", ( you were referring to Jesus and Mohammad).

It is a valid point, I must agree, when made from a certain perspective.

From another perspective,an uncommon one, one can ascertain that neither one of them is wrong. And logic would agree.

For starters, the Christian God and the Muslim God are NOT one and the same.
Therefore, either one of them can make his own claims about his respective God.

The Christian God( YahWeh,Jehovah, Elohim,etc.) and the Islamic God(Allah) are the most well-known of the true Deities. By contrast, Buddah( Father Buddah,not the little buddah, Siddahrta Gautama) is hardly known by His people,if at all, since the 'Buddhists' themselves don't even worship a personal God. The Buddhists are what are called 'impersonalists'. These people, adept mystics in their own right, including the Dalai Lama, never make mention of a personal God,and yet are able to reach the higher realms--for them, known as Nirvana.
Another one of the 'local' Gods (equal in stature to this three) , yet different, is the one called the father of the Red race. I know Him as ''Big Chief''. For that's what He is, a Chief. He is the Chief of chiefs. I have no idea how many tribes have existed through the ages, but all of them had one thing in common--their God,although each tribe knew Him by their preferred name.

These Four Deities are different expansions(Sons) of the One the Hindus call Lord Visnu(of Hindu Trinity fame). Lord Visnu, is known by those that know Him, as the Grandfather or The Blue King. He has His own eternal consort,but that is another story.

Don, you raised another point:

''As I've said before, your religious persuasion is almost completely predicated on your geographical/cultural heritage.''

I'm glad you pointed this out because that is almost always the case. Though, not necessarily always.

That is why many colored people are uncomfortable about worshipping a 'white' God. And that is why some of them convert to Islam( like Muhammad Ali, for example). These people, I don't know how, but they somehow 'know' their true origin. The arabian people are only one of the races and mixed races that Allah nurtures.
The Oriental people( even the atheist Chinese, and those that practice Taoism) are children of Buddah, whether they know it or not.

Their are many mixed races in the world today. So it is up to themselves to re-orient themselves with whoever they feel the most comfortable for worshipping.

The Gods Themselves accept devotion from any of the given races. The most universal One (aside from Lord Visnu, the Original Universal One) is the Christian God. Well, that is very easy to observe. I guess, Jesus, has a lot to do with that.

The point I'm trying to make is that the concept of God is not as simple a subject
as is commonly believed.

And it doesn't end there. Far beyond the realms and the kingdoms of those I have mentioned, there still lives the Supreme One.

For now, there is no need to talk about that 'Supreme Lord'...

I can mention Him, but of what use would it be, if the ones I mentioned already are more than anyone can begin to comprehend.

And Don, I don't have any proof of the kind you would like.

I never ,especially in my childhood, cared much for the church. I don't really have much against them, except my philosophy(and that is something given me from the world beyond and not from reading too much scripture. ) What I have mentioned, you wouldn't find in any book to begin with. You will only find pieces of the puzzle. And that is why mankind is 'puzzled', as far as understanding the concept of God is concerned.

It didn't come easy, and I am not done, as far as dealing with the 'Higher Ups' is concerned ,but I have finally been permitted to talk about it. In ancient times, all mysticism was kept from the common folk. Times have changed. The common folk are just as entitled to know the 'Truth'.

You just have to awaken the ' sixth sense' within in order for it all to make sense. Otherwise, science, with its own restriction of the first five senses will never make way.

Thank you,
And I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers here.

stranger

[DJS]

Gewis, you buried me man! [lol]

I'll be responding to both you and stranger, I just need some time.

Later

Don

[eternaltraveler]

Lets not forget Eru, and Manwe his primary representative on Arda.

[DJS]

Stranger, you have a different perspective from me, but you're always fair about it. [thumb]

You raised a question,"Logic therefore dictates that at least one of them must be wrong", ( you were referring to Jesus and Mohammad).

It is a valid point, I must agree, when made from a certain perspective.

From another perspective,an uncommon one, one can ascertain that neither one of them is wrong. And logic  would agree.

For starters, the Christian God and the Muslim God are NOT one and the same.
Therefore, either one of them can make his own claims about his respective God.

I beg to differ. There are two options here: they are the same God or they are not the same God. Either option fails the smell test.

1) If they are the same God, then you have two different religions making conflicting claims about the same entity. This implies that at least one of the religions is false.

2) If they are not the same God (we exist in a polytheistic universe), then logic would dictate that both of the two religions are false because they both claim that we live in a monotheistic universe.

Take your pick. [glasses]

The Christian God( YahWeh,Jehovah, Elohim,etc.) and the Islamic God(Allah) are the most well-known of the true Deities.  By contrast, Buddah( Father Buddah,not the little buddah, Siddahrta Gautama) is hardly known by His people,if at all, since the 'Buddhists' themselves don't even worship a  personal God. The Buddhists are what are called 'impersonalists'.  These people, adept mystics in their own right, including the Dalai Lama, never make mention of a personal God,and yet are able to reach the higher realms--for them, known as Nirvana.
Another one of the 'local' Gods (equal in stature to this three) , yet different, is the one called the father of the Red race.  I know Him as ''Big Chief''. For that's what He is, a Chief.  He is the Chief of chiefs.  I have no idea how many tribes have existed through the ages, but all of them had one thing in common--their God,although each tribe knew Him by their preferred name.

It's funny Stranger because I actually agree with you in a strange (pardon the pun) kind of way. I also believe that there are numerous Gods, however I believe that they are ideas (memeplexes) and not super natural entities in possess of causal powers.

And Don, I don't have any proof of the kind you would like.

I respect you immensly for admitting this. You have your beliefs, yet at the same time you realize that they are not provable to someone who does not *believe*. It shows that you can imagine the world from my perspective. And right now I am imagining the world from your perspective -- if I felt and experience the presence of God there is nothing that anyone could ever say or do that would change my belief in its presence. [!]

Yet, because I do not experience the "presence of God", but I am quite convinced that others do, I must conclude one of two things.

A) I am not worthy or do not possess the ability to perceive of his presence.

B) The spiritualist's experiences are the result of evolutionary forces acting upon representational systems within their cognitive architecture which have evolved for the express purpose of maintaining social order and cohesion.

And I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers here.

No, not at all. Your posts are always rather pleasant.

[susmariosep]

Before anything else, wish list of Susma:

I wish the owners of this forum will:

1. mark every post with a number starting from the first of the forum and then another starting from the first in the  thread it is located in;

2. put a button where the latest posts of the forum can be accessed to their exact locations where the post accessed will appear on your screen;

3. put a button or devise a way whereby a poster can access all his posts starting from the latest to the oldest, and any post can be placed on display on his screen in its exact location, not just embedded in a thread.

Now. My request for advice from Gewis.

Don,

( snip snip )

You CAN do this, and that's exactly what you should do.  So I pray and ask if I should give my mission president a call when I've been waiting a while to hear back regarding whether or not I'd be sent home to get medical treatment (weird, but I was feeling uncertain) and the conversation goes like this:

"Should I call him?"
"No."
"Will he call me?"
"Yes."
"When?"
"Tomorrow."

And he called the next day.  Okay, maybe you can discount it as coincidence.  But when it happens on a regular basis and the answers I receive are always right, I would call this testable and observable by any standard.  Could you give it another explanation?

( snip snip )

I am not a Mormon. I call myself a postgraduate Catholic and attend Sunday service in the neighborhood free Evangeiical church to exercise my sense of religion.

Being a man in the street, I am always after practical uses in everything.

To Gewis, may I address you as brother?

OK, Bro. Gewise, I confess most of the times I pray to God I don't get the kind of answers you get. If I can get the answers you get, that would be very good for my day and life in general.

Maybe I should sign up with the Mormons of which you are a member.

What do you say?

Susma

[DJS]

Well you had better convert Susma, because as any respectable Mormon will tell you, the Catholics have got it completely wrong! [lol]

[DJS]

I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are unwilling to apply that same methodology to religion, and then they come away saying there's no evidence.

Here. Let me make my position very clear to you. I hold religion to the exact same methodological standards as any and every field of scientific inquiry.

Any encouragement of belief based on a blind faith or unknowables is rather pointless.

I agree!

And he called the next day.  Okay, maybe you can discount it as coincidence.  But when it happens on a regular basis and the answers I receive are always right, I would call this testable and observable by any standard.  Could you give it another explanation?  Probably.

Not probably, most definitely. I call it confirmation bias; retaining (within one's memory) the experiences and facts which reinforces one's beliefs, while forgetting experiences/facts which discount one's beliefs. Again, personal -- subjective -- experiences are not legitimate scientific evidence.

And it should also be noted that the only reason why I am saying I require empirical evidence is because Gewis made the initial argument that religous claims have the same veracity as scientific claims. IOW, I was conforming with the discussion Gewis had chosen to engage in. I would be just as happy if someone could provide me with a logic *philosophical* argument for the existence of God. Afterall, my belief in Immortalism is a philosophical belief. (Gewis, you should make note of the fact that I am not your average "atheist". Us Immortalists are a different animal all together. This is not to mention the fact that I am not truly an Atheist anyway. I am atheistic toward the Christian God, but I am a cosmological agnostic.) All I'm asking for is a valid logical argument for the existence of God. To date, no one has presented me with one. [glasses]

It's psychosomatic and tapping into parts of our thoughts that we normally ignore, or maybe there's a basis for psychic phenomenon after all, or none of it's real and I'm just finding a way to reinforce my delusions.

I am extremely satisfied that you can even consider this possibility -- most theists would never utter these words. This does not mean that I think you will ever change your belief in God however. The God meme is one of the strongest, most virulent memes in existence. Once you've got it you usually have it for life.

But then you hear about "experiments" all over the place where clear voices told people exactly where to go, what to do, what to grab, and how to do things in situations to save people's lives.  Or clear confirmation about the reality of God or the testimony of others.

That's what makes me so certain.

My girlfriend had a fascination with Jon Edward (the TV psychic who talked to dead people). She really believed this guy was "talking with the dead". Needless to say this bothered me, so I went on line and did a little research to prove to her that he was a fraud. I found some extremely damaging information about Edward over at the Skeptic revealing his "techniques" -- ie, the editing of recorded shows after they were taped, the utilization of "wide spread" techniques where Edward would rattle off close to a hundred items trying to get a "hit" from one of the members in the audience. And there were lots more antics to boot. My point being: ESP and all of the other jazz has never been proven or substantiated -- EVER! And if it had been demonstrated, you could be damn well sure that the results would be broadcast around the world 24/7 for the rest of eternity. That's an important point: upwards of 80% of the public is "spiritual", if there was a "clear confirmation of the reality of God" it would be blasted from every news outlet on the planet. There is no such proof, verfiable evidence, etc -- hence the medias general silence on the issue.

Gewis, I'll try to answer the rest of your post when I have the time, but like I said before -- you really buried me with content man! [lol]

Edited by DonSpanton, 02 December 2004 - 01:30 AM.

[stranger]

Don,

I appreciate your taking the time to answer.

I am fair about presenting my perspective because I am not a preacher. I consider myself a mystic as opposed to being a religious nut. Even the Gods I talk about are not peddling any religion. Also, I didn't get to know them as if by magic.
Long before I was introduced to 'Them', and not to them all at once either, I spent much time dealing with regular spiritual guides. I wasn't even looking for religious spiritual guides ,either. To top it off, one of my first spiritual guides was from the Hindu religion, and quite devoted to it.

All my life , before this swami introduced himself, I had been a precognitve dreamer. I thought everyone was. Not long before I 'met' the guy, I had been having dreams about my earthly demise. I experienced my death a few times, in various ways. I didn't think much about it. I didn't consider all my dreams , dreams of precognition. And the ones I did, I did until I 're-experienced' them in my waking world. So, my death in my dreams didn't bother me at all--since I was still living. Also, I had no aversion towards the hereafter. On the contrary, I looked forward to it, anyway.

Anyway, when this merciful Indian guru did introduce himself, one of the first things he pointed out was the fact that the dreams I had been experiencing weren't ordinary dreams, but full-fledged dreams of precognition. I said fine, and when death doth come, I'll be ready. He said,"in that case, I'll be around to guide you through the transition". In the following weeks, we got to know each other quite well. What made this quite special was that , during this time he was joined by a brother I had lost some fourteen years prior to that. Naturally, I was surprised to 'find' my long lost brother in company of an Indian guru. So, when the final week of time on earth came up ,they decided that it would be better for me to do some fasting until the final day. They said it would make it easier for me to get out of the body. They also said that by doing so, I could even leave my body during sleep. Well, I couldn't refuse that. The day(night) did finally arrive, and although I was taken 'over' to the other side, I ended up waking up here yet again. Of course, I wasn't too happy with it. They said not to worry and admitted that the fasting had been a test-- for things yet to come. They knew that by now I was feeling guilty about leaving the rest of my family behind. So they came up with a plan-- a plan that they already had in place. (Spirit has a knack for always being a step ahead of oneself).

They said that although my life ,by 'spiritual' law , had ended, and that I was ready for my next life, they would attempt to do something to avoid a tragedy(for my family). They said that they could send me back to physicality, but not to finish my old life, for, according to them, technically it had ended, but to start the next one here. ( reincarnation ,for the Hindus is established doctrine,not mere dogma).
But before I would be allowed to begin the 'new' life I would have to undergo some testing--like the one I had undergone recently( the fasting) and do other types of penance. They said they couldn't send me back 'for free'. They said I had to feel the pangs of death somehow. Well, it started with one day, and then two, and then almost weeks at a time. Before I knew it, a couple of months had gone by. My friends, here on earth, thought I was on a death wish--even while I was assuring them that the crash fasting was to save my bones. They literally took all of my food away, specially the sweets that I had only recently gotten hooked on. All meat and dairy products were but a memory, except for a little bread and butter every four or five days , along with one egg and one potato.
While I was walking through such virtual desert( more like the valley of death) they were already looking forward to when I would get out of it and go back to my home state(TX, I must mention that I was in suburban Chicago at the time) that I would still finish with other types of penance, and then , I would supposedly start the 'new' life.

Well, I bounced back from that unimaginable torture. Looking back, even now, I wonder how the hell I got through it. On the one hand, they were teaching me all kinds of things, and even reviewing my 'past' life, and on the other they were so without emotion and impersonal. They would just tell me that if I would break the fasting without their consent, I would just poison myself and die like a stray dog, and that they wouldn't bother picking me up. It would take a million words to describe everything I had to go through. Of course, by then , I wished they had taken me the away for good. By mid December I was on my way home-- to prepare for early Spring--and the final obstacle. My friends were happy to see me go full of color and healthy. They had no idea what was waiting for me back home. And although I did, it was way uglier than I had anticipated.

--------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I couldn't help telling you a little bit about 'where' I've been. Or what I've been through.

Please allow me to reply to your previous post in my following post.

stranger

[stranger]

Don,

Getting back to the subject on hand:

This is your quote.

2) If they are not the same God(we exist in a polytheistic universe),then logic would dictate that both of the two religions are false because they both claim that we live in a monotheistic universe.

You're pretty sharp. Are you a lawyer by any chance? If not, you'd make a damned good one. Or an infielder. Neither the line drives nor the hard grounders get by you, man.

Yes, you make a pretty good point.
I'll do my best .

According to the average Christian, there is only one God.
It is only an illusion, although not without merit.
This is due to the fact that, the Gods, each one while working within their given domain exert that impression. That is one reason the Israleites believe that they are God's chosen people, as opposed to the Arabs. What the Israelites don't understand is that while they may be God's chosen ones, it is their God making such statement. They should pay more attention to when their God stated that they should not "have other gods before Me". In other words, what God meant was, if they were going to render devotion it should be unto Him, and Him alone. The Gods, I must make clear, are very clear about that. It's much like citizenship. You pledge allegiance to your country, and no other. The Gods, likewise, demand absolute and exclusive devotion. I'm telling you this because I have learned that first hand. Most people have the misconception that God is such a kindly old man, with so much love and nothing else. God, or the Gods, for that matter, get angry too.

In my case, Jehovah( YahWeh) (also, I am not a 'normal' Jehovah's Witness, nor do I care about their conflicts with the Catholics or what-have-you, actually I am amused by all the bickering going on between all the countless denominations) accepted me as one of His own--twelve years after I got started in this 'business'.
I spent four years with the first two teachers and eight with Jesus. Jesus, actually introduced me to Him. One of the first things He asked of me was that I do some portraits of Himself. All of my life I have delved in art, but I had never been able to even do a fair rendition of the image of Jesus, even with all the ones already in existence. And even after I reminded Him of what I noticed written in the Bible, that He didn't want images or the like. He said,"well, the times have changes, and I myself will help you ". Well, I don't know how, but I was able to produce some respectable sketches. It had been about three years ,and after so many sketches and unfinished paintings,while I was meditating one night that I felt the presence of an 'unknown' and unusual spirit. Unusual, because it was very overpowering,yet unmenacing. I could also tell that it was a dark figure. Dark, but not threatening. This happened on a few other occassions afterwards. All the while, Jehovah insisted that I not mind it. All through out those uncanny occassions I did have an uncalled-for feeling of arabian stuff( aladin,etc.) Well, one day(night) Jehovah finally relented and allowed me to see what the spirit wanted. This unlikely spirit wasn't a mere spirt after all, it was Allah Himself! It was no wonder, I could almost hear the word aladin. Jehovah Himself, then told me in his own words, "This is my Brother". Wow. Talk about being shocked. I must point out that prior to all this, the words Islam and muslim, were very foreign and very remote to my everyday understanding. I was never concerned with it at all. I was familiar with Hindu stuff and Christian stuff and that was it. But here now was none other than Allah. Allah Himself, and not some messenger. Well, He had been observing my art work and asked if I could also do some sketches of Himself also.
And He said, that since Jehovah had accepted me as a son, He would be like an uncle to me. I know it sounds funny,and incredible to say the least. In time, as I got to know Him better , He told me a little about Himself. He also said that since Jehovah was more like my teacher, He would be like a counselor.

In time, I got to know the other Gods that I have talked about in my previous posts.
!997 was like an avalanche year. Gods and Demigods(Hindu) descended like there was no tomorrow. Some were introduced by others, some introduced themselves. Including among those two Archangels-- Michael and three years later Gabriel. These last four years, I had to slow down. It is such an unbeliebable story , but I have no need to lie. I like sharing it with anyone who cares to listen,even if they consider it good fiction. I must point out to those that consider it so, that I dropped out of college because I couldn't master sophomore literature(fiction l0l) It's not that I didn't like the short stories. I couldn't write shit. And worse, the essays that the class demanded( analyzing authors writing styles and stuff, ) forget it. I had gone to college with the intention of getting a degree in psychology so that I could be closer to the study of parapsychology and not be lableled a nut. I dropped out for what I thought would be a semester or so. I wanted to devote all my enery to that last six hours that I needed. But then, I 'met' the first two masters. They told me from the beginning, that I would get all the parapsychology that I would ever want, and then some!

Sorry, Don

On my next post I will get back to what we were talking about.

Just one more thing here.

This is your quote.

"Yet, because I do not experience the presence of God, but I AM QUITE CONVINCED that others do, I must conclude one of two things:

l) I am not worthy or do not possess the ability to perceive of his presence.

To this I say.
Do not underestimate yourself. You are more than worth it. And pardon me, I don't want to sound like a preacher. You might not have the ability to perceive the presence of God yet, it is possible without even any effort on your part. It won't be direct or personal right away, but it can happen. You first have to understand the existence of Spirit itself. I know there is a lot of phony stuff out there, but I can assure you, Spirit is very real, man. Just consider it ,for now, an unexplored frontier. I tell you this because I've never been very religious, as ironic as it might sound. The Gods, they know my fascination with mysticim and not religion,per se.

Again, thank you for your time, and to all others, pardon my endless rambling.


stranger

[Gewis]

To Gewis, may I address you as brother?

OK, Bro. Gewise, I confess most of the times I pray to God I don't get the kind of answers you get. If I can get the answers you get, that would be very good for my day and life in general.

Maybe I should sign up with the Mormons of which you are a member.

Susma,

Yes, you may address me as brother. I know that I can't believe on behalf of somebody else, nor can I condemn anybody for choosing to believe differently than me. But as a believer in Christ, I imagine I can talk to you about some doctrinal things, things I believe and have tested for myself, but am not really in a position to try to prove to others who don't have the same foundation. I really do believe that, aside from all our logic and reason, which is fallible, the only really reliable source of truth is the Holy Ghost. While the Holy Ghost can touch and influence people and inspire them, it isn't until baptism that this gift can be a constant companionship. In both Catholic and Mormon doctrines, priesthood authority, tracing that line back to Peter, is essential. Church ordinances cannot be legitimate if the priesthood authority of those conducting isn't legitimate. (There are things that everybody can and should do, such as prayer, and then there are things such as baptism, administration of the sacrament, etc. that require priesthood authority.)

Elder Orson F. Whitney, (deceased for some time now) an apostle, related this following story: "Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science, and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong, and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then a man such as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.'"

Anyway, of course I think you should "sign up" with the Mormons. There's something connotational about "signing up" that kind of doesn't fit too well, like joining the Army or subscribing to some magazine that misses something deeper. I know what you meant, though.

-Gewis

[DJS]

Gewis, I hope you will not take offense, but every time I think of the Mormon faith Episode 712 of South Park, titled "All about Mormons" keeps popping into my head. Consider this some good natured joshing. )




[Joseph Smith]

Episode 712 - All About Mormons?
Cast:
Stan
Kyle
Cartman
Kenny (no voice)
The Harrisons (Gary Sr, Karen, Mark, Jenny, Gary Jr., Dave, and Amanda)
The Marshes (Randy, Sharon, Shelley)
Butters
Craig
Token
Joseph Smith
Martin and Lucy Harris
Butler
Blacksmith, Customer, and Woman
Moroni, White Native American Angel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[South Park Elementary, day. In Mr. Garrison's classroom the kids enter and go for their desks] 
Mr. Garrison: Okay, children, let's take our seats. [a blond boy stands to his left] We have a new student joining us today who has just moved here from Utah. I want you all to say hi to Gary. [Gary looks around. The kids don't say a word] 
Gary: Hello everybody. It's relly great to meet you all. 
Mr. Garrison: Gary was state champion in wrestling AND in tennis. [Stan, Kyle, and Kenny look at each other] He also maintained a 4.0 grade point average at his old school AND has been on two national commercials for toothpaste. 
Gary: I'm really excited to live in this town and share all kinds of great experiences with you, my new friends! 
Kyle: [quietly, to Stan] Oh, dude, what a little *ssh**e! 
Stan: Yeah, screw that kid! 
Mr. Garrison: All right, Gary, why don't you take that empty seat and we'll get started with the lesson? [Gary goes to the seat to Cartman's right as Cartman looks on with some trepidation. Once Gary is seated, Cartman lurches away from him about six inches] 
Gary: [offering a handshake] Hey. My name's Gary. 
Cartman: [falsetto] Hi. My name's Eura. Eura F**. 
Gary: [laughs] That's funny. You're cool, man. 
Mr. Garrison: Okay now, who can tell me what year the first astronauts landed on the moon? [writes "MOON LANDING" on the board] 
Gary: [without hesitation] Oh! Oh oh oh! Nineteen sixty nine! 
Mr. Garrison: Very good, Gary. Wow, looks like I don't have a class full of retards anymore, doesn't it, children? [writes "1969" on the board] 
[The playground. Gary is kicking a soccer ball around. The other fourth grade boys approach and look. Shown are Craig, Butters, Kyle, Clyde, Stan, Cartman, Token, Kevin, and another boy] 
Kyle: Dude, that new kid is such a d***he! 
Cartman: Yeah. Somebody need sto put him in him place! 
Butters: He's a p***erface, that's what he is! 
Cartman: Go kick his **s, Stan. 
Clyde: Yeah, go kick his **s. 
Stan: Wull, maybe he won't fight. 
Cartman: Will he bleed? That's all we care about. 
Kyle: Come on, dude, somebody needs to wipe that ***kin' smirk off his face! 
Craig: Yeah, little b****! 
Stan: All right, I'm gonna go kick his *ss. [leaves] 
Cartman: Yeah! Go Stan! Go Stan! [then, when Stan is gone, softly] All right, I've got five bucks on the other kid. Who wants in? 
Gary: [looks up as Stan approaches] Oh hey there! You wanna kick the ball around with me? 
Stan: No. I'm... I'm gonna kick your *ss. 
Gary: 'Scuse me? 
Stan: I'm gonna kick your *ss... [glances back] **tch. 
Gary: How come you wanna fight me? ...Oh, I get it. I'm the new kid. [sigh] Yeah, I guess maybe I deserve it. 
Stan: [off guard] Huh? 
Gary: It's really tough being in a totally new place, but I think all you guys are really cool so... I understand if there's initiation rites. 
Stan: Dude, stop it. 
Butters: [back in the crowd] Let him have it, Stan! 
Stan: Shut up, Butters! 
Gary: The other kids are watching. Look, do what you gotta do. I won't fight back. I just hope that maybe afterwards we can... try to be friends someday. 
Kyle: [back in the crowd] What are they doing? 
Cartman: They're just standing there, talking. [A few moments later, Stan returns defeated. He glances back at Gary, then approaches the other boys] 
Kyle: What happened? [Stan glances back, then looks at Kyle] 
Stan: I'm... [stares back at Gary] going over to his house for dinner tonight. 
Token: What?! How did that happen? 
Stan: [stammering] He's a really nice kid. 
Cartman: You were supposed to kick his *ss, not lick his *****le! 
Kyle: You're having dinenr with his family? What kind of family has a kid like that? 
[Gary's house. His family is enjoying itself at the dinner table, playing a board game, "LIVING", and laughing] 
Dad: Okay, my turn. [turns a little wheel] Ooo, five! [moves his piece] One two three four five. Uh, awww, lost yor mortgage, pay ten thousand dollars! Oh no! [they all laugh. Gary and Stan enter] 
Mom: Hey, it's Gary! 
Older sister: Gary! 
Older brother: Great to see you! 
Mom: How are you? 
Gary: Hey everybody! This is my new friend Stan. Stan, this is my mom and dad. 
Dad: Hi Stan! 
Mom: It's so nice to meet you. 
Gary: [the camera pans to the older brother] And this is my brother Mark. 
Mark: Hi! 
Gary: [then to the older sister] My sister Jenny. 
Jenny: Hey! 
Gary: My little brother Dave. 
Dave: Hi! 
Gary: And my baby sister Amanda. 
Amanda: [removes her pacifier] Hello Stan! 
Dad: Well, it's great you could join us for Family Home Evening, Stan! 
Stan: What's that? 
Gary: That's when we don't allow any TV and just entertain each other with music and stories. Doesn't your family ever do that? 
Stan: No. 
Dad: Hey kids! Why don't you grab your instruments and play a song for Stan! 
Jenny: Oh yeah! 
Mark: All right! Let's play! [the kids grab their instruments. Jenny and Gary take guitars, Mark takes a trumpet, Dave takes the drums, and Amanda takes the little piano. The kids launch into song] 
Gary: Yeah yeah, yeah, I love my family!
My family is the best!
If we ever have to face a challenge. 
The kids: My family! 
Gary: can pass the test. [the parents bounce softly to the beat. Next scene, the family is back at table for dinner. Mom comes in with a big turkey platter] 
Dad: Oh boy! Who is the best Mom in the world?? [the rest of the family chatters. Next scene shows Dave juggling three balls] 
Mark: All right! Go Dave! 
Gary: Yeah! 
Jenny, Mark: Woohoo! [next scene is Mark doing Shakespeare's "Hamlet", with skull] 
Mark: Where be your gibes now? Your gambols? Your songs? [next scene is Amando in Russian dress, dancing] 
The Family: Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! [next scene, they're all laughing at something] 
Mark: That's a great story, Sarah. 
Dad: All right, kids, now how about we do some Scripture readings! From the Book of Mormon! 
Mark: All right! 
Kids: Yeah! 
Mark: Woohoo! OOWW! 
Stan: The... Book of Mormon? What's that? 
Gary: You know... the book that Joseph Smith found. 
Stan: Who's Joseph Smith? [they laugh at his ignorance] 
Mark: Only the most important person in the world. 
Jenny: You've never heard of him? 
Stan: No! 
Gary: Tell us the story of Joseph Smith, Dad. 
The other kids: Oh yes, tell us Dad. Yeah Dad. All right. 
Dad: All right, you rascals. Gather round. [the kids draw closer to thei dad] Joseph Smith lived in a little American town in the early 1800s. 
[A little American town in the early 1800s. A man rides by in a small carriage pulled by one horse. In the distance, Joseph Smith strolls into town] 
Singers: Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
He started the Mormon religion
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Blacksmith: There goes that kooky Joseph Smith 
Customer: You know, he claims he spoke with God and Jesus. 
Woman: Well, how do you know he didn't? 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Joseph Smith was called a prophet- 
Butler: Hey, Joseph! I told my wife that you spoke with God and Jesus, and she didn't believe it. 
Smith: Well it's true. I did. 
Wife: Where? 
Smith: I was out in the woods, praying [a shot of him on his knees in the woods] I was asking God if I should be a Protestant, or a Catholic, or what? And suddenly God and Jesus appeared before me. [a bright light appears before him and he shields his eyes from the glare] And they said I should start my own church, because none of the others had it right. [the flashback ends] And that's exactly how it happened. 
Butler: You see? You believe it now? 
Wife: Well yeah, sure. Why would he make that up? 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Many people believed Joseph
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And that night he-ee saw an angel
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Smith: [in bed inside a shack] And please bless Mother and Father, and please keep our bellies full of yum-yums and luscious goodies. [a flash of light and a glowing orb carroms around the room] AAAHH! [the orb turns into an angel] Oh my gosh! 
Angel: I am Moroni. I am a Native American. 
Smith: A... [looks at the camera] Native American? [looks at Moroni] But your skin is white. 
Moroni: Yes. Long ago all Native American were white. We all came to America from Jerusalem. And while we were here we were visited by Christ. 
Smith: [looks at the camera] Jesus live here in America? 
Moroni: Yes. Eventually, my people were all killed by the other tribe of Israel, and as punishment, God turned their skin red. These are the Native Americans you know today. [Smith looks at the camera dumbstruck] 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Moroni: There is an ancient book buried near here, written on gold plates that account my people's lives. Also buried with the book are two seer stones, the Urim and Thummim, which will allow you to translate the writings. Find it, and fulfill your destiny. [brightens and then vanishes] 
Smith: Wooww... [gets up and dressed. He exits his shack] 
Singers: Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb  
[back to the present] 
Dad: And we all know what happened then, don't we? 
Kids: Yeah! I know! 
Stan: What happened then? [a small timer rings] 
Mom: Ooo, the Rice Crispy squares are done! 
Kids: Rice Crispy squares! Yay! All right! Rice Crispy squares! 
Dad: Hey gang, let's wrap some more of them up in plastic wrap and hand them out to the poor! 
Gary: Awesome! I can't wait! 
Jenny: Yeah! [the family rises from the couch and leaves] 
Gary: You coming, Stan? 
Stan: No, I was supposed to be home at eight. 
Dad: Awww, that's too bad. Well, it was really nice meeting you, Stan. [the family returns and hugs Stan] 
Mark, Jenny: Bye Stan! 
Mom: Great to meet you! 
Gary: Bye! 
[Stan's house, night. What a contrast. Randy watches TV on the couch with beer in hand, Shelley watches it on the floor, Sharon watches it from the dining table solving crossword puzzles. Stan enters upon this desolate scene] 
Stan: ...Hello? 
Sharon: Oh, hi Stan. 
Stan: [a few seconds later] Hey Dad, how come you never told me about Joseph Smith? 
Randy: Who? 
Shelley: Shut up, turd! We're watching Friends! 
Stan: The guy who spoke to God and Jesus. 
Sharon: Well, Stan, God and Jesus don't actually speak to people. 
Stan: That's not what the Harrisons said. 
Randy: Who are the Harrisons? 
Stan: The new people that moved in down the street. Mr. Harrison said that Joseph Smith spoke to God and Jesus and they told him none of the religions were right. 
Randy: Oh, did he now?! What are they, religious kooks?! 
Stan: They're not kooks, they're cool. I mean, how come we never have a night where we don't watch any TV and we just... do stuff together and eat and drink? 
Randy: We have that, Stan. It's called Friday Night Kegger. 
Stan: But that's just you and your friends. 
Shelley: I said shut up, turd! 
Stan: Mr. Harrison said that I should be followng Heavenly Father's plan, and I don't even know what that is. 
Randy: [rises and moves towards the front door] All right, that does it! 
Sharon: Where are you going? 
Randy: I'm gonna go have a talk with this "Mr. Harrison." [grabs his coat from the coat rack and puts it on] If he thinks he can fill my son's head with wacko religious crap, he's wrong! [drinks the last of his beer] 
Sharon: Randy, don't cause trouble. 
Randy: Let me handle this, Sharon. You gotta put these cult people in their place or else they never stop! I'm gonna go kick this Mr. Garrison's *ss! [exits and slams the door shut, but quickly returns] This, Mr. Garrison is, is a white guy, right? 
Stan: Yeah. 
Randy: [confidence restored] Jyeah, I'm gonna go kick his *ss! [slams the door] 
[The neighborhood, night. Randy walks down the street.] 
Randy: God-damned religious kooks! Tell my son what to believe, will you?! We'll see how you like my fist in your *ss! [approaches the front door of the house and pounds on the door. Gary's father answers it] 
Mr. Harrison: Hello! 
Randy: Yeah, are you Mr. Harrison? 
Mr. Harrison: I sure am. [offers his right hand] The, the name's Gary. 
Randy: Well, look, my kid was just over at your house and he a- 
Gary Sr.: Oh, you're Stan's dad! It's so nice to finally meet you! Karen! Mr. Marsh is here! 
Randy: Uh, look, I just want to tell you that 
Karen: [arrives with a tray of squares] Oh, Mr. Marsh! What a treat! It's so nice to meet you! 
Randy: Well, thanks. Uh... 
Gary Sr: Karen just finished baking the most amazing Rice Crispy squares. 
Karen: With chocolate frosting 
Gary Sr: Come on out of the cold. You've gotta try one. Or six. [chuckles] 
[The coffee table in the living room.] 
Gary Sr.: I cannot tell you how wonderful it is to have you over. 
Karen: [serving lemonade] I hear you're a geologist. That is so amazing. 
Randy: Look, uh, I actually came over because I'm a little concerned about some of the things you told my son. 
Gary Sr., Karen: Uh huh? 
Randy: You know. About... God, and stuff. 
Gary Sr.: Oooh... Oh boy... you think we were trying to convert him. 
Randy: Well, I- 
Gary Sr.: Oh, Mr. Marsh, I am sooo sorry. 
Karen: We just moved here from Utah and we're so used to everyone being Mormon that we... Oh, we forget not everyuone wants to hear about it. Oh boy, you must be furious! 
Randy: Well, no, no, I just- 
Gary Sr.: You just heard your son talking about religious ideals that aren't your own and you said "Who the heck do these people think they are?!" I I'm really, truly sorry, Mr. Marsh. It won't happen again. 
Randy: Y-you can call me... Randy. 
Karen: Randy, the last thing we want is for people to think we're pushing our religion. We know there are a lot of beliefs out there and ours just works for us. 
Gary Sr.: To each his own, right? 
Randy: Yeah. [relaxes, crosses his left leg over his right, and takes a bit out of a Rice Crispy square]Yeah! You know, to be honest, I've never known any Mormons. I, don't even know what you people believe. Who was this Joseph Smith guy? Why did he believe that Native Americans are actually white people from Jerusalem? 
Gary Sr.: Well, because they found ancient books they had written on gold plates, right where the angel Moroni said they would be. 
[The Early 1800s, day, a small town. People mill around] 
Smith: I found them! I found them! [people turn and look, and he stops] You're not gonne believe it, everybody! I found them! 
Butler: Found what? 
Smith: Another New Testament of Jesus Christ! 
People: What? What did he say? Are you crazy? 
Smith: Last night, a Native America angel told me where I could find another testament of Jesus Christ, so I went out to the woods. I dug around all morning where the angel had told me to look. [a shot of Smith digging yet another hole] 
Smith: [evaluating] Maybe there isn't anything out here. [strikes something hard] Wait a tick! [thorws the shovel off to the side] What's this? [starts digging and find a tiny coffin, then removes the lid] Wow... 



[The ArchAngel Moroni]

Smith: [back to the story] Inside the stone box, I found the magical seer stones. Under that, I found four gold plates written in strange writing [he lifts up two of them]. 
Smith: This must be the Gospel that Jesus told the Nephites! 
Smith: Well, they were the most amazing things I'd ever gazed upon. 
Man: [middle-aged] Well, so where are they? 
Smith: Where are what? 
Woman: The gold plates and the seer stones. Where are they? 
Smith: Oh. Oh, well, I... was not allowed to take them. You see, after I found the plates, the angel Moroni appeared to me again and said that I am not allowed to show the plates, or the seer stones, to anybody. Because first I must translate what's written on the plates into English, so you can all read it! 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
People: Wow, amazing! 
Singers: He found the stones and golden plates
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Even though nobody else ever saw them
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
[The Marsh house. Sharon and Shelley are at their spots, Stan sits on the couch, all three watch TV. Randy returns with a Book of Mormon in hand] 
Stan: So, how'd it go, Clubber Lange? You kicked Mr. Harrison's *ss? 
Randy: Not exactly. We're uh, having their family over for dinner tomorrow night. 
Stan: See? That's what happened to me! 
Randy: Sharon, did you know this guy Joseph Smith found a new testament to the Bible buried here in America? 
Sharon: What are you talking about? 
Randy: Well it's just that... the Harrisons are really nice people and... you should see how loving and together their family is. I, I think there's something to that religion. 
Stan: That's what they made me think, too! 
Randy: All right, that does it. From now on, our family is Mormon! 
[The neighborhood, day. In front of Kyle's house Kyle, Kenny and Cartman are tossing a football around. Stan arrives. Cartman catches the football and approaches Stan] 
Cartman: Hey Stan, how was your date last night with the new kid? 
Stan: Shut up, dude. They're a nice family and... Gary is actually really smart and talented. 
Cartman: [cooing] Aww, you guys. I think Stan's in love. 
Kyle: Yeah. Did you make out with him, too? 
Stan: What's the big deal? Can't I have other friends? You guys should give Gary a chance. 
Gary: [arrives] Hey Stan. 
Cartman: Ohhh, here's Stan's little girlfriend now. 
Gary: Hey guys. Stan, I remember you said last night that you'd lost your wallet, so I made you a new one. [hands Stan a brown leather wallet] I carved a picture of John Elway into the leather on the front. 
Stan: Wow, you made this? 
Cartman: [playing it up] Awww, look at them. Aren't they so cute together? 
Gary: Hey! My family's on their way over to the fire station to donate blood. You wanna come along? [Cartman gags.] 
Stan: Un, I don't think so, Gary. I have to uh... [a car horn is heard] 
Gary: Oh here comes my family now! 
The Harrisons: Hey you guys! [they get out of the car] 
Karen: Look, we painted our faces! [they laugh] 
Mark: I'm a lion. [scratches the air like a lion might] 
Jenny: I'm an alien. [green face paint] 
Gary Sr.: Hey, just what the heck am I supposed to be? [they laugh] 
Cartman: Oh my God... 
Dave: [a piglet] You gonna come with us to the fire station, Stan? 
Stan: [fumbling about] Uh, no. I've got a lot to do. 
Gary Sr.: Well... Gary, you wanna just hang out with your friend Stan? 
Gary: Oh. Well, I'd like to, but... Oh man, I would miss you guys so much! 
Mark: We'd miss you too, Gary. Heh. 
Karen: Aw, we'll all see each other tonight when we go to Stan's house for dinner. Stay and play with your friend, Gary. 
Gary Sr.: Yeah. Have a good time, boys. [the family laughs and gets inside the car] 
Mark: Let's go. [the doors close and they drive off] Our faces are painted. [more laughter] 
Kyle: Wow! 
Gary: So what do you guys wanna do? 
Cartman: [backs away a bit with Kyle and Kenny] Uh, that's cool. We're gonna leave you two lovebirds alone. The three of us have to go put in some volunteer work at the homeless shelter. [looks at the other two. All three move off to their left and leave] 
Gary: Oh cool! I'm gonna do that tomorrow. 
Cartman: Eeheehee, Jesus Christ. [an awkward moment between Gary and Stan follows] 
Gary: So hey, I heard your dad came over last night and he and my dad talked about Joseph Smith. That's great! 


[Josoph Smith is visited in the forest]

Stan: [turns right and walks. Gary walks alongside] Yyeah. I had a question about that Joseph Smith guy. 
Gary: Sure. 
Stan: What happened after he found the golden plates buried in the ground? 
Gary: Well, he kept them hidden from everyone like he was told. And then he translated what was written on the plates into the Book of Mormon. 
Stan: Yeah, but... how? 
[Back to the 1800s, night. Joseph Smith and another man walk up into the attic of a large building] 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Man: What's this all about, Mr. Smith? 
Smith: Mr. Harris, can you keep a secret? 
Harris: Well, sure I can. 
Smith: I have, in my possession, an ancient book written on gold plates that tells of Jesus Christ's second coming. Here, in America. 
Harris: In America? [scratches his head] Really? That sounds kind of... 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Smith: It's true. And I'm going to translate the plates and publish it into a book for the whole world to read. Now, ahah-I know you have a lot of money, Mr. Harris, and I'm just gonna need a little bit to pay for the publishing costs. 
Harris: Mmm, I don't know. Uh, how do you expect to translate it? 
Smith: With these. [presents the seer stones] 
Harris: Rocks? 
Smith: They're not rocks. They're seer stones, given to me by an angel. With them, God allowed me to translate the plates into English. Watch. You take this quill and paper and write down what I say. Sit here. [on the floor, by some sheets of paper and a quill pen in an ink well] I have the golden plates here in this hat. I need to have them somewhere dark so I can read the spiritual light. 
Harris: Really? 
Smith: Now, when I put the seer stones into the hat, the ancient letter light up and change into English, which I can then read to you. 
Harris: Wow! [Smith looks down and lowers his head so the face is buried in the hat] 
Smith: Ooo, I'm seeing the light. Oh, okay. Write this down. "And... so... it... was... that... Christ... appeared before... the... Nephites." 
Singers: And that's how the Book of Mormon was written
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dahumb dahumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuumb, duuumb.  
[The Marsh house, night. At the dining table they're playing the same board game the Harrisons were playing a few nights before: "LIVING"] 
Randy: One two three four. "Pay one thousand dollars property tax." [pays the property tax] Isn't this great, you guys? Our first Family Home Evening. 
Shelley: I wanna watch TV. 
Randy: We're not watching TV! We're Mormons now and we're having Family Home Evening! 
Stan: Dad, did you know that that Joseph Smith guy read the Book of Mormon out of a hat? 
Randy: And? [to Sharon] Your turn, Sharon. 
Stan: It's just that... the Book of Mormon says a lot of strange stuff, like that Adam and Eve lived in Jackson County, Missouri. 
Randy: Yes. 
Stan: But school taught me that the first man and woman lived in Africa. 
Randy: Well you can't believe everything school tells you, Stan. Your turn, Shelley. [the doorbell rings] Oooo, that must be the Harrisons! [rises and goes to the front door. He opens and the Harrisons walk in with enthusiasm, chatting away] 
Gary: Hey everybody. 
Mark: [walks around] Wow, what a great house! 
Karen: [walks up to Sharon] You must be Mrs. Marsh; it's so nice to meet youuu! 
Jenny: [walks up to Shelley] And you must be Stan's sister. Oh, I think your brother's the greatest. 
Shelley: My brother is a stupid turd. 
Gary: [walks up to Stan] Hey Stan. 
Stan: [with reservations] Hey Gary. 
Randy: Well, come on in and sit down, everybody. [they all settle in on the couches in the living room. Shelley avoids looking at the Harrisons] You're here just in time. My son was having a little problem with our new religion. 
Stan: Dad! 
Gary Sr.: Ohohoho, really? Wel, that's just because he hasn't heard the best part about the Joseph Smith story! The one that proves he was for real! 
The Harrisons: Yeah! Woohoo! 
Randy: Ooo, what's that? 
Gary Sr.: Well, you remember Martin Harris, the rich man who wrote down what Joseph Smith read out of the hat? 
Stan: Yeah. 
Gary Sr.: See, after he was done, he took some of the pages of what would become the Book of Mormon home. 
[Back to the 1800s, night, the large building] 
Singers: Martin went home to his wife
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Harris: A-and so Joseph Smith put his head into a hat, a-and read to me what the golden plates said. I wrote it all down and we're gonna publish it into a book. 
Mrs. Harris: Martin, how do you know he isn't just making stuff up and pretending he's translating off golden plates? 
Singers: Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Smart smart smart smart smart 
Harris: Why would he make it up? 
Singers: Martin Harris dumb dadumb- 
Lucy: All right, here. I'm gonna hide these pages. [puts them in a drawer at the bottom end of an armoir] If Joseph Smith really is translating off of golden plates, then he'll be able to do it again. But if Joseph Smith is making it all up, then the new translations will be different from these. 
Harris: Okay, fine. I bet he'll have no problem. [puts on his coat and heads out] 
Singers: Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb.
So Martin went on back to Smith
Said the pages had gone away
Smith got mad and told Martin
He needed to go pray
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Harris: [upon Smith's return] Look, ah I'm sorry about losin' the pages we worked on, Joe, but I'm ready to write it all down again if you translate from the plates. 
Smith: I would love to, Martin, except, I just had a vision. And the Lord said he's very angry with me for letting you take those pages. 
Harris: [gasps] He is?? 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 
Smith: Yes. He is so mad that he will never let me translate from the plate of Lehi again. He's... we must now translate from the plate of Nephi. So it will be the same basic story, but written a little differently. 
Harris: Wow! If God got angry with you, then you must be tellin' the truth. 
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. 
Harris: All right, Martin. Let's get to work! [Smith reads from the hat again and dictates to Harris, who writes it all down] 
[Back to the present, the Marsh house] 
Gary Sr.: And that's how it happened. 
Kids: Yeah! All right! [the Marshes sit there without a word to say] 
Stan: ...Wait. Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? 
Gary Sr.: Well sure. The story proves it, doesn't it? 
Stan: No, it proves he DID make it all up. Are you blind? 
Mark: Well, Stan, it's all a matter of faith. 
Stan: No, it's a matter of logic! If you're gonna say things that have been proven wrong, like that the first man and woman lived in Missouri, and that Native Americans came from Jerusalem, then you'd better have something to back it up. All you've got are a bunch of stories about some asswipe who read plates nobody ever saw out of a hat, and then couldn't do it again when the translatios were hidden!
Randy: Hey, Stan, don't denounce our religion. 
Stan: [crosses his arms] I don't wanna be Mormon, Dad! 
Shelley: Me neither. 
Gary: Hey, that's only cool, guys. You can believe whatever you want! 
Gary Sr.: Yeah, it's great you have your own beliefs. 
Gary: Yeah! Hooray for the Marshes! 
Stan: Oh, stop it! [stands up] That's another thing! Why do you have to be so freakin' nice all the time?! It isn't normal! You just weasel people into your way of thinking by acting like the happiest family in the world and being so nice to everyone that you just blindside dumb people like my Dad! 
Randy: Yeah! [moments later they are standing outside, and the door is slammed on their faces. They turn around, and Gary Sr. sighs] 
Gary Sr.: Well kids... Who's up for a water balloon fight?! 
Kids: Yeah! All right! [they leave the Marsh house in high spirits] 
[The bus stop, next day. Kyle, Cartman and Kenny wait for the bus, Stan walks up somewhat somberly] 
Kyle: Oh, hey Stan. Where's your best buddy, Gary? 
Stan: I'm not hanging around that kid anymore. 
Cartman: [needling] Oh no! You guys broke up? 
Stan: You guys were right, okay? The new kid's a douche. Now I just gotta find a way to keep him away from me. 
Gary: [shows up] Hey Stan. 
Stan: Oh brother. 
Cartman: Uh oh, the jilted lover returns. 
Gary: Listen, I just wanted to let you know you don't have to worry about me tryin' to be your friend anymore. 
Stan: I don't? 
Gary: Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls. [turns around and walks off. All four boys just look at him in wonder, even Cartman.] 
Cartman: Damn, that kid is cool, huh?

[ocsrazor]

In being cute about it Don, you have hit the nail on the head. Maybe that was your intention Once again, the whole problem with all of religious structure is that it is all just made up stuff. Now dont get me wrong, there is some valuable stuff in the writings of certain mystics, (ex: The love thy neighbor message caused a significant cultural and ethical revolution in the West) but everything that comes after the original mystic is utterly worthless and is often contrary to the original message. (the whole What Would Jesus Do phenomenon really cracked me up, because I highly doubt that the historical Jesus would be willing to call himself a christian )

Gewis' post above is a clear example of this phenomenon, all of the structure and traditions of the Christian church are for the most part worthless - it is all based on the incoherent ramblings of the power-mad founders of the church, Peter and Paul. It took the Buddhists a little longer to completely ignore everything the Buddha said and start a religion in his name (about 300 years, even though he specifically told his followers not to do it)

There is value in seeking answers to the ultimate questions, and many mystics did come up with interesting and sometimes fairly accurate perspectives of the universe. Since the time of these mystics our picture of the universe has only increased in resolution though. Religion represents a halting of the search for better answers. Why insist on continuing to look through a scratched and distorted lens when you can use the Hubble telescope? Religion and the belief in anthropomrophic gods are the ultimate in intellectual laziness for any true seeker after the BIG questions.

Edited by ocsrazor, 03 December 2004 - 12:21 AM.

[Gewis]

lol... that is great. I'd offer a critique and a big list of corrections, but, eh, it's South Park.

[Gewis]

I find your post a bit ironic, ocsrazor, off-handedly dismissing it as made up while accusing me of intellectual laziness.

[ocsrazor]

It is not offhanded, I have spent years reading and thinking in comparative religion. I am deeply interested in how ideas spread through brains and through cultures. The phenomenon of reversal of the message of the prominent mystics is a recurring theme throughout the evolution of spirituality. This is why you see the decline in formation of religions after the invention of better methods for transmission of information, it becomes much harder to distort messages or to claim 'special' knowledge when it is accesible to everyone. The Christian church was useful as a power structure to hold Western culture together during the dark ages, but it is now a useless remnant that desperately needs updating.

I do have to say Gewis, and seriously, please dont take this personally, but I am a busy guy and I wont take time to line by line dissect a post when it is so far from rationality and critical thought that it isnt worth addressing. I encourage you to continue your search for answers, but please dig deeper into both theology and philosophy if you would like to have a serious discussion.

[susmariosep]

Are Susma, Gewise, and Stranger superstitious people?

I don't know about Gewise and Stranger, how they acquit themselves of superstitions.

In my case, there are a good number of souvenirs from my religious history of a Catholic, which I from a sense of sentimental attachment still harbor in my heart and mind; but I avoid anything which might be superstitious. What is superstition?

Allow me to repeat what I stated in my first post initiating this thread:

There are people who maintain that all religion is superstition. I for one think otherwise, namely, that religion can be freed of superstitions, if the religious person acts rationally in the practice of his religion.

I consider myself a Christian, more specifically a postgraduate Catholic. Since I believe in God, in Jesus Christ, I pray to them. And that is rational.

Why? because it stands to reason, meaning it is not unreasonable, not crazy then, on the consideration that God is good and all powerful and Jesus is His Son made man.

Hence, for a religious behavior to be rational, first the belief which is the basis for acting is reasonable, and second the action consequential upon the belief is also reasonable.

When are beliefs reasonable and consequential acts founded upon them reasonable? Suppose for the present we just say that when they are not crazy in the estimate of the average reasonable person.

And who is an averagely reasonable person? Someone you can get along with to attain a common end not objectionable to the rest of society in any serious way or degree.

The person that is not averagely reasonable is one you would not want to deal with or interact with or relate to; and you would wish that you don't get into his presence or he does not get into yours. Better, if he is gravely unreasonable, he'd better be consigned to an asylum for his own good and for the good of society.

Of course it might be said that if superstitions are removed from religion, then there is no longer any religion left. Not really to my mind, because there are beliefs and observances in a religion that can be reasonable, even though entities like God cannot be proven to exist in terms of our present ways and means of establishing existence, and the kind of existence as we understand it also today.

And from my stock knowledge entities like God cannot be proven to not exist either. Am I right?

Susma

[susmariosep]

We are here all I assume seeking confirmation of our respective heart and mind. Say, safety or reasurrance in number? In the face of science, philosophy, religion, and superstition.

For me, it's like this:

Science tells you what to do when you hit your head against a concrete wall in the dark, namely: exercise caution to avoid such a painful experience in the dark, or get rid of the concrete wall altogether, or get light installed where there is darkness, or some other possible and feasible solution to save your head from hitting the wall in the dark.

Philosophy tells you darkness and sensation of pain are the lot of mankind, and to do something about them by employing your knowledge and your human and environmental resources.

Religion tells you that there might be some unknown but negotiable power entity in charge, who can help you to get rid of darkness or to at least bear the pain of your head collision with the wall.

Superstition tells you to execute some action or utter some words so that some blind force will prevent your head from colliding with the wall when you have to move about in the darkness, or to land into some good turn in your day's routines, action or words namely without any connection to the evil or good event.

In my own case, upon self-introspection, I consider myself in all respects, to be scientific, philosophical, religious, but not superstitious.

Susma

[ocsrazor]

Susma,

If you read your last post carefully you will see that your statements on philosophy and science are logically equivalent, and your statements of religion and superstition are logically equivalent.

Drink horse!

[ocsrazor]

As addendum, I should say that the critical thought process behind science and philosophy is the same, and it owes a debt to some of the mystics of the past who helped refine critical thinking and who encouraged the search for answers in an unknown universe. Religion has no relation to this thought process.