(V): So much covering death I believe is the church's fault...


Funny... I have always felt that religion made us fear death less, that we had a better place waiting for us? Since I personally have no beliefs like this, death is something that I am not looking forward to.... and I believe the big draw of religion is the "afterlife"... the "eternity" that people crave (not to mention all the virgins)

Übergeek 바둑이: We also need to stimulate companies and universities thaht do research into ways to reduce the amount of gases we emit. That means that the goverment has to take our hard-earned tax dollars and put them to work properly. That will always be a difficult thing, because politicians are influenced by special interests, and taxpayers might be skeptical of how the money is being spent.

**

Be it the environment, be it health, I do not see the science as we know it today offering the anwers that would bring us forward. To get consensual on the climate problem like the science is describing it, we would have to move to a complete 'scientification' of the whole world population, science fiction of it's worst. Different cultures have different answers, and people tend to put faith over science, even more the situation gets dramatic. People see them self confirmed in doupting in scientifical explanations, because science fails to solve problems above technical aspects. Our mainstream medicine is tied to big companies who blind government lot lots of tax revenues. It's taking cash out of our pockets, this for a medicine that hasn't much to do with health. Lots of people don't seem to understand that health is something in between the visit to the doctor. They feel not good about something, go to a doc, get a chill pill, but don't get told to invisage a change of lifestile, reaching life quality. We wouldn't be in need of that much pharmaceutica if we would take the lessons from our cultures and religions serious. Then, we don't deny that coffein, nicotine, alcohol has an effect on us. It is the case for everything, all foods, nonfoods, things we don't know anymore that they are fine for us. We all seem to know this, but continue to let the synthetic monster science be decisive in what's good or wrong. Not every aspect of science is monstreus, but some definitly are. Health science is in large parts. Our science denies that an organism is more than a single body. It's wrong, even cruel. I don't call myself religious but I'm true in being thankful toward God. It is a logical consequence following the culture I grew up in. This culture, let me generalise it, west of Jerusalem, knows what buddhists seem to call rebirth (as in reincarnation). So why should I care about getting older at the point when it tells me, face death now. I can take it as a new chance, yay, new start. All this, the science denies it, is fighting it, mainly for the strange idea of some few to live in repulsive abundance. It's the same with the climate. Arts examles of Hollywoodstars who don't get it are typical for that. This toilet paper example. In America you seem to be dwelt to 5-ply fluffy papers, while most of the world is doing the toilet business with the more hygienic water and hand method. How do you want to reach scientifical consensus, when the differences of lifestile are so blatant? It isn't a new thing that cultures learn from each other, without fighting. What needs to get fighted is repulsive abundance.

Czuch: This is the problem Czuch... If taken as per the original intent of religions then death is just a normal life event. But, so much has been empathised on fear of the afterlife by nature of ... have we been good boys and girls. The original 4 'hells' have been converted by bad translation into 1 'hell'.

As to virgins.... you have to be a bit metaphorical regarding some aspects of religion.

But my original point was the difference between suicide and choosing to die with dignity. This difference has been lost somehow. We recognise when in battle a hero may sacrifice their life to save others and remember and reward such sacrifice. Yet if someone is terminally ill with no chance of recovery, and as such a painful undignified death.. we say this is wrong. Yet at the same time doctors get to choose at times when to 'switch off the machine' that is keeping a persons body alive.

gogul: Reincarnation is not alien to Judaic based religions. It was just rejected by those who decided to formalise western orthodoxy into an easily taught faith. I feel a certain amount of trying to convert pagan religions by keeping certain elements of paganism (of those dominant at the time) was used.

As to science... I don't think it can reject an afterlife as such anymore, so much is coming to light that we don't know everything and that not only is this body of ours a biological organism but also has many EM aspects.

eg .. when I was at school we were taught electrons orbited in a nice clean orbit. Now I learn that science finds that electrons though stay around the nucleus of an atom there is no clear orbit. An electron can jump around, be in more than one place at a time, etc.
..... we are now looking at multiple dimensions to explain gravity and it's weakness, that space/time is bent from gravity and that it is not an attraction as such, but matter falls when faced by gravity. Black holes I was taught nothing could escape from, now certain particles can, and in the end a black hole can explode.

Science is still learning.

Tuesday: And if there is no family? And three comes up in many forms in Judaic based religions, as does 40.... btw.. when it comes to death, it is also said that it is not certain (see Gospel of Thomas) which refers to that the Bible talks of more then one type of death as the original texts used more then one type of hell.

Over simplification causes complication that leads away from the simplicity of the Bible. It's no good just going by what others think is right.

Btw.. Christian wise... there is always transmigration!!

Tuesday: There is noting like "time will tell". Time is an illusion, and nothing is hidden behind time if you can hear and see. This is if you are willing to receive it.

gogul: True. I've gone off meditating, thought just half an hour has passed and found it's hours later. Time is relative. Also it is not recognised in physics as being a constant in regards to the effects that such as gravity has on it.

A day in zero G is not the same as that in any place affected by gravity.

(V): So, what is with this hacker, will he be delivered to the US? The one who went into NASA and government computers and tells how easy that is.

I think that how we as individuals see death has a lot to do with faith. I have always tryied to imagine how the first human beings saw death. The first human being to have a sense of "self" would have seen animals die and say "I will die some day, what will happen to me then."

Then a terrible realization must have occurred. "I don't know what happens to me after I die." This question has plagued humanity since its earliest beginnings, because once we die we have no sensory perception of the universe, and the living have no way to communicate with the dead.

This is where religion was born. The earliest religions believed in "resurrection". Warriors and hunters in prehistoric times were buried with their weapons and possessions, sometimes even their hunting dogs and hawks. They believed they would be resurrected some day and when they woke up from their long death everything they had would be with them. The Egyptians formalized that belief and constructed their pyramids and mummified their pharaohs, thinking that they would come back some day.

Of course, they did not. Then we have the rise of other religiens like monotheism. In monotheism (Judeo-Christian or other types) human beings have a "soul". The "self" survives beyond death, because the God that created humans is merciful and wants to save them somehow. This is why we get one chance at physical life, because once the body dies, there is no need for the body any more.

Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and other religions of India believed that the "self" (or soul, called atman in Sanskrit) did not exist. Instead human beings became so attached to the physical world that once the body died, the person would "reincarnate" in a new life somewhere else. This cycle of death and rebirth led to great suffering in living beings because as we live we lose all those things we are attached to. Then the concept of "nirvana" and "enlightenment" came in. If a person became enlightened, the cycle of death and rebirth would end.

Of course, we have atheists who deny all religion and see life as a one chance to exist and then it ends with death. Atheism started in ancient Greece, but it reached its highest philosophical forms in the 19th and 20th century.

In the end it all comes down to faith, what we believe is a reflection of what we have learned through life. Doubt is part of human existence, and organized religion has used doubt as the most powerful weapon for political control.

You cannot be sure that God exists and that God will save you, so organized religion attempts to give people that certainty. In doing so it often used its influence over individual belief to promote political and economic objectives.

Today we see Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations use religion to promote their political objectives, but western society is full of examples of the abuses of organized religion. Crusades, the burning of witches, pastors in churches telling people to vote for a certain candidate, etc. Manipulation has taken many forms, and it has been done by all religions at some point or another. Every major religion spread itself through war (except for Buddhism with its strict adherence to non-violence, although some historians have argued that too).

Next time we see Al Qaida, we have to realize that they are not selling death to their followers, but the certainty of salvation after death. All those virgins waiting in paradise after death are the reward for acting in a way that promotes their political and economic objectives. I have nothing against religion or belief in God, but organized religion promoting blind obedience and conformity, that to me is an aberration.

It is not my style to use chapter and verse numbers, this isn't ment to be missionary as well, it is unusual for me to convince somebody meet Jesus. After all Jesus of Nazareth is famous. I don't think I ever tried exept to say yes when I got asked. Still it is the contribution of many churches to violate the Kingdom of Heaven in lots of variations. Like throwing around them with chistologies; theologes who interpret the meaning of words like "is"; keeping their followers in a prison.

People who have power, they have a different memory which allowes them to play the people. It's the same for the "emperor" as it is for the "pope". It's the same for a CEO, it's the same for spiritual leaders of groups. I reject it as the result is unsatisfactory. Teach the illiterate to read? Nope, I want to manipulate. Teach medicine? Nope, I want to be rich with synthetic addictive drugs. Teach the people to shake hands over borders? Nope, I have bullets to offer. For centuries powerhunger violates the Kingdom of Heaven.

gogul: One of your best posts.....

gogul: Looks like they are going to give him over and he's gonna face prosecution.. not definite yet, but very likely. Which is really stupid!! If the guy can hack their systems that well they ought to be hiring him as a paid hacker (as some do) to find the weaknesses in their systems.

... And then the question arises, if he is that good.. he could hack other systems for them on an even higher pay!!

gogul:

I entirely agree with you. Greed and the pursuit of power seem to corrupt just about every good thing humanity has done in the past. Religion, science, medicine, etc. for the powerful these are merely tools to subjugate the masses.

I think when it comes to religion we have to remember that religion means different things for different people. There is "individual belief", which is what each and every person believes to be true. There is "theology", which tries to interpret religion in general terms. There is "organized religion", large groups of people following the teachings of some religious or spiritual leader.

Karl Marx called religion "the opium of the masses". His statement was an expression of theh frustration he felt when he saw religion being used to keep poor people subjugated. It was the wrong use of religion that turned many people into atheists.

Science is not much better. Chemistry can be used to synthesize and design medicinal drugs that can save millions of lives. It can also be used to design poisons, toxic gases, explosives, and other weapons. Chemistry is a tool and how we use it determines its value and meaning.

Medicine is the same. You can use medicine to save lives, or you can use medicine to make a profit. Medicine is a weapon too, and biological weapons remain one of the biggest threats to humanity.

We have some very intelligent men (scientists, doctors, religious leader, politicians, businessmen, etc.) and they use their intelligence as a tool to acquire welath and power.

I think that in the end we as human beings are very good at making excuses. "We will develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from ouur enemies who are determined to destroy us." We developed those weapons, and later we don't know what to do with them. We convinced ourselves that the weapons were indispensable, and now we cannot live without them because we live in a constant state of fear.

Terrorists want to get nuclear weapons and use them in the name of God. It would be unfair to blame God for the things that human beings do. God gave us freedom to act, and organized religion is used to take that freedom away and make us slaves of religion as ideology. It is why I dislike organized religion, and I prefer individual belief. Individual belief makes people independent of the herd mentality. Nobody should be used like a sheep to die or be exploited in the name of God.

For those people who don't know abot the hacker, here are some links. This first link at Wikipedia gives a good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/02/british.hacker.mckinnon/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8180427.stm

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2523487.0.Hacker_Gary_McKinnons_mother_accuses_Johnson.php

Some things I didn't know. He has Aspereger's Syndrome, a form of Autism. He is accused of hacking into Pentagon and NASA computers in the US right after the 9/11 attack. The Pentagon wants him extradited and tried as a terrorist.

Übergeek 바둑이:

"would have seen animals die and say "I will die some day, what will happen to me then.""
..... Not at first, as such the first humans would have seen death as a natural part of life, it's not till later when mankind would have questioned death.

"has plagued humanity since its earliest beginnings, because once we die we have no sensory perception of the universe, and the living have no way to communicate with the dead."
..... I'd say we'd have a better perception of the universe as we are no longer tied to a degree a fixed point. As with no means of communication.. since a certain funeral I'd have to disagree with that.

"Instead human beings became so attached to the physical world that once the body died, the person would "reincarnate" in a new life somewhere else. This cycle of death and rebirth led to great suffering in living beings because as we live we lose all those things we are attached to. Then the concept of "nirvana" and "enlightenment" came in. If a person became enlightened, the cycle of death and rebirth would end."
........... Quite frankly, you've missed the spirit of it all. The reincarnation was until the person learnt to be nothing and as such be. Joe would still be Joe, yet things would be in perspective. As they said in Greece.. an unmoved mover.

"You cannot be sure that God exists and that God will save you, so organized religion attempts to give people that certainty."
..... Now this is tricky. To me the answer is both yes and no at the same time. God as in existing as some man... no. The male and female form used in judaism as such is just indicating role and form of God in terms of our relationship. Though they tried in the formation of the RCC and doctrine to ban the idea, God is just an energy. As such the whole universe comes from that energy and is such that energy and then we get back to the self again. How do you describe it? The covenant with God is such that things will come your way to make you see what is clouding you.. some aspect where some believe God will stop anything bad happening. Well... Christ didn't want to push it in the desert As to belief on existence... Well some claim that such is the calm that can be achieved at times that they feel something. this thing cannot be described it just is.

And yes.. blind obedience to a set of rules is wrong. A person is to come as such and join with God as a matter of free will. No-one can teach you that, and if they try and force it on you then that is realistically a mortal sin.

Funny world.

gogul: Wellll ya know the old saying..

In Judea it was a fellowship, Greece a philosophy. Europe a religion and in America.. a business.

(V):

Perhaps thinking more carefully, rather than just "organized religion", I would say "organized ideology". Stalin's Communism had many of the traits of the organized fanaticism that we see in other places. It could be the head of the communist party, or a supreme spiritual or political leader. The uncertainty in a person's beliefs is reinforced by a large group of believers who obey an ideology blindly. Religion can become ideology, and it seems that once happens the ethical and moral aspects of religion are cast aside. Churches, temples, mosques, political parties, etc., they breed blind obedience and ostricize those who do not believe in the same thing. Those with different beliefs become an enemy that must be destroyed. That is how God-fearing men can commit murder, and convince themselves that they are doing it in the name of God, or some greater good, as Communists did with "freedom from Capitalist oppression and human equality".

I feel that western society is falling prey to a blind belief in freedom and democracy as ideology. That blind belief is used to justify governments spying on their own citizens. Massive armies and weapons of mass destruction become necessary to "protect those higher principles". Our governments manufacture intelligence to justify wars, and individuals are detained without trial. We must protect freedom and democracy at any cost. Is there a line that we can cross in our devotion to higher ideals? I think it comes to personal belief and faith in a system. We believe in freedom and democracy, so we must do whatever it takes to keep them.

There is no such thing as reincarnation. It's nonsene. I used to believe in reincarnation in my former life. But now I know bettter.

Artful Dodger: LOL there is no such thing like a pope. I count at least two, or three. Through history they look like a hay fork

gogul: Awww look the smilie

There is a huge gap in between charity and pastoral care, and the religious authority of the top hierarchy of churches who involve them self in politics I have to say. I miss the humor particularly

Übergeek 바둑이: Blind obedience to an ideology of whatever sort is based on fear. As such a person does not believe the ideology I feel but is just looking for something to believe in and have some affirm that they are right. Yes, this has and always be a dangerous situation, as a idolised leader can always take advantage of such blindness. Or, those who say they represent an idol can use such fear to affirm their own or take advantage in many ways of blind believers.

As to blindness in western society... No. No longer possible. There are those who would like such blindness carried on, but as now there is no limiting in the western world of information it cannot happen. Yet as always the sand in the hand principle regarding the end of an era comes up. Panic... we are not believed anymore, we must make our idol more solid.. hence extremism. It's a sign of an ideology dying. Some deaths are quick, some take time.

I would say Frank Herbert does a good write on this in his character Duke Leto II. As such though reading the whole series of the Dune books gives more depth... long read though

Freedom.. sometimes it needs defending, but never at the price of demonisation of a group in opposition. We've fought wars in the past against such demonisation and for the right reason. It is never good, it leads to the ability to justify being monstrous and then the question arises... who is the demon? It is in that respect that the Qu'ran has articles of war and rules akin to the Geneva convention over the treatment of soldiers and civilians in time of war. Before this I guess the Arab states (like many an army of that time) took part in the usual atrocities following a victory or as part of that war. It is said by some these articles portray Islam as a war based religion. It is not, but at the time of formation of the Muslim faith, they faced destruction by their enemies, yet the prophet of their religion wanted to teach self discipline and even in war there can be respect.

AS to a line.. The Bible says everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. An example would be crossing the line as that in wars of the nature we face today leads to martyrs and the cycle of violence is justified. The war in Northern Ireland came to an end through talk, although most of those involved wanted an end to the violence, such was the mistrust that an outsider needed to mediate. Violence did not end the war, the desire for it's end by all those involved did, as then talks had substance.

This is what those who've never been in such a situation don't understand about wars on terror. The Northern Ireland situation went on for decades. An attack could happen at any time anywhere in the UK. Those fighting had no uniform, just their cause. Sometimes the British Army as such would take sides and supply info on an activist on the side of the IRA to loyalists rather than wait till the courts could be used. That just created more hate. Made things worse.

This is why in the UK we are sceptical of much of the Middle East business. That's why the new inquiry into the Iraq war has had much voicing done on it regarding transparency. The UK population will not accept a whitewash, we already know much from past inquiries. As such that is why millions marched in protest against the war. It didn't wash. We didn't believe our leaders and we didn't want our troops dying in vain for made up reasons. We understand that the government of the time did not want the USA to wage that war alone, yet maybe more effort on saying that the war was for the wrong reasons would have led to a more thought out approach to the situation as a whole.

The cold war taught much, that there is such as a war that you cannot win. Direct confrontation of extreme actions would lead to self destruction, nukes and biological weapons were just great ornaments for the boys as there was no way that they could be used. Even with a completely successful first strike the radiation would be blown in the wind, mutation and death would sweep the Northern hemisphere. Food would be poisoned from absorbed radio active elements. Our economies would collapse from the strain.

Is there a price that is too high to pay. Yes. When values of decency go out the window we've already lost.

Artful Dodger: You might change your mind again in the next life!!

gogul: It's strange with the popes when they contradict the previous views of their predecessors.

And not all top church leaders have lost humour. I guess many feel hitting their heads against brick walls when dealing with certain situations. But afternoon tea is still remembered here.

(V): This is what those who've never been in such a situation don't understand about wars on terror. The Northern Ireland situation went on for decades. An attack could happen at any time anywhere in the UK. Those fighting had no uniform, just their cause.




I dont buy any analogy between the war on terror and the civil war in north ireland.....what because they had no uniforms, and were fighting for a cause???? There were actual people who could sit down to reach a civil agreement, but not on the war on terror.... who do we get to have this conversation with to end the war on terror peacefully???? I can agree that there needs to be other fronts besides just killing them and shutting down their camps. more pro active and peaceful ways, but its rubbish to say that armys have no purpose and can have substitutes in every instance.

Tuesday: wht do we have to lose by believing what I think is right lol.


Thats the beauty, you have nothing to lose, really, except maybe a lot of wasted time, but you do not consider it time wasted, so that doesnt count either, and the benefit is that you will always try to do what is right, except, what about if you kill and terrorize others because they dont have the same faith as you, then you have a lot to lose because of your religion

Tuesday: Which hell? there are 4. Gehenna is no more. That pit died out when it was no longer used as a garbage pit and a place to through the bodies of those killed as criminals. But the metaphorical aspect still has use. then there is sheol, hades and separation. And btw.. by 'devil' I presume you mean yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs) such is it that if in place and yetzer tov is followed, that inner voice of God rather then the 'devil' within is nullified. Make no mistake though, yetzer ra is a part of us that we use from day to day. It's that part of us that marries, has children, runs businesses and many other normal things. Yet if it is out of control... ...

Czuch: It was not a civil war. I don't know where you get that from, but that is not true. Mainland UK was just as likely to be bombed as NI was. If you look back in the history books you'll see an attempt was made to kill Maggie Thatcher through a bomb at a hotel. Car bombs going off, the only hope was that it was one of the main IRA groups that gave coded warnings, so the damage was only property. Assassinations of high ranking officials took place also. There was no line of battle, the UK and Ireland were the battlefield and anyone could be a casualty.

I'm not saying armies have no purpose, but using them for the wrong purpose serves no good.

(V):

Tuesday: You did miss the point. The world "hell" is a made up word of 4, possibly more concepts. When people say "the devil made me do this" it is a denial of responsibility and as such an escape for people who don't want to change, or.. a ways to escape the consequences of their own actions in the eyes of others who like blaming 'the devil' for their own failings.

Very very sadly I don't have "la divina commedia" in english. It makes me very sad because it's very funny.

To me it looks like the people's republic of china has a big problem. Their social harmony seems to be a farce. And they want to celebrate their 60 anniversary in about 8 week. At least there is some time left to solve their problems till then. Lets hope the Chinese are happy with this young country in 8 weeks

gogul: The book "Job" by Robert Heinlein and "Good Omens" look much at things to do with heaven and hell. Especially the matter of an Angel and Demon saying... "Do we have to have this war?" Also noted that a certain horseman now runs the most succesful diet food business.. food that is totally void of nutrition.. it's to die for

(V): http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/ireland1968.htm

Czuch: And? I see the notes are truncated and leave out alot of history. That UK civilians were targeted does speak of terrorism does it not? Sudden bombs going off killing loads of people who really had no fight and were just as sick of the war.

Btw.. Not all IRA or Loyalist groups stopped fighting. Some extreme elements as in any side just can't stop hating.

(V): and.... you asked where I got the idea it was a civil war, and I showed you where, thats all

Czuch: Yeah well.. too many sides involved for a civil war. And as the British were involved the civil war idea goes out the window. In the early days of splitting Ireland I could agree, but it had just transformed into an ugly business. The British helping the Loyalists and Americans helping the IRA.

Strange days!!

(V): I think most civil wars have a lot of foreign involvement though. There are always going to be "outside forces" that have some interest in how a civil war turns out in the end. There was foreign involvement in the American Civil War, and it is still considered a civil war.

I suppose calling the British "foreign" in the Ireland issue is a bit of a stretch though.

rod03801: Thanks Rod, for the back up!

Civil wars always have foreigners involved for several reasons. Some will backup one side, such as the British backing up the loyalists, or the US backing up the Pakistani army against the Taliban. In those cases the reasons are political.

During the Cold War, the civil wars in Central America saw several countries involved. The US, the British, the Canadians, the French, the Germans, the Israelis, they all had interests there. The CIA provided training for the military and traded weapons and drugs, and for that reason the US had the finger pointed at it through the Cold War.

Today we have forgotten wars such as the civil war in the Soviet Union involving Adzerbaijanis and Armenians fighting over Nagorno-Karabak. In that war western powers and Iran backed and supplied the Adzerbaijanis, while the Russians backed the Armenians. Cold War politics and Islamic extremism fueled foreign involvement, and curiously, both the west and Iran backed the same side.

I find that in most civil wars, somebody is getting rich at the expense of the parties involved in that war. The IRA bought weapons, as did the Loyalists, and there were thirds parties that made money supplying them. It is not different in Afghanistan and Pakistann today. The Taliban, who fought against the Russians in the 1980s, are now buying Kalashnikov rifles Russian smugglers, while the Pakistani army is buying its weapons from the US. Then corrupt Pakistani army officers are selling American weapons to the Taliban. In the mean time who makes the money? Weapons manufacturers of course!

Übergeek 바둑이: Per capita Switzerland is nr. 2 if it comes to weapon exports (big weapons that is, who can't be carry by a single man, air defense and such). The US (first in total numbers) 9th. We don't want our own soldiers for foreign missions, but are almost top in exporting weapons... We make politics with a peaceful image, but supply India and Pakistan again and again with new generations of weapons that mainly serve to entertain military in trainingcamps. I haven't heard of a airfight in between India and Pacistan. Tensions and mobilisations (weakening Pakistan in the west) yes. But airfights?

rod03801: Agreed, civil wars can have alot of foreign intervention. But through us British eyes it was a war of terrorist activities. There as I said, was no set line of battle, most of the targets were civilian in nature (at least re the IRA). No uniform was used by the Loyalists or the IRA.

It does not fit a civil war model.

And yes, the British did invade Ireland a few hundred years back. The creation of Northern Ireland was to create a home place for the protestants who emigrated to Ireland during the time when us British ruled and used Ireland as a crop land, as most natural born Irish people were catholic. Early in this century, Ireland (as in the main part) was returned to the Irish. It is a separate country. We need a passport to go there.

It is best to study the whole history of British involvement, then perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.

Übergeek 바둑이: Officially... the UK army was neutral in NI, but certain people sided with the Loyalists. We were supposed to be in NI keeping the peace, stopping Catholics from killing Protestants. Religion was used as a dividing line. The main deaths were civilian and the peace keepers. Not the IRA or Loyalist militia.

But you are right, in the end the only people in such wars who profit are the weapons manufacturers.