'real objective' can be stated more simply as 'true intention'.
And by true I am using that aspect of wholesomeness which does not apply to the use of existing words for new concepts.
We have lost the use of so many 'old' and perfectly useful words like puff, gay, queer, heart, enlightenment, etc., by various groups, often without thinking about it, 'taking them over'. I know word usage changes with time, but I gayly predict that like a puff of smoke, People will become enlightened of ther fact that their words are being nicked from under their noses.
And, isn't it better to have real objectives than false objectives?

greed ranges from an indeterminate amximum to an indeterminate minimum. I like everybody else fall somewhere in-between.
You seem to think I am a goody-goody; thank you. More likely think I think I am a goody-goody. I don't. I am a human being with foibles like anyone else!
SInce we seem to be moving into a 'let's see who can win phase', and filling a valuable Forum page, I propmtly admit defeat, if you like, and terminate.

PS come back soon I enjoyed it too!
The two apples are 'owed'.
they must be given to 'whoever' from next years crop!
But, addition and subtraction are independent of time aren't they? No [t] terms apply in the equations.

Hi guest, i'm interested in learning some more about you, if you don't mind sharing

There's been some links rightly/wrongly between yourself and Joe, are you an ascentionite like joe?

Rightly? Wrongly?

Say yes!!!!!!! Say No!!!!!!!!

Geez loweez Lazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Did you mean "jeez louise"?

How DID this thread get so far off of it's original ideology, anyway?

I once enjoyed the philosophical and religious debates in this forum. The political area was also interesting. But everything seems to be filling up with wanna-be armchair existentialists. Bah humbug.

I've volunteered over my adult life for more than one political party, trying to spread my experiences over the spectrum. I find little to reconcile with in, for instance, the Rhino party of Canada, but that isn't important.

If you want to know more about me, you are welcome to message me. I don't intend to recount anything here, however - mostly because it's a thread about God, and my secular history is of no moment. I'm flattered by your interest, though.

ok, i'll do that

I AM A UNITHEIST
For details, do a goodle.com/ search on Unitheism, Lindsay G. King.
A long time ago, I gave up on monotheism. Then I began to look for something, other than atheism, to replace it.

Even when I gave lip service to the existence of a theistic kind of 'God'--the almighty 'He' and fatherly type separated from us in the heavens, I felt extremely uncomfortable praying to 'Him'.

Sometime in the 1980's, when I heard Matthew Fox use and define the term, panentheism, I went to panentheism--G-d as that which is in an through all that is.

My view of "heaven"--perhaps the term "the immediate and ongoing future" is a better way to describe it--is not exclusive to anyone who wants to be included. I have a great deal of respect for freedom of the will, otherwise we are just automatons.

Regardless of who thought of the word first, I coined the word 'unitheism', independently, as a doublet of panentheism, so as to avoid confusion with pantheism. And it does fit nicely with the name United Church and with the fact that we do live within the universe.

This is my story. And I am sticking with it, for now.

It's a pleasure to have you among us, Lindsay

I am a Christian, i rely on the biblical text in regards to the defining parameters, which have been coalesced over the centuries. I do not have any confidence in the speculative guesswork and gnostic/ materialistic alchemy. When i wake up in the morn, i am amazed that all the elements that are in me, work in such a cohesive manner that i can go about my daily business. Now i realize that there is a lot of history that has been subverted and or forgotten that could make me alter my stance. However, this will always come down to faith and belief,and that can never quantified then coalesced into some mathematical theorem. yours, jaydub

wiscojaydub, thanks for your post.

Keep in mind that, because I Iike to be up front with my concepts and opinions, until you get to know me better, I will come across as an opinionated, know-it-all dogmatic egotist, and a pompous you know what. Because that is NOT how I want to come across, feel free to take anything I write as being open to question and your constructive criticism. To the best of my ability, I try to avoid argumentum ad hominems, as I trust all posters will.

Let me assure you, I make no claim to being infallible. Take everything that I write as my humble opion, at this time. Because I want the freedom to change my mind, when new information comes into my purview, I always keep my options open. Therefore, I will preface much of what I write with IMO--in my opinion. Even when I forget to do this, please take it as a given.

And, above all, let us agree to disagree, according to way of the principle of love as taught in the Bible. That is, love (the Greek is agape) without conditions. I am reminded of Jesus' great command: "Love one another." Also, of Paul's I Corinthians 13.

BTW, have you read any of Marcus J. Borg's writings? I have in front of me one he wrote in 1997: THE GOD WE NEVER KNEW--Beyond Doigmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith. I also have and earlier book he wrote: MEETING JESUS AGAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME. In 1999 he wrote THE MEANING OF JESUS--Two Visions.

In my early years--I began my studies for the ministry in 1947, at 17--I was influenced by Harry Emerson Fosdick (The Living of These Days, etc.) and Leslie D. Weatherhead (The Christian Agnostic, etc.)

I am also posting to "psychology". There I am writing about the parents of psychology: philosophy and pneumatology. Check out: [http://www.flfcanada.com/index_forum.html

Aw shucks, why thank you for your gracious welcome, i just thought i would check in before i go to ed. I'll try to get here more often and earlier yours ,jaydub

Good to see you here.

hello der, i have a link i would very much like to post. It is one of the best creationist sites i hace seen and it goes like this: http://www.serve.com/hermann/main.html I still have a hard time getting my head around that site, but it sure beats playing against yourself in blindman chess.( only kidding). i believe that God exist and the most comfortable venue for me is the bible both old and new testament. My daughter once asked me how i beleive in God, when you can't see him? We were driving someplace at that moment, and i asked her to stick her hand out the window and feel the wind. I then said to her your can feel the wind, but you can't see it; that's how God relates to us. Un seen but his presence is felt. jaydub

I think he is not a creationist in any Biblical sense and what he has to say tells part of the poverall Hegelian Dialectic of 'playing both ends against the middle'. He is on to some of the game and no one can see just how completely we all have been abused by these controls he notes in this excerpt from his work.

“U. S. Naval Academy Speakers Bureau
Presents
The Great Scientific Deception
Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D.
On the 12th of Nov. 1994, I presented at Western Maryland College and before the Mathematical Association of America my complete solutions to what many claim are "the greatest questions on the books of physics.'' In particular, I answered the questions: From a scientific viewpoint, how did our universe come into being and of what is empty space composed? Furthermore, I also gave the first known solution to the "General Grand Unification'' problem. The mathematical model that solves this problem and answers these questions also shows that our universe was created by processes that mirror those one would associate with an infinitely powerful mind.
You might wonder why you've not seen in your newspapers banner headlines announcing these scientific discoveries? And, even though, when I talked to John Wheeler relative to these problems, he indicated that a solution should lead to a Nobel Prize, why won't I receive one for this research? The answer to these two questions is very simple. Besides the scientifically established infinitely power mind model that the scientific community does not want you to know about, what has been discovered also yields a very special secondary effect. It's this secondary effect that has revealed one of the more significant scientific deceptions. This secondary effect was made known informally to the scientific community in 1982 (Herrmann, 1982).
Evidence shows that this deception has a major effect. Without an individual being aware of this deception, this effect may require an alteration in an individual's belief-system so that the altered belief-system corresponds to a different secular belief-system. The method used is an incorrect and subtle form of mind control.
Let me say that this significant secondary effect is devastating to the scientific work of numerously many individuals. Unfortunately, this discovery shows that a vast amount of what is called "research'' is probably a great waste of time, for such research can't answer the question that it was designed to answer. Furthermore, usually, such research is also a waste of taxpayer’s money. It appears that in order to prevent the general public from learning about this secondary effect, the public does not even know of the existence of this special type of research -- the search for a scientific cosmogony. Why not? Well, I repeat what is self-evident. Some scientists are afraid of what might happen to their research funds and how their philosophic predilections will be exposed if the public finds out about this secondary effect. By the way, as long as scientists use scientific logic or mathematical reasoning, this secondary effect is fact and not a mere prediction.
I'll shortly illustrate the processes that have led to this significant "scientific" deception. But, first, consider this. Every minute of everyday, with respect to physical science, we're being deceived. Where is this happening? We're being deceived within the pages of many newspapers, by numerous television programs, by CBS, ABC, NBC News, National Public Radio and Television, by Warner Communications and Time-Life, by CNN, the Internet, by hundreds of magazines, by textbooks we or our children use. We're being deceived through every single method of modern public communication. We're being deceived by the vast majority of our science educators, especially within the public classroom setting. Being so deceived by such powerful agencies in such a continuous fashion can only be described as a display of absolute evil.
I'll give you examples of how this deception is presented, how you can recognize it, and how to fight against its often devastating influences -- influences that may be destroying your mental well-being or forcing you to alter your personal belief-system.
A few individuals have warned me not to divulge the truth to you. Why? Because there are billions of dollars involved in this significant deception. Thousands upon thousands of individuals make a lot of money by either producing this deception or communicating it to you. And this deception involves what we are told is the bastion of truth, fact, knowledge and the like -- modern physical science.
This deception is produced by a very subtle and logically incorrect use of the scientific method and results by science writers as well as many eminent scientific authorities and extremely powerful scientific organizations such as The National Academy of Sciences, The National Education Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution and almost every science museum in the world.
I'll make it easy for you to withstand the effects of this mind controlling deception and to understand why it is fostered and so forcefully propagated. I'll give you the tools and knowledge to counteract this deception -- to counteract much of the false "garbage'' you're exposed to on such programs as Nova, Nature, the National Geographic programs, the Cosmos and the David Attenborough's series. And, in particular, I'll give you the tools to counteract the effect that such misinformation has upon our children. Since it's children that are in the greatest danger...� (4)

this reminds me of certain 'self-help' infomercials that proclaim the benefits of their secret system without actually divulging what their system is

My 2 Cents...

Unless there is a universal definition of the word "God", "God" can mean whatever you want it to mean (as is obvious from reading many of these posts). I choose to define "God" as the old grey haired man, the symbol of divine good, who lives in the clouds and was responsible for the creation of the man and the universe. As opposed to the "Devil" who is the middle aged, red, goat-like creature who is the symbol of absolute evil.
From both of these definitions, I have decided that neither entity could ever exist, so I choose not to believe in either.

I do not believe in my definition of "God".

Do I believe in a higher power, fate, karma? No. Nothing I have experienced has given me a reason to.

Do I believe in another life (afterlife)? Yes. I cant rationalise it, but I believe there is something... No religion has yet been able to define it for me.

i know i do not know everything... but i know what i dont know.

In June 2004, I found myself sitting next to Neale Donald Walsch in a macrobiotic restaurant in Zagreb, Croatia. We discussed his concepts of New Spirituality and how the world might change in the next 50 years. Neale talked about emerging new directions in spirituality - and I on how to change the societal beliefs that can enable or disable that emergence.

I explained that I was in Zagreb to train a group of therapists to resolve Relationship Bonds, identity loss expressed as limiting beliefs by which we bond to important people. (See Relationship Bonds.) These bonds include societal beliefs - beliefs by which we lose identity to bond with a community, religion or nation. Soulwork includes effective ways to recognize, evaluate and change this identity loss - see www.soulwork.net.

Neale wrote a few words on a paper napkin and passed them to me. "The title of your book", he explained with a smile.


His evening seminar Razgovori s Bogom (Conversations with God) was like a walk through a beautiful, yet familiar, park. Although I had not read his books, many of his concepts were those that I have lived by for years - with different adjectives and adverbs. He talked of the ravages of religion - and of a new spirituality without good and evil, without dogma or creed.


Workshop Summary

The following day was Neale Walsch's workshop. Perhaps I can dare to summarize it:

You are God - and there is no other God before you

You can choose to develop spiritually

Your spiritual development can transform your society

A transformed society can end poverty, sickness and war

I was delighted to hear resonance with a favored novel by my favored novelist Robert Heinlein. "Stranger in a Strange Land" describes the life of a boy baby born on Mars and raised by Martians - and his return to Earth, where he started a religion, with fascinating results. The greeting used in the new religion was "Thou art God".

Ivan Illich
(1926-2002) "There is no greater distance than that between a man in prayer and God."

Neale said that Free Will is our greatest gift - and the hardest to accept. This brought to mind the words of self-acclaimed black magician Aleister Crowely - "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

From my side of the tracks, the counter-balance to free will seems to be "consequence". For many people, this word has a negative connotation. Yet a consequence doesn't seem to care why you did something. And consequence has important relatives - often called joy and happiness, and guilt and shame. In Soulwork, consequences are honored as our greatest teachers.

Let's jump back into Neale's workshop - as I understood it

"All is one." You are connected with all that is. The differences that you perceive are subjective illusions.

If "all is one" then all is divine. As part of creation, your divine essence reflects your divinity.

If "all is divine" then you have forgotten your divinity. You and others suffer from a collective metaphysical amnesia.

If you remember your divinity, you can fulfill your human potential.

After about three hours or so of shining appetizers, came the evening meal - the question period. This was, for me, the best of the evening!

For perhaps two hours, Neale Donald Walsch answered many complex and difficult questions - often from complex and difficult people. He did not try to force strings of words into our minds. He used his relationship skills to build experience. Rather than logical explanations, which rarely increase understanding, he answered with stories, challenges, paradoxes and warm humor. He seemed to be almost painfully honest.

I asked about responsibility and the consequences of healing. I often perceive that healing a person of a mental or physical disease will trigger a crisis somewhere else in that person's family. Many families seem to need a diseased family member - for the family to function together. For example, if one person in a codependent couple rises to become happy and strong, the other partner may descend into anxiety, depression, aggression or even suicide.

Neale did not offer a solution. Rather he admitted that he faces similar challenges each week, and offered some examples. His up-front honesty and candor both shocked and delighted me. I would question any glib or simple solution to such complex tasks. Finding solutions for my actions are my responsibility, and studying consequences can help me improve my spiritual ecology - my relationship with all-that-is. I relaxed with a sigh, a smile and a tear, which all come again as I consider the human-ness of the moment.

At the end of the evening I offered a summary. I said that I had never learned so much and so little in so short a time. Neale seemed to like that, and later quoted it. His workshop helps me remember to apply what I already know.

Martyn Carruthers

A beautiful story packed with lots of great insight. Many of those books and events you speak about are my favorites too.

A "Full understanding of God"? Please??!!!

Anthropomorphing due to Machiavellian 'appeals to base human urges' (The Prince) has served the De Medicis/Borgia/Rothschild continuum welll - but the soul of such sheople has been severely aborted.

John 10:34 gets it right a little.

I'm guessing "coming to a full understanding of God" is referring to some kind of psychotic break where a person abstracts the 'superego' aspect of their mind from their ego/id aspects and sees it as a separate 'supreme deity' and thus feels fully satisfied to follow that voice without question. This probaby creates a deep sense of safety (after all, God cannot be wrong so the person cannot be wrong to follow God uncritically) and this good feeling is the 'proof' of the reality of God.

Dear Dan

You could be correct about that and the fact that the person was suicidal and not attempting to learn but was driven into trauma probably tilts in the direction of you being right. However there are other reasons that people experience such 'constructs'.
I will put a response to a Mason who has seen enough of my stuff to realize I know more than he; and he thought he was ‘hot stuff’ and even told me I should join them if I wanted to pursue my interests and really get to know what it is about. Of course they also call anyone who thinks they know about these things arrogant or worse when they are threatened. It has been a few months and he is backing off that kind of thing as hard as it is for those propped-up by deceit and ego. I think most people who will read this will not accept what I am saying here without doing a lot of checking into the facts.
‘I tried sending through an attachment from a fellow researcher who is working on the Kaballah as derivative from Qaballa which is an ancient Verbal Tradition such as kept by the Bairds or bards and the Bardic Tradition for over 25,000 years. He finds my history is supportive and I see his sets of codes in English and other things of great value. The particular piece is 19 pages on just the letter 'E' without getting too verbose or using illustrations, which he has lots of. The Gematria is not a specialty of mine although I am pretty good a pre-history languages and not bad at Green Language and alchemical allegories in the Jung from Silberer subset derived from alchemy or Hermetics. That has usages in psychotherapy and mind control which they call Neuro Psycho Linguistics and other words and systems they often do not understand, it once was called Dream Analysis but they have gone far along the path of programming the mind. Kind of funny how psychiatrists say they do not believe in a soul and yet they use these archetypes from our collective soul.
So as Dion Fortune did say - Kaballah is 'twisted'. They have built these constructs or dimensional energy designs so that Masons and other 'traveling men' as you call them will think they have stumbled upon a great truth through their 'visions'. After all who can imagine that elementals and dimensional energies are subject to such design engineering - eh? As Jung says in his forward to The Tibetan Book of the Dead - the Hindu will see Shiva and that hierarchy whereas the Christian will go through the Bardol stages of Afterlife and see the likes of Gabriel then Jesus.’

I AM GOD.

GOD IS
NONE OF US HAS THE ABILITY TO REACH OUTSIDE OF THE THREADS THAT MAKE THE FIBERS OF OUR LIVES.EVEN WITH GREAT INTELLECT, THE VAST REASONING POWER THAT MAKES ONE/ ONE DOES NOT CHANGE THE FIBER THAT MAKE YOU /YOU.THIS BEING SAID: TO EACH OF US GOD IS DIFFERENT. WE MAY CALL HIM BY THE SAME NAME WE MAY WORSHIP HIM THE SAME WAY BUT NO MATTER
TO EACH OF US HE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE ARE DIFFERENT. YOU CAN NOT EXCEPT HIM YOU CAN SAY HE DONT EXIST. THIS DOES NOE CHANGE ANYTHING. YOU CAN CAST ME OF OF THIS WEB SITE, SAY I NEVER EXISTED . IN ANOTHER
PLACE ON ANOTHER PLANE I WILL STILL BE. THERE ARE BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO NO NOT I. I STILL EXIST. THERE ARE A FEW WHO WISH THEY KNEW NOT I. I STILL EXIST. LONG AFTER I'M DEAD THOUGHTS OF ME WILL BE, SO I EXIST. AS LONG AS THERE IS ONE WITH THOUGHTS OF A GOD A GOD EXITS.....

was that really worth putting in CAPS, Sach Nubbingoddess?

YO, GOD BLESS

i dont know but your name offends me

The question is asked: What is God?

I like the way the question is put. Usually, people ask: Who is God?

Keep in mind that when I make the following comments and ask tough questions I do so as a positive believer. I am not a cynical atheist, nor even and agnostic. As I currently understand the concept, I am one with G-d.

WHY ISN'T G-D A MEDIA MOGUL?

If G-d--note the spelling--is a "who"--that is, one who, supposedly wrote a book called the Bible--I am tempted to ask: Why does "He" not have Webpages? Or own a radio, newspaper and/or a TV network? Can you imagine how well G-d could communicate his will for us if he were a media mogul?

In my opinion--and I try not be too opinionated--in our discussion I need to be humble enough to admit that though I have spent many decades studying theology, I am fallible. I don't know everything, yet. Also I believe that there is no infallible sacred book, or collection of books, or authorities, with all the answers. Books and authorities are there, like parents are there for children, as guides along the way.

With this in mind, I repeat a revised version of what I said about Carl Jung in another post:

In his early days, Jung may have been a scientific humanist. And, apparently, he and his father were, not surprisingly, at odds over the claims then made--and still being made --by traditional religions. However, they reconciled later in life.

JUNG CAME TO THINK OF GOD, NOT AS A PERSONAL BEING UP THERE, BUT AS THE ULTIMATE REALITY OF ALL THAT IS--PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY AND SPIRITUALLY REAL.

In a famous interview on the BBC--I think I remember hearing the program--he was asked if he believed in God: He responded--and I am not sure of the exact words: "I no longer believe in God; I know there is God..."

I do not think he was talking about the personal God up there in the heavens, the kind worshipped by those who believed in the monotheism popular at the time. Though I never felt comfortable with monotheism, I grew up having it preached to me. God was portrayed as being an all powerful and super being, not unlike a celestian Santa Claus.

Not wanting to embrace the cynical concepts proposed by most atheists,I gradually, after I entered university (I was 17) I came to believ that God is nothing more, or less, than the totality of all being itself--physically, mentally and spiritually. Eventually, I coined the word "unitheism".

UNITHEISM

Since the early 1980's I have been deliberately exploring what I called unitheism--a concept similar to that of panentheism--God in and through all that is.

I was first introduced to the concept of "panentheism"--I think it was in the 1970's-- by the former Dominican priest, who is now and Episcopalisn, Matthew Fox. For some time he has been the director of an holistic institute in Los Angeles. I heard first his theological concepts--very attractive to me--when I attended some lectures he gave in Toronto around that time. This brings me to the work of Professor Marcus Borg.

THE GOD WE NEVER KNEW

In his book, The God We Never Knew--Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith (1997), Marcus Borg discusses the details of this concept. Do a Google search and you willdiscover Borg for yourself.

For me, G-d--And note that I spell the word in the same way as do Orthodox Jews--is that which is total, universal and all encompassing being. G-d is not a superbeing, out or up there, but being itself--physically, mentally and spiritually speaking

Also, for me, G-d is ineffable, immanent and transcendent being, not A being. John quotes Jesus as saying to the Samaritan woman, "God is Spirit..." In his Epistle, John says, "God is love". For me, G-d is the source of faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, justice, peace and is as real to me as the next breath I take. I often say to agnostics and atheists: "Trying living, physically, without taking your next breath."

I DO NOT CLAIM THAT I HAVE FOUND THE FINAL ANSWER

However, having said this, I always keep my options open so that I do not fall into the trap of claiming that now I know all that I need to know about G-d. Of course I feel that the universe is filled with Goodness, Order and Design. However, I always leave room for the unknoown, the mystery of life. This I indicate by using the - for "o".

While I allow for the possibility that G-d could be a person, at this point, I feel that if G-d were a person "He" would open his own Website. Until he does, I will assume that G-d works in and through us, as persons. We are, so to speak, G-d's personality. At the same time, G-d is in and through and even beyond, all things--immanent and transcendent. And there I will leave it, for now.

By the way, for further discussion on this interesting approach to G-d, join fellow unitheist Warren Farr and I at http://www.flfcanada.com or read http://www.unitheism.org

I usually spell the divine name G-d, as do
Orthodox Jews. However, to avoid
confusion, in the following poem, I will
use the traditional; spelling.

************G...O...D**************

GOD dwells within this heart of mine,
As Goodness, Order and Design;
All growing in a positive direction.
The source of knowledge, wisdom, power
And present with us at this hour,
Impelling us to find divine perfection.

GOD lives in justice, peace and truth,
As old as time and young as youth--
The source of beauty and of real communion.
GOD lives as faith and hope, and love,
Around, within, beneath, above,
Inviting us to join the great re-union.

GOD is the source of total health;
The source of science, art and wealth,
And interpenetrates through all creation.
Past, present, future move as one,
Around a bright celestial Sun,
Whose glorious light invites participation.

LGK

[Posted: Oct 21, 08:47 AM
Quote

what is God?

for me (Swan) God once was a personal god, now it is impersonal and there is no-body there, just the universe -- is this what God is? In a way "my" view can never change again although I am positive that it will]

Swan, I agree. Unitheism allows me to do this without being an atheist. Do you understand what I mean by this?

oh god! Why does my name offend the? anonymust

Sach, I wondered that too. I went to a Web translater program and tried various translations, but couldn't find anything. "Sach" translated from German to English is "special," according to one translator.

One of my favourite quotes is: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.�

--Edmund Burke(1729-1797)

Shawn, I realize that this thread must be from way back when, as September 2006 in not with us, yet. Did you write this in 2005? Or earlier? I think I missed it, at the time, and made no comment. I will here. I have admired the theology of Spinoza ever since I read of it in Will R. Durant's great book, Story of Philodophy. And when you write:


I find myself almost in total agreement. I paarticularly like what you say as follows:
And more And when you write And this is why--take a look at my signature--I write the divine name in the way that I do I--GØD--the Spirit of goodness, order and design, in and through all things. I do it to avoid, if at all possible, any kind of anthropomorphism. BTW, I certainly do agree that experience is the best teacher.
==============================
Newcomers need to know that, if I am not mistaken, Dr.Shawn Mikula, now in California, is the one who started this forum and helped bring us all together--Does anyone rmember when? I first heard of him when he was a student, medicine and neurology, at Johns Hopkins. I was retired from the pastoral ministry, a novice on the Web, but with a deep curiosity about all things and an interest in progressive thinking.

So, why are you still so regretably, in such permanent state of regress? (respectfully, of course)

CB, I do not know you well enough to judge what state you are in (respectifully, of course); how come you are so sure that you know how to judge my state? Before I judge--if ever--I hope I will always be wise enough to ask many questions.

I like you too, Lindsay; for the most part. And I don't know much about you at all, except for one thing: You love to spread your religion. Apparently oblivious to the harm that your actions and those of others like you have caused to the world. And despite of the fact that you've been made aware that such show of ignorance is not welcome in certain circles. Your spiritual convictions are wise enough that you don't need to resource to ancient astrology to justify them. Yet, you persist with your delusionist agenda. Why? The answer to that is probably more misterious to rational thinking than anti-matter's true nature. I'm sure you know the answer to it. But I'm not interested in that one. Maybe if you answer 'yes' to any of the following questions I'll confirm what I already strongly presume?

1. Is abortion murder?
2. Do murderers, thieves, rappers and the like go to heaven, eventually?
3. Is the rapture a factual event in the coming future?
4. Was/is the bible Jesus and his alleged life of miracles real?

As respectfully as possible under the circumstances

CB comments.

And what about my least part CB?. What is my least part?

I DO? I assumed that I was participating in a dialogue, in the promotion of mutual understanding, about religion. What do you mean by "spread"?

May I ask, in the spirit of dialogue: What is your concept of religion?
Do you have one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Look under mememic accounts of religion

Hmm! Without even reading the definition off the dictionary I'd say that religion is a social disease and as such, it spreads, causing death and destruction upon destruction in it's path. It was born out man's ignorance and fear about his environment, before reason by the way of science finally revealed nature's secrets. Now, thankfully, we live in an era where almost no mistery cannot be explained, and man has finally a choice other than voluntary colective gullability.

[/quote]
and man has finally a choice other than voluntary colective gullability.
[/quote]

....wouldn't agree with that!