Well [EMAIL PROTECTED] your response has been even more disappointing 
than even my very low expectation prepared me for. You have not even 
recognised what my questions were about, let alone made any significant 
attempt to address them.

As an ex-Christian I know what it is like to be sucked into a world view 
that projects part of one's own nature into a 'spiritual being' and 
projects other, completely unacknowledged and rejected parts of one's 
psyche onto outsiders who are perceived as being threatening and evil 
because they exhibit those impulses rather than oneself.

However, we must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called 
'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that 
can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they 
are all expressions of belief and ONLY belief. Because there is no way 
of relating these holy ramblings to any concrete test, belief in them 
becomes, as often as not, a function of a person's social and political 
allegiances. The beliefs change to comply with and rationalise the 
ambitions and practices of the ruling elite. The chanting of sacred 
texts and the recitation of beliefs become assurances of acceptance, 
badges of compliance with the regime. There will be NO significant 
contributions to the well being and advancement of human kind arising 
from this religiosity, just acquiescence and the turning of a blind eye 
to the crimes of the rulers and the thugs who impose the anti democratic 

 The moral and intellectual contrast is expressed most vividly, I think, 
by the way a free-thinking monk called Giordano Bruno was vilified, 
stripped naked, tortured and finally burnt alive by the inquisitor thugs 
of the Roman church, in a public square somewhere in Rome 17 February 
1600. His crime? Being a sceptic and publicly questioning some of the 
preposterous beliefs that religion required people to agree to. He was 
murdered because the sceptical method he advocated and employed 
threatened the very foundations of the corrupt religious hierarchy and 
the secular regimes - all feudal thug-ocracies. From what I read, hear, 
and see reported about Islam in Iran, Iraq, Saudi, and umpteen other 
places, the basic issues are the same as for Christianity. The holders 
and wielders of traditional power WILL not acknowledge that the 
demonstrated power of scientific method to show us how the natural world 
works and to show us deep insights into how the human brain and mind 
work has a moral authority at least equal to that of their 'holy' books. 
THIS is the real challenge of the 20 and 21 centuries.
Mark Peaty  CDES

> Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not
> Jesus the same, or, "co-equal" in status with his Father?
> Answer No.1
> In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.)
> `hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.)
> Here the word used by John is `hen' and not `heis'. The marginal notes
> in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit.neuter) a
> unity, or, one essence.
> If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim for
> Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, please invite his/
> her attention to the following verse:
> Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given
> to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one." (John
> 17:22).
> If he/she was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ
> to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30,
> then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe
> "them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with the
> Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22. I have yet to
> find a person that would be prepared to make the disciples (students)
> "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus.
> The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that
> originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally passed on to
> the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished the work which the
> Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4)
> Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
> Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than
> I." (Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one
> for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question No.2
> Jesus said: "I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through
> me." (Jn.14:6), therefore, is not the Salvation through Jesus, ALONE?
> Answer No.2
> Before Jesus spoke these words, he said; "In my Father's house are
> many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told
> you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you." (John
> 14:2). The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to
> prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house".
> Obviously, the prophets that came before him and the one to come
> after, were to prepare the other mansions for their respective
> followers. The prophet that came after Jesus had evidently shown the
> current "way" to a modern mansion in the kingdom of heaven.
> Besides; the verse clearly states; Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion.
> It is a folly to believe that Jesus (or any prophet) was the
> Jesus said; "I am the door" to find the pasture. (Jn.10:9).
> A sheep that walks through the "door" will find the pasture.
> A sheep that circles around the "door" will never find the pasture.
> One who crosses over the "way" will reach the mansion. Anyone that
> stops on the "way" and believes the "way" to be the end of his/her
> journey, will be out in the open without any shelter and a roof.
> Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
> Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will enter
> the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is
> in heaven." (Mt.7:21).
> On Feb 25, 5:50 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>    1.   Could you, [EMAIL PROTECTED], please spell out what YOU
>>       understand by the meaning of the term 'scientific method'.
>>    2.
>>       RE:  'The expression Manifest Book symbolizes the Destiny Actual, 
>> which is a
>>       title for Divine Will and God's creational and operational laws of the
>>       universe and the physical order displayed by living creatures. The
>>       Manifest Record means the Preserved Tablet which is the book of Divine
>>       Knowledge and symbolizes the Destiny Formal or Theoretical determining
>>       the immaterial order and the life of the universe.'
>>       MP: Could you please tell us just exactly where all these books and 
>> records are.
>>       The clause: 'The
>>       Manifest Record means the Preserved Tablet which is the book of Divine
>>       Knowledge'
>>       is very confusing; something /means/ something else but /is actually/ 
>> something else again.
>>       The second clause: ' and symbolizes the Destiny Formal or Theoretical 
>> determining the immaterial order and the life of the universe.' seems to 
>> tell me that in fact all this is metaphor.
>> I have a saying: If something can't be put into plain English then it
>> probably isn't true. I apply this standard to everything I read and
>> hear, particularly when I am confronted with someone or something
>> who/which is 'holding forth' and purporting to describe my world for me.
>> The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and
>> writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of
>> civilisation:
>> Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
>> survive without all four of these.
>> Regards  
>> Mark Peaty  CDES
>> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to