I was raised in the same atmosphere.. the only difference was my father was a convert and it seriously meant something.. the church of england is on the sideline,, they did that when the king took control of spirituality so he could have a divorce..
The problems in christianity lies in its foundation.. the errors and problems they built in from the beginning.. minor things like Paul's healing from a snake bite.. that is a lie.. there are no poisonous snakes on Malta.. Yes it is hard but you have clean house.. that is the beginning o real and meaningful change.. not administrative garbage.. Oddly it can be made to fit and as spirituality goes it really is not bad, and you will have dual churches and dual beliefs.. but over time you can end the lies,, mostly by not hiding form them .. it get down to telling the simple truth rather than the comforting lie. Many people will not be able to accept the change,, and that is okay,, the wheels of change need to start rolling.. by going through all the past and what is a lie admit to it and correct it,, bringing it back to one faith. only a few will ever really find he path Jesus created Allan Matrix ** th3 beginning light On Dec 9, 2012 4:11 PM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > Given what they have done with some decent spiritual messages Allan, I > sometimes think of 'them' as Xstains. I was born into the tradition, > but thought it was twaddle by the time Sunday school was interfering > with soccer and cricket. I have no doubt we should focus more on > spirituality, fellowship, hospitality, goodwill and sensitivity to > others. I just don't want to base this on a pack of lies, banning > women from hierarchies, prejudicing gays and xenophobic stuff about > outsiders and being part of god's chosen. It's hard to think like > this without being prejudiced against the 'worshipers of the blue and > white striped rabbit' and purveyors of godswank. The inner danger is > becoming religiously anti-religious. I'm actually rather touched by > good aspects of some of the stuff. > I have no idea why we are clinging to this rock - but I don't want it > to be about being amused by Aussie pranksters making hoax calls or > murals celebrating vile killing such as one finds in the Vatican. > Science clearly provides us no answers to our spiritual plight and > religion as I witness it internally is largely about future memory > with less myth in it and less reason to take religion as we might > otherwise take opiates. > A colleague working in India is saying his students are reading Mein > Kampf - more or less replacing the word Jew with Muslim and agreeing > the plot entirely. We could do with some sensible religion and > economics to fill the void that leaves people this vulnerable. > Knowledge of thermodynamics or the biochemistry of life isn't going to > do that for us. > > On Dec 8, 10:01 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > xtian aka christianity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line > > > about Pilate! :-) > > > > > On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used. > > > > >> I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get back to > > >> reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from > > >> 'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that > > >> pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct. > > > > >> Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating > > >> against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god. > > >> Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science > > >> misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The > > >> spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history > > >> of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn > > >> in terms of grace and fellowship. > > > > >> On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you > > >> > can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash > after > > >> > youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone. > > >> > Allan > > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning > my hands. I > > >> > > use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more > difficult dirt on > > >> > > my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often I > wear > > >> > > gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for > the tip. > > >> > > I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead > of stone, > > >> > > you're right. > > > > >> > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic > wrote: > > > > >> > >> Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used > for > > >> > >> getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic > ,, > > >> > >> any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left > over from > > >> > >> fixing my maxi egg coddler. > > > > >> > >> now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it > work? > > >> > >> Allan > > > > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > >> > The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find > the God > > >> > >> > concept > > >> > >> > much more to the point. :) > > > > >> > >> > I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then > matter - > > >> > >> > though. > > >> > >> > This sounds very man-made to me. ;) > > > > >> > >> > As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much > more > > >> > >> > vivid > > >> > >> > than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's > true. But > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is > really > > >> > >> > good. > > > > >> > >> > Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about? > > > > >> > >> > 2012/12/4 Allan H <[email protected]> > > > > >> > >> >> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no > supporting > > >> > >> >> evidence.. > > >> > >> >> Allan > > > > >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> > You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not > that of > > >> > >> >> > Creation with its series of universes. > > > > >> > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >> That is not true the beginning can be pretty much > pinpointed .. as > > >> > >> >> >> for > > >> > >> >> >> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing > to support > > >> > >> >> >> the > > >> > >> >> >> other than it sounds good. There is more evidence > supporting the > > >> > >> >> >> spiritual > > >> > >> >> >> realm than parallel universes > > >> > >> >> >> Allan > > > > >> > >> >> >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > > >> > >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> > >> >> >>> In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is > beginning > > >> > >> >> >>> and > > >> > >> >> >>> end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in > parallel > > >> > >> >> >>> and > > >> > >> >> >>> continuously many universes are being born and many are > dying , > > >> > >> >> >>> but > > >> > >> >> >>> Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal > time , just > > >> > >> >> >>> like > > >> > >> >> >>> the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The > difference is > > >> > >> >> >>> that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is > > >> > >> >> >>> non-dual. > > > > >> > >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas < > [email protected]> > > >> > >> >> >>> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > Hello Andrew, > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them > are not > > >> > >> >> >>> > true. > > >> > >> >> >>> > I > > >> > >> >> >>> > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. > Mattter is > > >> > >> >> >>> > all > > >> > >> >> >>> > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > is > > >> > >> >> >>> > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also > energy. To > > >> > >> >> >>> > me > > >> > >> >> >>> > there > > >> > >> >> >>> > is > > >> > >> >> >>> > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the > begining there > > >> > >> >> >>> > was > > >> > >> >> >>> > only > > >> > >> >> >>> > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of > the spirt > > >> > >> >> >>> > of > > >> > >> >> >>> > God. > > >> > >> >> >>> > That is all matter comes from spirit. > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey > wrote: > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy > component > > >> > >> >> >>> >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> >> it > > >> > >> >> >>> >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have > motion in them. > > >> > >> >> >>> >> But I > > >> > >> >> >>> >> could > > >> > >> >> >>> >> also envision pure motion without involving any > atoms...like a > > >> > >> >> >>> >> vibration in > > >> > >> >> >>> >> the fabric of space, > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee > Douglas > > >> > >> >> >>> >> wrote: > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to > it.energy > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> is > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> matter > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> and matter is energy. > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew > vecsey wrote: > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator > can be > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original > creator > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> was > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> not > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> matter, > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much > faster and > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> much > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> easier > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy > patterns > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> could > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> have > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by > selective > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> processes to > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists > believe that > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> patterns of > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that > they > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> manipulated > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the > information > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> required > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> for > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to > complex > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> intelligent > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> beings > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle > of where > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> they > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> came > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. > Meaning and > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> purpose could > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, > archytas > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that > in an > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> infinite > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state > in which > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and > Truth > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> comes > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> closer. > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could > the brain > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > live > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the > universe > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ,but > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end > - time of > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life > and > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > nothing > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > else. > > > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > <[email protected]> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to > mutations etc. We > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > already > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. > One's mind > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish > future) - our > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > bodies > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the > new > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrate > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive > Lee's > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'hope'. > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Such > > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in > super-intelligence and be > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > > > > --
