The Lego Bible

[chilli]

Pretty obvious from his Torsten standpoint and experiience and historica ananlysis and expressed atheist viewpoint it going take reproducible and recorded facts..

But Torsten with slightest bit of actual video proof won't have to be like Houdenii or the Sherlock Holmes writer which was 19th centuary investigation of hoaxs with without 21st centuary technology..

Excuse me, but WTF??!! Nothing you just wrote is obvious at all...

Maybe try retyping it when you're not drunk :D .

[devance]

Excuse me, but WTF??!! Nothing you just wrote is obvious at all...

Maybe try retyping it when you're not drunk :D .

Thats going to be a impossibilty since everything I have ever posted is under the influence.

Perhaps Torstien can reply to my demented statemants himself.

I don't beleve he is a hyprocrite or manipulative.

[chilli]

Thats going to be a impossibilty since everything I have ever posted is under the influence.

Perhaps Torstien can reply to my demented statemants himself.

I don't beleve he is a hyprocrite or manipulative.

Ha ha, that's cool, but for the record I didn't mention anything about Torsten being manipulative, and I don't know him from a bar of soap, so I can't say whether he's a hypocrite or not.

All I said was that something he posted seemed hypocritical... there's a difference between saying that and calling him a hypocrite, as he may have said it unthinkingly, or it may not be characteristic of him.

I'm sure he can handle the criticism, and hopefully he doesn't consider sycophancy very flattering.

[devance]

Ha ha, that's cool, but for the record I didn't mention anything about Torsten being manipulative, and I don't know him from a bar of soap, so I can't say whether he's a hypocrite or not.

All I said was that something he posted seemed hypocritical... there's a difference between saying that and calling him a hypocrite, as he may have said it unthinkingly, or it may not be characteristic of him.

I'm sure he can handle the criticism, and hopefully he doesn't consider sycophancy very flattering.

sycophant \SIK-uh-fuhnt\, noun:

A person who seeks favor by flattering people of wealth or influence; a parasite; a toady.

The praise Oxford received as a poet may simply have issued from the mouths of sycophants hungry for patronage.

--Howard Chua-Eoan and Helen Gibson, "The Bard's Beard?" Time, February 15, 1999

Ivan IV established a new, much simplified officialdom and a court composed of sycophants and mercenaries.

--"Ivan IV, The Terrible." Encyclopedia Britannica

Some new interpretations of Zhou's role under Mao Zedong have him, at their most charitable, as a bumbling sycophant.

--"The Fight Over China's Future." The Economist, January 11, 1997

Friendship with the son and daughter-in-law of an imprisoned Supreme Court justice afforded me a special pipeline into high-level Ghanaian gossip about the alarming psychological condition of the head of state, said alternately to be suffering from delusions of grandeur fed by sycophants or to be reduced to quivering agoraphobia after the attempts on his life.

--David Levering Lewis, "Ghana, 1963." The American Scholar, Winter 1999

[chilli]

Okaaay... so you like quotes

[Hagakure]

may i add my own evaluation of the bible to the argument.

my beef is not so much with the bible but its position.

im sure it was all very cutting edge a thousand and a bot years ago but its fairly old and conservative nowadays.

that goes for most religions.

they were all very fine and good at one point in time but they are just old nowadays.

the stance taken towards women, homsexuals etc in both the bible and the koran is something that should not be continuing today in these times.

all these religious texts are fine for people looking at and considering in the formation of theor own philosophies but they should never be taken as the word of god.

taking such a position simply locks into place these bullshit attitudes that have been irrelevent for a long time.

fuck being tolerant towards these religions. they have bullshit in them and i will give them all the shit i want to.

to defend torsten i can see the appeal in polytheisim. if society as a whole agrees upon the worshiping of different gods depending on each individuals persuasion that is different to tolerating people having a different religion. polytheism will probably never make a come back but i can see its advantages.

ultimately new religions needs to develop at some point in time.

its needs to be fluid - nothing written in stone. if nothing ischangable depending on societies views it will grow stale.

it needs to have a flat pyramid structure of power. noting is worse than one dude disconneced from everything commenting on what is moral and immoral. each spiritual leader needs to determine what the leaders say - the power needs to lie at the bottom of the pyramid not the top.

its all possible with the internet etc

i really look forward to the first true NEW religion.

i can see it being only a matter of years away now. no more than 10. i guess we have seen the first trials with movements such as the church of the flying spaghetti monster but i hope things will progress further to the point of rivalling old religions. i thinks its possible but i am opent to being proven wrong. the new religions may be nothing like the religions we know now.

but yeah to summarise the bible is essentially a crock of shit that while having some words of wisdom is essentially no more special than any other philosophical and historical text.

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/ was one site that changed my perception quite dramatically. if anyone can pick any flaws in it please do tell.

i should say that i have just gotten home from the pub and am quite drunk. hopefully my argument with the bible all makes some kind of sense tomorrow.

time to have a nice 8 y.o.single malt whisky methinks.

just read through my post quickly and it jumps about a bit.

i may add various statements depending on chilli's reply

whats your own position on the bible chilli?

[botanika]

all these religious texts are fine for people looking at and considering in the formation of theor own philosophies but they should never be taken as the word of god.

taking such a position simply locks into place these bullshit attitudes that have been irrelevent for a long time.

ultimately new religions needs to develop at some point in time.

I agree, religion is something we've had going on for quite some time and is not as progressive as it could be and probably nowhere as progressive as ancient earthy religions like the pagans or Mayans who at least included nature heavily, if not as the centre, of their faith. The Bible has some nice lines in it but its just another book in the library really for me. To be honest I find it rather boring. Emphasising it as the be all end all reduces the value of other literature, particularly when its been revised and editted endlessly over the last 2 millenia. I wonder how many trees over the centuries have been lost purely towards printing bibles??

I think the line about new religions needing to be developed is interesting. so much of religion is about the rythmns of the past, not always the present or planning for the future. Christianity and Islam both seem to have a mantra of returning prophets, automatically self perpetuating their own faith. Not all of them handle science too well. They seem to promote the idea that only god or Jesus or someone-else holy can save you - its conditional. If Jesus was really the messiah then why did he not preach about sustainability and resource management? Why is the bible mainly stories about people and social ethics? Wouldn't the son of god be interested in teaching his children about how they are intrinsicly and symbioticly part of the natural world and its complex beautiful systems? The bible obviously contains no more wisdom than was naturally around at that time and context. Its not a symbol of 'god-the power and energy of the universe' its a symbol of what was happening in jeruselem 2000 years ago. If God and jesus really are so divine, please explain to me the heavy metal band 'stryper'?? hehe

That 'locking in' of attitudes certainly minimises the potential for growth in spirituality and adapting it to whats happening around us. However locking in of good ethical values also keeps them alive and thats not neccessarily bad.

I love saying this to hardcore christians 'What are you gonna do when you get to the pearly gates of heaven and theres a big fat asian guy there? Buddha. What are you going to do then?' gets them worked up everytime!!

What does one technically have to do to start a religion? Is it easy or hard to do as a citizen?

[Prophet]

I think the criticism expressed about christianity and the bible is based on peoples fears about believing anything (the truth in particular) and having to submit to God's will. They are afraid if they do then they will actually have to do something and make some kind of an effort or change. They are afraid of having their sinful deeds reproved by the Light.

"if society as a whole agrees upon the worshiping of different gods depending on each individuals persuasion that is different to tolerating people having a different religion. polytheism will probably never make a come back but i can see its advantages."

what you are saying is that you want to chose your own god or idol (that isn't even a god) that's suits your own lifestyle and your own carnal fleshly lusts and live in some kind of illusion where you worship a rock or some kind of statue that can't move or do anything. It is not up to man to create their own gods. There is only One True God, all the others are idols created by man's vain imagination.

I'm sure you will find that true christians are very tolerant of people and in no way wish harm upon any person. What we do not tolerate though is false teachings and doctrines of devils.

[Hagakure]

and prophet makes another appearence. someone we can always rely on for the christian point of view.

what you are saying is that you want to chose your own god or idol (that isn't even a god) that's suits your own lifestyle and your own carnal fleshly lusts and live in some kind of illusion where you worship a rock or some kind of statue that can't move or do anything. It is not up to man to create their own gods. There is only One True God, all the others are idols created by man's vain imagination.

first of all there really isnt any god at all. lets just make my position clear here.

i can see the appeal in polytheism, however, as it allows for many different cutures that are all bound together through a mutual understanding.

lets say that overnnight we brainwashed everyone to form some worldwide polytheism.

those wearing veils are merely seen practicing their branch of the one religion which is just as valid as those who do not. as there are many gods with their own rules people can settle down in a section that suits them.

polytheism allows a certain fluidity between each god aswell. as all have some equalness people can move between them.

now i realise that you could never have polytheism with christianity and islam as they both state that their god is the only god.

but i hope the jist of my argument is given.

of course if i were to create my own brand of polytheism i would do so to cater for each section of society.

in our society you have many different groups that are not catered for in conventional religions. religions like christianity and islam just say a few things that are meant to be true for everyone. some groups need emphasis on specific parts.

aggressive males worshipping an agressive god but at same time being taught dicipline and control is one idea of a section of my brand of polytheism. naturally this god would have connections to the military and martial arts etc. by appealing to that group yet working on their weaknesses is the way to use religion to solve the problem.

of course the god i would be worshippping in my own brand of polytheism would be some tripper. emphasis on music, art, environment and drugs. now the weakness of my type is probably drugs. i have learnt how to best use drugs and not get out of control partially through trial and error. i have been through my binge drinking and my regular pot smoking phases but now have control over both. in a polytheistic society if i were taught the perils and how to control them early on through a subsection of the religion tailored to my personality type i could have saved some time. i always wonder about people with similar brains to me in less fortuante circumstances. were i in another situation i guess i could have become a heroin addict etc

basically polytheism could be effective in its personalisation towawrds groups in society.

i am not sure if this is how it works in india etc. i dont know much about hinduism.

[Rev]

ill bang the drum again...

i think polytheism is bullshit

And ill include christianity as a polytheism (the trinity)

even the other monotheisms are not as they separate god and humanity by a divide of 'sin' and subordination

and i agree wholeheartedly with prophet about the pitfalls of idol worship. Its a grave error to be subservient to something that is less complex than yourself

Idols can be fetishes of stone wood and chicken guts, or they can be religious texts themselves like the bible, torah or quran. they can even be abstract ideas and memes like politics, art or money. In fact i see no difference between an african fetish and the jews temple or the bank of england. they are all institutions of power fed by idolatry

Idols take over your life and allow you to absolve yourself of your evil actions in their name, namely hurting and coming before your benevolent duities to yourself and your fellow man.

An example being the buddhist statues blown up by the taliban. Its showed how unknowingly we have become attached to idol worship when we see the defacemnet of rocks to be more an outrage than what we do to one another and our living earth

People even sacrifice themselves and each other over these idols.

never let anything come between you and your direct link to the whole

I do think that revernce of natural landforms is acceptable th because they are inseparable from the whole, a monolith, canyon or ancient tree as a focal point teaches us about the inseparability of nature whereas idols carve up the whole and create forgeries

What benefits polytheism or atheism promises to deliver and then fails to is delivered by the alternate paradigm of Pantheism

A true vision of unity that doesnt even divide 'god' from 'humanity' and 'nature'

its all one

and the path towards venerating that oneness is to find balance and peace between its opposing manifestations, between what is given and what is taken. Both balance and peace are part of a dynamic perhaps cyclical balance not a static victory as is prophecied by the anthropomorphised polytheisms.

accepting the unity makes things like hate, violence, selfishness and greed seem like the self harming nonsense they are

likewise it undermines caste, absolute and moral authority as well as evaporates the threats of death, heaven or hell

it removes the high ideals that you must be godlike and instead suggest you should fulfill your potential as a human, for which you may judge yourself by internal standards of humanity, prone to err, not by the ethics of the nonhuman. your potential is as unique as your fingerprint and you may be a quiet type, or an angry type, an extrovert or a depressive. In all circumstances there exist the possibility to harness the unique attributes and channel them towards a benevolent balanced life, i mean where would we be without the angry and extroverted ones when we need to protest injustice, or the quiet ones when we need to have somebody listen.

Pantheism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

http://www.pantheism.net/

Is pantheism the same as atheism?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Ath

The pantheism notion of salvation

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Sal

Edited December 21, 2005 by Rev

[botanika]

'you cannot partition the lord'

J. Morrison

[Torsten]

chilli - I read the bible when I was 12 or 13. It made no sense to me. I joined a bible group. It still made no sense to me. It cannot make any sense, because you cannot simply pick and chose which bits you want to adopt and which have become obsolete. So, for a holy book to speak of stoning people, to speak of male dominance over women, to speak of racial superiority, how can we simply ignore such unacceptable parts of a book and try and live our lives by the rest of it?!? That is the problem I have with the Bible. It's a great book and has some great wisdom in it, but it is also seriously flawed, so if it really was a holy book, why does it have these flaws?

I respect the Bible. Most of my comments were about religions, not about the Bible. To me there is a huge difference. For example, the document titled the american constitution is a representation of extreme wisdom and foresight, but the resulting society is a pile of greedy, immoral and brutal crap. A document can be corrupted in many ways and I think the Bible has been corrupted by most religions that use it. My gripe is primarily with religions, not with the Bible.

Prophet -

I think the criticism expressed about christianity and the bible is based on peoples fears about believing anything (the truth in particular) and having to submit to God's will.

Just for a moment imagine there is no god. What then? How would the ideal society evolve into the future? In my opinion it would have to be a society where every member takes full responsibility for all of his actions, including all flow-on effects. Combined with the universal "do onto others...etc", this would result in a society where each part supports each other to the best of their ability. Most religions try to create this by fear of reprisal and I think that is immature and shows our unwillingness to be 'good'.

The 10 commandmends are sensible, and so are the main rules of most other doctrines. I have seen more atheists than religious people adhere to these basic rules of society. Maybe it is because most religions have a cheat process, where you can confess your sins and move on, rather than having to live with them and their consequences day by day. I prefer to live with the consequences and take responsibility for them rather than being absolved by some imaginary force. It helps me to shape my character and to chose more wisely next time round. As I said, god is a crutch for those who cannot take responsibility for their own actions. We have free will, so let's use it.

[Torsten]

rev - I wholeheartedly agree with your views on idolatry. I see idols as a crutch, just like god or religions. However, I am curious where you draw the line between a buddha statue, a sand mandala, a stylised peyote button, a stuffed eagle or an eagle statue, and a mountain. You obviously reject the first and accept the last, but what is your criteria for doing so and where exactly is the line for example in the case of the eagle vs an eagle statue?

[Rev]

im going to have to think about that tomorrow

theres something about the unaltered landscape and about wild animals though that makes them seem part of an incorruptible continuum from the beginning of time till the end. whereas an artist always leaves part of themself behind and thus their influence

The 10 commandmends are sensible

but very impractical

its all well and good to say dont kill so what do you do when someone tries to kill you?

as law as they are useless, even as guidelines as the are absolutes when life is not absolute

good laws are made to be navigated, crappy laws like these are made to be broken - as they were if i recall when the moses dude smashed the tablets

so far as i know theye were never the basis of old testamet law - the book of leviticus was

if you compare the 2 you see the letter is structured as you expect of a law book, with degrees of crime, exceptions and punishmnet.

[Prophet]

I have seen more atheists than religious people adhere to these basic rules of society. Maybe it is because most religions have a cheat process, where you can confess your sins and move on, rather than having to live with them and their consequences day by day.

This is a sad truth and just shows what a bad state many modern christian churches are in today. Instead of confessing their sins and forsaking them they are still living in sin and claiming that God cannot see their sins etc. This is one of the great deceptions going on in the church, but the scripture also prophesies that these things will happen. It mentions of a "falling away" from the truth.

What then? How would the ideal society evolve into the future? In my opinion it would have to be a society where every member takes full responsibility for all of his actions, including all flow-on effects. Combined with the universal "do onto others...etc", this would result in a society where each part supports each other to the best of their ability.

I don't think true christianity diminishes people's responsibilities of their actions since the scripture states that we will all have to stand before the judgement oneday and give an account of things that we have done whether good or evil. As far as "do unto others as you would have them do to you" and "love thy neighbour as thyself", this was one of the main teachings of Jesus Christ and is repeated throughout the New Testament. Unfortunately most people don't practice it, if they did i'm sure the world would be a much better place.

[Torsten]

prophet - I don't think we disagree on as much as I first thought I have no problem in true believers of any faith who adhere to laws that make them better people and thus improve society. My problem is with religions that corrupt this process for their own gain. I already mentioned the cheat process above, which is the way churches control their blindly following people. After all, if a church/religion had nothing to promise (eg forgiveness) then everyone could just have their own belief and the church would miss out on lots of money and influence.

I really don't have a problem with people holding god based beliefs as long as these beliefs are not used as excuse for immoral behaviour and establishment of inequality (ie like most religions have corrupted them). Just like I believe in kindness, honesty and fairness, someone else might believe in god as the embodiment of these. If that crutch helps to make better people, then that's fine by me - at least as a temporary concept (by temporary I mean a few hundred years).

[Thelema]

man, you have to keep reminding the world of buddha like you do a bucket swirling around it's centre.