Note: That was my whole point. I am probably just as skeptical as you of standalone "psi", "clairvoyance" and "psychic" powers. But, anyway, the bottom line is that I am dumbfounded at your and Turok's experience and I think you guys are in the same position with me. It's a big stalemate unless we're going to get into a verbal WWF competition which I don't think would be constructive in any way...
>Therefore any war that happens outside of the >west will always have a religion attached to it in >one way or the other. Like you I agree that most wars are not fought for only religious reasons. Assume your above comment to be true...why is that? Why must a border dispute between two countries have religion attached to it? I argue that the manipulative man has learned that there are few things that the masses can be rallied to fight and die over quicker than religion. It's one of the few areas where empty promises(virgins waiting in heaven, etc) get slurped up like honey, where common sense takes it's leave, where anger foments as though in perfect laboratory conditions. Without religion it's just seems harder(though by no means impossible) to get people into the group mass killing mode. JB
>Give those science clubs access to several billion dollars >and a military arsenal and they'll go the way of every >other group on planet earth. Well, when the evolutionists begin killing each other over whether the missing link has been found or not, call me. Until then I'll go with the statistics and won't hold my breath. >I think it's naive to think that any group will not >oppress, suppress and resort to violence to force its >viewpoints given enough power. >But that's just my opinion for observing history. It is hard to find exceptions to that isn't it. JB
The pretty much generally accepted worldwide raison d'etre for religious following is that an all powerful infinite God made everything and governs all by his standards of right and wrong. A follower is expected to abide by a set of demands which they would state are set down by the infinite God. One of the requirements of God for many hundreds of years was that he required human sacrifice. The babies of believers were therefore killed and offered up to God, as it was trusted that the putting to death of their infants was pleasing to him. The so called enemies of God were to be butchered in order that his followers may carry out his will. These sacrifices apparently became too costly (not to mention illegal.. more practical sets of rules which steer clear of ritual killings to invisible super beings are provided without the need for questionable religious guidance ) and the blood letting sacrifice was directed more toward animals with the killing of sacrificial lambs etc, in order that God might be persuaded to continue to supply some rain. These sacrificial demands altered again when God apparently became satisfied that the blood of his only son would atone for the sins of people and from then onwards , some followers say there would be no more requirement for further gratuitous murder. As I understand it to date, the mainstream christian viewpoint boils down to, God created everything then as an all powerful all knowing all perfect God, nevertheless must have always realized he required murder and carnage to be part of his creation before he created it. However to eventually satisfy this craving , and as God the trinity (father son & holy ghost), he decided to sacrifice himself to himself on a cross in order to cure himself of a blood lust. And christians like to believe it is really the fault of the bystanding humanity he created that he needed to do that. All this is contained within in an Instruction Manual known as the Bible. There are others... noticeably one called the Koran The God kills(as per the instruction manual) the religion requires killing (as per the instruction manual) then the person kills (using the instructions as an excuse ) Where is the scientific Instruction Manual which demands atomic reaction is used to kill people in order to satisfy a scientific lust for blood??
Lol! I don't know - if you'd put Leaky and Johansson in a room at one point and you might have had WW III....
Of course, I don't think it will surprise you that I disagree with a number of things in this at least if you're trying to relate it to JudeoChristianity. But I know how contemptuous the idea of atonement can be for non-believers: I lived for about a year in upstate NY and there was a church named Church of the Precious Blood near Rochester. We drove by it one time with a non-Christian and I remember trying not to laugh at the disgust on her face and her words, "Those people are sick!" I didn't even bother trying to explain it then and I won't here either. To you it is primitive and anachronistic. To a Christian it is, well, everything....
To the best of my offhand memory. The first of the blood sacrifices was when God commanded Abraham to split the carcasses of several animals and let their blood drain down, mingle and then they both passed through this pool of blood as a testimony to their commitment to a covenant between them. This was the symbolic signing of this covenant and the gravity of the agreement. Any subsequent sacrifices that involved blood were a reminder to the people of that original covenant. Christs' shed blood was the final closing or completion of that covenant and a new one was ushered in. If someone can point me to verses in the Koran or Bible that command infant sacrifice and that commandment was given by God then please post them.
I suppose the comeback to that is that "Religions don't kill people, People kill people". But of course, some religions DO make it a point to order the killing of people, under special circumstances. (Like Islam). But if we look at it from the point of view that very often what causes various groups of people to begin hating each other in the first place are perceived differences between themselves; cultural differences, linguistic differences, political differences etc. Often the biggest differences you can get, as history clearly illustrates, are religious differences. This was one of the biggest reasons why I first began to be turned off religion (after the wars in my birth country, ex-Yugoslavia). Religion is just irrational, unnecessary, divisive and has proven highly costly. Let's end this madness.
Doubter, God has commanded much worse in the bible! Stu, thanks for bringing up the Trinity. That's another Christian doctrine that I find completely implausible. The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are all supposed to be the same person, but they're also different entities. It just defies basic logic. Like when Jesus is praying to the Father, he's really praying to himself? I know Christians love this one because it's got the element of "magic and mystery" to it, but if you're not religious the first thing that tends to come to mind is YEAH RIGHT! There's no support for this idea in the Bible. To me it basically comes down to a decision from the Council of Nicaea (when they were putting together the bible) that they didn't like the idea of their "saviour" being created by the deity of another religion (the Jews) so they concocted the idea that Jesus, "the Son", had always existed and put him on equal footing with "the Father". Then they threw in "the Holy Spirit" (which has biblical support) to bring it up to the magical number 3, which just seems more "mystical" than 2.
Man, I really could have used that "cancelling" power of your skepticism on some of my losing trades last year!