Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

What is more probable: that IC needs and desires his belief package to be true, or that my belief package includes that I cannot show there is no afterlife?

Why should not both be true? Maybe I DO "need and desire" something here. Maybe I don't.

But what has the first got to do with the question of truth? If I "need and desire" my beliefs to be true, that doesn't suggest they're false; they might also be true. If I didn't "need and desire" them, would they then automatically become false? Neither idea makes any sense.

But that you cannot show there is no afterlife is highly believable. I think we can accept that. I'm not sure what it contributes to our knowledge of what the truth is, though.

IC is unaware of his confirmation bias that favours the Rock of Ages whereas I am aware of my confirmation bias and try to be as sceptical as I can be.

I'm not so sure. You don't seem aware that no matter how much you might criticize me personally, it's merely ad hominem, which means you've done nothing to address the argument itself. I recognize that -- but you seem to be unaware of that, because you continually lapse into the ad hom, as you have here.

So self-awareness involves many things, does it not?

[Immanuel Can]

Why would such an entity allow the sorts of conflicts between CHristians and Muslims; Shiite and Sunni; Protestant and Catholics, IN HIS NAME, to thrive for 100s of years and all the attendant suffering and death that comes from that.

Let's add more: why would He allow the over 100 million the Atheist dictators and ideologues killed in the last century to die. And why would he allow people to curse Him, or reject Him, or to do toxic things to each other, of any kind? Why would he allow mothers to butcher their babies, or Putins to invade Ukraines, or Chinas to suppress their dissenters...

Are we where you want to be with the question yet? Or shall we add more?

So let me turn the question back to you: you say He's "allowed" these things, and you object "why?" So you must be assuming it's just obvious that God should not "allow" such things. May I ask, what's the alternative you are supposing that, if He were a good God or a real God, he ought to have done?

In other words, what "world condition" are you contrasting the present to, when you decry it? Is it the state of absolute elimination of all pain and suffering of any kind? Or is it some other world condition? Can you give me the picture of it?

[Immanuel Can]

...the thought of David Berlinski can certainly, and should certainly, be considered...He, and others from other disciplines who agree with him, approaches the issue from a mathematical perspective. It is a coherent argument. But yet these determining and coded structures (DNA) do in fact exist, though they are 'nearly impossible' if conceived as arising through random events. Here of course the *argument* (such as it is) of Seeds becomes important and considerable. In a 'random' world (i.e. a chaos) everything would remain like static. Nothing could form. And yet we live in a world (a kosmos) where indeed everything does form. And it would seem that we do not have any really coherent and intelligent way to describe this. To then say: "It simply arose sponteneously" is not an answer at all. What is it then? Ah, there we witness the imposition of a reigning, determining ideological mode of thought. This mode-of-thought has a purpose. It is not innocent, it is not really a simple description of 'the way things are', but encompasses and expresses a range of ideological purposes.

I would definitely suggest researching Berlinki's thought. Here is an interview. Listening to it one can get a sense of *what Berlinksi is up to*. His concerns go well beyond that of determining if the conventional and ideologically-infused system of scientistic-evolutionary assertion is 'right' or if it is 'wrong'. His thought goes much further. Or I can say that the implication of his thought goes further.

So far, so good.

We must stop and examine the thought of Immanuel Can

Ah, "must" we? Too bad. Then we are ad hominem again. And we're even off topic, as well.

IC's character is no part of the argument, of course. He's not offering himself as authority or example of anything, and indications to the contrary are simply fallacious, and show that the speaker has lost the track of the argument.

I am content if we consider Berlinski. IC can remain perfectly irrelevant to the present questions, as he is. As for Berlinski, he's very smart, and has a lot to say. I recommend his book, "The Devil's Delusion." (by the way, Berlinski is, himself, a secular Jew, not a Christian). Or we could look at Thomas Nagel, the Atheist, who wrote "Mind and Cosmos," subtitled "Why the Materialist, Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False." I have copies in hand.

Now we're back on topic.

[Harbal]

And we could blame that generation as merely "unthinking" or "unphilosophical," perhaps.

Or we could conclude that they must have better things, more important things, or simply just more interesting things to think about.

But I wouldn't. I would say that we've set them back considerably, in that regard, by the abundance of prosperity and the number of distractions and the business of the life our generation has created for them. Amid so much hustle and bustle, who can afford time to reflect? And if one could, what seem the prospects of getting anywhere with it, given the multitude of voices out there? I can quite understand why they prefer to resign the question with a shrug. After all, one of the most perilous things one can do, in the postmodern era, is put one's foot solidly down on a singular position (be it Atheism or Theism or anything else). The generation seems to find it not merely serviceable but expedient not to take firm positions, but to leave all "loose" so as to remain "light on one's feet" for the next event or new bit of information to come, which might, after all, overthrow everything one has been thinking and render one a fool for having locked oneself down.

Add to that that their parents' generation claim to have found no answers to such questions, and what's the point of even going on the hunt?

Why on earth would anyone in this day and age who is not the product of an overly religious childhood environment give God a second thought? What problems or concerns do you imagine people have that God could help them with? We look at the world from our own perspective, of course, and, because I have no interest in God, it doesn't surprise me when others have no interest in him. It's a bit like golf; some people are passionate about it, but I just see it as the pointless whacking of a little ball with a metal rod. I don't know if you just pretend not to understand, or if you genuinely do think it strange when God has no significance to people, but it feels perfectly natural to me, and I can't help thinking most people probably feel the same. I mean, even the average person who believes in God doesn't seem to let it interfere with their life.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the flaws in a hokey provisional anthropogenic theory, not condemning science. In fact, as I pointed out, to exempt ANY scientific theory from criticism is the most unscientific thing one could possibly do.

Why would we feel that Evolutionism -- if it is "real science" -- needs to be protected from rational examination and critique? Examination and critique is EXACTLY how science progresses. What scientist, acting like a scientist, could rationalize that?

But a hokey provisional theory...THAT would need to be protected -- mainly because it could not hope to survive the examinations of real science.

That's all very well, but you cannot be unaware of how laughably transparent your motives for being so hostile towards the theory of evolution are. It obviously really, really matters to you that people be dissuaded from taking evolution seriously. And the reason for that must be as plain as day to everyone who is following this thread. Your capacity for brazening things out is remarkable, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Is that what you want me to answer?

What gave you your first clue, AJ? Was it any of the half dozen times I posed the same question?

Yes, I know you have some sort of vaguely Deistic bent. I'm already aware of that. But it doesn't help much to know that, because you said that the same insight could be achieved with no reference to such metaphysics...allegedly.

I had said:

"First, I do ‘believe in’ divinity. I simply have no way to describe what *it* is. Just like I cannot describe what existence IS.

But it is."

Naturally for you, to have taken this position is, in a sense, worse than simply being an atheist.

Sorry...I can't help but find that vastly amusing...and incorrect...but do carry on.

because you said that the same insight could be achieved with no reference to such metaphysics...allegedly.

You never have listened to what I have said,

I have quoted it, actually, in the above; so if I failed to "hear" something you intended, it's only because, apparently, you didn't say it.

Your entire problem is that you are married to a Hebrew idea-construct.

No, to a Dutch woman.

It says "every knee will bow" and that opens the door to horrifying ramifications of plowing over the entire field of human awareness and installing "just one".

Um...no, quite the opposite, actually. The "knees" only ever bow "to God," and every mouth "confesses" to Him. That puts all human authority out of any question, forever...well, unless one is in some religious system that mistakes a human institution for God Himself...But that's nowhere near Biblical, so we needn't worry about that.

I have exited such a system!

The RC's you mean? Or Judaism?

That position if anathema to you -- because it means I have escaped your control.

Too funny! Me? Control you how? By email?

I'm sorry, AJ...but it's just too droll!

It really looks like you've mistaken me for the Papacy, or for Orthodoxy -- or both -- or for some other human system you find "oppressive." And I can't help you with any of that, because I've got nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

Carry on.

[iambiguous]

Well, you've forgotten that it's not me who said all that: it's Nietzsche.

Absolutely shameless!!!

You were not pointing out to Belinda above that this is what Nietzsche said. You were noting it is what you yourself believe about someone who does not believe there is an afterlife. After all, you're the one who connects it to the Christian God! You're the one who, as with many, many Christians, note that in the absence of God all things are permitted.

Yeah, I was. Go back and check.

I did. That's why I noted what I did above. Now, how about you noting how it was only about Nietzsche and not about you. I mean, do you or do you not believe as a Christian, that if there is no Christian God, no Judgement Day, no afterlife, no immortality and salvation, that mere mortals on this side of the grave would end up rationalizing any and all behaviors?

Nietzsche was merely noting the consequences of a No God world for mere mortals on this side of the grave. The masters making life miserable for the slaves because they deserved to and the slaves forming liberal "welfare state" governments to fight back.

The sociopaths among us merely act that out "for all practical purposes". While others even attempt to justify being a sociopath...philosophically? No God, no Judgment Day. No Judgment Day, no mere mortals qualified to take the place of God. You're on your own.

Plato, Descartes, Kant and others notwithstanding. Deontology is still a bust, right? There is still no APA equivalent of the Ten Commandments, is there?

And the bottom line in any community, whether as a result of courage or cunning is this: which behaviors are prescribed and which are proscribed. Whether you call this morality or something else.

It's only when the afterlife becomes part of the moral narrative and political agenda that whatever you call it is linked to Judgment Day. And tell me that isn't all about Divine morality. Just ask the folks living in theocracies. Morality can be "useful" and "truthful" in any number of historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts. On this side of the grave. On the other side, however, it always comes down to the One True Path. And on this thread, yours.

So? That's exactly what I was pointing out.

Okay, but Belinda was making a reference to the afterlife, wasn't she?

But this adds no insight to the question. That Neitzsche's untermenschen are resentful and try to prevent the ubermenschen from having their way is neither here nor there: the ubermenschen simply overpower or outmanoeuver the foolish untermenschen, with their foolish, weakling notions of morality. They may have to be cunning, but they have no duty to be good.

But that's exactly what you are saying above. No afterlife [linked to the Christian God] means no duty to behave selflessly, righteously.

That's what Nietzsche is saying. I'm not Nietzsche.

Nietzsche doesn't connect the dots between duty and the afterlife. Unless you count eternal recurrence. But you do. And with burning in Hell for all the eternity literally on the line here, are you or are you not connecting those dots yourself? Is there an afterlife without Judgment Day? Is there a Judgment Day without the Christian God?

Nobody says he did. He connected the opposite: the absence of any God (and hence afterlife) with total amorality.

I know, I know: Did Nietzsche himself ever demonstrate ontologically and teleologically that the Christian God did not exist? No? Then the Christian God does exist.

Almost all of the human race, in fact, has taken it to be the most obvious interpretation of the evidence. It turns out that skepticism is the rare taste, one possibly possessed by around 4% of the modern world's population, according to the CIA factbook, and certainly a much smaller sampling of humanity before the last century.

Right. That sure settles it!

No, but it puts the burden of proof where it belongs. That's good enough, for the moment.

What?!

Because, without an actual accumulation of hard evidence, most mere mortals do believe in an afterlife "in their head" -- a leap of faith, a wager -- that puts the burden of proof on atheists?!!!

And even here, connecting the dots between an afterlife and the Christian God revolves entirely around automatically dismissing all of the One True Paths here of these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

What, that almost all of them do believe in an afterlife establishes that Christianity alone is the One True Path? They're not insisting instead it's their God and their denomination?

I've said this before, but I guess you couldn't understand. I'l make it as simple for you as I can.

The number of "answers" to any question does not argue for there being no right answer. It suggests, instead, that there are a lot of wrong answers. One may be right.

Absolutely shameless!!!

My point of course is that all the folks above claim in turn that their own God reflects the One True Path. So, how can it not come down then "for all practical purposes" to those on these paths demonstrating to us -- with so much at stake on both sides of the grave! -- that, no, their God really is the One True Path.

And that's when IC hits us with his Bible quotes and videos!

Now, the fact that he will not own up to being absolutely shameless here...? Sure, it could be a "condition" and beyond his control. It could be hard determinism. But, given free will, I can only speculate that it revolves more around the "psychology of objectivism". As with dattaswami and others here, he is so hopelessly indoctrinated [re others or himself] he is simply incapable of recognizing just much wiggling he is doing. And not just with me of course. Over and again, others point out how feckless he can be in these exchanges.

For example:

There are an infinite number of wrong answers to "What is 2+2." "6" is wrong. So is "5,000.4," and all the numbers before and after, save one: "4".

Right. Like this has anything to do with the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave in order to attain an afterlife in Heaven. He simply aasserts here that 2 + 2 = the Christian God.

And how is that not absolutely shameless?

Over and over and over again: I don't claim that God does not exist. I don't claim the Christian God does not exist. But you really do believe that both those who claim He does exist and those that insist "show me" are equally incumbent here...? What is the atheist required to do...scour the globe and search everywhere for Him? Investigate the Moon and all the planets? What if the Christian God resides at the center of the Sun? Or in some other far and distant quadrant of the universe? Not until every nook and cranny of the multiverse itself is searched can the atheist demonstrate that God does not exist. And even then, those like you would no doubt point out that He can make Himself invisible. It's in the videos.

Still, there's your own preferred methods:

1] quoting from the Christian Bible to prove the Christian God does exist
2] those videos

Only you lack the courage to note the clip/segment from the video that most establishes that in fact the Christian does reside in Heaven. Though I suspect it has nothing to do with courage...but with cunning. You're smart enough to know that this clip/segment does not in fact exist at all.

Or does it? Your call, Mr. Wiggle.

Oh? Are you an agnostic?

Yeah, going back to the gap between what "here and now" I know about the existence of existence itself and all that there is to be known about it....? Agnostic works for me. But my point revolves more around confronting "minds" like yours actually able to convince themselves that they are "just plain right" about their own One True Path. And in embarrassing them by noting that they offer us no hard evidence to back their convictions up..

Done.

So what are you complaining about? God might exist, you now say. And you don't know He doesn't. So are you going to suppose He owes you a demonstration, or something? You don't know a whole bunch of things that exist. Heck, you don't even know me. What's the big surprise if, up to now, you've never had an experience of God, or don't know what the evidence is?

Again, getting back to what started this "entertaining" exchange. The part about an afterlife. The part where IC connects it to the Christian God. The part where he relentlessly wiggles out of actually demonstrating that He does in fact reside in Heaven. The part where instead he just shrugs here and tells us, "well, you admit that God might exist, so that should be enough for you when confronting the actual stakes involved in choosing the wrong God."

So then the question becomes, what evidence will you accept? Because you're going to need some, for whichever position you take.

I've already noted an example that would work for me: I wake up tomorrow morning and not a single child anywhere around the globe is reported to have been abused in anyway whatsoever. And instead of 10,000 children dying every 24 hours around the globe from starvation or extreme poverty, none do for days and days on end. That might not demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, perhaps, but it would go a long way [for me] toward establishing a Divine explanation.

Ah. So you think that if God existed, he would owe you to give you the kind of world you expect or prefer? But you don't think God could ever have a sufficient reason for allowing any such thing as pain and suffering, even for a time? And you assume that God would be the only responsible agent in the universe, so that not only would no accidents befall anyone, but no one person could hurt any other person?

I'm just wondering why you think that such a universe suddenly appearing would go any distance toward suggesting the existence of God.

Look, you asked me what might convince me of His existence. I told you.

Whereas as your own rationalization for this...

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger." United Nations

...revolves around your own personal and private understanding of the Bible. Or is this too set straight in the videos? That and the only other thing the Ecclesiastics and their flocks of sheep can fall back on: God's "mysterious ways".

Note to others:

Suppose tomorrow you woke up and discovered that "not a single child anywhere around the globe was reported to have been abused in anyway whatsoever. And that instead of 10,000 children dying every 24 hours around the globe from starvation or extreme poverty, none did for days and days on end".

Wouldn't you be inclined to attribute that to your own God?

Note to IC:

So, what would you yourself attribute it to?

[Sculptor]

Why would such an entity allow the sorts of conflicts between CHristians and Muslims; Shiite and Sunni; Protestant and Catholics, IN HIS NAME, to thrive for 100s of years and all the attendant suffering and death that comes from that.

Let's add more: why would He allow the over 100 million the Atheist dictators and ideologues killed in the last century to die.

You cannot add them since they are not acting in his name.

And why would he allow people to curse Him, or reject Him, or to do toxic things to each other, of any kind? Why would he allow mothers to butcher their babies, or Putins to invade Ukraines, or Chinas to suppress their dissenters...

Are we where you want to be with the question yet? Or shall we add more?

So let me turn the question back to you: you say He's "allowed" these things, and you object "why?" So you must be assuming it's just obvious that God should not "allow" such things. May I ask, what's the alternative you are supposing that, if He were a good God or a real God, he ought to have done?

In other words, what "world condition" are you contrasting the present to, when you decry it? Is it the state of absolute elimination of all pain and suffering of any kind? Or is it some other world condition? Can you give me the picture of it?

WHATABOUTERY WARNING WHATA BOUTERY WARNING.
You are so predictable.
What would a good god have done?
I am comparing a world without a god to an imaginary one with a god. And the former wins the ballot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, "must" we? Too bad. Then we are ad hominem again. And we're even off topic, as well.

IC's character is no part of the argument, of course. He's not offering himself as authority or example of anything, and indications to the contrary are simply fallacious, and show that the speaker has lost the track of the argument.

I decide what is on topic you fraud.

I said “ICs thought”. This means your ideological orientation and its functions.

You and what you believe these are the core topics. That you are slippery, evasive and dishonest is also part of the conversation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…by the way, Berlinski is, himself, a secular Jew, not a Christian).

You %!!#^!!! You didn’t even read my post did you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why on earth would anyone in this day and age who is not the product of an overly religious childhood environment give God a second thought? What problems or concerns do you imagine people have that God could help them with?

Why did they in the first place, Harbal? Like back in the time of the ‘ancient Rishis’ (seers). They did it because existence in this plane of existence demands it. Seriousness about being alive and aware demands it. For the thinking man there is no way around it.

That this is inconceivable to you is of course telling.

What, me worry?

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ! You're up!

After a few chuckles with IC, I need to actually be challenged here.

Back to "idea-structures" about race. Whereas I am more interested in demonstratable evidence -- scientific or otherwise -- that connects the dots between words and worlds here.

And, as I noted above...



You'll either go there with respect to race or you won't.

Race is just one aspect of a whole set of concerns. Again, focus on the thought of Renaud Camus. Read the article I linked to. You will see that ‘race’ is relatively minor in many of the Dissident Right (though I am not sure that Camus fits there frankly). For some it is a large concern. For others they really don’t care much about it as such. But for culture-preservers and also nation-preservers the issue is very relevant.

Sure, it's relevant if you've convinced yourself that genetically it's important to sustain your cultural or national identity. And, come on, many of those that do argue this, do so not because, even though their own cultural and national identity is deemed to be inferior by them, it's still important to preserve it.

Quite the opposite, right?

Also, suppose people from different cultures and different nations were so genetically special, they literally could not produce children with those from other cultures and nations. That would really be relevant, wouldn't it?

You claim this...

I am not at all interested in proving — what? — the “superiority” of one of the races over some other? People are generally equally capable though it could take numerous generations to climatize culturally. But those are not my concerns.

But according to Wiki...

"Renaud Camus born Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus on 10 August 1946) is a French novelist, conspiracy theorist and white nationalist writer. He is the inventor of the 'Great Replacement', a far-right conspiracy theory that claims that a 'global elite' is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples.

"Camus's 'Great Replacement' theory has been translated on far-right websites and adopted by far-right groups to reinforce the white genocide conspiracy theory. Although Camus has repeatedly condemned and disavowed the use of violence,[5][6][7][8] his theory has nevertheless influenced several mass shootings, including in Christchurch, El Paso, and Buffalo."

And some might be convinced that this frame of mind revolves around the racist assumption that white folks are superior to other races. Though I've come across white folks who argue that the yellow race is actually intellectually superior to the white race. But never the black or brown skinned folks.

Where do your views fit in here?

In terms of America? I would be concerned, and with good reasons, id the super-majority demographic status of European-derived Americans was lost. In about 50 years (since 1965) this has been happening (eroding demographics). It is leading and will lead to all sorts os social problems.

Okay, how concerned? Politically, how far would you go to prevent this? If you had political power in any particular community, what behaviors would you yourself proscribe in regard to the races?

[D]o I stake my life as an activist to reverse this trend? No. I am simply very interested in what is going on. And I am aware of two quite distinct poles of thought on the issue.

That might be deemed rather pathetic by some.

Also, what of those like the Jews? White Jews, say. Or white Muslims. Or white Hindus. Where does god and religion factor in here for you?

[Harbal]

You %!!#^!!! You didn’t even read my post did you?

Do you have to use that fucking language, you foul mouthed twat?

[Immanuel Can]

Why on earth would anyone in this day and age who is not the product of an overly religious childhood environment give God a second thought? What problems or concerns do you imagine people have that God could help them with?

That's really Nietzsche's question, and it's a good one. Why would they?

We have doctors: why concern oneself with God for healing? We have grocery stores: why ask God for food? We have scientists: why look to God for answers? We have government officials: why ask God to sanctify our marriages and births? We have pension plans: why look to Him in old age? We have cyberspace: why look to God

But now I don't know whether or not to give the answer, or to leave your question as merely rhetorical. Did you wish me to respond, or would that merely iritate?

We look at the world from our own perspective, of course, and, because I have no interest in God, it doesn't surprise me when others have no interest in him. It's a bit like golf; some people are passionate about it, but I just see it as the pointless whacking of a little ball with a metal rod. I don't know if you just pretend not to understand, or if you genuinely do think it strange when God has no significance to people, but it feels perfectly natural to me, and I can't help thinking most people probably feel the same. I mean, even the average person who believes in God doesn't seem to let it interfere with their life.

That is precisely my point. The indifference to God is presuppositional. It's not something like "a straightforward product of seeing reality as it is, one way," but rather something that seems totally "normal" and "realistic," but only for people whose suppositional basis has a particular structure already.

When one has adopted a pattern of life in which God forms no part of one's consideration, one may well have no suspicion of what difference belief in God could ever make...like somebody who has never played golf views golfers. (However, I agree with you about golf...it's a lunatic hobby, even by the standards of those who play it. )

However, presuppositions are not all the same. For the rich, urban city-dweller in the West, having lived a whole life without reference to God may make him oblivious to His importance -- it doesn't make Him unimportant. It seems that the rural peasant, the average tradesman, the farmer, the adventurer, the philospher, the new mother and father, the child gazing at the stars, and the scientist with a telescope, and a host of other types DO feel the need to discuss God, either in positive or negative terms.

And what keeps you here, if you don't?

I'm not. I'm pointing out the flaws in a hokey provisional anthropogenic theory, not condemning science. In fact, as I pointed out, to exempt ANY scientific theory from criticism is the most unscientific thing one could possibly do.

Why would we feel that Evolutionism -- if it is "real science" -- needs to be protected from rational examination and critique? Examination and critique is EXACTLY how science progresses. What scientist, acting like a scientist, could rationalize that?

But a hokey provisional theory...THAT would need to be protected -- mainly because it could not hope to survive the examinations of real science.

That's all very well,

Let's not move on too fast. If that's "all very well," it calls for an explanation: why would some people be so urgent to protect an allegedly "scientific" theory from the examinational procedures of science? That's really a stunning question, if one has not throught about it before.

But is not the answer obvious? All of that is "not very well."

...how laughably transparent your motives for being so hostile towards the theory of evolution are.

You may think so. But it doesn't change the problem one whit. It's merely ad hominem. For I form no part of the argument, one way or the other. Let me be the worst of men, and what I have said will still be true.

It does amuse me, though, how quickly some debaters seem to want to slide into the ad hominem. That may be because I'm so remarkably personally foul, but I think not. I think that in many cases,it's because they run out of the relevant, and have to resort to that, because rational arguments are all out on their side. But I do not think you need such a recourse. You seem to be able to track a line of argument without it.

I'll accept your comments about my personal moral hygiene as your preferred opinion, without taking offence. But they don't impinge on the present discussion, of course.

[Harbal]

Why did they in the first place, Harbal? Like back in the time of the ‘ancient Rishis’ (seers). They did it because existence in this plane of existence demands it. Seriousness about being alive and aware demands it. For the thinking man there is no way around it.

Well I neither demand it nor need it, cos I'm into thought free awareness these days.

That this is inconceivable to you is of course telling.

I've been rumbled.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It really looks like you've mistaken me for the Papacy, or for Orthodoxy -- or both -- or for some other human system you find "oppressive." And I can't help you with any of that, because I've got nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

The RC's you mean? Or Judaism?

But I’d not explain either Catholicism, Evangelism or Judaism as ‘oppressive’. They are systems with layers of complexity.

But here we are dealing in another world of concern and way of going about things. This is not the activity for all but only for some.

You are completely but completely invested in a religious mode of thinking and seeing. It has captured you and you want to capture others with it. It is best described as Hebrew idea-imperialism.

And yes — I have escaped from it. Or really I should say that I am in that process. As we all are. The question now is: on what predicate-set shall we base our interpretation system on?