I know there are many religions of many different kinds, and that such
religions, or variations of them, and that such existed thru the ages of Bible
times. Nothing new about that fact.
BUT the real answer will be when Armageddon comes. Then there will be no more
replies, no arguments, no varations of the themes, etc. There will be just the
one fact--God will either destroy you or save you thru the destruction he brings
upon humanity in general.
THAT is what will decide once and for all, throughout eternity, which book
had the truth, which faith is life-saving.
That will be final and total end of all religions other than that in the
Sure there are plenty of religions, all kinds and variations on the themes. But
Jesus said there was only one right way, and I would not say he was "brutal". He
was definite, yes,, and extremely critical of those who disagreed, because he
knew what was true.
He called the religious hypocrites of his times "offspring of vipers" and he
said they not only did not want to get life--the kind of life the Creator
offers, nor were they willing to follow the path leading to everlasting life. He
said they would not get everlasting life.
He was correct. Would you also say he was "brutal"?
Argall Family wrote:
> I think I'm somewhere up the tree on this one, maybe near the limb where
> Anita says she is.
> I am uneasy about the word 'truth' as it seems to lead to trouble. John said
> truth is absolute. That is really a self-definition by a very assertive
> little word, a word given weight especially, probably almost universally, by
> its use by mothers.
> There may be facts, there are probably, more truthfully [;-)], good
> hypotheses and useful assumptions. Going beyond that is where science gets
> itself into trouble and seeks the authority of religion. Religious truth is
> assertion based on faith, not testable. the problem with some semitic
> monotheistic religions (including fundamentalist Christianity) is that the
> logic follows, for the believer, that if something is divine and inescapable
> truth, it obliterates other possible views and for some people, that
> produces an obligation to coerce universal acceptance of such 'truth'.
> Salman Rushdie, in 'Satanic Verses' really upset some people when, after a
> conversation between Mohammed and the Angel Gabriel up a tree in the desert,
> M being given different advice from some earlier advice from G, M thanks G
> and Gabriel replies: "Well, just remember that all you got from me was what
> you wanted to hear in the first place." The opposite of belief is not
> disbelief, Rushdie remarks, but doubt.
> The problem in the current dialogue is that those who believe and those who
> doubt follow quite different ways of addressing issues. Anita says:
> "... most of us have also had the experience of neutral and open
> mind whereupon we go about searching for an answer that is
> satisfactory, and, at least at the outset, the outcome is uncertain.
> After searching, questioning, and probing, we may all find different
> answers to what seemed like the same question originally."
> Having been brought up as a fundamentalist Christian I have to say Anita
> that the 'most of us' glosses over the fact that a whole raft of people are
> not among these 'most' and that there is a severe clash of minds.
> Training as an anthropologist, and life spent on four continents, has made
> it evident to me that it is a general characteristic of our species to
> establish mystical explanations to achieve certainty, remove doubt and avoid
> the search; these diverse religious beliefs have meaning in each society in
> providing supernatural reinforcement for conformist behaviour. In our
> diverse society we have diverse beliefs and sanctions for a diversity of
> moral conformities. In our secular society, science too often seeks
> religious status by demanding conformity among its proponents, earlier
> hypotheses become taught as dogma and 'truth' becomes false, the word
> 'absolute' still applying to the demand for conformity. This is why in the
> 'most scientific' country on the planet you (I speak as a foreigner with
> affection for the US) have the only advance state in which there is a real
> battle between science and creationist dogma - because science has taken on
> the mantle of dogma itself.
> In broader political context - the higher sense of politics as a nation's
> best ideals - one need only reflect upon the evolving nature of self-evident
> truths such as the idea that all men are born equal, a stunning advance in
> the 18th century, with its unperceived gender exclusion and assertion by
> happy slave owners. Truth is not absolute, however self-evident.
> I think I prefer to keep this little word truth as a test for personal
> behaviour, more than anything else, and I tend not to use it because I
> prefer the word honest. Whether because of how I was raised, or because of
> personal ethical values as an adult, or because professional experience pits
> me against the folly of lying, where or whenever, I see no value in being
> other than honest with people.
> Perhaps the truth is ;-) that Anita was a bit brutal, as is Bargyla, in
> honestly stating their minds.
> But having expressed doubt about the first three words of the Anita quote
> above, I concur with the rest of it, entirely. It is true that I have that
> view. I doubt it's worth. Bit it's not worth the paper to argue whether the
> statement is the 'truth'; too many will disagree, anyway. In the end,
> language is everything, the vehicle and the meaning of all ideas and beliefs
> (acknowledging that the most mysterious intellectual, emotional and physical
> experiences acquire beauty often by being inexpressible, which for some
> makes them spiritual, mystical or religious experiences).
> We need to be honest with each other, but we need to try to be gentle at the
> same time. The problem, I acknowledge is that some will find some ideas,
> however expressed, offensive to their own beliefs. That goes for what I have
> said above too, I am sure.
> My own position with my own family makes this clear to me. I find their
> fundamentalist faith deeply limiting and at times offensive in the
> prejudiced views sometimes imposed on me; they view me as a lost soul, also
> something dangerous to be wiped off the benchtop or at least not invited
> into the kitchen of their minds. And I would no more try to get Bargyla to
> alter her views than I would seek to alter my 84 year old mother's views.
> Some things are too hard, apart from anything else.
> On the internet, we diversely-opinioned folks are in an extraordinary
> environment where I think we speak to each other with more candour than we
> may elsewhere.
> My own view on the issue of organic farming and spirituality is that the
> link has dangers.
> I believe it can and should be argued that modern organic farming can be
> more scientific that modern scientific agriculture (exposing the word
> science to review), to the extent that it takes into account broad
> ecological processes, ignored in 'crop/pest/damn the soil' agriculture. I
> read into some messages on the spiritual theme that it is spiritual to
> respect the broader ecology. I think it's important to argue it first as
> good sense. 'Spiritual' carries risks in that it may be a lightning rod to
> divert energy from further probing thought, or some claim to ownership by
> people who are 'spiritual'. (Most of our most cherished beliefs are claims
> to status of one kind or another, be it as 'god's chosen' or some other
> special status; Kosovo is cut from the grubby end of the same cloth.)
> My own perspective might be, were it religious, closer to some Asian
> religions than the semitic religions that dominate the developed world. I
> find it not demeaning, but uplifting, to remove from my mind notions of
> being a chosen species or race or community. I find it useful to think that
> we may have, as a species, developed a big front brain not for loftiness but
> to cope, as an awkward mutant, without adequate hair, with the heat of the
> African plains. And that thus the cognitive processes of which we are so
> proud, and on which this message is based, arose because the front brain,
> wonderful cooling device that it is, didn't have enough to do in cool
> climates and the chilling gives rise to mystical states and hormonal
> changes, especially where there are nutritional deficits. There have been
> suggestions that body temperatures were higher some centuries ago. Certainly
> there are arguments that extravagance of thought and dogmatic belief may be
> characteristic of slightly low body temperature
> But I offer this as food for thought, not as truth. I feel it is more useful
> to think and think provocatively rather than accept truths, scientific or
> To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: