Re: Christians, sci-fi and Doctor Who


solar penguin wrote:
eusebius12@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Where did I say that this was good, that was bad, etc.? You are
projecting and assuming [...] I did
suggest earlier that there were 'good' and 'bad' religion, but I
wasn't specific.

Maybe if you _had_ been more specific, I wouldn't need to assume
anything. You've been annoyingly vague and evasive all through this
debate; never giving any clear answers to questions if you think you can
wriggle out of them.

You and me both!
But still, I don't feel the need to spill the beans to fulsomely, I
mean who is going to clean up the mess?


I asked you where pagan religions like Taoism fit into your theory that
people are becoming less spiritual and more Satanic? This is because
I'd like to know if you think their continued popularity weighs against
your theory? Or do you think these religions are non-spiritual and just
forms of Satanism in disguise?

I feel that they are evidence of the spiritual impulse. But they
obviously aren't the same as Christianity. This was my point, that both
Rationalism and Christianity are on the wane, and most systems of
spirituality that people are cobbling together, generally veer towards
the occult. Not that taoism is cobbled together as such, in that it is
an ancient and well-established philosophy, although taoism as
practised today is often in the falun dafa mould, which might be well
described as 'cobbled together'.
There are significant occult elements in taoism anyway.
On the whole, pagan religions incorporate much that we would call
occult. As does Hinduism as generally practised. New Age is just a
euphemism for old occult. And if ones here think they are triumphing in
the world with their gospel of Materialism, they are wrong, since New
Ageism seems to be the gospel of choice.


Instead of answering the question you waffled on about the God zone in
Professor Dawkins's brain, leaving me to guess what you were talking
about!

How did you go?

Your posts
seem to be a mixture of trolling and seriousness, but I will answer
you seriously because some of your points are interesting.

"I'm always serious about what I do, but not about _how_ I do it." :)

That is somewhat like the viewpoint of the Roman establishment in the
1st century. To them Christians were atheists.

So, not "somewhat like", but "completely the opposite of".

I'm arguing for stricter definitions of "atheist" that wouldn't even
include Dawkins, definitely not widening it to include Christians!

(*snip discussions of ancient Roman Christianity as a form of atheism,
which has no relevence at all to my point*)

I'm sorry. I must follow your points strictly.

I am referring to a BBC programme which discussed a specific region in
the brain, the activation of which convinces those in that state that
they are receiving messages from 'God'.

So, believing in a god could be a form of mental illness caused by that
region of the brian being stimulated when it shouldn't be?
Interesting...

Specific 'revelations' generally are, yes. However, the existence of
this region of the brain is good evidence for God or Gods.

Dawkins was tested during this
programme, and there was very little activity in this region of his
brain.

Even more interesting... I wonder what would happen if they stimulated
me? I've had lots of spiritual experiences, raging from prophetic
visions to poltergeist incidents, but I'm in touch enough with my
psychic self to know they all came from within me, not from an imaginary
god. And, as a spiritual atheist, my level of faith should be far
higher than almost anyone else's, so I expect there would be a lot of
activity in that region if they tested me, but I'd still not make the
mistake of thinking it came from god!

I agree, you would make a very interesting test case in this respect.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Analyzing Christianity, then thinking-living-flying free and beyond,
    ... and in the end had to reject Christianity, ... Oh, my god! ... that I was having a hard life in a religious boarding school. ... Why did these three mono-theistic religions, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: December 8, 2009
    ... All religions and gods are 'man' made, ... The man-made Christian God sacrificed his son to atone for all ... 'God' in Christianity, ... matter by a 'God', there is no reason to assume that an 'immaterial' ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Christianity cannot re-engineer itself
    ... and in the end had to reject Christianity, ... Why did these three mono-theistic religions, ... one and the same powerful God, all originate in the Middle East? ... The Christian dogma of sin, ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Christianity and Why Jesus had to die - Brilliant philosophy grew out of pagan belief in human s
    ... Some dogmas and core beliefs of Christianity are: ... Christ's death (to atone for the sins of all mankind, ... the son of God, having to die for our sins and the sins of all mankind ... similar stories in many religions on an individual level is very clear. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?
    ... There are still people that put "God in the gaps" of our ... this is what you mean by "spirituality", ... with the theory of evolution. ... True, but again, don't lump all religions into the same basket. ...
    (talk.origins)