I guess that makes me a weak minded person with a pathetic existence.

most people's lives are pathetic. you get used to it.

Funny thing is, I didn't think it was pathetic until just now. I thought it was pretty darn great.

But, if some stranger on a dating site says it's pathetic, it must be.

If ya wanna see REAL pathetic-ness, sit in my shop for a day and watch the endless parade of marching morons ask the dumbest questions. They really fool ya by walking upright...
It'll make you feel oh so much better about yourself, but oh so bad and sad for humanity.

Hi Ruth,

I would never send my kids to catechism class. I remember it to this day, the confusion of it all the years it took to erase the information from my head. I really in truely do not think it is good for young children to be indoctrinated at that young age. Why can't we teach children plain ethics and how to deal with eachother as people.

Then later when they are old enough to seperate things out, teach maybe religious history rather than one religion. Yes I grew up christian/catholic, and so did many of my family, but I think they can get an education about that later.

I don't know anything about what they teach at catechism class but if it's conducted by the church I can only imagine that it presents the material as though it's "true" rather than merely as a history lesson.

Just because of that fact alone I would never send my kids to endure such biased lessons.

I feel the same way as you Boo. There's no need to rush this to be shoved into the minds of impressionable children. Let them become adults and then they can decide for themselves what they want to learn about or not.

Personally I would rather send my children to learn to play a musical instrument, or to acting class, or whatever. Something that's actually USEFUL!

Why waste their time and energy sending them to a place where they'll be taught a religion from a clearly biased source?

I seriously don't see the value in that myself.

When it comes to teaching truth, we can ask if it's true to teach anyone that "Jesus said this or that".

The answer necessarily has to be no. It's a lie to say that "Jesus said this or that".

All that can ever be said, is that the men who wrote the gospels claimed that Jesus said this or that. And it should also be made clear that it well-known by historians that the gospels weren't even writen for many decades after Jesus had supposedly lived.

There are many TRUTHS that I wish the church had made more clear to me instead of outright lying to me saying that "Jesus said this or that".

Two truths in particular I had to discover on my own.

1. Nowhere in the gospels does anyone even claim that Jesus told them to write anything down for future generations.

2. All of the people who wrote the gospels repeat each other's proclamation that Jesus actually said that everything he prophecised would come to pass before their current generation had passed.



Matt.24
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Mark.13
[30] Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.


Luke.21
[31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
[32] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Even according to the men who wrote the gospels Jesus had proclaimed that all of his prophecies would come to pass before the generation of the men he was actually speaking to had passed.

So why anyone is waiting for these prophecies to come true 2000 years later is beyond me. Even if I were to accept the gospels I'd have to assume they're a done deal by their very own proclamation. The 'rapture' had already occurred.

The resurrection of Jesus was indeed his 'return'. A multitude other saints were supposedly resurrected at the same time and went into the holy city to meet with the people.


Matthew 24:

[39] And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[40] Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Matthew 27:

[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Sounds like the rapture already happened during the ressurrection. Jesus already came back with his saints, took all the people he wanted and left.

Today we're just the descendents of the rejects.

Makes sense to me.

After all, if we can TRUST the word of Jesus via the gospels then whatever Jesus did he did before that current generation had ended because that was his WORD, according to the gospels.

We missed the boat! We're the descendents of the rejects people!

If you believe in the gospels then you have no choice but to face this sorry fact.

I dont understand why anyone would have a need for religion or spiritualism. I feel for people that do. If you have faith or particular beliefs, then fine, but to NEED it? Some people say they need guidance....why? is life really that hard that they cant work stuff out for themselves?. Poor sheep.

Most religions just make life more complicated if anything, why would anyone need that?

I got talking to a taxi driver earlier today, he is a Muslim and is fasting because of Ramadam. He has about 3 weeks left where between about 4am and 8pm he cannot eat or drink a thing, not even water. Why the hell would i need any bullsh1t like that in my life?

The only real "need" for spiritualism is in regards to subjective issues, such as morality. (though this has been resolved by secularists as well, such as Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux, etc.)

I agree with you 100% Dan.

I have no "need" for spirituality either.

But then I have no "need" for love either.

When it comes right down to it I have no "need" to exist at all.

Personally I've just found spirituality "attractive" on many levels. So why not ponder philosophy?

Well, I have done that and I've concluded that a spiritual universe actually makes far more sense than a non-spiritual universe.

To me the question isn't whether or not I "need" a spiritual existence. The real question is whether or not the true nature of reality actually is spiritual.

For me, that's the only question.

It's not about what I want. It's about aksing what's TRUE?

You are probably well aware that I totally denounce the mediterranean dogmas as being heavily corrupted by men.

But that's nowhere near the same as rejecting spirituality.

As far as I'm concerned all evidence points to a spiritual world and the dead materialist view doesn't even hold water.

It would actually be harder for me to believe that a dead universe accidently gave rise to living beings. From my point of view that would require far more superstition than anything else I could possibly imagine.

These materialists who claim that science has this all covered are totally full of themselves. Science doesn't know hardly anything. They can't say a word about how the Big Bang got started other than pointing to a preexisting Quantum Field (another thing they can't even begin to explain). Or by making up imaginary strings vibrating in 11 dimensions with infinitely many universes colliding on parallel membranes.

Talk about SUPERSTITION!

For some reason they feel like they can just make up anything for an 'explanation' and it's ok because they call it "science", but if someone suggests that maybe the quantum field has it's own supreme consciousness scientists laugh and say, "That's sounds like silly superstition to me!".

How silly are these scientists anyway? Eleven dimensions?

Where are these 11 dimensions that no one has ever seen? Sounds like superstitious scorcery to me.

Not only can science not explain, the Big Bang or Quantum Events, but they have recently reported that they've just discovered that all of the matter and energy that the had originally thought existed only accounts for less than 5% of what the unvierse is made of.

So now they realize that on top of this 5% (that they can't even explain) they've got a whole 95% more that they don't even know anything about at all.



So if it comes down to which constitutes more superstion, I don't think science has anything to brag about. Science is guessing just like everyone else. There's no way that science has a clue what the hell's going on.

So whether we guess that there is a consciousness within the quantum field, or whether we guess that there are 11-dimensions laying around somewhere as yet undetected, it doesn't really matter.

Both of these things are utterly based on pure faith.

They are equally superstitious.

The bottom line is that it's just as superstitious to believe in a universe that happened by accident from a lifeless beinging as it is to believe that the universe arose from a living spiritual being.

They both equally superstitious.

I personally find the spiritual picture to actually make far more sense. The dead materialitic picture seems to require far more superstition IMHO.

They both rely on a preexisting mysterious quantum field. They both suggest that all of reality arose from this mysterious field. One postulates that this mysterious field is cold and dead, the other postulates that this mysterious field is some kind of a living entity.

Why should either one of these be considered to be more 'supersitious' than the other?

In the end if we are honest with ourselves and with anyone else then we don't know. We can only speculate what is true for ourselves. For some that is what they lean on to feel good about themselves and for others.

I say follow your bliss and you shall find a way that works best for you.

aww...Abracadabra, I had such faith in you, then you had to off the deepend...

I was just playing with Dan.

But truly if you think about it, it's true.

Besides, I confess that I'm getting tired of materialists acting like science supports their dogma.

Not to imply that Dan does this. I was just on the warpath for materialists.

I confess that it kind of irks me that materialists are acting like they own science or that science even supports materialism.

Niether is true. Many scientists are spiritual, some our downright religious.

Science doesn't truly even support atheism much less materialism.

Science is totally compatible with my spirituality.

In fact, the materialists get peeved at me when I suggest that quantum mechanics supports mysticism.

Well, let's face it, it support mysticism far more than it supports materialism. That's for damn sure!

So this idea of materialists going around acting like science supports their cult is getting old.

So I'm having fun with the theme.

Don't worry though, I still see the Abrahamic Religions as totally absurd and self-contradicting.

Spirituality is one thing. A jealous angry God who has less morals than most humans is quite another.