Struggling to comprehend the Christian mind

I’ve been enjoying the Christian/non-believer dialogue being carried on via comments to my “Morality comes from nature, not God” post. Pastor Phillip Ross has stimulated some interesting cyber-conversation between himself and Church of the Churchless regulars, me included.

Today I’m in a pretty mellow mood. Last night’s election results filled me with hope that the divisions plaguing the United States can be bridged by moderates who realize that left and right can’t exist without a center.

I was in that spirit when I perused the latest comments from Phillip and others today. Rather than reflexively thinking, “Geez, that’s ridiculous” after reading some assertion of Christian theology, I did my best to comprehend Phillip’s frame of mind.

That is, rather than criticize his statements from my own perspective, I tried to get a feel for what it might be like to believe in God and Jesus as a devout Christian does (however, Phillip’s web site, Pilgrim Platform, is devoted to pointing out fallacies of the contemporary church—which points to the fact that these days it isn’t a simple matter to figure out what Christianity is and isn’t).

I’d like to be able to report that I succeeded in my empathic quest. But I can’t.

I was a political conservative in my deluded youth, so I feel that I understand how a right-wing Republican thinks.Likewise, I was a religious true believer for many years, even though at the time I wouldn’t have called my fidelity to the teachings of Sant Mat and Radha Soami Satsang Beas as such, so I feel I understand how a person of faith thinks.

Even so, a Christian mind such as Phillip’s is damnably tough for me to grok. I don’t say this critically. It’s just the way it is. There’s a gap between a fundamentalist Christian way of looking at the cosmos and my own perspective that is so wide, I end up gazing across the divide at a distant shadowy figure who is waving his hands and yelling faintly, “Do you get what I mean?”

No, I don’t. I’m sure this doesn’t dismay Christians like Phillip, because to them faith in Jesus is something you either have or you don’t. Sort of like a Zen satori. It isn’t explainable, defensible, comprehensible, rational, or explicable. Some get it, some don’t.

Why is this? In his November 7 comment, Phillip said that the main part of his religious outlook breaks into two halves, sin and forgiveness.

First, all have sinned. That's you and me and every biped. And the first evidence of sin is it's denial. Second, forgiveness comes through Christ alone. When we deny the first half, God denies the second half.

Well, I’m befuddled. The notion of original sin makes no sense to me. So not surprisingly, the notion that God had to send his son to suffer on our behalf for non-sensical sins also escapes me.

As do a lot of mystical precepts. The Buddhist “emptiness is form and form is emptiness” is absent from my store of adages that I feel I can explain. Yet Phillip, like most Christians, rejects a mystic approach to God. I’d mentioned to him that I had read widely in Christian mystical literature: Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, Cloud of Unknowing, and such.

He replied:

We have a thorough reading of Christian mysticism in common. I, too, spent many years looking there. But God is not there. The God of the Christian mystics is "mystery, darkness, not-knowing, ineffability." You're right about that. But that is not the God of the Bible. That is the false God of Gnosticism.

What is the true God, then? And how would we recognize this divinity? Can’t rely on a direct mystical experience. That’s a Gnostic no-no. And you also can’t rely on reason, according to Phillip. That’s a Platonic no-no.

The effort to prove God is an exercise of Greek categories of thought trying to make sense of the biblical God. But, alas, they cannot. Paul speaks to this in Acts 17 and in First Corinthians, where he identifies Greek philosophy as foolishness, that is, lacking in discernment and good judgment.

What’s left? The Bible? But Phillip says, “The Bible offers no proof of God's existence.” So it seems that we can’t rely on the Bible to point us toward the true God, since it can’t even demonstrate the existence of any God.

For some reason, though, in his comments Phillip quotes passages from the Bible to support his argument. Somehow the same Bible that contains no proof of God’s existence can be relied upon to tell us what God is like and what he expects of us. I learned from Phillip that…

--God is a person
--God is jealous
--God does not answer all prayer
--God invades human history

And (bad news for me)…

--God is offended by being called a false name

This explains why, even though I’ve been praying to God for a convertible Mini Cooper S (unselfishly, because I’d occasionally offer joyful rides in it to other people), one hasn’t appeared in my driveway.

Phillip said that my cover-the-bases prayer to God/ Allah/ Jehovah/ Tao/ Buddha-nature/ One isn’t going to win me points with the jealous Christian God, a.k.a. The Only True God. God apparently wants to be called “God,” (in English I assume, not Aramaic) and nothing else.

You pray, "whoever might be out there, here I am. Show me." [either yourself or the Mini, I’m easy] But your prayer is an absolute affront to God. You call Him by many false names. It's like you want to talk to me, but you can't remember my name. So, you call out, "George, Pete, Sam, whoever you are." And I don't answer. Are you surprised that I don't answer? You shouldn't be. Generally speaking, when you don't call people by name, they neither listen nor respond.

Hmmmm. About four hours ago my Tai Chi instructor, Warren, told a story about calling a phone company repairman “Ron” about twenty times before he said, “Actually, my name is John.” Yet John successfully collaborated with Warren on finding and fixing a broken wire on the roof of the Tai Chi studio, even though he kept being called “Ron.”

I guess John beats God in the humility department. As do I. If a neighbor’s house was on fire and they saw me passing by, I’d still run to assist them even if they mistakenly yelled “Help, Brad!” Apparently God wouldn’t do the same if you got his moniker wrong.

Nevertheless, during my meditation time this morning I spent a whole five minutes calling out to God. And only God. That was about as long as I could concentrate on talking to God before returning to mentally contemplating the oh so sweet election results.

I just checked our driveway. Twelve hours have passed. Still no Mini Cooper. This proves to me there is no God.

Phillip should approve of my conclusion. After all, he wrote in one of his comments that the only incontrovertible proof for the existence (and, I extrapolate, non-existence) of God is our own life—his, mine, yours. On that we agree.

Phillip finds that God exists. I find no evidence of that. He says tomahto. I say tomato. Each to his own. There’s nothing wrong with faith in God, nor with skepticism toward God. so long as believers admit that their belief is purely personal and improvable.

Phillip, you wrote, “I am just saying that the need for proof regarding God is resolved by meeting Him.”

Tell me: have you met Him? I assume so, or you wouldn’t know so much about him. Could you ask him why he has such a thing about being called the right name? Also, find out what name, in which language, he likes the most.

Send that info along to me. Then I’ll try my prayer again. Maybe he favors German and I should have been saying, “Gott, bring me a Mini Cooper.”

Hope springs eternal.

Comments

[Jordan Stratford+]

" Can’t rely on a direct mystical experience. That’s a Gnostic no-no."

Actually that's EXACTLY that upon which Gnostics rely: gnosis, which is direct, intimate experience with the Divine. We KNOW because we've had that experience, that's what Gnostiicism IS.

Blessings,

Jordan+

[Brian]

Jordan--absolutely. Guess I didn't express myself well. What I was trying to say is that according to Phillip and orthodox Christianity, direct mystical "Gnostic" experience is a no-no.

I agree with you: to my mind direct experience is the essence of spirituality and religion. Strangely, Phillip Ross also said that his own life is the proof of God for him. That sure sounds Gnostic to me.

[mssoteria]

Hey there,

Go buy a mini Cooper! There is a God!

By the way, our first parents sinned --> offspring contain sin --> offspring contain sin --> offspring contain sin (ad infinitum) = original sin. The sin IN us leads to sinful acts.

By the way again, do you have a thing about being called by your right name? It's just a basic element of truth; i.e. why NOT call God by His right name(s)? Common courtesy, don't you think?

Enjoyed looking at your blog.

[tao]

To mssoteria:

You've go to be kidding. The sad thing is that I don't think that you are kidding. Your head is full of dogma and beliefs and imposed guilt. And the "right name(s)" of God thing is just ridiculous.

[mssoteria]

Dear Tao,

Just trying to clarify for the author who wrote "Well, I’m befuddled. The notion of original sin makes no sense to me. " It's really quite simple.

Regardless, I'm delighted you responded - my first blog response!

By the way, is that your real name?

[benandante]

Well put, Brian. I agree with everything you just said. (With the exception that I have experienced Divineness and for myself I doubt it was endorphins, chocolate or hormonal fluctuations and assert emphatically that it was certainly God.)

But we can agree to disagree. If I had to choose, I'd reject the veiled threats and laughable pontifications of the modern church and stick around and listen to your thoughts and ideas, since they reflect a truly humble heart and an open mind. Oh, wait, I *have* chosen to do that...

For people like me, who frequently miss the mark and incessantly worry about it, the concept of forgiveness from a personal God like Christ is rapturous. The "pay-off" for gnosis IS gnosis. Now, not when I die, not when I am as evolved as that guru or this writer. Today.

My belief in God is not some kind of mental lay-away plan or spiritual 401K. I'm not dedicating my life to deeper understanding because I think I will get a better halo and harp out of it. My faith is part of my life because it does sustain me. The after-I-die stuff is ANCILLARY.

The idea that a God whose singular message was redemption for everyone with true repentance would reject anyone is ludicrous. That the basis of that rejection is essentially not knowing or using "the password" almost makes me believe in the Devil. Who else could warp a message of love and forgiveness like that?

Jeanine

[Edward]

Well done, benandante. Being denied perfect love because the rules of participating are too obscure for me to follow is sort of mean.

Rejecting perfect love because I don't understand the science behind it seems absurd.

Or living my life on the outside of perfect love because I haven't read the right books, or said the magic words, or studied under the correct lineage... Yikes.

The immediate, eternally creating God must deem these a damn shame.

If there is any good reason to have faith, it is certainly for the present soul's sake. Just look at the semiotic junk produced, the squid ink of the righteous, that I and I make waves in, yet live: the symbols have no power!

The elves agree that it is Gnosis, but I don't know.

[Nick]

Any Christians who feel so sure about what God is ought to study the more authentic mystical side of the faith. Check out Dionysius Areopagite 'Divine Names' or much of Meister Eckhart.
Here you will find a deconstruction of God worthy of an atheist, and yet both these mystics were devout Christians.
My reading of these mystics suggests that presence may be realised within, but they leave open the question of what that presence ultimately is.

[Roger]

Well done to Jeanine and Edward. The above two comments made my day. You two are fantastic.

[benandante]

Roger, you're a wonderful, happy puzzle. Should you ever find yourself near Midtown, I promise to shelve the boxing gloves and treat you to coffee, regular, and a bagel of your choice.

Nick, I emphatically agree, what I experience is not outside of me but somehow integral to me, while also integral to everything surrounding me, literally. I am not putting this well, one of the more learned in this circle will doubtless offer better phraseology. This is why I call my experience "God" or "Divine" -- a concept easier to put in conventional terms -- I am searching to be more complete, more aware, more of what I know I can be, and parsing that journey is less of a priority. Anyhow, your words connect, I am in sync with your perspective, and grateful for it, you always make me think.

Jeanine

[Phillip Ross]

Brian said, "Could you ask him why he has such a thing about being called the right name?"

Brian, getting God's name right is not simply about His moniker. It is about His character and authority. It is more about the second definition of "name: 2. By the sanction or authority of, i.e., halt in the name of the law." Here to recognize the "name" of the law is to recognize that one is "under" the law, that the law has authority over him or her. The failure to recognize such authority is to fail to honor, heed, or recognize the "name" of the law.

The whole issue of knowing God is not about knowledge, but faith, where faith is understood as the presupposition that God is real. No mental gymnastics can bridge the gap that is created when one presupposes that God is not real because God's reality is not based on our ability to perform mental gymnastics. The reality of God cannot be conceived of or established on the presupposition that God is not real.

And don't give me the hooey that you don't make any presuppositions, that your view is "objective." All human thinking rests on particular presuppositions, definitions and/or rules of grammar. The issue of God's existence hinges on who's presuppositions and definitions are used as the measuring stick for veracity. The perspective of the sinner demands that the rules of evidence used for the determination of what is real and what is not real are based upon "me" as a human being or on the collective "wisdom" of humanity. In other words, sinners presume that humanity is the measure of all things, to borrow from Protagoras.

But God tells us in Scripture (Genesis 3) that the human tool of measurement is warped, that it provides consistently incorrect information, particularly in the area of the determination or judgment of good and evil. Scripture tells us that the human perspective is not merely limited and subjective, but is warped in that it cannot escape its self-centered egocentricity. Thus, the denial of sin and of God amounts to the bold proclamation that the human perspective can accurately lay hold of objectivity in and of itself, that it can correctly comprehend objective reality. To demand proof of God's existence is to insist that the measure of God's reality is in "my" or humanity's subjective purview. It is to say that "I" will be the judge of whether or not God exists, whether or not God's law exists, whether or not God's authority over me exists. And if "I" am such a judge, "I" am in some sense superior to God.

Whether or not any "proof" of God's existence is accepted or denied, the exercise of evaluating -- believing or disbelieving -- the proof is an attempt to establish human superiority over God, if not in size and power, in intelligence and morality. If I believe I can prove God's existence, then God's existence is subject to my categories of thought (my definitions). And If I don't believe any proof for the existence of God, then God's existence is still subject to my categories of thought (my definitions). Thus, the mere request for proof is a demand that my presuppositions and definitions be accepted as true, that "I" be the judge over God. Thus, the classic Christian proofs for the existence of God are nothing more than a denial of the reality of sin and the proof of the encroachment of Greek philosophy (or human wisdom) into Christian theology.

The issue regarding sin is the reliability and/or veracity and/or objectivity of "my" (human) presuppositions and definitions. To deny sin is to establish the veracity and/or objectivity of "my" (human) presuppositions and definitions, and to deny the possibility that God knows better than "I" do. It is the denial and rejection of God's authority over me.

The issue is always God's authority. Thus, the attack against God is always aimed at the reliability of Scripture, of God's Word -- except when it is aimed at the intelligence and/or character of the believer(s) -- which is immaterial because God's reality does not depend upon anything about believers. I trust in the veracity of God's Word, the Bible, understanding the difficulties of translation and interpretation -- and the mountains of misguided scholarship that have been erected against it, and you don't. And you can't pretend to trust it in order to determine it's trustworthiness because such a pretense is simply a lie on your part, and you know it. And you admit it. Regardless, it is still an attempt to evaluate God's trustworthiness, it is still reliance on one's own thinking and a denial of God's authority.

And the first area of submission to God's authority must always involve man's most passionate personal desires/drives -- love and sex. Marriage, established by God in the Garden of Eden, according to the Bible, is the first and most basic social institution. It is the bridge or connection point between the individual and society, between the one and the many. God created it and set the definitions and rules (or laws, as in the so-called laws of nature) pertaining thereunto. This is the foundational issue of God's authority in the lives of human beings. We either honor it and accept God's authority, or we dishonor it and reject God's authority -- or we try to redefine it, or to "do it my way" (Frank Sinatra), all of which amount to rejection.

Before you go off on your next tirade, please understand that what we know as marriage today is barely a shadow of what biblical covenantal marriage is (will be) when one's entire community completely honors the authority of God Word. I'm not talking about the ignorant imposition of God's Word on an unwilling people, but the intelligent submission to God's Word (authority) by willing people, which applies not simply to marriage, but to the entire structure of socieity. Yes, that is a speculation on my part because such a community has never existed as far as I know, but it is based on the veracity of the Word of God. It is a hope unseen, a goal worthy of our best efforts. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Phil

[Brian]

Phillip, I'm not going to go off on a tirade. I'm simply going to observe that what you said at some length is...

Horseshit.

Not a profound philosophical argument. But true.

[tao]

"By the sanction or authority of, i.e., halt in the name of the law."

-- And just what "law" would that be?

"The whole issue of knowing God is not about knowledge, but faith, where faith is understood as the presupposition that God is real."

-- Of course it's not about knowledge, because religion is not about knowledge. Its all about hoping, believing, and having blind faith in childish fantasies, myths, and things which simply do not exist, and in being manipulated by people like yourself who falsely pretend that they they do have knowledge.

"The reality of God cannot be conceived of or established on the presupposition that God is not real."

-- And vice versa. But then the "reality of God" cannot be "established" at all, period.

"The issue of God's existence hinges on who's presuppositions and definitions are used as the measuring stick for veracity."

-- Which means absolutely nothing.

"The perspective of the sinner" "... sinners presume that humanity is the measure of all things"

-- Sinner? Using that label clearly reveals that you are nothing but a judgmental snot. As wel as the fact that even the believer is also among humanity and is therefore measuring from a human point of view.

"God tells us in Scripture"

Scripture is but words written by men, not by some suppposed "God".

"the human perspective is not merely limited and subjective, but is warped in that it cannot escape its self-centered egocentricity."

-- The only "egocentricity" here is that wherein someone such as yourself believes that he has the "word of God".

"the denial of sin and of God"

-- Denial is no different than acceptance, as they are both the duality of the mind.

"To demand proof of God's existence is to insist that the measure of God's reality is in "my" or humanity's subjective purview."

-- In that case, you should just believe in everything that cannot be seen, and that cannot ever be proven. But then thats the same old trick that religion always uses to get people to believe in something which is not really there. I call that deceptive and satanic.

"It is to say that "I" will be the judge of whether or not God exists"

-- "I" does not determine anything. "I" is merely a misapprehension. "I" has no fundamental existence. Nor does "God" either. "God" is merely a concept in the mind.

"God's authority over me"

-- Who is "me"? But then this is nothing more than typical dogmatic authoritarian rubbish.

"I am in some sense superior to God."

-- The "I" is merely a thought, an idea, a misapprehension. It has no fundamental existence. Therefore it is not superior or inferior to anything. "God" is also a thought, an idea, an articat of the mind.

"an attempt to establish human superiority over God"

-- As if "God" is somehow separate from humanity?

"to deny the possibility that God knows better than "I" do. It is the denial and rejection of God's authority over me."

-- As if "God" is somehow apart or separate or superior. As if the mere notion "God" has any "authority" at all. Even the idea of "authority" reveals the schism.

"The issue is always God's authority."

-- The idea of "authority" itself reveals the artificially imposed schism.

"the attack against God"

-- There is no such "attack" upon God. Who is there to "attack", and what is there to be attacked?

"I trust in the veracity of God's Word, the Bible"

-- A blatant presumtion: That "God's word" is "the Bible". The obvious truth is that the Bible was written by men. Every single word in it was written by men....and then interpreted by other men...such as yourself. You can "trust all you want, but you are only trusting in mere words written and re-written by other men.

"And you can't pretend to trust it in order to determine it's trustworthiness"

-- Of course... and thats why you must really have blind faith and believe... in something which does not exist. Its the same old devious little trick all over again.

"a denial of God's authority"

-- Where is the so-called "authority"? You have shown nothing to substantiate
"authority".

"submission to God's authority"

-- Again, where's "God", and where's the so-called "authority?

"...established by God in the Garden of Eden"

-- Merely an allegorical myth.

"...according to the Bible"

-- Which is merely a book of stories written by men.

"We either ... accept God's authority, or we ... reject God's authority"

-- Same old baiting trick.

"Before you go off on your next tirade"

Inncase you haven't noticed, this is Brian's blog, so if you don't like what he has to say, then mabe you would be better to go elsewhere with your preaching of Bible dogma. And the only "tirade" that I see, Re the comments that you have posted.

"the authority of God Word."

-- You must really mean "tirade", don't you?

"the intelligent submission to God's Word (authority) by willing people"

-- You must really mean blind subservience by mindless slaves.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"

Dream on.....

[Angela]

Brian - You said "Why is this? In his November 7 comment, Phillip said that the main part of his religious outlook breaks into two halves, sin and forgiveness.

First, all have sinned. That's you and me and every biped. And the first evidence of sin is it's denial. Second, forgiveness comes through Christ alone. When we deny the first half, God denies the second half.
Well, I’m befuddled. The notion of original sin makes no sense to me. So not surprisingly, the notion that God had to send his son to suffer on our behalf for non-sensical sins also escapes me."

I'm not sure why the original sin "befuddles" you so, but from the very beginning when that original sin took place, blood had to be shed for the remission of sins. The two tried to hide themselves because they knew what they had done, and covered themselves with aprons of leaves. God could have wiped them both out and started over, but doing so would only result in two more that would just disobey as well, and sin would again have entered the world. God found the two hiding and it was God who slain the first animal, and covered them with the skins of the animals in place of the coverings of leaves they had tried to cover themselves with. Blood had to be shed for the remission of sins. Period. And it stayed that way throughout the entire Bible. I'm assuming you know how the Bible became the Bible. People of the old testament looked to the future to Jesus and their so doing was counted as faith. It's not so difficult to understand why God had to send His Son. In order for heaven to be pure and without sin, it had to be dealt with here. And once sin had entered the world, the only way to eradicate it was not only through the shedding of blood for remission of sin itself, but through perfect spotless blameless blood. And that was Jesus. OUR only price is to gratefully believe and respond from our hearts with thanks. But - he does know that just like when He was here, He will be rejected, and so will we who do believe. And that's allright. We like to count it all joy. :-) Although I will say that I think calling Phil's comments horseshit was nothing more than a copout on your part.

[Edward]

Those who base all of their world view and beliefs about the truths of life on the veracity of the Bible and subsequent Christian teaching can't seem to understand that those of us who don't have that belief system think you are crazy.

No amount of discussion about the inner workings of this orientation is going to change the basic premise, which seems like lunacy at best.

Think of it this way: we see color, and you are trying to tell us that if we don't see the world strictly in shades of grey, we are doomed: we can't even begin to imagine what the world in shades of grey would look like, we are already out of the discussion. We say the world has color, and Bible readers shudder at the thought, without being able to imagine such a world.

[benandante]

I couldn't resist commenting here.

Edward, not only are chartreuse and indigo and cerulean indistinguishable, commentary from women is so incomprehensible that the recent crop of evangelicals cannot muster a response to my comments.

Christ said he was shepherd of flocks that the disciples did not even know about... could that include those who call him by other names? Even names the uneducated in our modern world have not heard of?

Original sin is a subject of the Old Testament, which Christ said were overturned by the new law, to love God with your whole heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. The NT is filled with anecdotes about scripture citing pharisees who were rebuffed over and over by Jesus, who repeatedly taught that he had come to offer salvation to all people and not just those who felt they were Godly. As I have said before, do you actually think that a sincere man who calls God "god" in private will be denied while a hypocrite who prays in public will be welcomed?

When it comes to faith, Angela, most of us think it is personal. I've come to believe that I have to take the freaking log out of my own eye before I start making niggling comments about the parsing of prayers. I don't trust anyone who claims to be giving out the combination to the golden bike lock on the pearly gates to keep out the evil unbelievers.

(I would harumph here but don't know how to spell it.)

Jeanine

[Phillip Ross]

tao, Thank you for having the curtesy to engage in conversation about these matters. Allow me to reply to your various points.

What law? The Ten Commandments will suffice.

Religion is not about knowledge, it's about God, about knowing God. But such knowing is not knowledge. (Pretty mystical, huh?)

The reality of God can be established in the same way that a habit, skill, family, business, or nation can be established.

I accept the fact that all people are sinners as a consequence of Adam's sin, as established in the Bible. Note that I am not making this judgment, only acceding to it, and that it effects me, as well. I am not excluded. It is not me that you are calling judgmental because it is not my judgment, it is God's. You are calling God judgmental. But if God is of no consequence, why get in a huff about it?

Thank you for making my point about the primary characteristic of unrepentant sinners being the denial of God, Scripture and God's authority over His creation.

tao, you must watch your logic. To believe in something unseen is not equivalent to believing in everything unseen. Also, just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

If "I" has no fundamental existence, then are there no such things as human rights? Are you arguing with the Constitution of the United States about the existence of Constitutional rights? Or who those rights are assigned to? If "I" don't exist, then "I" don't have any. Or against the Civil Rights Movement? Or the equality of women, the female "I"? (If something does not exist, then two of them cannot be equal.) Are you saying that there is no such thing as a person? Or that you don't know what person is? Take care here not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.

The idea of authority is very real and quite ordinary. And if you doubt it, take it up with the IRS. You are in denial of, not merely reality, but common sense here. Your frustration with the God of the Bible in combination with your ideology is getting the best of you.

What you call a blatant presumption, I call faithful belief, and I'm glad that it is blatant (completely obvious). Thank you for noticing. But it is not blind faith. You will note that my reasons for believing are well-informed, clear, coherent and comprehensive. There is nothing blind about it at all, at least not to me. Your problem is that my explanations are based upon the veracity of the Bible. I believe that the Biblical stories are true, and then provide a rational interpretation of reality upon that basis. That's all that's going on. You believe that your stories (Taoism, evolution, etc.) are true, and I assume that God's stories are true, and we build differing understandings or explanations of reality and life upon them.

I am not pulling any tricks. I am not hiding anything. Rather, I am making my best effort to put all of my cards on the table. I'm telling you as much as I can about my presuppositions so you can see where I'm coming from. But you can't hear me. You think that I'm talking about something you learned in Sunday School or something. But I'm not. I don't believe that Sunday School malarkey either. You are reacting, not to what I believe, but to what you think I believe. So, you are right in that what you think I believe is just an idea, a figment in your brain. But it is not the living God of the Bible. The problem is that God is not what or who you think He is. If I thought of God as you do, I wouldn't believe either. But that's not what I think. It is what the logicians call a "straw man," a false version of the opponent's argument.

I thought Brian was a seeker of truth, or at least interested and willing to engage in intelligent discussion of such things. Is this not a forum for the exchange of ideas about truth and reality? Or is Brian just preaching to the choir?

Oh, and Brian, I'm most definitely not a fundamentalist Christian. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of pretty basic things. Rather, I am a Reformed Christian, or better yet, a reforming Christian because I'm still working on it.

tao, When you tell me to dream on, are you belittling dreams as futile and useless? Have you not read Jung? Are you suggesting the futility or uselessness of the dream world or dream interpretation, etc.? Are you denying the role of the shaman? Or the role of hope in the human psyche?

Edward, thank you for making my point about regeneration and not being able to see the Kingdom of God. You may be seeing in color, but you are not seeing the soundness of God's name. (I'm waxing mystical again.)

Jeanine, It is clear that you don't study the Bible much. It helps to get the verses correct: John 10:16, "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." Notice that the other sheep are Jesus' sheep, not Buddah's, etc. And that they will listen to His voice. Now you might want to argue that you do listen to His voice (not mine, of course), and that He tells you to go elsewhere for your spirituality. But that is bunk, more Bible study will help.

Jesus did not overturn the teachings of the Old Testament, He fulfilled them. Big difference. Again, getting the verses right helps.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-20).

This comes in the midst of the Beatitudes, where Jesus actually tightened up the demands of the law. For instance, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire" (Matthew 5:21-22). Jesus moved the bar from action (murder) to intention (anger).

You probably learned it wrong in Sunday School because there really has been (and still is) a lot of wrong stuff taught in the name of Jesus by good intentioned, well-meaning, but plainly wrong Christians. Please accept my apology on behalf of the Lord. He won't mind my giving it because He's really into forgiveness.

And it's "harrumph: Clear mucus or food from one's throat."

Phil

[benandante]

Phil, you seem to study the Bible to build yourself a case for presuming to teach other people the correct way to worship.

I can see how you arrive at your interpretation of Christ's statement. I happen to place it in context, he replied when the Apostles began to bitch about the crowds not believing or behaving in the correct religious traditions of the day. I also interpret the various admonitions of Christ against religious condemnation as instructive not just in the middle east when he was alive, but today in the here and now. I tend to meditate upon what I read and it has not escaped me that fervid religious nuts screamed for His crucifixion. I seriously doubt that if Christ were to arrive this evening and condemn some of the sacred (sic) cows of the modern fundamentalist church -- er, excuse me, the NEO-modern fundamentalist church (what a fine hair you manage to split Phil) -- that he would not be sacrificed yet again.

Christ had one central massage: to treat one another with love and deference. The reason I refuse to worship in the building up the road is the same reason I find your bloviated chapter and verse so offensive. You are not preching the Gospel but minutae surrounding it -- Christ's life is not fodder for some sick "Trivial Pursuit: Jesus Edition" game. Pick another reference book. Pontificate on Rush Limbaugh's transcripts from last week. Don't pretend to be an expert on Christianity when all you seem to have gleaned from His life and His mesaage is some ammunition to condemn others. Whatever happened to Judge not lest ye be judged?

Christ spoke of forgiveness. He preached tolerance, faith and charity.

As to my religious studies, over the past few years I have begun to see the demonstration of the idea that my life unfolds to teach me as a person what I need to know. Each emotion, every thought and character flaw and positive trait all conspire to give me the opportunity to be the best Jeanine I might be.

Framed in that way, our 'conversation' (or whatever this is) shows me how much my ego comes into play when I am confronted with what I perceive as ignorance and arrogance. I was surprised by the strength of my reaction to your put downs. I knew intellectually that you were not a personality capable of finding middle ground but I did not expect that to anger me so much. In that way, you have been an excellent teacher, thank you.

As to the ability to see God and His kingdom, I think I will trust in people like Brian, and regulars like Edward, Roger, Nick and even tao who seem capable of not only seeking God, but in finding His presence throughout their lives.

Phil, you and people like you remind me of my son when he was small. He would become jealous when I told his brother that I loved him, as though my heart only had room for one child. God is greater than that Phil, He has room in his heart for all of us, of every spiritual perspective. I pray that one day you will realize that accepting other people's beliefs doesn't diminish your own, but strengthens it.

How can love for God diminish love for God? The answer is, it cannot. Whoever pretends that it can is lying.

Jeanine

[Roger]

Jeanine,

I really enjoyed your statements from the above comment:

Christ had one central massage: to treat one another with love and deference.

Christ spoke of forgiveness. He preached tolerance, faith and charity.

Wow, I feel such Joy.....
Thanks,
Roger

[tao]

To Phillip Ross:

You wrote:

"The Ten Commandments will suffice."

-- Thats not law, that only words in a book.

"Religion is not about knowledge, it's about God, about knowing God."

-- Thats contradictory and meaningless.

"The reality of God"

-- What "reality"? God is merely a concept and a belief that you have.

"all people are sinners as a consequence of Adam's sin, as established in the Bible."

-- Thats just your opinion that you got from a book.

"it is not my judgment, it is God's."

-- Where is God? Its your judgment, because you are the one saying it.

"You are calling God judgmental."

-- I am not calling God anything. I am not talking to God, I am talking to you. You are evading that fact.

"the primary characteristic of unrepentant sinners being the denial of God ... and God's authority"

-- I am not denying God, or not denying God. You just don't know anything about me. And there is no "authority" other than what I have in myself, or in what I allow.

"To believe in something unseen" ...
"doesn't mean that it doesn't exist."

-- It does not mean that it exists either. Belief proves nothing. Belief only exists or becomes necessary as long as knowledge is lacking. Knowledge makes belief obsolete and useless.

"If "I" has no fundamental existence, then are there no such things as human rights? Are you arguing with the Constitution of the United States about the existence of Constitutional rights? Or who those rights are assigned to? If "I" don't exist, then "I" don't have any. Or against the Civil Rights Movement? Or the equality of women, the female "I"? Are you saying that there is no such thing as a person?"

-- Clearly you have entirely and exceedingly missed the point. You apparently have no knowledge at all of mysticism, vedanta, buddhism, or philosophy. There is no point whatsoever in my going any further with you because you really have no comprehension of the subject regarding the nature and/or existence of the ego-I.

"The idea of authority is very real and quite ordinary. And if you doubt it, take it up with the IRS."

-- The IRS is a completely criminal and illegitimate fraud perpetrated upon the American people by the globalist bankers. You obviously don't know anything about that either. You are basically in a bubble of your own little fantasy world.

"You are in denial of, not merely reality, but"

-- I am well acquainted with reality. It is my true nature. However, unfortunately it is you who is the one who is living in an illusory fantasy world of your own beliefs.

"Your frustration with the God of the Bible in combination with your ideology"

-- First, I have no such "ideology"... and second, I am not at all "frustrated" in any way whatsoever by your beliefs and illusions about God or the Bible. I could not care less what you believe, because that is all your problem, not mine.

"What you call a blatant presumption, I call faithful belief"

-- Beliefs are presumptions. Are you so stupid as not to understand that?

"it is not blind faith."

-- It is blind if you cannot see or prove what you believe in.

"my explanations are based upon the veracity of the Bible."

-- The Bible is merely a book of stories and proverbs. The is no "veracity" of the Bible proven. Its just you belief, which is not "veracity".

"You believe that your stories (Taoism, evolution, etc.) are true"

-- That is totally false and unfounded. I have given absolutley no such stories, or any such belief in Taoism. You statement is incorrect and ill-informed. You obviously are extremely confused as to who I am and what I say, and you are making false and erroneous statements and misrepresentations about me. I have nothing more to say to someone who lies about and misrepresents me.

"You think that I'm talking about something you learned in Sunday School or something."

-- I know what your gig is, but I don't go to "Sunday school". I never have. You know absolutely nothing about me. FYI, I am 61 years old, retired, and have degrees in philosophy, comparitive religion, psychology, and electronic engineering. I am not some fool who goes to Sunday school.

"You are reacting, not to what I believe, but to what you think I believe."

-- I know generally what you believe. I have read enough of your comments to get a fair idea. What you believe is irrelevant and inconsequential to me. There are billions of people who believe all sorts of things. All of that is useless and unimportant to me. Self-knowledge is not a belief.

"what you think I believe is just an idea, a figment in your brain"

-- No, you are mikstaken. I don't share your ideas at all. They are your ideas, not mine. I have no use for such ideas or beliefs. Self-knowledge transcends ideas and beliefs.

"God is not what or who you think He is."

-- I don't "think" any such thing about God. I don't need to "think" about God at all. You are making assumptions abut me for which you have no knowledge. That amounts to misrepresenting me again. I do not care to discuss this any further with someone who pretends to know and say what I think.

"If I thought of God as you do"

-- Again, you do not know anything about what I "think", be it about God or anything else. You are extremely presumptious, disrfespectful, and even rude to assert that you know anything about what I think about God. I will have nothing further to say to you beyond this response until you at least acknowledge and apologise for your false assumptions and baseless judgements.

"I thought Brian was a seeker of truth, or at least interested and willing to engage in intelligent discussion of such things. Is this not a forum for the exchange of ideas about truth and reality?"

-- Yes he is, and yes this forum is, but you are merely foisting your rather rigid dogmatic beliefs upon this forum.

"When you tell me to dream on, are you belittling dreams as futile and useless? Are you suggesting the futility or uselessness of the dream world or dream interpretation, etc.? Are you denying the role of the shaman? Or the role of hope in the human psyche?"

-- No... I was referring to your conviction of things not seen, which by the way, is 'blind faith'.

[Re: You wrote: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"]

Until you actually step back in some humility and acknowledge that you have made some rather self-righteous attitudes and presumptious and false judgements about me, about where I stand, and about how I think and what I know, I really have nothing more to discuss with you.

[benandante]

I'm ashamed of my outburst earlier. My apologies to Phil in pareticular and to all in general. When I allow anger to speak I diminish myself more than anyone I am addressing.

Jeanine

[Steve]

Jeanine,

Usually I won't direct a comment to a fellow commenter as that often draws the conversations off-topic, but, in my my most polished vernacular: 'You rock!'

I, as a frequent reader and sometime commenter on this blog, benefited from your 'outburst' - and, at the very least, appreciated it. Self-righteousness in the name of Christ unfortunately hasn't run its course. Instead of responding, I chose to ignore the post to which you replied. I don't have the patience that you exhibited, nor the meticulous, driven energy of tao. (I don't share tao's perspective, but I do admire tao's precision and tenacity).

In retrospect, I guess I should have responded, as that's what Brian's blog is - a forum for the exchange of ideas, and he's always done a great job getting the ball rolling. You'd think we, as guests, would have better manners... But, it's always the crazy cousin that makes gatherings interesting.

[Phillip Ross]

tao said, "Sinner? Using that label clearly reveals that you are nothing but a judgmental snot." tao said, "What utterly ignorant rubbish. You are obviously not an educated religious scholar, but rather merely an ignorant believer in fundamentaist (sic) judeo-christian doctrine." tao said, "You are clearly do not know what you are talking about." Not appreciating my sense of humor in a post about www.pilgrim-platform.org not coming up at a library computer and identified as porn, tao said, "Man, are you wacko," and "You are just babbling more paranoid wacko nonsense," and "You obviously have your head up in the wtong (sic) place."

And he calls me judgmental because I acknowledge that all people (myself included) are sinners according to the Bible. What does tao think of himself? "I am well acquainted with reality. It is my true nature." Press him and you will likely find that he believes that the ego/I is illusory and that no distinctions are real, as he does here: "'I' has no fundamental existence. Nor does 'God' either. 'God' is merely a concept in the mind." The philosophy that posits such an idea cannot account for the reality of personal being, so it denies it. Such a denial has very serious social ramifications in that it denies the reality and role of love, as well. Two nonexistent "I" persons cannot love one another in any significant sense. One illusion has a meaningless feeling for another.

He said that one of my statements is "contradictory and meaningless." But if reality is devoid of distinctions and/or transcends all meaning, then from that perspective "contradiction" is meaningless, and "meaningless" is meaningless. From such a position, within the void, words do not have meaning, coherence or correspondence. That is why he brushes off everything that I say as being "mere words," and the Ten Commandments as being "only words in a book." There is no argument for or against such a position because the position believes itself to have transcended words. Communication is at worst impossible, and at best meaningless.

tao said, "...to believe in something which is not really there. I call that deceptive and satanic." The reference to Satan is, of course, biblical. Consistency is difficult. But what does consistency matter to the void? Why would the void care if my arguments are "contradictory and meaningless?" Is the argument for the void not contradictory and meaningful? How can it be if it transcends words and distinctions? What is Satanic, according to the source that defines Satan, is the failure to savingly believe in what is actually real -- God. To even utter a denial of God requires the use of the very gifts (language, life and reason) that God has given and abides. The atheist borrows biblical capital in order to build his or her argument against God.

tao said, "...it is you who is the one who is living in an illusory fantasy world of your own beliefs." But I do not live in a world of my own beliefs at all. I live in a community of shared beliefs. In every sense the beliefs I hold are not mine. They have not originated with me, though I yield to them. They belong to the Bible. And they have not merely been written by men, they have been written through men in the same way that a secretary takes a letter from her boss. She writes the letter, but it is not hers. Impossible? Surely this forum is familiar with channeling.

tao said, "...I could not care less what you believe, because that is all your problem, not mine." Is this evidence of lovelessness or a lack of human compassion?

I said, "What you call a blatant presumption, I call faithful belief, and I'm glad that it is blatant (completely obvious). Thank you for noticing." tao responded, "Beliefs are presumptions. Are you so stupid as not to understand that?" (Definition: "Presumption: 2. (law) an inference of the truth of a fact from other facts proved or admitted or judicially noticed." Presumptions can be considered to be factual in a court of law. I have argued what is called philosophical presuppositionalism in several posts, noting that all predication (conversation, discussion, argument) requires presuppositions. tao is not without presumptions himself, though he will likely deny it. Nonetheless, he apparently has no better counter than to call me names.

tao said, "FYI, I am 61 years old, retired, and have degrees in philosophy, comparitive (sic) religion, psychology, and electronic engineering. I am not some fool who goes to Sunday school." I suppose to be fair I should tell you that I just had my 59th birthday, have degrees in philosophy, divinity (M.Div, Berkeley), and will soon finish a Ph.D. in divinity. I have also studied comparative religion in college and on my own, having made a 15 year personal study of several New Religious Movements. My father was a Spiritualist for 25 years.

tao (note the moniker) said, "I have given absolutely no such stories, or any such belief in Taoism. You (sic) statement is incorrect and ill-informed. You obviously are extremely confused as to who I am and what I say, and you are making false and erroneous statements and misrepresentations about me." But if there are no distinctions in reality and tao's true nature is at one with reality, then nothing anyone could say would reflect the truth of his being, nor would any words detract from it, what does it matter? If there is no "me" how can I have misrepresented it? Is the ego/I that does not exist offended? Actually, I am not speaking about him as a person at all, only about the philosophical/religious position he appears to hold. Earlier he said, "The fact is that Vedic civilization is already known to have existed in Mohan Daro (10,000 years BC) and in Dwaraka (50,00 years)" and then gave us the evolutionary "Civilization in India Timeline." I merely extrapolated that he believed the timeline, which is a story based on the theory of evolution, and was in support of and/or sympathy with Indic and Vedic cultures and their various religious and philosophical teachings.

tao said, "I know generally what you believe." Really? I don't think so, and they are beliefs to which I agree. So, I'd know. Your credentials show no study of Christianity or the Bible, nor do you show any evidence of biblical knowledge or experience. You admit to never having been to Sunday School. Rather, your position is that all knowledge and/or study of the Bible is nonsense, which would itself then preclude you from having any idea of what I think I know.

tao said, "I don't need to 'think' about God at all." Not thinking about God is the definition of denial. ("Denial: 3. (psychiatry) a defence mechanism that denies painful thoughts." To deny something is to not think about it. It is the definition of "to be in denial of."

tao said, "there is no 'authority' other than what I have in myself, or in what I allow." And yet he says, "You are basically in a bubble of your own little fantasy world." This position is actually a very serious matter in that it is essentially the philosophy of lawlessness and criminality. It is what psychologists call sociopathic. "Sociopath, also called Antisocial personality disorder (abbreviated APD or ASPD) is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-TR recognizable by the disordered individual's impulsive behavior, disregard for social norms, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others." Please note that I am not saying that tao is a sociopath (I doubt that he is), only that the position he appears to espouse is sociopathic in character. How so? It can only be impulsive because it has transcended logic, reason, principle and consistency, which it believes to be mere words without substance. It has transcended social norms and customs and is indifferent to the various manifestations of ego/I, to which rights and feelings are associated.

However, we all live under various authorities which do not depend upon our allowance. When a county judge summons us to appear in court, we will appear whether we like it or not, one way or the other. Of course, tao will attempt to escape the difficulty presented here by saying that he will allow such authority (and I suspect that he actually does). But the test of this belief or position comes when someone attempts to disallow some actual authority, to ignore the judge's summons. At that point, such a person will come to understand that there really is more to this authority issue than previously thought.

If you will go back and read through my posts on this forum you will find that I have expressed many deep, philosophical and theological concerns -- criticisms -- of several kinds of philosophical and theological positions that have been propounded on this forum and which are manifest throughout history, to include Taoism, Buddhism, Christian Mysticism, Eastern Mysticism, and various New Age Philosophies (also known as variants of Hinduism). I have endeavored to meet objections to biblical doctrine with clear, cogent statements based on biblical content. The truth of the Bible (or any other religious or philosophical position) is found in its conformance to the reality of human experience and understanding. Biblical truth is axiomatic. "An axiom is any sentence, proposition, statement or rule that forms the basis of a formal system. Unlike theorems, axioms are neither derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs. Instead, an axiom is taken for granted as valid, and serves as a necessary starting point for deducing and inferencing logically consistent propositions. In many usages, "axiom," "postulate," and "assumption" are used interchangeably."

To date the only responses I have gotten have been cheap potshots at my intelligence and character, nothing substantive. Brian gave it a good try in his Struggle to Understand the Christian Mind, but ended with nonsense about calling God by the right name. I provided him with the necessary correction when he attempted to make the issue appear silly. I hope that thread will continue.

The real nub of the disagreement between me and virtually everyone on this forum is about the reliability of Bible. tao said, "I also find that 'because the Bible tells us so', to be an extremely lame and unintelligent response to spiritual discussion and debate." He simply denies the significance of the Bible and grounds his rejection on the basis of Liberal Christian scholarship. (But if there are no distinctions in reality, what does scholarship matter?) Apparently, he is not aware that Liberalism and Christianity are completely different religions (though Liberalism sometimes pretends to be Christian), or that Christianity has a long history of corruption from the inside by Godless academics. There is much literature on the subject should anyone be interested, which I doubt.

My entire position is that the Bible provides a true, consistent, rational and comprehensive understanding of human origins, character and morality, and a reasonable explanation of the essential and true character of reality. In addition, the Bible has provided the philosophical foundation for the development of modern science in that the Bible posits a universe that is reasonable and consistent. And that the role that Christianity plays in human history is just beginning.

[Edward]

The axioms of Pythagorean geometry are the point, the line, and the plane. They do not have objective reality, but are "taken for granted" as the basis of the formal system. The Pythagorean description of a plane is identical to the description of a saddle, using these axioms.

That is, isomorphically, what I think is done with the axioms of the Bible: the same information, assessed identically, gives two (or more) vastly different results.

Although the Bible is a very large set of axioms in a formal system, I reason that: if the system itself is closed; and if the system does not include or allow all possible variables (saddles) of reality; then the system insufficiently conforms to human experience.

I will continue to look at closed formal systems to see how close they get to this conformity, and for reasons beyond this discussion will not likely find one. There are geometries that distinguish between such things as planes and saddles, and I am sure there will always be Doctors of Philosophy revising formal opuscular beliefs.

[Roger]

Is this Intellectual Sparring going to continue through this week too? Thank God for a three day week.

[Phillip Ross]

Edward, the art of communication is simplification not prolixity.

You are close when you say, "the same information, assessed identically, gives two (or more) vastly different results." If I may be so bold as to attempt to understand what you mean here, you appear to be saying that people often (perhaps even usually) come to different conclusions regarding the same data.

If so, I agree. And the reason for this is that they employ different axioms or presuppositions in their analysis. For instance, one who assumes the biblical data to be true will come to vastly different conclusions than one who assumes it to be false, or some parts of it to be false. That is exactly the point of philosophical presuppositionalism. Thanks for making it.

There appear to be several problems with your argument, if I understand it correctly. And I may not, so please bear with me, and correct me where needed. Let's look at the clauses independently.

"if the system itself is closed;" You could mean several things by this. I tend to think that you are referring to open and closed systems related to set theory rather than the fact that the historical canon of Scripture is closed at 66 books. You are probably referring to the "consistently biblical perspective" that I mentioned earlier, and are defining it as a "closed" system. Honestly, I don't know if it is or not. I don't know the mind of God. And I suggest that you don't either. This suggestion is based upon the biblical data that all people are sinners, which means that we cannot assess reality correctly, objectively, as only God does.

And this is why the Bible is important to humanity. It provides data about ourselves, our history and reality that more closely approaches objectivity than we are capable of in and of ourselves.

"and if the system does not include or allow all possible variables (saddles) of reality;" Again, there is no way that you or I can know all possible variables of reality, which means that this clause is not verifiable. And, as you know, nothing can be based upon what cannot be known. You are likely making the error of identifying human knowledge with God's knowledge. It is a common error among pagans, and particularly among those with a bent toward the East (Eastern philosophies). It involves either an over assessment of humanity or an under assessment of God.

"then the system insufficiently conforms to human experience." Obviously, if the preceding clauses are in question, any conclusions based thereupon must also be in question. Nonetheless, the manner in which this clause is stated suggests more pointedly what was only suspected previously -- that one of the operating presuppositions driving this argument is the identification/equivocation of human experience and divine experience. This unstated presupposition or axiom is simply not true according to the biblical data. And it is as unprovable as is the God of Scripture. It is, rather, an axiom or presupposition of faith. But more to the point, it is absurd to equate what is infinite with what is finite. On the one hand your measuring stick is "human experience," by which you seek to measure "all possible variables of reality." You stick is too short to make such a measurement.

Also please take note that while you have been talking about the biblical data in a general, you have failed to mention any particular content of that data. To speak about the Bible as being this or that is vastly different than wrestling with particular biblical issues, teachings and/or doctrines. The real meat is to be found in the latter.

Roger, Sorry to bother you. Have a happy holiday. And thanks for thanking God.

Phil

[Edward]

Does anyone else reading my comment have the same difficulty understanding as does Phillip? I thought I pretty clearly gave my opinion that the Bible was a finite set of axioms, and so could not reliably conform to human experience. I understand that you suppose that the Bible, as information, originates with God.

Those of us that do not accept that preposition will also not accept any arguments you have that use that prepostion as a basis.

I don't understand why you don't get that.

[ander]

The christian mind is linear. It follows a straight cladogenesis if u like by judaism. From A-Z and that is it. All events fall sequentialy into a pattern within this A-Z ; Creation,coming of jesus, and second coming act as major reference points. No infinity , no randomness, no purposlesness. This is contrary to ancient Greek mentality and Hinduism, who were cyclical, or diachronic ;Golden age, Silver age, Iron and Bronze age. And the greeks did not have a religion per se , philosophers condemned Homers or Hesiods tales. they introduced infinity-apeiron etc. No homogeneity in belief.
The christian story, because of this linearity can withstand the ages for the opposite reasons that a cyclical perception of nature does. One god, one creation, one son of god,one book, one chosen ppl, one time that it all happens. In the time of constantine it was one god, one son of god and one emperor; great way to be fully legitimised. Even if alliens come on earth , the evangelists will still try to convert them. The reasons for converstions is because of a simple reason: What happened to those ppl before christ? Well it is said christians that jesus preached in the purgatory or hell for the three days when he was on the cross..whoever believed was saved. That is how they solved that. And what about all those that never knew about christianity? Well they must learn about it at least..."lets go tell them" . So everybody has the 'choice', and cannot use as an excuse that i never knew about christianism on judgement day. Then u have all the stages of salvation; first comes the denomation u belong, then other christian denomations, then judaism, then islam, then whatever else. Straight thinking.

opposed to this u have concepts of samsara, spinoza pantheism and animism.

It is remarkable how there are cultures around the world, in africa and latin america that when the recall past events they remember them in order of importance and disregard time as a factor.

anyway,,, And in all the story of christianity we must not forget its co-evolvement with monarchies, kings, religious states etc.

Random remark. it is funny though how the for the christian mind the myths of lets say, herucles or theseus, are definite myths, whereas 100% moses did split the red sea.

[Phillip Ross]

ander,

Your story unfolds on the basis of evolutionary theory, and thus it is not an accurate depiction of Christianity or of the biblically informed mind. It is an imaginary evolutionary construct.

But it does accurately note that biblical Christianity is completely opposed to both Greek and Hindu mindsets. It also acknowledges that Christianity values history, meaning and order. That is exactly why it was Christianity that gave rise to the modern world -- science, technology, human rights, etc. It was biblical Protestantism that overcame the false idea of the divine right of kings, which led to the modern the development of the American state. Such things never arose in the 10,000 years of Vedic history (to take tao's timeline), and never would.

However, it should be noted that the version of Christianity you describe is fundamentally Arminian, which people like me believe to be a false expression of the real McCoy. As such, your story line fails to capture the real essence of biblical Christianity, which means that your analysis is not an analysis of biblical Christianity, but of a "straw man" Christianity.

Phil

[ander]

OK...euro-centrism is the way to go..Technology came from the west.The chinese, egyptians and the babylonians did not dicover anything.If paul hadnt arrived in athens the greeks would still be sitting there on the ground thinking about infinity an chaos. Cause the ancient greeks were the epitomy ilogical thinking.
And christanity did not expand by war.There was nothing spiritual before jesus. Order meaning and history came from the europe as well. The europeans did not conquer and slaughter half the planet, and never made war between them either. And now, we free ppl and bring democracy to them. Whereas it is stereotupical to see buddist monk in the amazon of brazil to preach the gospel.

Anyway.
I dont think i was making an attack on christianity as such in my article. I feel i was more descriptive than accusive. The title of post is "trying to understand the christian mind".
Niszche said "tha there was only one true christian,, and he died on the cross".
That is another perscpective.
You could say that christianity produced great ppl.You could also say that it was produced by great ppl.

Jesus' msg was to love ur enemy.mm Neutralising karma? Doing it for the sake of it? Cause it was like loving him? dont know.

[Phillip Ross]

Edward,

I get it completely, I just don't buy it.

Thank you for clarifying your "opinion that the bible (is) a finite set of axioms." And I appreciate your willingness to understand that what we have in the Bible are indeed axioms. I even agree that they are finite. But the reason that I accede to their finitude is that my knowledge and experience -- as well as the biblical testimony -- teaches that I am a finite person. And infinity is not within the grasp of finitude. I fully understand that we can manipulate various measures of infinity with calculus, and even come up with some real world applications. But those measures of infinity are not of the same order as the infinity of God, not by a long shot. In addition, it is precisely because the biblical axioms are finite that they do in fact conform to human experience.

And you are correct that I am propounding that one of the fundamental axioms of the Bible is that the essential content of the Bible does indeed originate with God. God, in His kindness, has stooped to make His communication available to finite minds, though what has been written for our benefit is in no way exhaustive, nor barely representative, of the entirety or immensity of His infinite intelligence or experience. But it is sufficient.

Let me also say that though what we can know on the basis of the Bible does not even plumb the depths of what God has given us in those pages, not to mention its paucity with regard to the wholeness (holiness) of God's divine perspective. Yet, what we can know from the Bible we know analogously. And that means that though our knowledge is not complete (from an infinite perspective) it can be true, reliable and sufficient for God's purposes, and for our own. In other words, we cannot know anything completely (from an infinite perspective), but we can know things correctly and truly when that knowledge is based upon the axioms of the Bible (axioms that are firmly grounded in the infinite intelligence and wisdom of God) because we know them analogously.

Consequently, I am attempting to demonstrate to you (and others) that you have rejected the Bible as a matter of bigotry and prejudice, rather than from a correctly informed position that genuinely understands it. I am not opposed to your rejection of the Bible, but I think that it is vitally important that you reject it for what it actually is (says) rather than on the basis of some false idea of what you think it is (says).

Phil

[Phillip Ross]

Edward,

I get it completely, I just don't buy it.

Thank you for clarifying your "opinion that the bible (is) a finite set of axioms." And I appreciate your willingness to understand that what we have in the Bible are indeed axioms. I even agree that they are finite. But the reason that I accede to their finitude is that my knowledge and experience -- as well as the biblical testimony -- teaches that I am a finite person. And infinity is not within the grasp of finitude. I fully understand that we can manipulate various measures of infinity with calculus, and even come up with some real world applications. But those measures of infinity are not of the same order as the infinity of God, not by a long shot. In addition, it is precisely because the biblical axioms are finite that they do in fact conform to human experience.

And you are correct that I am propounding that one of the fundamental axioms of the Bible is that the essential content of the Bible does indeed originate with God. God, in His kindness, has stooped to make His communication available to finite minds, though what has been written for our benefit is in no way exhaustive, nor barely representative, of the entirety or immensity of His infinite intelligence or experience. But it is sufficient.

Let me also say that though what we can know on the basis of the Bible does not even plumb the depths of what God has given us in those pages, not to mention its paucity with regard to the wholeness (holiness) of God's divine perspective. Yet, what we can know from the Bible we know analogously. And that means that though our knowledge is not complete (from an infinite perspective) it can be true, reliable and sufficient for God's purposes, and for our own. In other words, we cannot know anything completely (from an infinite perspective), but we can know things correctly and truly when that knowledge is based upon the axioms of the Bible (axioms that are firmly grounded in the infinite intelligence and wisdom of God) because we know them analogously.

Consequently, I am attempting to demonstrate to you (and others) that you have rejected the Bible as a matter of bigotry and prejudice, rather than from a correctly informed position that genuinely understands it. I am not opposed to your rejection of the Bible, but I think that it is vitally important that you reject it for what it actually is (says) rather than on the basis of some false idea of what you think it is (says).

Phil

[Phillip Ross]

Brian, sometimes your blog hangs up when it attempts to use the Typepad anti spam routine. I stopped it and refreshed the page, which then produced a double post. Sorry.

ander,

No, Euro-centrism is not the way to go. And the point is not that the Chinese, Egyptians, Babylonians, Muslims and others did not make important discoveries. The point is that important discoveries are made on the basis that the universe is fundamentally orderly, consistent and meaningful, not on the basis that the universe fundamentally chaotic, random and meaningless. The idea that only Europe or Western Civilization or Christianity (as it has been largely known and expressed) has an exclusive lease on truth is nonsense. The Christian church is filled to overflowing with sinners, myself included. The church is not the model it hoped it would be. It is a flawed vessel, as am I.

The perspective you seem to have is likely the product of American Marxist university professors who are pushing an agenda. Did you go to college?

There is nothing wrong the Greek logic. It is the axioms upon which that logic rests that skews its reliability.

Biblical Christianity does not expand by war. Now, I understand that this statement appears to contradict history because the history of Christianity is filled with war. Nonetheless, I am going to hold my ground, and argue that the corruption of Christianity has expanded by war. As I have said elsewhere, there is a long history of internal corruption among the ranks of the faithful. Early on Christianity commingled with the civil government of Europe. Such commingling is not the biblical model for church / state relations. And it led to many abuses, as you all well know. But those abuses are not the result of biblical teaching. Rather, they are the result of the failure to abide by biblical teaching.

I did not get the impression that you were attacking Christianity, only that your description was flawed. Nor was I defending as much as I was trying to make corrections.

Nietzsche is not a representative of Christianity, and nothing that he said about it is reliable. He was an enemy of the faith, one of its most effective corrupters. "He received recognition during the first half of the 20th century in German, French, and British intellectual circles, gaining notoriety when the Nazi Party appropriated him as a forerunner" (Wikipedia. I know that some of you don't care for Wikipedia. I cite it only to demonstrate what is common knowledge.) Nietzsche did not write from an objective perspective. He was Hitler's poster boy.

Yes, Christianity has produced some great people, and many scoundrels have used Christianity as a cloak of deception. But genuine biblical Christianity was not produced by great people, it was produced by a great God.

Jesus had more than one message. Life is complex. Seeing the context and entirety of Jesus' messages greatly helps to provide the correct understanding.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mat 5:43-48).

But Jesus also said, "Then everyone who shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in Heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in Heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life shall lose it. And he who loses his life for My sake shall find it. He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me" (Mat 10:32-40).

Phil

[Edward]

I reject the idea that the Bible is true because of the tautology, as pointed out by Brian: the Bible is the word of God, and we rely on this information because the Bible tells us so. Going strictly on this criteria, the Koran serves the same purpose, and its adherents will tell me the same thing, at least. I reason that no sacred text is complete or sufficient, since I have no special knowledge (unless from a sacred text) to make that judgement. There is no objective distinction, only acceptance of the axioms.

Your position is that thorough and complete Bible study is the only basis from which to accept or reject these axioms. You deem that I have not done such study to your expectation, so you do not buy that I have a valid opinion on this subject.

Please continue to assume that I have rejected the Bible as a matter of bigotry and prejudice.

[Roger]

Phil,

You stated, "The Christian church is filled to overflowing with sinners, myself included. The church is not the model it hoped it would be. It is a flawed vessel, as am I."

I am a sinner, and am flawed too.

Is it possible that the individuals that constructed the Christian Bible, were sinners and flawed too?

Therefore, is it possible that some small written portions of the Christian Bible be flawed? Could some small portions of the Christian Bible be sinful in their tone?

Likewise, all the Books of other religions and Spiritual groups, could there be flaws of some small portion, found within them too? Were they not contructed by sinners and flawed individuals?

Maybe, the flaws and the sinful portions are what we all are rejecting. Not the complete text.
Food for thought.

Best wishes,
Roger

[tao]

To Phillip Ross:

Phillip Ross wrote (in quotation marks):

"And he (tao) calls me judgmental because I acknowledge that all people (myself included) are sinners according to the Bible."

Yes, you are judging people according to your Bible.

"Press him and you will likely find that he believes that the ego/I is illusory and that no distinctions are real"

I never said or implied that "no distinctions are real".

"The philosophy that posits such an idea cannot account for the reality of personal being, so it denies it. Such a denial has very serious social ramifications in that it denies the reality and role of love, as well. Two nonexistent "I" persons cannot love one another in any significant sense. One illusion has a meaningless feeling for another."

I did not "deny" any such thing....and what is meant by "personal being"? That is a bit of an oxymoron. "Two nonexistent "I" persons" is also an oxymonon. In fact, the entire paragraph makes no sense.

"But if reality is devoid of distinctions and/or transcends all meaning, then from that perspective "contradiction" is meaningless, and "meaningless" is meaningless. From such a position, within the void, words do not have meaning, coherence or correspondence."

I never said that "reality is devoid of distinctions". Nor did I mention "the void". These are your ideas and notions, not mine. This paragraph also makes no sense.

"he brushes off everything that I say as being "mere words," and the Ten Commandments as being "only words in a book." There is no argument for or against such a position because the position believes itself to have transcended words. Communication is at worst impossible, and at best meaningless."

Clearly, the "Ten Commandments" are in fact merely words and ideas. And that is simply not a "position". Why do youi feel that you have to argue that?

"The reference to Satan is, of course, biblical. Consistency is difficult. But what does consistency matter to the void?"

Again, I never said anything about "void".

"Is the argument for the void not contradictory and meaningful? How can it be if it transcends words and distinctions?"

Again, I never mentioned "the void", or argued "for the void". This is oting but your own notion and fabrication.

"What is Satanic, according to the source that defines Satan, is the failure to savingly believe in what is actually real -- God."

There is not just only one "source" which defines "Satan", there are various meanings. But I did not say that anyway. What I said was "satanic".

"To even utter a denial of God requires the use of the very gifts (language, life and reason) that God has given and abides. The atheist borrows biblical capital in order to build his or her argument against God."

There is no proof that there is God, or that "language, life and reason" are due to God. There is no "Biblical capital" other than in your mind, nor am I an atheist or against anything.

"I do not live in a world of my own beliefs at all. I live in a community of shared beliefs. In every sense the beliefs I hold are not mine. They have not originated with me, though I yield to them. They belong to the Bible. And they have not merely been written by men, they have been written through men."

Those are but all merely your own beliefs.

"Surely this forum is familiar with channeling."

This forum has nothing to do with
"channeling", that I know of. I can only say that I myself have no interet in such nonsense.

"Is this evidence of lovelessness or a lack of human compassion?"

There is no such "lovelessness or a lack of human compassion" that I know of. Love is simply the nature of Being/Awareness itself.

"I have argued what is called philosophical presuppositionalism in several posts, noting that all predication (conversation, discussion, argument) requires presuppositions. tao is not without presumptions himself,"

We have been speaking specifically about spiritual and religious presumptions and beliefs, not otherwise. You are evading and distracting from the issue.

"But if there are no distinctions in reality and tao's true nature is at one with reality, then nothing anyone could say would reflect the truth of his being, nor would any words detract from it, what does it matter? If there is no "me" how can I have misrepresented it?"

I did not say that there are no distintions, nor did I define reality in that manner. You apparently do not understand the over-all issue regarding the nature of the ego-I. You seem to be limited in your understanding of that subject.

"I am not speaking about him... only about the philosophical/religious position he appears to hold."

I do not hold any "philospohical/religious position". You are again putting labels on me, or assuming that I hold some particular "position" philosophically. That is not the case.

"I merely extrapolated that he believed the timeline, which is a story based on the theory of evolution"

I never said that I "believed" any such thing. I simply offered some substantiated historical data which shows that Vedic civilization vastly predates the Biblical era. Nor does what I offered have anything to do with "theory of evolution" as you mentioned.

"Your credentials show no study of Christianity or the Bible, nor do you show any evidence of biblical knowledge or experience."

That statement is absolutely incorrrect and without any basis. The fact is that I have a vast knowledge of comparative religion and philosophy, far greater than your limited education and focus soley upon Biblical Christianity. But all of that is of on relative significance. Self-knowledge transcends religion and philosophy.

"Not thinking about God is the definition of denial. To deny something is to not think about it."

Not at all. I simply do not have to or need to think about "God". There is no denial involved in this at all. Is is clear that you are not familiar and do not understand this issue. Self-knowledge transcends thought.

"I am not saying that tao is a sociopath (I doubt that he is), only that the position he appears to espouse is sociopathic in character. How so? It can only be impulsive because it has transcended logic, reason, principle and consistency, which it believes to be mere words without substance."

I never said anything about transcending
"logic, reason, principle and consistency". You are putting words in my mouth again. You are intentionally misrepresenting me, and are therefore being dishonest. I do not "espouse" any such "sociopathic" position. Your deliberate distortions and fabrications regarding my statments and their meanings, is what could actually be construed as "sociopathic".

"It has transcended social norms and customs and is indifferent to the various manifestations of ego/I, to which rights and feelings are associated."

I never said anything about "social norms and customs". Nor does that have anything to do with what is in fact the nature of the ego-I.

"we all live under various authorities which do not depend upon our allowance."

There may exist such so-called "authorities"
, but that does not mean that they have any real authority over the Truth itself, over the reality of Being and Consciousness itself. These so-called "authorities" that you speak of are nothing but phenomena within the mind, manifestations of duality... and they not of reality.

"tao will attempt to escape the difficulty presented here by saying that he will allow such authority (and I suspect that he actually does)."

I "allow" no such "authority" of any kind whatsoever. There is no authority other than one's own Awareness and Being. All other apparent "authorities" are relative and conditional. The entire notion of authority as is related to religion and spirituality (and that is what we are discussing, not civil or judicial authority)is completley bogus.

"But the test ... comes when someone attempts to disallow some actual authority, to ignore the judge's summons. At that point, such a person will come to understand that there really is more to this authority issue than previously thought."

That example is all irrelevant to the issue of religion and spirituality which is what is being discussed here (see above).

"I have expressed many deep, philosophical and theological concerns -- criticisms -- of several kinds of philosophical and theological positions that have been propounded on this forum and which are manifest throughout history, to include Taoism, Buddhism, Christian Mysticism, Eastern Mysticism...

So what? Just because you criticise things (which clearly you do not understand, and about which you have no real knowledge or any actual direct experience), does not make you or what you think to be right.

"The truth of the Bible ... is found in its conformance to the reality of human experience and understanding. Biblical truth is axiomatic. ... an axiom is taken for granted as valid"

As I have already indicated, your beliefs are predicated upon as you say "axioms", which are themselves nothing but mere presumptions and beliefs.

"the only responses I have gotten have been ... nothing substantive."

That is completetly incorrect and false. There have been many intelligent and substantial responses to your domatic religious rhetoric.

"The real nub of the disagreement between me and virtually everyone on this forum is about the reliability of Bible."

Yes, but that may be only one of the disagreements.

"He (tao) simply denies the significance of the Bible and grounds his rejection on the basis of Liberal Christian scholarship."

That is utterly incorrect. I have nothiong to do with any such "Liberal Christian scholarship". Just where do you get that distorted idea? I am not a Liberal, nor a Christian, nor is my scholarship influenced by or derived from such sources. You are misrepresenting me again, which is not honest. You are nothing but a cheap fabricator of lies about who I am, where I stand, and what my actual view and realization is. You have repeatedly distorted and misrepresented my statements and their meanings.

"... he is not aware that Liberalism and Christianity are completely different religions"

Again, I have no involvement with
"Liberalism" or even anything related to it. Nor am I involved in any kind of religion in any manner. I am sannyasi and have completely renounced all such religion or political persuasions.

"My entire position is that the Bible provides a true, consistent, rational and comprehensive understanding of human origins, character and morality, and a reasonable explanation of the essential and true character of reality."

However, that position is merely nothing more than your personal opinion amd belief.

"... the Bible posits a universe that is reasonable and consistent. And that the role that Christianity plays in human history is just beginning."

I would have to really diagree with that. In fact I would say that organized religion of Christianity is actually receding and playing less and less of a role in human development and spiritual growth over-all, and for definite reasons.

In conclusion, I wonder what you think you are going to achieve here? You are not at all open to anything beyond your Biblical dogma. So why are you here? You are not ever going to convince anyone with any of the type of dogma that you have presented so far. I think the real problem with you is that you just not at all familiar with the spiritual and philosphical issues contained in the articles which are posted on this Blog. You really belong more on a Christian Blog. You apparently do not have the backgroudn to engae in meaningful or productive commentary here. You are just trying to peddle the Bible to those who have grown beyond that.

[Angela]

Tao - you said "Love is simply the nature of Being/Awareness itself."

If love is simply the nature of being / awareness itself, what on earth is murder, and stealing, and lying, and all other manners of hatred? Some kind of an outcome of this merely "being"? Of awareness? Of (God forbid) "Love"??

[Edward]

Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!

Illusion.

(am I right? am I? huh?)

[Angela]

Edward - "Surely" not.. I remember reading something about "umpteen" degrees and colleges and and years and years of study and books... Nahhhhhh. Surely not to come to "that" ridiculous conclusion. Say it isn't so.

All that would say to me is that there are too many (probably hurt and wounded) people who are reaching for any conclusion they can find to avoid the truth about a God that they're really really mad at. ;-)

:-)? Anj

[Roger]

I'm curious. With my tape rule in hand, if I measured the length of this thread, how many feet in length would it be?

[Brian]

Roger, what a great question. Firefox has a crappy print preview feature. I had to go to Internet Explorer to learn that you'd need to print out 39 pages.

Including margins, that's about 35 feet of paper. On the other hand, it took me 58 scroll bar clicks to get to the bottom. My laptop goes 6 inches a click. So that's 29 feet of computer screen.

Glad to be able to answer at least one of life's important questions.

Oh, forgot about my two-inch comment that I'm about to add. Make that 29 1/6 feet.

[Roger]

Brian;

Thanks for your reply. Your answer made my day.

I'm still trying, after 29 feet and 2 inches, to figure out that thing called, "The Mind." It has the capacity to be so closed and narrow, as well as, open and broad.

I wonder, if the answer lies somewhere around the 100 foot mark?

[tao]

To Angela:

You wrote: "If love is simply the nature of being/awareness itself, what on earth is murder, and stealing, and lying, and all other manners of hatred?"

Those things that you mentioned are all actions, events, behaviors, emotions, and appearances. What do they have to do with Beingness and Awareness? Nothing at all.

Beingness, Awareness, and Love are all only different words for the same essential thing. On the other hand, actions (either positive or negative) are superficial and transitory and either physical or mental. Actions have nothing to do with core Beingness or Awareness itself.

You also wrote: "Some kind of an outcome of this merely "being"? Of awareness? Of (God forbid) "Love"??"

No, you have completely misunderstood what was meant and referred to as Beingness and Awareness. Your Beingness is your Awareness, and vice versa. Actions are merely thoughts, words, and deeds. They come and they go. On the other hand, Being/Awareness is uncaused and continuous. Actions arise from and occur in the mind. Being/Awareness is prior to mind.

This is basic and fundamental, and I hope that you can see and understand the difference.

To Roger:

No matter how far you go, the answer will always elude you. It's like chasing your own shadow. The answer is always right where you stand, not somewhere else.

[Roger]

Tao,

Thanks for your note. "Being/Awareness is prior to mind," sounds like a topic for future comments.

[Edward]

I always remember the heading on a notepad we used to use in a printshop a couple of hundred years ago: "Being is important; being important isn't."

So here's the buddhist thing. All imperfections, cares and anxieties spring from Maya. Shankara, (seventh century AD,) calls Maya an illusion. For him it is a world which is only seen and felt in ignorance. Once knowledge dawns on someone, they no longer consider the world of the senses to be reality. It becomes like a dream, it is not essential anymore. We laugh at seeing our faces in warped mirrors, and we know that it is not us in Maya. The true person lies beyond Maya.

[Roger]

The word, "Illusion."

Did it come from:

Nonduality further says that it is only 'illusion' that causes us to view the world as real and separate from us.

[Edward]

I take it more like the movie "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is a fascinating set and setting, with extaordinarily interesting characters, but it is, alas, an illusion.

Also, "Moby Dick". Also, the nightly news show. I stop and think: am I really sitting in California waiting for a wild fire to destroy my house? No, I am on the couch, sipping Kool-Aid, nursing a paper cut.

Stories are great, dreams are wonderful, motivation and causation are intriguing, what is going on in other people's minds and souls is so much theater to me... I laugh, I cry, I sit at the edge of my seat.

And I go home, where the floor is always lava.

[Angela]

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/

[Jayme]

I am still trying to understand what this "God" thing is. In essence, it simply doesn't seem to be.

"Zeitgeist The Movie" is a couple of hours long. The first segment addresses Christianity. This guy's perspective is bound to be a bit controversial overall.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8883910961351786332

and a comment from the information source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4&feature=channel_page

Sorry if I'm being a tool of advertising but I thought these were good and pertinent.