‘Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi,. . . . the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.’

Same as ‘Brown says he “forecast the Depression ten years ago”, as we were told last week.’

Pish.

These are indeed strange times!

P.S. Read and enjoyed your book.

P.P.S. We have something in common – inability to swim and dislocatable shoulders. I last had an instance of the latter whilst receiving a BJ a couple of weeks ago. Somewhat embarrassing and mood spoiling. Though mine pops back in itself after 5-10 minutes of excruciating pain.

Someone should send the Vatican a copy of Sam Harris’s wonderful and admirably short “Letter to a Christian Nation”.

Religion and science can’t both be right. Either God exists and created the universe, or he doesn’t and didn’t. Either the earth is 4.4 billion years old (+/- 0.5 bn) or it is not.

Many scientists are also cowardly about facing up to this absolute incompatibility. How any biologist, physicist or geologist can say they believe in God is beyond me.

Thanks Craig. That made me laugh. How joyful it is to see religion treated as the obvious hogwash it is. No more sober interlocutors scratching their chins and prevaricating about rationality versus faith. Just a straight up description of its tenets as they are with the inevitable comic effect this entails. Your levity makes me smile Thanks!

ps

Just remembered this quote from Alice through the looking glass:

“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”

“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Oh ye of bugger all faith. Hahahahahaha. You’ll be eating all those words one day soon Craig Murray.

jimmykrongold.wordpress.com

[I don't expect you to believe it, by the way, but just don't forget that I sent it to you. Okay? Deal?]

John K:

“How any biologist, physicist or geologist can say they believe in God is beyond me”

I think they reconcile the two by saying that God created the universe but evolution was one of the mechanisms he put in place for life to develop. Or something like that.

I agree with you for once Craig. We need to unite against the creationists and those who are trying to discredit evolution. Darwin was a genius whose ideas are instantly understandable to most sensible people. You only have to look at the awful spectacle of Crufts to realise that species change in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways. I have a funny photograph of one of the atheist buses that I will post here if permitted.

MJ

I’m sure you’re right.

But that’s an even worse cop-out than saying “I believe in God. I don’t know why but I just do”.

There’s absolutely NO evidence for God creating evolution. You can’t even cite any religious text in support.

Dont see why the two sides have to be in such opposition, one is science one is faith. You can have both. What you cant have is the continued dogmatic approach to religion. A free mind should easly be able to place both the theory of evolution and the belief in a higher being in harmony. If a religion is written down then its about control, a belief is a much more feeing concept. You can beieve, have a faith and still grasp scientific principles. Only the closed of mind cant.

Eddie:

“You only have to look at the awful spectacle of Crufts to realise that species change in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways”

Not a good example. Dogs (along with domestic cats and domestic farm animals) are not the products of evolution but of thousands of years of deliberate cross-breeding. Creationism in a sense.

Yes but the point I am making is that species can be deliberately changed over a very short period of time (the Great Dane and the dachshund both come from the wolf) whereas evolution happens over a much longer period. What Darwin proves is that small changes can be magnified over the aeons until a new species emerges – just like breeding dogs, except that these changes happen due to environmental variations or the move into new niches. Regarding creationism, I don’t think that God would take the trouble to “create” something as horrible as the pit bull terrier! Nor would a benevolent God create that worm that eats your eyeball from the inside out. Or the mosquito.

Or Homo sapiens for that matter.

Although evolutionary theory is pretty good, it’s not quite the done deal a lot of scientists make it out to be. One major problem is that the archaeological record doesn’t seem to support it. There’s a significant minority of scientists – not all of them religious ones – who have deep misgivings about evolution on purely scientific grounds.

Home Sapiens most of all! The world would be a quieter place without us.

I asume you are referring to the so-called “link” species like archaeopteryx that conect the dinosaurs to the birds etc. As I understand it, this is one of the key challenges made by creationists – i.e. if we all evolved from apes or beetles where are the transitionary species in the fossil record? The fact is that they exist, but fossils are incredibly rare in comparison to the number of creatures that have ever lived. Thinking rationally, I cannot believe that any other theory comes close to Darwin. The notion of a creator is just beyond imagination. (You mean palaeontology not archaeology).

If the Romans had the equivalent of the CSA, then Mary might have had a different story, and got Joseph nailed instead.

Actually I am a bit of a Deist myself – it all had to start somewhere. But the notion that whoever created the incovecivable (to us) expanse of the universe zeroed in on this tiny bit of a speck, and within that tiny bit of a speck had an especial care for the temporary membrane over the vagina of a particular female homo sapiens in Palestine, seems so silly it is hard to believe anyone can take it seriously.

Don’t confuse Creationism with Christianity.

craig at February 12, 2009 10:54 PM:

Yeah sounds nuts doesn’t it. Who would have thunk it. Who would have thunk it indeed.

This is getting tiresome. Richard Dawkins’ followers are on a tedious crusade.

First, the list of atheists who have massacred innocent civilians is long, and they include Hitler, who used eugenics, which is founded in so-called Darwinism, to exterminate millions of people. So, should I now proudly proclaim – as Dawkins does over religion – that learning about genetics will lead to evil and more people dying?

Dawkins has an agenda: to convert as many people as he can to atheism. He claims the 9/11 attackers were Islamic lunatics who thought they’d go to Heaven for what they did – how does he know this? This is highly unscientific reasoning by Dawkins, but it’s what I expect from someone who is trying to discredit religion at every turn.

Religion is NOT the same as the notion of some kind of creator, and that does not mean a “God” sitting on “His” thrown watching over his creation. It leaves COMPLETELY UNSPECIFIED what this creator could be. For example, if there is a creator – and nothing can exist without it – then the universe is part of the creator – not separate from it – as religions state. It would mean that the creator is us, and we are the creator.

How is it the height of rationality to believe the universe – or whatever mechanism created it – popped into existence one day for no particular reason, and we are just dead lumps of matter, consciousness being a mere illusion?

Physicists are now pondering what gives particles mass. But eventually, you have to ponder what gives those particles an existence, a reality.

According to atheists, nothing does – it all happens by magic, by some kind of miracle of NOTHINGNESS!

Before the atheists on here attack me for being ignorant of science, and claim that consciousness is now as good as explained, let me quote Joseph Levin from his book “Purple Haze” (Levin is an atheist, a materialist):

“I’m sure materialism must be true, though for the life of me I don’t see how.”

That’s it – the idea that consciousness can be explained by physicalism is a mere BELIEF, a HYPOTHESIS, and, at worst, a RELIGION. Science is as clueless about consciousness as it has always been. Perhaps that’s because consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon, whereas everything science has explained to date has been physical.

For some of the latest research into consciousness, read Semir Zeki, Professor of Neurobiology at University College London.

Some of his research papers can be read at vislab dot ucl dot ac dot uk. Click on “Papers”, then type “consciousness” as the search term in the “title” box. The papers that come up are:

. The Disunity of Consciousness

. Toward a Theory of Visual

Consciousness

. The Asynchrony of Consciousness

. Parallel Processing, Asynchronous

Perception, and a Distributed System

of Consciousness in Vision.

. The Motion Vision of the Blind and

the Modularity of Consciousness.

I’ve read all these papers and more besides, and despite Zeki’s claim in 1980/81 that consciousness should be amenable to a physical explanation, nearly 30 years on, he has failed to explain it.

As for Richard Dawkins’ notion that mankind will have eternal peace if only we imagine there’s no Heaven – after all, it’s easy if you try – and no hell below us – above us only sky – is so much child-like nonsense.

Corporate globalization, anyone? American and British foreign policy?

If you want to get rid of the notion of some kind of creator, you are going to have to either explain or destroy consciousness.

Creationism = tosh.

Evolution = tosh.

The first is largely the result of a right cerebral hemisphere imbalance, the latter an imbalance of the left. Curious though, how rejection of the latter brings forth the more strident calls of ‘heresy’ these days.

Mr Dawkins is more than welcome to put his faith in the theories of inbred, elitist eugenicists such as the Darwins. Similarly, those who take an entirely literal view of the book of Genesis are welcome to their fly-in-the-face-of-the-facts interpretation of that book.

Personally, I’ve found it far more satisfying to reject both imbalances and be brutally honest about this universe’s origins, that is: I don’t know.

I don’t know – and what’s more, the state of flux that this viewpoint engenders makes a balanced mind infinitely more possible. Ignorance certainly isn’t bliss, but even worse is a certitude born of mental illness.

Those that want to push the atheist agenda never mention religious people like those that own the site www dot preda dot org. These individuals help street children and exploited women in the Philippines. In the Philippines, some street children are gunned down, and die in a pool of their own blood.

These are religious people, but they are not lunatics.

I once went abroad to help some street kids, and I was surprised that most of the volunteers were Christians. I felt somewhat out of place, as I’m agnostic.

“Darwinism” is no panacea for human nature. For example, the Conservatives distorted what Richard Dawkins wrote in his book, “The Selfish Gene”, to promote a selfish society, a society where we all fend for ourselves and care for no one outside our family and close circle of friends. “Survival of the fittest” is another right-wing corruption of evolution. It’s actually survival of the best adapted to one’s NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

Evolution no longer applies to humans, anyway, as we have created an artificial environment, one that is the work of our imagination NOT of nature.

We didn’t evolve to serve economies, corporations, or other humans.

-

In response to Frank’s comment: “Personally, I’ve found it far more satisfying to reject both imbalances and be brutally honest about this universe’s origins, that is: I don’t know.” – yes, I don’t know either. I sometimes swing wildly between a strong feeling that I AM, MOST DEFINITELY, real, not just a lump of matter – which means there’s more to this universe than meets the eye – to there’s nothing at all, evolution must be right, and that’s why the world is such a Hell.

Other John at February 14, 2009 2:53 AM:

“We didn’t evolve to serve economies, corporations, or other humans.”

Well said. Oh, you mean something like slavery when talking about not evolving to serve other humans, right?

Strewth. I can’t believe what I’m hearing here. You may laugh at religion if you wish – I know most of you here are intelligent people and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve all openly and honestly researched with issue, but to believe in science absolute makes me shudder.

Say God ‘exists’ (personally I’d say god is beyond ‘existence’ or anything we can possibly perceive) then how can science possibly characterise the thing that created it? I’m tired of people promoting science for what it isn’t, most often because of their own inability to think past the confines of their own mind. There are many scientists across the whole planet, who see no conflict with science and God. Yes that’s right folks, science isn’t the perverse of whitey, despite whatever quazi-imperial grappling hooks linger in the mind. In fact, many believing scientists gain tremendous affinity for God by studying His physical creation reveals the wonders of the physical universe.

It is saddening that some can’t see past, or don’t want to see past the deliberate corruptions and distortions that have become ‘religionised’.

So what do you guys mean by Darwinism? It has become many things to many people. Do you mean that species can change over time? or that species spring forth from other species? That man used to be an ape? That life magically sprang up from nowhere?

If you believe anything other than the first, which obviously no monotheist will deny (From Adam we now have Chinese, African, European, Aborigine) then you are exhibiting your own religious faith because there isn’t one single fact that proves any of the latter cases. Unless of course you know better.

As for proving God exists, John K et al, I implore you to study the Qur’an. If you or anyone studies it sincerely and rejects it then fair enough ?” at least you enquired honourably. But I feel truth is actually subjective. My demand for truths is met by the Qur’an.

(Not sure LWTC247 will like this post, but bear in mind I’m agnostic )

MATT COSTIGAN wrote: “Oh, you mean something like slavery when talking about not evolving to serve other humans, right?”

Well, just generally. In the wild, animals ARE subjected to the will of more dominant individuals in their group without being slaves, but humans have taken this to the extreme. It’s not something that’s done for survival purposes anymore, it’s become a culture, a way of life. The way we are regimented – those in sweat shops experience the worst of that – and the way we are now being forced to ruthlessly compete against each other intellectually – most jobs today are service sector work to meet the needs of our “de-industrialized” economy – we must all move up the “Value Added” chain, become innovative, imaginative, even if we are not up to it. And a lot of us aren’t up to it because our brains evolved to facilitate our survival in a community, and to make things – hence our opposing thumbs! – NOT to incessantly compete against each other intellectually in an economy that shuns the physical (the implosion of the financial sector has shown us what a “de-industrialized” economy is built upon – bubbles!)

Our brains are no longer being used for survival purposes – instead, we must outwit, or outperform, each other in the workplace in order to create new products and services. Our status in society is then earned by how successful our abstract reasoning – or manipulation skills, in the case of a salesperson or manager – have been, along with how well we subordinate ourselves to certain individuals and their beliefs.

Evolution is about the survival of a species NOT an individual. That’s how new species arise. Genes only care about the survival chances of an individual, true, but, equally, that means they aren’t selected for their ability to consciously destroy other individuals of the same species. Individuals have to function in a community, as do their offspring, and being helpful and cooperative are good attributes to have, NOT bad ones (even at the level of the gene, this has now been discovered to be true: the genes that survive from one generation to the next are NOT those that create the fittest individuals, but those that work well with other genes in the gene pool – in other words, a “superior” gene (human!) is ejected from the pool if it is merely out for itself). But the human species, now living in an artificial environment, has become pathological – it is now increasingly about the survival of the individual AT THE EXPENSE of others in the community – there’s almost a certain pride in trampling all over others, in humiliating them, especially in politics.

We no longer live in a close-knit societies, we have become increasingly isolated from each other, allowing those at the top to indulge their appallingly bad survival instincts and treat the rest of us with contempt. In the wild, they wouldn’t last two seconds – others of our species would kill them!

-

That’s my interpretation, anyway, from an evolutionary perspective. But I believe consciousness is also a very important factor in regulating human behaviour. Evolution can’t explain genuine altruism, for example. Altruistic acts should be explainable from the point of view of “selfish” genes – which means, why risk your life trying to save someone unrelated to you? The reason: we are conscious, and we assume the other person is also conscious – so seeing them suffer is an unpleasant experience, and we are motivated to do something. That’s my explanation, anyway, for why genuine altruism can exist when evolution says it can’t.

Also, evolution cannot explain how genes create our personality, control our behaviour, or imbue us with consciousness. A lot is left unexplained – all the really hard stuff, in fact!

ltwc247

Actually, I HAVE read the Quar’an from cover to cover (in translation, since I don’t have Arabic) and been interested its origins and development since I was a boy, including reading a fair amount about how it came to be put together and what was left out – just as the New Testament leaves out a lot that the compilers found inconvenient and includes a lot that is very doubtful and inconsistent.

The idea that any religious text, be it the Qur’an, the Bible or whatever “proves” God exists, or that it is the unedited word of God, is factually and theologically untenable. The Qur’an is also historically unviable as a single coherent text dictated by the Prophet, who was almost certainly not literate. As you will know, the text we rely on was compiled and edited over a period of many years by a committee under Uthman, starting over a decade after the Prophet’s death. The San’a manuscripts also put great doubt on the assertion that it is the unedited original text.

More generally, I don’t doubt the sincerity of believers, just their willingness to be objective about evidence.

It also saddens me that religions use and misuse their sacred texts to tell us what we can and can’t do. There is for instance nothing in the Qur’an that says women must cover their face and/or hair; this stricture is just the product of patriarchal society deliberately misinterpreting it for its own ends. Ditto alcohol, which is not even mentioned in the Qur’an, despite being an Arabic word (al-khol, the black powder) – the text only refers to “intoxicants” and does not say they are Haram, just that they should be avoided.

I could go on, but won’t…

John K, same for apostasy. I read that the Islamic bible says nothing about punishing those that renounce their religion

Oh Other John I agree with you. I don’t have a problem with competition per se but this economic system is truly sick. If it wasn’t so sick I’d be all for a bit of healthy competition. So, as a rule, I have my doubts about anyone who is a ‘success’ in this world. You can not possibly be uncorrupted by it and the more you try and ‘win’ the sicker you become. Is it any wonder we’re miserable. So confused. I liked your bit on genuine altruism. Did you know that the anti-Christ himself, Adam Smith, wrote a book called ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’? He writes about exactly that sort of thing. How one’s own happiness depends on and is affected by the happiness of others. But, conveniently for some, it is his ‘Wealth of Nations’ and that stupid bloody ‘invisible hand’ that gets all the attention. But I reckon even that has been twisted and perverted. I actually don’t think Smith was a free market fundamentalist himself. Apparently after he wrote W of N he worked in customs for the Scottish government so clearly he believed in some sort of government regulation / taxation etc to put the brakes on unrestrained profiteering. From what I understand he was a perfectly decent human. I reckon he’d be turning in his grave. Anyway, that’s off the topic a bit but … oh well.

Oh but, finally, I liked this from lwtc247:

“In fact, many believing scientists gain tremendous affinity for God by studying His physical creation reveals the wonders of the physical universe.”

It really is incomprehensible when you think about it.

OK John. You read “it” well done. You reject it? OK. you have made a more informed decision than many others, and your choice is acknowledged. Craig’s post was about God in general and I chipped in from my angle of it, and I’m not going to pursue this single line of monotheism further by my own accord, but from what you said, I can’t just let is pass however without saying this.

1) Any translation of the Quran, is, are virtually any Arabic speaking scholar well tell you, praiseworthy efforts in themselves, but are poor reflections as the original Arabic verses, due to the subtleties and complexities of Arabic in general. You can get a glimpse of this by watching the Google video of a lecture by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. YouTube “The Qur’an & The Modern Science – Dr. Maurice Bucaille”

Relying on those translations is like looking at a Rembrandt in pixels.

The original Yusuf Ali commentary does a good job in attempting to bridge that gap, but appreciation and comprehension of that is beyond the level capable of a boy. Even experts in Arabic still uncover the glory of the Quran today.

2) As for your history of the Qur’an, I don’t know where you are getting your information from but it is grossly distorting at best, simply false at worst:

The Qur’an was revealed over a 22 year span of the prophets(saw) life, was codified and verified there and then. It was also memorised. The Qur’an was arranged (in order) by Muhammad(saw) during his life, and rechecked before his death. the codifications was on numerous materials. After the death of the prophet, Abu Bakar ordered it be collected in sheets. In addition to the companions and hundreds of followers memorised it verbatim. Usman used the Abu Bakar codification to purge the unverified codifications. These were not “inconveniencies” but inaccurate writings of the revelations.

I could go on also, replying to just about everything else you say. But I’m tired of seeing the same old misrepresentations, misunderstandings and incomprehension’s resurfacing which have been dealt with many times before. I really think you should discuss your perceptions with an Islamic scholar. It may improve your position.

I did mention study in context of sincerity. That involves being able to spot the MEMRIesque myths and distortions, and avoiding them.

Correct me if I’m wrong, lwtc247, but Muslims believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that Mohammed was a Prophet of God. But they take Mohammed’s word over Jesus’ simply because his teachings are more recent. Seems a bit disrespectful to God to me. I mean, surely God’s one and only Son has more authority than a Prophet. And then Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a Muslim and help spread Islam – the religion that disrespected him – throughout the world. It just doesn’t add up to me. Am I wrong?

Correct me if I’m wrong, lwtc247, but Muslims believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that Mohammed was a Prophet of God. But they take Mohammed’s word over Jesus’ simply because his teachings are more recent. Seems a bit disrespectful to God to me. I mean, surely God’s one and only Son has more authority than a Prophet. And then Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a Muslim and help spread Islam – the religion that disrespected Him – throughout the world. In other words, to conquer CHRISTianity – the religion named after Jesus Himself in which Jesus is the central figure! It just doesn’t add up to me. Am I wrong?

Oops. Sorry ’bout the double up. Had some computer troubles.

@ Matt.

Actually Muslims pay tremendous respect to Jesus. Muslims and Christians differ essentially in who Jesus was. Islamic teaching shows him as a prophet, not a deity. Muslims, like Christians, believe Jesus will return to us. Jesus, when he eventually dies after his return, will be buried next to Muhammad(saw) in Mecca.

Jesus like all prophets before him, preached the same monotheism as those before him, E.g. King David and Solomon, Moses, Abraham, Jacob(alternatively called Israel) and Mohammaed. I think Muslims call Jesus’s revelations the Injiil, but we have no record or it, or no guarantee of its freedom from corruption – unlike the Qur’an which is protected.

You may like to watch this:

The Muslim Jesus (Melvin Brag hosting it I think) video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5664653194971017112 45m in total

and

An Islamic view of the return of Jesus (pbuh) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO0XSD7E_QA ab (3 parts = approx 60 total)

Muslims believe in the Virgin birth. There is no ‘Joseph’ figure in the story of Mary, who was a pious girl brought up by Rabbi’s in the temple. Muslims also believe Jesus wasn’t crucified was raised into the heavens and only made to appear as though he had been crucified.

Thanks for those links lwtc247. Unfortunately I have a really old and crappy computer [and no idea how to upgrade it] so I can’t watch those videos at the moment. But I’ll try at some stage.

I’m no expert on Islam [or Christianity for that matter] but I do like to learn and I am always on the lookout for information.

You write that ‘Muslims pay tremendous respect to Jesus’ but then you go and say that ‘Islamic teaching shows him as a prophet’. So you have immediately downgraded the Son of God to a Prophet. That’s disrespectful to a Christian no matter what way you look at it. And if Christians are correct and he was indeed the Son of God then, it follows, that it is disrespectful to Him, that He is highly unlikely to return as a Muslim, and that there is, therefore, absolutely no chance of Him being buried in Mecca.

Anyway, what reading I have done has informed me that Muslims believe that Jesus will return and fight a great battle with the one-eyed anti-Christ [al-Dajill or something like that] which he will win, thus giving victory in the battle of good versus evil to Islam. Doesn’t sound like the sort of thing that would be left to a mere Prophet. But that’s beside the point. I think we can both agree that Jesus abhors violence and would not make a particularly good military leader. ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’ after all. Is Mohammed due to return also?

We do indeed have a record of Jesus’ ‘revelations’. It’s called the Bible. But how and why is the Qur’an ‘protected’ from ‘corruption’ and the Bible not? That’s bordering on an insult.

Your last sentence was curious. I can’t for the life of me work out why on earth Jesus would not be crucified and then made to look like He was crucified. Can you enlighten me?

Matt. I can’t change the Islamic view of Jesus and the view of Jesus as prophet isn’t MEANT to be offensive.

The Rabbinical writings on Jesus however are deliberately cursive of Jesus, as they are to his mother Mary.

To a Muslim, calling Jesus a Deity is offensive, but the fact that MC&J’s believe in The One God, God The Creator, means we have long ago acknowledged the differences between our beliefs and tolerate it. there is nothing more important than belief in The One God.

If the Christians can ignore what the elevated Rabbis said about him and his chaste mother, you can see the Christians are going to be far less upset at the Islamic view of Jesus.

Jesus was a Muslim as were all prophets, because a Muslims is simply one who submits himself to God. Today’s Muslims primarily bear racial and cultural hallmarks and is probably what you are thinking of as being a Muslim. The identity of a Muslim is in the heart and mind not in the outward appearance.

Islamic teaching says the Prophet Muhammad(saw) said Jesus “would be buried next to me” I don’t think anyone is going to move the body of Muhammad(saw) to Jerusalem or Hebron or whatever, and to a Muslim, if you believe the Islamic prophet, there is little point in debating it.

I think I’m right in saying if MC&J’s embrace Jesus next time around, there will no longer be any differences between believers as Jesus will spell out clearly what is right and what is wrong. No believer will or can challenge that.

The Imam Mehdi from Mecca will be spearheading the Army against the Antichrist. Jesus will descend from the heavens to aid the Mehdi near to the Holy Land.

The Antichrist is not really a human being. Killing him is a gift to human kind. But the history of the Prophets show killing under divine decree was permitted to them. Read the wiki entry on Moses and Joshua.

Try and get a new computer Matt – 2nd hand ones even – there pretty cheap these days and there so many great documentaries and mind food things out there – yes a lot of crap too, but switch on your human filter.

Mohammed(saw) will not return. Only Jesus. I think the NT Bible books are 3rd party accounts of Jesus, e.g the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John… Thessalonians.. Revelations. etc. (sorry my NT knowledge is rusty these days) and even then, the Council of Nicaea may have done to the gospels what John K said of the Qur’an earlier in terms of ‘convenience’ for want of a better word. Christian scholars acknowledge these books were written after Jesus’ death.

I’m referring to what I think is a ‘book’ from God to Jesus in relation to his prophet hood. None of this is meant to be insulting.

Why did it appear he was crucified? I’m not sure. A rough guess is to cement the case against those who opposed and oppressed Jesus, but I’m not sure if we are told why. I’ll have to look it up. It may even be on one of those videos.

Interesting Q’s you have. Strange that it’s taking place here. Hope it’s OK with Craig.

Yeah, lwtc247, it is a bit strange it’s taking place here. Hahaha. Who would have thought it, hey. I don’t think Craig will mind but if he does he can always click the delete button. And isn’t this the way to resolve [or perhaps 'understand' would be a better word to use] our differences?

I’m spewing that you can’t tell me more about the mysterious non-crucifixtion. I’m quite sure that it did actually happen. He had to show that He was prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice for humankind. And, of course, according to the Bible, he was taunted while on the Cross to get his Father to bring him down. But it didn’t happen. He didn’t do it.

By the way, I never used the word offensive. I just said that a Christian would find the Islam’s view of Jesus to be disrespectful. Although I suppose that could be offensive. It doesn’t offend me, though. I just think you’re wrong.

You referred to the Rabbinical writings on Jesus. Well, I don’t think the Jews think very much of that Man. They were the ones that crucified Him, after all. And today they don’t bother with Christmas or Easter. I suspect that Rabbinical writings play down His significance. They wouldn’t want to be accused of Deicide, after all. Could be wrong but … oh well.

Jesus was not a Muslim. You are wrong.

The Prophet Mohammed may have said that Jesus will be buried next to him but I just don’t believe that Jesus will come back as a Muslim. It just doesn’t make any sense for reasons outlined earlier. It’s not that I don’t believe Mohammed, I just think that he’s wrong. And it would appear that we are indeed ‘debating’ it.

Because I reckon Jesus will come back as a CHRISTian I wouldn’t be surprised if he wound up some place like Colombia. It’s an oppressed Third World country and, as far as I’m aware, it was the last Christian nation to seperate the Church from the state. I’ve been there. Religion is ever present. It’s also a Catholic country and it makes sense to me that Jesus would come out of the largest religious denomination in the world today. But that’s just speculation. Or is it ….. jiji.

I like what you say about Muslims, Jews and Christians embracing Him next time around. I also believe that He will spell out what is right and wrong. But I don’t know about the Jews embracing Him, though. They have that track record of killing Him, after all. I reckon He might be a bit pissed off about that. And what they’re doing in Palestine at the moment.

It’s interesting you mention the Iman Mehdi and his army because Muqtada Al-Sadr’s army in Iraq was called the Mahdi Army wasn’t it. And ‘president’ Bush certainly fits the criteria for an anti-Christ figure to an extent. He’s certainly the antithesis of Jesus. Born into wealth and privilege, not very hard working, pretty f**kin’ stupid, loves violence, lies etc. etc.. The only thing is that he was not popular. Although after 9/11 he was so maybe he fits that criteria too. I really really do hate America for allowing that man to do what he has done. That’s not very Jesus-like of me is it! Haha. But Jesus did get angry, so maybe it is. Anyway, at the end of the day, Jesus didn’t ‘descend from the heavens’ but Sadr’s army did kinda just melt away which I thought was a little curious. Last I heard he was in Iran. Have you got an update? I quite liked him. And some people think that what with the world economy imploding under the weight of it’s own greed, climate change and the rise of Barack Obama we are indeed entering the End Times. What do you think? Time frame suits too. Y’know, start of the new millenium and all that.

Oh, look, thank you very little for the advice about new computers and human filters and all that but you have no idea what my circumstances are at present and if anyone’s ‘human filter’ is switched on it is mine. But ta for the thought.

I didn’t really understand what you were trying to say about the New Testament etc.. Was it that the Bible is inaccurate because it was written after Jesus’ death? John K reckons that the Qur’an was too [after Mohammed's death that is]. I actually find the Bible a bit hard to understand. The language is pretty old after all. But I get the important bits. Y’know … the gist.

You say that killing was permitted to the Prophets under divine decree. Jesus didn’t kill anyone and, as far as I’m aware, He never called for anyone TO be killed. Quite the opposite, actually. That’s why I think He is a better role model than Mohammed who was also a warrior. Right? Much as I like a good warrior. Like Julius Caesar or Achilles.

I sort of agree that there is nothing more important than a belief in one God. I just think that when Jesus returns he will want to be amongst those who believe in Him the most. Those that afford him the most respect. But now we’re getting back into Son of God versus Prophet territory. Oh, and I’m a golfer so I curse the Golfing Gods regularly. All of them!!! hahaha. Is that blasphemy?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Oh, lwtc247, I just went back and noticed that you explained how the Qur’an was put together … umm … live [so to speak]. Thanks for that. I still don’t believe that that in itself necessarily makes it better than the Bible. By the way, why do you put this – ‘(saw)’ – in every time you mention Mohammed?

In reponse to MATT COSTIGAN’s post: I also dislike theories about how human happiness can be achieved, and how economies can be run, because anything involving humans is not a science. And that’s because we know so little about the human mind and what drives and controls our behaviour. Therefore, any economic theory (e.g. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”) has to be extremely accommodating to humans, and not at all dogmatic.

Also, I wasn’t implying competition is bad. But it’s becoming all there is to life, that whoever remains standing at the end of each bout of “competition” is considered the “superior” being – the winner in an ongoing evolutionary struggle. This is what many top politicians believe – that they are where they are because of their “superior” genes, and, therefore, have a right to become parasites and grind us down. As I said, this isn’t evolution at all – it’s a grotesque distortion!

Fans of “Darwinism” also distort reality, by ignoring consciousness. According to the theory of natural selection, our genes determine what we are. In effect, we are zombies, obeying a biological program, whose instructions are the four letters: A, C, T, and G. Is this really the case, though? Do we observe our actions, but, like in a dream, cannot control them? Surely how we feel, what we think, affects our behaviour? Well, research bears out the latter case. Certain emotions are strongly linked to the reasoning and problem solving areas of the brain. In other words, emotions serve a purpose, and as emotions are part of consciousness, it means mental states and mental events DO alter our behaviour.

To give an example: you tell a meat eater about how animals are factory farmed. The meat eater experiences some emotions. Eventually, the emotions get resolved, and, despite being genetically programmed to eat meat, the meat eater becomes a vegetarian. An increased level of consciousness – or awareness – has overridden this person’s supposed genetic predisposition.

Therefore, how we behave is NOT written in stone – or contained in a theory – as evolutionists claim.

In fact, according to evolution, most males should be capable of killing an animal without any feeling – as males were, historically, the hunters – but that isn’t the case. I saw a TV program a few years back in which adults encouraged a group of children to kill a live chicken – it all smacked of the adults trying to indoctrinate children with evolution – evolution says you should be capable of killing a live chicken, so you will damn well kill one! There’s a famous celebrity chef who swears a lot, and likes to call people “simple minded”, who is also encouraging children – although, his, this time – to see the slaughter of animals as perfectly natural. So, you have to wonder how much is evolution and how much is culture?

As for atheism: atheists believe we are no different to stones, albeit with a more complex internal structure. But what about consciousness? Well, as it’s not a physical phenomenon, it’s an embarrassment to talk about, so it’s ignored – atheists pretend consciousness doesn’t exist!

How do you make a stone feel pain? No matter how much you “tinker” with its internal structure, the stone remains an insensate lump of matter. How do you get it to feel pain? And what is pain? Atheists seem to know. Like religious people, they have all the answers. So, I’d like to hear them, NOT THEIR BELIEFS!

But you see how clever atheists are. They get everyone arguing about religion, going round and round in circles, and then concluding that religion is a story, ergo there cannot be a creator – when we are dead, WE ARE DEAD! A creator is not the same as “God” or religion. Atheists are playing politics, THEY ARE NOT discussing science.

In any case, we were all dead for roughly 14 billion years, and then woke up on planet Earth. Who’s to say when we die, we won’t wake up again – somewhere else! You can interpret this statement “religiously” or scientifically, as takes your fancy.

I wrote: “…kill a live chicken…” – you can hardly kill a dead one! I think I wrote “live” to emphasize the unpleasantness of it.

Other John:

You might not be able to kill a dead chicken but one can certainly beat a dead horse! I think we can all relate to that. Especially these blokes – medialens.org. Anyway, here’s something I lifted from my blog that you might like:

Capitalism and ‘Freedom’

That was the name of Milton Friedman’s ‘seminal’ work published about 50 years ago. Milton Friedman is truly stupid and his influence has caused enormous damage throughout the entire globe. He’s dead now. And that’s a good thing. I suspect he is in Hell. That’s where I’d put him if I were God. I’ve done a bit of research into Friedman and it is my understanding that he spent virtually his entire career as an academic type. He also did a bit of high level consulting but he never really had his hands on the levers. He worked with theories and equations. And he was so stupid that he didn’t realise that a human being is not a theoretical equation. Alan Greenspan is another severely misguided soul but he actually spent his ENTIRE career working directly with business and, of course, as head of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan made a mistake. Pretty fucking big one, but a mistake nonetheless. I can work with that. And he plays the sax. I love the sax. I rate it right up there next to the electric guitar. Oh, and he had the sense not to fall for that other

“Best wishes and peace to all,”

You leaving the forum, Matt, or just bringing the discussion to a close? OK, I’ll make my closing remarks.

Two words: class war. That’s what really underlies all this. We are turned into equations because our lives don’t matter.

Anyway, criminals need an alibi in case they are caught, and that’s what all these theories add up to – an alibi for the poltical and business “elite”. Cheap Chinese labour is being used NOT because some complex economic theory says we need to become a service sector economy to survive, but because highly paid CEOs need very profitable companies to justify their remuneration.

Two books worth looking at:

“Progress Without People” by David F. Noble, written for the layman (layperson?), and “Forces of Production – A Social History of Industrial Automation”, written for the specialist, but still a very good read – although not to everyone’s taste (don’t say I didn’t warn you!).

Oh I’m not leaving the forum Other John. No way. I love this shit. I wish lwtc247 was hadn’t left. Maybe it was ‘cos I kept telling him that he was wrong. You are dead right about it being a class war. And the elite / corporate class hold all the power. Well, pretty much. That’s why I love those guys over at medialens.org so much. That’s how we’re gonna overthrow these c**nts. The internet. The problem is that they do truly and honestly think that they are doing the right thing. Easy for you to come to that conclusion though, mate, ‘cos you’ve got a pretty f**kin’ nice life.

Anyway, thanks for the book recommendations. I’ll try and check ‘em out. Here’s one for you:

‘Eat the Rich’ by P.J. O’Rourke. Now this O’Rourke character’s a strange one. He’s one of those liberterians, pro free trade, Milton Friedman, Cato Institute etc. so you would think I wouldn’t have much time for him. But anyone who has written a book called ‘Parliament of Whores’ [hahahahahahaha] can’t be all bad hey. Anyway, it’s a ‘treatise on economics’ and at the same time a sort of travelogue. And it’s bloody funny. Especially the chapters on Albania and Cuba.

(Arrrg! I’ve made another long post!)

>Oh I’m not leaving the forum Other

>John. No way. I love this shit.

I wish I did. I become someone I don’t want to be when I immerse myself too much in politics. I hate this stuff.

“Forces of Production” by David F. Noble, however, is about the history of automation in the U.S., and how managers automated work even when it was unnecessary – as they wanted to maintain and increase their control over workers. A lot of the book is about the development of automated metal working machines, though, so it’s not your typical political book. Read the reviews on amazon.com, U.S. site.

I know about medialens.org; haven’t heard the book you mentioned.

I don’t think the Internet is changing things, maybe making a few people more aware, but that alone isn’t going to make a jot of difference.

The government is planning on spending $12 billion of OUR money on constructing a centralized database on all our online activity, allowing it to pry into our private lives in unprecedented detail – and where are the protests? There were protests in Germany, and in France. The French wouldn’t even tolerate a database on just their politicians’ online activities, let alone their entire population. So, the British are the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD – except for the Chinese (but they live in a dictatorship) – who are allowing the people in government, local councils, police, etc., to see what they do online without a court order or oversight. I spoke to one ISP that keeps a record of the sites its users visit (now mandatory under EU law, I think), and they said they had refused a number of police requests because they were trivial.

Once the people in government have their centralized database AT OUR EXPENSE, they will be able access this data 24/7 without asking anyone. The assurances of ministers are not worth spit.

In my previous post, I should have said that, even as we are being told manufacturing is passe, the new service sector economy is becoming outmoded, too. There are just too many jobs that the British won’t, or can’t, do, we are told.

Having been out-competed by the Chinese in manufacturing, we will soon be out-competed by non-British workers in many service sector jobs – even formerly well-paid ones like programming (in a BusinessWeek article, after reading the letters from his anxious employees, the chief executive of a software firm said that their anxiety has only fuelled his conviction that sending jobs abroad is the right thing to do).

Google “Revealed: Amazon staff punished for being ill” and “timesonline” for an article about how Amazon treats workers in Britain. The response from Amazon did not address the points raised in the article: low paid work, poor working conditions, billions in profits.

The stock retort that the British refuse to do such badly paid work seems to be belied by what Amazon said – they said people are desperate to work for them, and all their warehouse jobs get filled – many, however, by Polish workers. And there seem to be quite a few Polish workers in Britain. I spoke to someone on the Internet who said, at the firm he works at, there are many Polish workers, being paid low wages, and working very hard – even during their lunch breaks – believing this will lead to promotion and a good salary.

Before anyone accuses me of being a BNP supporter, my father’s side of the family were from Poland.

The BBC, in response to another round of layoffs, quoted a farmer, who said there are plenty of jobs for the lazy British to do – picking fruit!

Well, is seasonal work that pays barely above minimum wage suitable for someone who has to bring up a family? And what if you don’t live near these farms or have a car?

So this is our future according to the BBC: we do seasonal work if we can get it, paying marginally above minimum wage, and then we go on the dole until we can find other seasonal work. But once the Tories win power, you won’t be able to claim more than 24 months’ of unemployment benefit in your entire life, so after exhausting that avenue, you will have to live on the streets or kill yourself in desperation.

In effect, any job you get will pay far less than minimum wage – maybe £2 an hour – because you’ll need to save as much as possible to avoid – or stave off for as long as possible – the very real possibility of ending up homeless.

Meanwhile, educational standards continue to slip, even as an increased proportion of the population attends “university” (in quotation marks as many are NOT real universities – polytechnics, for example, are now also called universities). So, more and more people are being fooled into thinking they possess outstanding intelligence – and, hence, what I’ve been talking about isn’t going to apply to them.

Finally, you mentioned, a ‘Parliament of Whores’. We need Oliver Cromwell brought back to life, so that he can, once again, disband parliament – hang those pompous, self-seeking profiteers, out to dry – and run the government temporarily on our behalf until we can find a more honest group of individuals.

correction: not $12 billion – £12 billion – I read too many U.S. articles!

Just to add, the £12 billion database the government is going to construct so that it can watch everything we do online – type in our names and inspect our records, then monitor our communications in real time if it so wishes – is already having consequences. One person said he is no longer going to post comments on forums like this because he doesn’t want a knock on the door at 4am by the police.

I just can’t believe Britain is becoming such a surveillance state, an open prison – CCTVs everywhere, barriers everywhere – and the public are doing nothing to stop it. The tabloids have made everyone fear everyone else – we are all potential terrorists, rapists, thieves, and murderers now. ID cards must be carried at all times, cameras trained on anyone who doesn’t behave in the correct manner (software has been developed that can automatically identify and train cameras on anyone who doesn’t match a set pattern of behaviour).

I really don’t want to live in this country any longer. I just hope to God a project I’m working on pays off, so I can leave, and forget the UK.

Labour are evil. The Tories are evil. The Liberal Democrats are evil. They are all in bed with the corporations.

Britain is becoming another China. Our only freedom is what job we do. But we won’t even have that freedom if a number of loony psychologists get their way.