Concepts of God and Religion

[SarahM32]

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Concepts of God and Religion, and The Nature of God


Introduction

It is no wonder that there raging conflicts over the name and nature of God, over “God’s will,” over religion, over religious prophecies, and over whether God even exists or not.

It’s no wonder because most people do not understand the real nature of God, or the true purpose of religion, and that is especially true of all those on the extreme opposite sides of the conflict and argument — Atheists who don’t believe in God, and Theocrats who want to rule “in the name of God.”

Therefore, what is needed is a rational, reasonable analysis distinguishing between competing concepts of God and religion, and the true nature of God.

In many of the Judeo-Christian traditions, which must be addressed because they are the most widespread and widely followed, the concept of God is as an almighty superman magician who is the creator of all that is, who makes everything happen. And he is often depicted as a man with a long beard — an image reminiscent of how Zeus from Greek mythology is depicted.

However, even though one can reach the conclusion that God is an Almighty Superman by reading the texts of Judaism and Christianity, in which the Lord God Jehovah is referred to as “He” and “Him” and Jesus of Nazareth is quoted as calling God “our Father in heaven,” there is ample evidence in the texts of both Judaism and Christianity that contradicts that idea, and reveals that God is not a man, nor a son of man.

(Continued at Concepts of God and Religion, and The Nature of God)

[trotsky]

1. Insulting and pathetic.

Atheists who simply don't believe in god are the "extreme opposite" of theocrats?

[patrice]

2. I like most of this. Do you have some sources for the Einstein quotes?

Furthermore, it should be noted that Einstein did not believe in a “Superman” God. He said: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists." (Spinoza was one of the initiators of “The Enlightenment” period mentioned earlier.) In fact, Einstein stated: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves.”

Einstein further said: “Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." He said human beings can feel "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." And, even further, Einstein said: "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself as something separated from the rest... [but that is] a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

[SarahM32]

7. Not for those, but I know a good one.

In his 1949 book The World as I See It, Einstein wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

Thanks for the kind words.

[patrice]

9. I have tried to say the same thing WAAAAY less elegantly, and with way more words, here on DU.

That's one of the reasons I liked the article, because it does not assume that reason and faith are mutually antagonistic.

I think they CAN motivate/drive one another.

One thing rationalists should ask themselves: if reason is everything you say it is, why is there any "other" knowing at all (e.g. what the heck do animals do? are they reasoning?). If what we are referring to as "reason" is everything some people are claiming it is, HOW did these "other" non-rational processes come to be, wouldn't there have to be a reason for them too?

One thing I like to point out is that if there is something that reason differentiates itself from, where did THAT come from, what IS it? Like a bas relief figure manifests itself out of a background, how could there be a figure unless there is a ground? How can we say ONLY the figure has significance, when the figure would not manifest in the first place without that phenomenological ground?

Did you see the self-portraits painted by George Bush, Jr.? You can probably google them to see what I'm thinking of here. Those pictures represent what happens to us, because we lose that phenomenological ground. We engage, more or less honestly, in reason and pay lipservice to that "otherness" in our pre-fabricated religions, but LOSE the point of both by denying that they are parts of the SAME thing and so much more besides.

Thank you, SarahM32! I am pleased to see you here.

[SarahM32]

10. You're welcome. And thank you!

It is so enjoyable to come across people like you.

I agree that reason and faith are not mutually antagonistic, and I think they can motivate/drive one another.

During the "Enlightenment" or "Age of Reason" many of the brightest thinkers agreed, especially the Deists and Freemasons, and even some of the agnostics.

Thank you so much for your kind, supportive comment!

[skepticscott]

13. And what exactly do rationalists

say that reason is? Please provide specific examples and attributed, verifiable quotes to back up your claims...all of them.

[patrice]

14. I don't feel a need to prove anything to you. I'm tired & need to go look for work so here's a riff:

I assure you that my reasoning skills are adequate enough to have been a National Science Foundation grant recipient to do course work at Texas A&M University in methodologies for teaching psychology as science for advance placement psychology students preparing to take the College Board in that subject. Psychology is a particularly interesting challenge in that regard, because the nature of what is commonly referred to as "proof" presents special problems when describing human behavior and mental processes, and the scoring of the College Board in that subject was weighted 1/3 in short essay answers to the student's choice of 2 out of 3 questions all of which were directly relevant to actual research in psychology. In order to get my students through that I tutored some 100 of them each year, one by one, on searching and evaluating research from PsychLit & PsychInfo research databases. I did that for 4 years, with many challenging students some of whom were taking full-boat AP, including things like AP calc & AP chemistry.

My own graduate research, independently conducted without any of these "co-operative" projects that are so popular now, received, from my master's committee, recommendation for recognition of leadership in educational research and I received my MS cum laude, basically without putting every effort I could have into it because of an extreme personal crisis going on in my life at that time.

My reasoning skills must also have been good enough to be a Technical Writer in a large network operations development group in a national telecom. That was a group of several hundred people, different kinds of engineers, and administrators, and I was the sole Technical Writer, managing documentation for the entire group, testing ops enhancements, writing user manuals and power-point presentations describing the principles and application of network operations software development for all types of users. I was also release co-ordinator between that group and the rest of the enterprise, including corporate, for operations software worth many millions of dollars. Release coordination in a situation like that involves planning and communicating and documenting the staging and migration of code packages into a living telecommunications network collaboratively with all of the other stake holders, providing clear explanatory updates for any debugging if necessary and at other benchmarked steps in process which in some cases might take up to a couple of weeks to complete. I've also worked in another software environment in which I tested warehouse management software and created manuals about how to use it to manage your warehouse.

My influences, as far as reason is concerned, probably began in my undergraduate work when I was research assistant to the department chair in psychology for a couple of semesters, but I remember also being very inspired by Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, though I'm sure that I read excerpts from Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Whitehead and others in a couple of undergrad philosophy classes at about the same time and I did quite a bit better than okay in a symbolic logic course, though I never made it past fodder level in 2 semesters of college debate (the pre-law folks were just quite a bit more ambitious/hard-working than I). In psychology I particularly liked the work of Jean Piaget, Milgram, Kohlberg, and Zimbardo, but since I ended up teaching psychology later, I eventually had to be able to explain most of the major theorists for some of the brightest most challenging students in the school. Also, since my under-grad dual major included literature, in a school that had a hefty reputation for one of the best small law schools in the country and therefore very demanding standards for their English department's offerings because of those pre-law students, I also did quite a bit of reading and writing for critical analysis, some of that as independent study with the department chair, for which I was a regular recipient of Dean's Honors and my BA was magna cum laude (also without my full focus, as I was raising kids). My under-grad lit interests were in the late Victorians, who had their own little existential crisis going on after the hangover from the romanticists wore off. I was also especially interested in the absurdists whom I encountered initially, as many did, in Beckett's Godot and in those days all of us were talking about Chomsky's Transformation Grammar. Since then another hallmark was set by Thomas R. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and John Dewey and Paolo Freire (both very much education as research & curriculum as discovery thinkers) during my graduate work.

[skepticscott]

15. In other words

your snide, condescending remarks "if reason is everything you say it is.." and "If what we are referring to as "reason" is everything some people are claiming it is" are just poo-flinging straw men attacks, with nothing to back them up at all, and a lame attempt to elevate "other ways of knowing" by something other than their "merits".

[patrice]

16. No, it's a general observation of the state of discourse on the topic, not an analysis, and words

like "poo-flinging straw men attacks" are a mis-characterization, intentional or otherwise, of something that was never intended to be what you claim it is, so it is possible that those words are "poo-flinging" too.

[SarahM32]

32. Well said.

[patrice]

35. Thank you, SarahM32, it's not easy sticking my head up like this and at least trying to do

my own counting (of fingers or whatever) as best I can. I know that I'm really only asking questions, but sometimes it's also necessary to take a stand.

I do authentically invite others into that process, but my conditions are about how (as in what manner) that process is shared and that sharing isn't necessarily propaganda if everyone will do their best to admit how the possibility of being wrong is as important as that of being right. This will make respect possible.

FOUR!!!! fingers.

[skepticscott]

46. When you get the OP

to admit that she may just as easily be wrong in her assertion that the beliefs of billions of Xstians are nonsense, get back to us.

The way you decide what's true and what's not is by weighing evidence and arguments, not by making unqualified declarations and then having a fit and screaming "bigotry" or some such when people don't just nod and fawningly agree.

[patrice]

48. Agree about how one decides what's, more or less, true. But it's not my job to "get" OP or you

to do anything. It is not possible, under most conditions, to force anyone to understand anything and mimmicing isn't the same thing as understanding and doesn't even necessarily lead to it.

My responsibilities are to manifest reality as best I can, given my circumstances & understanding. That's what others are supposed to do too; I can call on them to engage in those responsibilities, but it's not my job to MAKE them anything; they MUST choose and I must deal with their choices honestly and responsibly myself; anything less, even in the name of "validity", is fascism.

If we tell people to stand for the truth as best they know it and, then, violate their autonomy for doing that, more often than not, it makes them and me more blind, not only on the issue at hand, but in many other ways too, because of alienation. Too much force and you have prisons full of people who have cut their own noses off to spite YOUR face and lots of other cultural dysfunctions.

Because we are social and therefore should be calling those with whom we disagree to honesty, by being honest ourselves, that means that I/you must not lie in the face of differences either. Most of the time the means (while they don't necessarily justify the ends) can be more process-important than the ends, because how one does something can shape what happens, so if coercion is producing reactionaries and contrarians, the ends/outcomes are bent by that. Yes, at some point a stand must be made for the outcomes, but we can't even identify what/why/when/how if we have bent the whole process by trying to "get" people to _______________ while we are also saying that they should be honest in order to free themselves and, hence, others.

People are different and it's best to let them identify themselves, so they can then CHOOSE if/how they are also the same. If we can let them do that, we might be able to end up with valid reasons for saying when/why/how someone has chosen dysfunction purposefully as differentiated from those who are having more situationally based problems that might be ameliorated by appropriate responses.

An analogy: If you "kick a dog for not singing opera" you make monsters out of yourself and the dog and kill any singing the "dog" might have ever been capable of and, possibly, depending upon the circumstances, extinct all singing all together anyway, so, ultimately "opera" could become an unknown unknown and also thus, possibly, a threat to the invention of which NECESSITY is the mother. In short, you don't want to turn the young lady with the cure for cancer into a grocery clerk, before she has even had half of a chance to find HER way.

Have you ever read Thomas R. Kuhn's Structures of Scientific Revolutions? Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed?

[skepticscott]

49. If it's not "your job"

then what was the point of your little scold, saying that people should "do their best to admit how the possibility of being wrong is as important as that of being right."?

What the relevance of the rest of that is remains a bit mysterious. It rather gives the impression that you just cut and pasted it from somewhere else, instead of writing it in direct response.

[patrice]

51. CHOOSE that or don't. Let others do the same. None of that means anyone should not stand

for their own choices and sometimes standing for one's own choices includes saying that CHOICES are real and if I want mine respected, unless I'm somekind of god, I must at least be willing to hypothetically respect others' truths. That is, unless all we are doing is an infinite regression, but if that's your thing, then SAY that, so others can make their choices about that. Don't claim more than you are actually doing.

I say, for any true rationalist, that includes the recognition of limitations on the nature of what is referred to as "proof". That doesn't mean that you are/I am wrong, nor does it mean that you are/I am right. It means that you know what you say you know (in terms of our shared epistemology). That specific epistemology/knowing has a specific context. Though probabilities can be high, they are STILL probabilities RELATIVE to context. You are making no claims outside of that, therefore, you don't know everything that it is possible CAN stand in somekind of relationship to what you are claiming that you know. Yeah, you can inductively identify some new hypothesis, but that also has to be validly and reliably tested in its context and IS therefore dependent upon that context. I'm not saying I know what all of that adds up to; I'm just saying THOSE are the facts and people should STOP abusing them.

That's the WHOLE paradigm upon which peer review of science is founded. CHOOSE it or not and, unless you're a god, unless you know everything, all contexts, recognize that your claim to your own choices means nothing unless others can do the same in terms of their own contexts.

Btw, "cut and paste" ??, ha, ha . . . No.
But, thanks for the laugh, really.

FOUR fingers!!!!

[skepticscott]

52. I've posted many times here

about the limitations of "proof", and that nothing in science or rational inquiry is ever "proven" in the way that things in mathematics are, so thanks, your little tutorial, however well intentioned, is not needed.

That being said, are you willing to apply the standards of rationality to the claims in the OP about the factual, objective nature of "god"? Are you willing to weigh arguments and evidence to determine which, if any, version of "god" is the best supported, the most likely, the most probable? Or will you just skitter away with another "I don't have to prove anything to anyone" or "everyone has their own version of god, and who am I to tell them they're wrong"?

[Jim__]

11. Here's a source for, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

From New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 (my bolding):

...

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

...

[patrice]

12. Thank you very much for that, Jim, I especially like this:

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

I like what Einstein says with this because it refers to that feeling of excitement that knowledge can give, that delight in knowing something that doesn't seem to be completely accounted for in the thing itself, or rationalism doesn't account for it anyway, because there may be no rational reason for the knowing and yet it delights.

Bookmarking that article, to savor again and again, thanks for posting it, Jim!

[madrchsod]

3. interesting read

bookmarking for further analysis

[SarahM32]

8. Thank you.

I appreciate your kind comment.

[intaglio]

4. Well, it would help if the site had the correct translation of the Tetragamaton

The fact is that the name Jehovah is the English translation of four Hebrew letters which were written not as a name, but as a verb meaning “to be”

Although the current Wiki edit for Tetragrammaton agrees with this falsehood the Wiki for Yahweh still gives the correct interpretation "He who causes to be,"

Incidentally the site confuses the terms "translation" with "transliteration"

Basic fail

[mr blur]

5. Word Salad.

Educated people who gain true wisdom always arrive at similar conclusions, whether they consider themselves divinely inspired or not. In fact, the realization of the divine reality and the witnessing of the Divine Light within does not necessarily come in the context of religion. It is above and beyond that.

Absolute drivel.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. It's "Joseph Adamson" - what can you expect?

See the attribution at the bottom of the page. We've have nonsense from 'Adamson' posted on DU at intervals for years.

[SarahM32]

17. Really?

Educated people who gain true wisdom always arrive at similar conclusions, whether they consider themselves divinely inspired or not. In fact, the realization of the divine reality and the witnessing of the Divine Light within does not necessarily come in the context of religion. It is above and beyond that.

That is not "absolute drivel," as has been claimed by a critic and skeptic.

... the inner self, the True Self, is different from the ego or separate-self, the “old self.” If people who see the Light within are blessed, and learn well, they can become spiritually “reborn” and comparatively selfless. And that has little to do with religion as we know it. It has to do spiritual rebirth.

Many who have seen the Light have said the same thing about it, in different ways. Prophets of ancient Israel often just called it the Light of God. In Zen Buddhism the term Satori as it leads to Nirvana refers to it. Hindus also call it Nirvana, which come from union between the Atman and Brahman (God) through Moksha (liberation). In Tibetan Buddhism that is associated with the Fifth Bardo experience, and in Yoga with Samadhi. In Taoism it’s the realization of "The Absolute Tao." Sufis speak of Fana. Quakers call it "The Inner Light." Abraham Maslow spoke of "Peak Experience." And R.M. Bucke named it "Cosmic Consciousness." But in a sense, all those terms could refer to witnessing the Divine Light within, and experiencing the Highest State of Consciousness which is quite different from our ordinary understanding or normal waking consciousness, or egocentric consciousness.

When one is initiated or called by God and starts on their spiritual path, if they proceed correctly the usual ego boundaries begin to break down, and the ego begins to be “pruned,” as it were. The self starts to becomes integrated with the Oversoul, the Highest Self, the Ancient One. And as the Maitrayana Upanishad puts it: “Having realized his own self as the Self, a man becomes selfless ... that is the highest mystery.”

When one realizes we are one with God, one with humanity, and one with the universe, it is easy to understand why the greatest and most enlightened people have said what they did. For example, that is the real reason why Jesus of Nazareth, according to the book of John, said: “I and my Father are one.” “I am the Light of the world.”“I am in God, and God is in me.”

Many Christians have thought Jesus was saying he was God, but that’s not what he was saying. Jesus was not merely a son of man and Mashiach in the Jewish context. He was also an Avatar in the Hindu context, and he spoke as the Holy One, for the Holy One. That is, he spoke for the Ancient One who is in heaven with God.

That is a quote from an article on The Highest State of Consciousness. It speaks of how and why many human beings have experienced or realized it -- some just momentarily, some for relatively longer periods, and some for the rest of their lives. And many have spoken and/or written about it, some from a religious or spiritual point of view, and some from a scientific point of view (like Einstein).

Being spiritually reborn is an actual phenomena, and it NOT like "born-again Christians" think it is. They have no idea what it is. But many people who have experienced it have known, and do know.
.

[trotsky]

18. "the realization of the divine reality"

What that means is, the author believes that HIS belief in a divine reality is true, and that everyone who doesn't "realize" it is wrong.

In other words, he's a fundie. He is 100% sure the he is right and everyone else is wrong.

[SarahM32]

19. No. That's your assumption, and it couldn't be more wrong.

Your assumption that I'm a "fundie" reveals how very little you know about me or the message I'm promoting.

The fact is that the message exposes and rebukes religious fundamentalists (especially those that claim to be Jews or Christians or Muslims -- as the article Why the "Religious Right" Is Wrong makes clear). It furthers Interfaith understanding, promotes Interfaith dialogue and cooperation, and it serves to reconcile Agnostics and Atheists with the faithful who understand the true purpose of their religion.

One of the main points of the message, in fact, is to remind people of what all enlightened individuals have realized throughout history, and clarify it so it is more easily understood in a modern context.

You are also presumptuous in assuming I'm a man.

Have another beer.

[trotsky]

20. The author is a fundie.

Are you the author?

Because as it says in the sidebar, "The author of this message is a man of sorrows, well acquainted with grief."

So either you're the author, and you're a man (and a fundie), or you're not the author, and the author is a man (and a fundie).

Which is it?

[SarahM32]

21. No, the author is not a fundamentalist. The message makes that abundantly clear.

The term "fundamentalist" is used to characterize those who cling to a strict and rigid, and usually a literal, interpretation of the scriptures of their religion. And as you know, or should know, the term "fundie" in America is usually used by liberals, progressive and others on the left who are highly critical of the leaders of the theocratic "religious right" who claim to be Christians.

In broader terms, as been pointed out by Karen Armstrong in her best-selling book, The Battle for God, the term "fundamentalist" is used not only for the "religious right" in America, but also for radical, theocratic Muslims, as well as Orthodox Jews and other right-wing Jewish Zionists in the Mid-East. And in recent years a right-wing Hindu fundamentalist group has risen in India.

The author of the message highlighted and published as A Creative Vision of the Future, Through the Lens of History, Universal Prophecies and Reason is definitely not a fundamentalist. Even the use of the words "Universal Prophecies and Reason" reveals that, and the two paragraphs below that title in the site header makes it even more clear.

The article Why the "Religious Right" Is Wrong makes it crystal clear, as do the articles on Christianity, Islam, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Those and other articles expose the "religious" myths that "fundamentalists" believe in, and also expose the hypocrisy and bigotry of the fundamentalist leaders.

Atheists, I find, have a knee-jerk reaction against the message, and particularly the messenger, because he declares that he is a servant of God -- not the god of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and other fundamentalists, but the real God known by different names by different religions.

I don't blame Atheists for being skeptical and suspicious. They have very good reason to suspect ANYTHING OR ANYONE claiming divine authority. God knows, plenty of evil has been done during the last sixteen centuries by those claiming divine authority.

The author, however, is not like the hypocrites and bigots who use religion to gain personal power. He does not seek personal power by speaking from behind a podium or pulpit seeking political or religious office. On the contrary, he declares that it is the truth, and nothing but the truth, that will liberate and empower us all. That's why he wrote The 21st Century Declaration of Independence.

That's why he stays behind the scenes, saying that what matters is the truth that he leaves behind him, which will live on after he's dead.

As for who I am, it doesn't matter. I agree with the realization of the author that our problem is our ego, and our tendency to regard our self as superior and others a inferior, whether because of our academic knowledge, wealth, religion, race, nationality, or whatever.

You are certainly entitled to think and believe whatever you want. What I object to is your making misleading or incorrect statements -- like "the author is a fundie."
.

[trotsky]

22. Yeah, he is.

He insists on his particular worldview and says that everyone else is wrong. Just like Fred Phelps and the gang.

That's a fundie. Sorry to break it to you.

Even Richard Dawkins, who is despised in this forum by many liberal Christians (and often labeled a "fundamentalist atheist&quot admits he's not 100% sure.

[SarahM32]

23. Again, I should correct you.

You (Trotsky) claim that the author of the message "says that everyone else is wrong."

That is simply not true. In fact, he reminds humanity of the insight, vision and words of those who were right, while correcting only those who are wrong on the basis of ageless universal truths. Besides that, in his bio he readily admits that he himself is quite fallible as a person and has made many mistakes in his life, and he is "contrite of spirit" as the prophet Isaiah wrote, having realized the extent of his vanity and foolishness.

He makes it clear that many people living and passed on have been right, and many have been partially and significantly right or correct. The messenger reminds us of that, and adds his two cents worth in a noble effort, not to dictate or rule, but merely to help people understand.

At the same time, he exposes and rebukes those who are wrong, such as theocratic right-wing fundamentalist Christians who want to rule and lead everyone else to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was "God Himself," that he was "born of a virgin," that he was physically, bodily resurrected, and that he will "come again" -- none of which is true.

He also exposes and rebukes Jewish Zionists and radical Muslim Theocrats, all of whom want to rule in the name of their religion. And he exposes and rebukes all the religious and political leaders who serve themselves and their wealthy supporters who live in luxury while the rest of us grow less and less financially secure and more and more of us suffer from poverty, hunger and homelessness.

It is also not true, as I've already explained very clearly, that he is not a "fundie."

If you were an honorable, honest, ethical person, you would stop making misleading, erroneous statements, and you would stop being condescendingly dismissive.
.

[skepticscott]

24. So how is saying

that none of the things that form the core of Christianity is true not "condescendingly dismissive" to Christians? You just flat out "know" that all of that is false, and that all those hundreds of millions of Christians are wrong and foolish and you're right and wise?

Wow.

[trotsky]

25. Well you'd like to, but you can't, because the facts are on my side.

The author declares all believers who think differently than he does are wrong. Fundie, plain and simple.

As another poster noted, this "cult of personality" has been promoted on this site before. Perhaps you did it, perhaps it was another disciple. I don't really care. The point is, your cult leader is no different than Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps, insisting he has the one and only correct view of the divine and that all others are wrong.

FUNDIE.

[Phillip McCleod]

27. i don't think he's a fundie.

from the looks of the site and the devotion of 'the messenger's followers he's a cult leader.

[SarahM32]

29. Not a fundie, nor a cult leader. Quite the opposite.

A cult leader is a dictator who operates out of self-interest. The author of the message seeks to maintain his anonymity, to liberate people from dictators, and to empower them so that they may truly be free and independent.

[mr blur]

61. Oh, like a...Pope?

Got it.

[trotsky]

67. "...to empower them so that they may truly be free and independent."

So long as they accept exactly what he says.

[cleanhippie]

78. Do you subscribe to his "teachings"?

I mean, when most outsiders tell you that it looks like a cult to them, doesn't that give you pause?

[SarahM32]

94. Here's some questions for you.

If I follow the recipe in a cook book, does that mean I follow the author of the book, or the recipe (which may have been originated before the author was born)?

If I follow his suggestions about how we can reconcile conflicts, make peace and liberate and empower our selves, does that mean I follow him, or his suggestions?

I do not follow a man, but a suggested recipe that has nothing to do with him. It has to do with producing an outcome in which he does not play a role. He will be recognized only as an unknown architect, while we the people are the builders.

"As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate. When the best leader's work is done the people say, We did it ourselves!” ― Lao Tzu

Saving our world is up to us. We, the people, must fulfill our roles as active citizens to establish government that is actually of, by and for the people, determine our own destiny, and use the common wealth for the common good.
.

[cleanhippie]

96. Allow me to try again, perhaps I wasn't clear.

I asked you a simple question and you have me several paragraphs of words that had nothing to do with my question.

If outsiders look at this and all are telling you that is appears to be a cult, doesn't that give a reasonable person cause to pause?

[SarahM32]

99. To answer your question ...

No. Just because people who don't know what the message is about claim that I belong to cult, it doesn't bother me because I know it's not true. It's an erroneous assumption.

Look, no one but the author's wife know who he is, and even though I know there are others who like and promote the message, I don't know who they are. I am but one who has studied the message thoroughly, understands it, and promotes it. I know there are others who have reposted articles from the message on many other Web sites. However, again, I don’t know who those others are. They are just people who became aware of the message, like it, and reposted articles they liked best.

To claim that that somehow makes us a "cult" is to be unaware of the facts of the matter.

[cleanhippie]

105. Ok. Good luck.

I hope this turns out good for you. Seriously.

[skepticscott]

108. You mean

You hope this doesn't turn into a life-wrecking, life-wasting mess? Cross lots of fingers. The message is strong in this one....seems scarier every time they post.

[mr blur]

60. "not the god of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and other fundamentalists, but the real God..."

By what authority do you claim to know which is "the real God"?

How can you tell which one is false and self-serving and which is "real"?

I, of course, would conclude that none of them is "real". Do you have evidence to change our minds?

Thought not.

[SarahM32]

100. God

The author of the message, the modern son of man in the Judaic sense, has declared his prophetic prerogative and divine mandate from God. He has described, as much as is possible, what God is.

I believe the Holy One he speaks of is the real God, the Great Spirit-Parent, which is the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, The Universal Cosmic Consciousness which pervades all, the essence of all life and form, the primordial vibration or "Word" that is made flesh in all of us.

The evidence cannot be shown to you. You have to realize it from within.

[mr blur]

115. This is just even more feel-good, meaningless Woo-drivel!

Please, listen to yourself.

The evidence cannot be shown to you. You have to realize it from within.

How convenient for you and your little cult.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. I hate posts like this that get basic facts wrong or make erroneous assumptions...

In fact, a modern interpretation of biblical evidence, considered in the light of all the modern evidence not included in the scriptures, and all the evidence from other religious sources, leads us to conclude that a better way to describe God is the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite omnipresent Supreme Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, the unspeakable primordial vibration or "Word" that is made flesh in all of us, which was, is, and shall always be.

This is largely false, most modern Biblical scholars note that the Bible chronicles, roughly, when the Israelites were polytheistic, then developed Monolatrism and then, finally into Monotheism. They weren't even first on that, Atenism was. But that isn't the point, the point is that the god of the Bible was always a physical god, and generally acted like the god of war in the Caananite pantheon that he was(later merged with El, Caananite head god).

The Bible is contradictory in this because it was written down at different times, in different places, by different authors pushing different political and religious issues. So expecting consistency and hence insight into the "true nature of god" is foolhardy, as the Bible is chock full of unreliable narrators. Most other religious texts have similar problems, or unique ones of their own.

The author then continues by confusing the Deism(and mentioning Freemasonry, don't know why that's relevant) of some founding fathers, with "many faces" theology of many gods equaling one god. There is no evidence to support this conclusion, what quotes are pulled are about political issues, or saying religion should be confined to personal practices.

For example, in the oldest and earliest written religious texts, the Hindu Vedas and Upanishads, written in the earliest written language, Sanskrit, the Creator or Causal Source was called Brahman. And what the Hindu writings say about Brahman and the relationship between it and human beings is much like what was later expressed by Hindu Avatars, by Lao Tzu in The Book of Tao, by the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama, by several writers of the Hebrew Torah and Tanakh (Old Testament), and by Jesus of Nazareth as well.

First things first, a couple things wrong here, the Sanskrit language is predated by proto-Aryan(Iranian) and Proto-Indo-European languages, second the texts of the Rigveda date back to 1700–1100 BC, which means that religious texts from much of the middle east(Akkadian, Babylonian, Sumer, even Egyptian) predate Hindu theology by a thousand years or more.

So after making these claims of ignorance, the author then goes further into ignorance by attaching their own beliefs onto every bloody religion in the world, and claiming that the author's beliefs are right, while all of those religions are incomplete or wrong. Making assumptions about the nature of a supernatural being that they have no way to verify or test. And don't get me started on the prophecy section, just complete bullshit.

[Phillip McCleod]

28. yeah the guy seems like an other-ways-of-know-it-all

[SarahM32]

30. Well, you're right a couple of things, but as for the rest ...

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

You are correct in some respects, such as saying that the Judeo-Christian “Bible is contradictory in its characterization of God because it was written down at different times, in different places, by different authors pushing different political and religious issues. And you are correct that most other religious texts have similar problems, or unique ones of their own.”

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

However, I believe that is precisely why the article The Nature of God is so appropriate, and so needed. It is one of many articles on that site that are designed to distinguish between ideas that are outdated and antiquated or allegorical or mythical or even wrong, as opposed to insights, realizations and revelations that are true and universal, and common to all genuine spiritual teachings.

I should also call you on your statement that “the god of the Bible was always a physical god,” because that is simply not true.

As you have said yourself, some of the authors of the different texts are contradictory in their characterization of God, and while in some instances God is depicted as “I” or “Him” or “He,” in many other instances God is depicted as what God is, the formless, eternal, infinite Divine Light and universal cosmic consciousness that can be realized only from within.

Even though King David was a warlord, even he recognized God as the Divine Light, such as in Psalm 4:6, where David says: “Lord, lift up the Light of your countenance upon us.” And in Psalm 27:1 he says: “The Lord is my Light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?”

But you are right that God is depicted as a God of War by some, like Joshua, David and others. Parts of exoteric Judaism depicted Jehovah as the jealous and vengeful Overlord and Warlord. However, figures like King Solomon and Isaiah changed that, and esoteric Kabbalistic Judaism depicts the Lord God in a different way, as did much of Talmudic Judaism.

An article on Wisdom quotes Solomon’s Book of Wisdom: “Wisdom is beneficent and kind. She is the aura of the power of God, the radiance of the eternal Divine Light, a spotless mirror of God. She renews all things, and passing into holy souls from age to age, She produces friends of God and prophets. She is firm, but Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her. And Wisdom is far better than weapons of war."

God is the eternal Divine Light, as Solomon knew. That is why the article on Prophecies Regarding He Who Fulfills Them states that the modern son of man reminds Christians that even Jesus of Nazareth said to his disciples: "You have not heard the voice of God or seen God’s shape at any time." (John 5:37) And Jesus even said: "God is greater than I." (John 14:28)

When Jesus said "only through me can you see the face of the Father," he was not talking about his physical person, but of his spiritual aura. That is why in verses 7 thru 9 in John 1 John says “the true Light lightens every person born into the world.”

The modern son of man explains that Jesus said such things knowing what preceding Jewish prophets wrote, that "God is not a man, nor a son of man" (Numbers 23:19), and that no man can be compared to God. In fact, Isaiah says we should not liken God to any man; nor regard any man equal to God; nor worship any idol or image of any man. That is what Isaiah 40:18, Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:10-11 and Isaiah 46:5 mean.

Those are just a few examples showing instances where Judeo-Christian scriptures do reveal the truth, and truly enlightened Rosicrucians, Freemasons and Deists understand that and can recognize the universal truths in each major religion.

As for your criticism based on the fact that Sanskrit is not the oldest written language, you are technically correct. However, if you had read enough of the message, you would know that the author discusses the major religions of today, and today Hinduism is the oldest of those and Sanskrit is the oldest language of any of the major religions of today. And even in this article the author mentions that Hinduism is the oldest “living religion.”

Another thing I should point out is that the Rigveda is written in Sanskrit, and it is a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns. It is counted among the four canonical sacred texts of Hinduism known as the Vedas. Therefore, your mention of it is irrelevant.

As for your last paragraph, it really doesn't deserve a response.
.

[Meshuga]

38. You said...

As for your last paragraph, it really doesn't deserve a response.

I disagree. I think it deserves a response. What is your take on conflating religions in favor of one true god idea and what is your take on prophesies? Can you clarify that for the readers of this thread?

While people may believe (or lack belief) as they wish, I find it insulting when someone (like the author in the original text from the linked website) connects the dots so closely in order to claim truth and disqualify others.

Like in the article provided in the original post, the religious right does the same thing really well and can easily connect the dots to come up with their own truth and conclusions regarding the "true nature" of god.

However, concepts of god(s) and belief in god(s) are merely personal concepts and beliefs. It only gets tricky when people connect the dots as close as they can to sell their own concept/belief as the one true concept.

[SarahM32]

40. Okay. I'll do that.

If you read some of the major articles (asterisked on the site map), you will see that the message addresses the major issues of our day, both religious and political.

You will see that the author uses mostly Judeo-Christian terms, and goes into great detail about Judeo-Christian prophecies, since Christianity is the largest and most predominant religion in the world, and since predominantly Christian nation are the most powerful militarily.

You will see that he does not "conflate religions." He merely points out how and why there are very similar, universal truths expressed in each, seeking to foster Interfaith understanding and Interfaith dialogue -- while at the same time exposing and rebuking theocratic hypocrites and bigots who masquerade as "religious" Jews, Christians and Muslims, who fight to rule in the name of religion.

As for the mention of the "Prophecy part," and "Humanist's" claim that it is "bullshit," you can decide for yourself.

Prophecies

Other articles, such as Prophecies Regarding He Who Fulfills Them, Isaiah Chapter 53, The Fulfillment of World Prophecies, The Fall of Babylon, and Native American Prophecies, discuss prophecies in more detail. But the fact is that now at the end of the age the prophecies of the world are being fulfilled, which is readily evident from the fact that many of the prophecies have already been fulfilled, and that process is still in progress.

Increasingly during the last hundred years humanity has been witnessing signs that were prophesied, such as wars and all the other harmful, destructive, terrible things from which we’ve been suffering in this horrible tribulation.

As was also prophesied, though, these have been and are signs that herald the coming of a new paradigm, a new age or a new dispensation, and a brighter future in a “new world.” However, the signs of coming renaissance and reformation are not merely negative — such as the terrible signs that demonstrate the worst tendencies of people who think they are superior and entitled to rule, and will stop at nothing to maintain their power, wealth and domain. There are positive signs as well, in that there have been and are wonderful and inspiring signs that demonstrate how humanity is evolving, advancing and progressing in many ways that benefit all humanity, especially in technology, science, and the creative arts.

Therefore, we need to understand the lessons of history and the reality of our situation now, so that the prophecies may be completely fulfilled, so that we may overcome, and so that we may open the door to a better, brighter future, rather than remain mired in this chaos, confusion, conflict, and tribulation.
.

[Meshuga]

56. Again, it's all about connecting the dots closely and not unlike...

...other groups with different messages connecting the dots for their own purpose.

It's easy to predict "horrible corruption, injustice and inequity, terrible conflict, wars and rumors of war, natural disasters and plagues, and many other terrible things" and call these "predictions" as prophesies. And easier to connect the dots to turn them into "fulfilled prophesies."

However, the only thing that prophesies tell us is the fact that people throughout history have always had to deal with these so called "tribulations" and one way for them to cope was to hope for some enlightened age and an age free of natural disasters. With the advance of science, however, it became clear that natural disasters are not divine punishments and that anyone still claiming natural disasters as proof of fulfilled prophesies will only look foolish.

[SarahM32]

101. It's easy.

It's easy to say what you said. But, as for you will ultimately look foolish, you will be surprised.

[Meshuga]

107. I am not sure how to respond

Since I don't understand what you mean. What part of what I wrote is easy to say? And what will I be surprised about?

[Humanist_Activist]

57. Considering the anachronistic nature of so many religious texts, to think prophecy...

is real is foolhardy. In addition, your understanding of Hinduism seems far too simplistic, The Hinduism(if you can even call it that) of 1100 B.C.E. is not the same as in 2013 C.E. Just like the Judaism of 600 B.C.E. bears little resemblance to Judaism of today, and the same with Christianity from 100 C.E. or so.

Hinduism is even more problematic when you consider it is not really a single religion, but more like a group of religions and practices that share a loose cultural system. Hindu beliefs vary greatly, and always have, ranging from Monotheists to Polytheists and every step in between. In addition, I caution against using Hinduism's supposed antiquity to try to strengthen an argument, just because an idea or belief is ancient, and survives, doesn't mean its right.

A classic example is the belief in the 4(or 5, depending on culture) elements, an idea that permeated through many different civilizations for almost 4 thousand years or so(possibly older), and it was still absolutely wrong.

[intaglio]

31. Not again ...

Let's begin with the title:

Concepts of God and Religion, and The True Nature of God

Looks impressive but hides a glaring flaw, one most famously attributed to Pontius Pilate; "What is truth?" This is a famous problem that has exercised the minds of philosophers for centuries and until it can be answered any statements about "True Nature" are just so much flatulence.

[SarahM32]

33. Not again.

I will respond only to comments that deserve a response.

[intaglio]

34. OK, so what is "Truth"?

You and the cult you support have no valid answer to this question.

Your cult also conflates religion with atheism - yet again. It is not part of the spectrum of religion a point best shown by considering the visible spectrum itself where the absence of light is not represented; so black is not part of the spectrum but rather a negation of that spectrum.

[SarahM32]

36. Hmmm ... Well, okay. I'll answer that.

I really shouldn't respond because you have claimed I support a "cult," when I have explained clearly how and why that is not true. I think it's a cheap shot when critics resort to false claims just to bait me.

But, I'll go ahead and address your question, "What is truth?"

"Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'" -- Kahlil Gibran

Gibran was one of many who inspired the spiritual new age movement of the Sixties, and his words resonate with many of us who have kept faith with the original and true spirit of that movement. It is still very much alive in the hearts of all who seek love, peace, freedom, liberty, equality, and social justice.

I think Gibran influenced a lot of Americans to speak of "a truth" or "your truth," and avoid saying "the truth." But, I don't think we ought to think that the truth doesn't exist.

I think what Gibran meant when he advised that we should say "I have found a truth" was that we experience and/or perceive the truth in our own way. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it's the same with truth. We all perceive things in our own way.

However, the truth exists. The truth is that the earth revolves around the sun. The truth is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, as Newton's third law states. And the truth is also that we should treat all others as we would want to be treated if we were them.
.

[intaglio]

37. Please read what you have written

All you have done is dodged the question like a good little acolyte.

Gilbran's answer merely distracts, "I have found a truth." What is a truth? How do you identify it? What are the characteristics that differentiate a truth from a falsehood?

Look at your final paragraph where you demonstrate truth. Firstly

However, the truth exists.

This is just unsupported assertion.

Second you conflate "truth" with "fact" and illustrate it with lazily used language.

The truth is that the earth revolves around the sun.

Not true, not even a fact; the Earth rotates around it's axis, the earth orbits the sun. Even these facts can mislead e.g. the earth describes a complex spiral through space influenced by other gravitic, resistance and impact events. There is no absolute truth, just a description of what is happening.

Third you parrot a supposedly absolute with no understanding of that absolute.

The truth is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, as Newton's third law states.

Like most people you miss that Newton's Laws are only an approximation. You ignore the important qualifier that "For ideal, non-elastic bodies for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" and forget to note energy losses due to heat and other events. Newton's 3rd is not a "truth" it is but a working principle.

Lastly,

And the truth is also that we should treat all others as we would want to be treated if we were them.

The most bland piece of new-age posturing, the actual general name for it is "The Golden Rule" or, more descriptively, "The ethic of reciprocity" and it has flaws. Most obviously: If I were Adolf Hitler I would not be Adolf Hitler. If by some chance my mind became so warped by occupying his body that I became a genocidal dictator:
1) the I that I am now would not want to treat Adolf Hitler as I, personally would wish to be treated; and
2) the I that was Adolf Hitler would not want to be treated in the way that Adolf Hitler would treat me.
There are other problems with this restatement of the Golden Rule, amongst which is the fact that no philosopher would call it a truth!

Finally a paradox (suggested by my Sigoth); Perhaps the only truth is that every time we think we have grasped the meaning of the word it flutters away from us like a butterfly.

[cleanhippie]

39. Bravo!

Well done.

[SarahM32]

41. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

There is a good reason why it has been said that our "eye" must be "single" to see the divine reality.

The most important truth, as I pointed out, is that we SHOULD treat others as we would want to be treated if we were them. And most intelligent, wise, conscientious, kind people in the world would would say that is true.

The Universal Divine Imperative is that we should treat others as we would want to be treated if we were them, and it is common to all religions.

All great spiritual teachers taught it, in one way or another. Thus Jews are supposed to be taught that we should not do to others what is hurtful to our self. Christians are supposed to be taught to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And Muslims are supposed to be taught that no one is a true believer in Allah until he desires for all others what he desires for himself.

Similarly, Buddhists are taught that we should treat others as we treat our self. Hindus are taught that we should not do unto others anything that, which if it were done to us, would cause us pain. The Taoists are taught that we should regard our neighbor's gain as our own gain, and our neighbor's loss as our own loss. The Bahai Faith teachers taught that we should ascribe not to any soul that which we would not have ascribed to our self. Followers of Confucius are taught that we should never impose on others what we would not choose for our self. Sikhism teaches that you should be a stranger to no one, that no one should be a stranger to you, and you should be a friend to all. Jainism teaches that we should treat all creatures as we want to be treated. Native Americans believe that we are as much alive as we keep the earth alive. Unitarians affirm and promote respect for the independent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The founders of all other religions have taught the same thing in different ways, because the most essential, eternal truth is the same in any language, and at any time. And the founders of all true religions have also said that the search for the Divine and Holy should be not in the world, but within, and when found it brings forth love that is universal and knows no bounds. -- from AFCPFJ

You may say whatever you wish, and those with like-mind may agree with you. But I think you are part of the problem.
.

[intaglio]

42. What is truth? Now you pretend that truth is relative to the observer

How does that work?

Examine what you have said;

The most important truth, as I pointed out, is that we SHOULD treat others as we would want to be treated if we were them. And most intelligent, wise, conscientious, kind people in the world would would say that is true.

What you actually did was quote the Golden Rule. Note that it is not called a truth, it is a rule. Next you say most "intelligent, wise, conscientious, kind people in the world would would say that is true," but being true does not make it "a truth" at all times. By your argument you would treat Hitler as a compassionate if flawed individual with (what I regard) as fuzzy, ill conceived new age beliefs. Essentially I hold to the Golden Rule but I am aware of its limitations.

Next look at your extracted quote: it begins

The Universal Divine Imperative

Who says so? It certainly is not a stated as such by any faith and just because the cult to which you are beholden finds words in several faiths which might be interpreted with that meaning does not make it an imperative; many faiths stole words and ideas from different faiths and philosophies to add to their good books. Similar statements have been made by philosophers, both theist and atheist so it is hardly divine.

[SarahM32]

43. Oh my. I am amazed.

I am amazed at the lengths to which you will go to try to sound intellectually superior. But while you may convince yourself that you are, and may even convince a couple of other people you are, you unwittingly reveal and expose yourself.

You insist that I must define what “a truth” is, but I don’t have to define what “a truth” is to meet your rather silly demand. To even try to do so would obviously lead to problems with semantics, which you make as a game to play to appear clever.

I am not here to meet your expectations, or your silly demands. On other threads I have learned that it is fruitless to even try to reason with people like you, who have such inflated egos and a sense of superiority, who are driven by the need to try to prove they have superior logic, and a superior intellect.

Intellect is puny compared to wisdom, and while intellectual giants usually have wisdom, you clearly don't have it.

You ask who declares that there is a Universal Divine Imperative. It's the man who fulfills prophecies by declaring it.

I frankly don't care what you think. Unless your thinking is tempered by your heart and soul, it is bound to reflect your sheer arrogance and vanity.
.

[skepticscott]

44. Yeppers, now we're back to the

"I don't have to prove anything to you" meme. Last refuge of those who desperately need to cling to the unsupported and unsupportable, and who deeply resent having the rose-colored veil of delusion stripped away by facts and logical arguments.

[intaglio]

47. Yes you do have to define "a truth" if you are going to spout about it

If you cannot say what a truth is then you should not use the word. There are other words, just not ones that make your cult seem superior

As to your petulant rant ...

You have entered a forum (BTW check the source of that word) have offered unconsidered waffle up for discussion; doing so you can expect people to criticise that waffle. If possible you should be prepared to defend your beliefs and show that it is not waffle and does contain elements of originality, honesty and worth.

You admit that you cannot define "truth" and, finally, have recognised that semantically it is null, containing no intrinsic meaning and therefore useless in discussion. Despite your statement such semantics are not games for too often people have been told to act in the name of a higher truth and disaster has followed; consider Heavens Gate or Jonestown. If you consider that I am playing games with the word why not wonder for an instant that the leader you follow is not doing the same.

I do not expect you to meet any expectations, for I hold no expectations of you except an honest discussion and that you put thought into what you say not just issue, undigested, the words of your cult. You must, if you follow a faith, be able to open that faith so that you can explain it to other people and to give reasoned responses to their concerns. You have not given reasoned responses - so far.

About superiority, I have only exposed fuzzy platitudes which is just the result of thinking clearly and having abandoned other such platitudes in the past. This does not make me superior, just a little more experienced. You thinking of me as superior actually exposes a feeling in yourself that you are inferior in some way. You are not, you are a human and as likely to be inspired or to fall victim to deceit as any other human.

As to inflated ego, again that is one of those unconsidered phrases, you might want to start thinking about what it means, how you define it and why you are using it.

Now I come to the most worrying parts of your post:

Intellect is puny compared to wisdom, and while intellectual giants usually have wisdom, you clearly don't have it

Ignoring for the moment the pitiful insult you offer in passing you might stop for a second to think what "wisdom" is. Most people treat it like a stat in a role playing game and rightly so for it, again holds no meaning in day to day life. If it does exist as a quality then often it might be a deep concentration on problems and offering more than the knee jerk response. If it is that then it is a good thing. But then you over egg the cake for if intellect is puny in comparison then why did not the wise invent inoculation, or the steam engine, or anesthesia?

You ask who declares that there is a Universal Divine Imperative. It's the man who fulfills prophecies by declaring it

This is frightening, because you, a reasonably intelligent human have place another human on the pedestal of divine or divinely inspired Giving so much credence to a human is dangerous for accepting that person as the voice of the divine means they can ask you to do anything - anything - and you will act without hesitation even if it requires debasing yourself or harming others - for their own good, of course.

Returning to the "insult" I called it pitiful for you obviously have not thought that comparing me to Socrates might - errr - inflate my ego!

Quoted in Plato's Philebus
Although I am not myself wise, I am a bit better off than that fellow -- because I do not think I am wise when I am not

[SarahM32]

54. Now that's funny.

Actually, I have to thank you. As I was reading your comment I had the biggest belly laugh I've had in quite some time.

But, to be serious and just to set the record straight and provide a reminder to you, I never said I cannot define truth. What I said was that you play a semantic game with the word, and I won’t play by your rules or meet your demands.

To be exact, I said: “I don’t have to define what ‘a truth’ is to meet your rather silly demand. To even try to do so would obviously lead to problems with semantics, which you make as a game to play to appear clever.”

In response, you came out of left field and state: “Despite your statement such semantics are not games for too often people have been told to act in the name of a higher truth and disaster has followed; consider Heavens Gate or Jonestown.”

That, as I see it, reveals your propensity toward distortion and misrepresentation, and it is yet another misinformed and false attempt to try to portray me as a follower of a cult leader.

I do not belong to a cult, and the Coalition I belong to has no leader.

The author of the message I promote has never been, is not, and never will be, a leader.

The Coalition has no organization, and no leadership whatsoever. Members of the Coalition are encouraged to act independently, promoting the message that promotes independence, liberation, and empowerment of the individual. Members do not know who the author of the message is, and they do not know who any other members are. And the author of the message will probably die before the message is widely recognized and accepted.

You make the claim that: “You must, if you follow a faith, be able to open that faith so that you can explain it to other people and to give reasoned responses to their concerns.”

Your claim assumes that I “follow a faith.” But that shows that you have failed to understand what I’ve been saying. I am a Deist, and while I have faith, I do not “follow a faith.”

In my post #38 I wrote that the message “merely points out how and why there are very similar, universal truths expressed in each, seeking to foster Interfaith understanding and Interfaith dialogue -- while at the same time exposing and rebuking theocratic hypocrites and bigots who masquerade as "religious" Jews, Christians and Muslims, who fight to rule in the name of religion.”

You have completely failed to understand any of that, and you continue to try to misrepresent what I have said, and what the message means.

Granted, there ARE and have been cult leaders who have been and are dangerous, but I am just as much against them as you are. You just don't get that.

The only thing you’ve said that is completely true, as I see it, is where you said this: “You are a human and as likely to be inspired or to fall victim to deceit as any other human.”

That’s true of me, and you.

Unfortunately, you preceded that statement by saying" "You thinking of me as superior actually exposes a feeling in yourself that you are inferior in some way."

It's very telling that you would assume I think of you as superior. That's really funny. I don't. It's very apparent that you think you are superior, and you proved that by the psychobabble in your statement that is very condescending and has an obvious implication.

As for the discussion of wisdom and the rest, see my comment below on Response to critics and skeptics.
.

[skepticscott]

64. Just curious

If "The Coalition has no organization, and no leadership whatsoever", how are members of the Coalition "encouraged to act independently"? In fact, how is it even a "Coalition", especially with a capital "C" if there is NO organizing force whatsoever?

Lotsa fishy stuff in this supposedly-not-a-cult of yours...

[mr blur]

63. "It's the man who fulfills prophecies by declaring it"

Really, WTF does this even mean?

Sorry, but I think you're out of your depth here.

"Unless your thinking is tempered by your heart and soul,..."
The former pumps blood round your body, the latter has never been proven to exist. Wanting it doesn't make it so.

Interesting - it's always people who whine about others' "sense of superiority" who display their own rather inferior logic and intellect.

Still, bluster away - you'll find some fellow travellers in this Group.

[skepticscott]

45. double that..+100

Excellent Post! Very Good Read!

[patrice]

50. Nice thread, All! Bookmarking & I promise to explore later. MUST get on the treadmill now &

do some laundry and get away from this computer.

Thanks for all of the perspective!

[SarahM32]

53. In response to the critics and skeptics:

Critics and skeptics certainly have the right to criticize, and to try to refute. But that’s not really what a few if them are doing on this thread.

They misrepresent what I have written, and what the message I promote says.

The biggest example of that is in the constant insistence that I belong to a cult, that the message I promote is recruiting members to a cult, and that said “cult” has a leader.

That is not true, and such uninformed accusations and claims merely reveal that those who make them do not understand the message, or the mission of its author.

The author of the message has never been, is not, and never will be, a leader.

The “Coalition” has no organization, no leadership. Members of the Coalition do not know who the author is, and they do not know who any other members are (although I know OF about a dozen or so who also promote the message on different Internet discussion forums). And the author of the message will probably die before the message is widely recognized and accepted. (If you read his bio you will see he has been gradually dying from congestive heart failure for quite some time.)

I promote the message, and try to endure the critics and skeptics, because I believe the message is the best attempt at Interfaith understanding and cooperation, which is so badly needed in this world so plagued by “holy wars.”

I also believe it offers a very good suggestion (in The 21st Century Declaration of Independence) as to why and how we should alter and reform our government so that it becomes actually of the people, by the people, and for the people, rather than of, by, and for the wealthiest few. (And that would fulfill the many of the world prophecies that speak of the meek inheriting the earth, establishing justice, making peace, transforming “swords into plowshares,” etc.)

As for wisdom, I like the quote from Plato: “Although I am not myself wise, I am a bit better off than that fellow -- because I do not think I am wise when I am not.”

That is rather like what the great Solomon, who was widely known for his wisdom, said: “Trust not in your own understanding, but trust in the Lord with all your heart.”

And here’s something else about wisdom, quoted from Wisdom:

In the Book of Wisdom, Solomon wrote: "Wisdom is beneficent and kind. She is the aura of the power of God, the radiance of the eternal Divine Light, a spotless mirror of God. She renews all things, and passing into holy souls from age to age, She produces friends of God and prophets. She is firm, but Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her. And Wisdom is far better than weapons of war."

Notice that real Wisdom produces prophets, and She is firm but Her paths are peace. Most human beings get flashes of Wisdom occasionally, but few "lay hold upon Her." A precious few do, though, and throughout history those who did are called sages, prophets, buddhas, avatars, siddhas, christs, etc.

The spiritually anointed son of man and prophet called Jesus of Nazareth understood the book of Wisdom. That’s why he advised us to not live by the sword. It’s why he was very firm in rebuking greedy rich people, money lenders, religious hypocrites and other wrong doers, and yet on the other hand he advised people to be peaceful, forgiving and compassionate, turn the other cheek, and love even their enemies. Many preceding prophets were similar in that respect, and the modern son of man follows those precedents.

You may like that and agree with it or not. It's up to you, and you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. But so do I.

[intaglio]

55. Let's look at the evidence

So ... "Try, Try Again Project" is not a single person over 70 who claims to have been organising this group since the 1970s. Perhaps he does not pretend to be the "certain man" but he is pretending to be the prophet of the chosen one. This makes him a leader, rather like John the Baptist, who made similar claims (if the Bible is to be believed). However forerunners and unheeded prophets are 2 a penny in many faiths.

Now let's look at website. The "whois" search reveals that the site is registered via "privacy protect . org" an Australian group with an address in Queensland and servers based in the USA. For some reason your group wants to protect itself behind a smokescreen.

Let's look at some of the posts your group has originated in other forums (mainly Huffington Post). People like guamote, E J Nunn, Pro-Reformation and, interestingly, SarahRuth23. The only common link is that all issue boilerplate adverts for the mysterious "cjcmp"

Now look at page content: Main page states outright the following -

Take heart. It's not the end of the world, but the end of an age. The pen will prove mightier than the sword, the truth will resolve the conflicts and prevail over all the false beliefs that divide us, and the humble and meek shall inherit the earth.

You see, according to world prophecies, it was foreseen long ago that the terrible predicament and horrible tribulation from which we suffer would precede an interceding judgment.

According to prophecies, the judgment is delivered by a certain man. The problem is, he is rejected by his generation because he is not what people have been led to expect. For example, many people expect him to be a conquering hero and "holy king," but an accurate interpretation of the most specific prophecies is that he is neither. He is not holy and he is only human, and contrite. He cannot seek worldly personal power. He delivers his work but it is rejected so long he fears all his work is in vain, and he suspects and fears he will probably die before the world gets the message.

He is principal messenger for the Spirit of truth, but he is a man of sorrows and well acquainted with grief, and he is your fellow companion in tribulation. He knows that all he can do is tell the truth and deliver the message to liberate and empower the people, and he knows that the promised judgment cannot be imposed. The people, many of whom have been made aware of the message, need to recognize it for what it is.

Begin at the beginning "It's not the end of the world, but the end of an age" so it is not an apocalypse, except it will be. Then comes a string of platitudes, that is not wisdom that is a set of trigger words and phrases designed to entice people further into the mire.

Next "You see, according to world prophecies, it was foreseen long ago that the terrible predicament and horrible tribulation from which we suffer would precede an interceding judgment." As stated above it's not an apocalypse, except it will be. There is also the curious pretense that we are living through some sort of dreadful end time. little problem here is that for the majority of humanity this is one of the best times to be alive, modern medicine communications and ethic prove that. There is also the false assertion about "world prophecies" for as far as I am aware neither the Buddhist nor Tao nor Shinto nor Australian Aboriginal nor Ancient Greek faiths have any such prophecy.

Now comes the hook "According to prophecies, the judgment is delivered by a certain man," of course this man can be recognised by the cult you follow, indeed they will be the only ones who can recognise him and the only ones who can spread the knowledge of this "judgment", you are going to be special in this new order.

So let's check what we have so far:
Secretiveness about origins;
Active proselytisation;
Trigger words;
False assertions about how awful the world is compared to a "golden age";
Platitudes masquerading as wisdom;
Promises of favour;
Misinterpreting other faiths, implying that they are less than complete.

To issue an (untrue) truism, "if it acts like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck - it is a duck." There are cases where this is untrue, especially about water birds, but this cult is not one of those cases.

Moving on to the contents of your post, if your coalition "... has no organization, no leadership" then how does the website get published and how do the tracts you have as pages get written? How does the CJCMP arrange for its own web domain?

You try to "endure critics and skeptics" yet are unable to provide coherent answers nor are you willing to find someone who can assist you in this endeavor. You are not willing to discuss or to admit fault, you only wish us to accept your word uncritically. But one of these critics (not me in all likelihood) might be your Paul, converted on the website of DU by a blinding light of revelation. You are indeed a martyr to so offer such a blessing under such onerous circumstances.

You quote Socrates and then, lacking any sense of irony, claim that "great Solomon" was known for his wisdom. You use the word "wisdom" and yet have no knowledge of what it means because it is like truth, a word used to obfuscate and impress. You then, again, quote from your cult tracts.

The problem with this begins with the tract falsely asserting that the "Book of Wisdom" is by Solomon. This would have been difficult given that it was, in all probability, written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew in the 2nd or 3rd Century BCE and Solomon, if he lived, was alive in the 10th Century BCE and if he could write at all would have written in the language of his time. Given this obvious flaw in the wisdom of your cult you might want to start being less credulous.

Note that in the quote chosen that Wisdom is personified, a genius (please check the meaning of that word). This personification grants insight; to such a personification I have no objection apart from the obvious one regarding reality. This is not the wisdom of which you pretend to have knowledge. This change also makes your prophet a special person who it is not possible for you to criticise without the risk of you being "unwise".

The tract continues with this personification, and is dishonest to boot before changing from personification to quality with no warning. Examples:
"real Wisdom produces prophets" a platitude and false, the point of the story of Jonah is that he was unwise enough to defy God yet he remained a prophet;
"Most human beings get flashes of Wisdom occasionally," wow! Note that wisdom here is still the goddess so it is her insight that is granted;
"A precious few do, though, and throughout history those who did are called sages, prophets, buddhas, avatars, siddhas, christs," evidence, please, and why the sudden change from goddess to undefined quality.

Next!
"The spiritually anointed son of man and prophet called Jesus of Nazareth" No he wasn't, he was baptised when, according to unreliable evidence, he received the holy spirit and later he was anointed physically. Additionally he was not known in his lifetime as "of Nazareth" because Nazareth did not exist.

And there is more ...
"That’s why he advised us to not live by the sword," except when he did to the extent of ordering his disciples to buy swords after the last supper.

"It’s why he was very firm in rebuking greedy rich people, money lenders, religious hypocrites and other wrong doers" except he associated with Publicans (Publicani, otherwise known as money lenders and tax farmers) and sinners.

"Yet on the other hand he advised people to be peaceful, forgiving and compassionate, turn the other cheek, and love even their enemies" in sermons looted wholesale from other Jewish texts. Of course it ignores his approval of violence in other circumstances and his prophecies of the destruction of the majority of the human race. These were failed prophecies, of course, because they were supposed to happen in the lifetime of the disciples.

"Many preceding prophets were similar in that respect," so he wasn't an original.

Lastly the cult leader you do not have makes an appearance: "the modern son of man follows those precedents," this is strange, for here you proclaim a leader you do not have as a real person and known to at least one of your cult.

[skepticscott]

58. Well done

It is an irony (unrecognized by our friend here, no doubt) that no one in a cult would ever acknowledge that what THEY belong to is a cult, even while admitting that such things do exist..somewhere.

[trotsky]

66. Brilliant post.

Well-researched, well-stated, with strong and supported conclusions.

Of special note is this statement:

You try to "endure critics and skeptics" yet are unable to provide coherent answers nor are you willing to find someone who can assist you in this endeavor. You are not willing to discuss or to admit fault, you only wish us to accept your word uncritically.

I would note that this poster isn't the only individual posting in this group to display this behavior. When unable to defend their religious claims, they claim persecution and cry bigotry. How DARE people question their pronouncements?

[SarahM32]

69. That's not "evidence." Let's look at Intaglio's deception.

See my post below, Response to critics and skeptics, Part 2

[skepticscott]

59. The way you keep repeating the phrase

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (2)

"the message" is pretty scary....and very cultish. I count no less than 9 usages of that phrase in the first half of your post, almost as if you'd been programmed to repeat it as often as possible. "Promote" is also stuck in there more times than could be an accident. Perhaps you should capitalize it and give it one of those thingies: The Message (r) It'd make a great book title for the woo-woo shelf at Barnes and Noble.

[mr blur]

62. You could go on Oprah!

She'd love it.

[SarahM32]

65. In response to the critics and skeptics, part 2

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I just want to address the most false assumptions that have been made by “Intaglio.”

First, The Try Try Again Project is a the twofold work of one man, now 71 years old. One part of his work is in songs that can be heard and read here, and the other part that can be read in summarized form here.

Since Intaglio mentioned the term Apocalypse in a very misleading way and in a rather transparent attempt to denigrate the message of that 71 year old man (whose message I advocate for and promote), I should say something about what the message actually says about the Apocalypse which has come at the end of the age, as Jesus and other prophets in the world predicted.

Even though today the term Apocalypse is commonly used in reference to a so-called “end time” scenario, or to the "end of the world" in general, that is because of misguided Christian doctrine and dogma. It is contradictory to what is written in the books of Daniel, Isaiah and other Hebrew prophets, as well as John's book of Revelation, which say that there will be a new paradigm that will "last forever."

An apocalypse, from the ancient Greek term apocálypsis, means an un-covering or revealing, a lifting of the veil or a revelation, a disclosure of knowledge, hidden from humanity because of false beliefs and misconceptions.

That’s why the main page of the message states: “The Greek word 'Apocalypse' actually means to 'uncover, reveal, or unveil' the truth that has been ignored, forgotten, misinterpreted and misunderstood, and the phrase 'apokalupsis eschaton' literally means 'revelation at the end of the aeon, or age.'"

So much for that.

Then Intaglio tries to imply that because the author delivers his message anonymously, there must be something wrong with that – that it must be a “smokescreen.” That is a typical tactic Intaglio uses, shamelessly trying to mislead and deceive.

The fact, as the author says (and as I have relayed here on different occasions), is that the author needs to remain anonymous and “hidden” ... as the prophet Isaiah foresaw and foretold ... and not exalt himself. Even Jesus was reported to have said the one to come would not speak of himself to exalt himself, but would bear the testimony of Jesus. (See John 8:28, John 12:47, and John 16 verses 7-15 for clues.) He does not speak from behind a podium or pulpit to try to gain some kind of political or religious office. Instead, he guides us to truth, shows us things to come, and shows the way that we may liberate and empower ourselves.

Next Intaglio makes the incredible claim that: “For the majority of humanity this is one of the best times to be alive.”

Intaglio made that claim in a careless attempt to refute the fact that most of the people in the world have been suffering from the predicted tribulation, and even now suffer from many of the terrible things that have been happening as we’ve been drawing nearer to the end of the age -- as was prophesied.

That reveals that Intaglio is apparently like many uncaring people who simply turn the other way, preferring not to see the suffering, the poverty, the hunger, the homelessness, the misery, the death and destruction in our nation and world.

Next Intaglio tries to discredit the sentence in the message that says: “According to prophecies, the judgment is delivered by a certain man." But Intaglio’s attempt to discredit that statement reveals his ignorance.

Intaglia apparently is ignorant of the expectations of the coming of a man who represents the Kalki Avatar, the Buddha Maitreya, the Saoshyant, the Sage, the Mashiach, the Messiah, the Imam Mahdi, and the man known by Natives of the Western Hemisphere as Quetzalcoatl or the bearded white man called Pahana or Kukulcan – to name a few of the titles and names of the expected one. And there is one expected one.

Then Intaglio makes the most absurd claim, trying to mislead you and misrepresent the message by claiming it says that if you “spread the knowledge of this ‘judgment,’ you are going to be special in this new order.”

Now that REALLY takes the cake. Once again Intaglio tries to paint something that is not there as a cult, and he now claims it is intended to be a “new order.” That’s sounds like the fear-mongering by the “Christian Right”about a “new world order of the anti-christ.”

But how can there be a cult when it doesn’t exist? If it exists, where is it? Who's in it? Who and where is this so-called leader? Can Intaglio tell us? NO -- because there isn't any cult.

All that the messenger provides and delivers is a message, which will live on after the author is dead, because as he says, what’s important is not the messenger, but the message of truth that will liberate and empower us all.

Next Intaglio tries to discredit the article on Wisdom by pointing out that Solomon didn’t write the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. But while Intaglio is technically correct about that, you should know the following:

The Book of Wisdom, often referred to simply as Wisdom or the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, is one of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible. Even though the author's name is not mentioned in the text, the reader is meant to believe it was King Solomon – for many reasons. One is because the author “speaks” as a son of David, and there are references like the one in chapter 9 verses 7-8, saying: "You have chosen me to be a king of your people, and a judge of your sons and daughters: You have commanded me to build a temple upon your holy mountain ..."

Of course, some early Christians and many others including many modern Christians, Catholics and non-religious scholars have submitted that the book was not actually authored by Solomon but was either written by students of Solomon in his honor, or by a Hellenistic Jew named Jesus around 70 BC. And that may or may not be true. We don't know.

All that is beside the point, however, because the point is that the Book of Wisdom was written in the spirit of Solomon, and the quote from it in the article on Wisdom is this:

"Wisdom is beneficent and kind. She is the aura of the power of God, the radiance of the eternal Divine Light, a spotless mirror of God. She renews all things, and passing into holy souls from age to age, She produces friends of God and prophets. She is firm, but Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her. And Wisdom is far better than weapons of war."

That is very similar to the following, which was written by Solomon in Proverbs:

Proverbs 9: "Wisdom has built her house and she calls to all: Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding. Forsake the foolish, and live. Go in the way of understanding. For the fear of the Lord God is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. For by me your days shall be multiplied, and the years of your life shall be increased."

Proverbs 3: “Happy is the man that finds Wisdom, and the man that gets understanding. ... For She is more precious than rubies: and all the things you can desire are not to be compared unto Her. Length of days is in Her right hand; and in Her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her: and happy is every one that retains Her. The Lord God by Wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has God established the heavens."

Next Intaglio claims that it is erroneous to call Jesus “The spiritually anointed son of man and prophet called Jesus of Nazareth." Intaglio flatly says: “No he wasn't, he was baptised when, according to unreliable evidence, he received the holy spirit and later he was anointed physically.”

I agree that what’s in the church canon is unreliable, but, if Intaglio believes it is unreliable then how can he claim it as truth to refute the statement he is criticizing? How can Intaglio claim that Jesus was not a spiritually anointed son of man and prophet?

Next Intaglio reveals his ignorance of who actually issued the prophecies that we find in the canonized texts of the Christian New Testament, and he claims that is was Jesus who issued “prophecies of the destruction of the majority of the human race.” But that is not true. Jesus foresaw and foretold this great tribulation, the "seven plagues," natural disasters and other terrible things, knowing that the vain folly of Man would cause them, both indirectly and directly.

Intaglio is correct about one thing, though. Paul and some of the apostles did indeed believe that the “end” was imminent and would come during their lifetimes. But they were wrong about that, and they did not understand that Jesus prophesied about the end of the age “aeon.” And Intaglio doesn’t understand that either.

Lastly, Intaglio make another very uniformed comment: “The cult leader you do not have makes an appearance: ‘the modern son of man follows those precedents,’ this is strange, for here you proclaim a leader you do not have as a real person ...”

There Intaglio simply twists my words, and words in the message, refusing to acknowledge what it says and means.

I do not "proclaim a leader." I promote the message of an author-messenger who has not made an appearance. There is no leader of any cult. (How many times do I have to say it?) The author of the message has not, does not, and will not, be a leader as we traditionally think of a leader, and certainly not a leader of any organized religious group or sect or political group or party. His mission is to foster Interfaith understanding and cooperation, and religious tolerance and pluralism, and government of, by and for the people.

It doesn’t bother me when people misunderstand and are ignorant or uninformed. But, I think it is ridiculous and offensive when there is such blatant, purposeful ignorance and denial of plainly stated facts. And it is especially offensive when there is such an obvious attempt to slander, mislead and deceive. And Intaglio is shamefully guilty of that.
.

[skepticscott]

68. I counted 11 uses

of that creepy phrase "the message" this time. You're nothing if not robotic, "Sarah"...and cultishly defensive. But you "promote" very well...

[SarahM32]

70. You don't understand my motivation.

As the messenger says, it's the message that's important, not the messenger.

That's why I mention it, as much as possible. And it's not because I am "cultishly defensive."

The efforts to paint the All Faiths Coalition for Peace Freedom and Justice as a cult, are, on their face, misleading and deceptive. How can an All Faiths Coalition be a cult?

To claim I am defensive is to misunderstand my motivation, because my motivation is to advocate and promote the message, and, when critics and skeptics try to discredit or denigrate it, I try to correct them and explain why they got it wrong.

I do not defend the messenger-author, the modern son of man. He, by his own confession, admits he is a flawed human being, a fellow companion in tribulation. That's why I don't defend him, I advocate for the message he delivers, and correct those who misrepresent what it says.

As for your belief that my efforts are "cultish," if you discovered a good idea, in fact a great idea whose time will come, wouldn't you want to spread the word about it?

I know you don't buy any of that, because you're a skeptic and no doubt an Atheist. And I don't blame you for that. I too hate all the "religious" bigotry and hypocrisy that is causing so much conflict, division, death and destruction in the world. But one day, I believe, after a reformation of religion, Atheists will understand that science and religion are not at odds, and Theocrats will realize their error.
.

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. "How can an All Faiths Coalition be a cult?" How can a Unification Church be a cult? (nt)

[skepticscott]

82. Thanks, beat me to it

The dark side is strong in this one...

[cleanhippie]

80. "As the messenger says, it's the message that's important, not the messenger."

With every post, you further the idea that you have fallen under the spell of a charlatan.

Run away. Run away as fast as you can.

[intaglio]

71. You deceiver, I do not even think you are a self deceiver

Apocalypse
I quoted your nonsense to show how, despite your denial, you pretend that your particular end time is an apocalypse as the word is currently understood. not as the word was understood by the ancient Greeks

Anonymity
Your prophet "has to remain anonymous"? Why because - magic? Garbage

Does that also include your the originator of your web domain? Do they have to be secret? Does that secrecy have to include the designers of your web pages (tracts)? Because I looked at the source code and all the identifiers have been removed.

So, yes, there is a smokescreen, a deliberate attempt to hide

Best of times, worst of times

Next Intaglio makes the incredible claim that: “For the majority of humanity this is one of the best times to be alive.”

Evidence to the contrary or you are a deliberate deceiver, an issuer if lies. I gave just 3 examples of how being alive now is better than at any time in the past and the only counter argument you have is assertion without supporting evidence.

Do you really believe that the suffering you identify in this"terrible" time has any similarity to the constant cycle of death by disease, starvation, torture and simple injury of the past? Do you really believe that a Helot in ancient Sparta was better off because they had a home? Or that the loathing and humiliation and physical punishment visited upon the homeless in pre-modern societies bears any relationship to homelessness now?

Was any member of any society was more likely to be happy dying from Hodgkins disease or diabetic ketosis or blood poisoning or sarcoma or malaria or ergot poisoning because your ignorance says life was "better" then? For all those things existed and killed in ancient times despite the lies of the new-agers. Do you think that the crippling effects of an unset compound fracture is compensated for because you think the sufferer must have lived a simpler, happier life?

Would you be content to chew rawhide to until it was soft enough to wear? Or to rot your fingers retting linen or hemp so that you could spin it into usable fibre? Are you happy to live your life unable to travel more than 20 miles from your home unless you were wealthy enough to own a cart? To live so far from the sea that you die from goitre (Derbyshire neck) because you were unable to have enough iodine in your food? Never to meet the man of your dreams because he lived 100 miles away and was content to marry in his village because his father said so? Would you be happy to read only 1 or 2 books in your entire lifetime - if you were able to read at all?

Prophecies of a Saviour
As for the prophesied Saviour, nowhere did I say there were no faiths with such fantasies but that there were several, or many, faiths without such a superman. Where is my deceit? Or is the deceit in the words of the cult you follow?

Being amongst the chosen
Nice to see that you do not deny being special in your new world. If not using the name of a 1980s pop band suits the fantasies of the more practised? enlightened? senior? members of your "Cooperative" better then I will not argue. As to who is in your cult I would point you to the deliberate covering up of such information. That is cult like behaviour.

The Book of Wisdom
Now you walk back the words of your own cult, I quote the tract Wisdom as copied and pasted by yourself;

In the Book of Wisdom, Solomon wrote: "Wisdom is beneficent and kind ...

my emphasis and giving the lie to your attempts to excuse your leader, sorry, the composer of that tract.

In respect of the paleographic evidence about the "Book of Wisdom," it is actually pretty conclusive because style, references and absence of mention in older texts. It certainly copied from other texts such as Proverbs but Proverbs is certainly post exile and may even be as late as 150 BCE. The other problem you have with this is the characterisation of Wisdom as a Goddess, which fits with Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian styles not the Hebrew.

The real revelation here is your willingness to be blinded to the faults of your cult and the lengths to which you go to excuse those faults. This is further evidence that you are, deeply, involved in a cult.

Annointment
I do not give credence to the Bible, I do not think that the vast majority of what it describes occurred. The point I was making was, simply, that your cult describes events for which there is no evidence or description in the only source for the life of the failed prophet who was not called Jesus. If the New Testament is at fault then all the evidence you have for Jesus is at fault and can be challenged.

You also ignore the "Nazareth" problem to which your cult adheres.

The fact is your cult has no evidence for the fantasies it wishes people to accept. The uncritical acceptance of cult teachings is another sign that your organisation is a cult.

Disaster
Nowhere did I say what was to cause the disasters prophesied by the failed prophet of the New Testament, only that he prophesied an end time that was to occur before the death of his disciples. He prophesied many things and I believe his accuracy is currently about zero but feel free to correct me. On the other hand he did not prophesy about the Papacy or Constantine or The Black Death or the (putative) Late Roman pneumonic plague. He did not prophecy about the rise of Islam, The Mormons, America or the marginalisation of slavery. There is no mention in the writings about him knowing of the Diaspora of the Jews or that Gentiles would be the bearers of his message. Call me underwhelmed.

Twisted
I twisted your words, hmmm. They're your words describing a leader known as the "modern son of man," who is alive now. Will you refuse to follow this person once he reveals himself to yourself as well as the "elect" who already know who he is?

This was called doublethink by Orwell and I think it fits very well with you being blinded by the cult you are in.

[SarahM32]

77. Here we go again. Okay, if you insist on putting us both through this ...

I will blockquote your points, and follow them by showing how and why you've got it wrong.

Apocalypse
I quoted your nonsense to show how, despite your denial, you pretend that your particular end time is an apocalypse as the word is currently understood. not as the word was understood by the ancient Greeks.

That only proves that you refuse to acknowledge what I’ve written and what the message says, that these are not the so-called “end times,” and that Apocalypse does not mean “end times.” It means revelation at the end of the age. If you had read the rest of the main page, or the article on The End of An Age, you would see that.

Your comments regarding Apocalypse reveal a lack of understanding of the real meaning of the word, which is what is used in the message throughout.

Anonymity
Your prophet "has to remain anonymous"? Why because - magic? Garbage
Does that also include your the originator of your web domain? Do they have to be secret? Does that secrecy have to include the designers of your web pages (tracts)? Because I looked at the source code and all the identifiers have been removed. So, yes, there is a smokescreen, a deliberate attempt to hide.

I am quite aware that you don't believe in prophecies, but many of them are true, and just because you pooh pooh them doesn't make them any less true.

“Listen to me, and hearken all peoples, from far: the Lord has called me, and from the womb of my mother has God made mention of my name. And the Lord God has made my mouth and pen like a sharp sword, in the shadow of God’s hand have I been hidden; and the Lord has made me as a polished arrow, in God’s quiver I have been concealed. And God said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said: 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and vanity; yet surely my righteousness is with the Lord, and my satisfaction with my God.' And now says my God that formed me from the womb to be a loyal servant, to bring Jacob back to God, and that Israel be gathered unto God — for I am honorable in the sight of the Lord, and my God is become my strength. Indeed, God said: 'It is not enough that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel. I will also give you for a light of all the nations, that My salvation may be unto the ends of the earth.' Thus said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of men, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: ‘They shall see, and they shall lower themselves and acknowledge God; because of the Lord that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.’” – Isaiah 49:1-7

"(God) has made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand has he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver has he hid me; And said unto me, You are my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, says the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." (Isaiah 49:2-5)

(Note: The original Jacob was called Israel because he struggled with God, and the modern servant “brings Jacob again.” He is not Jacob or Israel literally, but represents that which Jacob represented.)

"He [the son of man] that takes refuge in My shall inherit My holy mountain. And He will say: ‘Draw up, clear the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of My people.’ For thus says the high and Holy One that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him that is of a contrite and humbled spirit; to revive the spirit of the humble [and meek], and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always angry. For the iniquity of his covetousness was I angry, and struck him. I hid me, and was angry, and he went on willfully in the ways of his heart. (But) I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners." (Isaiah 57:13-19)

Best of times, worst of times
“Next Intaglio makes the incredible claim that: ‘For the majority of humanity this is one of the best times to be alive.’”
Evidence to the contrary or you are a deliberate deceiver, an issuer if lies. I gave just 3 examples of how being alive now is better than at any time in the past and the only counter argument you have is assertion without supporting evidence.

As I have said before, and as the article I cited in the OP says, "as prophesied there have been and are signs that herald the coming of a new paradigm, a new age or a new dispensation, and a brighter future in a “new world.” However, the signs of coming renaissance and reformation are not merely negative — such as the terrible signs that demonstrate the worst tendencies of people who think they are superior and entitled to rule, and will stop at nothing to maintain their power, wealth and domain. There are positive signs as well, in that there have been and are wonderful and inspiring signs that demonstrate how humanity is evolving, advancing and progressing in many ways that benefit all humanity, especially in technology, science, and the creative arts."

Nevertheless, the supporting evidence of the terrible events and tribulation is pretty clear and obvious to anyone who reads or watches the news, though you choose to ignore it. You either don’t know or don’t care how many people are suffering and dying from poverty, hunger, homelessness, “natural” disasters (like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts), famines, and wars (many of which were prophesied), most of which were caused directly or indirectly by social injustice and Man’s inhumanity to Man, or by Man’s careless disregard for and damage to the environment and ecosystem.

You either don’t know or don’t care that 23.1 percent of American children live in poverty, as the latest UNICEF report on child poverty showed, even though 79 percent of those children live in households in which at least one adult works full time. And that’s in the country that’s touted as the richest country in the world, which is inexcusable.

Do you really believe that the suffering you identify in this"terrible" time has any similarity to the constant cycle of death by disease, starvation, torture and simple injury of the past? Do you really believe that a Helot in ancient Sparta was better off because they had a home? Or that the loathing and humiliation and physical punishment visited upon the homeless in pre-modern societies bears any relationship to homelessness now?

I don’t see any logic or understanding of prophecy there. The prophecies about the tribulation we are suffering at the end of the age don’t say that a terrible earthquake in modern times is any more devastating than earthquakes throughout history, or that any other catastrophic events now are any worse than they’ve been throughout history – though wars are obviously more deadly and destructive.

The prophecies of Jesus, for instance, merely foresaw that at the end of the age there would be this tribulation and all these problems. The world has seen the signs Jesus predicted, including wars and rumors of war, and the "seven plagues" (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, famines, diseases, pestilences), and many other "terrible things" like tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, and other natural and man-made disasters that have caused this terrible tribulation.

To deny that most people suffer from them is rather obstinate. And the rest of you comments on this issue seem to be a desperate attempt to save face.

Prophecies of a Saviour
As for the prophesied Saviour, nowhere did I say there were no faiths with such fantasies but that there were several, or many, faiths without such a superman. Where is my deceit? Or is the deceit in the words of the cult you follow?

Oh, surely you can do better than that. That’s just shooting yourself in the foot.

Now, even as you use more misleading and deceptive words like “superman” and “cult,” you claim there is no deceit in you. But you were even more misleading and deceptive in what you wrote in a previous post.

In your post #53 you (Intaglio) wrote:

“Now comes the hook: ‘According to prophecies, the judgment is delivered by a certain man,’ of course this man can be recognised by the cult you follow, indeed they will be the only ones who can recognise him and the only ones who can spread the knowledge of this ‘judgment." you are going to be special in this new order.”

Your comments are misleading and deceptive, because as I’ve pointed out, the modern son of man is no “superman.” And if you had read The Story of the Modern Son of Man, or Prophecies Regarding He Who Fulfills Them, or Isaiah Chapter 53, all of which are in the Site Map, you would know that.

Being amongst the chosen
Nice to see that you do not deny being special in your new world. If not using the name of a 1980s pop band suits the fantasies of the more practised? enlightened? senior? members of your "Cooperative" better then I will not argue. As to who is in your cult I would point you to the deliberate covering up of such information. That is cult like behaviour.

What are you talking about, and where did you get such wild ideas? My God, what nonsense.

The only place that anyone chosen is mentioned in the message is in the prophecies of Isaiah, which mentions God’s chosen servant in many instances, as does Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But there are no “chosen people.” God the omnipresent Great Spirit-Parent is the God of all nations, all religions, all races, all cultures.

And again you mislead and deceive by labeling those who would belong to an All Faiths Coalition as a “cult.”

If it’s a cult, where is it? As the page About the Coalition says, there is no organization, no membership list, no leadership. If someone wants to be a member, all they do is what I do, spread the word about the message, and try to foster Interfaith understanding and dialogue, and try to show agnostics and atheists that religion and science don’t have to be at odds.

The Book of Wisdom
Now you walk back the words of your own cult, I quote the tract Wisdom as copied and pasted by yourself; "In the Book of Wisdom, Solomon wrote: 'Wisdom is beneficent and kind ..."
my emphasis and giving the lie to your attempts to excuse your leader, sorry, the composer of that tract.

In respect of the paleographic evidence about the "Book of Wisdom," it is actually pretty conclusive because style, references and absence of mention in older texts. It certainly copied from other texts such as Proverbs but Proverbs is certainly post exile and may even be as late as 150 BCE. The other problem you have with this is the characterisation of Wisdom as a Goddess, which fits with Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian styles not the Hebrew.

The real revelation here is your willingness to be blinded to the faults of your cult and the lengths to which you go to excuse those faults. This is further evidence that you are, deeply, involved in a cult.

You are correct in your quote. However, I noticed today that it has been revised to state the following:

"The son of man speaks of Wisdom in the same sense that Solomon did in Proverbs, and as in the Book of Wisdom. The Book of Wisdom is included in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). However, it was purposely left out of the Protestant versions of the Christian Bible.

"According to the Book of Wisdom: 'Wisdom is beneficent and kind. She is the aura of the power of God, the radiance of the eternal Divine Light, a spotless mirror of God. She renews all things, and passing into holy souls from age to age, She produces friends of God and prophets. She is firm, but Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her. And Wisdom is far better than weapons of war.'"

I must point out that you are wrong in claiming that the Book of Wisdom characterizes Wisdom as a “Goddess.” It does not. It says Wisdom is a “spotless mirror of God.”

Solomon’s Proverbs does not characterize Wisdom as a “Goddess” either. But to understand it you need to understand Kabbalah, the mystical side of Judaism (and it would help to understand the Talmud as well), because in the Kabbalistic diagram of the Tree of Life, the second Sepheroth is Wisdom and the third is Understanding, representing the female and male aspects of the divine reality.

That’s why Solomon wrote the following:

Proverbs 9: "Wisdom has built her house and she calls to all: Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding. Forsake the foolish, and live. Go in the way of understanding. For the fear of the Lord God is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. For by me your days shall be multiplied, and the years of your life shall be increased."

Proverbs 3: “Happy is the man that finds Wisdom, and the man that gets understanding. ... For She (Wisdom) is more precious than rubies: and all the things you can desire are not to be compared unto Her. Length of days is in Her right hand; and in Her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her: and happy is every one that retains Her. The Lord God by Wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has God established the heavens."

Annointment
I do not give credence to the Bible, I do not think that the vast majority of what it describes occurred. The point I was making was, simply, that your cult describes events for which there is no evidence or description in the only source for the life of the failed prophet who was not called Jesus. If the New Testament is at fault then all the evidence you have for Jesus is at fault and can be challenged. You also ignore the "Nazareth" problem to which your cult adheres. The fact is your cult has no evidence for the fantasies it wishes people to accept. The uncritical acceptance of cult teachings is another sign that your organisation is a cult.

I don’t blame you for not giving credence to the Bible, considering what “bible-believing Chrisians” have done. And I myself see the errors in it and understand that much of what some people think is “truth” is actually allegory, myth, and symbolic prophecy.

However, even though there are errors and mistakes in the Bible, that doesn’t mean it is therefore worthless. In fact, there is far more truth in it than error and falsehood.

Like other Enlightenment thinkers, Thomas Jefferson recognized that, because while he said “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus," he also said “Paul was the first corrupter of Christianity.” That’s why the “Jefferson Bible” has all the “corruptions” edited out.

As for Jesus, he was not a “failed prophet,” as you claim. In fact, his prophecies were right on. But he was misrepresented by Paul and some of the apostles who fabricated stories about him (such as the myths about the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the “second coming”). Jesus knew what he was, a prophet and reformer, but Paul and those with like mind did not understand that but thought they did. That’s why they erroneously thought “the end” and “second coming” was imminent even though there will be no end and no second coming of the historical Jesus, who is also called Yeshuah and Issa or Isha.

As for your repeated claim that I belong to an “organization” and “cult,” I’ve already addressed that. And it would be impossible for you to show any evidence whatsoever that there is an organization, because there isn’t one.

Disaster
Nowhere did I say what was to cause the disasters prophesied by the failed prophet of the New Testament, only that he prophesied an end time that was to occur before the death of his disciples. He prophesied many things and I believe his accuracy is currently about zero but feel free to correct me. On the other hand he did not prophesy about the Papacy or Constantine or The Black Death or the (putative) Late Roman pneumonic plague. He did not prophecy about the rise of Islam, The Mormons, America or the marginalisation of slavery. There is no mention in the writings about him knowing of the Diaspora of the Jews or that Gentiles would be the bearers of his message. Call me underwhelmed.

Again, the prophecies of Jesus about the tribulation and catastrophic events at the end of the age have been and are being fulfilled. Paul and some of the apostles misunderstood them, and they were wrong. They wrote that “all these things shall come to pass before this generation passes,” but they did not understand what Jesus had actually said and meant about the “end of the age” (also called in other languages aeon, yuga, kalpa and olam).

You apparently expect that prophets should have a magic crystal ball and see everything that will happen in the future, but that’s not the way it works. Prophets generally understand human nature, at its worst and its best, and they have faith that the time will come when good overcomes evil, love overcomes hate, and so on. Many see patterns of behavior and make predictions, and some of them get a little carried away with making it sound more than it is. However, some prophets have had an uncanny ability to foresee things pretty well, and I think Isaiah and Jesus did a pretty good job.

Jesus did not mention the Diaspora of the Jews, and he did not mention the Gentiles would play such a role, because Isaiah already had. For example, Isaiah wrote:

"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him, he shall make the right to go forth to the nations. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” -- Isaiah 42:1-2

The King James version changes that and says he shall “bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,” which is not far off. But the point is that it speaks of the modern son of man, not Jesus, because Jesus did rise up as a teacher-orator. He did cry out to make his voice heard on many occasions, and he certainly did cause his voice to be heard in the street. But the modern son of man does not, which is consistent to other things Isaiah wrote, about the son of man being “hidden.”

Twisted
I twisted your words, hmmm. They're your words describing a leader known as the "modern son of man," who is alive now. Will you refuse to follow this person once he reveals himself to yourself as well as the "elect" who already know who he is? This was called doublethink by Orwell and I think it fits very well with you being blinded by the cult you are in.

Once again you misunderstand. The whole point of his mission is NOT to be a leader who people follow, or obey. His mission is to show the way from behind the scenes -- the way that we, the people, may liberate and empower ourselves.

Your refusal to admit that, and instead deceptively misrepresent what the message says and attempt to create a false impression, is shameful.
.

[intaglio]

83. Sorry, the world does not revolve round you and your petty cult

Apocalypse - The real meaning of a word is its current sense unless otherwise specified. I specified that my use of the word was as is currently understood. On the other hand your is attempting to turn the clock back on the meaning and the sense in which you apply it does not match the predictions the cult makes about that apocalypse but rather the more modern foolishness. To find similar predictions to your cult please visit the pages of "Rapture Ready"

Prophecies - I have no problem with prophesies, they can usually be shown to be wrong, content free generalisations, post facto rationalisation or written after the event prophesied. The books of Isaiah fall into these last 2 categories pretty spectacularly. Prophesies about Jesus were interpreted after the fact.

Anonymity - I do have a problem with anonymity and secretiveness in relation to cults because that is used as a camouflage to hide a multitude of sins and abuses.

Tribulation - Visit Rapture Ready, they might buy your foolishness. As to the vast disasters now affecting the world ... they're not any greater now than in the past (minor exceptions noted below). In matters of history you are a complete dunce. Modern communication means we hear about such things when they happen and do not have to go searching through legends or manuscripts or examine sediments to find out about them.
1) Volcanic eruptions, earthquake and tsunami are happening at about the same rate as they always have but they can harm more people because modern agriculture, medicine and transport means more people are alive now than at any other period in history. However a greater proportion of them survive because are not as subject to death by starvation, lingering injury and sickness.
2) Weather disaster might be on the up-tick but we know the reason for that and we know pretty much how to ameliorate and, eventually, reverse it. Additionally more survive because of the reasons given in (1)
3) The only category where your argument might apply is illness specifically in relation to HIV/Aids but HIV/Aids, terrible as it is, has not made a dent in world population. I suggest you look at the history of the Black Death before you make such a claim. It took 300 or more years for the population of Europe alone to get to the same level as it had been before that disaster.

Superman - you do not follow the sense of the word "superman" (deliberately uncapitalised). Sorry, I am not talking about the comic superhero; read your Nietzsche, I suspect your prophet has. You also ignore the word "hook" which describes the words designed to lead fools deeper into the mire of your cult.

Chosen - Part of this is the hook is that by assertion or implication those who follow the words of your prophet are the ones who will recognise the superman (note, no capital) and as such have received a blessing from the God who only you know about. You are chosen to guide humans into this brave new world (not capitalised but the multiple implications intended).

Cult - I have given my reasons and only you seem to be blind to them. No organisation? but somehow "mistakes" can be rectified, websites constructed and paid for, proselytizers led to seek converts. No leaders? just a prophet and I suspect those with more kudos amongst the faithful. No membership list? so how do you know who you are, how do you remain in contact - magic again? I would point you to "The Family" whose teachings are slightly reminiscent of your "Coalition". They too deny being a cult.

Correction - I notice today that your prophet made a mistake and it has been corrected (without acknowledgement). I notice that you are blind to the contents of your abstracted quotations "Wisdom is beneficent and kind. She is the aura of the power of God ..." "Wisdom has built her house and she calls to all ..." my emphasis to show it is not a mirror nor an aura that is being described, it is a person. You also falsely attribute Proverbs to Solomon - do the words post-exilic mean nothing to you? Firstly, Solomon (if he existed) was alive in the 10th Century BCE; the Exile ended about 540 BCE a small matter of 400 years. There is nothing in any part of Proverbs that dates it before the Exile.

Bible - Sorry, the problems with the Bible started well before the Christians. The biggest single problem with the OT being is the Maccabaean edits around 150 BCE which largely removed the obvious references to a pantheon of Jewish Gods although remnants, such as the reference to Wisdom, remained. They also "corrected" the supposed historical events described to accord with their zealotry.

The NT was written by Christians and, despite your apparent distaste for Paul, the earliest writer and theologian of those books was Paul. Only 2 of the Gospels had non-Pauline texts as their basis.

Jefferson - did not have the advantage of knowing about the historical errors, archaeological evidence and the alternate texts which throw the whole dubious pot-pouri that is the Bible into doubt. He did his best and that was pretty good.

Prophecies - care to give any example of where Jesus was "right on"? Care to explain how these prophecies survived the ... err ... terrible corruption ... of his work done by Paul and some of the Apostles? Of course you claim that the

Again, the prophecies of Jesus about the tribulation and catastrophic events at the end of the age have been and are being fulfilled

no they are not; see "Tribulation" above to see how you deceive. Notice also that like the "Rapture Ready" crowd you say that they are only now being fulfilled so any shortfalls can be readily explained away by claiming that the prophecy is not yet complete. How convenient ...

Twisting Isaiah - Shame that the author of Isaiah was writing about nations that were the joint nations of Israel and Judah. The KJV variant is how the Protestant clergy of Europe wished the words to be translated; if wishes were fishes etc. You problems continue in that many of Isaiah's prophecies were shoehorned into being predictive of the birth of the god-man by the religion you so loathe. Your cult merely continues the tradition of pretending vague words apply to your particular apostasy.

Misunderstanding -

Once again you misunderstand. The whole point of his mission is NOT to be a leader who people follow, or obey. His mission is to show the way from behind the scenes -- the way that we, the people, may liberate and empower ourselves

This whole paragraph stinks of the privilege you feel and the blindness to what others write. I said not that your superman would (overtly) lead but that you would choose to follow.

[SarahM32]

85. Just a couple of points ...

You are correct that the earliest writer and theologian of the NT (official church canon) books was Paul, and that most of it is Pauline. That's because Paul was the first writer, and influenced others, as is very well explained in the article About Christianity -- which you would have known if you had read it. And, by the way, your claim that I "loath" Christianity also reveals that you have not read it.

Your uninformed comment about the so-called "Rapture" reveals that you haven't read the article on The Rapture Myth either.

The only other response I have to your post is that it doesn't matter when the book of Isaiah was written, or whether it had one or three authors, as some scholars have suggested. What matter are the prophecies in it.

As for the rest of your rant, you're just rehashing stuff you've already said.

Why don't you try educating yourself about what the message really says, and then, if you want to write a reasonable, informed, educated critique, go ahead.

[intaglio]

89. Why not call your cult "The Redefinition Project"?

I did not say you loathed Christianity, I did not specify the name precisely because it is "official church" or Pauline Christianity which you loathe. Of course you would include in your particular canon of Christianity all those other books that were discarded by the early Church which your leader, yes your prophet is a leader, says are relevant. these were discarded mainly because they were even more obvious forgeri ... sorry, pseudoepigraphical texts and as such even more corrupt than the ones that made it.

I did not write about the rapture, I quoted you about a tribulation and observed that your cult and its views on the current "tribulations" would fit nicely with the views of the website "Rapture Ready". Google is your friend - use it.

No comments about how wrong I am and how dreadful the world is, now? Good, because that would merely expose you to more ridicule.

The Book of Isaiah, I did not say when it was written. I did say that none of Proverbs was written by Solomon because the earliest parts of Proverbs were written some 400 years after that supposed monarchs existence, Your cult lies by saying that some of that text was by Solomon.

What I did say about Isaiah specifically, and a class in reading comprehension would serve you well, was:1)

they can usually be shown to be wrong, content free generalisations, post facto rationalisation or written after the event prophesied. The books of Isaiah fall into these last 2 categories pretty spectacularly. Prophesies about Jesus were interpreted after the fact.

Which is exactly true. and later I added ...
2)

Shame that the author of Isaiah was writing about nations that were the joint nations of Israel and Judah. The KJV variant is how the Protestant clergy of Europe wished the words to be translated; if wishes were fishes etc. You problems continue in that many of Isaiah's prophecies were shoehorned into being predictive of the birth of the god-man by the religion you so loathe. Your cult merely continues the tradition of pretending vague words apply to your particular apostasy.

Now I can see where you might wish to read into my words that Isaiah was written after the putative birth of Jesus but Isaiah is does contain some prophecies that are "accurate" about other events but those particular prophecies were written after the those events and used to show how other prophecies must be "accurate". The words you wish to claim as "real" prophecy are mainly "... content free generalisations, post facto rationalisation,"

Rehashing, where so done it is just because you keep denying the obvious and pretending that this is new information.

Educating myself about your cult? When I have damaged my brain by reading the flim-flam offered in your cult's tracts? Education like that is akin to what was offered at "Dotheboys Hall" (deliberate exaggeration because it emphasises the point), education like that I can do without.

One thing I will do will be to show how your group, not you personally, generates falsehoods and indulges in cult-like behaviour. If you wish to participate in the noticeboard without trying to sell your particular cult I will treat those posts with more respect, but continue to post the lies that your cult sells as fact and I will continue to point out those deceits.

[SarahM32]

97. To correct you (Intaglio) about Proverbs and Isaiah

You (Intaglio) wrote:

I did say that none of Proverbs was written by Solomon because the earliest parts of Proverbs were written some 400 years after that supposed monarchs existence, Your cult lies by saying that some of that text was by Solomon.

The original Hebrew title of the book of Proverbs is "Míshlê Shlomoh" ("Proverbs of Solomon&quot . When translated into the Greek Septuagint the title became "paroimai paroimiae," meaning "Proverbs." In the Latin Vulgate the title was "proverbia", from which the English title of Proverbs is derived.

Even though the authorship of Proverbs is still disputed and many critical scholars believe that much of Proverbs was brought together long after Solomon died, and of course, there are also references within Proverbs to the names Agur and Lemuel as authors, but some scholars suggest that the words "Agur" and "Lemuel" were only symbolic names of Solomon. And many scholars take the book literally, because Solomon’s name appears in Proverbs 1:1, "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, King of Israel."

Solomon is often mentioned in the Bible as someone who had extensive wisdom in the Bible, as well as in other literature. In 1 Kings 4:32, many proverbs and songs are said to have come from Solomon, and it is also written that people came from all over the ancient world to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

And, as for the book of Isaiah, you assume that I and the message rely on the King James Version of the Christian Bible. Not so. It uses the original Hebrew Masoretic text. See the article on Isaiah Chapter 53.
.

[intaglio]

104. More deceit

A title does not mean that a person wrote or participated or was quoted by a book. For example "Morte d'Arthur" was about a legendary king who (if he existed as a man) was not a king, was not the conqueror of vast portions of the UK and Europe, did not have a follower called Lancelot, was not called "The Once and Future King,", was not recorded as having a wife in legend; the list goes on.

Taking the first element of a book to assign authorship is nonsense:

I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus This-that-and-the-other (for I shall not trouble you yet with all my titles) ...

This book was not written by the Emperor Claudius, despite the opening line.

Similarly

Call me Ishmael

did not mean that a person with the name Ishmael wrote Moby Dick.

"Solomon is often mentioned in the Bible," so what? The Bible is infamous for having little or no basis in reality. There is no documentary or archaeological evidence to support the existence of a monarch of the name of Solomon. Although there are many relics and remains from the putative time of this legend none carry inscriptions or other identifiers to even hint at the existence of such a powerful monarch. Records from other nations that would have had dealings with a powerful king occupying a critical trade route are also silent. The conclusion is obvious, if Solomon existed as more than a legend he was a petty king of a small and insignificant tribe.

If a reputation for wisdom amongst your followers is evidence for Solomon, I would refer you to the equally legendary wisdom of Bran the Blessed. In another post Lao Tzu was mentioned, he too was legendarily wise but he probably did not exist as a single person but was a composite of several early teachers.

Ascribing songs to the name of a legend is not proof either for if so Taliesin must have been one of the most prolific bards of all time.

Please stop trying to put your words in my mouth. You were the one who brought up the KJV as being close to the original translation, not I

from your Post 77
The King James version changes that and says he shall “bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,” which is not far off.

My response was to observe that the KJV preferred translations in line with Protestant dogma and beyond that I observed that the "kingdoms" mentioned in the (non-KJV) text you quoted were the "kingdoms" of Israel and Judah.

[SarahM32]

109. I'm not going to let you get away with that.

If Solomon existed as more than a legend he was a petty king of a small and insignificant tribe.

According to the Hebrew Bible, Solomon's Temple was built in ancient Jerusalem on the Temple Mount, known to the Jews as Mount Zion and to Muslims as The Dome of the Rock, where the biggest Islamic Mosque now stands.

When it was destroyed is disputed. The Hebrew Bible says it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II after the Siege of Jerusalem of 587 BCE, but very limited archaeological surveys of the Temple Mount have been allowed to be conducted, so we do not have any conclusive, modern archaeological evidence about it.

In 2007, however, National Geographic reported that artifacts dating to the 8th to 6th centuries BCE were discovered and described as being possibly the first physical evidence of human activity at the Temple Mount during the First Temple period. And the efforts leading to those discoveries were no doubt due to the fact that artifacts that had been discovered prior to that, in 2006. The Temple Mount Antiquities Salvage Operation had recovered numerous artifacts dating from the 8th to 7th centuries BCE from soil removed in 1999 by Muslim workers. But still, no conclusive archaeological proof for or against the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found. You can either believe it, or disbelieve it, as you choose.

You (Intaglio) wrote:

Please stop trying to put your words in my mouth. You were the one who brought up the KJV as being close to the original translation, not I. From your Post 77: "The King James version changes that and says he shall 'bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,' which is not far off." My response was to observe that the KJV preferred translations in line with Protestant dogma and beyond that I observed that the "kingdoms" mentioned in the (non-KJV) text you quoted were the "kingdoms" of Israel and Judah..

You take one sentence out of context from my post #77 and try to misrepresent what I was saying.

What I said was this, first quoting NOT the King James version, but the Masoretic text:

For example, Isaiah wrote: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him, he shall make the right to go forth to the nations. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” -- Isaiah 42:1-2

The King James version changes that and says he shall “bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,” which is not far off. But the point is that it speaks of the modern son of man, not Jesus, because Jesus did rise up as a teacher-orator. He did cry out to make his voice heard on many occasions, and he certainly did cause his voice to be heard in the street. But the modern son of man does not, which is consistent to other things Isaiah wrote, about the son of man being “hidden.”

You ignore the context, misrepresent what I actually said, and make yet another false claim.

YOU had written the following:

What I said about Isaiah specifically, and a class in reading comprehension would serve you well, was:1) "they can usually be shown to be wrong, content free generalisations, post facto rationalisation or written after the event prophesied. The books of Isaiah fall into these last 2 categories pretty spectacularly.." Which is exactly true. and later I added 2) "The KJV variant is how the Protestant clergy of Europe wished the words to be translated; if wishes were fishes etc.."

Honestly, how low will you stoop to try to mislead and decieve?
.

[intaglio]

112. Not one fragment of text or archaeloogy supports the existence of Solomon

Attribution is not evidence and anyway I do not deny the temple was built. But note that the National Geographic states the artifact date from 8th to 6th Century BCE. Solomon, if he lived, lived at least 200 years earlier

I took one sentence which you claimed was close to the "real" sense and showed how you misrepresented my response. I also linked back to post 77 so that observers could judge for themselves, can you say the same?

I also observed that the original text you quoted cited "nations" but the sense is that of &quot our) nations" i.e. Judea and Israel.

What is false about my claim that Isaiah's prophecies are either content free generalisation or post facto rationalisation or written after the event prophesied? Care to cite any examples to falsify my claim?

[SarahM32]

116. To answer your question ...

What is false about my claim that Isaiah's prophecies are either content free generalisation or post facto rationalisation or written after the event prophesied? Care to cite any examples to falsify my claim?

Your claim only reveals your lack of understanding of the prophecies in the book of Isaiah.

None of the messianic prophecies in Isaiah were fulfilled even by Jesus, and most of them haven’t been fulfilled yet.

The prophecies about Jews coming from around the world to Jerusalem, and the rejection of the Messiah by both Jews and Gentiles has been fulfilled. But the prophecies about the nations of the world accepting his teachings, making peace, transforming “swords into plowshares,” etc., have not been fulfilled yet.

[intaglio]

122. I made no claims about the Messianic prophecies

I asked you to cite prophecies from Isaiah that were not written after the event, that were not rationalisations after the event "prophesied" or which are not content free generalisations. I did not ask for claims about prophecies but for chapter and verse of prophesies fulfilled.

You have still not been able to provide any examples.

[SarahM32]

128. And I answered your question.

You just ignored the answer.

[intaglio]

132. You provided a content free generalisation

that could apply to many sets of circumstances. Show how it applies to the specific to the circumstances you claim are prophesied.

The fact that your prophet is claiming it for himself shows only hubris.

[trotsky]

72. I'm sorry your fundie cult isn't taking off like you had hoped.

Your vicious, anger-filled responses to those who are merely asking questions and pointing out the flaws in your cult literature betray the true nature of your religious organization.

If you were kind and tolerant and promoted understanding rather than telling people they are ignorant and/or uncaring, perhaps you would be taken seriously. But that is not typical of a cult, so it is no surprise you act the way you do. Your cult is full of hate and mistrust.

[nonoyes]

73. Very insightful, indeed

If someone has a message to promote, give us the message and promote it. To make fun of people who do not understand it, like me, just explain it again. Some people, like me, don't get it the first time around. But we don't like to be insulted for asking questions based upon our many numbers of times of having been decieved or led down some path of irrational reasoning.

Either this message is easy to promote, or it is not. Making fun of those that fail to understand that message, not a reasonable way to procede.

[SarahM32]

74. There you go again.

As I've said, there's nothing wrong with critics pointing out flaws. In fact, the webmaster who monitors DU, Huffpost, OEN, Beliefnet, Democratichub, Alternet, Tigweb and many other sites, is no doubt appreciative for being shown how and where the message can be better, and even corrected. Why else do you think the articles on the message site are continually being revised?

What I DO hate, is when critics and skeptics misrepresent what the message says and what it's about, and make accusations such as yours.

[trotsky]

75. Yup, there I go again...

pointing out unsavory truths about your cult. It's creepy, your devotion to "the message." Yowza. Cult city.

[SarahM32]

79. With absolutely nothing to back it up.

Nothing. Nothing but knee-jerk, blind opposition, without knowing what you're talking about.

[cleanhippie]

81. Nothing but that, and of course your incessant referral to "the message." Yes, cultish, indeed.

[SarahM32]

84. False assumptions and accusations were predicted, and are according to prophecies.

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

All the uproar, confrontation, assumptions and accusations that we've seen on this thread were predictable in a forum infiltrated by those who come here to scoff and sneer at religion and God, not to rationally and reasonably discuss it.

But they are particularly opposed to the article cited on the OP, Concepts of God and Religion, and The Nature of God, because that article is part of a comprehensive message purported to be divinely inspired and declaring prophetic prerogative and divine mandate.

It's no surprise and no wonder, then, that most people question it, and many criticize it, reject it, dismiss it, and deny that is reveals the truth, that it is the "apocalypsis eschaton," the "revelation at the end of the age" that fulfills world prophecies.

Therefore, I expect people to have questions, concerns and even criticism. However, on this thread the critical comments have been shockingly void of legitimate, honest or reasonable critiques of the article in the OP, or of the overall message of which it is a part. Most of the criticism is based on false assumptions that are erroneous, unwarranted and unfounded, and some of the criticisms are just false claims and accusations.

It is probably no coincidence that the criticism of Atheists here is similar, not in content but in attitude and tone, to the criticism of the message whenever it has been promoted or advocated on forums inhabited by right-wing fundamentalist Christian Dominionists, who also hate it. In fact, hypocritical “religious” Theocrats of every stripe hate it just as Atheists hate it, because it expresses a world view that exposes the error of their divisive, antagonistic beliefs.

The Atheist critics on this thread may not always be so bad. I've noticed that on some other threads they are more reasonable. But the more I have stood up to them the more they have become like intellectual bullies, so desperate to try to silence me that they persist in their false assumptions and false accusations even though I have proven them to be wrong. Facts and words of truth do not deter them. They simply ignore them, or misinterpret them or twist them, in rather frenzied blind opposition.

The most persistent false assumption and false accusation is that the author of the message I promote seeks to recruit members to a “cult.” But, as I have repeatedly shown, that is utterly ridiculous to anyone who has read and understands the message.

The very idea of a cult is totally ridiculous if you consider these following questions:

What if I were the Webmaster of the All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice (AFCPFJ) site? What if I were the only person promoting it, under different user names? And what if the message is designed to BUILD an All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice, and there IS NO Coalition yet?

That makes the false accusation of it being a cult pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying that’s the case, though, because as is stated on the site, it was created to preserve, edit and update message highlights that had been on the author’s own site, which was shut down on December 21, 2011. And even though I could be the person who launched the site to preserve the author’s message, I may merely be an individual who has recognized the truth in the message, studied it very thoroughly, and promotes it because I recognize its potential.

In the final analysis, though, it doesn’t matter. Such concern is irrelevant. The message is not about establishing a “leader” in person, and it’s not about favoring one religion over others, or about creating a new religion or a new religious sect.

The original Coalition site makes that clear as well. It was originally called The Coalition of Jews, Christians and Muslims for Peace (CJCMP) before the author shut down his own site, and after that it was called The All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice, which opened the new messenger dot cjcmp site.

The original Coalition site says:

The Spirit of truth comes not to condemn, but to educate; not to punish, but to correct; and not to destroy, but to save.

To put an end to the conflict and division, we must face two crucial facts: 1) What passes for democracy in this world is not producing truly representative government, but instead produces conflict and division; and 2) Freedom of religion means that all religions must be regarded as equal by our governments.

Even the simple title and lead paragraphs in the header of the messenger and message site shows what its about.

One World, One Family of United Nations, Races and Religions
A Creative View of the Future Through the Lens of History, Universal Prophecies and Reason

This message serves the Spirit of truth by promoting the general welfare; religious tolerance; peace; freedom and justice; and showing a way for the people to take the ultimate peaceful political action to liberate, empower and unite our selves, once and for all, so that our governments will be of, by and for the people and use the common wealth for the common good, in accordance with universal world prophecies and Divine Providence.

Atheists don’t like it, though, because the header also includes the following paragraph:

In order for the generous, humble, kind, peaceful and meek majority of human beings to inherit the earth, a righteous judgment must intercede on their behalf. This message provides that judgment according to prophetic prerogative and divine mandate, and it exposes and corrects those who have caused the problems and live in extravagant luxury at our expense while we, the people, are denied our divine inheritance and birthright.

Most people, whether they are religious or not, have rejected that premise. They think it is audacious and absurd for anyone to declare “prophetic prerogative and divine mandate.” And that’s why the message is still rejected by the messenger’s generation.

That was predictable, and it was predicted.

"The days will come when people will want to see one of the days of the son of man, and they shall not see it. So they will look here and there, but do not follow them. For as the lightning lightens all parts under heaven, so shall also the [work of the] son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected by his generation." – Jesus, according to Luke 17:20-25

Jesus was not speaking of himself in that instance, because Jesus suffered only on the last day of his life, not first or beforehand, but only after he had completed his mission. Furthermore, Jesus was accepted by multitudes of Jews, Greeks and others in his generation. (And by the way, the "lightning" refers to electronic communications on the Internet.)

The fact, believe it or not, is that God has sent a man to deliver a righteous judgment to intercede on behalf of the humble, gentle, kind, generous, peaceful and “meek” people of the world, and especially the poor and the working poor, by exposing and rebuking the religious and political leadership of the world and all others who think that their wealth or religion or nationality or race entitles them to rule.
.

[skepticscott]

86. Wow, I was wrong

Cultishly defensive doesn't even begin to describe it..pathologically defensive would be more like it.

[Adsos Letter]

87. So ,the dude you're following is the current Son of Man?

[SarahM32]

88. I follow no man, but the son of man is the author of the message I promote.

That statement will probably be confusing, unless or until you read at least some of the message.

IF you are sincerely interested and have an open mind, you may find the following articles interesting, and edifying:

Prophecies Regarding He Who Fulfills Them

About Christianity

Even though the uninformed critics and skeptics would claim that because I believe in the message, I therefore "follow" the man who wrote it. But, if and when you understand what the message really says, it will become clear why they are wrong.
.

[intaglio]

90. Your prophet is a man

You follow his teachings and his "suggestions"

Your prophet is a leader.

[SarahM32]

91. You fail to understand the author's mission.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

If I follow the recipe in a cook book, does that mean I follow the author of the book, or the recipe (which may have been originated before the author was born)?

If I follow his suggestions about how we can reconcile conflicts, make peace and liberate and empower our selves, does that mean I follow him, or his suggestions?

"When the best leader's work is accomplished, the people say, We did it ourselves!" -- Lao Tzu, The Book of Tao

You adamantly and self-righteously criticize that which you don't understand.

---
P.S.

Oh, and since you claimed in another comment that I hate Pauline Christianity, I should inform you that I actually only hate what it has caused when hypocrites have used it to justify themselves.

I hate that it has been used by rulers who have masqueraded as Christians to justify their theocracies and military industrial imperialism. I hate that it led to the book burning in the great library in Alexandria, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch hunts, and a lot of atrocities and even genocide at different times during the last 16 centuries.

That, in fact, is why the Founders of the United States of America were so adamant about separation of church and state. It's why in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they did not mention Jesus or use the word Lord, but spoke only of a generic "Creator" and "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence" out of respect for all religions, as Jefferson made so clear in his writings.

Most of the Founders also saw the flaws in Pauline Christianity. As it says in the article About Christianity, there is a very good reason why there was such a feud between Paul and his group and James and his group. In fact, Paul and his group were not only against James, but other true Christian apostles and disciples. Paul dismissed them as "Judaizers."

As it says in About Christianity:

In 180 AD (CE) an influential Pauline Christian leader, Bishop Irenaeus, wrote a book lauding the epistles of Paul and the gospels of Mark, Luke, John and Matthew, along with a few other compatible works, and condemned the rest of the Christian writings and gospels as "heresies.”

That opinion grew to the point that in the fourth century, after Roman Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity, Pauline Christian Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria labeled and condemned the Gnostic Gospels as “heretical.” And Athanasius was instrumental in influencing the decision made during the Council of Laodicea in 364 A.D. when certain church leaders officially selected which texts would be included in the official church canon (bible).

So there is, in fact, two versions of Christianity, and unfortunately Pauline theology prevailed. Hence, the bloody theocratic history of Christianity.

I prefer true Christianity, which is compatible with true Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and other religions. As the great Jewish sage Hillel the Elder said, the Golden Rule is the summation of Torah, and Jesus said the same thing. True religion teaches the Golden Rule, now known as the Universal Divine Imperative: Treat others as you would want to be treated if you were them.
.

[intaglio]

92. You fail to understand the nature of cults

Do you admire your prophet?

Do you heed his teachings?

Do you study his teaching for further insight?

Do you listen to his suggestions about how to live?

Do you seek further insights from him?

Do you work to expose others to his teachings?

Do you contribute money or time to help spread the word?

Do you ignore the errors in his reasoning because of "higher truth"?

Do you excuse his errors of fact because of the "wisdom" of his words?

Do you deny what all others here seem to see clearly?

From what you have written it seems clear that the answer to all these questions is "Yes" and it is clear that your prophet has established himself as the leader of a cult.

Here are some things you might try

Ask teachers and experts of other faiths if their philosophies and texts can support your prophet's interpretations.

Research what this man teaches, without assistance from others.

Contact some of the anti-cult groups to see if they would regard your group as a cult. Do not use sych groups that practise "deprogramming"

[SarahM32]

93. You didn't answer my questions.

If I follow the recipe in a cook book, does that mean I follow the author of the book, or the recipe (which may have been originated before the author was born)?

If I follow his suggestions about how we can reconcile conflicts, make peace and liberate and empower our selves, does that mean I follow him, or his suggestions?

"When the best leader's work is accomplished, the people say, We did it ourselves!" -- Lao Tzu, The Book

You didn't answer those questions, and you fail to understand what that quote means.

The answer to my questions, whether you admit it or not, is that I do not follow a man, but a suggested recipe that has nothing to do with him. It has to do with producing an outcome in which he does not play a role. He will be recognized only as an unknown architect, while we the people are the builders.

Saving our world is up to us. We, the people, must fulfill our roles as active citizens to establish government that is actually of, by and for the people, determine our own destiny, and use the common wealth for the common good.

You insist on labeling him as a "leader," and granted, even in the Lao Tzu quote the term "leader" is used. However, Lao Tzu's wisdom reveals a very important truth, especially when you see the context of his words.

"As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate. When the best leader's work is done the people say, We did it ourselves!” ― Lao Tzu

You are talking about the "next best leaders" and the worst, not the best. The best goes unnoticed in person, and is know only by his written message. So he's not really a leader, as we think of the term.

Therefore, I won't answer your questions, because they are not relevant.
.
.

[intaglio]

95. They are his "suggestions"

Therefore you are following him.

Of course you can claim his "suggestions" are inspired (note; no use of the word divine) and therefore not of him, but this would just be just playing word games. In the same way your words about recipes are just games and I suspect games you have been told to use. There are chefs who "follow" Heston Blumenthal whilst most chefs in the West also follow Careme and Escoffier. There are those who follow folk traditions in their cooking and more who just make it up as they go along, only the most pretentious of these last would claim to be prophets of a new cooking

You quote Lao Tzu but ignore that the point being made was that the people followed a leader and later denied it; you are preemptively denying it because being led is something that happens to cultists not free spirited followers of suggestions. BTW your reflexive point scoring regarding Lao Tzu is amusing, not least because, unlike you, I studied the Dao at some length earlier in my life, it is essential if you are to get the best out of the moving meditation of T'ai Chi. Lao Tzu, incidentally, is probably a composite figure of several early Chinese theorists.

Continuing with your comic use of Lao Tzu, I would have to point out that your prophet is doing his darnedest to be noticed so therefore excludes himself from the catagory of "best leader", he is not honoured and praised by the wider world so does not meet that standard, nor yet is he feared or hated. This puts him in the worst possible class of leaders - those who are a source of derision.

Saving the world, well I can say with some certainty that your Prophet is not about saving the world. He does nothing about AGW or vaccine scares, or nuclear power, politics, or any of the other real problems that face us; instead he just pontificates to a miserable band about how he, alone in the whole of human history, has understood the truth (undefined) behind all religions

As for my questions, I was not expecting you to answer, I was hoping you would ask them of yourself and hence my final suggestions

[SarahM32]

98. Here we go again.

I decided I have been spending way too much time here at DU and should limit myself to visits maybe one or two times a week. So I just dropped in and, just as I suspected, you're up to the same old tactics.

You (Intaglio) wrote:

They are his "suggestions." Therefore you are following him.

You were of course referring to the author of the message I promote, and once again you play word games. And while you play word games, you accuse me of playing word games, and include wild, unfounded insinuations, as you wrote in the following:

Of course you can claim his "suggestions" are inspired (note; no use of the word divine) and therefore not of him, but this would just be just playing word games. In the same way your words about recipes are just games and I suspect games you have been told to use.

I believe his revelations are divinely inspired, especially his revelation about how and why we can and should realize the futility of divisive partisan politics and finally establish government that is actually of the people, by the people, and for the people, rather than of, by and for the rich few.

But again, with such comments you make erroneously assumptions. You apparently did not read my post #84, because if you had you would realize the error of making such a comment.

I will restate and elaborate a little more on what I said in post #84, just for your benefit.

Consider this: I may be just an individual who has recognized the truth in the message, studied it very thoroughly, and works to promote it because I recognize its potential, as I’ve said here on DU. However, for all you know, I may be the Webmaster and Editor of the message site and the main promoter of it. Also, the message may simply be designed to build a Humanitarian and All Faiths Coalition, and perhaps there IS NO Coalition yet.

That’s possible, considering what the site says. I forget which page it’s on, but it says that the site was created to preserve, edit and update message highlights that had been on the author’s personal site, which was shut down in December 2011. Therefore, for all you know, I may be the person who launched the site to preserve the author’s message, and, for that matter, I may even BE the original author.

Frankly, I don’t know whether there is much of a Coalition yet, because as the information about it says, there is no organization, no leadership, no meeting places. The message is designed to be a catalyst and a blueprint for a people’s movement to bring about a reformation of religion and government, to establish equality, peace, freedom, and justice.

But I’ll tell you what I do know, and I swear to God this is the truth. I am one who has studied the message thoroughly, understands it, and promotes it on several web sites and forums. I know there are others who have reposted articles from the message on many other Web sites. However, I don’t know who those others are, and I don't know how many there are. They are just people who became aware of the message, liked it, and reposted articles they liked best.

Having said that, I still have to say that it doesn’t matter who the author is or who I am.

It’s the message that’s important, and the message is not about establishing a “leader” in person. No one but the author and his wife know who he is, as his bio-story states. He is not trying to recruit anyone to any group, whether religious or political. And his message is not about favoring one religion over others, or about creating a new religion or a new religious sect. It’s about building an Interfaith Coalition, and about showing humanity a way that they may liberate and empower themselves, as The 21st Century Declaration of Independence shows.

You (Intaglio) wrote:

You quote Lao Tzu but ignore that the point being made was that the people followed a leader and later denied it; you are preemptively denying it because being led is something that happens to cultists not free spirited followers of suggestions. BTW your reflexive point scoring regarding Lao Tzu is amusing, not least because, unlike you, I studied the Dao at some length earlier in my life, it is essential if you are to get the best out of the moving meditation of T'ai Chi. Lao Tzu, incidentally, is probably a composite figure of several early Chinese theorists.

Continuing with your comic use of Lao Tzu, I would have to point out that your prophet is doing his darnedest to be noticed so therefore excludes himself from the catagory of "best leader", he is not honoured and praised by the wider world so does not meet that standard, nor yet is he feared or hated. This puts him in the worst possible class of leaders - those who are a source of derision.

I think your interpretation of the Book of Tao is rather odd, to claim that the point being made in what I quoted from it was, as you wrote, that “the people followed a leader and later denied it.” Seriously?

The Book of Tao has been interpreted in many ways, and what I quoted was from a translation by MacHovec. In it, the part about best leaders states:

“As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear, and the next, the people hate. If you have not faith, people will have no faith in you, and you must resort to oaths. When the best leader’s work is done, the people say, We did it ourselves!”

That certainly contradicts your claim. But let’s look at another interpretation by another translator:

“Chapter 17: In antiquity, the people) did not know that there were rulers. In the next age they loved them and praised them. In the next they feared them; in the next they despised them. Thus when faith in the Tao was deficient in the rulers, a want of faith in them ensued in the people. How timid did those earliest rulers appear, that while their work was done and their undertakings were successful, the people all said, 'We are as we are, of ourselves!'”

Maybe you have another translation that has a different interpretation. But I think both examples I’ve shown mean the same thing, really.

When leaders have no faith in Tao (or God), the people fear or hate them, but even though the best leaders may seem timid (or "meek&quot to average people, when the best leaders work is done and successful the people either say that they did it themselves, or that they are “of ourselves,” meaning that they realized their responsibility as citizens and acted cooperatively and collaboratively as a people.

People don’t want and don’t need a ruler or overseer exalted over them, sitting on a throne and dictating to them. The same idea is expressed and written in the Hebrew Bible: "Be wise and consider the ways of the ants, which having no overseer or ruler, provide food in the summer and gather in the harvest." That’s because the people can govern themselves, if and when they see a way to do it, and operate by consensus, cooperation and collaboration.

You (Intaglio) wrote:

Saving the world, well I can say with some certainty that your Prophet is not about saving the world. He does nothing about AGW or vaccine scares, or nuclear power, politics, or any of the other real problems that face us; instead he just pontificates to a miserable band about how he, alone in the whole of human history, has understood the truth (undefined) behind all religions.

You may believe you can “say with some certainty that your Prophet is not about saving the world,” but that simply is not true.

Granted, the son of man and Mashiach/Messiah is not the Savior, as the book of Isaiah states so clearly. It states that only God is the Savior and Holy One, and the son of man and Messiah is God’s chosen servant, who "brings Jacob again."

His responsibility and mission is not to deal with what the people must do to fulfill prophecies, but to issue judgment, guide humanity to the truth, and show you things to come, as Jesus foretold. And, to do that, the modern son of man has written extensively about health care, the environment, politics, geopolitics, and all the major issues and problems that face us. You just haven’t bothered to look, or read the articles on the Site Map.

In fact, some of the most relevant articles about such issues are: Partisan Politics, Health Care, Poverty, The Economy, Neo-Imperialism, The 21st Century Declaration of Independence, Real Democracy, The Future, and How the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth.

As for your “suggestions” to me, let’s examine them.

You (Intaglio) wrote:

Ask teachers and experts of other faiths if their philosophies and texts can support your prophet's interpretations. Research what this man teaches, without assistance from others. Contact some of the anti-cult groups to see if they would regard your group as a cult. Do not use sych groups that practise "deprogramming."

Reformers of religions are rarely accepted by the “expert” religious clergy, because the reformer challenges their beliefs and authority. For example, Jesus was hated and rejected by the “chief priests and scribes” who were in power in his day. And, as Jesus said, the next son of man would judge the leaders of the world, as he has done in the message, so I doubt people regarded as experts in their religions would readily agree with the modern prophet who's mission is to reform religions and religious denominations or sects that are in conflict with each other. That’s why it was prophesied by Isaiah and Jesus that he would be rejected by his generation.

As for researching the message, that’s what I been doing, for many years. And as for contacting anti-cult groups to see what they think, that, as I have shown above, is not a valid “suggestion” because there is no group, no organization, and certainly no “cult.” Only the author’s wife knows who he is.

In other words, your suggestions are based on your erroneous assumptions.

[intaglio]

111. More lies

You used "suggestions" originally - excuse me if I continue with your wording and apply it to the deceiver you are following.

I do not believe his suggestions are divinely inspired; you, on the other hand, are a cultist ascribing divine inspiration to your leader. Someone who is followed is leading, you follow because not to do so would be opposing the will of God for you. This last is a claim of special favour and insight. The fact that you designate yourself as so favoured shows you to be a cult member.

You admit that the tracts and websites are deliberately kept anonymous. I already knew that and pointed out it is prime evidence that you are a member of a cult. To the extent that your cult is seeking more victims it certainly does not matter who you are, it only matters that with every post you reveal yourself as part of such a predator upon the weak.

In respect of the Dao (I prefer that transliteration because it more closely approximates the sound and tone of the word). You nearly have it right saying there are many translations because there are also many variants on the text in Chinese. What you seem ignorant of is the Qin "Burning of Books and Burying of Scholars" and other similar events in Chinese history which left such texts as remained probably corrupt. Your carefully maintained ignorance - yet another sign of a cult member.

Others have noted how you twist the words you are quoting and here is yet another perfect example; even as you cherry-pick your quotations to suit your prejudices. You see the Dao is not God and (from my previous life) your attempting to understand the Dao and using words about the Way automatically makes you wrong about the Path. You see no scholar of the Way would use the words "faith in the Tao" the sense of the translation is nearer to "trust that the Way is there," i.e. that is that somewhere there is a path of right thinking and action. To have faith means trusting blindly and you cannot be blind to follow the Path; what you must do is trust that, somewhere there is a path. But even that is wrong. You cannot see the Dao, you cannot touch the Dao, you cannot speak of the Dao. Returning to my current self, yes, these are paradoxes and sophistries; but this is why it is so obvious that your Prophet is making it up as he goes along.

Closing this section: your personal wriggling and sophistry do not disguise the fact that your leader, the false prophet, does not fit into any category of leader mentioned but fits perfectly the class I added - the despised leader or the leader as a comic turn.

Why am I certain that your leader is doing nothing about current real problems? Because he does not let you seek to change the real world but rather seek more victims for the cult. All he does instead is to utter magic words about things that do not exist and prophesying that a change of the age will make everything better. It is your prophet, incidentally, I talk about not the "certain man" the "judge", unless you are now saying they are the one and the same.

Seeking other opinions about faith, I already know you won't listen to them (just as I know you cannot expound about the lotus) but it would be good for you to learn and not to pretend that your deceiver is the sole teacher of truth. With luck some fragment of real critical thinking might take seed in your head and you might be able to escape.

To be frank almost I pity you, you have trapped yourself in a vile organisation that teaches falsehoods and asks you to recruit others. It is obvious that you have some intelligence but have abrogated the right to use it to a sick man who feeds you the lotus of Africa.

[SarahM32]

117. Well, we'll see about that.

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I've already addressed your erroneous assumptions and claims about a so-called "cult," which doesn't exist. So there is only one part of that rant that deserves a response.

You see the Dao is not God and (from my previous life) your attempting to understand the Dao and using words about the Way automatically makes you wrong about the Path. You see no scholar of the Way would use the words "faith in the Tao" the sense of the translation is nearer to "trust that the Way is there," i.e. that is that somewhere there is a path of right thinking and action. To have faith means trusting blindly and you cannot be blind to follow the Path; what you must do is trust that, somewhere there is a path. But even that is wrong. You cannot see the Dao, you cannot touch the Dao, you cannot speak of the Dao. Returning to my current self, yes, these are paradoxes and sophistries.

Addressing your “previous self,” I see the Tao (Dao) as God, The Path, and The Way. It is All. Remember, the Taoist concept of Oneness is that "All things derive their life from it [Tao], All things return to it, and it contains them."

That’s like what it says in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which Jesus is quoted as saying that "All natures, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone." The "nature of their roots" is the Tao, also known as God.

Therefore, there is little actual difference between the words “faith in the Tao” and “trust that the Way is there.” It depends on what you think the word “faith” means, and what you think the Way and the Path are. When really realized, there is only One.

A human being can “see” the Tao, and “see” God, but only when the seven “seals” of revelation or seven “chakras” are opened and one realizes and “sees” the divine reality within. However, you are right that we cannot touch the Tao. It is not a thing you can touch.

Addressing your “current self,” no, these are not “sophistries,” though they very well may appear to be paradoxes.
.

[intaglio]

123. Your errors are laughable

Consider your quotation about the Dao, it says nothing about godhead indeed it can be better considered a statement about the universe: "All things derive their life from it , All things return to it, and it contains them." The Dao does not have volition and all that you do is part of the Dao. But as I said all this is sophistry, especially on your part, as the idea of a deity without volition would be complicated, running into the problem of predestination.

Next you veer into the Gospel of Mary ... not Mary Magdelene for the putative author is not identified by that title within the corrupt and incomplete text you are suborning to your cause. One scholar identifies it as being written in the 1st Century CE but whatever the rights and wrongs of her case there is no physical evidence because Mss from which it was taken are copies. The only P. Oxy that are certain to date from the 1st Century CE are fragments of Job and Esther. The P. Rylands is mid 2nd Century CE. P. Berolinensis 8502 is 4th or 5th Century CE. The only real arguments that the original text might have been early is the female protagonist and the preference for stoic philosophy; style, however, is not substance.

The lines you quote from "Mary" are standard Stoic philosophy and, as is the nature of Stoicism, says nothing about god.

A human being can “see” the Tao, and “see” God, but only when the seven “seals” of revelation or seven “chakras” are opened and one realizes and “sees” the divine reality within. However, you are right that we cannot touch the Tao. It is not a thing you can touch

About this farrago; I could ridicule it as "fluffy woo-woo" (indeed I just have), I could emphasise that assertion is not evidence of anything and I could comment further. The most effective counter to your words however is just to highlight them and let others read them and snigger. As with so much else you have written it leads me into the discovery of what the sound of one hand clapping can be

[SarahM32]

129. You would think so, but it's not so.

What some people call "sophistry," other people would not.

As for the Gospel of Mary, it matters not to me when it was written, because it, like most of the Christian writings, contain elements of truth. And what I quote is one of them.

As for you ignorance of what the seven seals of revelation and the seven chakras are, or what they produce when they are "opened," it's just ignorance. Blind ignorance.

[intaglio]

134. No, most people would call what you emit "sophistry" which defined is

1) The use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.
2) A fallacious argument

Alternatively the main sense of casuistry applies.

You indulge in circular reasoning, unfounded assertion and dependence on false interpretation. You claim your "prophet" is divinely inspired except somehow the divine forgot to tell this wrinkly rocker that the Book of Wisdom and Proverbs were not by Solomon. The divine also seems to have no sensible knowledge of Daoism and has not advised your fakir (I may have spelled that incorrectly) that Revelation was not a prophecy but largely written after the fall of Jerusalem and was just vituperation.

If, in relation to the Gospel of Mary, "it matters not to me when it was written" then why can you not except Dianetics as a valid holy book? Or for that matter the "Book of Mormon"? If you are so willing to accept forgeries why not accept the "James" ossuary as a revelation of the family of Jesus because it contains an element of what you believe is "truth" (which you still have not defined). Of course you only accept certain bits as "truth" and discard anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your preconceptions. You would probably saying that it was corrupted by the dreadful Paul or suppressed other apostles or changed by the Church except that changing such writings was not the modus operandi of the Church; what happened was that they had such texts destroyed - not changed.

As to your cult saying that the 7 Seals and the 7 Chakras are congruent - I repeat assertion is not evidence. I did read your cult leader's tracts about this and saw them to be incoherent gobbledygook. Tell you what, take that stupidity to the Buddhism Group on DU. They're good people but I think they may be driven to correct you at length.

So what's the score so far?
1) A huckster who seeks attention for his teachings and who claims divine inspiration = cult
2) A huckster who does his best to avoid scrutiny = cult
3) A group that deliberately hides its organisation and it's membership = cult
4) Claims that those who have joined must have unique insight = cult
5) Members who admit following but deny that they are following someone = cult
6) A group of incoherent and badly fact checked tracts with the teachings of the impostor = cult
7) Unsolicited attempts at conversion = cult
8) Members who use circular reasoning to justify their beliefs = cult
9) Claims that the group is the sole valid interpreter of all other beliefs, philosophies and faiths = cult
10) A foretelling about a new age brought about by the judgment of a certain man = cult
11) Claims that the members of the cult will be uniquely privileged in this new age = cult
12) A pretense that the world is now going through uniquely terrible tribulations = cult

[SarahM32]

136. Perhaps this will help.

In the article on Why the Religious Right Is Wrong, the son of man said the following about its leaders --- and it's relevant because it speaks of concepts and "simulations" of God:

The problem is that they are like all other religious bigots in the world who have not actually experienced or realized the reality of God, and yet claim they are the only ones who do know God. Consequently, their idea of God is an erroneous simulation. As John C. Lilly, M.D. wrote in his book, Simulations of God, “If one analyzes the Bible, the Koran, the sacred writing of India, the Vedas, the Upanishads, one sees that man has been trying to deal with his origins by means of what, today, we call ‘projections.’ His projection of his own knowledge onto the universe, onto his own origins and onto his future end is, then, the ultimate simulation. And when we simulate that of which we have no knowledge, we project our current knowledge into the unknown, into our own ignorance...”

Indeed, that is very true, and the fact is that books, no matter how divinely inspired, cannot give us real knowledge of God. It comes only from within/above, as a gift from God, by internal revelation. And without it you could memorize the whole Bible and still not know God, as so many on the Religious Right have blatantly demonstrated. They simulate that of which they have no knowledge, and thus they project their knowledge into their own ignorance.

Many religious people simulate what they think they know, and thus project their knowledge into their own ignorance.

Intellectual Atheists, like you, perhaps in reaction to religious bigots and Theocrats, project their academic knowledge into their own ignorance of God.
.

[intaglio]

138. And you call me blind?

Firstly you (or was it your guide within your cult?) choose a tract that equates me with the religious right ...

Let's examine this tract.

The problem is that they are like all other religious bigots in the world who have not actually experienced or realized the reality of God

Well, I would deny anybody has objectively experienced any "reality of God" but that goes with me being an atheist.

... and yet claim they are the only ones who do know God

Now , someone in this correspondence makes the same claim and it isn't me. You are (probably) not a religious bigot and if not then it does render this tract a contradiction in terms. This line also displays the usual arrogance of your Prophet as he implies that only he and his select followers of those alive now "know God".

Consequently, their idea of God is an erroneous simulation.

And what evidence do you have that these words cannot equally be applied to your "idea of God"? No evidence at all because all realisations and experiences of God, even yours, are subjective.

As John C. Lilly, M.D. wrote in his book, ...

This is John C Lilly, a passable researcher, who addled his brains with LSD, Ketamine and isolation tanks (sometimes in combination) and who believes that computers and the internet will, of necessity, become a malevolent entity. He wrote a good stick as well and the highlighted quote shows your cult to be yet another simulation not a reality.

... Simulations of God, “If one analyzes the Bible, the Koran, the sacred writing of India, the Vedas, the Upanishads, one sees that man has been trying to deal with his origins by means of what, today, we call ‘projections.’

Uncontroversial so far and says nothing about the reality of these projections either subjectively or objectively.

His projection of his own knowledge onto the universe, onto his own origins and onto his future end is, then, the ultimate simulation. And when we simulate that of which we have no knowledge, we project our current knowledge into the unknown, into our own ignorance...”

A statement which, pretty obviously applies to your cult as much as to other projections and simulations. It would be good to point out that a simulation is not reality but a model helping us understand reality; some simulations are fair others, like the flat earth concept, are pants.

Indeed, that is very true, and the fact is that books, no matter how divinely inspired, cannot give us real knowledge of God.

Wow! the wrinkly rocker has said something sensible! Trouble is he does not carry it forward and apply it to his own words - I wonder why?

It comes only from within/above, as a gift from God, by internal revelation.

If it is an internal revelation, it is not real, it is a projection or simulation.

And without it you could memorize the whole Bible and still not know God, as so many on the Religious Right have blatantly demonstrated.*

Those your leader excoriates would say the same. They say you have to "take God into your heart," and follow pastors who can guide you on a true path. They would insist that the Bible cannot be understood without this and hence all outside their sect or group of sects have it wrong. These seem remarkably similar to the claims made by your cult.

They simulate that of which they have no knowledge, ...

You are only claiming that your simulation, similarly derived is "superior" (an error of misapplying a hierarchy) to theirs. Why not fight it out like 2 kids in the playground?

and thus they project their knowledge into their own ignorance.

Gobbledygook, so they have knowledge but they are ignorant? Exactly the same complaint can be made about you, me, the Dalai Lama or Bertrand Russell.

Back to your own words.
In your next sentence you just repeat what was said in the quote. It makes it no clearer because that sentence makes no sense to begin with.

"Intellectual atheists" well thank you! Of course you mean it to belittle because I am not "Spiritual" but hey-ho. Actually "intellectual" atheism has been round for far longer than fundamentalism; Stoics and Cynics were Greek in origin whilst a good case can be made that both Socrates and Plato were, in fact, atheist. Confucianism says nought about deities except that it is traditional to worship and hence A Good Thing. The Lao Tzu amalgam only holds to the concept of deity in the senses of ideals or spirits of place (to head you off at the pass the Dao is not a deity). The addition of (yet) another repeat of your false prophet's gobbledygook does not aid your case.


=====================================
* As an aside: the divine inspiration seems to have failed to advise your leader about how to make this fragmentary sentence grammatical. I have an excuse for my failures of grammar because I do not pretend to be divinely inspired.

[mr blur]

124. Jesus saw the internet coming? And you know this, how?

(And by the way, the "lightning" refers to electronic communications on the Internet.)

Impressive.

[gcomeau]

102. Good grief.

"It’s no wonder because most people do not understand the real nature of God, ..."

Yea, that will happen when you invent a mythological superbeing and then declare that one of its properties is that it's so mindblowingly amazing and awesome and super that no feeble mortal mind could possible grasp it.

Who could have ever predicted that that would result in nobody knowing what the hell they were talking about when the subject was raised?

[SarahM32]

103. That's an understandable reaction.

It's understandable considering that Atheists become Atheists mainly in reaction to hypocritical Theocrats who have always tried to rule by feigning religiosity -- and because it's easy to pooh pooh religion because most religious texts contain contradictions and errors.

However, neither Atheists nor hypocritical Theocrats have realized God from within, or experience the highest state of consciousness. People who do, through internal revelation which is a gift from "above," know at least what God is, and what God is not.

[gcomeau]

106. Actually...

...I "pooh pooh" religion because it, without any identified exception I am aware of, makes it's claims without anything resembling a grounding in evidence based evaluations of the reality it is supposedly attempting to describe.

Your response about people "experiencing the highest state of consciousness" is a fine illustration of concept. To paraphrase how that generally plays out:

"I got a hunch/feeling/mental flash/whatever. I am now going to extrapolate an entire universe encompassing intellectual framework out of it and declare that it is informed by my special personal insight I just had. And if it doesn't make sense to other people that's because they haven't had my special episode of insight... and not at all because I'm just baselessly making stuff up and then accepting it because hey, it feels right to me!"

(Seriously, I made it as far as "opening the seven seals of revelation and the seven chakras" in your link and almost lost it giggling in my office. It's like a bad fantasy novel.)

[SarahM32]

110. Whatever floats your boat.

To each his own. We've all got our own path.

But I've gotta tell you, I don't think much of people who trivialize and belittle others for what they've experienced and what they believe. But you certainly have a right to your beliefs.

[skepticscott]

114. It's not experiences that people find themselves

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:11 PM - Edit history (1)

being made fun of for. It's how they choose to interpret and extrapolate those experiences, and how they presume without evidence or deeper knowledge that they translate to something objective and universally applicable. That's where respect gets lost.

[intaglio]

113. Not even that, it's like the sort of stuff L Ron Hubbard manufactured

And look what that led to ...

[SarahM32]

118. No, it's not.

L Ron Hubbard formed an organization and a cult called "The Church of Scientology" and the "Religion of Scientology." It has well known members, "church" buildings, etc.

The modern son of man does nothing of that sort. And I've fully explained that, several times on this thread.

[skepticscott]

119. How can something that calls itself a "Church"

actually be a "cult"? By your own argument, that's not possible...

[SarahM32]

120. No, that's not accurate.

I've never argued any such thing. In fact, there are plenty of groups, sects and denominations that call themselves a "church," when they are cults. Just look at Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

The "Church of Scientology" calls itself a "church" and religion to get a tax exempt status.

[skepticscott]

121. You mean like

The "All Faiths Coalition" that you argued couldn't possibly be a cult simply because of the name they'd chosen? You argue that just because something calls itself a "church", that doesn't mean it can't be a cult, but you also argue just as arrogantly in post 70 above that if something calls itself a "Coalition", then it can't possibly be a cult....no way, no how. It seems to escape your dizzying intellect that a cult can call itself anything it wants, and still be a cult

Getting it yet? Is the intellectual bankruptcy of your cult-based argument sinking in?

[SarahM32]

125. The definition of a cult proves my case.

"SkepticScott" wrote:

The "All Faiths Coalition" that you argued couldn't possibly be a cult simply because of the name they'd chosen? You argue that just because something calls itself a "church", that doesn't mean it can't be a cult, but you also argue just as arrogantly in post 70 above that if something calls itself a "Coalition", then it can't possibly be a cult....no way, no how. It seems to escape your dizzying intellect that a cult can call itself anything it wants, and still be a cult. Getting it yet? Is the intellectual bankruptcy of your cult-based argument sinking in?

Here's hoping I can help you get it.

How could an All Faiths Coalition be a cult?

I know that a cult can call itself anything it wants. However, IF Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and people from other faiths joined a Humanitarian and Interfaith or All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice, they would obviously not be a “cult.” They would be people from different faith traditions cooperating and collaborating to created Interfaith dialogue, cooperation, and collaboration to help people come together in common purpose for the common good of Mankind.

Besides that, the definition of “cult” proves and supports my case.

the definition of a cult is: 1. A particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. An organized group that devotes itself to or venerates a person. 3. a religion or sect considered to be false or extremist. And the word cult comes from the Latin cultus, meaning habitation and worship, which is a variation of the word colere, meaning to inhabit and worship.

Now, let’s look at the facts.

1. A. The anonymous suggestions in the message are not about building an organization or a religion or a religious sect or a system of religious worship that would have rites or ceremonies. In fact, his messages promotes Interfaith dialogue, cooperation and understanding of the essential purpose of religions so that religious denominations, sects and groups that have become theocratic and cultish may be corrected and reformed. Therefore, he is not a religious leader, but a reformer of religious groups that have become theocratic and cultish.

B. His suggestions are also that we follow the advice of the Founders of the United States of America regarding religion, separation of church and state, and preventing Theocracy to ensure equality and freedom of religions.

2. His work and message has not produced, and is not designed to produce, an organized group that devotes itself to or venerates a person. Rather, according to prophecies he does not exalt himself, is hidden, confesses he is only human and flawed, and says that only God the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Great Spirit-Parent is worthy of worship. Reverence or worship of any man or woman, living or dead, is idol worship.

3. His mission is not to found a new religion or sect, or to lead an existing religion or sect, although according to prophecy many theocratic religious leaders in the world have and will consider his message to be false, extreme, heretical, apostasy. But that's expected. Prophets are always resented or hated at first by the religious establishments.

Now do you get it?

I suspect that even if you did, you wouldn't admit it.
.

[skepticscott]

127. Too funny

Therefore he is not a religious leader, but a reformer of religious groups that have become theocratic and cultish

If he's trying to "reform" religious groups, if he's trying to get other people to listen to and do what he advocates with regard to religion, then he's a religious leader...or wants to be. simple as that. And sorry, but if "he" is peddling a completely different version of god than the one that the vast, VAST majority or religious people recognize and believe in, then he's certainly trying to found something. And the old "they laughed at the Wright brothers" argument is lame and bankrupt.

Forgive me if I decline to wade through the rest of this bilge...I have a life to lead. You enjoy "the message" to your heart's content, hear?

[SarahM32]

130. So, you just ignore the facts? Okay, but at least say you ignored them.

You may certainly ignore facts that I happen to know are facts, but to then claim that my argument is "lame and bankrupt" is unfounded and unsupported.

[skepticscott]

135. Except that you offered no "facts"

You offered a hypothetical (with a capital IF), definitions, and your own unsupported and self-serving declarations,, none of which qualify.

But by all means, continue your obsessive defense of "the message"... It makes our point even better every time you type.

[intaglio]

139. The definition of cult proves our case

3. a religion or sect considered to be false or extremist.

yours is a false (and perhaps extremist) sect. Oh, and the sense of cult is the sense used now not its derivation.

[Blue4Texas]

126. Your goal (and Adamson's) is/was to post his message, everywhere, right?

[SarahM32]

131. No.

All I'm doing is spreading the word about the message, in the forums that I find.

I debate with critics and skeptics, even though it's against my better judgment, only because I always hope someone will offer legitimate, valid criticism or ask questions so that the webmaster of the message site can address them. (And I know this forum is one that the webmaster monitors.)
.

[Blue4Texas]

133. Not to post his message but to spread the word about his message - ok

What does this hope to accomplish?

[SarahM32]

137. To answer your question ...

I really am not just beating my head against a wall. As I said, I was hoping for valid, legitimate, constructive criticism. And, despite unreasonable, unkind, knee-jerk criticism, I continued because I hope other readers -- readers who have not posted comments -- can see who is telling the truth, and who's not.

[intaglio]

140. You have had valid and legitimate criticism

It has not been "constructive" because your cult is, to use a well worn metaphor, built on sand.

[SarahM32]

141. MY FINAL RESPONSE ADDRESSING CRITICISM AND SKEPTICISM

One of the most persistent, nagging criticisms on this thread is that the author of the article I cited in the OP, Concepts of God and Religion, and The Nature of God, is a “cult leader.”

However, there are many obvious reasons why that is an erroneous assumption, and not true.

The author is merely an anonymous messenger, as many articles in the message make very clear, and the message is designed to remind humanity of the core universal truths reflected in all religions, which are also reflected in the idea that government should promote the general welfare and ensure equal opportunity, domestic tranquility, and justice for all.

Above and beyond that, the message is designed to provide a rationale and a blueprint to enable the people, through grass roots political activism, to bring about a reformation of government so that it may actually promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility and justice for all, and actually be of the people, by the people and for the people.

Those words were chosen purposely, because America is best suited to do that. Its Founders provided Article 5 of the Constitution in order to do so, which is why the message is directed mainly at Americans so America may finally become a good example to the world.

The message is published by The All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice, which had started as The Coalition of Jews, Christians and Muslims for Peace, and later added the more inclusive names including The Humanitarian Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice to better reflect the inclusiveness of the message.

The Coalition’s original web site is here, and later the message site was published here to preserve, edit, update and revise the author’s message, which had been on his personal site that was shut down in December 2011. (Apparently the author had reached a point of despair, as was depicted in the book of Isaiah: “And God said to me: 'You are My servant, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said: 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and vanity; yet surely my righteousness is with the Lord, and my satisfaction with my God.'” – Isaiah 49)

The message is designed to build a Humanitarian and Interfaith coalition which is Jeffersonian in nature. That is, it is in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson’s statement that the Founders and writers of the U.S. Constitution “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Muslim, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.” — Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography. And it is also designed to fulfill Jefferson’s and Madison’s desire to build a Democratic Republic that may be a good example to the world.

The problem on this thread is that critics ignore or do not understand all that.

Critics also ignore or do not understand that there are many Interfaith coalitions striving to achieve many of the same goals. For example, there is The Charter for Compassion, founded by the best-selling author Karen Armstrong (and promoted by many videos on YouTube). There is an Interfaith coalition that demonstrated in support of the “Occupy” movement, as is shown in this video. And there are numerous other such efforts that have been and are underway, serving in the same spirit.

Despite all that, critics have insisted that because the author of the message is a man who makes suggestions, clarifies divine intent and declares that he is divinely inspired and called to do so, he is, therefore, a “cult leader.”

However, anyone who has read the full message can clearly see that he is an anonymous messenger, not a leader. And he is certainly not a “cult” leader, according to the definition of the word.

The anonymous suggestions in the message are not about building an organization or a religion or a religious sect or a system of religious worship that would have rites or ceremonies. In fact, the articles about religion in the message serve to further human understanding of the essential and true purpose of religions, so that all religions may finally serve their true purpose, and so that religious denominations, sects and groups that have become theocratic and cultish may be corrected and reformed.

According to prophecies the modern “Messiah,” the true messenger of God, does not exalt himself. He is hidden, confesses he is only human, flawed and vain but is dying to overcome, and says that only God the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Great Spirit-Parent is worthy of worship. And he reminds Christians of what has been lost in Christianity, that reverence or worship of any man (or woman), living or dead, is idol worship.

The author emphasizes that it is the message, not the messenger, that is important, which is why he remains behind the scenes. And he emphasizes that the message serves the Spirit of truth and is designed not to condemn, but to educate; not to punish, but to correct; and not to destroy, but to save.

The message is designed to dispel myths, expose false beliefs, expose harmful, divisive leadership, and show how to improve the human condition for all the people of the world, regardless of their religion, nationality, race, culture, or financial status, for we are all equal in the "sight" of God.

Now, critics may say what they want, and believe what want to believe.

I’ve said my piece here and I will say no more.
.

[skepticscott]

142. Promises, promises

I think we all know that isn't true. You start off badly by the characterization as an "assumption", when it's no such thing, and go downhill from there.

But you did manage to set a new single post record...16 uses of the phrase "The Message" this time. You're nothing if not well-programmed....creepily, cultishly so.