Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-10-2002, 11:21 AM

If you insist I'll do the first paragraph later today. I skimmed over the whole thing because I wondered why you think it is a great peace of work.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

David M. Payne · 11-10-2002, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
If you insist I'll do the first paragraph later today. I skimmed over the whole thing because I wondered why you think it is a great peace of work.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Well, I think it's a pretty good piece of satire, and sometimes satire can be very effective in exposing the truth. As for what the truth is, well that is debatable, isn't it? I'm working on something else right now, so I'll get back when I can. Maybe we can have some informative fun with this after all. As usual, (Not "the usual"

) everyone who is interested one way or another, is encouraged to participate. Maybe this will get interesting after all. Now if we could just get Sabine and Gemma here, what a party that would be. Of course they are serious defenders of the God/religion thing, and don't have time for such nonsense.

David

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]

11-10-2002, 02:01 PM

David

Quote:

Pstt, I've got a story for you. Once upon a time there was this guy named Bob who was omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

God is masculine but is without a corporeal of existence of being. So God is not a guy. [quote]

He was the ultimate authority figure, and the most powerful being in the universe. In fact he created it. One day he decided to create this planet, put some people on it, and see what they would do with him as their idol.[/quote

God did not create the universe because the universe has no existence of being. The universe is like space and time but does not exist. So God created only that which is to be found in the universe and when God "created the heavens and the earth" he juxtaposed right from wrong in our own mind and so gave order to unstructured space (in other words, he made it so we could get our opinion correct or we could not even have one = ultimate truth). The people existed long before our mythology was first created (about 6000 years ago). The account of Genesis 1 does not deal with the origen of the species here called man but with the creation of each individual man in the image of God, which now means that man is God and God is man. There is no objection possible because it is just a statement made for us to discover in life. This means that nothing exists as of yet but only the concept of existence is created and we must confirm this concept in real life.

Quote:

He created Mada and Vee, and decided to test them, to see if they were worthy of being his slaves, and willing to worship him in rapture forever. Of course this was little more than an intellectual exercise for Bob, for he was omniscient after all, knew everything they would do, so he already knew what the results would be. He thought, what the hell, lets see if I'm wrong, which was impossible of course, after all Bob was never wrong, but he loved conundrums anyway.

God did not create Adam and Eve but God created man in the image of God and male and female he created them (plural), androgyne as such with the potential to become either male or female. Adam and Eve are not created until Gen 3, which is after man was formed in Gen.2 (out of dust) to have a corporeal existence of being. Notice that woman was never created in Gen.1 but was taken from man in Gen.2 to be the womb of man needed for the procreation of God in the image of man (sic), so man could be the continuity of God (and therefore also of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence). Adam and Eve were created by the Tree of Knowledge wherein good and evil became known to man. So, whereas the continuity of God existed in the Tree of Life (the womb of man), knowledge of good and evil exists only in the Tree of Knowledge and this is why the Tree of Knowledge is needed to support the Tree of Life (woman saw that the TOL was good for food, wisdom and beauty). Adam and Eve were created never to be formed and have no corporeal existence of being but are, and remain, figments of our imagination. This is made known in the shame/no shame concept between Gen.2:25 and Gen.3:7, after their conscious awareness became known to them (eyes were opened). This conscious awareness lated became their ego awareness and hence the second nature of man wherein we are human or rational beings.

Because we are alienated in our ego identity (TOK) from the our true identity (TOL) we are enslaved to our desires and we are enslaved to our desires because we do not know who we really are. To fortify this 'alienated' (void of reality) mode of existence we search for power, wealth and beauty and so praise God in ectacy when and if we extract science from omniscience, pleasure from bliss, virtue from benevolence, sense from nonsence and procreate temporal life from eternal life (and so on).

Yes, it is a myth and the plan of salvation was already created in Gen.1 on the seventh day and was spelled out in Gen.2 where the river first divides and later becomes one in the Euphrates.

Quote:

It turned out that Bob also had an extraordinary sense of humor, and so he came up with some sayings and rules that he told Mada and Vee to follow religiously, or they would suffer dire consequences. Perhaps they would even end up on fire for eternity in Hades, which was run by his evil associate, Beelzebob the AntiTheist, if they failed to follow his sayings and rules to the letter. But just for his own amusement, Bob made his sayings and rules cryptic, open to many interpretations, and difficult to understand. What a fun guy that Bob was.

God never made any laws and all laws are made by religion to help poor humans in their journey back to Eden. Adam and Eve were removed from Eden for their own benefit because Eden was boring with only pain (the curses) and no gain. Each one of us is both Adam and Eve and paradise (Eden) exists in our own mind. It will be ours when we come full circle on the seventh day and linger along the shores of the Euphrates. Eu-phrates means bright mind and so the whole thing amounts to us finding freedom in understanding.

Your story may be a fun story but really misses the mark. If you wish to disagree with religion you should attack religion and not the bible because you are just as wrong in doing that as they are who follow it to the letter. This means that I agree with your plight but not with your avenue of pursuit.

David M. Payne · 11-10-2002, 02:31 PM

I invite our readers to read your sermon up there, and <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=236" target="_blank">The Story of Bob,</a> and draw their own conclusions as to who makes the most sense, Amos, or "Bob." As for this part of your post I have these observations.

Your story may be a fun story but really misses the mark.

Says you, but it appears from the posts above that your opinion isn't the only one on how convincingly "Bob" hit or missed the mark.

If you wish to disagree with religion you should attack religion and not the bible because you are just as wrong in doing that as they are who follow it to the letter.

Sorry, I don't agree with you, the books are part and parcel with the religions, and they are just as deserving of being targeted in the satire, and in real life for their contribution to the propagation of the religious crap that infests and bedevils our world.

This means that I agree with your plight but not with your avenue of pursuit.

Well, that�s the rub here Amos, it isn't just my plight that "Bob" is about, its everyone's plight. As for my avenue of pursuit, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

David

11-10-2002, 03:04 PM

The Church always was in favor of censorship and the Constituiton removed this. So maybe you must change it there.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Aerik Von · 11-10-2002, 05:00 PM

That was a great story, too bad Doug here did'nt enjoy it.

But seriously, the bible shows no more proof than this story - yet people believe the others.

I'd rather worship Bob as the Christian God just lacks a sense of humor.

David M. Payne · 11-10-2002, 05:01 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amos:
The Church always was in favor of censorship and the Constituiton removed this. So maybe you must change it there.

What does this mean?

David

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]

11-10-2002, 06:26 PM

Bible reading was never encouraged in Catholicism and interpretation was always supervised by the Church to avoid literalism. The inevitable result of literalism is witchcraft which is unavoidable when freedom of religion is incorporated in the Constitution. I suspect that your objection is more against what was once called witchcraft and not religion per se.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

hal9000 · 11-10-2002, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
Bible reading was never encouraged in Catholicism and interpretation was always supervised by the Church to avoid literalism. The inevitable result of literalism is witchraft which is unavoidable when freedom of religion is incorporated in the Constitution. I suspect that your objection is more against what was once called witchraft and not religion per se.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

What do we have here, another theist with his own religion? The church of Amos? DP, "Bob" is a tough nut to crack for them. It�s satire with a pretty good fix on the reality of god and religion. They grapple with it, but can get no traction. It�s very funny to watch them thrash around here on II with this.

By the way Amos what is witchraft, some kind of raft with witches on it?

11-11-2002, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hal9000:


By the way Amos what is witchraft, some kind of raft with witches on it?

I spelled it wrong twice, didn't I?

11-10-2002, 11:21 AM	#61
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	If you insist I'll do the first paragraph later today. I skimmed over the whole thing because I wondered why you think it is a great peace of work. [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

11-10-2002, 03:04 PM	#65
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	The Church always was in favor of censorship and the Constituiton removed this. So maybe you must change it there. [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

11-10-2002, 05:01 PM	#67
David M. Payne Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The land of chain smoking, bible thumping, holy ro Posts: 1,248	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amos: The Church always was in favor of censorship and the Constituiton removed this. So maybe you must change it there. What does this mean? David [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]</p>

11-10-2002, 06:26 PM	#68
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Bible reading was never encouraged in Catholicism and interpretation was always supervised by the Church to avoid literalism. The inevitable result of literalism is witchcraft which is unavoidable when freedom of religion is incorporated in the Constitution. I suspect that your objection is more against what was once called witchcraft and not religion per se. [ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2002, 02:31 PM	#64
David M. Payne Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The land of chain smoking, bible thumping, holy ro Posts: 1,248	I invite our readers to read your sermon up there, and <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=236" target="_blank">The Story of Bob,</a> and draw their own conclusions as to who makes the most sense, Amos, or "Bob." As for this part of your post I have these observations. Your story may be a fun story but really misses the mark. Says you, but it appears from the posts above that your opinion isn't the only one on how convincingly "Bob" hit or missed the mark. If you wish to disagree with religion you should attack religion and not the bible because you are just as wrong in doing that as they are who follow it to the letter. Sorry, I don't agree with you, the books are part and parcel with the religions, and they are just as deserving of being targeted in the satire, and in real life for their contribution to the propagation of the religious crap that infests and bedevils our world. This means that I agree with your plight but not with your avenue of pursuit. Well, that�s the rub here Amos, it isn't just my plight that "Bob" is about, its everyone's plight. As for my avenue of pursuit, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. David

11-10-2002, 05:00 PM	#66
Aerik Von Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hell, New York Posts: 151	That was a great story, too bad Doug here did'nt enjoy it. But seriously, the bible shows no more proof than this story - yet people believe the others. I'd rather worship Bob as the Christian God just lacks a sense of humor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.