A United Christian Church Future

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Epicurus (341-271 BC) wrote:

'If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not benevolent; if he is both able and willing, whence come evil?'

Who, in their right mind, would rely on syllogistic reasoning for such an important problem?

Well it goes right to the heart of the problem of who or what God actually is does it not? If God has no characteristics at all then we can have no relationship with him/her/it and there would be no need or benefit in worshiping same. If God does have some qualities then what are they? No one has yet (despite my asking)has said who or what God is other than to say 'God is love'(which is contradicted by the OT, common sense and philosophical analysis).

Actually Fredrik, I didn't want to bore you with the standard ecclesiastical responses.

I am of the view that human beings cannot but wreak evil from time to time and despite the best intentions and that this is due to the finite nature of our being. The only completely safe moral choice is made when all possible facts and outcomes are known. This is not possible unless human beings are Gods - and I am certain they are not.

If you accept this argument then it is possible to see that an omnipotent and omniscient God can be benevolent when there is evil to be found in His creation.

Deane

Dear Deane,

Please do not worry that any answer to a question I pose is going to bore me! I would be grateful of the chance to find just one Christian prepared to answer the point.

I remain utterly open minded to the possibilities. It would be very comforting to me to find that my general Christian upbring was not flawed in any like the degree I have so far found that it seems to be.

Kindest thoughts from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
The Chain of Being argument is an interesting one and is very well set out .

Not in my view. BTW are you saying that animals are not sentient?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

[QUOTE] Actually Fredrik, I didn't want to bore you with the standard ecclesiastical responses.

LOL oh please do give us the 'standard ecclesiastical responses' - I for one promise not to be bored.

quote:

I am of the view that human beings cannot but wreak evil from time to time and despite the best intentions and that this is due to the finite nature of our being.

We are evil because we are finite? Please elaborate. I thought we are evil because we grasp at an inherently existent self and thus develop self cherishing but once the ultimate nature of self and all phenomena is realised then the mind pervades the whole of space and may appear as infinite. Some Christian mystics like Meister Ekhart have described this experience of bliss and infinity (the Qabalah, Buddhist and Sufi literature too)and imagined the experience to be union with God but was it, or was Eckhart still conceptualising as he had yet to refine this process and experience the ultimate reality that is beyond duality?

quote:

The only completely safe moral choice is made when all possible facts and outcomes are known. This is not possible unless human beings are Gods - and I am certain they are not.

Do you know the characteristics, attributes, qualities of the Fully Enlightened Mind? Some believe (with very good reason)that we can all attain this mind. If this is true then imagine the harm done by those who would deny this truth and have us put our hopeless faith in the son of a non-existent God who may or may not have died on a cross but who cant possibly 'save' us from getting a cold much less eternal damnation.

quote:

If you accept this argument then it is possible to see that an omnipotent and omniscient God can be benevolent when there is evil to be found in His creation.

Yes, well I don't accept the argument for a second. Given the appalling evil and suffering in the world and given 'the fact' that God created the universe in six days and would be therefore jolly powerful(the universe being vast beyond comprehension)then why doesn't God appear in the sky all over the world speaking in every language at the same time and put our poor finite minds at rest and show us he cares and end all this debate and wrong doing for all time? If he could he would surely? I think Epicurus is right.

Fredrik

I am not a christian and, seeing as there are a few in this Padded Cell, I'm not going to list their pre-formulated arguments for them. Besides which, you asked for a logical response - not one based on fables.


Acad

I am trying to avoid taking a sarcastic tone to what you post, no matter what I think of your reasoning. Perhaps you might avoid a sarcastic tone when you respond to something I have posted? That way we might save a thread on this very touchy subject from descending into peurile flaming.

quote:

Do you know the characteristics, attributes, qualities of the Fully Enlightened Mind? Some believe (with very good reason)that we can all attain this mind.

So lets hear this "very good" reasoning.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

I am of the view that human beings cannot but wreak evil from time to time and despite the best intentions and that this is due to the finite nature of our being. The only completely safe moral choice is made when all possible facts and outcomes are known. This is not possible unless human beings are Gods - and I am certain they are not.

[...].

Deane

Dear Deane

I don't quite accept that, as the human is indeed a sentient being, and the conscience is a fair way to make the judgement between good and evil without access to all the evidence. One does not have to be a God to know good from evil at the time of the potential choice between the two in any given act.

Unwitting mistakes hardly amount to evil, though the results may be terrible. I do not believe that religious persecution is unwitting. It is pure and unadulterated human evil in the name of something not functionally different from tribalism in its most primitive form. It actually is the same as the distrust between packs of wild animals, but this is not thought of as evil, because we do not ascribe to animals the ability to divine between right and wrong - good and evil - or have a moral framework which allows for a respect for others based in a regard for other's life, and welfare, even where this is of no benefit to the potential perpetrators of evil. The human should know better, but so frequently does not. This is not accidental evil behaviour, done with the best of intentions in my view, and is exactly where I struggle with religions in general, where the point is not sufficiently clearly set out. If it were then such evil would be more easily characterised as against the religious teachings concerned, and as history shows us, the most evil acts and campains have been perpetrated without the opposition of the leading religious figures, let alone a general condemnation from the followers of the faith concerned. This is exactly the "question of evil" that I am looking for a satisfactory answer to. If answered, it might give the Christian Churches a genuine head start in the competition to proclaim the Goodness of the Christian God among mankind.

I do not take it that evil is performed with "the best of intentions" for example in the great majority of cases. Mostly evil is quite apparent at the time. Rwanda is a recent example where there could be no doubt. I realise that is not necessarily a Christian issue in that case, but if the Christian God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Benevolent, surely all mankind falls under His jurisdiction and responsibility? The Bible never suggests that God created the Jewish and Christian parts of the World only. The whole world is claimed as His work as well as the Heavens above and so forth. At this point one begins to see that these religions may actually promote the suppression of other religions on the basis that they are the "chosen people." This concept has already produced tragic and evil results over the centuries.

I also struggle with the notion that un-baptised children shall be cast into Hell because they die before the event. It is hardly their fault that their parents and Fate conspired to deprive them of eternal salvation. This is another discontinuity, which I have never seen answered to my satisfaction. I do realise that this seems to vary between various Christian Church doctrines. In which case, which doctrines are kept and while rejected in the unlikely event of a grand Christian unification?

Mankind's witting evil and the discontinuities in the Holy Scriptures, let alone the oddities of later ecclesiastical rulings [varying between differing versions of the Church], seem to me to rule out a route to faith being other than blind and thoughtless, with the implications I mentioned above. I really would wish someone could actually answer this, as I would very gladly accept it, if it seemed more than semantics.

The final leap of faith would be possible if I could consider that the Christian God was all good. If he is not all good then I don't expect Him to be fair at the Last Judgement, so I see no point in following His Church, and its teachings, but look for a more sensible spiritual framework to explore. I would not need to prove He existed, but essentially I cannot see that He can easily be characterised as benevolent until the "question of eveil" is addressed satisfactoritly. I am inclined to think that God is mankind's rather falible inventntion as things stand...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

PS: I don't expect you justify Christianity, particularly as you have stated in the time I was writing this that you are not a Christian. My point is that I have never found a professing Christian who would answer the points, and I wish they would. Without a clear line on these points, which are hardly a matter of faith but more of philosophical and logical clarity and rigour, then I do believe the whole edifice of Christianity is undermined to the point of it becoming impossible... Thanks in any case.

Fredrik

You must qualify what evil is - and what it is not. I seem to have misconstrued your use of the word.

As to semantics, well, I have to say that any reasoned argument can be reduced to a pile of words and inconsistencies. This is the nature of logic or any kind of reasoning. Concepts and propositions, and the rules that we use to organise them in relation to one another, are symbols - or "descriptions" - of the world (or "cosmos" if you like) and as such are already at a remove from the truth. It will always be possible to make statements using these tools that are neither provable nor disprovable given the rules of that system.

Which is to say that this discussion is futile if it is directed at certainty. Certainty is not what I seek from the examination of my life and the world. My curiosity drives a lot of my questioning, but I have long since given up on final answers to anything. Each answer merely opens a door into another corridor full of doors. I cannot ask the world all of my questions and I cannot absorb all of its answers. I have decided to be content with that.

Deane

Fredrik

I wonder if you might allow me the temerity to suggest that you refrain from painting God with the blood-drenched brush that the Christians hold to so doggedly?

If you want to know about God then why don't you ask him? I'm not suggesting that you stand in the town square and cry to the heavens. But surely you have little to lose by talking to (what may just be) air, quietly and in private? You have put a great deal of faith in words so far. What do you risk by asking a possible Supreme Being to reveal Itself to you?

I expect I will get ridiculed by some contributors for that, but there you go.

Deane

Dear Deane,

I did not expect you to require me to explain my use of the word evil, to "qualify" it as you put it.

I am not going to dig the dictionary out to give a scholarly reply, but merely show two examples of it.

Great evil: The persecution of the Jews. [act of a number of sentient people]

Small evil: A little boy pulls the wings off a fly. [act of a sentient individual].

Not good nor evil: A Red Kite kills and eats a little rabbit. [a natural act of survival for a creature without the moral framework the human uses to divine the difference between good an evil].

Act of good: Selfless giving, for one example.

In terms of semantics, any logical progression starts with a priori knowledge and given propositions, which can indeed be reduced to abserdity! My starting point here is the "question of evil" and I think the above two examples simply explain what I am driving at without a wordy definition.

But it also assumes that humans are sentient, and have a moral understanding of what evil is, as well as good. I am not going to reduce these concepts further for the sake of a philosophical arguement ad abserdam...

If there is no answer to the "question of evil" that is comprehensible in these clear terms them I will write it off as pure semantic reduction!

Nice little diversion. Perhaps more tomorrow! Thanks from Fredrik

Dear Deane,

Your last post presupposes that I have not tried to commune with God! I stated earlier that I was confirmed, and took Communion. This is not something that I did lightly. I think you can take it that I have indeed given it a good try! I am lapsed...

Incidentally I do pray for Christian friends, as I can see no reason to suppose it will do any harm, but for myself, now, I can see no reason to beleieve that the Judeo/Christian God Creator is in fact even interested in such tiny details in His scheme as me if He exists at all! If He does exist I really think that on balance He certainly does not have a more formed moral framework than apack of Wolves, and for myself, then I see no point in persisting!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

I used to be a born again christian i went to home fellowship on wednesdays prayer meetings on fridays and church usually twice on sunday i was totally convinced at the time that what i believed was real and true even if i couldn,t prove it to others and was a defender of that faith ive read the whole bible from front to back i came to a point where i could no longer accept the bible being the inspired word of god my problem was god apparently telling the israelite to go and kill people babies included and young children and old people sometimes taking the girls after checking if they were virgins first , also killing the animals of a village for no apparent reason , this flew directly in the face of the commandment not to murder for killing defenceless children and old folks is murder not war and secondly stealing their goods and land is a breach of the commandment not to steal .
if someone today went and killed a hindu family and their pets and said god told them to do it they,d be put in a prison for the criminally insane and rightly so .
This old testament is the basis for judaism christianity and islam i was brainwashed at the time to believe such rubish was divinely inspired .
i believe somehow that were allready connected to each other maybe dropping the ego is the way to realize that ,if your one with someone on a deep level then there is true unity beyond the smallness of the mind dropping all thought and just being .

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Fredrik

[QUOTE] Acad

I am trying to avoid taking a sarcastic tone to what you post, no matter what I think of your reasoning. Perhaps you might avoid a sarcastic tone when you respond to something I have posted? That way we might save a thread on this very touchy subject from descending into peurile flaming.

Deane,

peurile flaming and sarcasm like your comments to me earlier on this thread such as:

'Rubbish. Can God make it rain and not rain at the same time? If He cannot, does this mean He is not omnipotent? This is one of the most basic questions posed by philosophy lecturers in first-year philosophy courses. I'm surprised that you're unaware of the answer'.

and: 'Do you even understand the distinction between induction and deduction?' and so forth..

Please advise.

quote:

Do you know the characteristics, attributes, qualities of the Fully Enlightened Mind? Some believe (with very good reason)that we can all attain this mind.

So lets hear this "very good" reasoning.

The very good reasoning is a large number of people have already attained it or are manifestly well on their way to attaining it and that it is possible to gain a taste of it without too much effort and study and the commonality of experience reported by countless practitioners which confirms the validity of the instructions. No faith in divine beings needed just some flying hours on a meditation cushion. Every stage of the journey/path/process has been minutely recorded in considerable depth using pristine definitions and faultless irrefutable logic underpinned by the most rigorous philosophical system and the only faith required is the faith that it might work enough to actually give it a go. No mumbo jumbo or superstitious clap trap required, no blind faith, no unquestioning infantile belief and no emotional investment in hopeless personal saviours, no simplistic reasoning and no insistence that you defer to a church or priest or pay trucks loads of money for the teachings on the next stage and no endorphin high posing as 'the holy spirit' after bopping to the happy clappy church band etc. etc. In short it is all verifiable through direct first order experience not mere belief masquerading as objective universal truth.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

Deane,

peurile flaming and sarcasm like your comments to me earlier on this thread such as:

'Rubbish. Can God make it rain and not rain at the same time? If He cannot, does this mean He is not omnipotent? This is one of the most basic questions posed by philosophy lecturers in first-year philosophy courses. I'm surprised that you're unaware of the answer'.

and: 'Do you even understand the distinction between induction and deduction?' and so forth..

Please advise.

Fair point. My apologies.

quote:

The very good reasoning is a large number of people have already attained it or are manifestly well on their way to attaining it and that it is possible to gain a taste of it without too much effort and study and the commonality of experience reported by countless practitioners which confirms the validity of the instructions.

Commonality of experience is not reasoning.

quote:

No faith in divine beings needed just some flying hours on a meditation cushion. Every stage of the journey/path/process has been minutely recorded in considerable depth using pristine definitions and faultless irrefutable logic

"Pristine definitions"? I need an example of such a thing to understand what you mean by the term.

quote:

In short it is all verifiable through direct first order experience not mere belief masquerading as objective universal truth.

So, if it is only available as a direct first order experience, does that make it a subjective universal truth?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
[QUOTE]


Hi Deane,

[QUOTE] Commonality of experience is not reasoning.

I didn't say it was, you have only partially quoted me. The 'commonality of experience' comment was tacked onto the end of 'a large number of people have already attained it or are manifestly well on their way to attaining it and that it is possible to gain a taste of it without too much effort and study' was it not?

quote:

"Pristine definitions"? I need an example of such a thing to understand what you mean by the term.

Pristine definitions refers to accuracy of meaning (precise and unambiguous)and consistency of use. Theology, western philosophy and science all suffer from a lack of agreed terms and definitions which makes for very confusing dialogue.

quote:

So, if it is only available as a direct first order experience, does that make it a subjective universal truth?

Actually the only difference between objectivity and subjectivity is concensus - objectivity is the concensus of subjectivities is it not? I used the terms in order to show the difference between what is experientially verifiable on the one hand and what is mere acceptance of received dogma on the other.

Acad

Fredrik,

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts, I think you made some excellent points.

Acad

quote:

Originally posted by Rube:

i believe somehow that were allready connected to each other maybe dropping the ego is the way to realize that ,if your one with someone on a deep level then there is true unity beyond the smallness of the mind dropping all thought and just being .

I agree Rube – this is the way forward. Dropping the ego (easier said than done) may well become a by-product of long hours/years of heartfelt prayer 'to God' especially in a monastic environment and may well result in wonderful periods of deep peace and bliss or even ecstasy (oneness, wholeness, union).

I do not believe that this deep peace, bliss or ecstasy is ‘The Holy Spirit’ or God of the OT/NT entering one or manifesting in one having been previously residing in one unnoticed but it is something very similar and one might experience it as ‘union with God in a great infinity of love’ etc if that has been the conceptual framework (or ‘reality’) which one may have been exposed to and the origination of the methods of attainment.

However at the most deep and sublime experience of this phenomena there would be no sense of a subject ‘I’ and an object ‘God’ or ‘love’ or ‘infinity’ as the deepest manifestation is non-dual (and therefore beyond words, thoughts and expression and thus all concepts) and I therefore conclude that those who have reported experiencing this (saints and mystics) may not have experienced the real thing but the facsimile (which would knock your socks off)which is the stage before the real thing and is routinely experienced by common or garden Buddhist who would make no claim to sainthood. If a Christian mystic, sufi or qabbalist experienced either facsimilie or real thing they would be at a total loss to explain or describe 'God' as all conceptual minds have either partially or completely dissolved during their 'union' and hence we get the confused ramblings concerning the nature and attributes of God which so muddy the water for those who are not 'blessed' by 'God' in this way. It is not surprising that the 'Mystical Gospels' were kept out of the NT and the most simplistic kept as the early church was not interested in the gifted few but the illiterate, superstitious, fearful and easily manipulated many.

'The Kingdom of (‘God’) is within' is kind of true as going deep within oneself - to turn our concentration inwards - reveals deeper more subtle levels of mind normally unmanifest to normal consciousness. Buddhist meditation for example works directly on these deeper levels of mind and offer peerless techniques for dismantling the ‘I’ until the mind becomes so refined in its ability to experience its ultimate nature that it does so spontaneously and permanently and is the nature of bliss and ultimate truth and pervades the whole of space all of which one won’t get standing in church once a week singing ‘All things bright and beautifull’.

Recommended reading: ‘Mystic Union’: An Essay in the Phenomenology of Mysticism by Nelson Pike (Christian mysticism)

Tantric Grounds and Paths and/or Mahamudra Tantra by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Buddhist Mysticism)

You might also wish to try : John Main, 'Word into Silence'.

Hi Acad

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

The 'commonality of experience' comment was tacked onto the end of 'a large number of people have already attained it or are manifestly well on their way to attaining it and that it is possible to gain a taste of it without too much effort and study' was it not?

Ok, but the same commonality of experience is claimed by all religions. The fact that what you are describing is available to all who choose it does not make it unique from any other mystical pursuit or belief.

quote:

Pristine definitions refers to accuracy of meaning (precise and unambiguous)and consistency of use. Theology, western philosophy and science all suffer from a lack of agreed terms and definitions which makes for very confusing dialogue.

Sure, but within each particular sect or sub-sect the "members" (for want of a better word) agree on their use of language. Theology, western philosophy and science are enourmous fields of knowledge. To say that there are disparities within the nomenclature of each field is not really a valid criticism; nor is it any kind of proof that the mystical experience you describe somehow, therefore, possesses more claim to veracity.

quote:

Actually the only difference between objectivity and subjectivity is concensus - objectivity is the concensus of subjectivities is it not? I used the terms in order to show the difference between what is experientially verifiable on the one hand and what is mere acceptance of received dogma on the other.

Subjectivity and objectivity are perspectives posited by the dualistic metaphysic. It's one way of looking at the world - a very Western way, at that. Mere abstraction, in other words.

Deane

Hello James. I have not read it. I will look it up. What are you doing up so late?

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
You might also wish to try : John Main, 'Word into Silence'.

It seems John Main advocates the practice of 'Mantra recitation' - which is a Buddhist practice (Hindu too)- it seems to me that the christians who appear to be furthest along the path are those like Meister Eckhart who use techniques that are more usually associated with Buddhism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
[QUOTE]

Mostly evil is quite apparent at the time. Rwanda is a recent example where there could be no doubt. I realise that is not necessarily a Christian issue in that case

Former priest gets 15 years for Rwanda genocide

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Hi Acad


[QUOTE] Ok, but the same commonality of experience is claimed by all religions. The fact that what you are describing is available to all who choose it does not make it unique from any other mystical pursuit or belief.

If we take Tibetan Buddhism as an example we can see that there are 21 Sutra meditations ('lamrim' or stages of the path)which are a distillation of 84,000 separate Buddhist teachings and 5 levels of Tantra practice (tantra means secret mantra)- the sutra meditations (backed by theoretical teachings of great precision)lead step by step towards ultimate reality with the 21st dealing with 'superior seeing' or ultimate reality itself and thus the practitioner can measure advancement as he/she develops 'realisations' of each step from 1 through to 21 backed by intellectual understanding of the teachings which are meant as practical advise and experientially verifiable. With regards to Tantra practice we can see that the lower levels are sub-sets of the highest level so we can see that additional components are added as the practitioner becomes more advanced and is initiated to the next level thus we see how the practice of the additional components function both theoretically and experientially and thus Buddhism is indeed unique. Christianity has nothing even remotely similar and even the most esoteric 'mystical' teachings are vague and lack precise instructions (see the further reading suggestions as posted earlier). I do not dispute that a Christian mystic living in a monastery might develop similar experiences but it will take vastly longer.

quote:

Pristine definitions refers to accuracy of meaning (precise and unambiguous)and consistency of use. Theology, western philosophy and science all suffer from a lack of agreed terms and definitions which makes for very confusing dialogue.

quote:

Sure, but within each particular sect or sub-sect the "members" (for want of a better word) agree on their use of language. Theology, western philosophy and science are enourmous fields of knowledge. To say that there are disparities within the nomenclature of each field is not really a valid criticism; nor is it any kind of proof that the mystical experience you describe somehow, therefore, possesses more claim to veracity.

I disagree. Theologians can't even agree of a definition of God never mind anything else. Philosophers have cleaned up their act considerably since Wittgenstein (who looked deeply into the use of language and came to remarkably similar conclusions to Nagarjuna the great Buddhist philosopher)but scholars even disagree on what Wittgenstein really meant. I have read a great deal of theology and philosophy and it is clear that dialogues are often muddied as those debating are obviously using language in a different way. This would not be allowed in formal debate in a Buddhist university in Tibet for example.

quote:

Subjectivity and objectivity are perspectives posited by the dualistic metaphysic. It's one way of looking at the world - a very Western way, at that. Mere abstraction, in other words.

They are indeed just conventions.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

I disagree. Theologians can't even agree of a definition of God never mind anything else. Philosophers have cleaned up their act considerably since Wittgenstein (who looked deeply into the use of language and came to remarkably similar conclusions to Nagarjuna the great Buddhist philosopher)but scholars even disagree on what Wittgenstein really meant.

Acad

Western Philosophy is not about agreement; it is about inquiry. It makes no claim to offer enlightenment - it makes no claim of any kind. Even to discuss the field like this is to imply homogeneity. Wittgenstein is not particularly highly regarded amongst Western philosophers. I remember the Professor of Philosphy at Massey University (in NZ in 1988) using the word "baneful" in respect of his effect on the field - and I was warned away from him until I had gotten a few more years into a philosophy major (never got there...). That way I'd be equipped to sort out the crap in his writings from the real philosophy.

Can you not see what you are doing here, Acad? You've dismissed entire belief systems on the basis that they are not reasonable - then set out to "prove" that the one you describe is "different" because it's "true".

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
[QUOTE
Acad

[QUOTE] Western Philosophy is not about agreement; it is about inquiry.

I have never said it was. I have never said anything even remotely similar. I believe philosophy is about the love of wisdom - hence the word philosophy.

quote:

It makes no claim to offer enlightenment - it makes no claim of any kind.

I have never said it did. I have never said anything even remotely similar.

quote:

Even to discuss the field like this is to imply homogeneity.

But I have not have I?

At this stage I must ask you why you persist with this tedious slight of hand - I have asked you before and got no answer. Read what I write. Intelligently.

quote:

Wittgenstein is not particularly highly regarded amongst Western philosophers.

Pure bollocks. You simply have no idea what you talking about. What was your old profs favourite philosopher then? Who is yours and why?

quote:

- and I was warned away from him until I had gotten a few more years into a philosophy major (never got there...). That way I'd be equipped to sort out the crap in his writings from the real philosophy.

I'm not surprised you were warned away or that you did not complete the course (I feel the two are related)

quote:

Can you not see what you are doing here, Acad? You've dismissed entire belief systems on the basis that they are not reasonable - then set out to "prove" that the one you describe is "different" because it's "true".

If you were to read what I have written intelligently you will see that I have never dismissed entire belief systems and you can not show that I have - I have dismissed certain aspects and with good reason. I have on many occasions admitted the efficacy of all religions (although I am not saying they are all equally efficacious) - I have never set out to 'prove' anything - I have set out to show the weaknesses in certain types of faith and thinking and how some religions do not suffer form same - I have only sought to spark interest.

I have seen on a number of occasions how you have failed to understand what I or others have written and you that you are so eager to demonstrate that you have some brains or learning that you dive in with some argument showing you have not understood anything at all. My advise is that you read very carefully, not once but twice, with an open mind and ask yourself 'what is so and so saying here, are they saying what my mind thinks they are saying or are they saying what they are saying'?