Bibilcal Swine?

Erik

It is not your fault; you have explained things very clearly and I believe I have understood. The point is, I do not agree that you have proved anything about the various states of enlightment, or the nature of the physical world, any more than the theists have proved the existence of God or any of his offspring.

Saying that you know people who have experienced x, y, and z does not do it for me any more than people who claim to have had some epiphany, or have seen Elvis alive and well.

I am also sceptical of those who are certain about "truth" - even I don't go so far.

quote:

when you say Jesus must have been ressurected because there was no body I believe your reasoning breaks down and I have said as much.

OK, we've probably done this one to death ( ) and will have to agree to disagree.

A good number of contributors have said that they have a problem with accepting anything stated in the Bible because of its age and hence questionable reliability over time. That's a reasonable objection, but one that can be addressed. I'd like to come back on that one when I've had a chance to line up my reasoning first.

All the best.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Erik

One answer to my posed quandary about there being no matter without mind could be to posit that there has always existed a pool of consciousness from which souls are drawn.

Mike

You are on the right track Mike. I haven't forgotten you, just thought I would reply to the easy stuff (or least difficult stuff) first then get back to you later.

[QUOTE

I'd like to come back on that one when I've had a chance to line up my reasoning first.

All the best.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a plan. Looking forward to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Erik

It is not your fault; you have explained things very clearly and I believe I have understood. The point is, I do not agree that you have proved anything about the various states of enlightment, or the nature of the physical world, any more than the theists have proved the existence of God or any of his offspring.

Saying that you know people who have experienced x, y, and z does not do it for me any more than people who claim to have had some epiphany, or have seen Elvis alive and well.

I am also sceptical of those who are certain about "truth" - even I don't go so far.

Nigel,

Maybe you are right, who can say? All I can do is describe the theory and the experience and how one leads to the other but as for the final experiential proof you require this is something you have to do yourself to avoid any leap of faith. Galileo did not prove the earth moved round the sun to the pope but as Galileo said 'Eppur si muove' . It's all as nothing if you dont actually try it. The penguin is there in my view but if you don't so much as leave your house you are never going to get the proof because your desire for the proof is not sufficient to propel you on the path to get it. Each to his own says I.

All th ebest

Erik

Hi Guys this has been an interesting thread .Ive noticed through personal experience and observation how emotive belief can sometimes be ,all philosophies, belief systems and religions suffer from this to some extent including humanism communism and and people who become rabid about science {dont know if thats the best description but keybord isn,t my native tounge}. I used to be a christian and couldn,t or didn,t want to look at things differently my whole worldview would have been challenged and thats scary , i kept the idea to practice being a loving person but i found i could no longer believe in the god of judaism {who according to the new testament jesus /yeshua claims to be the son of }it was a difficult decision to come to i,d invested a lot of time and energy my whole self really but love must if we let it dictate our actions and i could see no place for a god who on one hand says don,t murder don,t steal and on the other commands the israelites to murder plunder and steal for the sake of land {schizophrenia in a deity is not a very good quality}if god so loved the world he wasn,t playing fair and thats the god i believed in ,boy was my thinking screwed up . Oh well ive moved on now and become much more open minded i enjoyed watching the film What the bleep do we know it had that stuff about how water takes on different shapes molecularly when exposed to love,hate, apreciation and other energies theres a website here{ http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/entop.html }if you want more info, it to me opens up the idea of the
effect we have on the world around us and how everything we percieve is some form of vibration light vibration sound vibration {which we all enjoy} all thoughts are using some elictral energy and theres very many forms of subtle energy that scientists might understand someday but whether they do or not isn,t essential .If you took people from two or three hundred years ago and told them as learned as they were the things that are possible today they might scarcely believe it , doctors ridiculed the need to wash ones hands between operations not that long ago so I think we have an interesting future ahead of us .

quote:

}if god so loved the world he wasn,t playing fair and thats the god i believed in ,boy was my thinking screwed up . Oh well ive moved on now

I know how you feel. However, like most 'Christians' you have been allowed to or have in yourself perceived the Bible and the nature of God completely incorrectly. Also an ignorance of the languuge used in the passage of John 3:16 and the relevance of passages further on has confused you.

In John 3:16 it states 'For God so loved the world...'. 99% of the time this is believed to mean that God loves everybody ('we are the world' la la la), that is the people. However the Greek word in the original is the word 'cosmos' - a word used to describe the physical universe, not our political universe. The phrase therefore should be understood with this in mind. Also in John 3:19 it shows that 3:16 is not in fact a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card but a condemnation:
'And this is the condemnation that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, lest his deeds be reproved'

This is an exact, and very jarring opposite to the God represented by almost every ecclesiatical organisation on Earth.

You've been fed this tripe "God loves everybody" and your observances are absolutely correct - he doesn't.

quote:

{schizophrenia in a deity is not a very good quality}

From the very beginning in the Garden of Eden God set down the rules - do it my way and you'll be fine, screw up and you'll be punished.

quote:

i could see no place for a god who on one hand says don,t murder don,t steal and on the other commands the israelites to murder plunder and steal for the sake of land

The people who occupied the land of Canaan were shockingly filthy. Amongst other things they sacrificed their own babies to idols, just about the lowest thing you can do. And God's judgement on them was destruction by an invading army - in this case the Israelites.
Most people today do not wish to accept judgement and punishment for their actions. A wise man once stated that the law is not for the law abiding, but the lawless.
Those people deserved what they got. And God was right to destroy them.

Murder? Like in the Ten Commandments? The concepts of common murder (the word used in the Ten Commandments if you know your Hebrew) and the word for killing in wartime are not the same and is another misunderstanding of the Bible. Many will throw up their hands in horror at this, but think about the secular world's concepts of killing. Killing someone for the sake of killing them or out of hatred is 'murder'. Killing someone in a bar fight is often 'manslaughter' - no intent to 'murder' but a killing nonetheless. A killing through 'self-defence', say, a woman stabbing a would-be rapist, is hailed as a 'good thing' as the swine deserved it. Usually a 'not guilty' defence.
But it's all still killing isn't it? Yes. But the INTENT is quite different.

The Russians did not 'murder' the Germans in 1941 - they were defending themselves in wartime, as you would do if you saw your family and homes destroyed by an invading force. And you would be right to do so.
The Nazis 'murdered' the Jews in the Holocaust - the intent was quite different. Not military conquest, just a slaughter of a type of people for what they were and out of hatred.
I'm sure many Russian soldiers murdered German civilians in revenge, 4 years later.

The Israelites invaded Canaan as a military conquest.
Another importantt point to understand is that the land of Canaan did not belong to the then occupiers. It belongs to God. So 'stealing'? - No. It was God's to give and he gave it to who he wished to give it to.

Humanity always wishes to bend God to their understanding, and mould Him the way we want him to be. They forget HE created US, not the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Humanity always wishes to bend God to their understanding, and mould Him the way we want him to be. They forget HE created US, not the other way around.

Funny. I think of it as the other way around.

Just goes to show...

Cheers

Harry

quote:

I know how you feel. However, like most 'Christians' you have been allowed to or have in yourself perceived the Bible and the nature of God completely incorrectly. Also an ignorance of the languuge used in the passage of John 3:16 and the relevance of passages further on has confused you.

Slow down Joe and try to construct your sentances properly. So what is the nature of god? Where is the authorised definition to be found and what is it?

quote:

In John 3:16 it states 'For God so loved the world...'. 99% of the time this is believed to mean that God loves everybody ('we are the world' la la la), that is the people. However the Greek word in the original is the word 'cosmos' - a word used to describe the physical universe, not our political universe. The phrase therefore should be understood with this in mind. Also in John 3:19 it shows that 3:16 is not in fact a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card but a condemnation:
'And this is the condemnation that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, lest his deeds be reproved'

Where did you get the 99% from? Please quote your source. So god according to you loves some but not others? Please confirm. What is the difference between the physical universe and the political universe (whatever that is)? Seems to me your god does a lot of creating then he decides he does not like what he created so he condems, destroys and starts again, no doubt hoping to get it right the next time. Please comment on this.


[QUOTEThis is an exact, and very jarring opposite to the God represented by almost every ecclesiatical organisation on Earth.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should start your own Church Joe? Then you could reprove and condenm and red card any 'filthy scum' (please see Joe's posts on the football/cheat thread)that dared not agree with you.


[/QUOTE]
You've been fed this tripe "God loves everybody" and your observances are absolutely correct - he doesn't. [/QUOTE]

For once I agree with you. Of course Buddha and many Buddhists I know love all sentient beings - without exception.

quote:

From the very beginning in the Garden of Eden God set down the rules - do it my way and you'll be fine, screw up and you'll be punished.

If only god had used your red card Joe he could just send us off for an early bath and perhaps fine us a little why did he have to condemn us to hell? Are you going to tell me that god did not create hell? If he did then don't you think he is a bit of a psycho? If he did not then who did? If god permits this hell then he is still a psycho and if he does not approve then why doesn't he do something about it?

quote:

The people who occupied the land of Canaan were shockingly filthy. Amongst other things they sacrificed their own babies to idols, just about the lowest thing you can do. And God's judgement on them was destruction by an invading army - in this case the Israelites.
Most people today do not wish to accept judgement and punishment for their actions. A wise man once stated that the law is not for the law abiding, but the lawless.
Those people deserved what they got. And God was right to destroy them.

Were these Canaanites also footballers Joe? If they were they surely deserved their punishment. I am sure if you had been alive back then you would have helped carry out gods work Joe. I am sure within no time at all you would have been much loved in gods eyes and he would have made you gauleiter of canaan and given you a special red card and a nice black uniform.

quote:

Murder? Like in the Ten Commandments? The concepts of common murder (the word used in the Ten Commandments if you know your Hebrew) and the word for killing in wartime are not the same and is another misunderstanding of the Bible. Many will throw up their hands in horror at this, but think about the secular world's concepts of killing. Killing someone for the sake of killing them or out of hatred is 'murder'. Killing someone in a bar fight is often 'manslaughter' - no intent to 'murder' but a killing nonetheless. A killing through 'self-defence', say, a woman stabbing a would-be rapist, is hailed as a 'good thing' as the swine deserved it. Usually a 'not guilty' defence.
But it's all still killing isn't it? Yes. But the INTENT is quite different.

quote:

Your misinterpretation of the hebrew for thou shalt not kill comes straight out of the American neo-con redneck school of biblical study and is massively controversial to say the least. For every so called Hebrew scholar who backs you up on this I will show you ten who do not. A quick search on google will show I am correct. In fact, thous shalt not kill is not qualified at all and therefore it applies also to animals.

quote:

The Russians did not 'murder' the Germans in 1941 - they were defending themselves in wartime, as you would do if you saw your family and homes destroyed by an invading force. And you would be right to do so.
The Nazis 'murdered' the Jews in the Holocaust - the intent was quite different. Not military conquest, just a slaughter of a type of people for what they were and out of hatred.
I'm sure many Russian soldiers murdered German civilians in revenge, 4 years later.

Killing is NEVER justified in my opinion and just perpetuates suffering.

quote:

The Israelites invaded Canaan as a military conquest.
Another importantt point to understand is that the land of Canaan did not belong to the then occupiers. It belongs to God. So 'stealing'? - No. It was God's to give and he gave it to who he wished to give it to.

So what you are saying is that becuase the land belonged to god and the israelites were doing gods work in invading then the israelites were justified?

[QUOTE] Humanity always wishes to bend God to their understanding, and mould Him the way we want him to be.

This is EXACTLY true and this statement is perhaps the only sensible thing you have said on this thread. Stick to your football refereeing Joe, the little black uniform suits you. Is your name really Ted Haggard, the looney american tv evangelist who is the so called spiritual adviser to Pres. Bush who was so spectacularly exposed by Richard Dawkins on Uk tv recently?

Eric,

Your pedantic, sneering attitude is boring.

The irony of this thread is you probably think you're a very good arguer...

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Eric,

Your pedantic, sneering attitude is boring.

The irony of this thread is you probably think you're a very good arguer...

That doesn't look like a very good aim. I think Erik is fairly good at arguing. Maybe you could point out that there is generally only a loose correllation between adeptness at scoring debating points and the wisdom of the thoughts behind the words. But don't mention I gave you the idea.

quote:

Originally posted by AlexanderVH:

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Eric,

Your pedantic, sneering attitude is boring.

The irony of this thread is you probably think you're a very good arguer...

That doesn't look like a very good aim. I think Erik is fairly good at arguing. Maybe you could point out that there is generally only a loose correllation between adeptness at scoring debating points and the wisdom of the thoughts behind the words. But don't mention I gave you the idea.

On second thought, that track doesn't look too promising either... Sorry

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Eric,

Your pedantic, sneering attitude is boring.

The irony of this thread is you probably think you're a very good arguer...

Joe,

You make claims of 'fact' but you fail to back up your 'facts' with any evidence. None. When challenged to do so, you do not even attempt any answers. Instead you call me pedantic and sneering. Do you really wish to be taken seriously? Perhaps if you offered some answers you would have more credibility. When someone asks me a question I make a reply. Always. (I owe TMP an answer which I will write now).

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
If objects cannot exist without the mind, mankind - or conscious thought - would have to have been around for about 16 billion years, or however old the universe is supposed to be nowadays.

M

Hi Mike,

My answer to your question comes with quite abit of preamble just to clarify the ground, so to speak, as this stuff is horribly complicated.

Here goes.

The whole reason for studying the dharma, the teachings of the Buddha is to search for a way to transcend suffering and attain peace and happiness.

It’s Only when we make liberation from suffering our ultimate goal that we are on the right path; nothing less IMO. Suffering has a cause and conditions for its existence.

Clearly understand that when the mind is perfectly still it’s in its natural, unadulterated state (the clearlight mind). As soon as the mind moves, it becomes conditioned.

When the mind is attracted to something it becomes conditioned. When aversion arises it becomes conditioned. The desire to move here and there arises from conditioning.

If our awareness does not keep pace with these mental proliferations as they occur, the mind will chase after them and be conditioned by them. Whenever the mind moves, at that moment, it becomes a conventional reality.

So the Buddha taught us to contemplate these wavering conditions of the mind. Whenever the mind moves, it becomes unstable and impermanent and unsatisfactory and cannot be taken as a self. These are the three universal characteristics of all conditioned phenomena.

The Buddha taught how to observe and contemplate these movements of the mind. Most people will never do this even once in their lives.

It is likewise with the teaching of dependent origination; deluded understanding (mistaken awareness) is the cause and condition for the arising of volitional karmic formations: which is the cause and condition for the arising of consciousness, which is the cause and condition for the arising of mentality and materiality and so on just as Buddhist teaching explain.

The Buddha separated each link of the chain to make it easier to study. This is an accurate description of reality, but when this process actually occurs in real life the ‘scholars’ (those who know the theory)are not able to keep up with what is happening . It is like falling from the top of a tree to come crashing down to the ground below we have no idea how many branches we passed on the way down.

Similarly when the mind is suddenly hit by a mental impression, if it delights in it then it flies off into a good mood. It considers it good without being aware of the chain of conditions that led it there. The process takes place in accordance with what is outlined in the theory but simultaneously it goes beyond the limits of that theory.

The experience goes beyond the words in a similar way to how a movie goes beyond the separate frames. We would all agree that a movie is an illusion based on the quick succession of ‘still’ photos giving an illusion of movement. If we were to believe the movie was ‘real’ we would be deluded but we accept our deluded view of what we consider to be reality as real. It isn't.

In life there is usually nothing that announces, ‘this is delusion.’ This is volitional karmic formations, and that is consciousness. The process does not give the ‘scholars’ the chance to read out the list as it is happening. Although the Buddha analysed the sequence of mind moments in detail, to me it is more like falling out of a tree.

As we come crashing down there is not opportunity to estimate how many feet and inches we have fallen. What we do know is that we hit the ground with a thud and it hurts. This is the life of suffering that our ignorance causes.

Consciousness is the inner core of the universe, it is the ground universe, and the appearance of this universe comes from consciousness. The only way the universe appears to be 16 billion years old is that we have found a way to look back that far but no further. Buddhism posits the existence of multiple world systems and that individual consciousness is a stream of connected moments of consciousness which gives rise to the appearance of a being as an un-divided entity within the universal consciousness . Out mental continuum has no beginning and no end and in Buddhist cosmology world systems come and go after unimaginably long periods called eons.

So the answer to your question is that although there was not what we would call ‘human consciousness’ 16 billion years ago as there were no ‘humans’ at that time there was still consciousness as that is what the universe is. Our mental continuum has always existed and we have had countless lives.

Quantum theory tells us that light, for example, is both particle and wave depending on what experiment you choose to look at it and the problem with that is light can’t be both, as both states are exclusive. ‘Matter’ is made from atoms and sub-atomic particles which exist in a state of potentiality - neither existing nor not-existing, until the wave function collapsed due to observation (consciousness) forcing the mere potential into an observable state.

Countless individual acts of consciousness over vast stretches of time by countless beings is what creates our universe which could be said to be just mental habituation in physical form. The more a wave function is collapsed in a given way the more likely it will collapse in that way again and this is the same as saying ‘worlds are from karma born’ as karma, which means ‘action’ is Sanskrit eventually results in it’s own effect. Karma is not a moral law it is simply action and it’s effect. Recently a bunch of quantum theorists have unwittingly produced a mathematical proof of karma in a work they erroneously call ‘quantum Darwinism’ which if you want to see it as I do is a mathematical proof of karma.

If you google ‘quantum’ and Buddhism’ you will find many websites that tell you all about the science and the philosophy which explain it all way better than I do.

Regards,

Erik

ps - all of the above is only my debatably humble opinion

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Talking of pedants, its Erik.

However, I have also noted a tendency towards the patronising in some of Eriks posts. Ir lowers the tone of some otherwise excellent posts.

M

Hi Mike,

I am not blind to my own faults, I would never claim to be perfect. Joe90 seems to be justifying the invasion of other countries because god was/is/can be on the side of the invader and that there is a difference between state sponsored execution and common murder. These views are dangerous beliefs in my view. He puts his case robustly and I burst his balloon robustly. I hope my replies fall short of rudeness however, but I don't apologies for a robust argument.

All the best,

Erik

quote:

( not that I'm saying you misdsed my point ) so maybe I'm edging towards some similar ideas.

LOL I dont think I missed your point, I just skirted around it, I think I know where we are going on this

quote:

I'd hope that you did not take my mild criticism as being antagonistic - I think we know enough about each other to be able to give and take in the right manner.

One of the joys of frienship is that one can call a friend a complete **** and vice versa without the slightest offence being given or taken. Insofar as I am sure we would get on very well if we ever met, I would call you a friend so a mild criticsm is not even the feintest blip on my radar screen so no worries on that score.

quote:

Thanks again, I have food for thought.

I hope it does not give you indigestion.

Erik

This may explain it all:
Book
David

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
This may explain it all:
Book
David

Hi David,

I don't know that book. It looks like a good introduction to basic meditation but for the science side and how quantum theory maps to the madhymaka this book is probably as good as it gets (until my friend finishes his book on the subject) Choosing reality: A Buddhist view of physics and the mindWritten by a former Buddhist monk with a doctorate in physics.

The Dalai Lama has recently published a user friendly guide but it's a bit lightweight: The universe in a single atom: The convergence of science and spirituality

Somebody on this thread mentioned the film 'what the bleep' which has gained a sort of cult status, especially in the states and although the film goes some way to explaining this stuff it goes way too far and gets a bit silly in my view. Certainly some of the physicist interviewed have said they were quoted out of context and the film was largely funded by a weird cult but it is nonetheless thought provoking to a degree but lacks precision. It is widely available in video shops but In my view it does not represent the madhyamaka but a highly distorted version of the yogacara or mind only school which is a tempory position and not the final view. Reviews of the film on Amazon are either of the 'this film changed my life and everyone should see it' type or 'what a complete load of bollocks'type. The film has been largely lampooned in the science media and buddhist media and rightly so in my view, however the New Age brigade love it and magazines like 'What is enlightment'ran a big article on it. I think it puts over certain bits of science and certain spiritual concepts quite well then goes overboard to build wholly erroneous conclusions. I am not sure if I would recommend it or not.

A good introduction on how Mahayana Buddhism can help in your life is Transform your life: A blissfull journeyI think the last chapter is a lucid introduction on emptiness/ultimate reality.

For the best introduction to Tantra mahamudra - the weird esoteric stuff I have mentioned in brief Mahamudra Tantra

These last two books are written by a fully qualified Tibetan spiritual guide who has lived in the west since the mid 1970's.

Erik

Yes your right joe god hates people heres what he,s planning for his own people the ones who did his killing for him .

Stand in silence in the presence of the Sovereign LORD, for the awesome day of the LORD's judgment has come. The LORD has prepared his people for a great slaughter and has chosen their executioners. "On that day of judgment," says the LORD, "I will punish the leaders and princes of Judah and all those following pagan customs. Yes, I will punish those who participate in pagan worship ceremonies, and those who steal and kill to fill their masters' homes with loot. "On that day," says the LORD, "a cry of alarm will come from the Fish Gate and echo throughout the newer Mishneh section of the city. And a great crashing sound will come from the surrounding hills. Wail in sorrow, all you who live in the market area, for all who buy and sell there will die. "I will search with lanterns in Jerusalem's darkest corners to find and punish those who sit contented in their sins, indifferent to the LORD, thinking he will do nothing at all to them. They are the very ones whose property will be plundered by the enemy, whose homes will be ransacked. They will never have a chance to live in the new homes they have built. They will never drink wine from the vineyards they have planted. "That terrible day of the LORD is near. Swiftly it comes – a day when strong men will cry bitterly. It is a day when the LORD's anger will be poured out. It is a day of terrible distress and anguish, a day of ruin and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, of clouds, blackness, trumpet calls, and battle cries. Down go the walled cities and strongest battlements! "Because you have sinned against the LORD, I will make you as helpless as a blind man searching for a path. Your blood will be poured out into the dust, and your bodies will lie there rotting on the ground." Your silver and gold will be of no use to you on that day of the LORD's anger. For the whole land will be devoured by the fire of his jealousy. He will make a terrifying end of all the people on earth. (Zephaniah 1:7:18 NLT)

As for attacking people at peace thats just the same as an individual attacking murdering and robbing another individual on a large scale and using religion as an excuse to cover up your own evil actions thats delusional and dishonest .Do you think you could get away with that today kill someone take their home and tell the judge its ok god told me to do it they were a bad person ,not on your nelly,I,m glad budhists are generaly peaceful apart from what they did to the inhabitants of tibet .

Erik-
Please forgive me for being disingenuous – I was really referring to the ebay ad’s misspelling of the author’s name (Naim) – Narim was spelled Naim and it was concerning Buddhism.
I don’t know anything about that book.
Lame attempt at being funny.
David

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rube:
Do you think you could get away with that today kill someone take their home and tell the judge its ok god told me to do it they were a bad person ,not on your nelly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Somebody better tell George Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
Erik-
Please forgive me for being disingenuous – I was really referring to the ebay ad’s misspelling of the author’s name (Naim) – Narim was spelled Naim and it was concerning Buddhism.
I don’t know anything about that book.
Lame attempt at being funny.
David

David,

LOL - I did notice the name/naim thing but so early in the morning my mind was not working at it's normal speed (dull and slow). I did wonder why you would pick that book and on ebay but never mind, it gave me the chance to post another reply. Maybe the 'Naim' thing is a sign?

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rube:
Do you think you could get away with that today kill someone take their home and tell the judge its ok god told me to do it they were a bad person ,not on your nelly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Somebody better tell George Bush.

Somebody better tell Israel too('it's our land it says so in the bible' - 'we are the chosen people'etc.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rube:
Yes your right joe god hates people heres what he,s planning for his own people the ones who did his killing for him .

Good post Rube,

A quick perusal of your quote shows god to be: Angry, threatening, murderous, vengeful, jealous, discriminatory, partisan and incompetant. I am sure he would have benefitted from a beginers course in Buddhism.

The entire old testament, IMO, is little more than the history of tribal warfare. Each tribe had it's own god and each tribe was at war with the others for much of the time. The origination of the one god thing was just a device to unify the tribes under one power - a secular power.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by erik scothron:
The entire old testament, IMO, is little more than the history of tribal warfare.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

While we're on the OT, just where did Cain's wife spring from?