Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I mourn.

Despite everything, I actually found the first few minutes to be seductive. The whole thing about finding a religious path based on math instead of mysticism. It has it's appeal. Understanding based on math instead of Scripture. Then the creep factor got to be too strong to ignore. The math never was never explained except in the most superficial way. He kept repeating "sign" and "cosign" as though that were enough. In hindsight, the voice was carefully modulated. I think it was meant to induce a trance.

My first reaction was that he was a "wraith" from the Stargate science fiction series. I don't know if you have seen the wraiths. Long blond hair and pale skin. They suck the life force out of their victims through their hands. Sort of a reverse reiki but very fast.

What did you make of the makeup he was wearing? In particular the circle with the vertical lines around his left eye? And the black fingernail polish? If I wanted to spread strange ideas, I would look as normal as possible. Everything about him screams cult -- in the worst way. He's looking for a following. He'll probably gather it. Sheep love that air of certitude.

I managed to stay awake through the first video. Some place through the second video, I gave out. Some of it seems possible. Some of it seems like gibberish. Much of it sets of my BS detector. I could really do without the air of certitude. The more I watch, the more certain I am that it's crap.

In my own case, the shifts tend to be gradual. One day I look up and discover that my beliefs no longer fit my resume.

On one level I get it. At the same time, it's so counter intuitive, it hurts.

I followed your link. It's disturbing. Apparently having scientists explain how science works -- is as useless as Fundamentalists quoting Scripture. That is not what I was expecting.

There is an odd line that seems appropriate. I don't know the source. "There comes a time when we must give up our principals; and do what's right."

To the extent that it is possible, it is best to have objective evidence behind an assertion. Claim number one. God exists. Is there proof that God exists? No. Is there strong evidence that God exists? No. Could God exist? Yes. Based on evidence alone, is God belief justified? No. Could God exist anyway? Yes. Claim number two. Belief in God makes people better than they would be otherwise. This is verifiable. Behavior is observable and quantifiable. In an analysis of any prison population -- Is there proof that God belief makes people better than those who don't believe in God? No. None at all. Is there supporting anecdotal evidence? Yes, but both ways. Could the proposition be true? Belief in God does make some people better. It also makes some people worse.

When it is convenient, the Bible is literal history. When it is not convenient, the Bible is allegory. Thus, the Bible can be split into two piles -- both hot and steamy. One pile for each face. that the Fundamentalist argues with. I think I'm losing my knack for diplomacy.

Then the Exodus story is a fraud? God did NOT kill the First Born of Egypt? God did NOT drown the Egyptian army? What else in the Bible is a fake?

The Supreme Supernatural Entity.

Good.. You take my meaning. The quest for Gnosis is not the same as searching for God.

Let us be clear about what I am saying. I do not in any way regard the Bible -- or the Koran - as authoritative. Of course, if we do diligent cherry picking we can find good things in Scripture. So what? An old bit of wisdom. I don't know who said it. "The Bible is like any other living water. Filled with dead offensive matter." I don't care about the good things in the Bible. I don't care about the bad things in the Bible. I do not obey it. I don't hold it in reverence. I don't care. The Bible is not a useful tool for making a point of any kind that matters. IMO

For a god, the most deadly bullet of all is ridicule. To treat the god with the contempt that it deserves.

The Bible is what we make of it. Decide what you want to prove and then go cherry picking. It's all in there if we know where to look.

That is not at all what I had in mind. A lot of people meditate as a spiritual practice. They do not worship. They do not pray. They do not beg. They do not request. They meditate. They open themselves up to the experience of the Absolute. In silence. The better to hear with the inner ear. That Presence.

Of course. If I'm working with a cook book, and the first set of instructions produces something really nasty -- I don't expect the rest of it to be full of good ideas.

Lot's wife, transformed into a pillar of salt. Noah's Flood. The First Born of Egypt and The Egyptian Army. There were others. This is what comes to mind.

I have re-read this thread. A lot of the argument here involves the word -- "worship". This word, "worship" has a lot of cultural baggage. I suggest that -- to be in the presence of -- might raise fewer cultural hackles.

Even fantasy can have internal logic. Logic is a good tool for discovering truth. It is not fool proof. No matter how carefully logic is built up, it can take us right over the cliff.

Are you suggesting that the God of the Bible -- making the transition to the God of Today -- is in any respect -- LOGICAL?

Isn't that what you are doing? There is a rich history of apologetics. I don't wish to add to it.

I'm not interested in making excuses for God.