<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 26 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>understanding religion is a personal thing, because it starts with, ends with, and is based purely on faith.</div> I have faith in some things. Unfortunately, religion is not one of them. So, if what you're saying is true...then, I guess I'll never really completely understand religion. </div> faith in what? your jumpshot? </div> I have faith in the fact that I could whoop your ass in basketball.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 26 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>understanding religion is a personal thing, because it starts with, ends with, and is based purely on faith.</div> I have faith in some things. Unfortunately, religion is not one of them. So, if what you're saying is true...then, I guess I'll never really completely understand religion. </div> faith in what? your jumpshot? </div> I have faith in the fact that I could whoop your ass in basketball. </div> start praying!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 26 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>understanding religion is a personal thing, because it starts with, ends with, and is based purely on faith.</div> I have faith in some things. Unfortunately, religion is not one of them. So, if what you're saying is true...then, I guess I'll never really completely understand religion. </div> faith in what? your jumpshot? </div> I have faith in the fact that I could whoop your ass in basketball. </div> start praying! </div> Sorry, I don't believe in prayer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 01:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 26 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>understanding religion is a personal thing, because it starts with, ends with, and is based purely on faith.</div> I have faith in some things. Unfortunately, religion is not one of them. So, if what you're saying is true...then, I guess I'll never really completely understand religion. </div> faith in what? your jumpshot? </div> I have faith in the fact that I could whoop your ass in basketball. </div> start praying! </div> Sorry, I don't believe in prayer. </div> Ok, we can't live that far from each other. You're in NY, I'm in NJ. At most, I'm looking at an 8 hour drive. I'll drive up to wherever you are, and we play 1 on 1 full court up to 5. The game is worth $1,000, plus gas money only if I win. PM me details.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 01:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 27 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 27 2008, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 26 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>understanding religion is a personal thing, because it starts with, ends with, and is based purely on faith.</div> I have faith in some things. Unfortunately, religion is not one of them. So, if what you're saying is true...then, I guess I'll never really completely understand religion. </div> faith in what? your jumpshot? </div> I have faith in the fact that I could whoop your ass in basketball. </div> start praying! </div> Sorry, I don't believe in prayer. </div> Ok, we can't live that far from each other. You're in NY, I'm in NJ. At most, I'm looking at an 8 hour drive. I'll drive up to wherever you are, and we play 1 on 1 full court up to 5. The game is worth $1,000, plus gas money only if I win. PM me details. </div> P*ssy.
Scientists now believe that many of the religious figures in history were influenced by halucinigens. The locations of several specific places of worship or notable places in religion were built on top of naturally occurring gas vents and the gas induced hallucinations. Other forms of religion (American Indians come to mind) were more deliberate in use of hallucinigenetic drugs or herbs (Peyote, for example). http://www.psychanalyse-paris.com/843-Anthropology-and.html If someone hallucinates that god talks to them, they can believe it and not be lying about it.
^ That's an old argument, that dates back to the 19th century (at the latest). On the other hand, there are those who maintain that the key property of mind-altering substances is in fact the ability to see past the mundane reality, and therefore to see ...God?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 27 2008, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ That's an old argument, that dates back to the 19th century (at the latest). On the other hand, there are those who maintain that the key property of mind-altering substances is in fact the ability to see past the mundane reality, and therefore to see ...God?</div> It's an even older arguement than that; it goes way beyond that to the beginnings of mankind. Here is something I found today. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Religion and drugs are inextricably linked, from spacey cults to Christianity. Each owes their history and perhaps their ultimate origin to these ethnogens. In Exodus 16:14, Moses introduces his followers to what appears to be Psyclibon Mushrooms, small circular objects sprouting from the moist ground. They ground up the substance using mortar and pestel, finding otherwise it would stink and breed worms if left unattended. Moses implored his followers to preserve this "manna" for future generations. In the New Testament, Jesus sings the praises of using wine in moderation for religious ceremonies and celebrations. Native American religions involve the use of peyote as a means for self-exploration and tobacco as a means to send prayers to ancestors.</div> go read this full page here: "Religion, Drugs Similarly Affect Brain" http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n234/a03.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Being "high" on Christ and life seems take on a whole new meaning. What about the devout and other deeply religious people, are they addicted? It's certainly possible. John Bradshaw, a former cocaine addict and now self-help guru and evangelical, equated the two experiences' effect on dopamine levels. Of course, being "addicted" to religion is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Many use the crutch to avoid other drugs or correct destructive behavior.</div> This is how Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs work. They recognise how powerful your chemical addiction may be, and they attempt to replace one addiction for another. That way, your body still gets the same level of dopamine, and makes addiction to the other substance a smoother transition. When people hit rock bottom and start going to AA, they are already in a mode where they are looking for hope. They sell you on the idea that only God can save you from your addiction. If the person buys into it, then great. The programs did something that caused you not to use drugs or alcohol.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 27 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's questionable how well alcohol/substance abuse programs that substitute religion work.</div> I guess it all depends on the individual, and how far their spirit (Temper or disposition of mind; mental condition or disposition; intellectual or moral state; -- often in the plural; as, to be cheerful, or in good spirits; to be downhearted, or in bad spirits. )has been broken down by their addiction. I would say, generally, people who have a higher rate of success there are those who became involved purely by their own choice, and not forced into it. Sometimes criminals are sent to alcohol/substance abuse programs by order of the court as a part of their sentencing. Those people may just show up so that their parole officer will stay off their backs.
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/artic...t.php?artID=601 But the facts about present-day A.A. are these in their studies: (a) A definite 75% fail to maintain sobriety. (b) Probably no more than one to five percent maintain permanent sobriety. © As often as not, those who aligned with AA have a lower success rate than those who got sober without AA. (d) To date there has been no adequate survey of success or failure among those AAs who - like the pioneers - were born again Christians, reliant upon the Creator for help, and joined together in some Christian church or Bible fellowship, or prayer group. ... AAs can and should be the first to acknowledge that they have no monopoly on God; that just about any person alive can quit drinking if he or she wants to; that A.A. today has no special record of success that cannot be found in many other groups and therapies; and that - as with so many other organizations and disciplines - you probably get out of A.A. exactly what you put into it.
Its interesting how many people overcome their addictions because they've found God. Dubya & the former guitarist for Korn for example. There are many people institutionalized that claim God talks to them yet others have founded religions on that very premise. I am not a Nobel Prize winning social scientist but it seems there is a thin line between madness & visionary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 27 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 27 2008, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ That's an old argument, that dates back to the 19th century (at the latest). On the other hand, there are those who maintain that the key property of mind-altering substances is in fact the ability to see past the mundane reality, and therefore to see ...God?</div> It's an even older arguement than that; it goes way beyond that to the beginnings of mankind. Here is something I found today. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Religion and drugs are inextricably linked, from spacey cults to Christianity. Each owes their history and perhaps their ultimate origin to these ethnogens. In Exodus 16:14, Moses introduces his followers to what appears to be Psyclibon Mushrooms, small circular objects sprouting from the moist ground. They ground up the substance using mortar and pestel, finding otherwise it would stink and breed worms if left unattended. Moses implored his followers to preserve this "manna" for future generations. In the New Testament, Jesus sings the praises of using wine in moderation for religious ceremonies and celebrations. Native American religions involve the use of peyote as a means for self-exploration and tobacco as a means to send prayers to ancestors.</div> go read this full page here: "Religion, Drugs Similarly Affect Brain" http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n234/a03.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Being "high" on Christ and life seems take on a whole new meaning. What about the devout and other deeply religious people, are they addicted? It's certainly possible. John Bradshaw, a former cocaine addict and now self-help guru and evangelical, equated the two experiences' effect on dopamine levels. Of course, being "addicted" to religion is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Many use the crutch to avoid other drugs or correct destructive behavior.</div> This is how Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs work. They recognise how powerful your chemical addiction may be, and they attempt to replace one addiction for another. That way, your body still gets the same level of dopamine, and makes addiction to the other substance a smoother transition. When people hit rock bottom and start going to AA, they are already in a mode where they are looking for hope. They sell you on the idea that only God can save you from your addiction. If the person buys into it, then great. The programs did something that caused you not to use drugs or alcohol. </div> While the article is interesting, it's extrapolation about the manna is less than accurate. For one thing, mushrooms were known to the ancient Jews, with the Hebrew word for such being Pitriya. The word in Exodus 16:14 is Daq, meaning thin, or at times, dust. Nor is there any mention of preparation in the text, whereas food preparation usually did get included - with an exception being that it was cooked on Friday evening in order to keep throughout the Sabbath. In fact, Exodus 16:31 gives further information, saying that it was like 'white coriander seed' (Regesh Gad Lavan) and that it tasted like honey-dipped cakes. As far as 12 step programs go, religion can be a way to bolster the same will that depression turns against the individual. Not having direct knowledge of its efficacy or otherwise, I have no comment on it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 27 2008, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While the article is interesting, it's extrapolation about the manna is less than accurate. For one thing, mushrooms were known to the ancient Jews, with the Hebrew word for such being Pitriya. The word in Exodus 16:14 is Daq, meaning thin, or at times, dust. Nor is there any mention of preparation in the text, whereas food preparation usually did get included - with an exception being that it was cooked on Friday evening in order to keep throughout the Sabbath. In fact, Exodus 16:31 gives further information, saying that it was like 'white coriander seed' (Regesh Gad Lavan) and that it tasted like honey-dipped cakes.</div> Right, those mushrooms are better if consumed with other food. Otherwise they taste awful! You are not willing to interpret that Moses possibly consumed drugs. I tend to believe stories like that over things like him parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea is 150 miles wide on average (not to mention 1,450 miles long). What's your stance on this commonly held interpretation?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 27 2008, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While the article is interesting, it's extrapolation about the manna is less than accurate. For one thing, mushrooms were known to the ancient Jews, with the Hebrew word for such being Pitriya. The word in Exodus 16:14 is Daq, meaning thin, or at times, dust. Nor is there any mention of preparation in the text, whereas food preparation usually did get included - with an exception being that it was cooked on Friday evening in order to keep throughout the Sabbath. In fact, Exodus 16:31 gives further information, saying that it was like 'white coriander seed' (Regesh Gad Lavan) and that it tasted like honey-dipped cakes.</div> Right, those mushrooms are better if consumed with other food. Otherwise they taste awful! You are not willing to interpret that Moses possibly consumed drugs. I tend to believe stories like that over things like him parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea is 150 miles wide on average (not to mention 1,450 miles long). What's your stance on this commonly held interpretation? </div> I saw something on the History Channel that actually proved that this was scientifically possible (and VERY likely to actually have happened).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 27 2008, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While the article is interesting, it's extrapolation about the manna is less than accurate. For one thing, mushrooms were known to the ancient Jews, with the Hebrew word for such being Pitriya. The word in Exodus 16:14 is Daq, meaning thin, or at times, dust. Nor is there any mention of preparation in the text, whereas food preparation usually did get included - with an exception being that it was cooked on Friday evening in order to keep throughout the Sabbath. In fact, Exodus 16:31 gives further information, saying that it was like 'white coriander seed' (Regesh Gad Lavan) and that it tasted like honey-dipped cakes.</div> Right, those mushrooms are better if consumed with other food. Otherwise they taste awful! You are not willing to interpret that Moses possibly consumed drugs. I tend to believe stories like that over things like him parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea is 150 miles wide on average (not to mention 1,450 miles long). What's your stance on this commonly held interpretation? </div> As a matter of faith, I have no problem believing the parting of the Sea, scientific theories aside. As well, people are free to posit that Moses consumed drugs. However, they invariably fail to 'prove' their contentions when engaging in selective and erroneous interpretation of the Bible. As a general rule, the psychologists that play that game lack sufficient knowledge of the Bible to justify their claims. Common misconceptions leap out with sad regularity. To give an example, take Jonah and the 'whale.' As was drilled into me at a young age, it was NOT a whale, but a fish. Two different Hebrew words for the two sea creatures, and the word in the text is Dag: fish. Getting back to the parting of the Sea, it is considered to be of an exponential magnitude greater than the 10 Plagues of Egypt, which themselves are considered exceptional in Rabbinic discourse in that the later plagues 'acted against nature' - while God, as a rule, prefers to act within the bounds of nature as He established them. The doctrine of the plagues dates back millennia, long before scientists tried to prove or disprove them, by the way.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> You are not willing to interpret that Moses possibly consumed drugs. I tend to believe stories like that over things like him parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea is 150 miles wide on average (not to mention 1,450 miles long). What's your stance on this commonly held interpretation?</div> As a matter of faith, I have no problem believing the parting of the Sea, scientific theories aside. As well, people are free to posit that Moses consumed drugs. However, they invariably fail to 'prove' their contentions when engaging in selective and erroneous interpretation of the Bible. As a general rule, the psychologists that play that game lack sufficient knowledge of the Bible to justify their claims. Common misconceptions leap out with sad regularity. To give an example, take Jonah and the 'whale.' As was drilled into me at a young age, it was NOT a whale, but a fish. Two different Hebrew words for the two sea creatures, and the word in the text is Dag: fish. Getting back to the parting of the Sea, it is considered to be of an exponential magnitude greater than the 10 Plagues of Egypt, which themselves are considered exceptional in Rabbinic discourse in that the later plagues 'acted against nature' - while God, as a rule, prefers to act within the bounds of nature as He established them. The doctrine of the plagues dates back millennia, long before scientists tried to prove or disprove them, by the way. </div> Okay, here is where all constructive conversation ends....You are willing to hold faith in something that is completely impossible, yet not willing to even entertain the thought that some of these people were "just high" when writing these things down. The latter, being the much more palatable to common sense. You are believing this because they (those who have practiced judaism before you) have told you to believe that. There is no other reason for any sane adult to believe a sea can be split like. Let's really put this whole thing to the test on Mythbusters. Faith, does not make fantasies real. Faith only keeps the story alive for generations.
Funny thing about self-congratulating atheists - they generally don't realize that they operate on a faith level no less than any of us. Read EH Carr's essay on history and tell me how we 'know' anything. As well, in Judaism, if faith isn't built on deliberate thought, it's of very limited worth. But I'll admit that in all areas, there are those for whom finding an easy and simplistic answer is the be-all and end-all of conversations, and proof need not be introduced into it.
