As I have said, they they are tolerant of the truth and will interpret the bible when it is expedient and necessary in order to maintain control.

But when it conflicts with their ability to control your beliefs and loyalty, they will do whatever they can get away with to suppress it. If they can get away with burning people alive in public to make you an example, they will do it.

The church is a racket.

John Platko wrote:

But who is to decide what is OVER the line of helpful active imagination and goes into unhelpful areas?

The imagination is a good tool to generate ideas: in the arts, in the sciences, in theology etc. But what happens AFTER that is important. if science was just about imagining ideas, then there would be no need for experiment. We want to know which ideas seem to have more merit than others. In art the aim may be different. Art is often social commentary, so one may caricature or mock an idea-to raise awareness-perhaps about some social ill, some abuse of power etc.

I think we can all agree that when you imagine your dog telling you to kill people, and you go ahead and do it, you're over the line. But then there's that area where you're creeping up on the line, sometimes getting splashed by a bit of crazy stuff as you misstep a bit over the line. I mean, it's a very fine line- and it moves with time as people collectively alter their view of reality.

I think the main problem here begins with knowledge claims. Religion, for some strange reason, is given more license to make unsubstantiated claims than in other areas, like for example politics.

Imagination can surely create inner worlds in inner reality- which is what Jung was talking about.

Which is fine for recreational purposes. But even there, one can self-harm. So long as one is aware of what is fantasy and what is real, no problems. But what has this got to do with the public square?? With shared knowledge??

Science is not sufficient for the task that religion is designed to tackle. Science can tell us a lot about our physical and even mental processes, but it doesn't shed much light on things like: what is love, what does it mean to love, what is good, etc..

So you claim. Even if your claim is correct [which I doubt], why is religion better at these things than science? Religion's track record at giving good information is abysmal. yeah, I really respect religion's ability to tackle tough questions when it thinks insects have four legs!

It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you mean by all that but from the general sense I get of it I think I agree.

It's simple really. I don't accept the religious concept of soul. There is no evidence, or mechanism for souls to exist independent of body, and so I reject such claims unless or until there is better evidence for them.

A non-magical soul [one dependent on the physical body] is something I do accept in terms that a soul is the personality and the identity of the individual. And non-magical souls are entirely compatible with evolution, and are a product of it.

But the Pope or whoever, who "accepts" evolution is really cherry-picking, because if what I have termed the non-magical soul is true, then the Pope or whoever is denying the power of natural processes like evolution, development, genetics, environment etc to produce non-magical souls. That is cherry-picking. It is like saying you accept evolution is responsible for eye colour but not some behavioral trait. Much of the souls develops as we grow and experience life. But a lot of our morals are based on our evolution as social animals.
Perhaps if the Pope discarded the idea of magical souls, he would accept evolution totally.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:. My being a Catholic is a fact. It's not like, if you don't believe such and such: poof - you magically stop being Catholic.

Quite right Platko - it's not magical, it's definitional.

It's procedural.

Your ability to make up bullshit on the fly is procedural.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

If you reject critical components of an ideology, then you cannot seriously contend that you adhere to that ideology.

Hmmm, that reminds me of a video I made a while back. It clearly demonstrates my Catholicism in action, like a Mass it's very tedious an repetitive. Best watched with closed windows and burning incense or whatever.

It makes rather clear Pope Franks view on ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyoX3Sj ... jJc7VWICjQ

No hubris involved or anything, but you distill the leader of the Catholic Faith, the supposed very own vicar of God's view on ideology even before he did!

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
So, I firmly support the principles of democracy, but I just don't think common people should get a vote, in fact, why even bother with voting in the first place? Let's just have a wealthy, high status family pass on their absolute dictator status via inheritance. Oh, but I definitely believe in the principles of democracy. Just because I don't believe in elected representation doesn't mean I magically stop being a democrat.

I think the way it works here is I stop being a Democrat if I don't vote for a few years.

No, your random and nonsensical asides just represent an inability to either process or deal with arguments.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:
It's the difference between saying:

Eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

and

Don't let eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

That is, not all wild mushrooms are harmful, but you need to be careful because some are harmful.
On the other hand, some wild mushrooms are delicious!

Both statements require that the eating of wild mushrooms can cause harm.

True but that doesn't change the fact that:

Eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.
and
Don't let eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

are not saying the same thing.

Again, for one to be valid, the other must genetically be true.

It's not my problem if you are unable to understand your own contention.

However, I cannot help but note that you manage to bury each such contention in a stream of asides until the actual point is firmly lost under the weight of random bullshit.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

It would be entirely pointless to proscribe something which couldn't actually happen.

You're going to need a pneumatic drill to get past the bedrock

It doesn't really matter anyway, Platko - you've already achieved the desired intent of obfuscating this point sufficiently now that you can safely consider the original point lost in the manufactured confusion.

No worries, I think I remember what I was going on about. I think it was something like a good moral to be taken from the story of Abraham thinking God wanted him to murder his son is: Don't let your fantasies about God lead to tragedy.

Which is absolutely not possible to take from the story unless willful fantasy is the modus operandi.

John Platko wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Any religion that tolerates alternate beliefs has lost it's power to intimidate, and is attempting to maintain power through tolerance.

The catholic church can't burn people alive anymore for heresy and they can't control what people believe about the natural world because of science, so they tolerate ideas that the bible may not be literal.

It's a business, and they are doing what is best for business.

That's a nice story but the truth is the Catholic Church has a very long history of interpreting the Bible and not taking parts of it literally. Facts matter!

It also has a long history of stamping on individuals and groups which do not share required doctrinal demands.

John Platko wrote:

No worries, I think I remember what I was going on about. I think it was something like a good moral to be taken from the story of Abraham thinking God wanted him to murder his son is: Don't let your fantasies about God lead to tragedy.

Good, I'm glad you remembered at least that bit out of this mess. Please try to stick to the point and not wander off topic too much.

Now please explain a few things for me. The bible clearly states that god instructed Abraham to kill his son. Its there, in Genesis 22. God pops up and says , "here I am" and then goes on,

Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.b

Now John, let me get this much clear. Are you saying that this simple narrative means something different to you? Do you think Abraham only thought that God wanted him to kill his son rather than had clearly instructed him to do it? Only god is pretty specific here in what he wants doing apart from the exact location but that's not the issue here.

The sorry tale goes on,

When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he bound* his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar.c
10
Then Abraham reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.d
11
But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered.
12
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”

See here God is content that Abraham has passed the loyalty to God over his love for his son. This is nothing to do with "don't let your fantasies about god lead to tragedy", as you would have it, its about loyalty. If you read on a little further,

A second time the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven
16
and said: “I swear by my very self—oracle of the LORD—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one,
17
I will bless you and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants will take possession of the gates of their enemies,

And there you have it, in its context. Its a simple tale of a loyalty test followed by a reward. God calls Abraham's bluff, sees he is willing to go as far as killing his own son and finds him to be that loyal and so blesses Abraham and his descendants.

Its really simple reading John. I'm fascinated with the process that goes on in your head to turn that tale into something else. This is the foundation of Abraham's relationship with god and yet you seem to turn it into some sort of psychotic episode that Abraham had. How? How do you arrive at that conclusion from what's written?

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

No worries, I think I remember what I was going on about. I think it was something like a good moral to be taken from the story of Abraham thinking God wanted him to murder his son is: Don't let your fantasies about God lead to tragedy.

Good, I'm glad you remembered at least that bit out of this mess. Please try to stick to the point and not wander off topic too much.

Now please explain a few things for me. The bible clearly states that god instructed Abraham to kill his son. Its there, in Genesis 22. God pops up and says , "here I am" and then goes on,

Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.b

Now John, let me get this much clear. Are you saying that this simple narrative means something different to you? Do you think Abraham only thought that God wanted him to kill his son rather than had clearly instructed him to do it? Only god is pretty specific here in what he wants doing apart from the exact location but that's not the issue here.

The sorry tale goes on,

When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he bound* his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar.c
10
Then Abraham reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.d
11
But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered.
12
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”

See here God is content that Abraham has passed the loyalty to God over his love for his son. This is nothing to do with "don't let your fantasies about god lead to tragedy", as you would have it, its about loyalty. If you read on a little further,

A second time the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven
16
and said: “I swear by my very self—oracle of the LORD—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one,
17
I will bless you and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants will take possession of the gates of their enemies,

And there you have it, in its context. Its a simple tale of a loyalty test followed by a reward. God calls Abraham's bluff, sees he is willing to go as far as killing his own son and finds him to be that loyal and so blesses Abraham and his descendants.

Its really simple reading John. I'm fascinated with the process that goes on in your head to turn that tale into something else. This is the foundation of Abraham's relationship with god and yet you seem to turn it into some sort of psychotic episode that Abraham had. How? How do you arrive at that conclusion from what's written?

One possible interpretation of the Abe & Zac story is that Abe actually failed the test set him by El Shaddai. It was a trick, you see: the morally correct answer (as everyone here can clearly see) would have been to refuse to kill a child to gain power. After all, El Shaddai never said Abe would be punished if he refused; he just promised a reward if he obeyed. If Abe had refused to sacrifice his son, he and his people may well have been set on a far more peaceful path. Instead, El Shaddai punished Abe by giving him what he thought he wanted.

"Okay, you psychotic fucker. You want power that badly? Here you go. Have fun, cunt."

As the rest of the OT (and history) clearly shows, the Jewish people then found themselves stuck in an endless cycle consisting of short periods of having the power to oppress others, interspersed with substantially longer periods of being oppressed. Such was the "blessing" that Abe and his descendants received from this cosmic prankster. It's a pattern familiar to any student of history: a bloody struggle to greatness, a short period of glory, then an age of everyone else putting the boot in for doing the things you did back when you had the power to do them. What Fank Herbert called, "setting in motion the bloody pendulum of revenge."

That's the lesson I take from the story anyway. I can interpret the Bible in this way - or any other way I want, really - due to the fact that to me it is just a work of fiction and I am free to treat it like any other piece of literature.

I still don't know how people who think the Bible is some communique from Gawd manage to square this circle though. My very Christian hippie uncle happens agree with my interpretation, but he is on a disability pension for being completely insane. Make of that what you will.

John Platko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

John Platko wrote:Very good videos that get to the heart of religious experience, they pull aside the curtain, and show what's really going on. I've noticed many atheists are rather fond of them too.

Does that surprise you?

It both surprises and tickles me that I, a Catholic Christian can point to Derren's work and enjoy, support, and say yes- exactly, that's what's going on with religion, and have many atheists completely agree with me.

I'm not surprised by Derren's demonstration of how religion works- I''ve kind-of figured that out for myself a while ago.

I meant are you surprised that atheists like them. It seems quite obvious to me that this would serve as just further evidence that atheists are on the right track. For a theist, OTOH, I think Brown's experiment would raise some disconcerting questions.

Oh no! Platko had this all worked out a long time ago, just as he already had all the Pope's theology resolved long before the Pope said it!

Of course, it just made his belief in the Christian God stronger because Wednesday, and have a lemon, and because of 9, oh and did you see the derby?

If anyone's still expecting a coherent position from John, one which would actually pass a turing test, I suggest you start praying.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:As I have said, they they are tolerant of the truth and will interpret the bible when it is expedient and necessary in order to maintain control.

But when it conflicts with their ability to control your beliefs and loyalty, they will do whatever they can get away with to suppress it. If they can get away with burning people alive in public to make you an example, they will do it.

The church is a racket.

I find that to be a bit of a cynical interpretation of what's going on. And while preservation and stability do indeed seem to be important ingredients of how the church determines its "truths". At the bottom of it all, I think misunderstanding, wrong ideas, trauma responses, and as surprising as it sounds, lack of faith, are responsible for the resulting behavior and collection of incongruent ideas.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:John Platko wrote:

But who is to decide what is OVER the line of helpful active imagination and goes into unhelpful areas?

The imagination is a good tool to generate ideas: in the arts, in the sciences, in theology etc. But what happens AFTER that is important. if science was just about imagining ideas, then there would be no need for experiment. We want to know which ideas seem to have more merit than others. In art the aim may be different. Art is often social commentary, so one may caricature or mock an idea-to raise awareness-perhaps about some social ill, some abuse of power etc.

Agreed.

I think we can all agree that when you imagine your dog telling you to kill people, and you go ahead and do it, you're over the line. But then there's that area where you're creeping up on the line, sometimes getting splashed by a bit of crazy stuff as you misstep a bit over the line. I mean, it's a very fine line- and it moves with time as people collectively alter their view of reality.

I think the main problem here begins with knowledge claims. Religion, for some strange reason, is given more license to make unsubstantiated claims than in other areas, like for example politics.

Where I live, political people seem to do just fine making unsubstantiated claim. There seems to be a well stocked constituency that has no trouble at all with such claims.

Be that as it may, I think we agree on this point too.

Imagination can surely create inner worlds in inner reality- which is what Jung was talking about.

Which is fine for recreational purposes. But even there, one can self-harm. So long as one is aware of what is fantasy and what is real, no problems. But what has this got to do with the public square?? With shared knowledge??

But an rich healthy inner life is not just important for recreational purposes. A rich inner life can help provide meaning and motivation behind ones endeavors. Our inner life can have as great an effect as the outer life can have on our spirit. And the strength of that spirit actually matters in how well we can perform. I mean, if I get anxious I might not be able to ...

Science is not sufficient for the task that religion is designed to tackle. Science can tell us a lot about our physical and even mental processes, but it doesn't shed much light on things like: what is love, what does it mean to love, what is good, etc..

So you claim. Even if your claim is correct [which I doubt], why is religion better at these things than science? Religion's track record at giving good information is abysmal. yeah, I really respect religion's ability to tackle tough questions when it thinks insects have four legs!

I don't see how science even begins to approach the types of questions that Martin Luther King Jr. had to tackle. Do you?

It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you mean by all that but from the general sense I get of it I think I agree.

It's simple really. I don't accept the religious concept of soul. There is no evidence, or mechanism for souls to exist independent of body, and so I reject such claims unless or until there is better evidence for them.

It really comes down to what you mean by the soul. A person could pour their being into writing a book, and if they do it well, that book could convey the essence of who that person is completely independent of their body. And another person could come along and be effected by the essence of the person that remains in that book just as much as if they met the person in the flesh. The concept of our "soul" is dealing with something like that- it's rather silly to think that some alien like creature with physical prosperities is inhabiting our body only to float away on death. Perhaps your concept of soul is overly attached to the images and symbols used to communicate the idea rather than the substance of the idea itself.

A non-magical soul [one dependent on the physical body] is something I do accept in terms that a soul is the personality and the identity of the individual. And non-magical souls are entirely compatible with evolution, and are a product of it.

But the Pope or whoever, who "accepts" evolution is really cherry-picking, because if what I have termed the non-magical soul is true, then the Pope or whoever is denying the power of natural processes like evolution, development, genetics, environment etc to produce non-magical souls. That is cherry-picking. It is like saying you accept evolution is responsible for eye colour but not some behavioral trait. Much of the souls develops as we grow and experience life. But a lot of our morals are based on our evolution as social animals.
Perhaps if the Pope discarded the idea of magical souls, he would accept evolution totally.

I have no problem linking human development to evolutionary processes. It seems like a great model to me. In fact I think ideas evolve in an evolutionary process too.

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

No worries, I think I remember what I was going on about. I think it was something like a good moral to be taken from the story of Abraham thinking God wanted him to murder his son is: Don't let your fantasies about God lead to tragedy.

Good, I'm glad you remembered at least that bit out of this mess. Please try to stick to the point and not wander off topic too much.

But, but, but, what happened to my smell test of which moral people actually seem to take away from the story?

Remember: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/pope-evolution-is-not-inconsistent-with-creation-t47265-120.html#p2108311 ?

Have you ever met any one who picks A) that isn't ready for the rubber room?
Do you know any Christians that would pick A)?

Now please explain a few things for me. The bible clearly states that god instructed Abraham to kill his son. Its there, in Genesis 22. God pops up and says , "here I am" and then goes on,

Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.b

Now John, let me get this much clear. Are you saying that this simple narrative means something different to you? Do you think Abraham only thought that God wanted him to kill his son rather than had clearly instructed him to do it? Only god is pretty specific here in what he wants doing apart from the exact location but that's not the issue here.

Ummm. hmmmm. How shall I put this. You see, it's like this, when people (and I mean anybody) say God or an angel talked to them they are describing an experience they are having (maybe even sharing with a few others) that can't generally be seen or heard by everybody else. And that's an important clue as to what's really going on. Just like in the Derren Brown clip we couldn't actually see the experience of God manifested as unconditional love that Natalie experienced in the clip, she never-the-less surely seems to have experienced something that felt pretty profound to her.

For many reasons, which I feel confident you understand, when one has experience like these, one needs to be very careful that they don't forget that these are "special" experiences that are happening within themselves. And they need to carefully judge if they are helpful or harmful experiences. And I think the Abraham story can be very useful at helping to explain all of this. After all, most people already know that it's not good to kill your son. And like I said, all Christians I've met know that even if you believe God has really told you to kill your son- don't do it.

The sorry tale goes on,

When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he bound* his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar.c
10
Then Abraham reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.d
11
But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered.
12
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”

See here God is content that Abraham has passed the loyalty to God over his love for his son. This is nothing to do with "don't let your fantasies about god lead to tragedy", as you would have it, its about loyalty. If you read on a little further,

A second time the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven
16
and said: “I swear by my very self—oracle of the LORD—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one,
17
I will bless you and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants will take possession of the gates of their enemies,

And there you have it, in its context. Its a simple tale of a loyalty test followed by a reward. God calls Abraham's bluff, sees he is willing to go as far as killing his own son and finds him to be that loyal and so blesses Abraham and his descendants.

Hmmm. Perhaps you have some misunderstanding about what Abraham's experience must have been like. Here's a great BBC documentary showing exactly what it's like. It also shows the very human dynamics that take place around such religious experiences. For those who don't have time to watch the whole thing, at about 39 minutes in you get a picture of religious visions and ecstasy in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK6at6Ujc4k

Its really simple reading John. I'm fascinated with the process that goes on in your head to turn that tale into something else. This is the foundation of Abraham's relationship with god and yet you seem to turn it into some sort of psychotic episode that Abraham had. How? How do you arrive at that conclusion from what's written?

Ummm. Careful consideration, study, and personal experience has lead me to the conclusion that ALL such experiences are psychotic episodes. What else could they be?

Taking that into consideration. And knowing that psychotic episodes can be dangerous, I arrived at what I consider to be a helpful moral of the story.

But let me ask you something: If you had a patient who was hell bent on believing the Bible, and who heard God tell him to do something that was harmful, and was using the Abraham story as a way to justify his obedience to God, would you try to talk him down using the moral you take out of the story or would you try to talk him down using my moral of the story?

Shrunk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

John Platko wrote:Very good videos that get to the heart of religious experience, they pull aside the curtain, and show what's really going on. I've noticed many atheists are rather fond of them too.

Does that surprise you?

It both surprises and tickles me that I, a Catholic Christian can point to Derren's work and enjoy, support, and say yes- exactly, that's what's going on with religion, and have many atheists completely agree with me.

I'm not surprised by Derren's demonstration of how religion works- I''ve kind-of figured that out for myself a while ago.

I meant are you surprised that atheists like them. It seems quite obvious to me that this would serve as just further evidence that atheists are on the right track. For a theist, OTOH, I think Brown's experiment would raise some disconcerting questions.

I don't really understand how a demonstration of how religious ritual can, and does, produce a sublime feeling of unconditional love and connection with God gives atheists any evidence that they are on the right track. On the contrary, I would think Brown's demonstration of the science like predictability of the power of religious ritual should convince atheists that there is indeed something very real about religious practice after all.

And while it's true that Brown's video has a Toto like effect of pulling aside the curtain of religion like:



One shouldn't ignore the fact that Natalie had an experience which she valued. And I seem to recall a similar outcome in another Brown demonstration were imaginary friends where very helpful too.

I'm saying, the proof is in the pudding.



And just because the wizard of Oz wasn't exactly like people imagined, it didn't make him useless.

Ugh. The proof isn't in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Fallible wrote:Ugh. The proof isn't in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/24/159975466 ... to-stories

John Platko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

No worries, I think I remember what I was going on about. I think it was something like a good moral to be taken from the story of Abraham thinking God wanted him to murder his son is: Don't let your fantasies about God lead to tragedy.

Good, I'm glad you remembered at least that bit out of this mess. Please try to stick to the point and not wander off topic too much.

But, but, but, what happened to my smell test of which moral people actually seem to take away from the story?

Remember: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/pope-evolution-is-not-inconsistent-with-creation-t47265-120.html#p2108311 ?

Have you ever met any one who picks A) that isn't ready for the rubber room?
Do you know any Christians that would pick A)?

Now please explain a few things for me. The bible clearly states that god instructed Abraham to kill his son. Its there, in Genesis 22. God pops up and says , "here I am" and then goes on,

Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.b

Now John, let me get this much clear. Are you saying that this simple narrative means something different to you? Do you think Abraham only thought that God wanted him to kill his son rather than had clearly instructed him to do it? Only god is pretty specific here in what he wants doing apart from the exact location but that's not the issue here.

Ummm. hmmmm. How shall I put this. You see, it's like this, when people (and I mean anybody) say God or an angel talked to them they are describing an experience they are having (maybe even sharing with a few others) that can't generally be seen or heard by everybody else. And that's an important clue as to what's really going on. Just like in the Derren Brown clip we couldn't actually see the experience of God manifested as unconditional love that Natalie experienced in the clip, she never-the-less surely seems to have experienced something that felt pretty profound to her.

For many reasons, which I feel confident you understand, when one has experience like these, one needs to be very careful that they don't forget that these are "special" experiences that are happening within themselves. And they need to carefully judge if they are helpful or harmful experiences. And I think the Abraham story can be very useful at helping to explain all of this. After all, most people already know that it's not good to kill your son. And like I said, all Christians I've met know that even if you believe God has really told you to kill your son- don't do it.

The sorry tale goes on,

When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he bound* his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar.c
10
Then Abraham reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.d
11
But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered.
12
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”

See here God is content that Abraham has passed the loyalty to God over his love for his son. This is nothing to do with "don't let your fantasies about god lead to tragedy", as you would have it, its about loyalty. If you read on a little further,

A second time the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven
16
and said: “I swear by my very self—oracle of the LORD—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one,
17
I will bless you and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants will take possession of the gates of their enemies,

And there you have it, in its context. Its a simple tale of a loyalty test followed by a reward. God calls Abraham's bluff, sees he is willing to go as far as killing his own son and finds him to be that loyal and so blesses Abraham and his descendants.

Hmmm. Perhaps you have some misunderstanding about what Abraham's experience must have been like. Here's a great BBC documentary showing exactly what it's like. It also shows the very human dynamics that take place around such religious experiences. For those who don't have time to watch the whole thing, at about 39 minutes in you get a picture of religious visions and ecstasy in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK6at6Ujc4k

Its really simple reading John. I'm fascinated with the process that goes on in your head to turn that tale into something else. This is the foundation of Abraham's relationship with god and yet you seem to turn it into some sort of psychotic episode that Abraham had. How? How do you arrive at that conclusion from what's written?

Ummm. Careful consideration, study, and personal experience has lead me to the conclusion that ALL such experiences are psychotic episodes. What else could they be?

Taking that into consideration. And knowing that psychotic episodes can be dangerous, I arrived at what I consider to be a helpful moral of the story.

But let me ask you something: If you had a patient who was hell bent on believing the Bible, and who heard God tell him to do something that was harmful, and was using the Abraham story as a way to justify his obedience to God, would you try to talk him down using the moral you take out of the story or would you try to talk him down using my moral of the story?

So basically, you're no more a catholic than I am. You see the bible as nothing more than fanciful bullshit, written by people for a variety of agendas but totally unreliant on any factual content, chocked full of outrageous claims, examples of ignorance and Bronze Age morality which has no relevance to life today. So what are you babbling about being a catholic for?

John Platko wrote:

Fallible wrote:Ugh. The proof isn't in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/24/159975466 ... to-stories

Some random making excuses is not a memo.

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

No worries, I think I remember what I was going on about. I think it was something like a good moral to be taken from the story of Abraham thinking God wanted him to murder his son is: Don't let your fantasies about God lead to tragedy.

Good, I'm glad you remembered at least that bit out of this mess. Please try to stick to the point and not wander off topic too much.

But, but, but, what happened to my smell test of which moral people actually seem to take away from the story?

Remember: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/pope-evolution-is-not-inconsistent-with-creation-t47265-120.html#p2108311 ?

Have you ever met any one who picks A) that isn't ready for the rubber room?
Do you know any Christians that would pick A)?

Now please explain a few things for me. The bible clearly states that god instructed Abraham to kill his son. Its there, in Genesis 22. God pops up and says , "here I am" and then goes on,

Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.b

Now John, let me get this much clear. Are you saying that this simple narrative means something different to you? Do you think Abraham only thought that God wanted him to kill his son rather than had clearly instructed him to do it? Only god is pretty specific here in what he wants doing apart from the exact location but that's not the issue here.

Ummm. hmmmm. How shall I put this. You see, it's like this, when people (and I mean anybody) say God or an angel talked to them they are describing an experience they are having (maybe even sharing with a few others) that can't generally be seen or heard by everybody else. And that's an important clue as to what's really going on. Just like in the Derren Brown clip we couldn't actually see the experience of God manifested as unconditional love that Natalie experienced in the clip, she never-the-less surely seems to have experienced something that felt pretty profound to her.

For many reasons, which I feel confident you understand, when one has experience like these, one needs to be very careful that they don't forget that these are "special" experiences that are happening within themselves. And they need to carefully judge if they are helpful or harmful experiences. And I think the Abraham story can be very useful at helping to explain all of this. After all, most people already know that it's not good to kill your son. And like I said, all Christians I've met know that even if you believe God has really told you to kill your son- don't do it.

The sorry tale goes on,

When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he bound* his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar.c
10
Then Abraham reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.d
11
But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered.
12
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”

See here God is content that Abraham has passed the loyalty to God over his love for his son. This is nothing to do with "don't let your fantasies about god lead to tragedy", as you would have it, its about loyalty. If you read on a little further,

A second time the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven
16
and said: “I swear by my very self—oracle of the LORD—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one,
17
I will bless you and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants will take possession of the gates of their enemies,

And there you have it, in its context. Its a simple tale of a loyalty test followed by a reward. God calls Abraham's bluff, sees he is willing to go as far as killing his own son and finds him to be that loyal and so blesses Abraham and his descendants.

Hmmm. Perhaps you have some misunderstanding about what Abraham's experience must have been like. Here's a great BBC documentary showing exactly what it's like. It also shows the very human dynamics that take place around such religious experiences. For those who don't have time to watch the whole thing, at about 39 minutes in you get a picture of religious visions and ecstasy in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK6at6Ujc4k

Its really simple reading John. I'm fascinated with the process that goes on in your head to turn that tale into something else. This is the foundation of Abraham's relationship with god and yet you seem to turn it into some sort of psychotic episode that Abraham had. How? How do you arrive at that conclusion from what's written?

Ummm. Careful consideration, study, and personal experience has lead me to the conclusion that ALL such experiences are psychotic episodes. What else could they be?

Taking that into consideration. And knowing that psychotic episodes can be dangerous, I arrived at what I consider to be a helpful moral of the story.

But let me ask you something: If you had a patient who was hell bent on believing the Bible, and who heard God tell him to do something that was harmful, and was using the Abraham story as a way to justify his obedience to God, would you try to talk him down using the moral you take out of the story or would you try to talk him down using my moral of the story?

So basically, you're no more a catholic than I am.

It's like this, you either is, or is not Catholic. There are not gradients of being Catholic. At the moment, I is.

And if every Catholic that didn't agree with some position(s) of the Church was magically made unCatholic, then there
would be very few Catholics left- and Pope Francis might be the first to go magically poof.

You see the bible as nothing more than fanciful bullshit, written by people for a variety of agendas but totally unreliant on any factual content, chocked full of outrageous claims, examples of ignorance and Bronze Age morality which has no relevance to life today. So what are you babbling about being a catholic for?

So what are you babbling about being a catholic for

Sigh... Let me correctly represent my point of view.

I see the bible as nothing more than fanciful bullshit, a partial collection of some folks evolving effort to make sense of the world they found themselves in, written by people for a variety of agendas, and with a variety of perspectives, but totally unreliant not always reliant on any factual content, chocked full of outrageous claims, some of them harmful, some of them dangerous, others wonderful but never-the-less containing some obvious misunderstandings, examples of ignorance and brilliance of Bronze Age morality which has, no to my astonishment, incredible relevance to life today because sadly, deep down, people haven't changed much in the last few thousand years.

And as far as humanity has developed in many areas of life, modern medical science has little useful to say about experiences like the children at Medjugorje had.

John Platko wrote:If you have a more sensible interpretation to the Abraham story then please give it.

How about 'it's a fabrication'?

This is consistent with the widely-accepted view among scholars, not least because none of what's written in Genesis can be related to established history of the alleged period in the alleged timeframe.

To me, it just seems silly to think that some God exists that would give some loyalty test involving killing one;s son.

To me, that sentence is 9 words too long.

Griz_ wrote:Reread John's response and pay attention to the capitalization of the word "Self". I'm not sure he believes in God as a separate entity in the traditional sense that we we tend to think of a God. To be honest, I'm not sure he is a Catholic at all.

Pretty sure he's a proponent of one of the ancient Scandinavian religions. One with goats and trip-trapping in it...