> Brett, it is difficult to sit down with anyone and explain a
> religious belief or a scientific belief for that matter in a short
> time. There are LOTS of reasons that go into making up the
> beliefs and you fault people because they can't present it to you
> like a book report. CHARDIN
>
> Cathy,
>
> When someone says they have a belief and leave it at that, I do not
> fault
> them. But when someone begins to explain the reasons for that belief,
> I can
> compare the reasons with the belief and decide if they are valid. If
> I say
> that I believe the world is flat...no problem: If I say I believe the
> world
> is flat because I had cottage cheese for breakfast--problem!
> I also believe in god (but not a devil or hell)...I believe in Jesus
> as *a*
> messiah...and a durn good one, we are still following his example 2000
> years
> later. I just don't like some peoples' reasoning--the bible says,
> there was
> a prophecy, the church says, my preacher says, I have faith: The
> statement
> "There is a god: The Bible says" is like "The world is flat: I had
> cottage
> cheese"--the reasoning is not good.
>
> In Sodom's account of his level I took the words that he used and
> compared
> them to the conclusions he drew. The words DID match the conclusion
> but
> they didn't *disprove* my summation that a level 3 can exist without a
>
> coherent sense of self...nor did they explain why one would not have
> an
> original belief, nor why one would accept outside beliefs in lieu of
> their
> own understanding. Though I'm not sure if my questioning his belief
> is what
> prompted your post?!? I did conclude from his words that he preferred
>
> science to religion and he has not said that I was incorrect.
>
> Brett
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
Brett and Cathy,
I didn't respond to the Level I consideration, because I do not have
enough info, and decided to get more. Plus, to some point disagree with
Brett's summation, however, on this subject. It's not that i prefer
science to religion, this comparison is like oranges and moon dust. They
are very different things. Science does not need to refute religion, it
does because religion lacks the evidence to be supported by science in
it's current forms. If you told me that there was a God that consists
of every particle in the entire Universe, time, physics, - in other
words, if you told me the Universe itself was cionscious and in essence
"God" then i would say fine. In that scope, God could exist, there is no
evidence to the contrary. The problem I see is with humans. We fear, and
created gods out of this fear - encyclopedias could be filled of things
man imagined out of fear. The Jewish god, Hindu god(s), Aztec god, there
is no difference. All created from fear, by man, to appease himself.
On the Level I, II or III thing, Perhaps I missed something along the
way, but from your previous description, i would thank that level III
means schizophrenia, or something like similar. It seems to me that
there is a difference between existing without a coherent sense of self,
and being able to freely move between reality tunnels (paradigms I think
is the term used here). What book should I get to read up on the level
concept?
SODOM
Bill Roh
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, THEN I INJECTED IT