WHAT YOU THINK MAKES A DIFFERENCE

For as a person thinks and believes, he or she becomes. (This statement has been inspired by Proverbs 23:7) Prudent means handling practical matters: exercising good judgment. Prudence is the state, quality, or fact of being prudent. The meaning of the proverb and the definition of prudence is at the heart of my following philosophy: It is prudent to want what you need. Success is getting what you want. Happiness is enjoying what you have. Therefore: Want what you need. Get what you want. And enjoy what you have. What we need is to make good decisions and have self-control. This requires logical, rational, analytical and imaginative thinking; self-motivation and self-restraint.

SPIRITUALITY IS FAR BETTER THAN RELIGION

A spirit is a thought or an emotion

A religion is a binding faith to an organized set of beliefs or to a religious organization.

SPIRITUALITY CAN INTEGRATE ALL HUMAN BEINGS INTO ONE WHOLE HUMANITY.

RELIGION SEPARATES US INTO GROUPS OR SECTS.

A god is a spirit.

A spirit may insist in one's mind; but no spirit can ever exist in reality.

THE TWO GREATEST SPIRITS ARE CARE AND LOVE.

A benevolently spiritual person may care very deeply about oneself
and also care very much about ALL other human beings.

To care about and to have love for ALL human beings is to be humane.

THUS, A BENEVOLENTLY SPIRITUAL PERSON IS A CARING, LOVING, AND LOVABLE, HUMANE BEING.

WHY THEISM IS DECLINING

Knowledge about the physical world has buried almost all the gods.

Nothing is different about Jesus or Christianity.

The process of science overcomes our natural tendencies to believe in myths and superstition and replaces dogma with knowledge that works.

We need to bury God to produce a better moral and ethical world.

We must openly call out lies and distortions. We should foster open questioning (and refutation by others) with no false claims of certainty.

Burying God is NOT a bad thing because science provides compensations in return with more accurate thinking--the universal invitation to question anyone's claims and the universal requirement to exercise due diligence and a duty of care to substantiate those claims.
_____________________________________
SOURCE: Professor Lawrence Krauss

SCIENCE, MATH, ART, REASONING, PERCEIVING, THINKING

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Mathematics seeks to use logic to understand and often prove relationships between quantities and objects which may relate to no real phenomena.

Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.

Reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion of probability.

Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true.

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is formulating an inference based upon imagination. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.

Formal Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Perceive is to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses.

The senses are any of the faculties, as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch, by which humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from outside or inside the body.

Nonsense is anything that has not been and cannot be observed by one or more of the senses.

Thinking is the process of using one's mind to consider or reason or imagine something.

To imagine is to form a mental image or concept.

Verifiable is that which may be perceived with one or more of the senses.

TO COMPLETE YOU MUST START

A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES BEGINS WITH A SINGLE STEP. ~ Lao Tzu

Big things start from small beginnings. And, in order to accomplish ANYTHING,
one has to TAKE THE FIST STEP and then PERSIST UNTIL THE JOURNEY (OR TASK) IS COMPLETE.

START BY GETTING ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO EFFICIENTLY COMPLETE THE TASK OR JOURNEY--INCLUDING THE BEST DIRECTIONS YOU CAN GET--THEN PERSISTENTLY FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS (UNLESS THERE IS A NECESSITY FOR DETOURING OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE PLAN) UNTIL THE JOURNEY OR TASK IS COMPLETE.

CALVANISM & THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC (by Barbara Goodrich, Ph.D.)

Calvinism (I'm summarizing pretty drastically here, to keep it short):

According to Calvin, each human is steeped in the "original sin" inherited from Adam and Eve. Humanity is horribly corrupt, and powerless besides. The standard line of most versions of Christianity is that by grace the loving God redeems humans from this original sin. (Some versions of Christianity hold that God redeems all humans. Some versions hold that humans themselves instigate their own redemption by their faith in God, etc..) Calvin, however, was unusual in that he regarded humans as so disgusting that he thought there was an unbridgeable chasm between God and us, and that we were too unworthy to have any influence on God's decisions at all. In other words, nothing one could do would make any difference whatsoever regarding whether God chose to redeem one or not from one’s hideous “original sin” and impending damnation. (Calvin and his fellow puritan sorts seem to have regarded God as a pretty capricious, arbitrary sort of tyrant.) Further, at least in principle, Calvin believed that one can't determine who is chosen ("elect") by God to be redeemed, and who isn't. (The word “elect” may have connotations of choice to us, when we think of voting in elections. But here the choice is thought to be God’s entirely. Calvin thought that God chooses (or doesn't choose) us; we can’t choose him.)

It's not emotionally easy to believe such a discouraging doctrine as predestination, a doctrine that one is utterly powerless over, and ignorant of, one's destiny. Weber writes that Calvinist ministers had to adapt their "pastoral advice" into the following:

On the one hand it is held to be an absolute duty to consider oneself chosen, and to combat all doubts as temptations of the devil, since lack of self-confidence is the result of insufficient faith, hence of imperfect grace. The exhortation of the apostle to make fast one's own call is here interpreted as a duty to attain certainty of one's own election and justification in the daily struggles of life. … On the other hand, in order to attain that self-confidence intense worldly activity is recommended as the most suitable means. (Ibid., pp. 111-112)

Calvin held that one's good works can't influence whether one is chosen by God to be "saved" or not. However, in practice, Calvinism does require a life of systematic and unemotional good works (interpreted here as hard work in business) and self-control, as a sign that one is of God's chosen "elect." Thus, ascetic dedication to one's perceived duties is "the means, not of purchasing salvation, but of getting rid of the fear of damnation." (Ibid., p. 115) One must prove one's faith by one's worldly (i.e. economic) activity and ascetic self-control.

By founding its ethic in the doctrine of predestination, [Calvinism] substituted for the [older Roman Catholic] spiritual aristocracy [or "elite"] of monks outside of and above the world the spiritual aristocracy of the predestined saints of God within the world. It was an aristocracy which… was divided from the eternally damned remainder of humanity by [an]… impassable and … terrifying gulf …. This consciousness of divine grace of the elect and holy was accompanied by an attitude toward the sin of one's neighbor, not of sympathetic understanding based on consciousness of one's own weakness, but of hatred and contempt for him as an enemy of God bearing the signs of eternal damnation. (Ibid., pp. 121-122)

Now, it's rather natural, if one is a Calvinist, to be constantly looking for any little indications that God does approve of oneself, that God has predestined one to be redeemed, that one is "of the elect" of God. And how might God give any promising little hints? Well, material success is one way. If one has a successful business, God seems to be smiling on one! And as for those poor destitute farmers who just lost everything they owned due to a drought, well, God is all-powerful, and must have decided that they should suffer. And who are we miserable sinners to disagree, and thwart the plans of God?

Thus, the Calvinist develops a European version of India's infamous caste system. In ancient India, foreign conquerors solidified their conquest by imposing a religion on the populace. According to this religion, there were set classes or castes of people, and anyone born into the poor castes must have done something in a previous life to deserve such punishment. Similarly, the Calvinist attributes prosperity and poverty to the mysterious workings of God. (Notice that in both cases these beliefs serve to legitimize whatever the status quo power is. The wealthy and powerful, whether in ancient India or in post-Renaissance Switzerland or 18th century Scotland, are presented as justifiably wealthy. And the poor or "untouchable" are dismissed as unworthy of any better treatment. These are classic examples of ideology.)

Dickens captured exactly this peculiar combination of self-punishment, self-righteousness, and misanthropy in his character Scrooge. Scrooge isn't a simple hoarder. Scrooge's avarice is a result of his secularized "Calvinist work ethic."

DID HISTORICAL JESUS REALLY EXIST? By Raphael Lataster

Raphael Lataster is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney.
He is author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.

THE EVIDENCE JUST DOESN'T ADD UP.

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman's Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman's apocalyptic prophet, ABOUT THE ONLY THING NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS SEEM TO AGREE ON IS JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE. BUT CAN EVEN THAT BE QUESTIONED?

THE FIRST PROBLEM WE ENCOUNTER WHEN TRYING TO DISCOVER MORE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL JESUS IS THE LACK OF EARLY SOURCES.
The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea.

The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galations 1:11-12).

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions? Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved.

IN SUM, THERE ARE CLEARLY GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE - IF NOT TO THINK IT OUTRIGHT IMPROBABLE.