Taz, in the last paragraph, your sharp distinction between worldly things and spiritual things is
confusing to me. If you are talking about material things and spiritual things, the distinction would
be more precise but not very accurate if judged by what Jesus is quoted as saying...

The point is -- render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God...

God is not interested in your tax dollars...

God is not interested in your fealty to Caesar's s government on Earth as Ceasar is...

God is interested in your soul...

Now, I am not suggesting that one's soul cannot be changed for God...without some conversion...on Earth...and I agree that God is concerned with one earthly thing -- the conduct of Christians -- but it is their individual conduct that he is concerned with IMHO -- and not their group conduct...meaning that God hold's the individual accountable not the group. of individuals...

i spent an aweful lot of time in that mindset

it's neither right nor wrong

it just serves a purpose

it has a place and a time

and it can give you a multitude of experiences in life

and it has a healthy fear of death

still....

it cannot guarrantee happiness in your life

or supply a steady, unlimited supply of it

it wasnt my experience at least

and i tried, oh how i tried

and that is the one i crave so much for in my life

that being the ability to be happy whenever and how ever i want

i am generally happy each and everyday these days

i was never like that when i considered myself a "christian"

but it served a purpose

it was a starting point

however at the end of the day, life is not so much to be explained as it is to be simply experienced

but i do confess, how i so wish i could download to you my point of view now so that you might be able to benefit from it

nevertheless, it is what it is

and you are where you are because you want to be there

peace and many pleasant experiences

- Perry

were that we could be so balanced on such issues...

Taz,

With all due respect. Maybe "God" is a bigger concept than that you described above. What if "God" as creator of the universe and of our very existence (as spirits as well as physical human bodies) transcends all religious limitations that any interpretation of the Bible, Koran, Bahagvad Vita and any other scriptures ever written about (Him, She, It)?

What I would call true "spirituality" involves everything, physical and non physical. "It" affects everything we do including such seemingly mundane matters such as money, government, war, peace, the planet, the universe and every way in which we interact with ourselves and others. But it also iincludes a sincere search for truth and the wisdom to know the difference between faith and knowledge. Not that both aren't legit, and I believe Christ's words about Ceasar were meant to cause one to think about what indeed is Ceasar's and what is God's.

The reason I posited the thoughts about reincarnation and the after life is because I think religions (all of them) like science are incomplete (at best) on the essential nature of we who ponder ourselves. Of course this is a measure of my own arrogance in believing I know better than "them" (theologians) about what is true or not, but so be it. I'm a member of the same club of intelligent apes contemplating a skull and believing I know what it's all about. It is true that religions regardless of probable error believe what they believe and teach it to their followers and those followers then operate on those beliefs. They vote and lobby and push for their religion's tenets to be the guiding principles in government and they may be fully sincere even when they start wars over those beliefs. I think the difference between me and "them" is that I know I don't know, and even if I did I'd know that pushing my beliefs down other's throats would be the hieght of folly and wouldn't accomplish anything but resentment.

I guess the point I'm making is that religion (all of them) need to recognize they do not know all they need to know about existence. Bertrand Russell a famous Atheist (or Agnostic I forget) once said when asked by a reporter (paraphrase from memory); "What will you say Mr. Russell if when you die you come face to face with God?"

Russell I think replied; " You didn't give us enough knowledge of your existence."

If more people of faith would say to themselves and to the rest of us; "We don't know. We believe. And we know the difference." We all might become more "compatible" with each other.

Just some thoughts.

The question isn't whether or not God is interested in tax dollars. The question is whether or not God is interested in God's children using secular government to enforce God's laws.

That's because it Caesar's s government. The question is whether or not God is interested in God's children converting Caesar's s government into God's government.

God already has the soul of God's children according to the scripture. That render unto Ceasar scripture says nothing about what to do with souls relative to Ceasar.

That's the way you interpret the doctrine and most Christians on the left would agree. We are talking about the doctrine itself and how compatible it is with the constitution from any possible correct interpretation. We are not talking about a twisted, extremist, or fundamentalist interpretation here. We are talking about apossible correct interpretation that would still lead one to believe it's OK to turn the U.S. into a theocracy.

TROU

That very well may be true -- but for purposes of this thread we have God...as the God of the Bible and whether or not there is conflict or not with the BIble and the Constitution or whether they are compatible...that is what we are referencing...and that was the context of my response...and I thought this was understood...

If it was not -- please accept this clarification...

Bill:

Working backwards...

I cannot agree with your premise that the Bible is "doctrine"...

It is the word of God manifested in different ways...

While it may be used to prescribe a way of life --- I do not see it as a doctrine...the doctine comes from whichever religious sect of Chrisitanity -- be it Catholicsm -- etc.

If God has the soul of his children already then what does being reborn mean -- then what is the need for baptism? Then why was there a big controversy with limbo...for childrern who died during birth or before being baptized?

That is the question of the Christian Reconstructionists....that is not the question of the Bible...

The Bible repeatedly draws a distinction between earthly government and Heaven -- and nowhere in the Bible is there any directive to change government into a theocracy...

I think it is clear that God is not interested in using secular government for anything...he nevers directs that government do anything and he never directs that his people do anything to government except be obedient to it...

And for those who are unclear -- I am speaking with reference to God in the Bible...

It's understood. Just not necessarily accepted. Whether or not it's accepted is irrelevant. We are in a discussion about a recorded doctrine in which none of the original authors seem to be participating. All we have is are ability to reason here. Whether or not God wrote it is irrelevant to how sound it is based on our mere mortal and sinful reasoning abilities.

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. Real Christians believe that they are save by accepting God's grace, and not by any symbolic gesture. But that is beside the point. The question was never about souls. It's about use of secular government relative to what is expected of those who's souls have been saved in their mortal lives while waiting for the afterlife.

Again that's just your interpretation. Nothing in the bible says that changing government into a theocracy is not an option either. But there are many more scriptures that would support theocracy than would discourage it.

Find one biblical scripture that makes it clear.

But there's a limit to that obedience. What if a governmental policy was for citizens to convert to Islam or Hinduism? Would God expect you to obey?

Without faith, you are talking about a god that only lives in the printed word and the minds of the believers as far as objective reasoning is concerned. The doctrine is all that the objective reasoners have to work with.

Forgive me. I do know that is what you were referencing and should have made it clear. I guess I just thought you both were taking as given what is "true" rather than what is "believed". But the thread's question seems to be unresovlable given that religion and science and philosophy all are dealing with incomplete information. If we all "knew" that we will all live again and had lived before many times and that the purpose of civilization was to provide an environment for the growth of knowledge wisdom and love and that no one knows it all then maybe a nation that has as one of its foundations ; "Tolerance" would be seen as a good thing in and of itself instead of something to change in favor of a particular religious viewpoint.

If a "religion" (or someone who claims to speak for them) is saying that their interpretation of the Bible or Koran or whatever means that our laws should follow their God's words then they wish a theology. So I guess it depends on whose interpretation of a particular religion's tenets we are dealing with.

As you know even the Pope doesn't speak for all of Christianity, just Roman Catholics. And no one knows who speaks for the other major religions and all of their sects. I guess all of them and the rest of us just have to agree we will tolerate each other. This upsets some devout believers who consider any other belief intolerable.

Strictly speaking we should have had a religious war by now. Since we haven't had one yet I consider that the Constitution works for most even while it sets limits on some people's belief that they have a God given command to convert the rest of us.

That's why it's a poll question.

The first two questions are also exclusively questions of doctrines. So you could say the answers to those questions are on the level of artificially intelligent memes.

the search for "truth" has always been a mind bender

at the end of the day, we end up with each our own "truth"

it's a by product of one's own personal experiences

in other words

its just an ego trip for anyone to think that there is only "one" truth

Well, there is a such thing as mathematical and scientific truth. They are given more weight than any other form of truth. However, they are not without flaws because fractional math has limits to accuracy when rounding off is required (such as with ∏) or there is no absolute value (such as with ∞). Science is limited by the accuracy of lab technology and our own limited ability to analyze the evidence if we are even reading it correctly. But consensus behind truth (what matters) is far greater with mathematical and scientific truth, than with any other form of truth.

What I am using in this debate is philosophical truth. It's not based on subjective things like faith, belief, or results. Although one might believe that the soundness of philosophy can only be measured by results, there's a Boolean logic component to philosophy that can also be measured by mathematical truth. This is something that is especially true in computer programming. It's what is called an algorithm. All commands in computer programming are based on logic properties such as "is", "is not", "if", "then", "next". Regardless of the label, we know that the properties of the commands are sound because the programs run the same way every time. Even when there is a logical error in programing, it's due to flawed reasoning from programmers and not the machine. The proof is that given the same input or no input, the bugs and crashes are consistent.

The philosophical premise of this debate is based on the doctrines. The memes contained in doctrines have algorithms in the composition which I call artificial intelligence. They take on a life of their own and survive not just by the strength of their hosts, but also by the strength of the algorithms. The life after death meme is especially strong because it's impossible to disprove it. And if the afterlife is as great as most Christian believers think it is, nobody would have any reason to come back to this realm of mortal existence (except for Jesus) to talk about it. So I'm putting forth the argument that the Bible (as a doctrine) is only about 75% compatible with the constitution, based on the logical truth that there is more memes pointing towards than away from theocracy coming from the bible.

Collective truth ie; "reality" is about unconscious agreements according to Shamans. We are all dreaming all the time according to them. It is just that we are dreaming with our eyes open and within "space-time" when awake, and without the time space reference when asleep.

Our egos are just our conscious mind and is as a Vizier to the Self according to Jungians. According to Mystics we all participated in the Creation of the Physical Universe while in spirit form before time and space existed.

So there are many ideas on truth... or at least on how we choose to perceive and describe it. We can easily get lost in semantics.

One thing I agree on is the importance of personal experience. I say this because what we all might agree on is that each of us is unique and that our uniqueness is the greatest gift a creator could give a creation. If we are indeed part of the divine, then we are each immortal creative spirits destined to learn all our creator knows and yet retain our individuality.

I've read that those greater beings some might call angels are also unique and were once like us. When they achieved "Mastery" of their human state they "progressed" to a higher life-wave along with every other consciousness, when the previous universe ended and a new one (ours) was created. Supposedly at the same moment Mineral consciousness progresses to plant. Plant progresses to animal and animal to human. I found it fascinating that it is written that an angel is a being made up of two beings. Two human Masters (one male and one female) willingly combine and create their own angelic "being-hood". Some point to Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" as showing this dual state of being depicted as the two winged beings both blowing the breath of life into Venus rising from the clam shell. Another thing I found interesting is that it is said that angels act in "concordance". They do so by being able to discern individually for themselves the outworking of any thought or action they might take and seeing what is "best"? I suppose there could be disagreements on that, and in fact it is said that the "Planetary Chief of Angels" (Jehovah) disagreed with his chief "lieutenant" (Lucifer) about how to best help mankind (us) (Issac in the Bible) grow. Disagreements about what is best is one thing but falsehood is probably non-existent.

We (humans) however disagree on reality itself and falsehood is rampant. We can and do even lie to ourselves. Guess we've got a long way to go to even reach Mastery here.

Just some more thoughts.

For the limits of human consciousness (between the macro and the micro) scientific truth works well enough for us to function and operate effectively. Newtonian Physics worked until we started to notice the margins. That's when Heisenberg's Principle started to cause problems. Einstein and Bohr's ideas helped with the advent of "Quantum Mechanics" but now String Theory is sending Physics into the Mystic. Einstein proved mathematically that Time and Space are not constant by proving that the speed of light is. This throws "reality" (space-time) for a loop.

You will note that Einstein's equations often deal with reality with respect to the observer, and that time will vary and space will distort. Therefore it seems Bill that reality as we know it could well be in some fashion what we "agree" it is.

That poses an interesting possible twist to this thread.

If a supernatural realm such as the one that's perceived from a literal (not metaphorical) interpretation of the bible exists, then I'm sure falsehoods are existent within it. Satan is sometimes referred to as the "Father of Lies."

Lies can become true over time. There's the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some lies are relative to relative truth. If I say that people have blue eyes, then that could be considered a lie by some, for some, and true by some, for some.

Some lies are willfully believed in order to support a virtual truth. That's what I call an illusion, a suspension of disbelief. You do it every time you look at a photograph or a monitor and believe that you are seeing objects other than dots or pixels.

I've taken it a step further by saying that "reality is what we make it." That's the self fulfilling prophecy and the meme that I've been hosting that's become controversial on not just one, but now two online discussion forums.

Maybe truth (ultimate truth) is what we make it. Or... maybe truth for us is what we make it. I guess it depends on whether we are the length and breathe of all there is. It is conceivable that there is an overriding truth that is "made" by Him ( or It or She) that supercedes our relative truths and contains them within "His". In other words the gift of free will is operative within space time, and astral time and mental time, but all those "realms" are within what we could call the human realm of consciousness and is "the gift of our being" from God. Our "playpen" maybe. But there may be realms of consciousness beyond those human realms. There would almost have to be if we are created beings and did not just pop into existence by random chance.

If we are just a random collection of inanimate subatomic particles that just happened to come together by chance in just the right way so as to perceive ourselves then all bets are off aside from where those sub-atomic particles came from and what they really are. We would then be the supreme consciousness of the universe. The "Gods of Reality" so to speak. So we might as well engage in "a war for reality" among us "gods" to wipe out all those unbelieving "titans".

Talking about self-fulfilling prophecy would lose all meaning and there would be no meaning to anything aside from what we assign to it and "the truth" would be whatever whoever won said it was.

I guess that's a pretty lonely view of existence, but one that mankind has engaged in for millennia.

Whether we are accidents or planned shouldn't matter to us. If there is a creator who expects us to behave like anything other than random beings, then that creator hasn't given us much reason other than what we know from our experience with nature. There is no proof of any life beyond mortal life, so anything we assume about the after life (if we even assume it exists) is fair game as long as we are part of this mortal existence. However, anyone who thinks that our existence is pure chance, should know enough about probabilities to know that our chances of survival without some civilization that is forever being modified by every willing stake-holder is slim, regardless of what we think the right or wrong way to live is. Our existence may be lonelier than an existence without angels and a supreme being to look up to, but anyone can look around their house, turn on their TV, or walk out their door and see that we are hardly alone.

I think it matters. Whether it should or shouldn't is just an opinion that probably is as changable as the weather. The creator (if there is one) gave us each the "gift" of a unique point of view and a love of beauty. Maybe that is the strongest clue. Unless you believe that is not much reason to believe we are no accident. (See the movie King Kong).

I have plenty of reason to believe that we are no accident. I just don't have much evidence that we are anything more than what science tells us we are. But since science doesn't tell us how we got from dead matter to live matter with anything more than a guess that water enabled the mysterious process, I'm left guessing about what it means to be created. You would think that if science knew that much about it, they would be able to replicate it in a lab.

As for our unique point of view, that could just be an illusion. We could all be the same being who's willfully tricked ourselves into believing that we are separate. I have a theory that if the legend of Satan is either physically or metaphorically true, he was created and hired by God to trick God into believing that he was mortal in the form of Adam, and the secret was hidden in what the Bible refers to as the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Funny that we can't know good without knowing evil. The idea that we could have avoided learning either once we were able to learn anything is unimaginable. Wanting to learn was our original sin. So the ideal state of being is ignorant to everything? That level of ignorance isn't bliss. It's nirvana. Maybe the temptation of the bible was required in order for us to experience separate perceptions and mortality. Maybe good and evil are what powers what we perceive as moral life just like positive and negative charges create electricity.

Here's a question for you?

What would you think if God referred to you as a "Good Guy", if he talked to his friends and collegues in such a manner that he were to say about you "He is a good guy!"

And here's another!

What would you think if Satan referred to his friends concerning you as "A very good friend of mine!"

What kind of *duality* is that...!

- Perry

There is a lot of misunderstanding (among a large majority of the population) about the
concept of, "Evolution." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

The occurance (time & place) of mutation is random but the process itself has different
identifiable causes. Selection is not random because it is ecologically determined. so
applying language such as accident to the results is misleading...

From a scientific perspective, nothing is random or by chance. From a religious perspective, anything that is done without morals or motives is random.

I understand what you are getting at. The magic "survival instinct" that science can observe but not explain is attributed to purposeful coding and activation of genes. Epigenetics is even attempting to discover how the genes are activated. But until science can explain the source of the survival instinct along with a host of other motives related to it, religion and hedonism will be the imperfect substitutes.

That's a really inspiring video. And the dog probably wasn't trained. Maybe some breeds of dogs have evolved enough to know of road hazards. I remember my German shepherd would cower when I pointed a toy gun at it.

I'm not sure I can answer your questions because I see God and Satan as human constructs. So, how I'm perceived by what could very well be fictitious characters doesn't effect my motives of behavior. I can only say that if the God of the bible exists, I hope I past the test. And if the Satan of the bible exists, it wouldn't have any more influence to me than a fictitious character either. Satan is only used in the bible as an example of what to avoid.

So do I

But it's interesting what the universe will seem to manifest as a result of what goes on in our imagination...!

Deepak once related this point, "the universe is not just stranger than we think, it is stranger than we *can* think!"

- Perry

That's where the lie becomes the truth in the form of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I say that reality is what we make it. I think it make some uncomfortable because they don't want to accept any blame for the state that we live in. I don't think anyone should feel entirely at fault for it. But everyone should at least feel partially responsible for it. And nobody should take full credit for it either. It's the sum of our collective efforts. That's why I didn't say reality is what I make it.

Atheists shouldn't blame the religious for attempting to construct a moral standard or recognize a moral foundation. Religious people shouldn't blame atheists for being motivated by material gain and demanding proof for any notion that they are expected to accept and live by.

As complex as the human brain is, I'm sure that just the vastness of the universe is more than any one of our minds could even digest, let alone the dynamics of the universe. But it's sure fun to try.

Lots of good reasoning here Bill. But the illusion part seems contradictory, and "God" schizophrenic. Interesting theory. William Bramley in "The Gods of Eden" writes that Zecharia Sitchin (a professor of Languages and one of the foremost experts in Sumerian) says that his translation of the ancient cuneiform clay tablets (one of if not the oldest known written language) records the Garden of Eden scenario that was copied by early Judaism into the Bible from the original Sumerian story.

In it Adam and Eve represent a genetically manipulated (some say created) and then enslaved Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro Magnon) (Mankind). "Created" and enslaved by whom? That is up for debate, but let's say by a group who certainly seemed to wield "god-like" powers (or technology). They were set to the task of managing the "Lord's" Garden or Orchids. There were two symbolic trees the Lords did not want enslaved mankind to partake of.

One; "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" (IE; Ethics). For then mankind would grow in wisdom and knowledge of everything and soon match his "Custodians". Adam and Eve were naked because they were slaves (nakedness is a universal mark of slavery and very old). They became ashamed because when they partook of the apple of the tree of knowledge they knew they were slaves, and were ashamed of that condition, not nakedness itself.

Two; "The Tree of the Knowledge of Eternal Life". This knowledge would make mankind's lifespan much greater and give knowledge of reincarnation. Such knowledge would make mankind hard to cow with physical threats. Be unafraid of physical death, and make for a very poor slave.

The "Snake" is symbolic of knowledge and healing and according to Sitchin was really an organization dedicated to uplifting the enslaved mankind through knowledge and founded by one of these "Lords" or "Custodians" who did not like the way mankind was being treated by his fellow "gods". He was demonized along with the symbolic "snake brotherhood" and when defeated was ever after portrayed as the epitimy of evil. "Satan" BTW is not the same as "Lucifer". Mystics write that "Satan" is indeed a construct for a conglomerate of evil human beings, some of whom have learned to use the mental powers we all possess for wicked ends. Not the same as an angelic lieutenant to Jehovah. The stories have been garbled to say the least. What seems to resonate with some of your questions is that holding mankind down as regards knowledge doesn't seem to jibe with a loving God does it? More like a slave master that doesn't want his slaves to get too uppity because they know too much.

Again as way out there as this sounds it fits with Occam's Razor IMO. To me God is the Creator of the Universe and like Einstein I believe God is not perverse. What does all this point to? I don't know, but this story I've just summarized is from the earliest writings of mankind ever found to date. Older and therefore "Hoarier" than the Bible. Were they making it up when they said these "gods" rode in strange vehicles that flew in the sky? Who knows? But what if they weren't hallucinating?

This is why I say that the arguments we are having now about the Bible and the Constitution seem moot. I know it is not moot to many, and I respect other people's beliefs. And the questions are as important to us as to our founding fathers. In the end whatever people believe if they do not harm others and tends to make them behave better towards their fellows then it is good to that degree. The danger is in assuming what is written from old is accurate and true not just metaphorically but in actuality, because when those two realms are mixed the vagueness and confusion that results can become prey to deliberate falsehood and serve human error and worse. The test is written above. Which story is more accurate? The Sumerian or the Judaic?

Though Bertrand Russell was right that it seems "God" didn't give us enough information or knowledge, the charge may be false. It may be that we knew at least a part of the crucial truth (at least about our earliest history) from early on but the records were not passed down accurately. Who then is to blame if anyone? In any event it seems it is up to us to discern the true nature of our existence because only then we will know what our destiny is. For now it is the best we can imagine in our hearts that will have to do.

Just some more thoughts.

The best I can tell, there are two kinds of stuff that human reasoning can deal with--(1) maters
of facts and (2) the relations between and among ideas...

(3) matters of perception

Perception is everything.

I've gone thru all the arguments for and against christianity a thousand times. It has a place, it serves a purpose. But in the end I've found that I am the source of my own happiness or whatever emotion (and resulting experience) I choose to have. Other people that I meet and have experiences with in the process are people that just happen to be on the same frequency as me at that paticular point in time.

It's really no more complicated than that.

"What you imagine, soon becomes your reality" - Deepak

But something I do have that many of you don't are experiences that can only be described as truly metaphysical. What actually happened is the subject matter for my book, it's pointless for me to go into detail about it here, you would never believe me. Except to say, that I am left with a much greater appreciation for life and everything it has to offer.

- Perry

I think perception is 1/5 of everything along with conception, feeling, intending and acting.
I personally think of Spirtuality as a function of the degree of Integration of these five processes...

As you suggest, there is no correct answer here - another epistemological conundrum --- we only have our belief systems to rely on...

I would agree that the fact that the Constitution has not caused more problems is strong evidence that it and the Bible are consistent...which is what all of us seem to have been arguing...more or less...its just an issue of quantifying...between Arne who I think voted 100% consistent and billfmsd and I who voted between 50-99% consistent with him believing its 75% consistent and me believing its 90% consistent - but neither one of us being able to demonstrate at all where the Bible is inconsistent with the Constitution...leading in point of fact -- since neither billfmsd nor I can offer a proof that there is any inconsistency that Arne wins by default...

Isn't feeling part of perception -- or you are excluding sensory feeling...as in the physical world...but isn't emotional feeling a matter of perception as well?

You continue to insist that the Bible is doctrinal -- I have told you that I do not find the Bible to be doctirnal at all -- but rather a manifestation of the word of God...could you espouse the doctrine...please...that you believe the Bible espouses ---in summary form if necessary?

The Bible includes much doctrine--there is no one doctrine...and my belief is that the doctrine comes from those who use the Bible...there is Roman Catholic doctrine and Methodist doctrine...even the doctrine of Chrisitanity --- but I know of no single Biblical doctrine...

there is the doctrine of transubstantiation...the Holy Trinity -- etc. -- baptism -- sanctification -- etc.

Is this what you mean to compare with the Constitution for compatibility purposes?

According to the poll, nobody voted 100% compatible.

As for winners, I can find more scriptures that support the Christian Reconstructionists interpretation than you can fine discouraging it. So unless the doctrine discourages it more than encourages it, the doctrine is the source of the incompatibility.

BIll?

billfmsd -- you are dead wrong on this...and here is why -- you are using an interpretation of the Bible by a group -- a religion -- the religion on Christian Reconstructionism as your evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with the Constitution...

I have repeatedly said that indeed -- religions themselves may be inconsistent with the Bible -- though the fact that there has been so little outard conflict seems to suggest that any such conflict is inconsequential...

But the fact that there is one sect of one religion that holds that such a conflict exists does not demonstrate that there is any actual conflict between the Bible and the US Constitution...

It is only this perversion of the Bible -- this interpretation of the Bible which has made for a conflict --- not the Bible itself...

Anyone can try and interpret the Bible as being inconsistent as you have with your "man cannot serve to masters" illustration which is not on point at all - because he was referring to money -- many serving money and serving God...this passage was not referring to God and some temporal government...so the analogy does not work...

But just because someone tries to offer an interpretation of the Bible which makes it inconsistent with the Constitution does not mean that interpretation is correct...

If that was all that were required then you could found the "The Bible is only 75% Consistent with the US Constitution" religion as making your case...which IMHO would be pure hooey and prove nothing...

Aside from what your faith tells you, the Bible is a doctrine by definition.

Those aren't doctrines. Those are denominations. Additions to the bible like the Joseph Smith Translation or the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures are doctrines.

No. What I said in my previous post is what is meant by compatibility:

I don't think of it that way. Interoceptive perception (as apposed to exteroceptive perception), provides the vehicle for transporting information about emotions (feelings) to the conceptualizing
system which transforms neuro-chemical information into verbal information (signs and symbols)...

And Bill you have yet to provide any doctrine of the Bible...which I assert does not exist...

The only doctrine is that of a particular religion...INTERPRETING the Bible...and my point has always been the conflict comes for errant interpretations of the BIble...

But you never previously qualified extroceptive and introceptive perception...doesn't perception account for both?

So really maybe percetion accounts for half of your metric and conception, intending and acting account for the other half...

Well, I wish I had know this sooner...because I again reject your statement that the Bible represents any single doctrine...

there is the doctrine of transubstantiation...the Holy Trinity -- etc. -- baptism -- sanctification -- etc

These are not denominations -- they are doctrines...within the Bible...but my point is that there is no one Biblical doctrine...the Bible is a sumbol of God's word manifest...

You consider the attacks on the separation of church and state by right-wing Christians just a "little outward conflict?"

It didn't say: "man cannot serve two masters unless the other master is not money."

You have to prove that the interpretation is incorrect in order to prove that the doctrine is compatible

Now you are just twisting the meaning of the word "doctrine". The whole bible is a doctrine.

The bible is the non-denominational doctrine of Christianity.

[/quote]

I don't think of it that way. Interoceptive perception (as apposed to exteroceptive perception), provides the vehicle for transporting information about emotions (feelings) to the conceptualizing
system which transforms neuro-chemical information into verbal information (signs and symbols)...
[/quote]

But you never previously qualified extroceptive and introceptive perception...doesn't perception account for both?

So really maybe percetion accounts for half of your metric and conception, intending and acting account for the other half...
[/quote]

In the Thread to develop a Model of Personing in the Social System, I present the following
schematic: <--> Perception <--> Conception <--> Feeling <--> Intending <--> Acting <-->

This schema denotes interaction between and among these relativly independent processes...
The Human Organism, like other animals, may respond in a sensori-motor modality and much of the early Behaviorist School limited itself to such an S --> R format...A person may be conditioned
to respond to a given stimulus without being aware of having perceived the stimulus. Self-directed
behavior, however, requires a larger more complex conceptual schema. The "Natives" didn't see
Columbus's ships untill one of their more astute members (Medicine Man) meditated on the odd feelings he was experiencing at the beach untill he created a concept to recognize and explain to himself a new kind of transportation. He could then explain it to the tribe and they could also see the ships.


And yes, there are at least two kinds of perception--exteroceptive and interoceptive...

i've found there are helpful parts and not so helpful parts of that book. the book of proverbs, if that was all the bible contained, i think, would have led to far fewer religious wars and inqisitions and everything else. much of the rest of the book is open to huge interpratation and when mixed with the human ego, leads to many trips down the garden path...

i just dont want to be on that treadmill anymore

more over

as far as jesus returning is concerned

i'm pretty much convinced thats the last thing on the adgenda, as no sooner he were to return, give it about five minutes and they'll find something else to crucify him over...

thats what they are like