"Christians Started Slavery, So They Can´t Take Credit for Ending It" Really?

Jam Patte Mark Rego Monteiro lolz. Giving white Christians credit for ending slavery. You don’t get to get credit for ending the horror (slavery in the western world) that you started in the first place! ·

Mark Rego Monteiro Jas Patte Hardly. Fruit isn´t just Fruit, apples aren´t oranges, and neither are wax apples or wax oranges the same and undifferentiated. So, you might feel good pigeonholing Christianity because it reinforces your prejudices, but what will you do when saying all fruit is the same, types and wax, and that proves as superficial as the hateful mindsets you want to oppose? "Leftist anti-profiteering commies like Obama!"? As is apparent, Reagan-era pro-rich, anti-social economic ideology has combined with Cold War anti-communist propaganda to sustain MAGA, and snuff a great character and man like Obama. Obama was a Christian, no less, who distanced himself from a radical Black Liberation Theology Christian minister. So, if you´ve heard of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you would think that applies here. Like I said, it´s superficial, and actually not a valid fallacy in a few ways. Short and sweet, Christians didn´t invent slavery, nor prevent anybody else showing that intent. Secondly, Political "Christianity" that you basically mean as countries and ruling churches, is its own sociological phenomena, while individuals following Jesus´ integrity have had unprecedented ability to accomplish things in the creaky joints of University-based, post-Reformation, Enlightenment modernizing "political" Christianity. That is inherently linked to the meaning of Jesus´ life, mission, message, and legacy. Jesus´ legacy of loving integrity led pretty directly to University-based education, which, nutshell, gives us empirical philosophy so famous in its mommy science. Constantine gave Christianity political legitimacy, and Christianity´s momentum of loving community even for soldiers made it a tidal wave that Roman´s power brokers put on like, well, armor and weapons. By 350, Anthony of the Desert had fathered Christian monks in the direction of higher integrity. By the 380s, the monk St. Jerome and the Pope (!) protested the execution of the first heretic Priscillian at the Emperor´s order. Integrity vs hypocrisy and apostasy. "Fruit" isn´t just "fruit," it´s authentic apples, oranges, and nominal wax types. So, back to slavery, Western and otherwise, was both long established and universal, and European merchants, soldiers, and political types dipped Europe into the existing African institution with tribes and Muslims. No other tradition has had the conditions where high integrity Christian activist citizens organized to end Western slavery legally, because even in England, without full democracy in their monarchy, they were able to. They were led by a dissident Anglican "insider" and recent college grad T Clarkson and a group of high integrity Christian outsider Quaker-Friends. Meanwhile, the Muslims had no intent to stop slavery as the 1816 Bombardment of Algiers demonstrated. Not to mention China and India. So, better hit the books to clear the cobwebs and let the fresh air in. The next step is perceiving the necessity of citizen action to address the other deviant "wax fruit Christian"spawn that truly has strong novel elements, profiteering corporate executives. UK workingpeople already invented the social co-op biz in the 1840s, and Fair Trade was invented in the 1980s. Food co-ops represent that well enough.

Science and Consciousness, Quantum Physics and Philosophy plus...

Pe Co Daen 1t SSlphrohnsoroemd · I have come to the conclusion that God is not a person or a spiritual being looking down at us from the heavens. God is the divinity of consciousness which we all, to some degree, possess. Science states that the whole Universe is conscious, which is in agreement with the belief that God is everywhere (omnipresent) and that God has infinite knowledge (omniscient). God is the great 'I Am Who Am' -- the Conscious Presence -- the 'Light' to which we are drawn, in order to become 'who we are to become' in this physical world. Scriptures tell the stories of humanity's growth through history and metaphor. Jesus Christ is the archetype for each of us to 'follow' and to become .... Like Jesus, our physical and spiritual natures have been born of Mother Nature (from the earth) and of 'Father God' (Divine Conscousness). The title of Christ is given to our spiritual nature -- our higher consciousness or 'Inner Christ' -- as a sign that we have been anointed with divinity. Born of the earth, we follow the path of Christ which leads to 'our' cross experiences on the earthly plane. At our death, our physical body returns to the 'tomb' of the earth while our spiritual consciousness (our holy spirit), like Christ, 'rises' to live on in union with the Divine Light of Universal Consciousness -- our 'God'. Mark Rego Monteiro @Peg C De I like your musing. However, when you want to include "science," I´m going to get a little more rigorous to help the true love flow. "Science" is the popular technical name for scientific philosophy. Normally, science doesn´t deal with anything that´s not measurable, and has spawned "scientism," where science fans get "spiritual" expressing aspects of loving emotions about the Universe and being aware of being a part of it. lol. "Consciousness" might be possible as a scientific concept, but first it relates to psychological and related philosophical concerns. Fritjof Capra has tried to express his "Systems Theory" work in terms of "science," including the Santiago school of cognition. In it, biologists look at life down to single-celled organisms as expressing that quality. A biologist, Charles Birch, I think has gotten associated with Process Theology and a view called "pan-psychism." That´s not "science," however, that´s the philosophy of religion and science, also called "metaphysics." God, I would suggest, can be pinpointed fairly precisely with philosophical reasoning, along with personal spiritual experience. WL Craig has made a good discussion of Aristotle´s First Cause logic, that Thomas of Aquinas and others have developed. Craig took it from a Muslim scholar, and calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument. God is a Higher Order Being, logically necessary as the Cause of the Universe. Jesus´ life, mission, and message help ground our relationship to God in a structured way that helps us access other masters like Buddha, Anthony of the Desert, Teresa of Avila, Mary Baker Eddy, and so on. With these insights, we can channel our own individual experience in lovingkindness and interdependent connectedness. The Quaker-Friends have an insightful view of the "inner light" in individuals as part of their basis of silent worship. Pey Co Da@ Mark Rego Monteiro -- I would be the first to point out that my knowledge of science is very minuscule. However, because I have members in my family who are 'into science' more than into religion or spirituality, I keep my eyes open for information which affirms both scientific and spiritual principals. Without going into details, I have found the beginnings of this within the recent findings of quantum physics regarding consciousness and it's affects upon matter, and which question some of their previous scientific theories. It makes sense to me that when scientific and spiritual principals agree, there you will find Truth since God is the author/creator of both. And, when they disagree, one or the other has misinterpreted reality. In my post, I was stating my belief, not necessarily the beliefs within the scientific community. Their statement that the whole Universe is conscious helps to confirm, for me, my interpretation of God's reality. They may not yet have come to the same conclusion, but I am encouraged that they are getting closer. The more they discover regarding consciousness (i.e. its role in healing, etc.), the more we may all learn about God. Quantum physics is an interesting subject to explore if one is spiritually inclined and/or interested in the workings of consciousness. · Mark Re Monte Pe Coon Dae Sure, I know the kinds of things you´re talking about. Fritjof Capra, trained as a physicist, wrote The Tao of Physics way back in the 1970s. I guess overall, though, I ´d say, We need to learn how to channel our prevailing fascination with the way the physical world works a little more prudently, and for that Harry Harlow´s baby monkey studies showing how deprived monkeys suffer is probably the most relevant, for human spiritual and psychological choices now. From there, Freud´s insights were most importantly about the relieving feeling of healthy communication, that Jung saw through to the Hindu-derived Higher Self. Not just from there, but by valuing the reality of Jesus and his legacy of loving integrity in modern University-based society, we have to recognize that science is not God. Neither is the Universe, nor its beautiful interconnected features. Testimonies of healing, especially in Christianity, are neglected by most science fans, but have medical attestations that confirm their significance. They relate to philosophy´s insights of God as transcendental, the logically necessary Creator of the Universe, beyond spacetime, matter-energy, and part of all manner of spiritual traditions. United, now, in Jesus´ legacy of University-based culture. Another angle includes M Talbot´s Holographic Universe talks about physicist David Bohm and neurobiologist Karl Pribram´s interest in Holographic phenomena (a laser beam and photographic 3-D type mix) that has pretty amazing implications. But it´s also part of how matter and energy are connected. So, I see that their most amazing significance isn´t so much from the phenomena. It´s mostly important for how it justifies the value of spiritual practice in Jesus´ legacy of loving integrity. Jung´s direction in psychology building on Freud and more justifies some great testimonies in spiritual-religious healing. All that justifies the accomplishment of Christians historically and sociologically in getting us here with science just one branch of University-based empirical philosophy. This historical and sociological stuff is part of the philosophical, which has been treated strikingly "unscientifically" by extremist science fans. Many have made a mystique of "Science" that requires demystification. It supplements spiritual practice concerns, but doesn´t make the world´s human rights violations and sustainability crisis solutions any less clear. And so, we need to learn how to stop obsessing about the way the physical world works, and for that Harry Harlow´s baby monkey studies showing how deprived monkeys suffer is probably the most relevant, for human spiritual and psychological choices now.

BLM´s Shift From Explicit Racist Events to Systemic "White Privilege" Devolves Into Inaccurate and Hostile Witchhunting

@Mark Re Mont note that i gave multiple chances for Joseph to clarify his point, but he refused to do so. he also claimed that the majority of hate crimes were perpetrated by Black offenders, while trotting out the 1350 talking point. the issue here isn't white privilege; the issue is white supremacist attitudes. plenty of people with white privilege feel no need to jump in and say "ACKSHUALLY no one group is innocent!" so yeah, connect the dots if you want...or don't. up to you.

Ia Da @ Mar Re Mon also, as a socialist, i am fully on board with a class analysis of marginalization. however, class reductionism is just as dangerous as class denialism. it's about being "yes, and."

@I Dav True enough, depending. So, "yes and" why are you trying to pin JB as a racist? He´s chafing under BLM´s colorcentric assumptions and the inaccuracies of its colorcentric reductionism. "Racial reductionism" and "colorcentric hate reductionism" themselves are operating from socioeconomic drivers, the more independent variable. We need to establish cause and effect operations, and we can if we are multidisciplinary. Actually, Christian integrity is ultimately a basic psychocultural resource that illuminates the roles of love and hate feelings in ideology or empirical reasoning. Besides cause and effect operations, to avoid reductionism, we need constructionism. That´s where BLM´s legitimate role operates with ALM, and addresses its own shortcomings caused by the primary role of socioeconomic inequality.

Here, You´re trying to pigeonhole a guy at a Progressive Christians website by imposing BLM´s anti-white supremacist and privilege systemic ideology, so the guy is responding to balance it. BLM´s colorcentrism is a secondary variable, with racism a category of violence caused by socioeconomic inequality. Japan never got colonized because they had the psychocultural resources to learn and develop Western University-based society. You´re pushing to interpret the guy JB as racist, but in bucking under the fallacies of BLM´s attempt to use colorcentric "anti-white supremacy and privilege" labelling systemically, he´s actually being egalitarian.

I´m not "socialist", because as you show, that´s a reductionist ideology. I´m pro-social and an interfaith UU Christian for spiritual practice not doctrine, and draw on empirical social analysis to identify socioeconomic inequality as the driving mostly independent variable of violence, all forms including domestic abuse, child abuse, mass murder (!), and more, and racism also. All that gets adjusted for psychocultural resources. Thus, one study shows that non-college whites have higher incomes than other ethnic groups, but higher suicide rates, also.

Thus, post-Reagan US Big Biz exec pro-profiteering ideology has offshored, destroyed the social safety net, wrecked unions in creating an anti-social culture. Scapegoated racist whites didn´t straighten up because say, Obama was elected. The GOP got voter suppression and tRump elected. All after GW Bush and gang had false premised Iraq (with Condi Rice and Colin Powell) with genocide and $ 2 tn.

Christianity is about "love" not because its soft, but because it´s smart and ultimately empirical. Direct hate into constructive objectives, not witchhunt reductionism of your preference. "Whites" could only be "supremacist" if they were objectively in a position of power overall. Also, it is White´s Christianity that needs be recognized for white´s having overcome their own ethnic tribal differences and accomplished a high functioning level of civilization in the US. FDR and Eleanor took a pivotal pro-social stance. Since then, It is pro-rich socioeconomic propaganda since Reagan that has been driving inequality and its consequence in violence.

Meanwhile beyond its specific case application in Civil Rights, at the systemic psychosocial level of individuals with values, colorcentrism obscures economic power factors in a wild goose chase, and is a hostile and dependent, secondary variable in which violence, including racism, is the venting of primary socioeconomic stresses. Police brutality 2/3 against blacks, 1/3 against non-blacks, isn´t random. It reflects broader dehumanization by the pro-rich business ideologues in (post-)Superpower America. Christian love, however, is a key resource, with Gandhi a valuable example, and socioeconomic activists what Occupy Wall St was missing, like Jackson Rising above, or here, Omar Freilla of Green Worker Co-ops in NYC.

BLM will find itself running into the grinding pain and maneuvers generated by the profiteering biz at the systemic level. It wasn´t just any "whites" who developed University-based society, after all, and went so far as to end absolute monarchy and end slavery. It was "whites" with Christian integrity. Then commerce, military, and political whites who were "anti-black," but pro-enrichment and power. This isn´t magic making, it´s about playing catch up. Europe has become Social Europe after FDR´s New Deal America led the WWII victory over bloody lust for power. The rich corp execs hooked up with a Rev Fifield and say Milton Friedman and led to the post- Reagan pro-rich, anti-social ideology that many Americans, black and white, have swallowed. Loving Christian integrity activists are playing catch up. Nevertheless, that is the key root of human rights, civil rights, and the meaning of BLM.

Someone´s Review of Saving the Appearances by Owen Barfield, Friend of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein

an'l Danehy-Oakes Difficult in places, but worth it / Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry Paperback – 1957/August 15, 1988 by Owen Barfield (1898-1997) Reviewed in the United States on September 15, 2015 Verified Purchase Owen Barfield was, for C.S. Lewis, the "Second Friend" - "the man who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the antiself. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle. He has read all the right books but has got the wrong thing out of every one. It is as if he spoke your language but mispronounced it. How can he be so nearly right and yet, invariably, just not right?" In _Saving the Appearances_, one can see clearly how Lewis must have felt about Barfield's opinions. To call the book heterodox would be to miss the point; certainly the influence of Steiner's anthroposophy is that, but there is so much in it that (I think) Lewis could have agreed with, were it not that he would disagree with the premises that led to the conclusions in question. Barfield's book is a dense one, perhaps even more so than the theological works of his fellow-Inkling Charles Williams. But (like Williams) it is readable, though some passages take serious rumination to even begin to understand. And, like Williams, he is an orthodox Christian but takes his orthodoxy to unusual conclusions, as if he were seeing it from another angle than most of us do. It is a history and philosophy of the nature of human consciousness, among other things. "This book is a study in idolatry, and especially that last and greatest step in idolatry which we call the scientific revolution." At the end of the Middle Ages, Barfield says, we lost the last dregs of something he calls "original participation," the unity of the perceiving subject with -- not the object, which is "the unrepresented" -- but the _phenomena_, our perceptions of the unrepresented. (Thus far, he is in agreement with Korzybski's General Semantics.) Barfield suggests that what we call "reality" is in fact our _collective_ representations of, not the unrepresented (to which we have only this mediated access) but the phenomena. If you and I can agree that my shirt is blue, then that blueness is a collective representation for us. Barfield begins by asking, of the phenomenon called the rainbow -- is it really there? Certainly there are raindrops refracting light and causing it to come to our eyes in a peculiar way: but there is no "there" there, if we try to chase the rainbow to its end, we come a cropper; there is no end and in a very real sense no bow. With this as his first cracker, he proceeds to attack the nut of phenomenology. "Original perception," Barfield suggests, was done away with in parallel by two movements in the West. The Graeco-Roman movement, which studied the phenomena as independent of ourselves (think of Plato's cave), ultimately gave rise to the scientific revolution, so breaking once and for all our unity with the phenomena. The philosophers of this movement sought (and seek) to "save the appearances" by explaining why the phenomena are as they are, in terms of the unrepresented. At roughly the same time as the Graeco-Roman movement, however, there was the Israelite movement, which sought to break our unity with the phenomena by declaring any unity with them, any numinous quality felt in them, idolatry, worship of images. This movement, of course, led ultimately to Christianity (and later to Islam). Starting from the idea that there was but one God, and not the gods worshipped by neighboring peoples, the priests and prophets of Judaism sought to separate the numinous from the phenomena completely, so that the phenomena "declare" the greatness of God, but God is not to be found _in_ them; indeed, he says, the Jews were not interested in the phenomena but in _morality_. It is in Christianity that Barfield sees the greatest possibility of our achieving "final participation." It is not surprising, he says, that we have not yet achieved the Kingdom proclaimed by Christ: after all, the two thousand years since He lived and died and was resurrected are piddling compared to the aeons that preceeded Him. (Barfield also suggests that we are radically misunderstanding when we think about the world before humans. There was no human consciousness in those days, so no phenomena, and so the world, which we build from phenomena, was something radically _other_.) Along the way I find Barfield saying things that I have struggled to say over the years; interpreting things, and especially things in Scripture, that have always been somewhat opaque to me ... and sometimes coming up with some wild ideas that strike me as utterly ridiculous. But there is more than sufficient wheat in _Saving the Appearances_ to justify sorting out the chaff.

"Christianity´s Successes Are Irrelevant Because of Science" Nah, Don´t Think So

@Green Peacemst The historical successes of Christianity has absolutely no relevance to the fact that in the modern era with our current understanding of science, Christianity has been completely and utterly debunked without question. Scientific naturalism and materialism are no longer just philosophy/thought/opinion that opposes religion, rather it is the unequivocal truth of our reality. The good thing about science is that it is true, whether you believe it or not. Christianity and all other religions that humans have fabricated were purely because we as a species found ourselves sentient in a world we didn't understand. A greater purpose is actually extremely important for our psychology, but the solution for seeking that greater purpose no longer lies with religion.

​ @Joph Stphns  Right. Hail, Science. I get it. No. As a spiritual interfaith Christian, I´d say, “In seeking to understand and experience God´s love through Jesus and Buddha, etc, I love scientific philosophy, and the rest of educational (philosophical) views. So let´s examine the empirical nature of your assertions. “Christianity has no relevance...with science, which debunked it without question.”

See, it is with philosophical questioning that scientists, scientific philosophers, actually do what they do. And what other kinds of philosophers do what they do. Science is not about being “unquestioning,' and that´s the most basic of your mistakes. Based on that, You don´t quite get the meaning of your own words because you are trying to substitute philosophical inquiry itself with Science Supremacism, actually “Scientism,” and for actual philosophical scholarship that governs scientific activity. It is that which interrelates it directly to the rest of University-based, Liberal Arts scholarship and ITS diversified forms of empirical philosophy. “Science is só widespread that it rules” sums up your philosophy, that you want to act as if it were called “Scientific Truthism,” and you could tag an “Ueber Alles” to connote the Nazi Supremacists. Yet, that´s só truthfully harsh, that a more diplomatic “L´Etats, c´est moi” for Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette´s Aristocratic Supremacism is nicer. That´s a nice whisper of Jesus´ spirit. You could also check into biologist turned Philosopher of Science Massimo Pigliucci´s critiques of Scientism. Well, somebody´s not asking questions, and that includes you. However, empiricism, meaning empirical philosophy, isn´t just “scientific”, but has been widely applied in the Social Sciences and the rest of the Humanities. Climate Change has been soundly studied by a UN scientific group the IPCC repeatedly, among others. That´s one issue that isn´t being opposed primarily by religious groups, but business groups protecting their profits and anti-social ideology. Beyond that, no one talks about the 2005 World Bank-UNEP-NGO Ecosystem Assessment that was bad around all kinds of environmental angles. That´s all been updated by such reports as WWF/Global Ecofootprint Living Planet Reports (i.e. Dying Planet Reports), and more.

That´s science versus big business executives. And their paid representatives worst of all in the GOP, but also gagging the Dems too much. Yet, you call scientific materialism and materialism “no longer just philosophy....” but “the unequivocal truth of our reality.” Except that businesspeople haven´t cast aside Christianity or science. They have diversely exerted their power and influence to fund Fundamentalism, especially around anti-evolutionary science which mixes in pro-life positions. That was thanks to a Rev Fifield meeting with the National Manufacturers Association in the 1950s and on from there. By the 1971 Powell Memo to the Chamber of Commerce leaked and published in the Wash. Post, they trashed Ralph Nader. All before the Reagan-era. And só on. Why is it that scientific materialism can be manipulated by profiteering businesspeople if it is “the unequivocal truth”? Because science is a form of philosophy based on studying physical objects, not the “unequivocal truth.” Apparently, Einstein said, “Science without Religion is lame, or misguided, or something.” He´s not the last word, but a good one. Gandhi went much further. Gandhi never conflicted with science, but he showed how it is philosophy, since he acted with economic activism and lifestyles in his spiritual philosophy, linked into Christianity´s basis, Jesus´ spiritual teachings about spiritual practice and growth. Thomas Jefferson´s Civil Rights and FDR and Eleanor´s UN human rights include religion/spirituality for good reasons. Churches like the United Church of Christ and the Quakers are fine bases for any progressive reformed Christian movements. Unitarian Universalism is one attempt, that I have myself co-opted in calling myself an interfaith UU Christian. You, on the other hand, don´t know Civil Rights and human social science from your personal feelings and beliefs about whatever church experience you have had yourself. You´re addicted to something, like Dawkins and co. You don´t quite get that because you are trying to substitute Science Supremacism for actual philosophical scholarship that governs scientific activity, and interrelates it directly to the rest of University-based, Liberal Arts scholarship and ITS diversified forms of empirical philosophy. The analysis continues, but this makes a nice “Z” for Zorro for spirituality and social justice, on the one hand, and the Zombie virus fiction through profit-manipulated sci-techno-control you fantasize. “Let them eat computer chips and circuit-boards” to paraphrase Marie Antoinette´s escapist aristocratic supremacism.

&&& What a load of... look im trying to be respectful, I never said Christianity has no relevance. I said that the historical SUCCESSES of Christianity (that you named) have no relevance when it comes to disproving it (the supernatural faith, not the historical accounts from the bible which can be proved without it) with modern science. Christianity certainly is relevant in an absolute sense because unfortunately many people today still have demoted themselves to believing the arbitrary human fabrications of our reality called religion. Your points about business people funding religious fundamentalism, therefore, misrepresenting Christianity is laughable because it just contributes to the debunking of Christianity in that it is a completely plastic set of ideas that change to suit the personal interests of the humans that propagate it. It is funny that you bring up Einstein as a point in favour of Christianity when he was very much an agnostic and his personal beliefs were antithetical to Christian doctrines. He specifically maintained that he didn't 'believe'* in life after death (*not even something to believe in - life is a natural consequence of biochemistry under appropriate conditions and consciousness is a result of groups of neurons sending electrical signals and neurotransmitters, there is no soul, in my view, anyone with a credible understanding of our reality cannot also believe that there is a soul, or any form of consciousness after our material bodies die.) Einstein did not believe in a god that is anything like the Abrahamic god, he did not believe there was a god with feelings, or one that had any personal connection to our planet or our species. He believed that 'god' manifests as the physical forces and quantum properties of our universe, which truly has nothing to do with the anthropocentric inventions of religion like Roman Catholicism - arguably the biggest scam in history. Einstein specifically called himself a religious nonbeliever for the explained reasons, so it is amusing that you use him to prove the legitimacy of Christianity. Your last paragraphs are basically the whole religious morals fallacy (like saying Jefferson's rights were inherently Christian therefore Christianity is legitimate because of morals). We don't need to invent supernatural stories to give us morals and purpose, in my view it is THAT which is immoral. Morality should be based on improving the human condition, improving our society, sustaining concious life and the systems that support it and improving the conscious experience of ALL humans and sentient animals (a sentient animal is what we are after all). Morality should be based on reality, not fiction.

&&& What a load of... look im trying to be respectful, I never said Christianity has no relevance. I said that the historical SUCCESSES of Christianity (that you named) have no relevance when it comes to disproving it (the supernatural faith, not the historical accounts from the bible which can be proved without it) with modern science. Christianity certainly is relevant in an absolute sense because unfortunately many people today still have demoted themselves to believing the arbitrary human fabrications of our reality called religion. “respectful” is what you do if you´re going to get to the truth, which you are trying to pull out of your “loads of ….” Your “respect” is why Jesus´ Commandments of love are not irrelevant, bro. Your “respect” gets my compassion, which were values disdained in ancient Greece and Rome except for dumb brute strength. The question of Christianity´s successes not being relevant to your fantasies of “disproof” is an argument you need to try to articulate and make. That is because Christians fueled on Jesus´ Love as Commandment learned to make LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not focus on disrespect. Either way, you are trying to make an argument about explanation, and confusing your issues of “disproof” with the issue of Christianity. You´re trying to argue that Santa Claus is fake, and it doesn´t matter that there was a St. Nicholas of Myra. St. Nicholas of Myra matters, because he stood in relation to God through Jesus. Santa Claus matters because the social sciences deconstruct his transformation and widespread Big Biz manipulation. St. Nicholas of Myra still stands on record for his Christian integrity and the spirit of Christmas time for any Joe unprejudiced and balanced enough to have spiritual=emotional intelligence. That´s just scratching it at the surface, however, as you wallow in your fallacies, one after the other. You say, “Christianity certainly is relevant in an absolute sense because unfortunately many people today still have demoted themselves to believing the arbitrary human fabrications of our reality called religion.” Nice, you just turned yourself into a circular ball of scientism snowball slush. Did that give you a rush? Yeah, don´t worry man, I can be respectful because you can´t argue your way out of scientism´s paper bag. Your points about business people... and Christianity is laughable … and debunks Christianity's plastic set of ideas....” Funny, for a guy worried about being “respectful”, you didn´t get that my point included science. You assert that science is the ultimate truth, and yet it is putty in Big Biz´s hands in the US, as if scientists have no more sense than fundies. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stepped up, as have the Physicians for Social Responsibility, in their calm and cool way that has as little relative sway as average not for profits like Greenpeace and WWF. Not quite the whole truth there. Jim Hansen has gotten arrested, perhaps having met the progressive Christian Al Gore got him hooked on the moral issues that frame the use of sci-tech by Big Biz. Other than that, scientists are trained to obey rules in their distilled Christian-derived lab rat mindsets and are more likely to wait for the authorities, or even side with Big Biz because they are deprived of spiritual backbone and morally inept. And philosophically unable to legitimize spirituality because of confusion such as your scientism. As for Christianity, you´re a little eager to jump on your own bandwagon. Just like you ignored how almost no scientists are getting arrested like Jim Hansen like Climate Change and Ecosystem catastrophe don´t matter, you bite into the mirage of fundamentalism. The point is that Big Biz up to the catastrophic end of WWII had few references to sustainability to control and manage it as it fueled insane growth. You try to smear Christians as weak fundies, but it was UK Deist Robert Owen inspired by a Christian doctor and the UK and US Quaker-anchored anti-slavery abolitionists who followed Luther and the Enlightenment, all high integrity Christians who dissented from hypocritical Christian authority. That´s where your attempt to disqualify Christian success is what is the truly laughable thing. You can´t tell the difference between hypocritical trends in Christian institutions, and the psychological-spiritual and social experience that underlies Christian integrity. After WWII, the moral extreme lunacy of the Nazis has focused Germans in their context. America, however, has had Big Biz AND a Superpower Identity pushing indoctrination. However, FDR and Eleanor founded the UN. The atheist Stalin, meanwhile, wanted to execute all Nazi officers. Sadly, your own forced attitude that you are “trying to be respectful” followed by simplistic and inane fallacy puts you more in the league of those who have committed similar fallacies of thought that they fantasize as justification. It is funny that you bring up Einstein as a point in favour of Christianity when he was very much an agnostic and his personal beliefs were antithetical to Christian doctrines. He specifically maintained that he didn't 'believe'* in life after death (*not even something to believe in - life is a natural consequence of biochemistry under appropriate conditions and consciousness is a result of groups of neurons sending electrical signals and neurotransmitters, there is no soul, in my view, anyone with a credible understanding of our reality cannot also believe that there is a soul, or any form of consciousness after our material bodies die.) Einstein did not believe in a god that is anything like the Abrahamic god, he did not believe there was a god with feelings, or one that had any personal connection to our planet or our species. He believed that 'god' manifests as the physical forces and quantum properties of our universe, which truly has nothing to do with the anthropocentric inventions of religion like Roman Catholicism - arguably the biggest scam in history. Einstein specifically called himself a religious nonbeliever for the explained reasons, so it is amusing that you use him to prove the legitimacy of Christianity. As for Einstein, I mentioned him for his wise statement recognizing religious phenomena, His personal materialistic beliefs were his and demonstrate his profession as a physicist. What´s “funny” is that I also mentioned Gandhi, who you ignored entirely. Actually, it´s more typical than funny. Shallow in your comfort zone and keen on plumbing Einstein´s own materialism. His beliefs are those of a heavily scientific materialist, só you just confirm your own bias. The issue is empirical study. “Life after death” is a secondary doctrine to Jesus´ teachings of 2 Commandments. Nor is it even emphasized in Judaism, a basic aspect of Einstein´s religious etc background. However, life after death is a Hindu belief in reincarnation, as well as Allen Kardec´s spiritism already by Einstein´s time. Maybe if Einstein hadn´t married his first and second cousin and had more concern for his schizophrenic son, he would have felt a little more driven to seek Christian and interfaith possibilities, even at Lourdes, Christian Science, or that crazy psychotherapy thing, where W Reich cured a schizophrenic. However, this is not to judge Einstein, but to classify his spiritual status with greater accuracy. Einstein´s beliefs don´t determine the reality or not of an afterlife. Empirical study does. I Stevenson MD at UVA in the 1960s started studying reincarnation in the US and abroad. Not least of all, he discovered correlations between scars in the reincarnated recipient that match deaths in the person who died. B Greyson PhD started studying Near Death Experiences (i.e.Revived from Death Exp). Using medical contexts, he gets highly precise information. That includes especially the result that previously unknown information is gained by people in NDEs. There are other phenomena and testimonies. That´s RELEVANT philosophical empirical information that can be evaluated. Your indulging in Einstein´s beliefs is an appeal to an authority like many a fundamentalist does. Your attempting to assert a materialistic definition of neuronal function and foundations, and dismiss any other possibility is IRRELEVANT to evidence of Stevenson´s and Greyson´s kind of research. That is both a reductionism and denialism fallacy, a double logical error pure and simple. You then comment on Roman Catholicism. This discussion isn´t limited to RCism, but even they have Lourdes and other testimonies. That´s a part whole fallacy mixed in with your appeal to authority and denialism. Your last paragraphs are basically the whole religious morals fallacy (like saying Jefferson's rights were inherently Christian therefore Christianity is legitimate because of morals). We don't need to invent supernatural stories to give us morals and purpose, in my view it is THAT which is immoral. Morality should be based on improving the human condition, improving our society, sustaining concious life and the systems that support it and improving the conscious experience of ALL humans and sentient animals (a sentient animal is what we are after all). Morality should be based on reality, not fiction. As for religious morals, it´s an issue with specific topics, not any simplistic fallacy. Do we need supernatural stories to give us morals and purpose....? The first empirical examination is what is the context of modern morals in the first place. As is typical of your myopic scientific materialism, you deny that science is philosophy, and make reductionistic fallacies left and right and every turn. Christianity isn´t just “legitimate” because of morals, but its origins in spiritual-religious experience, complex and multigenerational at that, which provided Jesus´ specific Jewish prophetic and heritage of one level of spiritual-religious ethical standards that Jesus took to a new level of spirituality, yet was dampened institutionally and arguably pragmatically in his legacy. This is human-related phenomena, and thus terminology and phenomena in philosophical empirical investigation are not predetermined by your preferred bias. “Supernatural stories” are not defined as such except by an ideologue trying to push caricatures. What people “need” is also not predetermined, but in need of examination. The truth is that spiritual-religious experience has demonstrated specific qualities in human accomplishments, and Christian society´s moral development. That traces events historically including Luther´s Reformation, and on the other hand the fall of aggressively secular and anti-religious ideologies like the French Revolution, Totalitarian Communism, Nazi opportunism, and the unsustainability of US-led profiteering economics. In modern times, the simple observation is that prayer and meditation, and belonging to a religious community provide various benefits. That extends to the coherence of Mosaic-Jesus Commandments and Jesus´ legacy, and its correspondence to reality. You and your view, on the other hand, try to reject philosophy as you blunder in fallacies around your prejudice. Atheist anti-theist materialists swollen on science´s widespread toys making grade school philosophical fallacies are amusing, not serious. Science´s toys have been abused, and Christianity´s resurgent high integrity demonstrates spiritual-religious experience in full form already hinted at in actual scientific studies of prayer and meditation. Luther´s Reformation was inspired by his courage in relation to an omnipotent God of the Bible after his spiritual agonizing. Beforehand, science itself was already simmering because of monastics and clerics like Robert Grosseteste in the 1300s, and the unprecedented community that Christianity made possible. You don´t know the difference between integrity in Jesus and the more complex processes of modernization and hypocrisy. Your perspective of atheist anti-Christianity is based on crude stereotyping and basic illiteracy, even in terms of the benefits of prayer and meditation and their larger significance cross-culturally and understood in the past. The “supernatural” no less has various dimensions beyond the afterlife, already empirically demonstrated in materialistically impossible healings confirmed by medical attestation and spiritual-religious testimony.

&&& ​ @Joph Stphns  Man, you are so lacking in literacy that your comments about a "load of..." and "trying to be respectful" show how you confuse your own clownish lack of literacy with the myopic and steroid-addicted beliefs about sci-tech toys and experiments. Your view can be characterized "Why, good and bad people have many qualities that can be compared to machines, and that means science and I know it all!" Widespread tools, and experiments that have lopsidedly expanded physico-bio science (not even understanding that it is actually a form of philosophy) apply nowhere else directly. Empirical philosophy has expanded the social sciences, which you barely grasp, and philosophy itself is necessary to resolve the issues among physical and human disciplines, that includes understanding "emergence" adequately and the meanings of modern terms like "transpersonal," "transcendental", and more traditional terms like "supernatural." You don´t even know David Bohm´s relevance and his ideas of implicate and explicate order, sucking as you do on Einstein´s "beliefs" like a lollipop. Just as essential to evaluating Christianity adequately, You don´t know the difference between integrity in Jesus and the more complex processes of modernization and hypocrisy. Your perspective of atheist anti-Christianity is based on crude stereotyping and basic illiteracy, even in terms of the benefits of prayer and meditation and their larger significance cross-culturally and understood in the past. The “supernatural” no less has various dimensions beyond the afterlife, already empirically demonstrated in materialistically impossible healings confirmed by medical attestation and spiritual-religious testimony. The relevance of my reference to Einstein is that he apparently acknowledged religion and science as interdependent, but that doesn´t make him a qualified expert on religions. He was a physicist with some spiritual ideas and opinions. Besides your clumsy and eager prejudicial misstep there, you IGNORED my mention of Gandhi. Gandhi, unlike Einstein, engaged in ample spiritual-religious research and practice on top of his law degree, another discipline that is relevant to human-based disciplines, and less scientific materialism. I am someone advancing the thought of morality based on reality, not fiction, and it is fictional science supremacism and scientism that you are doing. Published sources in the right direction include Fritjof Capra, Gandhi, John B Cobb´s Process Theology (based on math-philosopher AN Whitehead), and WL Craig´s arguments for the existence of God (although his personal doctrinal affiliation is largely and unwisely conservative, he has shown responsiveness to concerns about human rights). Unitarian Universalism had insightful contributors to its Principles and Sources, as well. Until you try to grapple with appropriate thinkers in appropriate disciplines, you are full of the "load of..." and pretense of "trying to be respectful..." you crudely dump in dialogue as if your pride in science´s physical achievements were not foolishness. It is foolishness. Respect modern University education´s basis in philosophical diversification and do your appropriate research. Again, Einstein is a physicist, with some spiritual ideas. Gandhi researched his spirituality in depth and conducted a rich campaign filled with the relevance of the Transpersonal and transcendent. The British Empire is full of atheistic aristocrats who failed to indulge their assumptions about military power. Their default basis was the sufficient presence of Christian integrity and withdrawal. In Africa, the British slaughtered and tortured the less spiritually sophisticated Mau Mau in Kenya, as one recent film portrayed. Until you recognize that your contradictory impulse to deny Christianity´s successes and your total inability to comprehend the interaction of hypocrisy, integrity, modernization, and the dependence of atheist ambitions on spiritual-religious experience itself, you are trapped in your absurd assumption starting with "Einstein was an expert on spiritual-religious experience." Fiction, not reality, indeed.

&&& You’re a fckwt. I was not denying Christianity’s successes lmao. Christianity and Abrahamic religion is dying, it’s end is guaranteed thanks to the information era. Yes I guess I am a scientific supremacist, pretty stupid thing to say since science does in fact rule supreme in our materialist universe. God doesn’t exist, when we both die we will meet the meaningless, timeless void where consciousness no longer exists. Unfortunately you won’t be sentient to realise that you were wrong all along though, and that you dedicated your single life to a lie. Sad. &&&

Oh, I´ve got wit allright. What you do to yourself in your sadly and poorly tutored mindset is your own perverted business. “Sad” is an emotion that represents genuine emotional feelings of disappointment, and is twisted out of shape in your “unquestioning” judgmental and blind vomit. I am something, but as a lab rat testtube junkie in a goldfish bowl, you project yourself in various amusing ways in your various ad homs. Your ad hom about a “load of...” proving again that in fact it is you that is “full of....” All That continues to be clownish. You´re trying to use words that have been developed by scholars, as if you suck a test tube, work out in a gym, and think like some locker room clown from gradeschool, “Ey, I got a pin up of a sci-tech car. Ey, everybody´s got a car. Yeah, I guess I am a car supremacist.” No, science doesn´t actually “rule supreme.” It´s like a tool that everybody is using like a car, but neither US democracy nor UN human rights are “scientific” accomplishments. “Supremacism” is not being able to tell the difference between cars and mechanics and moral reasoning and spiritual-religious experience. Similar to “White Supremacism” who confuse achievement with superiority, even when most whites are exploited by the richest in a hen-pecking system of its own. That´s why Jesus is not optional, nor irrelevant, nor tangential. As for acknowledging “Christianity´s successes”, yeah, you try to project mockery, but all you´ve done is get my words wrong. I specifically noted that you try to dissociate that from the religion´s faults in your fallacious stereotyping. I also noted that resolving your contradictions takes knowing what words and concepts like “integrity” mean among others, that takes scholarly philosophical competence. You show that you can´t step out of your locker room fantasies and see the way you bruise yourself. So, “sadly” your “stupid things to say” all end up in your face. And then you indulge yourself about your materialist views, unscientifically, more precisely, unphilosophically, and most precisely, unspiritual, and in the most encompassing sense, unChristianly. But, the love Jesus taught led to the Freedom of Religion and University study that science and profiteering businesspeople will find themselves unable to exterminate, to all appearances. You couldn´t even sustain explicit “respect,” and you sure as hell never touched the necessary respect that scholarship makes possible and requires, in fact. Don´t let the historical church door bang your head metaphorically on your way out.

"Religion Is Just Claims Based on History and Psychology..." : Is That Scientifically Accurate?

just because religion is universal doesn't mean it represents something that actually exists or correspond to anything real There are many cognitive errors which are Universal. People have all sorts of cognitive mistakes and perceptual illusions But often times these are more beneficial for our survival and reproduction So religion and the common human tendency to personify Nature, 2 assign agency to the natural world. It clearly can give us survival and reproductive advantages and it also can clearly not be an accurate representation of reality Just like we don't naturally feel that the Earth is spinning, we don't naturally feel that the Earth is revolving around the sun, we don't naturally feel that space and time are relative, we don't naturally feel the effects of quantum mechanics, there's many things that we don't naturally perceive or experience that nevertheless we have found out to be a more accurate understanding of the world Religion is just a bunch of claims based on our history and psychology, and the overwhelming majority of those claims do not jive with science

You try to evaluate “religion” with an absolute and final invalidating judgment by associating it simplistically with “personification” a psychological term in fact, in a presumptuous and dismissive sense, and “jiving with science” that itself reveals your unexamined assumptions and projected fallacies. The meaning of “universal behaviors,” “(Universal) Cognitive mistakes,” “what we feel,” and “perceptual illusions” “agency” have similar baggage in psychology´s own subdisciplinary divisions, all of which operates as epistemological subdisciplines of Philosophy. That ultimately applies no less to your ultimately conformism to the presumption that the physical sciences establish the “most accurate” basis for evaluating claims.

Except that YOUR kind of claim that “science” is the “MOST ACCURATE BASIS” of evaluating “truth,” held by many as an “absolutely objective” basis, is nevertheless equally misguided despite your care with the nuance of “accuracy.” You aren´t aware of your slipping and sliding, but your foundational reliance on “science” is itself a foundational illusion, something you not only don´t feel and perceive, but don´t understand and neglect. I felt that problem personally as early as 10th grade. The History of Science illuminates the point well, as T Kuhn pointed out in his landmark work most famously known in terms of scientific paradigms and their shifts. Philosopher of Science M Pigliucci nails the point by noting that Darwin, like Newton and all their colleagues, were called “natural philosophers” in their time still. “Scientific Philosophy” also is plausibly accurate, while “Science” gets exposed as a term that has played a popularizing role, and was switched through its delusions of grandeur of “all truth” and judge of all else as mere “pseudoscience.” Sorry, Charlie. You´ve got big muscles in “scientific philosophy´s accomplishments, but you´re not quite able to secure some things as crucial as social and environmental sustainability from techhie and greedy biz influences, along with attacks on Social Science (also subdisciplines of phil), classical Philosophy, all in addition to Religion (especially its phil forms). Moreover, you´re not clear that it is sci phil´s larger empirical philosophical method that is discernible and transferible. Thus in Therapeutic Psychology, “feelings” weren´t a term the pioneer Freud used, but “instincts.” “Passions” was used by DesCartes et al. Those are “phenomena,” and “introspection” and “empathy” are part of the relevant empirical philosophy. Psychology´s emp phil demonstrated its religious insights early as W James did a comparative study, and Freud (of non-Christian roots) found himself retreating from his invalidating stance of absolute reductionism to allowing for “historical” reality. Jung superseded him and Transpersonal Psychology began to be articulated by Maslow and others.

The discussion of Religion, thus, is best put in the context of the multi- and inter-disciplinary Philosophy of Comparative Religion. In empirical terms, it involves meditative and prayerful states , often in relation to ritual and spiritual-religious materials and practices. While sci phil orients its practitioners to try to objectify the Universe´s phenomena, spiritual-religious activity in the phil of comp rel involves relating to the Universe´s Creator and sustaining aspect. Modern Christian Philosophy of Religion was developed, like scientific philosophy, by Christian monastic schools that led to modern University-based society. Simple reductio ad absurdum arguments reveal your fallacies. All mothers and fathers of all species, human (animal), tree-living primate monkey, and all non-human animal can also be termed “maternal and paternal units.” Your desire, a common one, NOT to call your mom and dad “maternal unit” despite its depersonalized “objectivity” raises questions about legitimate psychosocial processes, “What are legitimate?” “Mommy” is a term used by children. “Maternal unit” is a term used by, well, freaks, to put it in popular terms, or those harboring intense rationalized anger and resentment, as the psychologically literate might say. Just as you don´t take seriously the notion that “maternal unit” should be used for “mommies,” “moms,” or “mothers” except as young adult scientistic slang, subjects like environmental sustainability, stakeholders, and Human Rights have raised alerts about problems because of unsustainable profiteering objectification of natural resources and non-shareholder employees and citizens who are stakeholders with Human Rights. A kind of spectrum should be obvious already that involves epistemological Levels of Explanation and complexity, all part of philosophical disciplines.

Meanwhile, you say that “we don´t naturally feel the Earth spinning, … and quantum mechanics.” The Chinese Tao is associated with a non-objective spiritual philosophy and human activity systems like Tai Chi, Chi medicine, and Chi Gong that have demonstrable effects in context. Buddhism, as well. Both spiritual-religious systems are more systematized than traditional shamanic practices, although anthropologist M Harner, and perhaps others, have started Western systems. Western scientists are studying psychosomatic healing and stress, based on broader reported phenomena often based on direct spiritual-religious phenomena, and always indirectly. Harner, and the reporting and study of Chinese, Buddhist, shamanic, psychosomatic, and diverse spiritual-religious knowledge and phenomena also involve a modernization process in University philosophical and empirical scholarship. As for Christianity, the Jewish Jesus in the Abrahamic-Mosaic prophetic tradition reported consistently that God Commands “Love God first,” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Harry Harlow´s monkey mother-infant experiments showed that mother´s love matters, and any mechanical maternal unit provides a deficient relationship. Humanistic Psychology was developed because of the problem of dehumanizing objectification in therapy techniques. Thus, again, the spectrum from “maternal unit-mom” to environmental sustainability to shareholder-stakeholder-Human Rights leads to the effects on people of secular materialism in an objectified Universe. Fragmented, disconnected rationalists exploited by business profiteers supporting Fundamentalists. Identifying the Universe´s Creator and Sustainer based especially on the teachings that underlie modern University-based modern empirical forms of philosophy including the very prominent scientific philosophy, i.e. Jewish Jesus Christ´s Commandments about love and spiritual practice, isn´t simplistic “personification” and fantasized “agency.” That is recognition of the coherent and consistent spiritual and religious experience that underlies the Universe´s relationship to Western culture and the individuals that have been building it. Trying to invalidate religion is like trying to call your mom a “maternal unit” and the rest, and invalidate psychology because humans are evolved animals with classifiable survival characteristics and traits. Humans evolved sweat, too. Don´t invalidate human cognition just because of that, along with your anti-religious and anti-theist errors and epistemological fallacies. “Humans sweat, só of course they don´t need to think like their maternal units try to teach them.” That´s an analogy of your fallacy, só you know.

Do You Believe In God?

Do you believe in God? I like this question also, and it´s a good sign that this question gets raised in places. Do I believe in God, and does it matter?

My start in Unitarian Universalism and spiritual philosophy with the Chinese Tao have come a long way, thanks to many influences including especially Buddhist psychology, the 12 step groups for relationships like Al-Anon, Christian Science, not-for-profit ecosocial justice activism like Greenpeace and food co-ops, and my masters using psychosocial Social Constructionism. I´ve been able to use my education to deconstruct "science" and economics from their "Master of the Universe" illusions back to human empirical philosophy, linking it to the other branches including Religious Studies. Thus, contemplative experience and scientific study can supplement the need to value spiritual practice, a person´s inner life, psychological growth, God´s transcendence, and community life that can inspire and support. Below is the reflection that led me to this summary....

I had oriented myself thanks to a friend´s casual question in high school, my dad´s books including Huston Smith´s classic, and a local Unitarian Universalist congregation. I recall Smith describing the Chinese Tao as "a creative continuum that is always accessible." To my atheist humanist upbringing and in my moderately privileged circumstances, that shifted the scientific mechanicist/materialist view I/we was/were getting in school enough that I remember saying, "If there´s a God, that´s it for me!" Yet, UUism defined nice and clear then in 1981 their support of individual spiritual paths. The process of personal learning and growth was laid out for me.

The question of "inner spiritual reality" certainly prevailed in me, as scientific materialism prevailed in the external world of people and objects. Therapeutic psychology and creativity offered slight variations. In neurophysiological studies in college, I noticed that some groups of scientists assumed cognitive control of emotions, while evidence indicated emotional initiatives. Right and left brain dynamics also seemed relevant. Harry Harlow´s baby monkey studies, as well, among others.

I recently heard P Clayton of Claremont Theology describe a mental illness of brain damage that has people satisfied with sensing God and engaging in quiet activity. He also is acquainted with an old prof of mine from college Bio Anthro. He left the subject of spiritual reality uncomfortably in that vein.

Then came psychosomatic healing. After college, a year in Africa, and starting to work in NYC Soc Svc, Louise Hay´s You Can Heal Your Life was brought to my attention thanks to a Haitian colleague, as were the 12 step groups thanks to a recovering colleague. Consultants also introduced us to emotional awareness counseling, and Milton Erickson MD. Intrigued, I got a book on Erickson, and discovered a modern creative and communicative genius, whose work took hypnotherapy and lifestyle wisdom with amazing results.

That, and martial arts self-defense training, holistic arts classes like Buddhist psychology and shamanism, improv and regular acting all deepened my sense of personal growth and possibility. My ecosocial justice activism also guided me in volunteering for Earth Day 1990 and more.

I was also doing some songwriting with percussion, and my Soc Svc workplace literally self-destructed because of corruption causing conflict. I began to write.

All this involved my psychological level of experience, until a flashback of childhood mistreatment took place. Besides that, a small collection of visions took place that appear related to extended psychological knowledge of my father´s circumstances, another two with experience of possible reincarnation significance.

Yet, my life just continued with standard demands. I found Christian Science at its Reading Rooms that structured my basic sense at that point of "divine guidance" and Higher Power restoration" with God´s Divine Love and Mind, and more, and testimonies of healing and other blessings.

As I pursued my masters at mid-life, researching pro-ecosocial enterprise mostly based on modest European innovations, but spread internationally. Thanks to both Christian Science´s ambitions to refer to early Christian and OT healing, and UUism´s own Christian history, I began to question secularism in University-based democratic and activist Civil Society type of society. I traced it first to Thomas of Aquinas and Francis of Assisi, in Jesus´ legacy, perhaps Anti-Slavery efforts as well already.

After all that, I moved abroad to marry and start a family in a non-English speaking, developing post-colonial nation where my Dad was from in Brazil. That experience was rough and tumble, but fried my hamburger of a self a little less raw, Because I had a transition from fear of economic abandonment to increased trust, despite a lack of standard abundance in a low income simple lifestyle with a wife and kids in a post-colonial land. And then I bumped heads with the anti-theists.

In addressing their ideological objections for evidence and definitions, I have thought further through the meaning of spiritual practice in prayer and meditation, etc as relational to and with God. The scope of the Jewish prophetic heritage of Jesus has become clear in its fairly involuntary character, that shifted with Jesus teaching about God as parental, emphasizing love foundationally, and the need to "seek" and "pray." And even Jesus´ perspective beyond words of "God´s will," that people needed to "go and learn," and that people would "lay hands on the sick," and do "greater things" as "God teaches, and those who listen and learn would arrive in me (Jesus)." John 6.

And then WL Craig. Aristotle´s First Cause (that he rejected) and the thinking of Anselm, Aquinas, and DesCartes, and Islamic scholarship gain a modern form in Craig´s Kalam Cosmological Argument. God as Creator of the Big Bang hypothesis and (quantum) Higgs field conditions. God as identifiable in Jesus´ Resurrection, and the powerful textual implications of the NT. Psychosomatic healing, and Transpersonal factors and qualities had been a major guide for me. Testimonies of healing in Christian Science had already given me a view of God´s Transcendental reality as healing and beneficial through Jesus´ legacy. Medical attestations like Marlene Klepees healing from cerebral palsy brain damage through a prayer-vision-new church sequence recorded at the Mayo Clinic exceeded the basic materialistic biological and psychological mechanisms and processes. Unfortunately, televangelists like Joel Osteen are able to access the wonders of transpersonal healing without being faced directly with Jesus´ concerns about "Manna," which modernize as socioeconomic injustice and sustainability. The paths I see to creating the psychosocial conditions to address that require contributing to the efforts already in that direction, whether Equal Exchange organic and Fair Trade food co-op Corp´s Interfaith Network or the Evangelical Environmental Network, and more.

My start in Unitarian Universalism and spiritual philosophy with the Chinese Tao have come a long way, thanks to Buddhist psychology, the 12 step groups for relationships like Al-Anon, Christian Science, and my masters using psychosocial Social Constructionism. I´ve been able to use my education to deconstruct "science" from its "Master of the Universe" illusions back to human empirical philosophy, linking it to the other branches including Religious Studies. Thus, contemplative experience and scientific study can supplement the need to value spiritual practice, psychological growth, and God´s transcendence that can inspire and support.