| |
From: Josef
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:09 AM
To: pjconway@realists.org
Subject: review challenge
I agree that much of the worlds conflict has been caused by religion, however more war has been caused by the greed of man.
In many cases religion was merely used as a guise.
Response:
That is a chicken and egg scenario; most religions are both wealthy and violent. I am also
curious as to why you did not mention the horrendous violence inflicted on humanity by atheism?
We should expect money to cause greed and war; we should not expect the intellectual concepts of atheism and theology to produce the same outcome.
I am also curious as to why you call these gods "supernatural beings". If they were just many eons in advance of us
technologically, it would appear to us as if they were gods.
They called themselves gods. I did not give them that name. If they were 'eons ahead of us
technologically," surely they would know their own identity.
Technology cannot give a man dominion over nature, or the power
to part the Red Sea, heal the sick, walk on water and raise the dead.
Perhaps it is time to take the ancients at their word?
==================================
Original Message-----
From: fox
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:17 PM
To: pjconway@realists.org
Subject: A few comments on "The Awful Truth"
Dear Mr. Conway,
Since you seem to believe that writing bluntly is a good thing (rejecting the advice of your sister to tone things down a bit), I hope you
don't mind if I state an honest opinion. On the positive side, your book brings up many issues and definitely would help expand someone's
thinking.
Response: Thank you.
As to the "tone" of my writing: we shrink from candid debate at our own peril!
I made this discovery in 1983, and spent decades genuflecting at the Ivory Tower of Academia. I warned the intellectuals that if they continued to ignore
the violence of atheism and theology; their state of denial would bring a disaster. They blew me off!
On 9/11, I realized it was time to take-off the gloves.
Atheism and theology are not intellectual disciplines: they're cults! Members of cults do not respond to concepts that challenge their paradigm:
they stonewall, and disparage the intelligence or credentials of the "intruder."
We have a choice; confront the atheists and theologians, or hope that the military can contain the violence of their followers.
I compare my confrontation with academia to that of Galileo and the dark age
priests. To the scientists and theologians, I say - BRING IT, Intellectually!
The problem is, you start out with an assertion that cannot be proven, and that you don't even attempt to prove except by circumstantial
evidence - that the gods departed in A.D. 70. I kept waiting in vain for you to expand upon that, offering something from the historical
record to show what might have happened to cause the gods to pack up and leave, but you never did. Instead, your book became more and more
strident, and dare I say, condescending to the reader. By the end of the book I felt as though I'd been preached at and talked down to, as
if we were children in need of a morality lesson. The book also struck me as needlessly repetitive.
The ruins of the ancient world provide empirical evidence for the departure / demise of the gods. If they were still interacting with
humanity, those civilizations would be vibrant centers of commerce. My determination that the pagan gods were destroyed by the second coming
of the Messiah, is a construct reached by simply correlating the prophecies with the historical timeline of the collapse
of the ancient empires.
I am convinced that it will withstand historical scrutiny.
But what really troubled me is that I just couldn't figure out where you were coming from. I've never seen an author hopscotch all over
the place in the way you did. In the same book, sometimes within a few paragraphs, you expressed the idea that the gods had departed or
died, that the Bible was never intended to apply to anyone but the Jews, and that we need to return to Biblical morality! I hate to say it
but if the Bible isn't relevant to us today, then why should we follow its moral teachings? For the good of society? Perhaps, but whose
good? The fundamentalists? The Bible-thumpers? The folks at the FCC who believe that a half second televised shot of a bare female breast
will somehow permanently corrupt our children, while almost any amount of blood and gore is perfectly acceptable?
A peek at a nude breast will not degrade a child; however, society's lack of civility can be linked to
academia teaching children they are nothing more than apes, and indoctrinating them with an "amoral" ideology.
If you think you are an ape, you will behave like an animal!
Amoral ideology is personal; and thus, incompatible with the very concept of society, which requires universal agreement. It is also the cause
of the rampant: sexual disease, drug abuse, mental illness, suicide, and violence on campus!
The theological concept of forgiveness of "Sin" is equally destructive. The combined effects of these atheistic and theological tenets on western culture are obvious.
Academia's failure to solve the mystery of human existence is the root cause of our immorality and ideological violence. An ignorant man, is a dangerous man.
Biblical history was not chronicled for the ancient Jews; they had the law and the prophets. The Bible is a poorly
translated history of the interactions between the God of Abraham and the ancient Israelites.
It has no injunctions for life in the modern world.
The history of ancient Israel has much to teach us, and those who judge themselves by its moral teachings will do well; however, it should
not be used to form religions.
As I read the last half of your book, I thought that you reminded me a lot of Paul (assuming he even existed - have you seen the article at
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html ?).
The thing is that Paul was supposedly a reformed Pharisee, yet his
post-conversion writings still smacked of the same legalism and black/white thinking for which the Pharisees were known. You were brought
up Catholic, and in many ways you've obviously repudiated your early Catholic teachings, yet it is very obvious to me (as a non-Catholic)
that they still have a very great hold on you, given your views on morality.
The Apostle Paul is wrongly disparaged by those who seek to oppose the repression of Christianity. These ideologues
will even go so far as to disparage the very concept of morality, simply because Paul had definite ideas on the subject.
When Paul's role in history is fully understood, he will be recognized as one of the greatest men ever to walk this planet, and morals
will stand.
The real problem is that any time you try to define morality, you can either try to have it decided by consensus (which doesn't work well
because everyone has a different idea of where the lines should be drawn) or you can impose it by some external force (a god, a dictator,
a book of religious teachings, etc.). In the latter situation, only those who believe in that deity or holy writ, or agree to submit to
the whims of the dictator without question or resistance, will feel bound by the morality defined thereby. You seem to want it both
ways - you would invalidate religion, but still expect people to live by some unspecified moral standard (or maybe the Christian standard
of morality, but why?).
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” It is not all that complicated. We already had that law imprinted on our hearts, the
Messiah merely articulated that reality. We all know when we harm another human.
There actually are answers to this apparent dilemma, but I can't enumerate them all in a short e-mail (which I don't know if you'll
even read). However, bear in mind that "the law of love" was supposed to be higher the even the laws given to Moses. I would strongly
suggest you read the testimonies of people who've had near-death experiences (there are both web sites and books devoted to this subject).
You probably won't like what you read there (especially since what they have to say is often very much at odds with Catholicism) but it does
offer, at the very least, the key to why we should treat our fellow humans with love and respect even if religion as we know it disappears
entirely. Here are a couple of pages you may find interesting:
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF_NDEs.htm
http://www.near-death.com/
The reason I find these web sites so interesting is because people submit their stories voluntarily and are not paid or compensated in any
way (at least not to the best of my knowledge), so I tend to trust that they are telling the truth, at least as they perceive it.
Is the account of the resurrection of Messiah a “Near Death Experience?” Do you like what you read there?
I agree that these phenomena should be carefully studied.
In any event, though I doubt you will take my advice if you would not listen to your sister, I would agree with those who would say that
you could improve your writing style. You have much to say that is good and thought-provoking, but if readers are so offended by your
tone that they mentally shut you down, your efforts will not accomplish nearly as much as they otherwise might. My particular objection,
in case it isn't crystal clear, is to the amount of moralizing you do after tearing down the reasons for adhering to the basis of morality
you seem to value highly (the Bible). I agree with a lot of what you have to say (and particularly your criticisms of modern science and
religion) but there are ways to put your points across that would be more palatable to the reader (less repetition would certainly help).
I revere the Bible as history, and use the moral strictures contained therein to judge myself – not
others.
If you are referring to my harsh criticism of academia, that is and intellectual judgment. I do not question
their intent; nevertheless, the fall-out from the conflict between atheism and theology has horrendous moral consequences.
And one other thing - if, in history or mythology there is any explanation as to why the gods may have departed in
A.D. 70, I'm sure that people would love to hear that. The other question you leave dangling is, if Jesus was only intended to be the
messiah to the Jews, then who was supposed to be the god (small "g") or messiah to the rest of us? I personally have a different take on
that (for one thing I believe that reincarnation is a strong possibility, something that even many early Christians apparently believed,
though I do not believe in interspecies reincarnation - in other words I believe that humans can only come back as humans, though possibly
on a planet other than Earth). But you seem to take the Bible pretty literally, except that you don't agree with much modern interpretation
(especially with regard to the timing of prophetic events), and that leaves a lot of other dangling questions for which you offer no answers.
There is no such thing as “mythology.” Myth is not logic; it’s fiction.
Humans are the preeminent beings of the earth in the modern world. We must be good stewards of the planet and our subjects, the animal
kingdom etc.
"Belief / Believe" are very dangerous words. I suggest you look them up in a dictionary for the precise definition.
There is much more empirical evidence on the way – stay tuned.
Having said all that, thank you for at least trying to look "outside the boxes" of religion and science. As you might imagine, I don't
think either offers complete truth, but there is some truth in each. Unfortunately there are also lies and deceptions that result in
misery and death, which I think is the point you were trying to make.
I agree. It is my position that if we study the ancient texts as history, they will reveal the truth that will liberate us from our fear
based intellectual beliefs, and give us inner and universal peace. Achieving that goal will require a sea-change in academia.
Let Us Begin!
Thank you for the critique.
Patrick
================================
-----Original Message-----
From: KingOfAllFools
To: pjconway@realists.org
Subject: reviews
I noticed that your site does not have a link for readers to send reviews of their own. I find that interesting,
considering you ( I can only assume it was the real author of this book in chat ) asked me to go ahead and make
a review. I read your site and book, you may remember me, I am a geologist. Your emperical evidence section was
quite amusing. Your conclusions are some of the worst psuedo-scientific tripe. You site not one fact that can be
supported scientifically, only by you making the assumption that "gods must have done it."
I imagine that readers are not allowed to make reviews because your site would be replete with unfavorable reviews.
I did note that your UCI review was audio only. I figured that I would not be satisfied with this review, as you were
touting it in chat. This audio could simply be you and your gardener for all anyone knows.
I wonder why you call everyone involved in science and atheist, not all are. You seem to have some major issues.
Also, I noticed that your "criticisms answered" section was entirely YOUR words...not those of others. Are you in
the practice of self criticizing?
Oh well, you asked for me to review your book and site, and here it is...from 1 to 10, 10 being best...I gave it a 2.
2 mainly because the grammar and spelling were on a high level. You research and study of ancient cultures was less than
worthy of print.
J. J....
Geologist
Author’s note: I posted this “review,” even though it is mostly a personal attack, because it does have one criticism
of the actual work.
My position that gods created the sophisticated civilizations of the ancient world is based on
thousands of years of history. Those chronologies, from every continent of the globe, were written by meticulous
scribes and historians who were on the scene.
They clearly state that they were interacting with supernatural forces
called “gods.” The artifacts and ruins support their claim.
I was excited by the “2” the "reviewer" gave for spelling and grammar, until I realized his review had two spelling
errors and several grammatical mistakes. See "emperical evidence" and "psuedo-scientific."
I suppose we should not rate a geologist on his spelling and grammar; notwithstanding, a review should be based on
the merits, and more than merely personal attack. As to my “gardener” being on the UCI interview, he is male and barely
speaks English. The moderator is female and has wonderful diction.
To listen to my interview with the philosophy dept. of UC Irvine, Click Here.
|
|