The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God

[1aguar]

Humanism teaches--the individual need answer only to himself. He is his own judge. Lying is a relative term and therefore doesn't exist if the person thinks it is OK. (The end justifies the means.) Humanism teaches--Man is basically good and therefore is able to determine his own best values by himself--a child is able to determine his own best values at any age (Efforts are now being made to lower the age of statutory rape to 14 years old). Sex is a physical animal need that must be gratified in any way that the person deems best. Since guilt and shame do not exist, and no one can do any wrong, there is no need for forgiveness and/or punishment. Suicide, adultery, abortion-on-demand, sadism and masochism, sex and nudity in public, incest, prostitution, sodomy, masturbation, pornography, euthanasia, drug use, etc. are all OK.

Humanism teaches--total hostile rejection of traditional beliefs and substitution of man, evolution, amorality, basic goodness of man, and one-world system in its place. Humanism teaches--one-world system ruled by an intellectual elite (The Humanists.)

Humanism teaches--man to follow his own changing values and be responsible for the consequences of his actions (abortion, illegitimate births, lesbianism, homosexuality, murder, hatred, strife, contention--in general--let it all hang out).

Humanism denies life after death, and no man need recognize ANY authority beyond himself.

Humanism teaches--there is no certainty because there is constant change (evolution), therefore law must be continually changed to the whims of man who is the Supreme Being.


Hatonn explains that man cannot change the Law. Man has tampered with Scripture as it relates to sex, to suit his own beliefs.

What you are being given in the current PLEIADIAN CONNECTIONS series is the Truth of how life WORKS. You will find that the physical is only related to that which is SENSED. Spiritual is that which is KNOWN. The two are hardly connected except that the physical body is an extension of the eternal Mind--for use of that mind in a physical environment--to serve.

Attitudes such as those considered "OK" in your slang terminology are simply not acceptable behaviors in the higher experience where the "body physical" is a most unimportant portion of experience. SENSED existence is a very "primal/primitive" state of Being.

Is masturbation evil? It depends on the intent! It is certainly NOT SOMETHING MANDATORY TO GOOD HEALTH. I cannot sanction such a projection as coming directly from God for it simply is not so! Does this lessen the writer? NO, only the perception. It is very hard for mankind to come into clarity and accurate perception. Does this make the book evil and the author unworthy? No, it only means that the author is a human and that the book must not be published AS GIVEN DIRECTLY OF GOD--THAT, DEAR ONES, IS WHAT IS INCORRECT ABOUT YOUR BIBLICAL REFERENCES--THEY HAVE BEEN TAMPERED BY MAN TO SUIT THE BELIEF OF MAN.

Any Earth person can publish anything they please and many are worthy of great note--however, if publishing is IN THE NAME OF DIRECT STATEMENT AND RULES FROM GOD--NO. It, further, is my responsibility to sort the two. Would you consider me a friend to allow publication of material which is NOT correct to go forth and the soul of even ONE be misled?

I care not what YOU think about the "hereafter"--I KNOW what is there and I know about the prepared places and little human of Earth will abide by the Laws as laid forth and practiced by those where and with whom you will be placed--OR, you will be left to your own demise.

This simply is the way it IS and I cannot change it to suit your hurt feelings or arguments--WHAT IS--IS! WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND ANYTHING? So be it--however, your Earth Shan gets in worse and worse condition, run by total chaos and insanity so, if I were you, I would begin to consider these points most carefully indeed.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_36.pdf

[1714255650]

1714255650

[1714255650]

1714255650

[1aguar]

In sum:
GOD is love.
Humanists deny GOD's existence and deny life after death; they claim that sex is love.
Humanists cannot address the 52 points of evidence that support life after death, and they are also mistaken about GOD.

[TECSHARE]

Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.

[n2004al]

Socialism requires the destruction of all religion, because under socialism the state is the highest authority, not any concept of spirituality or humanity. The question really isn't if you believe in God, but if you believe the state should have the authority of God. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you are a totalitarian socialist. In that case you will say anything to destroy any form of religion because it challenges the universal supremacy of the force of the state, and challenges your own state centered religious dogma and faith based worship of socialism.

This is not progressive... this is taking the same lump of shit and putting it on a different loaf of bread and pretending that some how, by the miracle of socialism, it is not shit any more.

That's correct. I lived in a country in which socialism was the dominant dogma for more than 40 years. The people, under the guide of party has abolished the religion for about 30 years. But yet religion was not dead even the state wanted the substituted of religion with new dogmas: the creation of the new men without the chains of the believing. But with the fall of the regime the religion flourished immediately. Religion is within every man. Even those who don't believe in God believe in something else. Me, for example, believe in the human mind.

Does the human mind go on after death? The only evidence that we have for something like this, comes from outside the human mind. Science doesn't say it at all! Obviously, there are greater religions than the human mind.

Good and live philosophy. Seems like the dilemma of Hamlet at the Shakespeare work with the same title: To be or not to be. For sure I choose to be. And for sure i chose that there is not human mind after death. This is scientifically proved. There is not activity in the human mind after the death. Nor in the mind and nor in the body. Everything is gone. End. So, enjoy since your live.

[BADecker]

Socialism requires the destruction of all religion, because under socialism the state is the highest authority, not any concept of spirituality or humanity. The question really isn't if you believe in God, but if you believe the state should have the authority of God. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you are a totalitarian socialist. In that case you will say anything to destroy any form of religion because it challenges the universal supremacy of the force of the state, and challenges your own state centered religious dogma and faith based worship of socialism.

This is not progressive... this is taking the same lump of shit and putting it on a different loaf of bread and pretending that some how, by the miracle of socialism, it is not shit any more.

That's correct. I lived in a country in which socialism was the dominant dogma for more than 40 years. The people, under the guide of party has abolished the religion for about 30 years. But yet religion was not dead even the state wanted the substituted of religion with new dogmas: the creation of the new men without the chains of the believing. But with the fall of the regime the religion flourished immediately. Religion is within every man. Even those who don't believe in God believe in something else. Me, for example, believe in the human mind.

Does the human mind go on after death? The only evidence that we have for something like this, comes from outside the human mind. Science doesn't say it at all! Obviously, there are greater religions than the human mind.

Good and live philosophy. Seems like the dilemma of Hamlet at the Shakespeare work with the same title: To be or not to be. For sure I choose to be. And for sure i chose that there is not human mind after death. This is scientifically proved. There is not activity in the human mind after the death. Nor in the mind and nor in the body. Everything is gone. End. So, enjoy since your live.

Throw rock into pond.
Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.

Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.

Just because science is too stupid to see the mind ripples after the brain dies...

[Beliathon]

Throw rock into pond.
Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.

Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.

This is actually not a terrible analogy, however you made one important error. The "ripples" our brains create in life do not represent our mind, but our thoughts, expressed through spoken language and written word.

Those thoughts we commit to the net will live on long after we're dead. Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.

Live mind in pond of life.
Mind creates thought ripples.
Brain dies and mind is gone,
but thought ripples carry on
through those whose lives we have touched.

[BADecker]

Throw rock into pond.
Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.

Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.

This is actually not a terrible analogy, however you made one important error. The "ripples" our brain creates in life do not represent our mind, but our thoughts, expressed through spoken language and written word.

Those thoughts we commit to the net will live on long after we're dead. Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.

Live mind in pond of life.
Mind creates thought ripples.
Brain dies and mind is gone,
but thought ripples carry on
through those whose lives we have touched.

All the mind is, is a complex compilation of thoughts... at least that we know of.

When the mind is no longer influenced by the brain, the complexity is influenced by all of nature that it reaches and reacts to. Thus, the complexity is changed.

The question isn't about the mind not going on. The question is about what it becomes as it becomes one with the "vibrations" of the whole universe. Just as the ripples in the pond become one with the pond as they dissipate, even so the mind becomes one with the universe as it dissipates.

Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things, if only through cause and effect down through the ages. Thus, until we find out for sure what happens to the mind, if it absorbed by nature, or if God directs it in other ways, the only thing that we can be sure of is that it goes on after cessation of brain activity.

[Beliathon]

Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things

We both believe wild and amazing things, BADecker. The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't. It's a matter of intellectual integrity in which I find you lacking.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[TECSHARE]

Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things

We both believe wild and amazing things, BADecker. The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Too bad you have so much trouble citing that evidence.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things

We both believe wild and amazing things, BADecker. The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Too bad you have so much trouble citing that evidence.

Mark Twain: “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

[1aguar]

Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.

The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't. It's a matter of intellectual integrity in which I find you lacking.

Where is the evidence or reasoning to contradict the 52 points on the near-death site which demonstrate that mind can exist outside of the brain?

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a36

I conclude that the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics; that point neatly summarizes the other 51 points.

Why does Beliathon reject this evidence? Will he tell us?

[1aguar]

Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.

Ah, I see you don't want to discuss humanism, but notice how it is humanist ethics that Beliathon is advocating!

I have posted evidence that negates the foundation of humanism (denial of life after death). This undermines humanist ethics as well.

You wanted to discuss "the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas"??

Humanism is the dogma that I am attacking; Marx has stated that Marxism is not different from humanism!

I hope you will agree that humanism has been discredited.

[TECSHARE]

Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.

Ah, I see you don't want to discuss humanism, but notice how it is humanist ethics that Beliathon is advocating!

I have posted evidence that negates the foundation of humanism (denial of life after death). This undermines humanist ethics as well.

You wanted to discuss "the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas"??

Humanism is the dogma that I am attacking; Marx has stated that Marxism is not different from humanism!

I hope you will agree that humanism has been discredited.

I don't want to discuss any topic interwoven with God or faith based logic because it is a pointless discussion that never ends and only serves as a distraction from facts. You didn't just discredit humanism, you also threw in a bunch more bullshit about God, giving this asshat Liathon all the ammunition he needs to no only dismiss everything you say, but then use you to push his logical failures and inconsistencies down the page and get away with ignoring them in favor of having your pointless arguments about God which he knows FOR A FACT he can't be proven wrong about.

[1aguar]

Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.

Ah, I see you don't want to discuss humanism, but notice how it is humanist ethics that Beliathon is advocating!

I have posted evidence that negates the foundation of humanism (denial of life after death). This undermines humanist ethics as well.

You wanted to discuss "the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas"??

Humanism is the dogma that I am attacking; Marx has stated that Marxism is not different from humanism!

I hope you will agree that humanism has been discredited.

I don't want to discuss any topic interwoven with God or faith based logic
because it is a pointless discussion that never ends and only serves as a distraction from facts.
You didn't just discredit humanism,
you also threw in a bunch more bullshit about God,
giving this asshat Liathon all the ammunition he needs to no only dismiss everything you say,
but then use you to push his logical failures and inconsistencies down the page
and get away with ignoring them
in favor of having your pointless arguments about God
which he knows FOR A FACT he can't be proven wrong about.

First, let me say that I agree that Beliathon is "behaving" in favor of ignorance and against truth; however, unlike you, I think he has no leg to stand on.

1. It is not "faith-based logic" that discredits humanism; rather, it is evidence from observation and reasoning; I made 52 salient points and they are all logical, they evidence the fact of life after death.
2. Lie-a-thon can ignore all he wants, and he can even lie if he sees fit; he is a humanist, after all, so for him and all humanists, Lying is a relative term and therefore doesn't exist if the person thinks it is OK.
3. I am pointing out his failures and inconsistencies as regards the evidence for mind-outside-of-the-brain. He was still arguing with BADecker about this even after he was shown the evidence.
4. What cannot be ignored is the record that is being posted here. Beliathon ignores both you and me, so his arguments are failing.
5. I have posted a record too. Anyone may choose to ignore it. However, it is the truth about GOD, so by ignoring it you are no better than Beliathon who will undoubtedly probably ignore the truth outlined in the above 4 points.

[1aguar]

Hatonn talks about the need for each one to be responsible for waking up to the truth about GOD; he has produced a vast volume of writings, but he cannot demand that you believe them.

I simply ask you to take note at how many people pronounce edicts regarding our work and word and how many of YOU labor long and hard in trying to change perceptions--when the persons involved have not, nor have any intentions of so much as reading the work and word in point. I am continually amused at how many tell me to "go back to Christ!" How so--I TRAVEL WITH YOUR "CHRIST"!! AND, FURTHERMORE, IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ MY WRITINGS--IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED. So, WHO is the fool? Well, perhaps "me" for wasting your time with it for, after all, I have all the "time" in the Universe--and you are VERY LIMITED IN THAT COMMODITY. I would ask you, however, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DOING THAT TAKES SO MUCH "TIME"?
...
you CANNOT DEMAND THAT A PERSON BELIEVE ANYTHING. Therefore, what is your RESPONSIBILITY? Always it gets down to "responsibility". You can "offer" but more than that--you are efforting to "cause" through one form of coercion or another--your "opinions" upon another and manipulate that "other's" responsibility aspect. Remember Little Crow's rather "crude" but impressive statement?: "People are too lazy, wanting somebody to help them see the light. Get off your dead ass and look for the light yourself. Find the switch, turn it on..." You cannot do a thing FOR somebody else any more than you can have the right nor the capability to take on another's responsibility.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_85.pdf

[TECSHARE]

5. I have posted a record too. Anyone may choose to ignore it. However, it is the truth about GOD, so by ignoring it you are no better than Beliathon who will undoubtedly ignore the truth outlined in the above 4 points.

I mostly agree with you, and you have a right to believe whatever you like. My point is that bringing your beliefs about God into the conversation is not only pointless but counterproductive. A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.

Just because most of your arguments are valid does not mean the little bit of adding arguments about God is ok. If I gave you a gallon of ice cream and told you "Don't worry, there is only a LITTLE bit of shit mixed in with it, its mostly delicious ice cream." would you still eat it? Of course not, because that little bit of shit spoils the whole lot.

As you correctly stated, he has no leg to stand on, so why give him one by bringing God into it instead of just punking his ass with facts that he has no reply to?

[1aguar]

You always have the choice of accepting something and rejecting something else; it is simply a matter of education and effort.

So much thought, so much effort, so much energy wasted denying what is right in front of your eyes. I know you're afraid theists, afraid of the unknown.

But there's nothing to fear, there never has been. The unknown is nothing more than a shadow on the wall.

I think Beliathon fears to acknowledge the truth about GOD just like he refuses to acknowledge life after death. I am not acting out of fear by offering these writings to you for your consideration. If you want to reject the Phoenix Journals, go right ahead; I have still posted the evidence from the near-death site which refutes humanism; Lie-a-thon ignores what is in front of his eyes at his own peril; if he does not want to respond, it is because he is afraid.

Hatonn talks about the need for each one to be responsible for waking up to the truth about GOD; he has produced a vast volume of writings, but he cannot demand that you believe them.

I simply ask you to take note at how many people pronounce edicts regarding our work and word and how many of YOU labor long and hard in trying to change perceptions--when the persons involved have not, nor have any intentions of so much as reading the work and word in point. I am continually amused at how many tell me to "go back to Christ!" How so--I TRAVEL WITH YOUR "CHRIST"!! AND, FURTHERMORE, IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ MY WRITINGS--IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED. So, WHO is the fool? Well, perhaps "me" for wasting your time with it for, after all, I have all the "time" in the Universe--and you are VERY LIMITED IN THAT COMMODITY. I would ask you, however, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DOING THAT TAKES SO MUCH "TIME"?
...
you CANNOT DEMAND THAT A PERSON BELIEVE ANYTHING. Therefore, what is your RESPONSIBILITY? Always it gets down to "responsibility". You can "offer" but more than that--you are efforting to "cause" through one form of coercion or another--your "opinions" upon another and manipulate that "other's" responsibility aspect. Remember Little Crow's rather "crude" but impressive statement?: "People are too lazy, wanting somebody to help them see the light. Get off your dead ass and look for the light yourself. Find the switch, turn it on..." You cannot do a thing FOR somebody else any more than you can have the right nor the capability to take on another's responsibility.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_85.pdf

[1aguar]

A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.

Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.

[TECSHARE]

A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.

Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.

That is a fallacious statement. Any time you use worlds like all, every, none, never, etc you should reexamine your statement, because it is likely incorrect. Not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.

[1aguar]

A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.

Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.

That is a fallacious statement. Any time you use worlds like all, every, none, never, etc you should reexamine your statement, because it is likely incorrect. Not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.

"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link

So why don't YOU tell me what else they could be? I have already examined the topic and found all non-humanist atheists to be "fakes". They don't ever address the evidence for life after death and what it could mean.

I have backed up my claim with this quote from the anthropologist Jack David Eller; who is backing your claim?