Re: The Final Freedoms

[quote author=“mfmahamed”]Perhaps we could get a psychiatrist to comment on this condition of the human mind, or maybe you could comment here Doug!.

I don’t think I’m qualified!

The Final Freedoms

Pardon me if I find it just a little incredulous that no one in this discussion has yet taken the time to download and read the source of the subject. That is when real discussion can begin. Until then, there is only prejudice. What wisdom exists within any debate when protagonists are so uninformed about what they are debating?

This debate hardly lives up to the name Centre for Inquiry when the inquiry itself is so superficial and appears unable to get past a reviewing of the review instead of making the time to study the manuscript that is freely available to anyone interested. Your interested enough to be critical but not to test the material for yourselves. 

A new claim of understanding has been made. It is a testable claim. Able to demonstrate for itself its own efficacy. That, in the religous sense is what makes this teaching new to history and revolutionary. No one needs to believe me at all. But if one is without the intellectual integrity to test it for themselves, does not that make them a hypocrit? Afraid to find themselves in the wrong?

I was interested in a recent interview with the noted atheist/evolutionary biologist Dr. Dawkins on his new book, The God Delusion. I quote: Given proof he was wrong, , he would at once change his opinions’.

So, one can hold to his [or her] predjudices or move ones mind in conformity to newer understanding. That has been the path of progress for most of modern history. And that is the new choice set before men. What they choose reflects ones underlying assumptions and values.

But beginning to question long held assumptions is often where a new insight is discovered. So it is with The Final Freedoms.

Re: The Final Freedoms

[quote author=“klatu”]Pardon me if I find it just a little incredulous that no one in this discussion has yet taken the time to download and read the source of the subject. That is when real discussion can begin. Until then, there is only prejudice. What wisdom exists within any debate when protagonists are so uninformed about what they are debating?

Actually I have downloaded the article. All 370 pages worth. It is just a bunch of baseless claims about god and his plans. So what?

What you are doing on this forum (and others , I see) is conventionally called “proselytization”, klatu. As usual, it amounts to a bunch of puffery about “the beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution”, etc.

Where is the evidence that any of it is true? The article is filled with side-notes, which link indiscriminately to various highly questionable or debunked texts, as well as (apparently) any source the author could come up with, like Milton, Shakespeare, Dante or the Who? (!!) (e.g., p. 279). Now, surely Milton, Shakespeare and Dante were wonderful writers of fiction, but they count for precisely zero in establishing the truth of any particular claim.

[quote author=“klatu”]I was interested in a recent interview with the noted atheist/evolutionary biologist Dr. Dawkins on his new book, The God Delusion. I quote: Given proof he was wrong, , he would at once change his opinions’.

Quite so. We are still awaiting the evidence. None is forthcoming in the essay, which resembles nothing so much as Mark Twain’s immortal phrase (about a different but similar essay), “chloroform in print”.

The Final Freedoms

Downloading takes only a few seconds with most broadband connections. To study the material will take some time, some effort and interest. If your only looking to debunk it, you won’t find anything anyway. Why waste your time?

But not knowing your intentions, and offering some small measure of benefit of doubt,  you might try starting with the chapter ‘Perfect Faith’, followed by ‘Test of the Human Heart’.

Re: The Final Freedoms

[quote author=“klatu”]Downloading takes only a few seconds with most broadband connections. To study the material will take some time, some effort and interest. If your only looking to debunk it, you won’t find anything anyway. Why waste your time?

It’s a good question; however, I think you misunderstand our mission here. We like to critique things like the material you brought. That is, to put it to the test of reason and evidence and see if it passes. You have come with a lot of extraordinary claims for your bit of writing. Well, we all know from reading our Carl Sagan that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So, we’re here to investigate and look for the evidence.

On this same topic, I note that the .pdf file is free for the taking, however it is locked from reproduction and apparently doesn’t show up in internet searches. Why the secrecy? Are you intending to sell this thing eventually?

[quote author=“klatu”]But not knowing your intentions, and offering some small measure of benefit of doubt,  you might try starting with the chapter ‘Perfect Faith’, followed by ‘Test of the Human Heart’.

OK, here’s how I look at these sections. They are filled with unsupported claims about miracles, god and his aims. Let’s take a few in succession, first from “Perfect Faith”:

[quote author=“Final Freedoms document”]Serious discussion of signs and miracles may appear strange in modern times, as there has been nothing available to mankind, for almost two thousand years, that measures up to the vision, which the language of scripture holds out to mankind as proof of ultimate reality.  (p. 40)

So ... what evidence do you have that these miracles happened 2,000 years ago? One would assume you will look to so-called holy books like the Bible. But why do you think the Bible is factually accurate? If you think it is accurate, what about the other so-called holy books, or books of myth, from around the world, up to and including in our present day, that claim miracles happened? (The Mahabharata, Iliad, Odyssey, Popol Vuh, etc.) For a ‘latter day’ book, what about the Book of Mormon, for example?

Further, what exact “proof of ultimate reality” are you talking about? Where is this “proof”?

[quote author=“Final Freedoms document”]God alone has determined the means and way, explained by this revelation, whereby the moral quality and purposeful nature of the divine will, should be discovered as a perfectly objective experience of the power of the living God. (p. 40)

Umm, and just how do you know that god has done all these things? Why should we believe you? George Bush says god told him to invade Iraq. I doubt you believe that god told him any such thing.

... and then there’s the background question, Why do you believe that god exists? What evidence do you have that a perfectly good, all knowing, all powerful being exists or created the universe?

The other section you mention (Test of the Human Heart) doesn’t exist; I have to assume you meant to direct me to the “Test of the Human Spirit”. Here it says things such as:

[quote author=“Final Freedoms document”]In his wisdom the living God has chosen this time and commanded this revelation of perfect truth be published; the apostasy of history, which is everything calling itself Christian to be exposed for the fraud that it is. Thereby to provide humankind with a perfect means to measure for all claims of religious understanding. (p. 53)

OK, I assume you directed me to this passage because it is anti-Christian. But first, how do you know that ‘the living God’ has done these things? What evidence do you provide? I can’t see any. Second, if your religion is so great, why is Christianity a “fraud”?

The problem with this document from stem to stern, as I said before, is that it is simply one grandiose, irrational, unsupported claim followed by another.

The Final Freedoms

Like any abstract conception, print on paper can only describe. What the material you have downloaded does, is to describe a path of faith that leads to what is other wise called a miracle.  That is the direct intervention into the natural world by the reality called God.

So reading or studing the Final Freedoms is quite worthless in itself, unless one is then prepared to put himself to the test that have been defined.  The discription of the ‘Way’ to realise this intervention begins at Chapter seventeen.

To test or not to test, that is the question? Unlike all other religious conceptions, this teaching is not about argument or reason. It is not a test of man’s intellectual vanity, but of his underlying values and what he aspires to be as a human being. It is a act of faith that leads to a absolute comfirmation of ultimate reality. Raising up his reason and understanding above that of mortality.

The only scrutiny that can be applied is to subject oneself to the terms of the test, unless your not up to it? That is of course your free will choice. 

I would offer some personal advice, based upon my own experience. While the ideas expressed are not difficult to comprehend, it is pacted with detail. Explaining much metaphor and allegory. The only way to study it is by printing it out. Scan reading from screen is almost useless. It is also useful to print out the chapter titles web page. That offers some continuity to the reader.

This requires study. One could hardly expect material with the potential to overturn thousands of years of religous history to read like comic book?

The Final Imprisonment

[quote author=“klatu”] If the ideas I have been describing do not speak to a man’s conscience, then it is of no value to him?

This statement can be interpreted to mean:

1. That the NEW RELIGION Klatu has been trying to propogate appeals to an EMOTION and has no LOGIC or REASON attached to its claims. It’s akin to saying “you either like the vanilla ice cream that I am presenting to you or you do not like it”.

OR

2. That Klatu is making a moral statement by using the word’s “man’s concience”. This means if we accept his NEW RELIGION we are morally SUPERIOR to those that might reject his claims. This statement is no different compared to nearly all other religious claims of the RELIGIOUS BELIEF versus THE INFIDEL.

If Klatu is making statement 1 of my interpretation than I find it strange that he first presented this NEW RELIGION with the aplomb of logic and reason behind his arguments when all the time he was merely appealing to the emotions of a human being.

I suspect Klatu is trying to make the second statement but as I do not wish to be presumptious of Klatu’s feelings, I leave it to Klatu to clarify

Re: The Final Imprisonment?

[quote author=“klatu”]
This requires study. One could hardly expect material with the potential to overturn thousands of years of religous history to read like comic book?

Now where did I hear this before? Ah Yes! It is no less than the claims of Muslims when I said that some of the claims of Islam borders on stupidity. The would say ” how can I state this if I have not studied Islam to the extent that the Muslim theologian has”. When I reply that I have studied Islam the Muslim will retort ” Yes but you not studied it to the extent to understand it’s meaning”.

When the debate reaches this level, I know this is the cue for me to SHUT UP. I know that no matter what evidence I might bring to the table to state why Klatu’s beliefs are not correct, it will simply be refuted with the claim:

“You have not studied the SCRIPTURE like I / WE have and therefore have NOT UNDERSTOOD it’s contents”

and also

“It’s taken decades for our masters to even scratch the surface of this profound SCRIPTURE. Surely you do not expect a superficial glance through this SCRIPTURE to enable you to have the understanding that our masters have taken decades to understand”

Re: The Final Freedoms

[quote author=“klatu”]To test or not to test, that is the question? Unlike all other religious conceptions, this teaching is not about argument or reason. It is not a test of man’s intellectual vanity, but of his underlying values and what he aspires to be as a human being. It is a act of faith that leads to a absolute comfirmation of ultimate reality. Raising up his reason and understanding above that of mortality.

Yes, this is precisely what I was saying. It’s not about argument or reason, it’s unsupported nonsense, or in other words, “an act of faith”. The document you want us all to read demonstrates nothing in itself, since you apparently need already to believe it in order to understand it. As Fayzal says, where have we heard that before? Not only is this not “unlike all other religious conceptions”, it is in fact precisely identical to all other religious conceptions, which makes it banal.

You mention intellectual vanity ... hummm, I take it that you are implying we are being egotistical by expecting claims we read to be reasonable and supported by independent evidence. I wonder if you’d say the same thing in a court of law. What seems to me vain are the outlandish and extraordinary claims you make for this dreary bit of writing.  (E.g., “the potential to overturn thousands of years of religous history”).

The Final Freedoms

Rationality? Interesting point. Is human nature rational or at least fully rational? Or is that just another unrealized human aspiration? I quote from a philosopher named Phillip Wood:

‘from the point of view of the diversity of cultures and the diversity of fauna and flora, Western modernity and its subjectivity, which is its basis, are the worst catastrophe to have hit the biospere since the giant asteroid that we are told destroyed the dinosaures and countless other species in the last known major extermination some sixty-five million years ago’.

Anyone seen the film: An inconvenient Truth? How can a species, in this case our own human species, which has reeked such enviromental havoc and degradation on the planet, and some would say, is leading to a ‘meltdown’ that would make life on earth unsustainable, how can such a species be called either ‘rational’ or ‘moral’?

Of all developments in human history, as we understand that history, this one is forcing upon the world and opening of eyes to the difference between what we are and what we think we are. And what use are the labels we give ourselves and each other when the viability of the planet is coming under threat?

So to characterize a truth claim that has the ability to demonstrate its own efficacy, that has the potential to change the direction of human development,  as anything but rational is both an intellectual absurdity and outright dishonesty.

However inconvenient this new truth may be, greatfully it does not rely upon any single discussion to exist and has been spreading nicely for the last two years, slowly and quietly mostly among anti war and environmentalist activists who, like myself, have already reached the conclusion, that the changes mankind needs to make are outside the potential of natural reason. For it is ‘natural’ reason that has created them in the first place!

So, however you may slag off this news of a new revelation and teaching, it won’t go away. It has already gone from a single web site to more than twenty that I know about and many more links from others. And the stats at just one site count almost five million hits. Having realized this new reality myself, and knowing its power, I have no doubt that it will continue until it’s full potential has been reached. But like all revolutions, even spiritual ones, there are those who start them and those who join later if they join at all?

When someone is prepared to discuss this material chapter by chapter, in the interest of testing this truth claim for themselves, I’ll always be around to offer what ever advice I can, based upon my own experience of this revelation called The Final Freedoms.

Re: The Final Freedoms

[quote author=“klatu”]Anyone seen the film: An inconvenient Truth? How can a species, in this case our own human species, which has reeked such enviromental havoc and degradation on the planet, and some would say, is leading to a ‘meltdown’ that would make life on earth unsustainable, how can such a species be called either ‘rational’ or ‘moral’?

Er, when did I ever say that as a species humans were rational or moral? In fact, I think I have been saying again and again that research shows humans to be quite irrational much of the time (e.g., experiments by Kahnemann and Tversky) and immoral (experiments by Zimbardo and others, as well as the entire history of humanity). What we see is a tradeoff between good and bad—humans will be rational and moral under certain circumstances and not others. We are at the beginnings of understanding how and when these happen, with current research into cognitive psychology.

I should also add that the data behind our knowledge of global warming is scientific data; it is thanks to one backwater of rational thinking (modern science) that we know about this and can fix it if we allow ourselves to be ‘moral’ for awhile.

I certainly agree with you that global warming is a dire threat. What it has to do with this religious Bible-fantasy we are discussing I haven’t the vaguest idea. Or is this just more marketing-talk?

[quote author=“klatu”]So to characterize a truth claim that has the ability to demonstrate its own efficacy, that has the potential to change the direction of human development,  as anything but rational is both an intellectual absurdity and outright dishonesty.

Ummm ... still waiting on this ‘truth claim’. What precisely is it? What is the argument that it is true? All the truth claims I’ve seen in this document so far are either banal, obviously false or unsupported by any evidence.

Klaatu…barata…ni*cough cough*

I find myself a little surprised that no one has yet commented on the seemingly inherent sexism and heterosexism in klatu’s descriptions of this material.  Come on, now:

This new interpretation explains the moral foundation of all human thought and conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman

Thus the ‘Law’ that had been defined by this new teaching deals with how men use their sexual member.

But for men who recognize the ‘incompleteness’ of their sexual expression, to make this expression and union perfect, the living God is prepared to intervene directly and remove lust, changing a law of nature, thus a man and woman can discover by an act of faith, a perfect expression of love and human spiritual union.

According to this new revelation, to which I must now agree, it is marriage, the love shared between a man and woman, which is the highest of human spiritual aspirations.

If the ideas I have been describing do not speak to a man’s conscience, then it is of no value to him?

Unlike all other religious conceptions, this teaching is not about argument or reason. It is not a test of man’s intellectual vanity, but of his underlying values and what he aspires to be as a human being.

(emphasis totally my own)

I don’t think any of the times the term “man” is used means “man” in the sense of “human”; I’m pretty sure this is a “man” doctrine, as I think the quotes above clearly show.  See the second quote for a conclusive example.

Am I even allowed to participate in this discussion, not being a “man”, and having no intention of getting married in such a union with one?  And what’s with the Law’s being defined by man’s use of his sexual member?  Does that mean there’s no law for women?  Does this sound like BS? 

Debbie

Good catch, Debbie. I was taking klatu to be speaking as a guy from a guy’s point of view, admittedly with an outdated, archaic style (“sexual member”?)

However, there is clear sexism even in the first couple of pages of the Final Freedoms document, e.g. from page 1:

[quote author=“Final Freedoms document”]He [Yahweh] made man in his own [spiritual] image after his own [spiritual] likeness ... Adam had Life on earth and I [Yahweh] made a garden in Eden in the East and (commanded) that he should observe the [single] Law and keep the instruction.

... This spiritual life was created for man by God to reflect his own image, and to complete his own creation.

(Parentheses and brackets in original).

As you note, Debbie, the document makes quite clear that this use of “man” isn’t in the sense of “human”. Eve isn’t on the scene yet. Later on we see on page 2:

[quote author=“Final Freedoms document”]When the man, >raised< up from the limitations of an evolutionary past, given a pure and righteous Spirit, was beguiled by the self-decieved woman, to share in an experience of moral error ...

(Arrow brackets in original. It is a very inelegant document).

All this is of course cribbed straight from Genesis.

... I am sure klatu will be back here in short order telling us all how this document frees women too.

Re: The Final Freedoms

[quote author=“klatu”]So, however you may slag off this news of a new revelation and teaching, it won’t go away. It has already gone from a single web site to more than twenty that I know about and many more links from others. And the stats at just one site count almost five million hits. Having realized this new reality myself, and knowing its power, I have no doubt that it will continue until it’s full potential has been reached.

So in the end it all becomes a number game. Muslims claim that they number over ONE BILLION and is the fastest growing major religion around. Christians number over ONE and a HALF Billion, Hinduism 800 Million. If truth of any religion can be claimed by the number of adherents than Christianity seems to be the MOST TRUTHFUL religion.

[quote author=“klatu”]Having realized this new reality myself, and knowing its power, I have no doubt that it will continue until it’s full potential has been reached.

Now this is another familiar phrase that keeps on getting repeated on Sunday Church by the preacher and faithfully echoed by members of the congregation.

Finally, thanks Debbie for showing us the myriad of faults of this sexist doctrine. If this is how women are treated I hate to imagine the sins inflicted on GAYS and LESBIANS. Maybe Levictus of the Bible pales in comparison to the NEW RELIGION of Klatu’s.

The Final Freedoms

TRADITION is not part of any criteria for truth and abuse by its institutional forms is regularly manifest. If founded upon error, it is just as capable of perpetuating prejudice and ignorance from one generation to the next as furthering any ideals of virture, wisdom or insight.

History, that final of all judges has discarded uncountable examples into its own dustbin of oblivion and progress has often required the uncomfortable business of discarding baseless reason and institution. That process, the bloody chore of prying men loose form the myths they have created about themselves and forthemselves.

Self evidently there has never been [until now I would claim] an absolute testable religious truth to arbitrate among so many existing claims. 

Among both the canonical and none canonical scriptural resources of Christianity and Judaism are more than two hundred references to false teaching. As all ‘tradition’ has been interpreted by the very human intellelcutal endeavour called theology, who can be right if no one is wrong? All can’t be right but all can be wrong! Numbers mean nothing.