While many words have been written about the differences between evolution and religion far few have been written about the similarities and parallels between the two – that is mainly the parallels between Christianity and Evolution. The point is that there are many parallels and understanding this will uncover the dynamics of the conflict that has been raging for the past 150 years.
When we look at evolution we find that it parallels Christian thought. This is most easily seen by treating Christianity as evolution. We begin by posing the question, “If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”
Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence. If we treat Jesus as an evolutionary prototype we will find that he exactly fits the evolutionary model for a prototype. Jesus was different at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his survivability by being resurrected. Members of the old species are faced with the choice of transforming and becoming like Jesus or becoming “extinct”. From an evolutionary view point Jesus is the prototype for mankind's next evolutionary leap. While Jesus did not procreate - his "spiritual genes" are in billions of people making him the most prolific of all humans.
There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. It would seem that Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and transformation became mutation. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.
What needs to be brought out is that Darwin’s evolution was not as novel and original as many people believe. He plagiarized 19th century Christianity and this I believe is the true source of the conflict. At the core both Christianity and Evolution are very similar but with differences that lead to strikingly different philosophical values. Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.
If evolution is built on a plagiarized Christian foundation then the strength of evolution as a world view must in turn validate Christianity also. The point is we may not have a correct understanding of the Christian message but its ideas and thought forms are so powerful that no one can ignore them and many wish to use them for their own ends.
A definite parallel is that many people believe organisms to be perfect or, at least, optimized.
Within Genesis, this has nothing surprising, especially if some creatures are copied carefully. But within Darwinism, I find it to be too easily accepted.
Example (not necessarily taken from scientific groups, but rather from TV programmes): If an animal has a variable body temperature, this is optimum because it helps minimizing heat losses during night or winter. But if another animal has a constant body temperature, it's optimum because it allows to maintain activity despite cold conditions.
Well, I would prefer to say that both animals are just viable, not necessarily optimum, and that evolution and selection aren't that drastically efficient. Look at the human's vermiform appendix: It has no use and killed many individuals at pre-surgery times. But it still exists.
So as Darwin proposed the selection process that would lead to a result close to the perfection of Creation people had learned before, this process gained an approval that leads to overestimate its efficiency.
Within Genesis, this has nothing surprising, especially if some creatures are copied carefully. But within Darwinism, I find it to be too easily accepted.
Example (not necessarily taken from scientific groups, but rather from TV programmes): If an animal has a variable body temperature, this is optimum because it helps minimizing heat losses during night or winter. But if another animal has a constant body temperature, it's optimum because it allows to maintain activity despite cold conditions.
Well, I would prefer to say that both animals are just viable, not necessarily optimum, and that evolution and selection aren't that drastically efficient. Look at the human's vermiform appendix: It has no use and killed many individuals at pre-surgery times. But it still exists.
So as Darwin proposed the selection process that would lead to a result close to the perfection of Creation people had learned before, this process gained an approval that leads to overestimate its efficiency.
“If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”
Why would you need a prototype if the human species is created by a supreme being?
You misinterpret the purpose of Jesus as a human. He was a mediator for all humanity, and a role model for humane treatment of others.
Darwin's evolution is a feeble attempt to explain life on earth without a creator.
That's the argument.
Why would you need a prototype if the human species is created by a supreme being?
You misinterpret the purpose of Jesus as a human. He was a mediator for all humanity, and a role model for humane treatment of others.
Darwin's evolution is a feeble attempt to explain life on earth without a creator.
That's the argument.
QUOTE
Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence.
I beg to differ......
I would argue that many more people have had more of an influence than Jesus. Isn't it a bit conceited to claim that Jesus is the most influential?
You are going to ignore Roman Emperors, Rulers who began massive wars?
Hitler started a war that killed millions, disenfranchised a large group...which directly lead to the state of Israel....which has been even more contentious...
Hitler is much influential than Jesus....
What about Confucius, Gautama Siddhartha, Lao-Tzu?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence. |
I beg to differ......
I would argue that many more people have had more of an influence than Jesus. Isn't it a bit conceited to claim that Jesus is the most influential?
You are going to ignore Roman Emperors, Rulers who began massive wars?
Hitler started a war that killed millions, disenfranchised a large group...which directly lead to the state of Israel....which has been even more contentious...
Hitler is much influential than Jesus....
What about Confucius, Gautama Siddhartha, Lao-Tzu?
So as Darwin proposed the selection process that would lead to a result close to the perfection of Creation people had learned before, this process gained an approval that leads to overestimate its efficiency.
You know that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.....you actually got the two backwards. Darwin did NOT propose that at all
QUOTE (phyti+Jul 2 2007, 07:13 PM)
Darwin's evolution is a feeble attempt to explain life on earth without a creator.
That's bogus. Evolution describes is what happened with life AFTER it started. Include or remove a creator at your own risk.
It's getting apalling seeing the depths people will sink to put words in the mouth of science.
Once again, on the subject of a god/creator - science remains neutral.
That's bogus. Evolution describes is what happened with life AFTER it started. Include or remove a creator at your own risk.
It's getting apalling seeing the depths people will sink to put words in the mouth of science.
Once again, on the subject of a god/creator - science remains neutral.
Hold on no1nose you are being just a little too cryptic. 
1. By “spiritual genes” do you mean everyone who has believed in Jesus has Jesus living in them (spiritually)? If so then I would agree with you as in this sense Jesus would have billions of direct progeny
2. Are you saying that the concepts and ideas of Evolution are just a perverted form of Christianity? If so I may agree – but the issue here is proving whether or not this “perverted Christianity” is actually happening in the real world. That, I think is the real issue.
1. By “spiritual genes” do you mean everyone who has believed in Jesus has Jesus living in them (spiritually)? If so then I would agree with you as in this sense Jesus would have billions of direct progeny
2. Are you saying that the concepts and ideas of Evolution are just a perverted form of Christianity? If so I may agree – but the issue here is proving whether or not this “perverted Christianity” is actually happening in the real world. That, I think is the real issue.
QUOTE
but the issue here is proving whether or not this “perverted Christianity” is actually happening in the real world. That, I think is the real issue.
Evolutionary theory attempts to describe the natural world but fails in many important ways to do so.
From Quantum Theory we know that the natural world is discontinuous. This fact is also reflected in the fossil records where there are many unexplained gaps. According to Evolution, life evolves in small changes in a smooth and continuous manner. However there is ample evidence that this basic assumption does not fit the real world nor can it explain the evolution of many complex biological structures such as the eye. Evolutionists have avoided facing this issue by saying future findings will fill in the gaps. It is far more likely that futures findings will only create even more gaps.
We know that the natural world is governed by nonlinear equations such as: e = mc2. Being nonlinear means that rate of change of any system can at time vary widely. This too is reflected in the fossil record where there are times when many new species appear to have come into being all at once. Evolutionary theory is linear and sequential in nature, that is: a + b = c. It reflects the way we think and not the way world actually is. We are unable to think rationally in a discontinuous or nonlinear manner and this is why Relativity and Quantum Theory are so hard for people to get their heads around. Evolution, on the other hand, is easily to imagine but it provides a poor fit for understanding the real world.
Evolution depends on long time frames to provide enough opportunity for changes to happen and as such it treats time as fixed constant. Time, as we all know is not constant but relative - where 20 years for one observer can be 5 minutes for another observer or 300 years for third. When speaking of billions of years many evolutionists assume some universal time frame that doesn’t exist. An observer on a beam of light that travels from the edge of the universe finds that our planet has instantly come into being in its present state. For that observer there are no billions of years since the Big Bang – there is the Big Bang and then instantly our world just as it is now.
QUOTE
This fact is also reflected in the fossil records where there are many unexplained gaps. According to Evolution, life evolves in small changes in a smooth and continuous manner
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This fact is also reflected in the fossil records where there are many unexplained gaps. According to Evolution, life evolves in small changes in a smooth and continuous manner |
This too is reflected in the fossil record where there are times when many new species appear to have come into being all at once. Evolutionary theory is linear and sequential in nature,
Wow...I thought to criticize a scientific theory....you actually had to understand what you are criticizing....
You are actually completely wrong....with most of your assumptions
Evolution is NOT gradualism
There do not exist massive gaps in the fossil record that are unexplained
Evolution does not create "near-perfect' organisms
This is where you really shine as an idiot....
You are absolutely correct in claiming that time is relative....but what you fail to realize is that time is relative to the observer. "Relative to the observer" does not mean that person A will perceive a different timescale than person B. It means that a person at location A will perceive a different timescale than a person at location B. Since all observations are being made within the relatively stable gravitational field of the universe....there is a constant reference for time with respect to evolution. We are not talking organisms evolving on Pluto and Earth....we are talking about organisms evolving on Earth.
Wow...I thought to criticize a scientific theory....you actually had to understand what you are criticizing....
You are actually completely wrong....with most of your assumptions
Evolution is NOT gradualism
There do not exist massive gaps in the fossil record that are unexplained
Evolution does not create "near-perfect' organisms
QUOTE
Evolution depends on long time frames to provide enough opportunity for changes to happen and as such it treats time as fixed constant. Time, as we all know is not constant but relative - where 20 years for one observer can be 5 minutes for another observer or 300 years for third. When speaking of billions of years many evolutionists assume some universal time frame that doesn’t exist. An observer on a beam of light that travels from the edge of the universe finds that our planet has instantly come into being in its present state. For that observer there are no billions of years since the Big Bang – there is the Big Bang and then instantly our world just as it is now.
This is where you really shine as an idiot....
You are absolutely correct in claiming that time is relative....but what you fail to realize is that time is relative to the observer. "Relative to the observer" does not mean that person A will perceive a different timescale than person B. It means that a person at location A will perceive a different timescale than a person at location B. Since all observations are being made within the relatively stable gravitational field of the universe....there is a constant reference for time with respect to evolution. We are not talking organisms evolving on Pluto and Earth....we are talking about organisms evolving on Earth.
Are you saying that evolution is for the mathematically challenged? There isn’t any math in evolution because it isn’t connected to the real world. 
If living creatures function satisfactorily now, what is the pupose of evolution?
QUOTE
If living creatures function satisfactorily now, what is the pupose of evolution?
Good question....
Evolution was the process that got the living creatures to function satisfactorily...
Now, this is also why we do not see organisms evolving as frequently all around us. They function satisfactorily. Now, lets say that the environment drastically changes(which it is in the process of doing). You will begin to see new adaptations so that animals can exist in tranquility again.
Hope that explains it!
QUOTE
Are you saying that evolution is for the mathematically challenged? There isn’t any math in evolution because it isn’t connected to the real world.
No I wouldn’t say that – its more that the correlation between the real world and Evolutionary theory is too weak to express in mathematical functions.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jul 2 2007, 04:19 PM)
While many words have been written about the differences between evolution and religion far few have been written about the similarities and parallels between the two – that is mainly the parallels between Christianity and Evolution. The point is that there are many parallels and understanding this will uncover the dynamics of the conflict that has been raging for the past 150 years.
When we look at evolution we find that it parallels Christian thought. This is most easily seen by treating Christianity as evolution. We begin by posing the question, “If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”
Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence. If we treat Jesus as an evolutionary prototype we will find that he exactly fits the evolutionary model for a prototype. Jesus was different at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his survivability by being resurrected. Members of the old species are faced with the choice of transforming and becoming like Jesus or becoming “extinct”. From an evolutionary view point Jesus is the prototype for mankind's next evolutionary leap. While Jesus did not procreate - his "spiritual genes" are in billions of people making him the most prolific of all humans.
There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. It would seem that Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and transformation became mutation. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.
What needs to be brought out is that Darwin’s evolution was not as novel and original as many people believe. He plagiarized 19th century Christianity and this I believe is the true source of the conflict. At the core both Christianity and Evolution are very similar but with differences that lead to strikingly different philosophical values. Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.
If evolution is built on a plagiarized Christian foundation then the strength of evolution as a world view must in turn validate Christianity also. The point is we may not have a correct understanding of the Christian message but its ideas and thought forms are so powerful that no one can ignore them and many wish to use them for their own ends.
Wow, I never realised how promiscuous Jesus was. Good thing for humanity that he was so effective at spreading his genes. They always leave the best parts out of the bible.
When we look at evolution we find that it parallels Christian thought. This is most easily seen by treating Christianity as evolution. We begin by posing the question, “If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”
Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence. If we treat Jesus as an evolutionary prototype we will find that he exactly fits the evolutionary model for a prototype. Jesus was different at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his survivability by being resurrected. Members of the old species are faced with the choice of transforming and becoming like Jesus or becoming “extinct”. From an evolutionary view point Jesus is the prototype for mankind's next evolutionary leap. While Jesus did not procreate - his "spiritual genes" are in billions of people making him the most prolific of all humans.
There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. It would seem that Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and transformation became mutation. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.
What needs to be brought out is that Darwin’s evolution was not as novel and original as many people believe. He plagiarized 19th century Christianity and this I believe is the true source of the conflict. At the core both Christianity and Evolution are very similar but with differences that lead to strikingly different philosophical values. Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.
If evolution is built on a plagiarized Christian foundation then the strength of evolution as a world view must in turn validate Christianity also. The point is we may not have a correct understanding of the Christian message but its ideas and thought forms are so powerful that no one can ignore them and many wish to use them for their own ends.
Wow, I never realised how promiscuous Jesus was. Good thing for humanity that he was so effective at spreading his genes. They always leave the best parts out of the bible.
QUOTE
Wow, I never realised how promiscuous Jesus was. Good thing for humanity that he was so effective at spreading his genes. They always leave the best parts out of the bible.
A bit off topic Wulf but I will answer anyway. Actually this is in the Bible.
The idea of being "born again" means just that. This is not a sexual conception, but a conception similar to that of Jesus himself who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this second conception the identity of Jesus incorporates the element of immortality into one’s being - similar to having inherited physical qualities from our first parents. Jesus has over history, been incorporated into billions of people which surely makes him the number one candidate as mankind’s evolutionary prototype.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jul 5 2007, 02:52 AM)
A bit off topic Wulf but I will answer anyway. Actually this is in the Bible.
The idea of being "born again" means just that. This is not a sexual conception, but a conception similar to that of Jesus himself who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this second conception the identity of Jesus incorporates the element of immortality into one’s being - similar to having inherited physical qualities from our first parents. Jesus has over history, been incorporated into billions of people which surely makes him the number one candidate as mankind’s evolutionary prototype.
Curious as to what bible that is in.
Evolution is a theory about heredity and selection, that means good ol' fasion fornication. I fail to see how that is off topic in a tread discussion a theory based on breeding.
Mind if I ask. . WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
Memetic theory shows that ideas (memes) can evolve.
The only connection between this and christianity is that religions are memes and the stronger of these propagate well. Christianity has proved to be a strong meme, though strong does not equal correct.
The only connection between this and christianity is that religions are memes and the stronger of these propagate well. Christianity has proved to be a strong meme, though strong does not equal correct.
QUOTE
Memetic theory shows that ideas (memes) can evolve.
Have you actually read any of the posts in this thread? Maybe you have just jumped in the middle here with something off the top of your head. I would encourage you to have a read and come back and lets talk
N O M
And I would suggest that reading ANYTHING nosenothing post is a stupendous waste of time, carry on.
Grumpy
And I would suggest that reading ANYTHING nosenothing post is a stupendous waste of time, carry on.
Grumpy
Of course your theory relies on the fact that you believe that someone called Jesus died and then came back to life after several days...
Prove that to me first...
Prove that to me first...
His theory also relies on a "poetic" interpretation of just about everything involved...
It also relies on Christianity continuing to increase in popularity instead of decrease....as it currently is....
Finally...it relies on a fair bit of blind ignorance....
It also relies on Christianity continuing to increase in popularity instead of decrease....as it currently is....
Finally...it relies on a fair bit of blind ignorance....
QUOTE (Magic Man+Jul 6 2007, 09:30 AM)
Of course your theory relies on the fact that you believe that someone called Jesus died and then came back to life after several days...
Prove that to me first...
Yah! and to add...
I've heard the story that jesus was such a good entertainer that those in attendance were cajoled, amused, enhanced, duped, stupified, warmed, infatuated, etc. while imbibing through the first several barrels of watered-down wine and after that, word got out that Jesus had made water into wine because they weren't informed that the water was used up simply by timely mixing it with the wine.
I'll give you that Christ may have had an advanced evolved intellect, but prototype?
Prove that to me first...
Yah! and to add...
I've heard the story that jesus was such a good entertainer that those in attendance were cajoled, amused, enhanced, duped, stupified, warmed, infatuated, etc. while imbibing through the first several barrels of watered-down wine and after that, word got out that Jesus had made water into wine because they weren't informed that the water was used up simply by timely mixing it with the wine.
I'll give you that Christ may have had an advanced evolved intellect, but prototype?
QUOTE (no1nose+Jul 6 2007, 04:51 PM)
Have you actually read any of the posts in this thread? Maybe you have just jumped in the middle here with something off the top of your head. I would encourage you to have a read and come back and lets talk
No.
I did read all your posts (gag). What you are crediting purely to christianity is a characteristic of any successful meme, nothing special.
QUOTE
I did read all your posts (gag). What you are crediting purely to christianity is a characteristic of any successful meme, nothing special.
successful Meme? Really?
Yes, Christianity is a successful meme. So much so that it continues to be called Christianity despite recent mutations. Sadly, the truely benevolent interpretation of the meme is struggling, mainly because it has trouble being successful: being nice is a lot harder than being selfish.
Yup, it's hard to benevolently burn those heretics.
That's a component.
All the interpretations that encouraged a pacificist following of 'turn the other cheek' got fed to the lions. It's probably what Jesus meant when he said it, but no one really wants to be killed for their religious beliefs. They'd rather go to church on Sunday and live like normal people elsewise. So, they'll interpret the Scripture that way.
Natural Selection is very much part of the current winnowing of the Christian meme.
All the interpretations that encouraged a pacificist following of 'turn the other cheek' got fed to the lions. It's probably what Jesus meant when he said it, but no one really wants to be killed for their religious beliefs. They'd rather go to church on Sunday and live like normal people elsewise. So, they'll interpret the Scripture that way.
Natural Selection is very much part of the current winnowing of the Christian meme.
The survival of the meme doesn't have to include survival of the individual. Look at the recent increases in suicide bombing.
Oh, very much. I was just using that as an example.
In general, the interpretation of a religion will change such the person's life is improved by following it, not hurt. There will always be exceptions.
The number of suicide bombers is growing, but probably not as quickly as the number of Muslims who're leaning towards the "the fight is internal, not external" interpretation of Jihad.
In general, the interpretation of a religion will change such the person's life is improved by following it, not hurt. There will always be exceptions.
The number of suicide bombers is growing, but probably not as quickly as the number of Muslims who're leaning towards the "the fight is internal, not external" interpretation of Jihad.
*sigh* not sure where to start no1nose... I guess I'll point out a few errors in your argument
1: Jesus being the most influntial person in the world is subject to opinion.
2: You said evolution can't explain things like the eye... yes it can. Humans have brought eyeless fish up from the deep ocean, and a few generations later,the fish had eyes. They developed eyes on their own because now there was light for them to see. Evolution in progress. Also, evolution is around us, just not as pronounced now that most life can live pretty well as it is. For example, one species of butterfly developed a gene to help them fight off a certain bacteria they are susceptible to before they hatch.
There are many other things that seem plain stupid in your argument but I'm at a friends house and not going to waste what little of my time I have left on talking to blind believers like you.
1: Jesus being the most influntial person in the world is subject to opinion.
2: You said evolution can't explain things like the eye... yes it can. Humans have brought eyeless fish up from the deep ocean, and a few generations later,the fish had eyes. They developed eyes on their own because now there was light for them to see. Evolution in progress. Also, evolution is around us, just not as pronounced now that most life can live pretty well as it is. For example, one species of butterfly developed a gene to help them fight off a certain bacteria they are susceptible to before they hatch.
There are many other things that seem plain stupid in your argument but I'm at a friends house and not going to waste what little of my time I have left on talking to blind believers like you.
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 7 2007, 08:54 PM)
*sigh* not sure where to start no1nose... I guess I'll point out a few errors in your argument
1: Jesus being the most influntial person in the world is subject to opinion.
2: You said evolution can't explain things like the eye... yes it can. Humans have brought eyeless fish up from the deep ocean, and a few generations later,the fish had eyes. They developed eyes on their own because now there was light for them to see. Evolution in progress. Also, evolution is around us, just not as pronounced now that most life can live pretty well as it is. For example, one species of butterfly developed a gene to help them fight off a certain bacteria they are susceptible to before they hatch.
There are many other things that seem plain stupid in your argument but I'm at a friends house and not going to waste what little of my time I have left on talking to blind believers like you.
Ha ha, not that I go along with the everything so called creationists have to say, but I do have to laugh at your thinking others are blind but not you.:-)) Stay open minded, and don't judge something without the full picture. That way you can remain fair-minded.
What makes me truly laugh about this creationist/evolutionist stance is how much it can contradict itself. I've had creationists telling me I have to change, and evolutionists trying to hold me to past comments.:-)) Typical, when dealing with the narrow-minded kind who somehow want to force something to be as they want to believe it. It's as though these people already have pre-conceived answers they are going to give anyone that smells of creationism or evolutionism.
Being into Pantheism does not make me a religious creationist, and I'm now very much into supporting the removal of such fundam,entalists who have beliefs no different to a terrorist. Look up Pantheism (classical Pantheism), it makes more than enough room for evolution to be whatever it is. Unlike the surety around me about it, I'm still open about what evolution is and what it isn't, but it isn't really a life changing realization whatever it is. The most important thing now is how to go about creating a world where we can be free to study science and music and other noble arts, without having to worry about missiles coming into our front rooms. It will help if people get just a little bit more open minded and not so convinced, when the evidence for such conviction is really not there yet.
Just out of interest, how did the fish eye evolve over the few generations?
1: Jesus being the most influntial person in the world is subject to opinion.
2: You said evolution can't explain things like the eye... yes it can. Humans have brought eyeless fish up from the deep ocean, and a few generations later,the fish had eyes. They developed eyes on their own because now there was light for them to see. Evolution in progress. Also, evolution is around us, just not as pronounced now that most life can live pretty well as it is. For example, one species of butterfly developed a gene to help them fight off a certain bacteria they are susceptible to before they hatch.
There are many other things that seem plain stupid in your argument but I'm at a friends house and not going to waste what little of my time I have left on talking to blind believers like you.
Ha ha, not that I go along with the everything so called creationists have to say, but I do have to laugh at your thinking others are blind but not you.:-)) Stay open minded, and don't judge something without the full picture. That way you can remain fair-minded.
What makes me truly laugh about this creationist/evolutionist stance is how much it can contradict itself. I've had creationists telling me I have to change, and evolutionists trying to hold me to past comments.:-)) Typical, when dealing with the narrow-minded kind who somehow want to force something to be as they want to believe it. It's as though these people already have pre-conceived answers they are going to give anyone that smells of creationism or evolutionism.
Being into Pantheism does not make me a religious creationist, and I'm now very much into supporting the removal of such fundam,entalists who have beliefs no different to a terrorist. Look up Pantheism (classical Pantheism), it makes more than enough room for evolution to be whatever it is. Unlike the surety around me about it, I'm still open about what evolution is and what it isn't, but it isn't really a life changing realization whatever it is. The most important thing now is how to go about creating a world where we can be free to study science and music and other noble arts, without having to worry about missiles coming into our front rooms. It will help if people get just a little bit more open minded and not so convinced, when the evidence for such conviction is really not there yet.
Just out of interest, how did the fish eye evolve over the few generations?
QUOTE (Bloy+Jul 6 2007, 06:06 PM)
Yah! and to add...
I've heard the story that jesus was such a good entertainer that those in attendance were cajoled, amused, enhanced, duped, stupified, warmed, infatuated, etc. while imbibing through the first several barrels of watered-down wine and after that, word got out that Jesus had made water into wine because they weren't informed that the water was used up simply by timely mixing it with the wine.
I'll give you that Christ may have had an advanced evolved intellect, but prototype?
People that develop spiritual qualities are capable of acts that do have a scientific foundation. They are not supernatural, because nature is an all embracing structure, all based on frequencies. What Christ signifies, as a word, is someone that has conquered the duality and merged it into one whole, and with that has the ability to command the elements that obey such duality (by knowing their fundamental frequency signature, overtone structure, clockwise or anti-clockwise spin, centred perfectly symmetrical vantage points, and with the Word manipulate them into manifest structure). The fact that Christians today are so gourmless about such potential is not indicative of the inner abilities inherent in life and Man.
Mainstream science is a pretty narrow band, where for the most part seems to be about a fisty fight between chistianity and evolution. Looking at other religions that have a spiritual background, one will actually see that the modern theory of evolution has only just caught up with their intuitive knowing that stretches back thousands of years. These people practice spiritual discipline, not just blabber about it and quote silly texts about creation. Their way involves a lifetime practice of meditation. And they actually practice the love they profess is within the very essence of life substance. They are closer to the Chirst consciousness than most if not all Christians of today.
Turning water into wine sounds rediculous, but within the next few years there will be universities doing that very experiment and more. It's called hacking matter. Check it out. Again, it takes a spiritually evolved ability and manifests it as a physical scientific practice.
I've heard the story that jesus was such a good entertainer that those in attendance were cajoled, amused, enhanced, duped, stupified, warmed, infatuated, etc. while imbibing through the first several barrels of watered-down wine and after that, word got out that Jesus had made water into wine because they weren't informed that the water was used up simply by timely mixing it with the wine.
I'll give you that Christ may have had an advanced evolved intellect, but prototype?
People that develop spiritual qualities are capable of acts that do have a scientific foundation. They are not supernatural, because nature is an all embracing structure, all based on frequencies. What Christ signifies, as a word, is someone that has conquered the duality and merged it into one whole, and with that has the ability to command the elements that obey such duality (by knowing their fundamental frequency signature, overtone structure, clockwise or anti-clockwise spin, centred perfectly symmetrical vantage points, and with the Word manipulate them into manifest structure). The fact that Christians today are so gourmless about such potential is not indicative of the inner abilities inherent in life and Man.
Mainstream science is a pretty narrow band, where for the most part seems to be about a fisty fight between chistianity and evolution. Looking at other religions that have a spiritual background, one will actually see that the modern theory of evolution has only just caught up with their intuitive knowing that stretches back thousands of years. These people practice spiritual discipline, not just blabber about it and quote silly texts about creation. Their way involves a lifetime practice of meditation. And they actually practice the love they profess is within the very essence of life substance. They are closer to the Chirst consciousness than most if not all Christians of today.
Turning water into wine sounds rediculous, but within the next few years there will be universities doing that very experiment and more. It's called hacking matter. Check it out. Again, it takes a spiritually evolved ability and manifests it as a physical scientific practice.
I didn't have any pre-conceived answers, I responded to what he said about Jesus being the most influential person in the world, and to what he said about the eye. Can he prove that Jesus was the most influential person in the world? No.
Can I prove Jesus wasn't the most influential person in the world? No. Because Jesus was the most influential person in one persons life doesn't make him the most influential in everyones.
Also... I'm not closeminded at all. I used to be a Christian, until I realized I hadn't even looked at other beliefs. So I looked at alot of beliefs and considered them, and now I have a different set of beliefs. I've considered what hes saying and unfortunatley even agreed with him at one time.
Closeminded is someone that won't even look at someone elses beliefs and just instantly says the other person is wrong.
And about the eye thing... I didn't even read the whole article, plus I read it a year or a few years ago or something, so how should I know? All I know is that some fish specimens were taken from deep enough in the ocean that the fish didn't have eyes because they didn't need them, and they bred the fish specimens they had and a few generations into it a fish was born (or hatched, however you want to word it) that had eyes.
Can I prove Jesus wasn't the most influential person in the world? No. Because Jesus was the most influential person in one persons life doesn't make him the most influential in everyones.
Also... I'm not closeminded at all. I used to be a Christian, until I realized I hadn't even looked at other beliefs. So I looked at alot of beliefs and considered them, and now I have a different set of beliefs. I've considered what hes saying and unfortunatley even agreed with him at one time.
Closeminded is someone that won't even look at someone elses beliefs and just instantly says the other person is wrong.
And about the eye thing... I didn't even read the whole article, plus I read it a year or a few years ago or something, so how should I know? All I know is that some fish specimens were taken from deep enough in the ocean that the fish didn't have eyes because they didn't need them, and they bred the fish specimens they had and a few generations into it a fish was born (or hatched, however you want to word it) that had eyes.
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 7 2007, 10:21 PM)
I didn't have any pre-conceived answers, I responded to what he said about Jesus being the most influential person in the world, and to what he said about the eye. Can he prove that Jesus was the most influential person in the world? No.
Can I prove Jesus wasn't the most influential person in the world? No. Because Jesus was the most influential person in one persons life doesn't make him the most influential in everyones.
Also... I'm not closeminded at all. I used to be a Christian, until I realized I hadn't even looked at other beliefs. So I looked at alot of beliefs and considered them, and now I have a different set of beliefs. I've considered what hes saying and unfortunatley even agreed with him at one time.
Closeminded is someone that won't even look at someone elses beliefs and just instantly says the other person is wrong.
And about the eye thing... I didn't even read the whole article, plus I read it a year or a few years ago or something, so how should I know? All I know is that some fish specimens were taken from deep enough in the ocean that the fish didn't have eyes because they didn't need them, and they bred the fish specimens they had and a few generations into it a fish was born (or hatched, however you want to word it) that had eyes.
Yeah I didn't mean you have any preconceived answers waiting to be used, but I do mean that some give that impression. I know I've met a few here.
As for Jesus being the most influential person in the world, that really would be sad wouldn't it? I'm the most influential person in the world to me.:-) As far as influences go, I'd say early David Bowie, Jimi hendrix, Jimmy Page/Zeppelin, Tom Petty and Stevie Wonder, and Motown definately. Then there is just about everything I've read, having both negative and positive influences. A lot of the sayings of Jesus are generally older sayings that came from the Egyptian era before him.
Anyway man, wasn't trying to offend you personally. It's up to you to know what you are. The typewriter is great but it can't take the place of face to face chat.
I thought I was a christian too for a few years, back in the late seventies. But christianity has really been corrupted, and is of no value to those that are serious about finding a spiritual connection to life. Having said that there is no better message to humanity than Loving others as yourself. But then, this Jesus apparently got killed for trying to introduce a bit of Buddhism into the Jewish culture. it probably won't surprise you to know that the best accounts of his life were those that never made it into the bible.
Can I prove Jesus wasn't the most influential person in the world? No. Because Jesus was the most influential person in one persons life doesn't make him the most influential in everyones.
Also... I'm not closeminded at all. I used to be a Christian, until I realized I hadn't even looked at other beliefs. So I looked at alot of beliefs and considered them, and now I have a different set of beliefs. I've considered what hes saying and unfortunatley even agreed with him at one time.
Closeminded is someone that won't even look at someone elses beliefs and just instantly says the other person is wrong.
And about the eye thing... I didn't even read the whole article, plus I read it a year or a few years ago or something, so how should I know? All I know is that some fish specimens were taken from deep enough in the ocean that the fish didn't have eyes because they didn't need them, and they bred the fish specimens they had and a few generations into it a fish was born (or hatched, however you want to word it) that had eyes.
Yeah I didn't mean you have any preconceived answers waiting to be used, but I do mean that some give that impression. I know I've met a few here.
As for Jesus being the most influential person in the world, that really would be sad wouldn't it? I'm the most influential person in the world to me.:-) As far as influences go, I'd say early David Bowie, Jimi hendrix, Jimmy Page/Zeppelin, Tom Petty and Stevie Wonder, and Motown definately. Then there is just about everything I've read, having both negative and positive influences. A lot of the sayings of Jesus are generally older sayings that came from the Egyptian era before him.
Anyway man, wasn't trying to offend you personally. It's up to you to know what you are. The typewriter is great but it can't take the place of face to face chat.
I thought I was a christian too for a few years, back in the late seventies. But christianity has really been corrupted, and is of no value to those that are serious about finding a spiritual connection to life. Having said that there is no better message to humanity than Loving others as yourself. But then, this Jesus apparently got killed for trying to introduce a bit of Buddhism into the Jewish culture. it probably won't surprise you to know that the best accounts of his life were those that never made it into the bible.
Hehe, yea, guess the Church wouldn't want to put anything in the Bible to make Jesus look like anything other than what they insist he was. After all, the Church is NEVER wrong.
lol
Anyway, sorry to anyone if I made myself come across as condescending with my original post.
lol
Anyway, sorry to anyone if I made myself come across as condescending with my original post.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Aug 7 2007, 11:58 PM)
I thought I was a christian too for a few years, back in the late seventies. But christianity has really been corrupted, and is of no value to those that are serious about finding a spiritual connection to life. Having said that there is no better message to humanity than Loving others as yourself. But then, this Jesus apparently got killed for trying to introduce a bit of Buddhism into the Jewish culture. it probably won't surprise you to know that the best accounts of his life were those that never made it into the bible.
I just had respond, because you nearly perfectly described myself, except that my beliefs changed far more recently. I was raised Baptist, and essentially lived in a bubble the first 17 years of my life.
Selflessness is undoubtedly what life is about!! Makes me excited that other people feel that way too.
!
Even though in my personal experience Christianity didn't offer a route to spirituality (almost the opposite), I have seen very spiritually advanced Christians, very in touch with the world, filled with compassion, etc. It's a winning solution for some people, but in all my experience, I've found there is no correlation between "good people" and religion, political affiliation, ideology, whatever. Some people have the need for religion, but I caution against it. I think the only thing you need to get close to God (and I use that word for lack of a better one, I strongly dislike the associated perception) is yourself. To believe anything else is essentially disempowerment.
Jesus was one of the greatest philosphers, thinkers, and men ever to walk the earth though, no doubt. Too bad the "Holy Roman Empire" decided to use him as the centerpiece of their social construct (a.k.a. the Bible). Although, I have heard from someone that Jesus believed he truly was the son of God. Will we ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt??
I am sorry if I offended anyone, I do try to encourage everyone in whatever path of life they so choose. This is just an opinion, after all
I just had respond, because you nearly perfectly described myself, except that my beliefs changed far more recently. I was raised Baptist, and essentially lived in a bubble the first 17 years of my life.
Selflessness is undoubtedly what life is about!! Makes me excited that other people feel that way too.
!Even though in my personal experience Christianity didn't offer a route to spirituality (almost the opposite), I have seen very spiritually advanced Christians, very in touch with the world, filled with compassion, etc. It's a winning solution for some people, but in all my experience, I've found there is no correlation between "good people" and religion, political affiliation, ideology, whatever. Some people have the need for religion, but I caution against it. I think the only thing you need to get close to God (and I use that word for lack of a better one, I strongly dislike the associated perception) is yourself. To believe anything else is essentially disempowerment.
Jesus was one of the greatest philosphers, thinkers, and men ever to walk the earth though, no doubt. Too bad the "Holy Roman Empire" decided to use him as the centerpiece of their social construct (a.k.a. the Bible). Although, I have heard from someone that Jesus believed he truly was the son of God. Will we ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt??
I am sorry if I offended anyone, I do try to encourage everyone in whatever path of life they so choose. This is just an opinion, after all
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Aug 7 2007, 11:58 PM)
As for Jesus being the most influential person in the world, that really would be sad wouldn't it? I'm the most influential person in the world to me.:-) As far as influences go, I'd say early David Bowie, Jimi hendrix, Jimmy Page/Zeppelin, Tom Petty and Stevie Wonder, and Motown definately.
Hey, what about the Stones and Jethro Tull?
Hey, what about the Stones and Jethro Tull?
QUOTE
Jesus was one of the greatest philosphers, thinkers, and men ever to walk the earth though, no doubt. Too bad the "Holy Roman Empire" decided to use him as the centerpiece of their social construct (a.k.a. the Bible). Although, I have heard from someone that Jesus believed he truly was the son of God. Will we ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt??
We will never know much "beyond a shadow of a doubt"...thats a good thing...
Jesus probably didn't view himself as divine, and definately not as the messiah.
As far as the "best not making it into the bible"...I would argue that the best got twisted IN THE BIBLE....
Jesus was not a great thinker, I do not remember him introducing anything revolutionary
As far as one of the greatest men....I doubt it....name something he did that "was great"?
He wasn't much for philosophy either...just a bit witty.
He was either an angry, rude, rebellious fraud...or he was an angry, rude, rebellious self-deluded jerk...
Take your pick....not great in my opinion
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 8 2007, 02:31 AM)
He was either an angry, rude, rebellious fraud...or he was an angry, rude, rebellious self-deluded jerk...
Take your pick....not great in my opinion
It is also possible He is the Son of God.
Take your pick....not great in my opinion
It is also possible He is the Son of God.
Well yea, but its also possible any of us are, we just don't know it.
Just because he claimed to be and some people followed him doesn't mean anything he said is true.
Just because he claimed to be and some people followed him doesn't mean anything he said is true.
Are you angry at all religions? Or just Christianity?
Disagreeing with something doesn't mean you're mad at it...
I’m sure Christ forgives you for disagreeing with Him.
I don't disagree with him... he taught good values. I disagree with the fact that he was God's son, and that God created everything.
That might just be good enough. Character is demonstrated by actions not words. If you believe in His values than you believe in Him. His Divinity can be dealt with later.
I don't believe in Him, I believe that he was spreading good beliefs. I can like someones beliefs and not believe they are the Son of God. It's easy enough to spread good values.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 8 2007, 12:51 AM)
I just had respond, because you nearly perfectly described myself, except that my beliefs changed far more recently. I was raised Baptist, and essentially lived in a bubble the first 17 years of my life.
Selflessness is undoubtedly what life is about!! Makes me excited that other people feel that way too. !
Even though in my personal experience Christianity didn't offer a route to spirituality (almost the opposite), I have seen very spiritually advanced Christians, very in touch with the world, filled with compassion, etc. It's a winning solution for some people, but in all my experience, I've found there is no correlation between "good people" and religion, political affiliation, ideology, whatever. Some people have the need for religion, but I caution against it. I think the only thing you need to get close to God (and I use that word for lack of a better one, I strongly dislike the associated perception) is yourself. To believe anything else is essentially disempowerment.
Jesus was one of the greatest philosphers, thinkers, and men ever to walk the earth though, no doubt. Too bad the "Holy Roman Empire" decided to use him as the centerpiece of their social construct (a.k.a. the Bible). Although, I have heard from someone that Jesus believed he truly was the son of God. Will we ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt??
I am sorry if I offended anyone, I do try to encourage everyone in whatever path of life they so choose. This is just an opinion, after all
It's hard enough having a face to face chat about these things, let alone typing away, hoping it comes across as how one intended!
I was of course wrong to suggest that most, if not all Christians fall short of spiritual awareness. That simply isn't true. But as a religion it really is going to some crazy extremes . Who on earth would imagine a loving God is going to appear out of the sky and bang bang bang his enemies!? People are waking up internally, and now the nature of God is being realized as more in line with people's own spirits. I have no guilt in me when I reject the idea of a warring god , for example. I know that this was a mis-percetion from older cultures, and probably a great weapon for anyone wishing to motivate an army and take over someone else's land, or pass a new policy through!
I really agree with your statement that one's self is all that is needed in order to come in touch with this Creative potential that all people have.
And Jesus as well aware of reincarnation and the circle of birth/rebirth. If death is the end, then the story of Lazuras would be pointless, as there would have been nowhere to have caused a regeneration. The texts ommitted from the bible show a different Jesus, more in line with Eastern Philosophy.
I had a Baptist girlfriend in the early 1980s, and I did go a few times to her church. They were a lot more open than the Catholics I had left behind.:-) But, like most other Christians, they feel guilty about questioning. Whereas the truth should never fear being questioned. So I set out on other journies, in order to find out for myself, and that's when I realized that the bible was not complete, and in fact pretty altered.
Other religions seemed to express the fragements of truth I'd found in the bible, so much more elaborately. Anyway, as you have been a Baptist, you will recognise some biblical stuff in the following examples:
http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Wi/WImain.htm
The Vedas deal with the science of the spirit. They contain the knowledge and procedures necessary to liberate oneself from bondage and blindness. But mere learning of them is no use. They have to be put into practice. That is the purpose of these revelations. The Vedas are the whisperings of God to man and they have been passed down and kept intact since ancient times. The vedic teachings are explained and elaborated in the Upanishads, Sastras, and the Puranas. The same teachings are enshrined in the popular eastern classics: Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavata. All these teach the ultimate truth that "all this is Brahmam" (the eternal transcendent God who permeates all and is given various names by different religions). The individual arises as a wave on the ocean and eventually merges back into the ocean of Brahmam. The mergence is an ecstatic reunion after a prolonged journey of isolation through space, time and form. Sages who have attained to this state of ultimate knowledge of God have proclaimed that everything in this world and the entire universe is nothing but this Brahmam who shines with the effulgence of a billion suns. This is the highest state that can be achieved and is referred to as Advaitha (A or not, Dwaitha or two). In the Advaithic state of ultimate realization, Brahmam or God is experienced as the One without a second. In this state of ecstatic union with Brahmam the appearance of duality, of forms, people, animals, objects that were previously seen to exist separately in this world as what we call objective reality dissolve into the single sight of the entity of Brahmam which is eternal and formless and yet contains all form within it. This transcendent state of ultimate union is referred to in the powerful mantras Aham Brahmaasmi (I am Brahmam) and SoHam (He am I).
This state of mergence with the Absolute is referred to by many terms in various religions. It is often called Nirvana in the West, Kensho or Satori in Zen Buddhism, the Void or at-one-ment in Tibetan Buddhism; also variously Enlightenment, Self realization, and in the East - Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Christ referred to it in his statement "The Father and I are one" as he attained to this pinnacle of realization towards the end of his earthly career.
Vedanta is that body of thought which contains the wisdom of the Vedas. It deals with this science of self realization by which the individual and temporary wave of consciousness can merge into the eternal ocean of Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence, Knowledge, Bliss) which is Brahmam or the highest God. This state is attained only through sacrifice, the transcending of likes and dislikes, desires and prejudices of the ego and the state of individuality. One who has attained this state sees all as inherently divine and therefore strives to serve all others as repositories of that same Godhead.
In the Vedantic knowledge, the eternal witness within every living being is called the Atma. The word Atma means light or effulgence. The Atma is the very core of each individual which registers all feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and awareness. Western science has taught us that our living forms or bodies have evolved from simple one celled organisms into the complex organization of the human body as it exists today. Inherent in this view is that our thoughts and feelings arise as illusions from the electrical nerve activity in the brain. But the sage knows the body to be secondary and dependent on the primary spirit within. Without the spiritual Atma, the perceiver of all thoughts, feelings and sensations; the organically living form would fall down senseless in an instant. The spiritual entity is the cohesive force behind the physical organization and once the Atma withdraws from the body, disintegration begins immediately.
The Katha Upanishad contains the story of the young and virtuous Nachikethas. When the father of Nachikethas gives away inferior gifts as part of a ritual ceremony, the boy tries to lessen the impact of this serious error in judgment. The father gets angry and in disgust at his interference shouts that he is going to give the son away to Yama, the god of death. The son resolves that the words uttered by the father should not be untrue so he proceeds to the residence of Yama to offer himself up as a ritualistic gift. The boy spends three nights waiting to see the god. When Yama discovers his presence, he feels sorry that the boy had to wait so long, so he decides to grant him three boons, one for each night he waited.
Nachikethas asks first that when he returns home, his father will have shed his anger and gained mental equanimity and so welcome him home. Second, he asks to know the secret of the absence of hunger and fear of death in the heaven worlds. Yama gladly grants these boons and further initiates his new disciple into the details of a special ritual ceremony. Yama sees the reverence, intelligence, and eagerness of his new pupil and is much pleased with him. Nachikethas then asks for his third boon. He tells his new teacher: "some say that death is not the end; that there is an entity called the Atma which survives the body and senses. Teach me that secret of the Atma". Yama at first resists and decides to test him to see if he is deserving of this unique knowledge. He offers him many other attractive boons involving worldly prosperity and happiness. But Nachikethas firmly declines these ephemeral favors. "The alternative boons you hold before me cannot assure me the everlasting benefit that Atmajnana (Atmic knowledge) alone can bestow". Yama is again pleased with his pupil and decides he is fit to receive the highest wisdom. The remainder of the Upanishad contains his teachings to Nachikethas. The young disciple grasped the teachings immediately and thoroughly and, putting them into practice, he attained to Brahmam.
The Bhagavad Gita (literally the song of God), is the recording of a conversation between Krishna (a descent of the Godhead on earth) and Arjuna. It is one of the most popular works of literature in the East. Although small in volume, it has within it all the essence of the Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita contains one of the most potent and lucid explanations of this inner essence referred to as the Atma.
Know this Atman, unborn, undying.
Never ceasing, never beginning.
Deathless, birthless, unchanging forever.
How can it die the death of the body?
Worn out garments are shed by the body.
Worn out bodies are shed by the Atma.
New bodies are donned like garments.
Not wounded by weapons nor burned by fire
Not dried by the wind not wetted by water.
Such is the Atman.
He who dwells within all living bodies
remains forever indestructible.
Therefore never mourn for anyone.
You must be free from the pairs of opposites.
Poise you mind in tranquility.
Be established in the consciousness of the Atman always.
You must not desire for the fruits of your work.
Perform every action with your heart fixed on the Supreme Lord.
Be even tempered in success and failure.
Unite the heart with Brahman, and then act.
That is the secret of non attachment.
Selflessness is undoubtedly what life is about!! Makes me excited that other people feel that way too.
!Even though in my personal experience Christianity didn't offer a route to spirituality (almost the opposite), I have seen very spiritually advanced Christians, very in touch with the world, filled with compassion, etc. It's a winning solution for some people, but in all my experience, I've found there is no correlation between "good people" and religion, political affiliation, ideology, whatever. Some people have the need for religion, but I caution against it. I think the only thing you need to get close to God (and I use that word for lack of a better one, I strongly dislike the associated perception) is yourself. To believe anything else is essentially disempowerment.
Jesus was one of the greatest philosphers, thinkers, and men ever to walk the earth though, no doubt. Too bad the "Holy Roman Empire" decided to use him as the centerpiece of their social construct (a.k.a. the Bible). Although, I have heard from someone that Jesus believed he truly was the son of God. Will we ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt??
I am sorry if I offended anyone, I do try to encourage everyone in whatever path of life they so choose. This is just an opinion, after all
It's hard enough having a face to face chat about these things, let alone typing away, hoping it comes across as how one intended!
I was of course wrong to suggest that most, if not all Christians fall short of spiritual awareness. That simply isn't true. But as a religion it really is going to some crazy extremes . Who on earth would imagine a loving God is going to appear out of the sky and bang bang bang his enemies!? People are waking up internally, and now the nature of God is being realized as more in line with people's own spirits. I have no guilt in me when I reject the idea of a warring god , for example. I know that this was a mis-percetion from older cultures, and probably a great weapon for anyone wishing to motivate an army and take over someone else's land, or pass a new policy through!
I really agree with your statement that one's self is all that is needed in order to come in touch with this Creative potential that all people have.
And Jesus as well aware of reincarnation and the circle of birth/rebirth. If death is the end, then the story of Lazuras would be pointless, as there would have been nowhere to have caused a regeneration. The texts ommitted from the bible show a different Jesus, more in line with Eastern Philosophy.
I had a Baptist girlfriend in the early 1980s, and I did go a few times to her church. They were a lot more open than the Catholics I had left behind.:-) But, like most other Christians, they feel guilty about questioning. Whereas the truth should never fear being questioned. So I set out on other journies, in order to find out for myself, and that's when I realized that the bible was not complete, and in fact pretty altered.
Other religions seemed to express the fragements of truth I'd found in the bible, so much more elaborately. Anyway, as you have been a Baptist, you will recognise some biblical stuff in the following examples:
http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Wi/WImain.htm
The Vedas deal with the science of the spirit. They contain the knowledge and procedures necessary to liberate oneself from bondage and blindness. But mere learning of them is no use. They have to be put into practice. That is the purpose of these revelations. The Vedas are the whisperings of God to man and they have been passed down and kept intact since ancient times. The vedic teachings are explained and elaborated in the Upanishads, Sastras, and the Puranas. The same teachings are enshrined in the popular eastern classics: Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavata. All these teach the ultimate truth that "all this is Brahmam" (the eternal transcendent God who permeates all and is given various names by different religions). The individual arises as a wave on the ocean and eventually merges back into the ocean of Brahmam. The mergence is an ecstatic reunion after a prolonged journey of isolation through space, time and form. Sages who have attained to this state of ultimate knowledge of God have proclaimed that everything in this world and the entire universe is nothing but this Brahmam who shines with the effulgence of a billion suns. This is the highest state that can be achieved and is referred to as Advaitha (A or not, Dwaitha or two). In the Advaithic state of ultimate realization, Brahmam or God is experienced as the One without a second. In this state of ecstatic union with Brahmam the appearance of duality, of forms, people, animals, objects that were previously seen to exist separately in this world as what we call objective reality dissolve into the single sight of the entity of Brahmam which is eternal and formless and yet contains all form within it. This transcendent state of ultimate union is referred to in the powerful mantras Aham Brahmaasmi (I am Brahmam) and SoHam (He am I).
This state of mergence with the Absolute is referred to by many terms in various religions. It is often called Nirvana in the West, Kensho or Satori in Zen Buddhism, the Void or at-one-ment in Tibetan Buddhism; also variously Enlightenment, Self realization, and in the East - Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Christ referred to it in his statement "The Father and I are one" as he attained to this pinnacle of realization towards the end of his earthly career.
Vedanta is that body of thought which contains the wisdom of the Vedas. It deals with this science of self realization by which the individual and temporary wave of consciousness can merge into the eternal ocean of Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence, Knowledge, Bliss) which is Brahmam or the highest God. This state is attained only through sacrifice, the transcending of likes and dislikes, desires and prejudices of the ego and the state of individuality. One who has attained this state sees all as inherently divine and therefore strives to serve all others as repositories of that same Godhead.
In the Vedantic knowledge, the eternal witness within every living being is called the Atma. The word Atma means light or effulgence. The Atma is the very core of each individual which registers all feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and awareness. Western science has taught us that our living forms or bodies have evolved from simple one celled organisms into the complex organization of the human body as it exists today. Inherent in this view is that our thoughts and feelings arise as illusions from the electrical nerve activity in the brain. But the sage knows the body to be secondary and dependent on the primary spirit within. Without the spiritual Atma, the perceiver of all thoughts, feelings and sensations; the organically living form would fall down senseless in an instant. The spiritual entity is the cohesive force behind the physical organization and once the Atma withdraws from the body, disintegration begins immediately.
The Katha Upanishad contains the story of the young and virtuous Nachikethas. When the father of Nachikethas gives away inferior gifts as part of a ritual ceremony, the boy tries to lessen the impact of this serious error in judgment. The father gets angry and in disgust at his interference shouts that he is going to give the son away to Yama, the god of death. The son resolves that the words uttered by the father should not be untrue so he proceeds to the residence of Yama to offer himself up as a ritualistic gift. The boy spends three nights waiting to see the god. When Yama discovers his presence, he feels sorry that the boy had to wait so long, so he decides to grant him three boons, one for each night he waited.
Nachikethas asks first that when he returns home, his father will have shed his anger and gained mental equanimity and so welcome him home. Second, he asks to know the secret of the absence of hunger and fear of death in the heaven worlds. Yama gladly grants these boons and further initiates his new disciple into the details of a special ritual ceremony. Yama sees the reverence, intelligence, and eagerness of his new pupil and is much pleased with him. Nachikethas then asks for his third boon. He tells his new teacher: "some say that death is not the end; that there is an entity called the Atma which survives the body and senses. Teach me that secret of the Atma". Yama at first resists and decides to test him to see if he is deserving of this unique knowledge. He offers him many other attractive boons involving worldly prosperity and happiness. But Nachikethas firmly declines these ephemeral favors. "The alternative boons you hold before me cannot assure me the everlasting benefit that Atmajnana (Atmic knowledge) alone can bestow". Yama is again pleased with his pupil and decides he is fit to receive the highest wisdom. The remainder of the Upanishad contains his teachings to Nachikethas. The young disciple grasped the teachings immediately and thoroughly and, putting them into practice, he attained to Brahmam.
The Bhagavad Gita (literally the song of God), is the recording of a conversation between Krishna (a descent of the Godhead on earth) and Arjuna. It is one of the most popular works of literature in the East. Although small in volume, it has within it all the essence of the Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita contains one of the most potent and lucid explanations of this inner essence referred to as the Atma.
Know this Atman, unborn, undying.
Never ceasing, never beginning.
Deathless, birthless, unchanging forever.
How can it die the death of the body?
Worn out garments are shed by the body.
Worn out bodies are shed by the Atma.
New bodies are donned like garments.
Not wounded by weapons nor burned by fire
Not dried by the wind not wetted by water.
Such is the Atman.
He who dwells within all living bodies
remains forever indestructible.
Therefore never mourn for anyone.
You must be free from the pairs of opposites.
Poise you mind in tranquility.
Be established in the consciousness of the Atman always.
You must not desire for the fruits of your work.
Perform every action with your heart fixed on the Supreme Lord.
Be even tempered in success and failure.
Unite the heart with Brahman, and then act.
That is the secret of non attachment.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 8 2007, 02:31 AM)
As far as one of the greatest men....I doubt it....name something he did that "was great"?
He wasn't much for philosophy either...just a bit witty.
He was either an angry, rude, rebellious fraud...or he was an angry, rude, rebellious self-deluded jerk...
Take your pick....not great in my opinion
An opinion is all one starts with normally. I think if there is a "great" thing that one can attribute to this Jesus, it's that he found the Christ principle within himself, and wished to direct those around him to the same process within. People always get Jesus and Christ mixed up, as if only he is capable of Christ awareness.
You want me to take my pick from the two choices you have supplied?
What if you are really talking of yourself here?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Aug 8 2007, 12:57 AM)
Hey, what about the Stones and Jethro Tull?
Wow, how could I foget Jethro Tull! They knew all about it:
Wond'ring aloud --
how we feel today.
Last night sipped the sunset --
my hands in her hair.
We are our own saviours
as we start both our hearts beating life
into each other.
Wond'ring aloud --
will the years treat us well.
As she floats in the kitchen,
I'm tasting the smell
of toast as the butter runs.
Then she comes, spilling crumbs on the bed
and I shake my head.
And it's only the giving
that makes you what you are.
Wow, how could I foget Jethro Tull! They knew all about it:
Wond'ring aloud --
how we feel today.
Last night sipped the sunset --
my hands in her hair.
We are our own saviours
as we start both our hearts beating life
into each other.
Wond'ring aloud --
will the years treat us well.
As she floats in the kitchen,
I'm tasting the smell
of toast as the butter runs.
Then she comes, spilling crumbs on the bed
and I shake my head.
And it's only the giving
that makes you what you are.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 7 2007, 08:51 PM)
Jesus was one of the greatest philosphers, thinkers, and men ever to walk the earth though, no doubt. Too bad the "Holy Roman Empire" decided to use him as the centerpiece of their social construct (a.k.a. the Bible). Although, I have heard from someone that Jesus believed he truly was the son of God. Will we ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt??
Would now be a bad time to bring up the fact that the Jesus described in the xian bible is most likely just a figure of myth and never existed outside of this religion?
I would have to agree with PuckSR that it is dubious to call the Jesus of the xian bible a great philosopher.
Would now be a bad time to bring up the fact that the Jesus described in the xian bible is most likely just a figure of myth and never existed outside of this religion?
I would have to agree with PuckSR that it is dubious to call the Jesus of the xian bible a great philosopher.
Mirrorman:
Great post, I've been very interested in eastern philosophy for the past couple of years (since I was made aware of its existence
). The philosophies I've read on the Tao sound very similar to the Vedic teachings you talk about... In fact, all religions have so much common ground that some lessons and concepts are obviously universally true. A book I'm reading called "Quantum Healing" talks about mind-body medicine, healing yourself through visualization and meditation. It's based off of ancient Ayurvedic teachings and passed on to the "western" author from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
I realize that this is a physics and science oriented site and many scoff and doubt the effectiveness of meditation, and that's just a shame.
This concept of God as a pervasive force and guiding process inherent to all conscious things (and perhaps more?) is what I have come to believe in as well.
Thought I'd share this link, keep in mind that I don't know exactly how I feel about the contents, but it is GUARANTEED to stimulate your brain! -
http://people.tamu.edu/~nickdolan/document...the_Insider.pdf
As for Jesus, if he even did half the things they say he did (even excluding miracles) then he gets my respect.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
Great post, I've been very interested in eastern philosophy for the past couple of years (since I was made aware of its existence
). The philosophies I've read on the Tao sound very similar to the Vedic teachings you talk about... In fact, all religions have so much common ground that some lessons and concepts are obviously universally true. A book I'm reading called "Quantum Healing" talks about mind-body medicine, healing yourself through visualization and meditation. It's based off of ancient Ayurvedic teachings and passed on to the "western" author from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.I realize that this is a physics and science oriented site and many scoff and doubt the effectiveness of meditation, and that's just a shame.
This concept of God as a pervasive force and guiding process inherent to all conscious things (and perhaps more?) is what I have come to believe in as well.
Thought I'd share this link, keep in mind that I don't know exactly how I feel about the contents, but it is GUARANTEED to stimulate your brain! -
http://people.tamu.edu/~nickdolan/document...the_Insider.pdf
As for Jesus, if he even did half the things they say he did (even excluding miracles) then he gets my respect.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 8 2007, 02:03 PM)
As for Jesus, if he even did half the things they say he did (even excluding miracles) then he gets my respect.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
Would the walking on water have convinced you?
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
Would the walking on water have convinced you?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Aug 8 2007, 08:41 AM)
Would the walking on water have convinced you?
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 8 2007, 10:03 AM)
As for Jesus, if he even did half the things they say he did (even excluding miracles) then he gets my respect.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
So the same applies to Mithras, Osiris or any of the similar deities or holy men that predate Jesus according to established myths and historical timeline?
Exactly what did he do to gain your respect?
While a mythical figures and related stories can teach us and inspire us, treating the mythic figures as real people is irrational.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
So the same applies to Mithras, Osiris or any of the similar deities or holy men that predate Jesus according to established myths and historical timeline?
Exactly what did he do to gain your respect?
While a mythical figures and related stories can teach us and inspire us, treating the mythic figures as real people is irrational.
QUOTE (gmilam+Aug 8 2007, 02:53 PM)
I don't know... Should it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
I looked at the link. You’ve got to admit it is a neat trick. A couple thousand years ago it might have been convincing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
I looked at the link. You’ve got to admit it is a neat trick. A couple thousand years ago it might have been convincing.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 8 2007, 02:03 PM)
Mirrorman:
Great post, I've been very interested in eastern philosophy for the past couple of years (since I was made aware of its existence ). The philosophies I've read on the Tao sound very similar to the Vedic teachings you talk about... In fact, all religions have so much common ground that some lessons and concepts are obviously universally true. A book I'm reading called "Quantum Healing" talks about mind-body medicine, healing yourself through visualization and meditation. It's based off of ancient Ayurvedic teachings and passed on to the "western" author from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
I realize that this is a physics and science oriented site and many scoff and doubt the effectiveness of meditation, and that's just a shame.
This concept of God as a pervasive force and guiding process inherent to all conscious things (and perhaps more?) is what I have come to believe in as well.
Thought I'd share this link, keep in mind that I don't know exactly how I feel about the contents, but it is GUARANTEED to stimulate your brain! -
http://people.tamu.edu/~nickdolan/document...the_Insider.pdf
As for Jesus, if he even did half the things they say he did (even excluding miracles) then he gets my respect.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
Thanks for that. Just started going through it. Well, so far the things I am in agreement with are all coming from him! I stopped here for a moment:
.......1. The ones who search hard will find the gems in Music, in fact they are out in the open.
It is not our duty to enlighten you, that is yours.
We hand out the tools that can be used in the way you choose to, "good or bad".........
If you feel you would be interested in some information held within the cycles of frequencies, and how it can lead to escaping the "prison", please feel free to write me:
mirrorman54@hotmail.com
Suffice to say that when the cycles of frequencies and the cycles within numbers are exposed of their dualities, there is a symbol that unites them and merges the opposites. The symbol resembles that of a Merkaba, and is the only consistent result from merging the duality of cycles. This symbol is in the form of two triangles of frequencies. It is a symbol that has represented consciousness in eastern religion for thousands of years. These triangles represent six tones. It is a well known natural phenomena that six successive tones do not lead back to the octave, but that the Pythagorean Comma is the result. What this means is that the Merkaba symbol that unites the duality of frequency and number, is a spiral of Merkabas, all seperated by the Comma. I'm in the processes of elarning how to building a double pyramid resonator machine, whose apexes are invisible, in that they are comprised of nano-resonators. The pyramids start being visible when the "married" frequencies that they are built on give rise to resonators that are big enough for us to begin seeing.
This Merkaba symbol can also be shown to be established as the centre of the chakra system, at the heart chakra is where the perfectly symmetrical axis resides. It is here that the choice for good or bad is translated through desire.
I can send you some animations that make this system easy to detect.
Great post, I've been very interested in eastern philosophy for the past couple of years (since I was made aware of its existence
). The philosophies I've read on the Tao sound very similar to the Vedic teachings you talk about... In fact, all religions have so much common ground that some lessons and concepts are obviously universally true. A book I'm reading called "Quantum Healing" talks about mind-body medicine, healing yourself through visualization and meditation. It's based off of ancient Ayurvedic teachings and passed on to the "western" author from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.I realize that this is a physics and science oriented site and many scoff and doubt the effectiveness of meditation, and that's just a shame.
This concept of God as a pervasive force and guiding process inherent to all conscious things (and perhaps more?) is what I have come to believe in as well.
Thought I'd share this link, keep in mind that I don't know exactly how I feel about the contents, but it is GUARANTEED to stimulate your brain! -
http://people.tamu.edu/~nickdolan/document...the_Insider.pdf
As for Jesus, if he even did half the things they say he did (even excluding miracles) then he gets my respect.
Maybe we'll never be 100% on his existence/actions, but it's more the concepts he left behind that count, whether he passed them on directly or indirectly.
Thanks for that. Just started going through it. Well, so far the things I am in agreement with are all coming from him! I stopped here for a moment:
.......1. The ones who search hard will find the gems in Music, in fact they are out in the open.
It is not our duty to enlighten you, that is yours.
We hand out the tools that can be used in the way you choose to, "good or bad".........
If you feel you would be interested in some information held within the cycles of frequencies, and how it can lead to escaping the "prison", please feel free to write me:
mirrorman54@hotmail.com
Suffice to say that when the cycles of frequencies and the cycles within numbers are exposed of their dualities, there is a symbol that unites them and merges the opposites. The symbol resembles that of a Merkaba, and is the only consistent result from merging the duality of cycles. This symbol is in the form of two triangles of frequencies. It is a symbol that has represented consciousness in eastern religion for thousands of years. These triangles represent six tones. It is a well known natural phenomena that six successive tones do not lead back to the octave, but that the Pythagorean Comma is the result. What this means is that the Merkaba symbol that unites the duality of frequency and number, is a spiral of Merkabas, all seperated by the Comma. I'm in the processes of elarning how to building a double pyramid resonator machine, whose apexes are invisible, in that they are comprised of nano-resonators. The pyramids start being visible when the "married" frequencies that they are built on give rise to resonators that are big enough for us to begin seeing.
This Merkaba symbol can also be shown to be established as the centre of the chakra system, at the heart chakra is where the perfectly symmetrical axis resides. It is here that the choice for good or bad is translated through desire.
I can send you some animations that make this system easy to detect.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Aug 8 2007, 02:56 PM)
Exactly what did he do to gain your respect?
Well, presuming that he existed, maybe he deserves my respect for all the disrespect his spirit was dealt from being used as the centerpiece of a social manipulation tool employed by the Roman Empire and the majority of western cultures since circa 500 A.D. If someone did that to my soul, I might not be too thrilled.
Separating mythical figures from actual great humans who did great deeds is tough and controversial, GeneSplicer. Now, when those humans are reared as "gods", that's a different story... obviously something is amiss.
Well, presuming that he existed, maybe he deserves my respect for all the disrespect his spirit was dealt from being used as the centerpiece of a social manipulation tool employed by the Roman Empire and the majority of western cultures since circa 500 A.D. If someone did that to my soul, I might not be too thrilled.
Separating mythical figures from actual great humans who did great deeds is tough and controversial, GeneSplicer. Now, when those humans are reared as "gods", that's a different story... obviously something is amiss.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Aug 8 2007, 11:08 AM)
I looked at the link. You’ve got to admit it is a neat trick. A couple thousand years ago it might have been convincing.
Too bad they didn’t have acrylic pedestals and a willing audience back then. Still, it is a neat trick. What about his levitation from one building to another? I still like his wall walk.
Too bad they didn’t have acrylic pedestals and a willing audience back then. Still, it is a neat trick. What about his levitation from one building to another? I still like his wall walk.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 8 2007, 11:31 AM)
Well, presuming that he existed, maybe he deserves my respect for all the disrespect his spirit was dealt from being used as the centerpiece of a social manipulation tool employed by the Roman Empire and the majority of western cultures since circa 500 A.D. If someone did that to my soul, I might not be too thrilled.
Separating mythical figures from actual great humans who did great deeds is tough and controversial, GeneSplicer. Now, when those humans are reared as "gods", that's a different story... obviously something is amiss.
Respect is normal earned though one’s actions. If you went on the premise that he existed, that the claim he was such a revolutionary philosopher was true, that he preached peace and love was true, and such abuse was committed, I think regretand remorse over what might have been would be more applicable.
The only example of this type of controversy that I know of is in regards to the xian Jesus. If viewed objectively, the idea that the xian Jesus story is just another myth is not that controversial.
Great people is history usually have their legacy embellished, but the xian Jesus does not have the historical support for this claim.
Separating mythical figures from actual great humans who did great deeds is tough and controversial, GeneSplicer. Now, when those humans are reared as "gods", that's a different story... obviously something is amiss.
Respect is normal earned though one’s actions. If you went on the premise that he existed, that the claim he was such a revolutionary philosopher was true, that he preached peace and love was true, and such abuse was committed, I think regretand remorse over what might have been would be more applicable.
The only example of this type of controversy that I know of is in regards to the xian Jesus. If viewed objectively, the idea that the xian Jesus story is just another myth is not that controversial.
Great people is history usually have their legacy embellished, but the xian Jesus does not have the historical support for this claim.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Aug 8 2007, 03:51 PM)
Respect is normal earned though one’s actions. If you went on the premise that he existed, that the claim he was such a revolutionary philosopher was true, that he preached peace and love was true, and such abuse was committed, I think regretand remorse over what might have been would be more applicable.
The only example of this type of controversy that I know of is in regards to the xian Jesus. If viewed objectively, the idea that the xian Jesus story is just another myth is not that controversial.
Great people is history usually have their legacy embellished, but the xian Jesus does not have the historical support for this claim.
You're probably right about how uncontroversial it is, I'm not gonna fight you on that (hah, thereby instantly validating your claim).
One thing though... I wouldn't busy myself with regret and remorse, no matter what you're dealing with.
Now that someone else is talking, I'd like to mention something... I actually do believe in Jesus, but I like hearing what these Christian people say on here, I'm sorry but its very funny. Unfortunatley nothing funny come out of this lol.
Anyway, on topic: Isn't there something like 500 independent documents saying Jesus died and was then resurrected?
Anyway, on topic: Isn't there something like 500 independent documents saying Jesus died and was then resurrected?
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 8 2007, 04:43 PM)
I'd like to mention something... I actually do believe in Jesus
You believe that he simply existed, or that he both existed and did the various 'miracles' which the bible claims he did?
Furthermore, is this belief an unfaltering blind faith, or do you believe that it's possible, but you don't know for sure?
You believe that he simply existed, or that he both existed and did the various 'miracles' which the bible claims he did?
Furthermore, is this belief an unfaltering blind faith, or do you believe that it's possible, but you don't know for sure?
I go to Church, I believe he was the son of God, and that's all that really matters.
Though I'm more on the fence... could be knocked either way.
Though I'm more on the fence... could be knocked either way.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 8 2007, 04:50 PM)
You believe that he simply existed, or that he both existed and did the various 'miracles' which the bible claims he did?
Furthermore, is this belief an unfaltering blind faith, or do you believe that it's possible, but you don't know for sure?
Some individuals need religious belief. It provides hope and meaning to their lives. That somehow there is a purpose for all of this.
Without this religious belief, one must simply accept the reality that: “Life is a predicament that precedes death.” (Henry James)
Furthermore, is this belief an unfaltering blind faith, or do you believe that it's possible, but you don't know for sure?
Some individuals need religious belief. It provides hope and meaning to their lives. That somehow there is a purpose for all of this.
Without this religious belief, one must simply accept the reality that: “Life is a predicament that precedes death.” (Henry James)
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 8 2007, 04:57 PM)
I go to Church, I believe he was the son of God, and that's all that really matters.
Though I'm more on the fence... could be knocked either way.
See, but Christianity calls for "unwavering faith", no?
They just make it so easy to fail, thus controling your path and actions to such a great degree that it's disempowering for many.
Though I'm more on the fence... could be knocked either way.
See, but Christianity calls for "unwavering faith", no?
They just make it so easy to fail, thus controling your path and actions to such a great degree that it's disempowering for many.
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 8 2007, 12:43 PM)
Anyway, on topic: Isn't there something like 500 independent documents saying Jesus died and was then resurrected?
There are mentions of Jesus long after his death by a few historians. There are no records from his time recording his deeds or even his existence.
There are mentions of Jesus long after his death by a few historians. There are no records from his time recording his deeds or even his existence.
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 8 2007, 04:57 PM)
I go to Church, I believe he was the son of God, and that's all that really matters.
Though I'm more on the fence... could be knocked either way.
So you believe then, in all the miracles and that he existed, Ok.
But you say that it may be true and also untrue. Well, that's good, because talking to someone of blind faith, is like talking to a brick wall.
I find the best way to treat it, is like a theory, such that it 'may' be true, and that it 'may' be untrue.
So therefore, one must also be open to all other religions, such that they too, may be true and may be untrue. So really, thinking this way, how can one stick with one religion alone, when all the others are just as possible?
One thing you can do, is simply say "God, if you're out there, then there are so many religions out there, and there is no proof that any are right, so therefore I'm just going to carry with my life and not bother with any of the religions, since there's just as much possibility that they're heretical as they are right. I think it's best to just not bother with any of them at all"
When you do this pledge, then you won't be to blame. I mean, how are you supposed to know which religion is right? - You don't/can't. And neither can you practice all of them. So you might as well just practice none of them, and just carry on with your now secular life.
Though I'm more on the fence... could be knocked either way.
So you believe then, in all the miracles and that he existed, Ok.
But you say that it may be true and also untrue. Well, that's good, because talking to someone of blind faith, is like talking to a brick wall.
I find the best way to treat it, is like a theory, such that it 'may' be true, and that it 'may' be untrue.
So therefore, one must also be open to all other religions, such that they too, may be true and may be untrue. So really, thinking this way, how can one stick with one religion alone, when all the others are just as possible?
One thing you can do, is simply say "God, if you're out there, then there are so many religions out there, and there is no proof that any are right, so therefore I'm just going to carry with my life and not bother with any of the religions, since there's just as much possibility that they're heretical as they are right. I think it's best to just not bother with any of them at all"
When you do this pledge, then you won't be to blame. I mean, how are you supposed to know which religion is right? - You don't/can't. And neither can you practice all of them. So you might as well just practice none of them, and just carry on with your now secular life.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 8 2007, 05:21 PM)
So you believe then, in all the miracles and that he existed, Ok.
But you say that it may be true and also untrue. Well, that's good, because talking to someone of blind faith, is like talking to a brick wall.
I find the best way to treat it, is like a theory, such that it 'may' be true, and that it 'may' be untrue.
So therefore, one must also be open to all other religions, such that they too, may be true and may be untrue. So really, thinking this way, how can one stick with one religion alone, when all the others are just as possible?
One thing you can do, is simply say "God, if you're out there, then there are so many religions out there, and there is no proof that any are right, so therefore I'm just going to carry with my life and not bother with any of the religions, since there's just as much possibility that they're heretical as they are right. I think it's best to just not bother with any of them at all"
When you do this pledge, then you won't be to blame. I mean, how are you supposed to know which religion is right? - You don't/can't. And neither can you practice all of them. So you might as well just practice none of them, and just carry on with your now secular life.
Hey, unless the kid plans on going on a Crusade, let him believe in Christ. Life will present plenty of challenges to his faith in the future.
But you say that it may be true and also untrue. Well, that's good, because talking to someone of blind faith, is like talking to a brick wall.
I find the best way to treat it, is like a theory, such that it 'may' be true, and that it 'may' be untrue.
So therefore, one must also be open to all other religions, such that they too, may be true and may be untrue. So really, thinking this way, how can one stick with one religion alone, when all the others are just as possible?
One thing you can do, is simply say "God, if you're out there, then there are so many religions out there, and there is no proof that any are right, so therefore I'm just going to carry with my life and not bother with any of the religions, since there's just as much possibility that they're heretical as they are right. I think it's best to just not bother with any of them at all"
When you do this pledge, then you won't be to blame. I mean, how are you supposed to know which religion is right? - You don't/can't. And neither can you practice all of them. So you might as well just practice none of them, and just carry on with your now secular life.
Hey, unless the kid plans on going on a Crusade, let him believe in Christ. Life will present plenty of challenges to his faith in the future.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 8 2007, 05:06 PM)
See, but Christianity calls for "unwavering faith", no?
They just make it so easy to fail, thus controling your path and actions to such a great degree that it's disempowering for many.
Unwavering faith yes, I agree with you on that. But easy to fail, were do you get this, if it was so easy for someone to fail, then don't you think this world would be worse then what it is, since Christianity is the largest religion. The fact that your given the choice to believe in God or not,to follow Christianity.
Your statement just really doesn't make sense at all.
They just make it so easy to fail, thus controling your path and actions to such a great degree that it's disempowering for many.
Unwavering faith yes, I agree with you on that. But easy to fail, were do you get this, if it was so easy for someone to fail, then don't you think this world would be worse then what it is, since Christianity is the largest religion. The fact that your given the choice to believe in God or not,to follow Christianity.
Your statement just really doesn't make sense at all.
Well BrynRichards brings up a very good point. Can't be blamed by a greater beng if you're not going to choose a religion so you're not going against them.
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 8 2007, 05:28 PM)
Well BrynRichards brings up a very good point. Can't be blamed by a greater beng if you're not going to choose a religion so you're not going against them.
It really is the safest bet.
It really is the safest bet.
QUOTE (Sicewa+Aug 8 2007, 05:28 PM)
Well BrynRichards brings up a very good point. Can't be blamed by a greater beng if you're not going to choose a religion so you're not going against them.
If there is a higher being actually blaming anyone for anything. These things are duality. A higher being may well have merged the duality into a cosmic wholeness, and so reached unconditionality. We seem to project our own judgements on ourself and onto others by creating a being that administers that judgment. That is the illusion.
If there is a higher being actually blaming anyone for anything. These things are duality. A higher being may well have merged the duality into a cosmic wholeness, and so reached unconditionality. We seem to project our own judgements on ourself and onto others by creating a being that administers that judgment. That is the illusion.
QUOTE (kira+Aug 8 2007, 05:27 PM)
Unwavering faith yes, I agree with you on that. But easy to fail, were do you get this, if it was so easy for someone to fail, then don't you think this world would be worse then what it is, since Christianity is the largest religion. The fact that your given the choice to believe in God or not,to follow Christianity.
Your statement just really doesn't make sense at all.
I'm afraid we misunderstand each other, then.
When I made the statement "They (the church) make it easy to fail", I was referring to failure in the eyes of the church & co., not necessarily failure in other terms, such as negatively impacting all those around you, for example. Being a non-evangelical Christian could also be deemed "failure" by many priests and pastors... yet another problem; the huge margin allowing for many different interpretations.
As such, I am currently failing by not subscribing to the belief that Jesus is the son of God, and will be punished with an eternity in hell (obviously I am currently unconvinced that this outcome is true).
And yes, we are given the choice to believe in a higher God-like power, but this does not necessarily mean following Christianity. However, perhaps that is your understanding, as it once was mine.
Your statement just really doesn't make sense at all.
I'm afraid we misunderstand each other, then.
When I made the statement "They (the church) make it easy to fail", I was referring to failure in the eyes of the church & co., not necessarily failure in other terms, such as negatively impacting all those around you, for example. Being a non-evangelical Christian could also be deemed "failure" by many priests and pastors... yet another problem; the huge margin allowing for many different interpretations.
As such, I am currently failing by not subscribing to the belief that Jesus is the son of God, and will be punished with an eternity in hell (obviously I am currently unconvinced that this outcome is true).
And yes, we are given the choice to believe in a higher God-like power, but this does not necessarily mean following Christianity. However, perhaps that is your understanding, as it once was mine.
QUOTE (kira+Aug 8 2007, 11:27 AM)
since Christianity is the largest religion.
Are they? Maybe - if you lump all Christians together. (I'll let you tell the Jehovah's Witnesses that you count them with the Catholics.)
Do all Christians have problems accepting that there are other concepts of god that don't match their own?
Are they? Maybe - if you lump all Christians together. (I'll let you tell the Jehovah's Witnesses that you count them with the Catholics.)
QUOTE
The fact that your given the choice to believe in God or not,to follow Christianity.
Do all Christians have problems accepting that there are other concepts of god that don't match their own?
QUOTE
Anyway, on topic: Isn't there something like 500 independent documents saying Jesus died and was then resurrected?
Sure...if you count document written by people who are Christians(or Muslims)....
It is similar to using a google search to prove your point...
i.e. There are thousands of websites supporting the idea of the loch ness monster.
As far as unbiased, historical references to Jesus in any way shape or form....we have little to nothing. We have a reference by the Jewish historian Josephus. It has been a little manipulated over the years...
That is it....the rest of them were almost all written by the Christian faithful....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyway, on topic: Isn't there something like 500 independent documents saying Jesus died and was then resurrected? |
Sure...if you count document written by people who are Christians(or Muslims)....
It is similar to using a google search to prove your point...
i.e. There are thousands of websites supporting the idea of the loch ness monster.
As far as unbiased, historical references to Jesus in any way shape or form....we have little to nothing. We have a reference by the Jewish historian Josephus. It has been a little manipulated over the years...
That is it....the rest of them were almost all written by the Christian faithful....
Hey, unless the kid plans on going on a Crusade, let him believe in Christ. Life will present plenty of challenges to his faith in the future.
Yeah, as long as he doesn't go on a crusade, using his beliefs to justify violence against people, using his belief to restrict the actions of other people, etc....
It would be crazy to think that some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality, sexual imagery, alternative lifestyles, or are inherently racist(like mormons).
Yep, as long as none of those situations come up in a political/social setting....he is fine[CODE]
There aren't hundreds of independant accounts of Jesus's resurrection. There are a few claims that hundreds of people saw the resurrection.
To prove this, read the following
"Hundreds of people have seen El_Machinae rip the head off a tiger"
It's a single claim, but it claims that hundreds of people witnessed the event. Clearly, the statement is not at all reputable, despite its own claim that hundreds of people witnessed the event.
To prove this, read the following
"Hundreds of people have seen El_Machinae rip the head off a tiger"
It's a single claim, but it claims that hundreds of people witnessed the event. Clearly, the statement is not at all reputable, despite its own claim that hundreds of people witnessed the event.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 9 2007, 02:16 AM)
Yeah, as long as he doesn't go on a crusade, using his beliefs to justify violence against people, using his belief to restrict the actions of other people, etc....
It would be crazy to think that some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality, sexual imagery, alternative lifestyles, or are inherently racist(like mormons).
Yep, as long as none of those situations come up in a political/social setting....he is fine[CODE]
I understand what you are saying. But do you want to tell a frightened child that the Bible she is clutching might as well be a rabbit’s foot? Has your lack of faith brought you greater happiness?
Faith can be a bright light in an otherwise bitter and dark world. I accept reality and truth. But I don’t find either particularly pleasant at times. As long as one’s religious beliefs aren’t used as a weapon of abuse, I don’t have problem with it.
It would be crazy to think that some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality, sexual imagery, alternative lifestyles, or are inherently racist(like mormons).
Yep, as long as none of those situations come up in a political/social setting....he is fine[CODE]
I understand what you are saying. But do you want to tell a frightened child that the Bible she is clutching might as well be a rabbit’s foot? Has your lack of faith brought you greater happiness?
Faith can be a bright light in an otherwise bitter and dark world. I accept reality and truth. But I don’t find either particularly pleasant at times. As long as one’s religious beliefs aren’t used as a weapon of abuse, I don’t have problem with it.
QUOTE
I understand what you are saying. But do you want to tell a frightened child that the Bible she is clutching might as well be a rabbit’s foot? Has your lack of faith brought you greater happiness?
Actually, my lack of faith has brought me a great deal more happiness.....
I no longer blame my problems on something else(i.e. Karma, God, the devil), but now I blame my problems squarely on myself.....
This forces me to better myself, it also gives me a much greater sense of satisfaction when I do good. I am not being good to avoid punishment, but I am being kind, generous, charitable, etc because it is the right thing to do....
I also get at the very least an extra hour on sunday to enjoy to myself.....and I get the satisfaction of everything making a little more sense.....
So...YES...my lack of faith(at least in an active God) has brought me a great deal more happiness.
Ignorance is not necessarily bliss.....
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 8 2007, 10:16 PM)
As far as unbiased, historical references to Jesus in any way shape or form....we have little to nothing. We have a reference by the Jewish historian Josephus. It has been a little manipulated over the years...
Feeling a bit kind or PC today PuckSR?
I thought that the Josephus quote was considered a forgery by most scholars. Has that changed?
Feeling a bit kind or PC today PuckSR?
I thought that the Josephus quote was considered a forgery by most scholars. Has that changed?
QUOTE
I thought that the Josephus quote was considered a forgery by most scholars. Has that changed?
I am simply of the camp that believes that Josephus probably "mentioned" Jesus, but the version that you can find today is highly dubious....
Especially since, according to the popular version, he basically claims Jesus is the Messiah...but then only write about him for 1 paragraph.
If he truly thought that Jesus was as worthy of praise as the popular text indicates....wouldn't he have written at least a bit more than one paragraph in a book?
So...I think it has factual origins....but i doubt very much the popular version.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 9 2007, 06:21 AM)
So...YES...my lack of faith(at least in an active God) has brought me a great deal more happiness.
A glass of bourbon works for some people.
A glass of bourbon works for some people.
Does it strike you as impossible that I might enjoy life without God in it?
Yes.
Then, I guess that explains why you believe in God Derek...
You MUST believe in God....You do not believe in God because it makes logical sense, or because of any other reason but an absolute desire to believe in God.
I cannot believe something simply because it makes me happier...and that seems like a rather foolish motivation.....
You can NEVER be unbiased...because you cannot even conceive of a world without God.
You MUST believe in God....You do not believe in God because it makes logical sense, or because of any other reason but an absolute desire to believe in God.
I cannot believe something simply because it makes me happier...and that seems like a rather foolish motivation.....
You can NEVER be unbiased...because you cannot even conceive of a world without God.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 11 2007, 01:27 AM)
I cannot believe something simply because it makes me happier...and that seems like a rather foolish motivation.....
But you said:
So...YES...my lack of faith(at least in an active God) has brought me a great deal more happiness.
*********************
You believe something here which you claim is making you happier. You believe that a lack of faith (at least in an active God) has brought you a great deal more happiness. Happiness of course can be a fleeting thing. But if the quality of faith you had was making you unhappy, then best to discard it. Some claim that practising spiritual discipline can bring bliss. It would be harsh to suggest these people merely MUST believe, rather they look forward to further exploration. If it don't fit don't force it.
The reasons for one’s faith are as varied as the number of religions. It is not so much a pursuit of personal happiness as it is a search for individual truth.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jul 5 2007, 08:52 AM)
A bit off topic Wulf but I will answer anyway. Actually this is in the Bible.
The idea of being "born again" means just that. This is not a sexual conception, but a conception similar to that of Jesus himself who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this second conception the identity of Jesus incorporates the element of immortality into one’s being - similar to having inherited physical qualities from our first parents. Jesus has over history, been incorporated into billions of people which surely makes him the number one candidate as mankind’s evolutionary prototype.
Why did God create us?
In Christianity it is claimed that Jesus is son of God.How do I understand it?
How can you exlain destiny?What is the volition?When we say we have volition are we right,God picked this lifeline when he created me(because God knows everything)
[/CODE]Do not leave your world without your mind
I am slave of my mind[CODE]
How can you exlain destiny?What is the volition?When we say we have volition are we right,God picked this lifeline when he created me(because God knows everything)
[/CODE]Do not leave your world without your mind
CODE
I think TOE will solve this problem and everyone will not need to think diffirent
QUOTE
But you said:
So...YES...my lack of faith(at least in an active God) has brought me a great deal more happiness.
*********************
You believe something here which you claim is making you happier. You believe that a lack of faith (at least in an active God) has brought you a great deal more happiness. Happiness of course can be a fleeting thing. But if the quality of faith you had was making you unhappy, then best to discard it. Some claim that practising spiritual discipline can bring bliss. It would be harsh to suggest these people merely MUST believe, rather they look forward to further exploration. If it don't fit don't force it.
So...YES...my lack of faith(at least in an active God) has brought me a great deal more happiness.
*********************
You believe something here which you claim is making you happier. You believe that a lack of faith (at least in an active God) has brought you a great deal more happiness. Happiness of course can be a fleeting thing. But if the quality of faith you had was making you unhappy, then best to discard it. Some claim that practising spiritual discipline can bring bliss. It would be harsh to suggest these people merely MUST believe, rather they look forward to further exploration. If it don't fit don't force it.
Ummm Mirrorman...what your post is pretty useless....sorry
I said that my faith was not reliant on me being happy. If my belief made me sad, I would still hold my belief. I simply mentioned that as a side-effect of my belief...I am happy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But you said: So...YES...my lack of faith(at least in an active God) has brought me a great deal more happiness. ********************* You believe something here which you claim is making you happier. You believe that a lack of faith (at least in an active God) has brought you a great deal more happiness. Happiness of course can be a fleeting thing. But if the quality of faith you had was making you unhappy, then best to discard it. Some claim that practising spiritual discipline can bring bliss. It would be harsh to suggest these people merely MUST believe, rather they look forward to further exploration. If it don't fit don't force it. |
Ummm Mirrorman...what your post is pretty useless....sorry
I said that my faith was not reliant on me being happy. If my belief made me sad, I would still hold my belief. I simply mentioned that as a side-effect of my belief...I am happy.
The reasons for one’s faith are as varied as the number of religions. It is not so much a pursuit of personal happiness as it is a search for individual truth.
But you cannot really be searching for truth when you automatically dismiss a possible truth(i.e. the non-involvement of God).
QUOTE (Derek1148+Aug 9 2007, 04:46 AM)
Has your lack of faith brought you greater happiness?
You should not be using faith as a drug, to get 'high' off. You should look at what in your life is making you unhappy, and make positive changes towards it, to ensure greater happiness.
Relying on faith to solve your problems, or ignore them, is not a good thing. It is better to face your problems head-on, because the task ahead of you, is never as great as the power behind you.
It is by such a practice, that a strong mind and better quality of life, may be developed.
You should not be using faith as a drug, to get 'high' off. You should look at what in your life is making you unhappy, and make positive changes towards it, to ensure greater happiness.
Relying on faith to solve your problems, or ignore them, is not a good thing. It is better to face your problems head-on, because the task ahead of you, is never as great as the power behind you.
It is by such a practice, that a strong mind and better quality of life, may be developed.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 11 2007, 05:05 PM)
Ummm Mirrorman...what your post is pretty useless....sorry
I said that my faith was not reliant on me being happy. If my belief made me sad, I would still hold my belief. I simply mentioned that as a side-effect of my belief...I am happy.
But you cannot really be searching for truth when you automatically dismiss a possible truth(i.e. the non-involvement of God).
Well, there is nothing in life here that is not based on a belief of some kind.
Side effects are no more than electrons colliding with positrons and creating gamma rays.
Your last sentence makes no sense at all. For a start I can't believe that you automatically dismissed this possible truth, and that there must have been a process of time involved. Were you not searching for truth whilst in the process of dismissing a possible truth? Or do you not actually care if the position you now hold is true?
Everything operates on causes and effects, everything reacting from everything else.
I said that my faith was not reliant on me being happy. If my belief made me sad, I would still hold my belief. I simply mentioned that as a side-effect of my belief...I am happy.
But you cannot really be searching for truth when you automatically dismiss a possible truth(i.e. the non-involvement of God).
Well, there is nothing in life here that is not based on a belief of some kind.
Side effects are no more than electrons colliding with positrons and creating gamma rays.
Your last sentence makes no sense at all. For a start I can't believe that you automatically dismissed this possible truth, and that there must have been a process of time involved. Were you not searching for truth whilst in the process of dismissing a possible truth? Or do you not actually care if the position you now hold is true?
Everything operates on causes and effects, everything reacting from everything else.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 05:19 PM)
You should not be using faith as a drug, to get 'high' off. You should look at what in your life is making you unhappy, and make positive changes towards it, to ensure greater happiness.
Relying on faith to solve your problems, or ignore them, is not a good thing. It is better to face your problems head-on, because the task ahead of you, is never as great as the power behind you.
It is by such a practice, that a strong mind and better quality of life, may be developed.
Of course, you are making an assumption that God does not exist. Whether you and I believe in God is irrelevant. There are many who have faith. And they believe in the existence of God.
Happiness is a relative thing. Being productive and having a positive influence on other’s lives is probably more important than some transient happiness or temporary faith.
“Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.” (George Orwell)
Relying on faith to solve your problems, or ignore them, is not a good thing. It is better to face your problems head-on, because the task ahead of you, is never as great as the power behind you.
It is by such a practice, that a strong mind and better quality of life, may be developed.
Of course, you are making an assumption that God does not exist. Whether you and I believe in God is irrelevant. There are many who have faith. And they believe in the existence of God.
Happiness is a relative thing. Being productive and having a positive influence on other’s lives is probably more important than some transient happiness or temporary faith.
“Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.” (George Orwell)
I think realising that "things can get better or are pretty good" is a pretty heavy component of happiness. As well, not being depressed really helps. Some depression is obviously biological
One thing to concider is the humans do not adhere to the theory of evolusion. All other animals do. but not humans.
we are an enigma. by evolusion, we should be buildt like carbonbased terminators. but instead we are built like domesticated sheep; no fangs, claws or cainines; 1/5 of the muscular strength of apes...our forefathers. we are slow, weak, unathletic animals, almost like the base of the food chain in respect to the survival of the fittest.
Secondly, as Jesus is mentioned here in regards to christianity. Jesus was not a christian. Nor did he *ever* call his god Lord or Javhe, most oftenly just 'father'.
And to attribute the creation of man to 'God'... In genesis, the word 'elohim' which is feminie plural, is translated in english into a word that is maskulin singular, 'God'. How is that for a fact?
Since we are all sicentists here, there should be no wrong in applying the same scientify research methodes to the basis of our faiths, the good books.
do that, but we will get no clear answer. what will be cleary apparent is that our faith in dogmatic Religions are based on bad translations, scripture manupulation, and secret societies (ooooh, conspiracy theory!). See why Richard Dawkins throws a fit?
But we humans are an enigma, and Jahve, the psychpatically inclined Lord from the old testament, is long gone dead, but must still be part of the pussle, the batsard. He is the 'God of the gaps' that never fit. Probably quite close to Kil Il Sung of North Korea.
Jesus' God, the father, on the other hand, is something completly different. His is the god of the gaps, because 'he' isn't a personality, but maby more of the forces of nature we don't yet understand.
And more so on, the Lord YHWH slayed all his opponents, their kids, wifes and kids pets and teddybears too. But i find it hard to imagine jesus in a fistfight with buddha over a cup of tea.
The creation vs evolution discussion only makes sense becuase we (me included) don't know enough about what we are talking about.
The creation myth in genesis is much older than genesis, it's can be recognised in many older scriptures, where for instance 'water' is deemed to be a metahpor for chaos, and then we have a weak connection to entrophy. (there are alot of weird connections like this in these old scriptiures)
There is a way to figure this out, but we need more people too look at it comming from different angles and backgrounds, but the first thing that has to be droppped is the doxa that there exixts such a thing as a perfect holy scripture straight from god (because the 'god' that commanded this would be labelled psychopat if he ever were to get analysed), and that my god is stronger than your god (some poeple of this forum should be glad they are not face-to-face in a discussion panel).
we need faith, but not faith in some persona-like god. keep your saints and buddhas, we need better rolemodels than what MTV provides, but just faith that if we all work together we will be a lot better off than bithcing at each other like kids, mimicing this Lord of the old testament, the 'root of all evil' (which Richard Dawkins should have pointed out, if he wasn't too a hardcore evolusionist?).
we are an enigma. by evolusion, we should be buildt like carbonbased terminators. but instead we are built like domesticated sheep; no fangs, claws or cainines; 1/5 of the muscular strength of apes...our forefathers. we are slow, weak, unathletic animals, almost like the base of the food chain in respect to the survival of the fittest.
Secondly, as Jesus is mentioned here in regards to christianity. Jesus was not a christian. Nor did he *ever* call his god Lord or Javhe, most oftenly just 'father'.
And to attribute the creation of man to 'God'... In genesis, the word 'elohim' which is feminie plural, is translated in english into a word that is maskulin singular, 'God'. How is that for a fact?
Since we are all sicentists here, there should be no wrong in applying the same scientify research methodes to the basis of our faiths, the good books.
do that, but we will get no clear answer. what will be cleary apparent is that our faith in dogmatic Religions are based on bad translations, scripture manupulation, and secret societies (ooooh, conspiracy theory!). See why Richard Dawkins throws a fit?
But we humans are an enigma, and Jahve, the psychpatically inclined Lord from the old testament, is long gone dead, but must still be part of the pussle, the batsard. He is the 'God of the gaps' that never fit. Probably quite close to Kil Il Sung of North Korea.
Jesus' God, the father, on the other hand, is something completly different. His is the god of the gaps, because 'he' isn't a personality, but maby more of the forces of nature we don't yet understand.
And more so on, the Lord YHWH slayed all his opponents, their kids, wifes and kids pets and teddybears too. But i find it hard to imagine jesus in a fistfight with buddha over a cup of tea.
The creation vs evolution discussion only makes sense becuase we (me included) don't know enough about what we are talking about.
The creation myth in genesis is much older than genesis, it's can be recognised in many older scriptures, where for instance 'water' is deemed to be a metahpor for chaos, and then we have a weak connection to entrophy. (there are alot of weird connections like this in these old scriptiures)
There is a way to figure this out, but we need more people too look at it comming from different angles and backgrounds, but the first thing that has to be droppped is the doxa that there exixts such a thing as a perfect holy scripture straight from god (because the 'god' that commanded this would be labelled psychopat if he ever were to get analysed), and that my god is stronger than your god (some poeple of this forum should be glad they are not face-to-face in a discussion panel).
we need faith, but not faith in some persona-like god. keep your saints and buddhas, we need better rolemodels than what MTV provides, but just faith that if we all work together we will be a lot better off than bithcing at each other like kids, mimicing this Lord of the old testament, the 'root of all evil' (which Richard Dawkins should have pointed out, if he wasn't too a hardcore evolusionist?).
QUOTE
One thing to concider is the humans do not adhere to the theory of evolusion. All other animals do. but not humans.
we are an enigma. by evolusion, we should be buildt like carbonbased terminators. but instead we are built like domesticated sheep; no fangs, claws or cainines; 1/5 of the muscular strength of apes...our forefathers. we are slow, weak, unathletic animals, almost like the base of the food chain in respect to the survival of the fittest.
we are an enigma. by evolusion, we should be buildt like carbonbased terminators. but instead we are built like domesticated sheep; no fangs, claws or cainines; 1/5 of the muscular strength of apes...our forefathers. we are slow, weak, unathletic animals, almost like the base of the food chain in respect to the survival of the fittest.
Wow...you couldn't be more wrong....
You are an idiot in every sense of the word.....
You misspelled evolution, you misrepresented the theory...and then you failed to realize our superiority is in our intelligence and fine motor skills....
Shut up and leave...damn troll
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 12 2007, 03:33 PM)
Wow...you couldn't be more wrong....
You are an idiot in every sense of the word.....
You misspelled evolution, you misrepresented the theory...and then you failed to realize our superiority is in our intelligence and fine motor skills....
Shut up and leave...damn troll
He's got a right to his say.
You are an idiot in every sense of the word.....
You misspelled evolution, you misrepresented the theory...and then you failed to realize our superiority is in our intelligence and fine motor skills....
Shut up and leave...damn troll
He's got a right to his say.
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
QUOTE (gnimmelf+Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM)
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
Don't worry about Puck, he welcomed me in exactly the same way, as he has a right to do of course.
As to your question, indeed, and so many similar questions too. I find that the more I find out about some aspects of evolution, the more questions there are. Luckily we have a form of consciousness that will get to the top of it one day! Don't take too much notice of the people that bleat out "if you really studied it you'd know". They don't know themselves so why should anyone else. A big hunch is cool, but it always looks better on that guy from Notre Dame.
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
Don't worry about Puck, he welcomed me in exactly the same way, as he has a right to do of course.
As to your question, indeed, and so many similar questions too. I find that the more I find out about some aspects of evolution, the more questions there are. Luckily we have a form of consciousness that will get to the top of it one day! Don't take too much notice of the people that bleat out "if you really studied it you'd know". They don't know themselves so why should anyone else. A big hunch is cool, but it always looks better on that guy from Notre Dame.
QUOTE
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
Ok, before you waste everyone's time...go read up on "evolution"(btw that it the correct spelling)....
"Survival of the fittest" does not imply that the strongest survive.....that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard...
"fittest" does not apply to strongest, smartest, etc....but rather "what works better than the other guys". Darwin himself didn't use the term "survival of the fittest"....
You have a lot to learn, and I don't plan on teaching every ***** who has a web connection. Read educational websites before you start acting like an imbecile on here....
How did we survive?
How do chimps survive?
We traded big brains for powerful muscles....our brain uses a lot of energy..
Seriously...go read...and don't waste everyone's time
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.