That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being guided by metaphysical thinking. The same thinking that is now influencing many modern day physicists (both theoretical and experimental) who are trying to unify quantum field theory with Einstein's theory of gravitation.
It is of course true that philosophers and artists (of the religious and non-religious persuasion) have written volumes( books and papers) about quantum mechanics and gravity theory, whereas scientists are now only beginning to explore the reality embodied in quantum field theory.
What I am proposing is that acquiring a comprehensive picture of the physical world requires the combination of physics and philosophy/religion or to some extent, art.
That isn't true at all. If you're going to argue in favor of God, you should try to be honest about it rather than putting together a pack of lies. It's people like you who give religion a bad name.
What pack of lies are you referring to?
Scientists aren't driven by metaphysical thinking as they are by the scientific method., which precluded metaphysical thinking long ago. No need to make up stuff to defend God.
I think you need to refresh your memory bank regarding Newton's and Einsteins's approach to the empirical model.....lots of imaginative/metaphysical thinking there, that are not entirely/purely based on the physical/material. Einstein himself said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge.".... and I think Newton would agree completely to that assertion.
No, there was thinking about the physical stuff, that's about all. Imagining how things can work using gedanken is not the same thing as metaphysical thinking.
Meinard Kuhlmann, the noted physicist and philosopher had this to say about the topic that we are discussing: "Metaphysics (or philosophy, or religion) supplies various competing frameworks for the ontology of the material world, although beyond questions of internal consistency, it cannot decide among them, Physics, for its part, lacks a coherent account of fundamental issues, such as the definition of objects, the role of individuality, the status of properties, the relation of things and properties, and the significance of space and time."
Sounds like he really likes to philosophize about stuff, good for him. Doesn't sound much like a physicist, though.
You might want to Google Prof. Kuhlman, who, if I am not mistaken has dual degrees in physics and philosophy, and has done professorial/research work at the universities of Oxford, Chicago and Pittsburgh.
There are a lot of Prof. Kuhlman's, which one is it?
A person could have dual degrees, but that doesn't prove anything. Look at Fred Hoyle, he contributed greatly to theories of stellar formation, but went on to support crank theories and rejecting other well established theories.
He's was at Cambridge most of those years as a Director.
I saw little import from him other than he believes philosophy is important to physics, specifically quantum mechanics, and was trying to sell books on the topic. I didn't see any physicists leaping on his bandwagon, though.
A measure of a scientist's worth is not measured by the numbers of fellow scientists immediately "leaping on his bandwagon". It took quite sometime before his fellow scientists and the general public at large to understand the implications of Einstein's elegant equation: E-mc2
And BTW, God does not need to be defended..... for what kind of a Supreme Being would He be if He needs me, a mere mortal, to defend Him. Now belief in God....that should be defended.
I might agree with that, but I wouldn't agree to go to such lengths defending ones beliefs by sacrificing their integrity.
My original post was neither intended to be a defense of my beliefs, nor did I sacrifice the integrity of those beliefs by suggesting that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You might find the suggestion abhorrent because your prescription for being a good Christian does not include being able to conceptualize the idea (not a radical one, to my thinking) that belief in God could be informed by empirical observation and methodologies or vice-versa.
The problem is that it is okay to be wrong in science but not in religion. You can not work hand in hand with someone who is always right even when they are wrong. Religions have been wrong about the Earth being flat, the center of the universe, and has killed countless people for "witchcraft" while science in all cases has found the truth. This is a general statement but overall this is what the relationship between religion and science has been throughout history. Until religion can accept that what they have believed in for thousands of years may be wrong then they are like oil and water. You can't seek out the truth is if you want to believe lies.
That's also not quite true. Science, or people who honestly believed they were doing good scientific work, has produced plenty of bad stuff, including alchemy and the racial theories that eventually lead to T4 and the gas chambers.
Religious people have made plenty of bad choices, but like science, most people who are truly seeking God go through a process of trying to see what is true and what isn't.
And if you're going to say that the people who produced the junk science weren't 'real' scientists, then congratulations! Scientists as well as religious people can fall prey to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy!
The Catholic Church and other branches of Christianity have long concluded and accepted the fact that their perception and interpretation of the material/physical world was erroneous , and that science should be given sole/ultimate purview of that aspect of human endeavor. So to keep dredging historical factoids about how malevolent religious leaders were during the times when they thought they have the sole responsibility of interpreting the physical world, .......just does not cut it as debating points.
So organized religion and religious leaders do not browbeat the public with their personal interpretations of what God has done in the world?
As in declaring that homosexuals are "self made" and it is a choice rather than genetic, you mean?
As in declaring that creationism is a scientific theory, useful is describing the beginnings of the universe?
As in declaring that a zygote has a soul and abortion doctors are therefore murderers?
As in declaring that the evolution of one species into another is impossible - that only god can create a species and that He does it in one shot without intermediate steps?
I suppose that if you think all these are true (as most religious leaders do) that "malevolent" hardly describes forcing other people to accept them. To those that already know better, however, "malevolent" fits quite well. Nor will those people quite accept that religious leaders leave describing the physical world (genetics of homosexuality, perhaps) to science. Not with the constant bombardment from religion that only they have all the answers.
The zygote does have a soul. As soon as the egg and sperm come together there is a flash of light in the astral world and a waiting soul is attracted by it and enters the union. So I have heard and believe. It is more likely to be true than not.
God did not make homosexuality, the individual did... If not in this life, the last. An individual can always get over it if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately they mostly don't. Habits and desires are hard to change or shed.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?!?!
You have GOT to be joking.
You have "heard" there is a flash of light in a non-existant astral world (where photons are highly unlikely to exist anyway) and it is therefore true. And somehow decided that it is "more likely" true than not, having zero evidence to support such a claim other than the statement from some charlatan. You even go so far as to maintain that a soul enters the zygote; a soul that is undetectable by any method known to man and thus cannot be tested for.
You claim a homosexual can "get over it" as if there was something to get over. Again in the face of all scientific evidence, leaving only the beliefs of religious leaders who have decided that because of some scriptural verse written into the bible during deliberations of the council of Nicaea.
You make my case very well; religious people, whether leader or follower, most definitely describe the natural world from within their belief system, AND require that others accept that description as true. (Otherwise there would not be such a legal fight by religion against gay marriage OR abortion).
Thank you for the help, although if you would support the idea that such a thing is malevolent (think of the gays intentionally being hurt) it would be appreciated.
Sorry. I couldn't help myself. I've read a lot of silly things on this site, bit that one is going to be hard to top. Bravo.
Thats because you have no evidence of the astral world or what goes on there.
that's because there IS no evidence of the astral world or what goes on there.
Why don't you provide some and solve the problem?
I have my sources which I believe are credible but you would not. So, I shall not even try.
No one has scientific proof of when the soul enters the zygote. However, It stands to reason, it is when the union of the egg and sperm occurs. Where does an ant go after it is squished? There is no proof that it goes to the astral realm, but where else would it go? Then the little ant entity reincarnates into another ant egg or if it happens to be ready, the egg of a higher life form, say a spider....
Believe me, there is much traffic coming and going from earth to astral plane and vice verse.
What is the evidence of electromagnetic energy? You sure can't see it directly.
In the same way, you can't see the astral realm of existence!
"Believe me, there is much traffic coming and going from earth to astral plane and vice verse."
Why? Why would anyone believe a person that makes impossible claims, then explains that although they have credible sources for their information they won't produce those sources?
I trust you understand the point here...
There is the distinct possibility the ant doesn't go anywhere, it's just squished out of existence.
...if that were the case we would run out of ants.
Like if we stopped producing pennies, they would eventually disappear.
Good riddance to both.
I like pennies.
except for the fact that ants breed in astronomical numbers, and there are billions of them - multiple species of them. There is no proof that ants reincarnate. Nor is there proof that ANYTHING does.
You can't seriously believe this crap, can you? You don't know anything about homosexuals - or ANTS for that matter. Do you have a filter between the thoughts that pop into your head and your fingers that type on the keyboard? I'm guessing not.
50% of the general population has an IQ below the average. Don't worry so much about the bottom 15%. The top half think you are great and wouldn't change a thing.
Stay inside the box, if you want to... I clearly do not.
I am outside the mental box where most people stuff themselves. Yes, there are ants out here. They seem to be a new evolutionary form... they are apparently indestructible. They won't go away no matter what I do, so I have learned to live with them. But, I have to destroy thousands with the swipe of a wet cloth every chance I get. Yes, they keep reincarnating.
...so you really think there is only one lifetime? We have only this one chance to return to God? If so most people are absolutely doomed.
how can one live a hopeful life?
...with the fear of fire and brimstone?
One starts with discarding the whole God thing so one can enjoy the time we know we have.
I disagree here.. there are a lot of us that enjoy the time we have while including the "whole God thing"
Sure, but some can't stop trying to please their God and they think to please their God they must convince others that they should think like themselves. So they spend their time preaching about an imaginary figment of their imagination that above all else requires worship. They imagine spending eternity at God's feet listening to his stories.
Kathryn, with all due respect here, any source or evidence that you have that you find credible but cannot be considered credible by everyone that can examine it cannot, in itself, automatically be considered evidence of truth. At best it can only serve to reinforce a personal belief (especially if it is something that has not been personally observed).
- ever heard of the word
I am sure you have, DM. What I am doing is giving other believers reinforcement for their legitimate belief in the invisible, but very knowable omnipresent sprit who designed us. I've deducted that He came up with a blueprint (which we reveal and which is not yet complete in its evolution and/or manifestation and can be understood as an on going process) and then sent it out into creation in all life forms and all variations of it. The original design was in the form of a thought blueprint originating in His Mind.
Q. What is constructed by humans w i t h o u t the invisible process of thinking and imagination?
PS Homosexuality in humans is due to man-made imagination, not God-made. It doesn't make sense in scheme of nature, which we are part of. Nevertheless, He gave us free will and we are like gods in our ability to imagine and create. He is very patient with us, but would rather we cooperate with the way He designed it. (My logical deduction. just mine. forgive me.)
BTW Sensing the unseen by way of intuition is un-provable to others.
Proof is way over-rated
Proof is all we have. Your delusions do not compare. Thank goodness we stopped listening to you guys long ago. Otherwise we would still be burning witches. The fact that you are incapable of understanding where "intuition" comes from, does not make it majick. Sorry.. I find a lot of people who are not at all in tune with themselves think it is majick when it is not. That is simply the easy, no work option. Admittedly it is easy. I feel something therefore it is majick. If you understood where it came from, you would be able to prove it to others.
It is provable, but the evidence does not come from without. It comes from within. Jesus, Krishna, Buddha and the saints of all religions are guiding us us in that direction. The devil tries to get us to go outwardly... farther out the better.
there is no proof that I am wrong...
and that is okay!
Weird. See - that is not the way it works. That is the lazy way. I don't blame you - self assessment is very, very scary for some people. Despite the fact that this is what the alleged Jesus person was actually talking about. You know - heaven being "inside." Lazy, lazy lazy.
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You're saying that an evolved soul can create anything they want. Prove it.
No one can prove that leprechauns don't exist - do you believe in them too?
But you said proof is overrated so therefore you wouldn't accept whatever proof was shown to you anyway. And as such you might not recognize the proof if it were provided to you
"Proof is way over-rated" - that would depend on whether one wants truth/reality or endorphins. Proof has it's place just as imagination and rationalization does, and it all depends on the desired result.
What has man ever constructed without great thought/imagination? How about children...
Q. Then who did think of the child?
A. The child himself!
...our blueprints (invisible) are maintained from incarnation to incarnation!
I am giving believers the ammunition to believe... but they don't take up their arms. How come? Oh well, maybe later.
A child, unformed and without a single cell to it's name, thought up itself. Interesting concept, even if without any rational meaning.
Sorry, blueprints to us do not pass from one incarnation to another; the only people with identical blueprints are identical twins. Certainly they never pass from one generation to the next - the blueprints always change. Constructed anew, by the unthinking actions of the parents.
Why would you give ammunition to a believer? They already believe and need no ammunition to continue that belief. No, you are giving the ammunition you find useful in perpetuating your own belief to non-believers; non-believers that find your personal ammunition no more than dust blowing in the wind. Of no value in creating their own belief, different from yours. Which is why they don't take it up as it leads only to false belief (being different than theirs, it is obviously false).
Yes, I've heard of the word faith. I know the dictionary and the biblical definitions of the word. However, there is a difference between living in faith and living in delusionary denial. There is also a fine line separating the two. The rest of your statement actually proves my point that any "intuitive" evidence is only enough "evidence" to reinforce a belief but not make that belief actually true for all people.
With this statement, you have fallen on the side of delusionary denial. By declaring proof overrated you have not only basically stated that you reject any evidence that will be presented to you that is contrary to your chosen beliefs, but you have actually diminished (if not totally demolished) the reliability and relevance of any "proof" that you have that would reinforce those beliefs and as such you have just told me (at least) that you are going to live in whatever belief you want to hold no matter what reality shows you..
Good luck to you in that world that you live in, but I'm not sure how many people you will be able to get to join you in that world. I know I won't be there.
I am only keyboarding to those who have eyes to read. If there is no one, I don't mind at all. Just keyboarding to practice writing. But I do believe what I write about. Who can prove it false?
My position is that belief in an unseen God is legitimate and therefore religion should not be exclusive of science. In fact, science observes, reveals and explains the facts concerning the origin and chemical make-up of elements, the life-processes found on earth and in the solar system and the truth of life on the various levels, (molecular, subatomic,) of existence. Everything that manifests is evidence of an unseen force which initiated life in the very beginning and continues to maintain it on a constant and invisible level.
Do I sound intelligent yet?
Only to the intelligent.
You know, I'd have simply rolled my eyes at the statement, if you hadn't added the drivel about homosexuals. Shame on you for claiming something so ignorant is fact on an astral plane. May the fates help us if there is such an obtuse existence outside of this one.
Everything can be created through thought, depending on the spiritual evolution of the soul.
Jesus talked about His "Father's house" as a place where there are "many mansions" and no marriage. So I have read.
Really, Create a cruise ship through thought.
I'll wait over here.
Use your thought to create a winning lottery ticket, and then use your humility to give it to me.
Then I'll think about believing you.
I've done that, but gave my winnings to charity. I can do it again if you wish.
lol I know YOU can. But that had nothing to do with the "evolution of your soul".
YOU need to create me a winning Powerball. 142 million. I'll split it with you, give half of my half to charity, pay off my debts and go back to school. It will be great.
I think you should stop reading so much fiction for a while.
UMMMMMMMM... Give me a few minutes to process this and come up with something diplomatic to say
The issue a lot of Christians face (Yes I am guilty of this as well at times) is that we take things we hear and believe them without checking the information out for ourselves.
Then the evidence you have should be sufficient enough to satisfy everyone.
.........Let me be silent on this one. I'm sure there are a few that will address this
You just made that up didn't you? Come on, admit it.
I guess you are an expert in this field as well. Funny though that all the other experts say the opposite, Even the one who tried to change others admit they were wrong.
Please say something else, I really could use another laugh. However some may say your second thought was hurtful, I would be one of them.
Oh, and thanks for making Wilderness's point.
Are you familiar with the scientific facts of human sexual orientation including the evidence for genetic and epignetic formation of sexual orientation?
Do you really believe sexual orientation is a choice or the result, apparently, of some bad karma?
Browbeating?...; forcing?...; homosexualist self-making?...; .creationist theorizing?.....zygotic spiritualizing ? ......species dis-evolutionizing?
Man, you are giving these religionists more credit than they deserve.... and to think they could not even deal with the simple matter of abusive clergymen.
"...science in all cases has found the truth..." is hardly a believable statement. Scientists themselves would find that amusing and bemusing.
Religion, when science was not quite dominant yet in explaining the material and physical world, tried to fill in the blanks, but as we could discern from historical records, it was a disaster, for general knowledge in general but most specifically for the people who were affected adversely by the fanatical way the religious leaders of the those time tried to impose their false perception and interpretation of the physical world.
NOMA as proposed by Gould seems to resolve the "supposed conflict between science and religion". The operative word being :"supposed"
From my perspective there should never be any conflict ( supposed or otherwise) between science and religion because at the end of the day, both aims to find TRUTH in Homo Sapiens... the reality of his existence, (and of the world around him) and his final destiny. The basic underpinning of science is that it delves with the empirical model of finding the truth of the material world; the basic tenet of religion is that emphasizes the truth about the spiritual underpinning of that material existence. The veracity of each other's basic underpinning (science), and basic tenet(religion), as well as the validity of their role in human affairs are neither oxymoronic nor sophistic.
"...both aims to find TRUTH in Homo Sapiens..."
No they don't. Science may (and usually does) try to find truth, but religion seeks to find an answer that satisfies some of the few observations it makes (while ignoring others) plus the emotional side of Homo Sapiens wants and desires. Actual truth is strictly secondary.
It is beyond my comprehension that your view of homo sapiens in general and religion in particular is tinged with nihilism.
According to my balancing scale, a tinge of nihilism is equat to a ton of pessimism.
Still don't see that either one has anything to do with recognizing that science deals with reality while religion deals with individual and personal perceptions of reality and the specific results of those perceptions in people.
Religion deals with "perceptions" of reality? I guess so. See below. I took out "Nope" before it was permalinked.
- religion deals with actual real time tuning into (perceptions of) metaphysical realities.
Actually, wilderness is exactly right, now that I looked up the word, perceptions!
My point is this: Science and Religion are both science based. LOL I know that is not understood. The Source of our true Selves is real and one can really tune into (perceive) It.
So I understand.
Religion is NOT science based, with the exception of religions learning how to manipulate the general population that is.
Sorry, but what Rad Man said about religion "manipulating the general population" is neither funny, nor factual. Unless of course if we agree with him that the general population is so naïve or dumb, or disinterested , that they would allow themselves to be manipulated. In that case he is basically implying his utter contempt for his fellow humans which comes unquestionably from this nihilistic notion that humans are not any better or worse(depending upon one's perspective) than the rest of the entities that populate the animal kingdom.
(Pretending he will not see this... whispering...I know but it such a typical thought of his. so predictable. he is consistent if anything!)
"Manipulating the general population".
As in killing muslims in a holy pogrom called "The Crusades"? As in persecution and killing of witches? As in laws denying gay marriage? As in much or most of the abortion debate? As in Sunday blue laws? As in prohibition in the 1920's? As in teaching creationism in public schools? As in plastering (Christian) religious icons all over public buildings? As in putting religious terminology on our money? As in changing our national Pledge of Allegiance to indicate a belief in God? As in erecting giant billboards with scary messages from their holy scripture? As in continually pushing for prayer in our schools (that would never have any effect on secular children!)? As in erection of roadside attractions seriously depicting humans and dinosaurs coexisting?
Naw - religion would never make any attempt to manipulate the general population. Never in 2,000 years! (I'll let Rad man provide the next 20 or 50 instances of manipulation)
The best proof that humanity is easily manipulated? The vehement denial that it's even possible.
Every human being can be manipulated through the right words. No matter what people say, there is a fear and insecurity in every person that makes them NEED to believe that something can be true. If the manipulator can assuage that fear and soothe the mind of the person in question, it's entirely likely that person will believe anything else they say and deny anything contrary to it.
From there, it's a matter of the person acting on what they've been led to believe.
"a lot of people will believe any lie presented to them - either because they want it to be true or because they're fearful that it is" Terry Goodkind
I'm sorry, Ms. McFarland, that quote is from a non biblical source and can therefore not be considered seriously in this discussion.
No matter how stinkin' true it may be!
How silly of me. I digress.
On a related note, however, if the Bible is the only book worth quoting from why is it that a large number of "Christians" fail to read it and only see it as a tool to bash other people over the head?
I wish I knew. I would like an answer to that one too.
Probably for the same reason that in war, we'd rather drop bombs than fight hand to hand. It's a lot easier to be strong and confident from the cockpit of a plane a thousand feet in the air than when you're facing down someone ten times your size who's fighting for their survival, and might be far more likely to come out on top.
Because most of them only read the scriptures that their pastors tell them to while others simply apply whatever meaning to a word that helps them in their superiority complex.
Faith of the fallen wasn't it? It's been a while...
Loved this series.. Have you read all of the books?
True. And the inescapable corollary is that "..the general population is so naïve or dumb, or disinterested , that they would allow themselves to be manipulated."
Or have you manipulated me into saying that?
To manipulate means to control, or play upon by deceitful ( i.e. artful, unfair,insidious) means specifically for personal or group advantage. Nowhere in the examples given by Wilderness are instances of religion manipulating the crowd. Now you might try to do a better job at enumerating examples of religion doing manipulative work using insiduous, deceitful, and unfair means. Good luck with that.
Offering HOPE is another manipulating tactic.
Example: This Healthcare Package will solve all of our problems.
Not to get political or anything...
1. "As in killing muslims in a holy program called "The Crusades"?"
You don't think telling people to kill others in God's name is insidious?
Of course not. Genocide is practically Christianity's official pasttime.
You might want to review the historical narrative and perspective of the Crusades. You will find that it was an undertaking that was not as insidious as you might lead us to believe, ie. "telling people to kill others in the name of God "
So why then discard the science that demonstrates that genetics, not choice, creates sexual orientation?
Why is homosexuality not a true self; a real and "tuned in" self?
Religion in the context of this specific OP is a generic term which I meant to imply as the personal ( and not the institutionalized) system of beliefs, attitudes, and practices that has for its basic underpinning, the service to or worship of God or the Supernatural.
The problem with you and Rad Man is that, as usual, you are conflating the generic perception of "religion", with the institutionalized one i.e. Catholic Church or other organized religious groups.
I any case, I still would argue, that even in the case of organized or institutionalized religious groups, specifically as directed against the Catholic Church, or the Fundamentalist movement by you and Rad Man, their methodology of expressing and defending theirs belief systems as it comes under attack from all sorts of precincts do not involve manipulation in as much as strictly speaking, to manipulate means to achieve control via deceptive, unfair, and insidious ways.
We can appreciate their efforts at being Dogma Police.
However, the crusades were way back in time... During darker times. Haven't we come a long way since then?
In defense of the majority of today's Christians:
Are against unjust killing of any type.
Are against abuse of all types.
Are kind to their neighbors as to themselves.
Accepting of others no matter the differences.
Are charitable to those in need.
Benefit from reading the Bible.
Are kind and loving to their children
Strive to educate their children well.
Are cooperative with civil institutions.
Are cooperative with governmental institutions.
Accept scientific discoveries as truth.
You do not agree with this? I said the majority...which includes myself.
( But, you are right once again, wilderness.) There is a difference between me and them: I incorporate Eastern thought into my understanding. Due to the the influence of India, I understand Christianity, (of the West,) in the light of ancient spiritually scientific precepts, (of the East.)
Overall, no. While a great many Christians (the majority IMO) are about as prone to do these things as most secular people are, there is another group, and a group that is NOT small in size or that refrains from using it's power to force others into their mold.
"Are against unjust killing of any type."
As in eating meat and the death penalty? Or killing abortion doctors?
"Are against abuse of all types"
Spare the rod and spoil the child.
"Accepting of others no matter the differences"
As in the fight against gay marriage?
"Are kind and loving to their children"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 … 38001.html
"Strive to educate their children well"
As in teaching creationism as science?
"Accept scientific discoveries as truth"
Creationism. Evolution. Age of universe, earth and humanity.
So basically you have listed a group of admirable attributes that nearly all people ascribe to. All people, that is, except a large number of Christians (and, no doubt, other religious people as well). While we write them off as the "radical right", "terrorists" or other term, it's a little harder to write it off when they are the local majority, projecting their power and might onto your lifestyle.
"...their methodology of expressing and defending theirs belief systems as it comes under attack..."
The "attacker" in the crusades was religion.
The manipulators in the fight against gay rights in California were the religious, entering a state not their own to influence and manipulate the voting process they could not participate in themselves.
The people requiring myth be presented as factual on our money were not secular, just as those erecting religious icons on public property are not. Manipulate the people with a constant barrage of religions words and pictures.
The people trying to influence our children by presenting myth as science in our schools are not secular. Manipulation at it's worst, of our youngsters incapable of reasoning yet.
The people standing on street corners and exhorting everyone to believe a myth or burn in hell are not the non-believers, trying to manipulate others to believe a myth as fact.
Now you may or may not view these people as "organized" and you may or may not view their actions as "unfair" or "deceptive". Neither is relevant, however; people are individuals before they are organized and manipulation does not require that the specific actions be either unfair or deceptive. Just skillful and effective, which they most certainly are.
Nor does a single one of those examples have anything to do with "defending" a belief system; they ALL have to do with manipulating others to accept those beliefs as truth and thus expand, not defend, that system.
The majority of Christians never manipulate anyone
ever. They are guided by a religion which teaches them that their Father loves them, whom they can, in turn, love. Jesus was a man completely in touch with his father...as we can all be.
This connection that each of us has to a real spiritual Father is the essence of His teaching whether they understand this truth or not.
It is historical fact that SOME deluded individuals
have interpreted scripture to suit their own misunderstandings and SOME still do to this day.
This is where the Dogma Police come in. Thank goodness for them! (And they don't have to be atheists! In fact a good Christian can also be a Dogma buster!)
Agree...mostly. Most Christians never manipulate everyone...except with their vote, where their personal ethics trumps any concern over any other lifestyle. The idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", whether applied to either speech or actions, never occurs to them. Only God's word, as they understand it. Right now this can be seen in gay marriage, but has been prevalent throughout our history. Sunday blue laws. Prohibition. Adult pornography. Prostitution. The list is endless of victimless crime laws defined by religion, all designed to manipulate someone not of the faith to behave as the religious finds to be good in God's eyes.
And yes we (mostly) know the fanatics to steer clear of. But, until the deed is done, how often do we spot those fanatics? The parent denying the child simple medical care, or providing exorcism rather than psychiatric treatment (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/b … -1.1362674). The abortion doctor killer.
Just because someone knocks on the door, telling me I'm going to hell, doesn't make them a fanatic or even immediately dangerous. At least I hope not - I get that nearly every week!
I did not realize that in your world or your perception of it, people with strong religious beliefs have become zombies, ready to pounce on unsuspecting, clueless, dumb, indifferent, inchoate folks like you and eat your brains out for the greater glory of God... uuhmm and is that the reason why you retreated into the "wilderness"?
It's a choice: We can look down at a filthy gutter or up at a rose colored mountain. Looking down is easier.
Although smiling uses less muscles than frowning.
Yep! Safe and secure in my deep cave far from civilization, I very seldom have anyone ride up in their suit of armor swinging their cross adorned battle axe at me.
But tell me, how is it that you have defined "defend" to mean to force non-believers to take up the faith and live their life as your particular God demands? How is it that "defend" means to imprint my money with "In God We (We, mind you!) Trust" or to instruct secular children to proclaim that our nation is "Under God"? How does "defending their belief systems" include denying gay marriage or selling goods on Sunday?
How do you go from demanding that you be allowed to live as God wants you to to demanding that everybody else do it too and still call it "defending your belief system"? Just because God requires that you convert everyone in sight?
God doesn't demand anything!
He demands Nothing!!!
Proof please. And don't say that Jesus is God. He said he isn't and always called Him My Father/ in Heaven.
In God we Trust...."We" as a moral nation. At the time it was a Christian nation. They were being sensitive to the majority. Selling Goods on a Sunday was never illegal or anything. It was encouraged to take a break from doing business! (Those materialistic Jews were probably that ambitious making money!) Jesus always would add..."those who have ears to hear"... meaning those willing to hear. God is invisible because he wants us to have free will. He sent Jesus so that we would be of good cheer and not get depressed and try to love one another as God loves us.
Sorry, I apologize. It may or may not be what God demands; rather it is what the speaker thinks (or merely claims) that God demands. God (probably) made no demand that the crusades happen, but men certainly did, and in God's name.
Sorry, putting "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with morality; it has everything to do with trying to make an entire country into one mold; an action immoral in and of itself.
Nor was the US EVER a "Christian nation" in spite of repeated claims to the contrary. It was not formed as one and was never intended to be one.
Oh yes, selling goods on Sunday was absolutely against the law in a great many places. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law :
" Bergen County in New Jersey is notable for their blue laws banning the sale of clothing, shoes, furniture, home supplies and appliances on Sundays kept through county-wide referendum. Paramus in New Jersey have their own blue laws even more strict than the county itself has banning any type of worldly employment on Sundays except necessity items such as food and gasoline." In addition, a great many locations ban liquor sales on Sunday even today.
Why did they exist? Because, just as you say, God said no one should work on the seventh day, generally interpreted as Sunday. People were "encouraged" (read manipulated by force of law) into following God's word - not a lot of free will there.
If God wants me to be full of good cheer and not get depressed, then back off and let my buy my "cheer" so that I can!
The practice of imposing (by guile, force or both) ones beliefs on other people have long faded and vanished from this or any other place on earth. And for you to continue propagating the delusional notion that American society is threatened, and overrun by reliogionists with their silly ideas of a Supreme Being and a spiritual world, is I think a reflection of the utter flaccidity of your anti-religionist views.
Can anti-religious view hang loosely? I guess so, if they are left out to dry for way too long. Take 'em off the clothesline already, wilderness!
(Sorry, just joining in with Mr. V.
I think we still need dogma busters to clear the way for earth to be, "as it is in heaven.")
How can you possibly claim that, given the "war" the religious right is fighting over gay marriage and abortion? Is that not people of religion trying to force or impose their religious views on everybody else?
"The practice of imposing (by guile, force or both) ones beliefs on other people have long faded and vanished from this or any other place on earth."
LOLOLOLOL That has to be the biggest whopper of the year!
Tell that to the dead on 9-11. Explain it to the muslim girls shot for going to school in violation of radical Islamic beliefs. Explain to JM that the anti-gay propaganda is not religious in nature OR that there are no laws preventing gay marriage. Tell the mom and pop store denied the ability to operate on Sunday that the reasons are not biblical in nature. Explain to the Rev. Saeed that Islamic views are not the reason he is rotting in jail for preaching Christianity in Iran.
Explain those things to the people being persecuted and forced to live a lifestyle not of their choice and see what they have to say about it.
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on these forums yet - that neither force nor guile is ever used any more to produce behavior in line with a specific religious belief.
So Religion is to blame...
Not certain individuals or minority factions
who use it and/or misuse it
as their personal shields.
If a religious entity had that much power we would see it manifesting as
in some country.
Are there any religious entities that powerful?
Besides the Illuminati, I mean... and they are probably Satanists.
Yes, religion carries lots of blame for acting against other peoples in God's name.
Individual or minority factions vs "average" theists? Tough question and not a simple one. Was it minorities that hanged witches, or the group as a whole? That attack gays in the legal field? That keep blue laws in effect (Bergen county apparently voted with a large majority to maintain those laws that prevent non-believers and believers alike from buying/selling as they might wish to)?
Certainly the average theist is basically no more violent about pushing their ideological thoughts than anyone else, but they are more prone to visit minorities and individuals that will try to influence their thinking. Does that give rise to more "violence" (legal or physical) against non-believers? Maybe - when pastors give hour long sermons on the evils of gay marriage it seems inevitable that it will affect the votes of the congregation as a whole. Is that a minority radical faction then, or the "normal" Christian voting their religious beliefs?
Religious governments? As in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Afghanistan or Iraq? Are those governments controlled almost in total by religion? How about Vatican City, a governmental entity distinct from Italy? India? Is it possible to consider Brazil, with 86.8% of it's people either Roman Catholic or Protestant, as having a government not tightly controlled by religion?
And the Illuminati. Certainly they are Satanists, but is that not a religion also? And they control the world, right down to how the streets are laid out! Or is that the Masons? (I'm a Mason on my mothers side - grandson of Marion and Annie Mason - so you'd better be careful!)
Satanists plan how streets are laid out?
How is that?
It is a well known fact that the streets of Washington DC are laid out by Satanists. From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Washington … acy_theory :
"Ed Decker (a Christian, anti-Masonic nutter) writes this: "The satanic pentagram under which the White House sits is an open door through which Satan has access to our president."
Look around a bit; it won't take long to find a dozen conspiracy and/or Satanic theories concerning the street layout in that city. The Illuminati, the Masons, the Pagans; all are responsible for the streets there. Even Baal is well represented.
Although I don't believe in the theories, it certainly doesn't help that all those odd and sometimes very Masonic symbols pop up in so many places.
A lot of the early participants in government were Masons. This seems to me to be a pretty neutral truth.
Without necessarily disagreeing with you (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you) the neutrality of the fact may have more to do with one's perspective than the fact itself.
Masons have long been a favorite target of conspiracy theorists of all stripes because of their secretive organizational nature. I know very little about them and am pretty unsure of a lot of what I do 'know.' Anyone who is familiar with theories concerning the Illuminati, the Knights Templar or the Jewish World Banking Monopoly will inevitably have come across an intermixing of these with Masonic theories (and often all four are linked.)
A reasonable observation...except that there are very few actual Masonic images around. A good example is the pentagram in the link, centered at the White House so demons can see the president. Only a part of it is there; the rest is simply imagined in order to make the theory presentable to a gullible public.
Not to mention many Masonic symbols are ordinary shapes or common architectural tropes. Like Highmark BCBS's logo being a medieval symbol for alchemical and medicinal treatments.
I either had forgotten or never knew the pentagram one. The Eye in the Sky is the one most often cited.
Your endless inchoate complaints are so incomprehensible to most clear-thinking people , that it perplexes us no end that you folks should feel so...so.. alone and manipulated, threatened, and defeated close to the point of extinction. Perhaps you should start praying to your own Supreme Being, some kind of a Secularist God , who could defend you till kingdom come.
I understand. This is not the first time I've heard the religious complain that they are being persecuted because they are slowly losing the ability to control the lives and lifestyle of others.
Can't say as I understand the complaint, but I DO understand that it is often made, and that those complainers simply cannot understand why they are persecuted so. It is, after all, their God Given Right to apply God's laws to everyone else (and not only their right but their responsibility as well).
You are speaking about the Satanists, I presume.
But do Keep busting Our Dogmas!
I like it!
Gould doesn't know what he's even talking about.
Science (true science, not fake science) and religion (Christianity) goes hand in hand. Both are a history of the world and mankind. Not only are they not separate; they are inseparable actually, because the Bible explains true science and true science will back up the Bible's account of creation and etc.
So, how does the Bible explain ring species, atavisms, animal hybrids, cosmic expansion, heliocentrism, and homo erectus?
Pro-Tip: All of the above are indisputable, and any attempt to do so will be met with derisive laughter.
We leave the nitty-gritty of scientific desertation and exploration to those whose empirical antenna are so much more attuned to the material and the physical.
The Bible on the other hand is basically the history of a people whose storylines or narratives are told in metaphors, encoded in mythology, that then, in most instances, produces golden nuggets of literal truths.
Why does it need to? The major point of the Bible is to explain God and how we can be reconciled with Him. String theory is fascinating and neurobiology is also but they don't tell us how to be right with God, so why do they need to be in the Bible?
Or do you subscribe to the (fallacious) idea that if the Bible doesn't literally describe everything then it must literally be untrue?
The late Stephen J Gould had a pretty good idea of what he was talking about.
He is saying that the individual can reconcile these two domains in their own life. But they should not butt heads as institutions in the public domain.
What in that proposition do you disagree with? It is basically what Jesus said about rendering under Caesar.
Why do you have to create falsehoods about God? Is it not enough for you to accept God on a personal level that you have to say things like that? To me, that is just desperation and seems to show you really have no faith in God. Who cares if science and religion aren't compatible? Why would it matter to those who have faith in God?
Sorry to tell you this but you are barking at the wrong tree. Try directing your arrows and darts to the atheists and secularists on Hub Pages. There are so many of them here , that I don't think you would have any difficulty recognizing their anti-religious rants.
So Christians should only challenge and attack non believers and the dreaded "secularists"? That hadn't happened since, I don't know, EVER. Christians have been attacking each other ever since christianity began, and since no one can agree on what a "true" Christian is (although coincidentally it often seems to be other Christians who agree with everything that the person calling themselves a true Christian believes) and there are over 40,000 denominations, all of whom believe themselves too be right, your protest seems futile.
Should believers not point out mistakes in other believers and only go on anti-secular/humanist rants?
So you're saying that all 40,000 denominations are convinced that only they are right and would exclude all others from being "Christian" if given a chance.
Because that's certainly not my experience.
I don't know, how many times have I heard that Catholics aren't really Christians? Maybe not from you but from others.
Okay, I'm not saying that it never happens, and it happens more within some groups than others and it happens to some groups more than others as well. But it's still not true to make it sound like there's some kind of internecine war among different denominations at all times.
no, certainly not all. But I would doubt that you would consider Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians. Baptist say that Catholics aren't true Christians. A lot of Catholics return the favor.
How many times have you seen it personally on these forums? One Christian telling another that, because they have a difference of opinion, the other person is not a "true Christian"? Some are infamous for it. How many times have you heard someone tell me that because I'm now an atheist, I was never a "true Christian" to begin with.
The problem is that no one knows exactly what a "true Christian" is. They just all have their own bias and their own opinion about it. Christianity wasn't originally a unified religion either - the earliest Christians had a WIDE variety of beliefs, and the Christianity that you see today would not even be recognizable to the majority of the early christians in the 1st and 2nd century. Hell, for that matter, SCRIPTURE would not be recognizable to first century christians.
Yes, as I said to Rad, that is most certainly true. And I have defined what a 'true Christian' is (according to the Bible and early church thinking, so it wasn't something I just came up with) and did immediately face some (not a lot, but some) hostility from those who think that more of the peripherals and secondaries need to match exactly with their view.
We could discuss Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I doubt that was your point.
Still, it's not like we're all at war with each other all the time.
You have defined what a true Christian is according to your interpretation of biblical teachings and the proto-consensus of early christianity. I would imagine that you discount and disagree with the same "heresies" that they did. Do you not find that the slightest bit coincidental for your views today? The version of the Bible that you have would not havebeen recognized as scripture at all, and all you have to go on is what won out in the doctrinal battles and was therefore preserved. It want necessarily the first christianity. It just win out in the end, and you choose to accept it as absolute fact, 2000 years later. Have you studied the early variations of the church in any depth, Chris?
I'm not unfamiliar with the history of how the Bible came into the form it is today. No, I don't find it coincidental. I do find it ironic that the Bible that probably would have come into being were it not for the so-called 'witch hunts' of that time would, in fact, exclude even more people from being 'real Christians' than the one we know today does.
And lively debate and eventual consensus was one of God's tools. I don't know if you subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories a la Dan Brown, but the fact is that they are quite unlikely.
lol, no I don['t ascribe to conspiracies of Dan Brown, but I like his books.
I'm thinking more along the lines of Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, and the historical research of many in the field of history and biblical scholarship.
Why was the original cannon formed, Chris. Do you know what triggered it?
Why do i have this sneaking suspicion that you do know the answers to the question you asked Chris Neal.
So go ahead and kindly educate us.
Be careful about letting those suspicions sneak up on you!
I am looking forward to Chris' answer.
Yes, I know why the cannon was formed, and what it was in response to.
I also know when the person of Jesus was declared to be divine, and doctrinal mandates were created to counteract "heresies" circulating during the time that he was a human being adopted at the moment of Baptism - a concept familiar with the docetists and gnostics alike.
I've studied early Christian history for years on many levels. My inquiry is to find out how much Chris knows about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that the cannon of scripture (as it is now known) was not ordered or mandated by God at all. It was decided by committee of church elders who were combating rival "heresies" at the time. In the bible, god gives very specific guidelines and instructions for many things. Strangely enough, he's silent on the creation of "his" word. Instead, it was decided by church leaders after hotly debated arguments, philosophies and dogmas. Yet a lot of Christians don't seem to find that strange - if they know about it at all. None of the new testament writers (when they can be identified at all, which we certainly can't do with several of the epistles and the gospels) thought that they were writing "scripture". When they referred to scripture, they were talking about the Old Testament, already fully formed.
It doesn't bother me if she knows the answers. I actually do the same thing sometimes, ask questions where I already know the answer. She and I have talked about religious history and philosophy before.
I do, though you'll have to forgive me 'cause I'm a little foggy about a lot of things lately. Was it the Arian controversy? If I remember correctly that was what brought it to a head at the first Nicene Council and galvanized the formal creed.
Although now that I think about it, I seem to remember that in fact, with the exception of Revelation, the cannon we pretty much know now had been forming in individual churches for some time and been debated by the church fathers before the codification.
If you think about it, there is a pretty good reason why the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible most people know.
From my overarching point of view a "Christian" is anyone who subscribes to the behavioural tenets propounded by Jesus Christ in his Sermont on the Mount specifically the beatitudes. Any disagreement among folks who call themselves "Christians" about anything else are all meaningless drivel.
and that's merely the opinion that you have. Does that make it automatically correct - or is your opinion open to error and criticism like the opinions of others?
Opinions (in some quarters, are called "beliefs") are meant to fill the space between the material and the spiritual. As I have said in another forum, the world would indeed be empty without opinions or beliefs. One's opinions or beliefs might be anathema to another, but that's just the way the world goes. The truth is never absolute nor ceratin , except death and taxation.
Because the truth matters. In our own ways, that's what we all (or at least most of us) are attempting to get at. That science and religion wouldn't necessarily be at odds is a hypothesis worth exploring, and I don't understand why the test of faith would have to be the rejection of science. Since God created the world and all the physical laws that govern it, the desire to understand those laws would be both good science and good religion.
I have never seen anything linking science, theories and facts to religious beliefs and God. One is based on direct observational evidence from experimentation and one is faith in the invisible. Science doesn't show that God created the universe and all the physical laws that govern it, that is only stated in Genesis.
That says nothing of the direct contradiction from those who reject science, theories and fact in favor of biblical verses.
Without denying that there are indeed those people, there are also those who maintain a strong faith while not only accepting science but actively pursuing it. And a belief in Creation is not ipso facto a rejection of science.
You forget or choose not to believe that religious people often have their own experiences. The fact that they cannot be replicated under laboratory conditions is not in and of itself proof that they aren't true.
And you also forget or choose not to remember (or choose to interpret differently, I've seen this done) that many of the great scientists, including Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, were also men of great faith who pursued scientific discovery but did not see a conflict with their faith.
It's fine that people with a strong faith are pursuing science but that doesn't mean they are compatible. It's also fine they have experiences, but isn't a reason, either. It's fine that some great scientists had faith. None of that is the same thing as science and faith being compatible. Look what faith did to Galileo, it got him locked up because of his science.
That is, at best, a massive oversimplification of the situation.
What got Galileo locked up was his ego. Yeah, he came into direct conflict with the medieval Catholic church, which was a genuine world power at that point. And yes, the men at the head of the church often overreacted to things. But it's also true that if Galileo (according to one documentary I heard) had simply waited for the process to move in due course, he wouldn't have been locked up.
Now granted, that process would have taken many years. I am in no way actually taking the church's side on this one. But there were those within the church who were urging him to be patient and were ready to accept what he was saying.
What I'm ultimately saying is that people who reach for Galileo as some great symbol of the clash of faith and science don't understand the situation on the ground at that time. The truth is both murkier and more mundane.
Now if you want guys who got in trouble for their faith, try Martin Luther and John Knox...
Right Chris, just be patient and don't publish your book that indicates that the entire universe doesn't orbit the earth, or we could have you killed or the very least confined to your house for the rest of your life.
This is the very reason we have secular societies, Christians held science back about a thousand years with that just be patient nonsense.
It would be like the church have someone executed because that wrote a book about evolution. We are talking about publishing a book here. Just hold off until the church says it's okay?
Well, I didn't say that.
And that's not why we have secular societies.
It seems to me you said he should have waited to publish his book until the Church told him he could.
Yes it is why we have secular societies. If any church was allowed to control the government we'd be right back in the middle ages.
Galileo's ego was never mentioned as a reason for his incarceration. Where did you get that notion?
Please show us this murky and mundane truth we are not privy to know?
You are privy, I did show you, and you can investigate for yourself.
And that first one? Why would the church incarcerate him for his ego? No one who got in trouble ever had 'ego' listed as an official charge. Nice try, but you can do better.
A red herring.
It doesn't seem like English is your first language, it might be best that you not respond.
lol Chris' first language IS English, and he speaks it a lot better than a lot of the posters here. Why do you assume that it's not? His sentence made perfect sense to me - although he and I disagree on almost everything else.
Additionally - can only people demonstrating perfect English (in your OPINION and not at all fact) feel free to respond to any posts? Have you seen some of the posts by other people here?
The reason I assumed it wasn't his first language was due to his contradiction here...
Then, Chris says this...
Of course, investigating Galileo is simple to do and there is nothing there that corroborates his assertions about egos.
Again, I can only assume English is not his first language. What else should I conclude from those posts?
He said he watched one documentary. I would conclude that it probably wasn't a very good one. I wouldn't make the assertion that someone didn't know english. a lot of people contradict themselves. It's no reason to criticize their language skills just because you disagree with what they say. If that's the case, then all theists apologists should just be ignored because clearly English isn't their first language either - if contradiction is the only way to tell.
So sorry, I had not really even considered anyone would actually contradict themselves so blatantly. stating one thing and then the exact opposite in the very next post.
Thanks for the clarification.
Actually I didn't contradict myself at all.
I heard a program on NPR (that bastion of religious conservatism) that was an interview with a man who wrote a book about Galileo. I have actually tried to find that program several times but NPR apparently didn't see fit to archive it.
And my original point was that Galileo is NOT the great symbol of 'science vs. religion' that so many want him to be. He was a man of faith. That the church was a temporal power at that time (oops, sorry, I forgot I don't speak English very well. Let me rephrase, That the Catholic Church done had people what could actually tell others what to do) is a fact that I as a Protestant am all too familiar with from studying history. But Galileo was not an atheist bucking the religious tyrants. And the church was not stacked with people who, to a man, rejected anything that was 'new' or 'different.' Had Galileo worked the system, it would have taken a long time but he would likely have been published in his lifetime and not incarcerated.
I disagree (surprise). The Catholic church doesn't like change and doesn't unless it's forced to. It still won't allow women to be ordained and the new Pope pretty much said he has no power to change anything anyway.
I also disagree that you don't speaka da Engrish goode.
As an aside, but in relation to this comment...the Roman Catholic Church will never ordain women. Nor will the Southern Baptist Convention. If it happened, at least in th RCC, there would be yet another schism and another denomination born.
The reason it will never happen is because the Church maintains that only men were given access to "priesthood" in Scripture, and that it has no authority to countervene God's expressed wishes in the Bible.
Sorta the same silly argument that God has to be male because Scripture only refers to God as HE.
It's interesting that they can change things that they see fit to change like priest taking a vow of poverty, but will not budge on gender equality.
I completely agree that the Catholic church doesn't like change. IN fact, most religious organizations don't. I often wondered about women priests, my late wife was very much against them. But that's a different discussion.
Uh-huh, when you do find that single, one elusive source, let us know about it. Until then, we'll stick with the historic facts, thanks.
As will I.
And you're welcome!
(Rookies always think that being snotty somehow will 'put me in my place.')
Your own words were your downfall, don't thank me for that.
I'm sure you'll have a response but when you actually have something to say, come back and I'm happy to converse.
And it appears that your ability to adhere to the TOS and common courtesy is a bit underdeveloped. Perhaps you should exit this conversation.
I'm sorry too. I didn't mean to sound quite so harsh.
Science and religion are most assuredly complimentary.
Science studies the products of creation -- the realm of physical reality which is one of continuity.
Religion, in its purest form, studies the sources of creation -- the realm of timeless discontinuity.
Between the two of them, both science and religion cover the entire gamut of existence.
What muddies the waters between these two fields of study is ego and the products of ego like the bias built into skepticism (that of potent doubt), and the darker sides of skepticism, like unsupported dismissiveness and self-indulgent ridicule. These are found all too often in science -- as with the "Clovis first" dogma debacle, the shoddy behavior of scientists in reaction to cold fusion and arsenic-friendly microbes, and the fraudulent behavior of NIST scientists in avoiding the obvious implications of WTC7 free fall on 9/11.
Perhaps it could be amazing that scientists don't immediately see the problem with their prized paradigm of investigatory approach (skepticism), but perhaps they are so inured to the use of skepticism that ego defends it's use as a natural consequence of self-righteousness found in ego. It persists perhaps because of a sophisticated form of Normalcy Bias, whereby ego self defends the illogical as logical and doesn't see the hypocrisy because of concurrent mastery of other forms of intellectual prowess -- assuming that skills in one area automatically translate to all areas. That is the nature of the blindness that ego bestows on all of its victims.
But Fundamentalist believers are just as guilty of letting ego get the best of them. They deny science and, by doing so, risk falling into delusion.
"Bliss ungrounded in physical reality is not bliss but delusion, insists the Jewish master," Bayha ben Joseph Ibn Paquda, an eleventh-century judge in the rabbinical court at Saragossa (Caesar Augusta), Spain (from Perle Epstein's 1978 book, Kabbalah, The Way of the Jewish Mystic).
Excuse me: It is logical to assume that Science deals with how the Source of life crafts everything that lives.
Thanks for your always well reasoned input. I was just wondering though if the quote from the Jewish Master should have read; "Bliss grounded in physical reality is not bliss but delusion..."
Is it right to separate religion form science? Which one is superior, Science or Religion! Science has revisited its some of original thoughts in the past. And divine principles are unchanged if it is proved to be revealed from the heaven. These lines may be teasers, and may increase my knowledge.
Which one is superior depends on the desired result. If you want useful knowledge of the world around you that can be used to improve your lifestyle, science is necessary. Religion has never provided any such knowledge.
If you want to alleviate a fear of dying or want to feel loved, if you want a father figure where there is none or need guidance on morality, religion is the way to go. Science has never provided any of that, although it has made a feeble effort on the morality issues.
Science has changed, yes, just as religious principles have. Christianity is almost unrecognizable from what it was 1500 years ago and Muslims are changing their basic beliefs as well (particularly in the treatment/attitude towards women). Things change, often as a necessity to reflect a greater knowledge base of improved morality guidelines, and both have to change as well to keep pace.
As there has never been a principle proven to be revealed from heaven (no heaven proven to exist, so nothing proven to be revealed from there), there is not a single religious principle that is sacrosanct, never to be changed.
FYI The logic of atheists cannot deny the existence of God to those who believe in God.
Of course it can. It will simply be ignored, is all.
At the same time, "logic" cannot deny the possibility of a god. It can deny the existence of your god, but it is a weak argument, based on circumstantial evidence rather than facts and that, too, will be ignored rather than openly considered.
Because, as I said, the theist isn't interested in truth and reality but in other things that take priority to them. Not unusual - people deny hard evidence every day for things they want to believe, let alone a logical discussion without any factual evidence.
I believe that belief in an unseen God is legitimate and that religion does not exclude science. Science observes, reveals and explains to the best of its ability certain aspects of life including the chemical make-up of the elements, the reasons for the effects seen in space and the truth of life on various levels including molecular and subatomic, etc. And I have been given the right to believe, (by my own authority,) that Everything that manifests is evidence of an Unseen Force which initiated life in the beginning and continues to manifest/maintain it on a constant level. Furthermore I have proof of God on a personal level, therefore No One can deny my belief in God. In all actuality our discussions are really o n l y about personal opinions and should be regarded (politely) as such.
Every argument an atheist presents is very interesting.
Every argument a theist presents is very interesting.
We don't have to be surprised about the beliefs and opinions of others and we don't have to reveal opinions regarding their beliefs either. We can observe, reflect and comment based on our own thoughts, realizing them for their true worth.
After all, what one's thoughts are based on, is entirely up to the sincere deductions of the individual. Proof is helpful but, in my opinion, not required.
What you have to say, wilderness, is very interesting to me. However, I can't live, as you do, without a belief in an unseen force, typically referred to as God. But, that's just me. Each to his own.
Exactly.. nobody was trying to deny your belief in God. Nobody tries to dismiss or deny a belief. It's when that individual belief is presented as universal truth that the proof is requested and required. As long as a belief is presented as a belief, there is little to no problem (outside of a difference of belief)
Am I guilty of presenting my beliefs as universal truths? Sorry, if so. I will make sure to add, "as I believe."
By the way, how come it is so hard for many to contemplate the possibility of reincarnation? (- which I believe to be a universal truth....even Jesus spoke of it.) Just because, presently, one has no proof of it? Why not at least contemplate the possibility. And there is a possibility based on the scientific fact that energy is indestructible. I have heard we (as energy beings or souls) come back to human forms through re-birth. And Yes, we are completely different and new beings.... but, the same individual essences from a previous incarnation.
Why is this possibility difficult to entertain?
Sorry if I came across as harsh, but for those of us that believe and hold our beliefs as personal and not universal, it is extra important for us to make sure that not only that we keep it conveyed that our beliefs are our personal beliefs, but also to remember that we must be open to the possibility that we could be wrong because the universal truth has not been revealed yet.
Even if you add the words "as I believe", you will still face disagreement from many sides because, no offense, but we have no idea where your beliefs are coming from some of the time.
Well, the main religion that believes in reincarnation is Hinduism. Christians don't really believe in reincarnation because the Bible speaks of heaven and hell as final destinations. Same with Muslims and Jews. A lot of religions believe in a post- mortem paradise of some sort.. Atheists, of course, don't believe in anything beyond death
Jesus spoke about reincarnation. it is in the Bible. I propose that the belief in reincarnation was a given during Jesus' time. Perhaps The (Catholic) Church got rid of the belief for their own reasons in history. However, you are right, the important thing to focus on is heaven (within) and knowing how to avoid hell (without) in present time.
PS I would say what my sources are, but the the tone set here is ridicule and mockery. To protect them I will not give them out.
You understand that energy is stored in an even dead body right. It doesn't have to go anywhere. Humans needs to consume a lot of calories to maintain our level of energy use. It's thought human brains can't grow much larger because they will use to much energy even while seemingly in idle. When we consume chicken when convert the chickens energy to our energy. If it was as you'd say there would be a measurable amount of energy loss at death.
You leave me very little to disagree with.
Everyone has a right to their beliefs, just not to enforce them on others. You can believe in the unseen force all you wish to. I DO draw the line when you say you have proof, even proof only to you. That's because a subjective proof like that is proof ONLY that you wish to believe, not that there is anything to believe in, and an honest person understands that.
Should you, for instance, look at the world around you and decide that only God could produce it, that is not truly honest with yourself. Were it about anything BUT a religious/spiritual subject you would never accept such proof - you know better - and it is thus dishonest.
Yes, every argument a theist presents is interesting - except for those comments (not truly an argument at all) of "I believe because I believe". A statement, in other words, without an argument to support it. That quickly become dull and boring. As a listener I do not believe and am thus uninterested in what you believe - only in how you come to that belief (I think we've had this conversation before?). When you cannot tell me how that came to be, I quickly lose interest unless, perhaps, you are a part of my daily life. A new coworker, maybe, that I will interact with often.
"Sincere deductions" - this goes back to being honest with yourself. Should you deduce that you believe simply because you wish to, that's one thing. When you decide that you have adequate evidence to make a choice of belief, but obviously do not have true evidence, that's quite another. I believe, for instance, in the idea of free will and choose that belief for no other reason than that it pleases me to do so. Oh, I'll play some silly logic puzzle games with the concept, but it isn't proof and I know that. I believe because I want to.
Your last sentence is interesting. You can't live as I do, without belief in a supernatural creature from another universe that watches you go to bed each night. Now, that's fine, but do you accept that you believe because you cannot do otherwise? That your belief is based almost exclusively on the hard wiring in your brain that needs such a belief whether true or not? Do you accept that your "proof" is nothing more than a desire to believe, superimposed on a mostly irrelevant set of facts?
If not, you might consider working on being more truthful with yourself. IF, at least, it will not cause you mental anguish/harm to lose that belief.
God is not a supernatural creature from another universe that watches me go to bed each night! Do you presume I think so?
You have eyes to read. You never saw that explanation keyboarded by me ever. Why do you state such made up stuff???
To be fair, I don't think he was referring to you specifically. There are some Christians that believe that God directly intervenes in the natural world and as such he is watching us all, even when we are sleep. I don't think he meant any offense here
God is not of this universe as he created it. That means He is not a natural occurrence here and is thus supernatural by definition.
As God created this universe, he cannot have lived in it before creation. He must have another place to have lived in - call it a universe although that may be stretching the meaning of the word some.
God loves us and watches us at all times. He is omniscient - knows everything - and can only do that by being cognizant of everything that happens. Again stretching the meaning of the words somewhat, that means He is watching at all times.
At least that was what I was taught growing up in a very Christian household. Should you have your own definitions of what your god is/does, and they differ radically from Christianity (He did not create the universe or is not omniscient) I do apologize. You're right - I do not recall you having every made either statement.
God is an omnipresent omnipotent energy force that created and maintains all life and motions of life. The reality of God is beyond our limited ability to intellectually contemplate. We can, I have read, perceive this Force directly through meditation.
(This is very old news. yawn.)
And that's what I believe based on Hindu teachings, Buddhist teachings and believe it or not, Christian teachings.
You think he made us in his image, but made us to stupid to comprehend him? Unless you don't think he made us in his image, in which case you can scratch the Christian teachings off your list.
He did make it possible for us to perceive him. (Darshan: vision of light.) And for us to leave the body consciously. (Samadhi: ascending body consciousness,) ...if you want to believe ancient precepts from India's higher ages. To the yogi, God is bliss. (Jesus gives us a clue as to how to attain these higher states of consciousness when he said," If thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light....") IMO
I do believe that we are made in God's image. So, no, I do not scratch the Christian teachings off my list.
God's image: God's imagination. So our "image" began with a thought which became a blueprint. (Before we draw up plans for our dream home, we come up with an image in our minds of the home we want to live in.) Perhaps God came up with an image of the body/heart/mind he wanted us to have/operate. Then he came up with variations of that original body: dinosaurs, animals, birds, reptiles, fish... he even figured out a way for the manifestation of these "images" through a natural process of evolution on earth. Thats what I think/imagine based on my desire to believe that we were created in the "image of God." Makes sense to me. I also wonder if there were spiritual beings who "mated" with prehistoric cavemen... surmising for sure.
But, I have heard that when we die, we bring our blueprints with us to the astral realm. We have light hearts, light bodies and all our organs etc. I know you can't believe any of this, wilderness, but it is an exercise in imagining possibilities. Maybe that's what I do best. Sorry if it is boring to you or anyone else.
We use our imaginations for all kinds of things. I can imagine myself sitting on top of a rainbow or transported to the future or past, but it is simply my imagination.
...I don't know, Kathryn. It sounds like you really have no idea of what you mean yourself by that term "made in god's image". You talk of imagination, then bodies that are changed from His image to become something else entirely and still feel good that you are in His image.
Now we have hearts (meaning emotions, I presume, not hearts), bodies, organs, etc. made of photons, but have zero idea of what that means in reality. You even imagine another place (that you can't find or describe) that has these photonic bodies housing photonic emotions - this after, I assume, recognizing that emotions and physical bodies are not similar in any way whatsoever.
While interesting, it does all sound as if you live in a dream world of make believe, without regard for fact or reality. Presumably the rest of your life isn't like that - you don't work at an imagined job, and pay for your Big Mac with imaginary money - why this part? Do you truly find it satisfying to imagine whatever you wish and call it truth, or do you recognize it as fantasy and simply enjoy the act of fantasizing sometimes like everyone else?
As I have mentioned before and it is backed up by the Bible...(in Corinthians 15, 26: "...for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal," there is the material world and the spiritual world. It is my understanding that the spiritual (not seen) aspect of life exists as the animating force behind the physical (seen) aspect of life. 1 Corinthians 15, 49: "...as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
Yes, I imagined what I wrote but it is based on sincere deductions. I do live in a world based on reality of course, but I am not afraid to use my imagination... especially since it's a skill given to me by God. This skill happens to be located in the brain, which he designed as well. Yes, he brought the brain forth...with our cooperation/involvement through incarnations and evolution. The Way I see It.
PS Did you know that in Corinthians, Paul says we can go back to God in the twinkling of an eye? 1 Corinthians 15, 52: " In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. And in 54: "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
- And in 26: " The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
Interesting! I have heard that he was able to stop his heart, which is an advanced skill in Yoga. He claimed he died daily and yet he wrote what he wrote and continued writing, which is proof that he did not really die...which means that actually, his life was not dependent upon his body! And who taught him this advanced yogic practice? Who do you think? Jesus!
Well, I guess if it was written and included in a book a few thousand years ago we must believe it. The bible also describes how to beat slaves and when to kill children and even describes how to never show children affection.
can you provide citations as I have bothered to do?
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
Exodus 21:20-21 NLT
If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.
Leviticus 21:9 NLT
If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father’s holiness, and she must be burned to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NLT
But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.
-how about the "never showing children affection" one?
Even in Corinthians there are some instructions about women wearing a covering over their heads and never speaking in church and in a marriage they are to pretty much serve the husband. These must be customs and practices during that time. I do not think they are to be applied to changing and changed times. Jesus came with a new way based on loving God. But I now bow officially out. Thanks for the regard you have given.
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
a.k.a. "If you're being a dumb shyte to your kid and he doesn't want to listen to you, take him to the town officials, lie your ass off about your kid's behavior, and engage in good old-fashioned God-sanctioned murder of the innocent!"
How about a drunken husband? Oh, they probably didn't have drunken husbands in those days.
Drunken husbands are a-okay in God's book. After all, they're men, and God says men can pretty much do whatever they want to women.
- yep, they can talk in church too. I am really a sinner discussing stuff, particularly religious stuff, with you men! (Luckily wilderness has made it clear that the bible is not to be taken seriously in the first place.)
Yep - saved you for sure, if only from your own self loathing.
The collection plate will be passed shortly; remember the generosity of the wallet IS generosity of the spirit, that karma is returned three fold and that Astral love is green in color, with big numbers.
- do I loathe myself? Elucidate si vous plait!
That astral love is Benjamin Franklin. Probably rolling over above his grave at what is going on in America today, what with the push for atheism and socialism!
You have your work cut out for you. You are like John the Bapbtist... oh sorry... Never happened...
Oo! Once again just talking to hear yourself! Don't really know Scripture, do ya?
Wow! Way to put an entirely incorrect interpretation onto it! And adding the sort-of cuss word just adds that extra air of authenticity to make up for the lack of actually knowing what you're talking about!
You misunderstand - I did not form the question clearly enough.
We all use our imagination, and we all sometimes use our past experience/knowledge in conjunction with that imagination to come up with new answers.
The question is do we then accept the "answers" and "conclusions" of imagination as truth, or do we test them for truth prior to acceptance? It seems as if you imagine things, things that agree with your past experience and/or knowledge and are thus accepted as truth. I, on the other hand, won't do that but will test the things before accepting them. Merely because an imagined "answer" fits with past experience doesn't mean it is true, at least not to me. There could well be other answers - answers or conclusions that would indicate I was wrong in the first place, answers I didn't think of, answers that I discarded because it did fit at first glance.
You also confuse me a little; are you using "spiritual world" in place of "astral plane" somehow or this yet a second place we cannot detect?
We have zero writings of Paul. We have, at best, writings made hundreds of years after Paul's death, filtered through verbal/written reports of other men also reporting what they heard. Plus, of course, the interjections and changes made in the council of Nicaea by men primarily interested in maintaining and growing their power base (particularly Constantine, who formed the council in the first place but believed nothing to be discussed).
...Well, someone wrote for him. Okay, so he spoke what he spoke and continued speaking. And I am sure that what was recorded was fairly close to what he spoke of. At worst, a lot of the yogic practice he could have taught was left out. Darn... how I would love to know how Jesus taught meditation and other breathing and body control exercises he must have known!
...The astral is an aspect of the spiritual. Jesus mentioned: " In my Fathers house are many mansions." I take this to mean spiritual areas where like souls hang out in between incarnations.
...I understand your question. But what would any of have to say or think if we did not use our ability to imagine and deduct some sort of truth for ourselves. I know I am just human.
No, no one wrote for Paul. In the final analysis they wrote explicitly for themselves, to maintain their power base, and claimed it was from Paul. In some cases, claimed it was the actual handwriting of Paul, not even transcribed.
You may imagine it was "fairly close" to what Paul actually said, but again don't seem concerned as to the truth of that statement. It fits, you like it and it makes you happy - no reason to test it for veracity and truth. We don't work the same...
The astral is the Texas of the spiritual (US) country. Got it. Can we imagine (and believe in) a continuum of "countries" making up the "world", containing thousands or millions of spiritual worlds - God's resting place when He moves on - and so forth?
It's fun to imagine sometimes. What would I do with lottery winnings? What if I could fly? What if the sun went out? But they are only for fun. Other imaginings are useful - "What if I did this to a motor? Would it have more power and use less gas?", but they need tested before they actually become useful. While truth is almost always useful in some way it doesn't seem that you separate truth from imagination. Do you? Do you test your imagined "things" for reality, to check that they are actually true?
Or forever wander a fertile imagination, never knowing what is true and what is not? Different strokes for different folks; I am far more interested in truth than in feeling good, or happy, or comforted. Others are different.
An imaginary world (where I win the lottery) can be fun to visit. For a while, but it palls quickly and boredom sets in. It isn't real and without that it doesn't last long.
...what is real is of God. So, you maybe you actually believe in God but you call it, "what is real." Thats good, we'll call God, WIR from now on. Agreed?
What is from imagination may or may not be real. No way of knowing without testing.
God comes from imagination.
Whether God is real or not is unknowable without testing; testing that due to the definition of God is not possible.
So no, neither God nor the things you attribute to God is necessarily WIR and we do ourselves and others a disservice by indicating it is.
Okay then, what is real is Life or all that is alive... are rocks alive? at the subatomic level they are, and since we do not imagine rocks, they are real. How is your pet, by the way?
Not believing you understand subatomic. Sorry. Really? They let you teach children? Where exactly?
- at the subatomic level of an atom are electrons and protons....
PS Why so rude? (I just took a Spanish class, half day, and I do not know Spanish! I keep telling you, I do not teach as a substitute teacher.
- did YOU ever listen to a Sub?)
Anyway, I lifeguard classrooms. So back off!
Actually, at the subatomic level we find much more than electrons and protons. The known subatomic/discrete particles include fermions, quarks, leptons, bosons and subatomic/composite particles including hadrons, baryons, mesons.
And why so rude:
Sadly, rude speech seems (all too often) to be the "lingua franca" of Hubpages. I have my suspicions as to why this is so, but I strongly suspect you can deduce them as well as I can...
What is life? Scientists are finding that the old definitions of reproducibility, irritability, etc. are failing them and they are unable to adequately define "life" in a manner that covers all cases.
A rock is not alive. Kathryn Hill, if what I think she is (could be an advance AI?), is alive. A virus, I don't know, Do you? Why?
well, a rock is sort of alive... based on what mbuggieh so astutely explained.
a virus seems to have the will to survive... where there is will, there is life. Does a rock have the will to exist on some level? Does sand? Does water? Not verifiable. But possible.
Not at all sure that a virus has the will to survive. No mind, (presumably) no soul - can it "will" anything at all? Or is it purely a matter of chemistry; the chemicals making up a virus resist destruction exactly the same way a molecule of water does, by forming a chemical bond between the constituent atoms.
I'm not smart enough to determine that, and apparently neither is anyone else. At least there's a lot of fighting about it and other "living?" things that just don't fit definitions.
Same for rocks, sand and water but more so. They don't even fit the old definitions of life (assuming you haven't gone ahead and made up your own without telling anyone). No biologist would ever say they were alive, leaving such a statement to the imagination of the local theist making up a new definition.
So "not verifiable" is the final answer.
*shrug* Life is often boring. If you don't like that, make up your own answer and dance and sing to it's glory. No more boredom, especially if you'll slaughter a few chickens or goats to it as well. Just keep your hands off MY chickens!
Yes - none of your claims are verifiable. This has already been explained to you. This dishonest approach of making wild, unverifiable claims and then demanding people disprove them is the reason your religion causes so many fights.
You are in the wilderness! I hear you have to submerge an un-alive chicken in boiling water and then its feathers can be plucked out easily.
Actually, I agree that a life based on reality is better than one based on fantasy.
-don't look so surprised.
I would never take the life of a goat! How do you take the life of a chicken? do you shoot them or break their necks somehow...
Grandma grabbed the chickens by the head/neck and twisted the head off. They would run around all over the yard without a head! Or sometimes she would chop the heads off with an axe.
Grandma was not particularly civilized by today's standards, but then that was a long time ago. As society grew up and became more civilized, so do she. Much like religion, come to think about it...
boring. (I mean the becoming civilized part...)
I learned that response from my 81 year old neighbor. When ever I am boring, (like whenever I dare to talk about myself,) she lets me know.
- you must've inherited your grandmother's farm in the middle of who knows where?
am I right?
Shush! Remember your very own words:
"Actually, I agree that a life based on reality is better than one based on fantasy."
Yes, the state of boredom is better than indulging in fantasy and reaping the consequences such unrealistic states as overindulgence in mind altering substances. I guess what we are talking about is sanity. Too much keyboarding, too much happiness, too little happiness, too little recreation and exercise, too little exposure to nature, too much TV... too much Bible reading for you...
and too much mis-interpreting the Bible for me.
The Way to Sanity does not include reading the Bible or contemplating God.
Is that because you were there or because that's what you want to believe?
Do you really believe that claims of a presumed mutual exclusivity of science and religion iscderived entirely from secularism and atheism?
Entirely, being the operative word....I would say no. The idea of mutual exclusivity is a concept that was not originally proposed by atheists/secularists, (since one could never find any sort of original ideas coming from their precincts), but once they latched on to it, they started to use it as one of their anti-religionist arguments.
Why do you presume that to be secular is to be "anti-religion"?
Is the converse true: Is to be religious to be anti-science?
Webster defines secularism as "indifference to or exclusion of religion". Not anti-religion enough for you?
I am religious in the sense that I believe in the existence of a Supreme Being (call Him God) who initiated the whole process of creation. I am also a man of science. I certainly don't feel conflicted/confused/contradictory in any way.
The only reason to feel contradicted is if you should choose to compare the methodology used to create a belief with that used to find knowledge. And then only if you treat a belief as if it were knowledge.
To interpret: Whomever does not feel contradicted, has not bothered to compare what determines a belief vs. what determines reality. If one does compare, one would feel contradicted, conflicted and confused.
- what determines a belief?
- what determines a reality?
Hint: A belief is created through imagination, wishful thinking and dogmatic suppositions.
Reality is not created, it is observable and explainable in theory and probability.
Are we feeling contradicted yet, Mr. Villarasa?
Until such time that scientists could explain or unravel the all too obvious contradiction between Einstein's relativity/gravity theories and quantum mechanics... I will continue to bathe in the Un-reality of Reality.
Dictionary definitions are really useless in terms of any meaningful discussion.
That said, if one embraces this dictionary definition, how does "indifference" and/or "exclusion" equate to hostility?
Again, without referring to a dictionary definition, how is secularism anti-religion?
This one is a follower of Jesus. "Whoever is not with me is against me," is his mantra. Which is why his religion causes so much conflict of course.
...only if you yourself buy into it. You can stay out of it. You don't have to go around making it worse.
Ah - right. All down to the guy who asks that you stop being so divisive.
No - you are the one starting it. Tell you what - you stop spouting divisive nonsense, I will stop telling you it is nonsense. We have a deal?
Little wonder your religion causes so many fights.
You don't even know my religion. You are like an automaton: Seeking, with its radar and weapons, for that which it can justifiably shoot down: Anything pertaining to the Bible.
Or is it just the bad stuff, Mark?
Yes - I know your religion. You have pushed it hard enough.
"Dictionary definitions are really useless in terms of any meaningful discussion."
Absolutely. If you make up your own definitions you will always be right and there can be no meaningful debate from anyone else. Just two people mouthing words of differing languages at each other and with no communication at all.
"Dictionary definitions are really useless in terms of any meaningful discussion."
That sentence is up there with one of the top 5 WHAT things I've ever read in hub pages.
Pretty much! Fascinating what you can read here - as if people turn off their brains before touching the keyboard.
Hopefully it just didn't come out the way it was meant - I've had that happen and then, going back and reading what I wrote, wondering just what I'd been smoking that day.
Noah Webster must be twirling in his grave ... you just slammed his beloved dictionary.
Simply stated, when someone (or a group of someone) excludes you from something be it ordinary human interaction, and or extra-ordinary human intuition and perception, then he is being hostile towards you.
I strongly disagree that exclusion is an equivalent of hostility---and particularly when excluding religion from the public sphere in a country that has at its very foundation the separation of church and state in the form of freedom of---but also clear freedom from, religion.
And I continue to maintain that dictionary definitions are useless---particularly if the user does not know which definition of the word he or she is using is applicable in a given situation.
This reminds me of someone claiming that the word "interpret" means to give meaning as in an interpretive performance and then slams the Supreme Court for "interpreting" the constitutionality of laws because the word "interpret" means to give meaning through performance---as in a dance.
Kindly remind me what Webster's definition is of the term "didactic" and "semantic". Oh I just recalled that you are not a big fan of the dictionary.
Dictionaries appear to be "authoritative but [they are] not. Somehow people think Webster is a kind of oracle. Certainly there is a lot of excellent scholarship that goes into the making of dictionaries. But if you want a real expert to support what you have to say about a particular subject, you probably shouldn’t quote a lexicographer."
[SOURCE: http://andyunedited.ivpress.com/2010/09 … onary.php]
So, when we don't know the definition of a word, should we just make one up? Oh wait, there can be no definitions to words because that would completely undermine the claim that we should not use dictionaries and just make up stuff as we go along.
Obviously not, but if one needs to rely on a dictionary definition, if one does not have a firm and working grasp on the meaning of words in context and the meaning of words as used in specific contexts, then one should either (a) avoid using the words or (b) do some reading beyond the dictionary and learn what the words really mean and how they are really used when context matters.
As the comment I posted noted: Dictionaries are not oracles. Lexicographers are not historians, not philosophers, not political scientists, no scientists. Lexicographers can tell you what a word means in a static context---or offer multiple meanings of a word, but they cannot tell you how that word is used in context and/or how that word acquires meaning across disciplinary boundaries.
Please explain where one goes about getting that firm working grasp of the meaning of words, if not from a dictionary?
Latin roots. Scientific explanations and uses. Discussions and research regarding true context. No one trusts Wikipedia!
For instance, Wikipedia defines life to be a self-sustaining system. Wilderness so authoritatively declared, NO, IT ISN'T! that I did not even bother to disclose where I got the definition, which indeed was Wikipedia.
How about years of study of the words in context? How about reading the scholarship of a discipline until the words are part of one's own vocabulary and in such a way that one can explain them without referencing a dictionary?
There is more to the meaning of a word than a patented "definition" offered in a dictionary.
I think you know that. I think you know, for example, that words have meaning beyond the terms of a dictionary. And I think you know exactly what I am saying.
One can profit from listening to college professors who know a thing or two... cuz they have done the work.
Context does matter... so I suppose you disagreed with the context with which I used the various pertinent words in my OP.... and that's the reason I referred to the dictionary so you won't be confused with the context with which my OP was formulated. Disagreeing and confusing are two different things.
Separation and exclusion are two different things. I totally agree that the church and state should be separate...temporal matters being the sole purview of the state, and spiritual matters the sole purview of the church. Where they might touch tangentially is in the subject of human interaction vis-a-vis ethics and morals.
dictionary definitions lose their validity only when there is a widely agreed-upon definition among large numbers of people that do not agree with the dictionary.
Example, dude. Back in the 20's, people didn't go "Hey, dude!" A dude was understood an easterner or city slicker who wanted a cowboy experience. Thus, they went to a dude ranch.
But good dictionaries update. And in a digital age, they do it frequently.
Otherwise, dictionary definitions are necessary so that everyone can understand what each other is talking about. Philosophical definitions are another matter, but dictionary definitions have value.
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
So I borrowed this idea from Misha to start a new thread.For me, I can give one particular instance where I think science and religion/spirituality are complementary, as crossing each other's boundaries. When I think of...
by Csaba Bebesai4 years ago
Did it happen, I mean, seriously? What if a God just dropped us here from the space? Or we just came out of thin air? Why Evolution?
by Jefsaid5 years ago
Science and religion has led to mass social order and material advancements. Arguably, these were necessary developments in our human evolution. However, in either case, they have set rules to the...
by marinealways247 years ago
Where is common ground between science and religion? Will there always be science vs religion for their opposing views? I think science and religion have a lot more in common than some would like to believe.
by paarsurrey6 years ago
~There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion: philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued.~ Religion if correctly understood is based on the Word revealed from the Creator-God Allah YHWH...
by LondonGirl7 years ago
"A prize-winning quantum physicist says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil. So how do scientists investigating the fundamental nature of the universe assess any...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.