|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|
...so that they can transfer their imagined souls into the mythical land of the gods where they can reside as immortals for all eternity?
I don't know about them, but I am already immortal.
quite likely - they've already convinced themselves that their souls are saved. Hopefully I will not be alive to see them all blow themselves (and everyone else) up
Well, now let's talk about irony.
First of all the phrase "Reign of Man" implies that man has dominion ... let's see where have I heard that before ... oh, yeah ... I read that in Genesis 1:26:
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So you seem to be saying:
1. Man should have reign of the Earth. (Which is coincidentally consistent with God's original intent in the book most monotheists find holy).
2. People who believe in God are against God's original intent because they believe in an eternity.
You absolutely get full points for irony. Who knows you may even be right in some cases. (A common phrase is "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.) Still, your premise is amusing to me.
Oh, just for completion sake, it is true that in the original language it would probably be just as valid to say:
And the gods said, Let us make man
As the term Elohim is often plural.
And thanks for the chuckle!
Glad I made ya chuckle.I hope it made your day...:-)
Now, what is this "god thing" you refer to?
There is no verse/scripture in any monotheistic tome that definess "it" in any manner but opinion and conjecture.
The English dictionary defines "it" in the same manner.
Before we can chat about what you commented, we have to define this god thing in a way that makes it evident to me that what you speak of is a reality not just an imagined, metaphysical, super entity. Can ya do that?
If ya can't, how can I possibly consider you to be a credible hubber ref this "god thing?"
First you know I'm a credible hubber because I got your moon thing right.
Second. I'm not trying to prove a thing to you about god/non-god thing. I consider it to be axiomatic and debate on the issue to be pointless.
Third, I don't really have a stake in whether or not you take me seriously. I don't believe I score extra points with this "god-thing" for me being right you being wrong.
Fourth, before you run my imagination into the ground, Everything I imagine is not imaginary. I and a lot of people have made a lot of very real money based on the outcome of my imaginings (not having a thing to do with the god-thing you don't understand) So even if god is not real, which I do not concede, we both agree that my imagination is real. And it has served me and those around me well.
Fifth and finally nothing in my response asserted the reality of this "god-thing" I was, however, acknowledging the existence of the monotheist you mentioned and the fact that you have common point of agreement with many of them ... i.e. the dominion of man and the irony of that agreement.
So, I only assert the existence of the book and the irony of your agreement with it in light of your other assertions.
Since I consider the existence of God to be axiomatic, the question is not whether I can be credible to you, I don't really care. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And if so, I was wrong before your post and you get no extra points for making me more wrong. If I'm right, I'm right, I get no extra points for being right.
I have yet to decide whether you are being intellectually honest or just looking for an argument, so your credibility, not mine, is all that I question.
Ok..lets begin with why ya even mention this "god thing." I can only consider as being an imagined "entity" which every man has a right to imagine. NP there, except that I can only consider it as being thus. To me, this "god thing" you mention has no meaning except as a very deadly human concept.
Ok, this god thing is outa the way.
Points? "I don't believe I score extra points..." lol, I'm only interested in your "input" in ref. to it being associated with what I consider to be "reality." The "points" you refer to are determined by me, by how close to reality your expressed opinions are.
I didn't ask for "proofs" of this god thing: "I'm not trying to prove a thing to you about god/non-god thing..." Why would I expect the impossible from anyone?
I have no concept of how people have made $ from your imagination. I can't, intellectually, respond to that.
Imagination is that characteristic that has made man what he is today!
Imagination is prime in determining the path of our evolution.
Imagination, such as the concept of this "god thing," which has been concocted by we incipient human creatures, has its foundation based upon primal fears and superstitions.
Imagination at this level of primitive ignorance, very well may be powerful and dynamic enough to end the short lived reign of man.
From reading your posts you seem to be a bright person. A thinker.
As such, you have the potential to provide we "seekers" of "input" with insight into the world of "reality" that those frustrated by religious thought and action cannot.
In attempting to do so, the thinker must expect to be challenged and both, if open minded, may end up a little more "enlighened."
There are but a few men/women, whom I find can offer "enlightenment."
At this "point" in the evolution of "man," we exist as infants in terms of understanding "reality." We are groping for truths.
IF we continue on as we are now, the odds will continue to drop that we as a species will "reign" supreme for much longer.
Actually I didn't you did ... you mentioned "monotheists" in your title. Monotheists believe, by definition in one God. So, you brought it up. Not me. I brought up the similarity in your assertion with monotheists.
I also brought up the source of my irony, i.e. the book these monotheists believe. But I didn't bring up God. You did, by definition.
Ah, I see, you're like Drew Cary on "Whose Line is it Anyway" ... you make it all up and the points don't matter. That IS funny.
I've had a few modest commercial successes in certain segments of the game industry. As far as the impossible is concerned ... I don't believe in impossibility, only varying degrees of improbabilities.
You have already decided that certain things are impossible and therefore have limited your thinking and the ability to here what I have to offer, and yet, you are seeking those to whom you can offer "enlightenment".
As you are now the one making the offer of enlightenment, and therefore presenting yourself as some kind of intellectual, moral or pseudo-spiritual authority, the onus is now on you to provide credibility, not me.
I have seen nothing in any of your ideas that was not presented to me in some way, shape or form in the 1970s. Some of it was kind of cool when I was in junior high.
For me to continue a discussion I must see some kind of combination of:
1. A topic I find interesting, either for professional or personal reasons. This includes, on hub pages, most frequently that which I find amusing.
2. A compelling intellectual exercise in which I can grow in the path that I've chosen ... this includes exploring concepts with those whose opinions directly oppose mine, if I believe they are intellectually honest.
3. An interest of someone I have come to care about specifically, either in person or as an online friend.
4. Other ... as of yet, unspecified potential?
This phrase: As such, you have the potential to provide we "seekers" of "input" with insight into the world of "reality" that those frustrated by religious thought and action cannot.
Begs the question, do I have the responsibility to put forth the effort to provide input? If so, where does the responsibility come from?
I will tell you my reason for continuing to respond: frustrated by religious thought and action
That I see as intellectually honest.
I also have frustration, but my frustration, I suspect is different than yours. I acknowledge the validity of your frustration and concede that it is from the behavior of certain religious people.
I do not however, believe in your conclusions.
You say this: "I do not however, believe in your conclusions." but don't tell me why, or what the conclusions are that you don't believe in.
Instead of attacking me: "Ah, I see, you're like Drew Cary on "Whose Line is it Anyway" ... you make it all up and the points don't matter. That IS funny." Why not offer me reasons for why what I offer is so out of line with your "beliefs?"
Oh yes, I did mention "monotheists" i.e. believers in 1 god...but I never mentioned this "god thing" in any other manner than the way I just mentioned it: "god thing."
Which is but an imagined "entity."
Your quote: "You have already decided that certain things are impossible and therefore have limited your thinking and the ability to here what I have to offer, and yet, you are seeking those to whom you can offer "enlightenment".
Yes I have. All my decisions are based upon current "fact." You have not offered anything to consider that might be "enlightening." If I've missed something pls make me aware of it.
You have no responsibility at all, and I don't expect you to offer, if you feel I am not reading and will not consider what you present. I always will.
What I'd like from you is why you don't agree with my decisions and for you to offer some sound concepts based on reason and logic as to why you don't.
I can't be insulted or demeaned, I don't allow myself to be.
So, c'mon BDazzler, BDazzle me with something profound and potentially enlightening...that is if you feel you can.
LOL ... see I didn't see it as an attack, I saw it as a joke ...
An attach would have been far more ... vicious ....
I didn't intend it as a demeaning insult, only letting you know how I see it.
And if you feel I have attempted to demean you or insult you, I truly do apologize ... you were the one who said I might have something to enlighten you with
Obviously, you were mistaken ... I have nothing for you, as you have made your conclusion.
Aw BDazzler, I'm disappointed!
I was hoping for more.
I sometimes play the "devils advocate" to get more impassioned responses.
You've been polite and offered your responses in very acceptable manner.
I will read and respond to anything you offer...ty :-)
Hey BDaz! I think the more perplexing question that quark is trying to consider...considering irony and all is that...
According to Genesis, yes man has dominion over the Earth however, humans were supposed to take care of it not destroy it. While I don't believe you personally are trying to destroy it nor do I believe that your intent and purpose of your "personal" belief in Christianity is to destroy anything but you want to protect it, yes?
So how is it so that people can, as they say, be "Christian" (notice the quotations) while denying their "duties" to protect the Earth and it's inhabitants?
We can talk about Climate Change all we want or protecting endangered species, or working towards peace all we want to but it seems more popular to believe that humans are supposed to dictate to other in the name of their god then take part in the efforts to do what we "theoretically" were meant to do.
I cannot say that we were "made" to protect the Earth and its inhabitants but we did evolve to the top and we 'seemingly' know more then the other animals but we don't "really" protect them do we?
It seems more important to people to "preach" and try to get rid of the "unbelievers" then it does to "change" the way we do things.
My disdain for popular christianity is that they seem to lack any compassion for diversity when diversity was just as much a part of Genesis as we are to protecting those differences.
So truly the irony is that humanitarians, environmentalist, even atheist, animal rights activist, womens rights activist and even outcast Christians and Muslims want to work towards "good" solutions while the popular agenda for the "elites" is to serve just one thing and if! it is so that we are supposed to be 'servants to god' and do as he said to do...
Well then the hearts are in the wrong place. If God can take care of itself and we are supposed to take care of the Earth and all the stuff on it, then who is more likely doing the 'will of god'?
It says, "God so loved the WORLD".
Short version Answer since I spent a long time on Qwark's:
1. Christians should be leading the green movement, not opposing it.
2. The idea of the green movement (i.e. responsibly care for creation) is correct.
3. The implementation of the green movement (i.e try to scare everyone about climate change, rather than just doing the right thing) is wrong.
Let me be clear ... I don't believe in man-made climate change, but I think that we have the responsibility to care for the planet. There are some serious flaws in the science they present. My concern is that there will be an irresponsible "What the hell, the scientists lie, we can pollute all we want" attitude.
Carbon credits are based on junk-science funded by special interests that are just different than the fossil fuel special interests. Bio Mass and bio diesel are both sustainable and efficient, but don't give as much money to politicians as solar and wind.
Science is becoming a tool of politicians for now, just as religion was in the past.
Okay, alas we agree on a couple things but now let me ask you. First, what are those "serious flaws". I am not talking about quantum mechanic flaws or evolutionary flaws or anything that is generally discussed until fire starts coming out of peoples noses, just the "flaws" carbon emissions and Climate Change.
I don't need to hear about whether or not you believe that any of it is man made because you already told me you don't believe it and that is fine with me because you said that you know Climate Change is happening and that you believe Christians should be heading the movement not opposing, so it doesn't matter at this point to me.
People have already attained the "science lies so we can pollute all we want", attitude, there is no denying that people really do feel that and I see it all the time, I hear it all the time so....
Now, about bio fuels that you say are sustainable but solar energy and wind energy are getting more money from special interest for the politicians. I have to disagree, OIL gets more money and has more dirty special interest money that all the others combined.
If you do believe that bio fuels etc. are sustainable and renewable and do not effect the environment as severely as oil does, then all it means is there is not a demand for it by anyone. (well you know what I mean).
Either is better than oil and no matter what we do, we aren't going to be "purifying" any politicians any time soon and someone is always going to be getting their loot.
So the right thing to do is a lot simpler than feuding over whose morals are more righteous and whether or not science has given out "false" information (because you do know that it changes all the time so to call it a lies would be well... like "false witnessing" plus it is more accurate to say that some scientist have lied just like some Christians have lied.
We know it happens but if those things are more important than let's say IDK, taking care of the good Earth, then we all lose right?
OK, in general:
I am an expert in computer simulation. The computer models that predict global temperatures cannot, given the current state of the art, be accurate enough to predict or conclude anything about either the amount of carbon emissions or their impact on the climate. Too many unknowns. Not enough test data. Not enough control data. Consider this one computer model: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2002/di … s.049.html
This was the most reliable computer model possible, with the most up to date data possible and they couldn't predict conditions 4 hours into the future. I don't fault them, it is simply one example of how it is unwise to put too much faith in computer models.
Space weather (i.e solar activity cycles) seems to have more impact on climate than carbon activity. The mathematical models used and data used to feed these models would never withstand scrutiny in a legal court (again, I speak as a true expert).
If there is a CO2 buildup caused by humans, it is probably not as much from burning fossil fuel as much as it is deforestation. Deforestation concerns me FAR more than energy creation. When you deforest, you not only remove major CO2 scrubbers but potentially destroy the biodiversity of a region. Also, since a high quantity of CO2 is good for plants, there will likely be an adjustment for certain plant species to consume it, thus restoring the balance.
We know from the space program that CO2 build up is more of a problem of failure to remove it properly than production. Life of all kinds produces CO2 ... the earth is designed to handle it ... unless we kill all the plants.
CO2 is not the issue .. OIL is. Regardless of climate change, or not, there is only so much of it. It is economically foolish to depend on it long term. It will become too expensive eventually.
However, these "Carbon Quotas" amount to a way for one set of special interests to take control away from another set of special interests. Neither side cares about reality.
Granted, but that doesn't make putting money into wind and solar a good thing. I personally think bio will take over for economic reasons. It makes the most sense and is truly the shortest path to energy independence. I was wanting to start wind farms in 1986 until I saw the early studies on their impact on birds.
Which goes back to your oil money point, which is a very good point, I might add.
Also true on all counts.
Exactly. Taking care of the planet is a good plan. It was a gift from God and He has tasked us with caring for it. I don't blame you for not being happy with how it's been handled.
It would appear so if the past is anything to go by. And the present is a strong indicator especially if the fundamentalist evangelicals' microphones gets any louder.
But then in all fairness, materialistic reductionism and the consumer monster may beat them to it.
"But then in all fairness, materialistic reductionism and the consumer monster may beat them to it."
These will also be the victims of their hope for "armageddon."
I thought surely there'd be more response to this than what its gotten....
If you'd posted in the religion forum you might have more.
I always post in the "hubbers hangout" where subjects about anything can be considered.
I don't want to limit responses to just those whose interest lie in religion. I wouldn't get any well reasoned responses from them. I am not interested in "bigotry." I want "thinkers," not obsequious followers to respond.
TY tho for the suggestion. :-)
I don't think so. I am a monotheist (protestant Christian" but I don't think that I am trying to "transfer [my] imagined soul into the mythical land of the gods." I do think that the reign of man will end eventually, and that man himself will be the cause. In the meantime, however, I have always felt it my duty to serve others in whatever capacity I can (I am a teacher in an urban school district) in order to help others better their lives. I am sorry that your experience with other monotheists has left a stink on people like me. Too much religion forum?
"I am sorry that your experience with other monotheists has left a stink on people like me. Too much religion forum?"
Ah but Dosters, you are but an extant particle of the stink left on those of you who believe in metaphysical super divinities.
The "stink" began about 2000 yrs ago and has been rotting since it's inception into the human experience.
From its inception, thru the dark ages,the renaisance, the enlightenment into present day life, monotheism has been responsible for death, devestation, human suffering and pain that no other concept other than the "automobile" can compete with.
Your beliefs in the "improbable" have been the bane of human progress and continues to be.
No, the "stink" is indelibly ingrained in the programmed minds of the lesser evolved of the human species.
We humans are not born equal. Evolution doesn't function that way. That facet of humanity that is able to adapt and evolve. will survive and pass on their impoved genes to their progeny. Those that can't won't.
My concern is that the more primitive of our species outnumbers the more highly evolved and as a majority may be the perpetrator of a massive human culling or our demise.
There are many religious zealots who are blatantly and overtly taking us down that deadly path.
If the highly evolved took charge, what exactly would take place to herd the sheep away from destructive tendencies? Or perhaps the massive human culling is the answer? Do you have an opinion or solution on this?
There's nothing we can do about it.
Humanity is way too fragmented in thinking and action for it to come together in concert to save itself.
There will have to be a "culling."
Mother Earth cannot contend with a burgeoning human population.
If life is to succeed on this planet, there must be balance. We Humans are throwing that balance off.
Since we have no natural enemies, to control our numbers, it is most likely that we will reduce our numbers ourselves.
A reduction will become a necessity.
There is only 1 way to insure the viability of the human species and that is with the advent of a 1 world gov't dedicated to our survival, but that potential does not exist at this point in our evolution.
As Hendrix said - "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." A one world government dedicated to our survival does seem a long way off. Brave New World, Gattica, Bleeding Sun appear to be where we are heading.
1) "The "stink" began about 2000 yrs ago and has been rotting since it's inception into the human experience." Are you referring to Jesus here? Because monotheistic religions were around before that.
2) "We humans are not born equal. Evolution doesn't function that way. That facet of humanity that is able to adapt and evolve. will survive and pass on their impoved genes to their progeny. Those that can't won't.
My concern is that the more primitive of our species outnumbers the more highly evolved and as a majority may be the perpetrator of a massive human culling or our demise." And of course you feel as if you are a member of the "more highly evolved" and are thus in a position to judge the veracity and efficacy of other people's ideas. Such a level of hubris makes me sick.
3) "There is only 1 way to insure the viability of the human species and that is with the advent of a 1 world gov't dedicated to our survival" Yeah forgive me for not buying into this one. I have absolutely NO faith in any government of any size to avoid corruption. and one world government, accountable to no one, would be able to commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of "dedication to our survival."
Next time don't post questions in forums if you are simply going to nullify any differing opinion.
If we all thought alike, if we all agreed with one another, if there were no differing opinions and there were no ability to speak our minds and argue a point, we would be robots.
If my "opinions" and judgements make you sick, for goodness sakes, pay my comments no attention...don't read and respond to them.
Yes,I do feel that I am one of those who has evolved to a higher level of intellect than the majority of humanity.
I am not surprised at your response. It portrays you as a "believer" in myth and superstition. It indicates, to me, that you are not a scholar, that you are not aware of the real world you reside within and that you are just an obsequious "follower," certainly not a credible, aware hubber.
I appreciate your comment and for clarification in ref to the depth of your understanding of man, his foibles and weaknesses.
Your comments are always welcome but I'd like you to enumerate your reason for disagreement. You didn't offer any.
Your argument suffers from a foundational bias which is simply staggering. Your unstated premise before even posting this thread was " I am a higher evolved human free from the bonds of religious myth, therefore my opinions are better." That means that you can simply write off anyone who disagrees with you as "not a scholar, that you are not aware of the real world you reside within and that you are just an obsequious "follower," certainly not a credible, aware hubber."
Also, if you are talking about "death, devestation, human suffering " as you put it in your first response, then I feel that people thinking that they are more highly evolved than others, or a superior race, has more of a claim on that than religion does. (Ex. Nazi Holocaust, Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian Massacre) As an aside, I did not say that your "opinions" made me sick. I said your "hubris" made me sick, a claim I still stand by.
This will be my last post in this thread; I have better things to do with my time than bang my head against the wall.
Since we have no natural enemies, to control our numbers, it is most likely that we will reduce our numbers ourselves.
- - - - - -
The many possibilities to achieve "Reducing our numbers??
Now that sounds scarier than armageddon !
Are monotheists zealously dedicated to ending the reign of man?
Who started the reign of man?
How did it start exactly?
How A one world government takes care of the overpopulation and food shortages, and unemployment rate??
Control birth rates, establish age limits. At age 60 ya gotta check into the "Hotel California" You know , ya can check in but ya never leave.
I'm sure I wouldn't like a one world government.
I almost forgot. A one world government would most likely establish a plan to promote the further evolution of mankind.
Gotta get rid of stupid people.
I would be out on two counts.
And who decides who stays and who goes?
qwarkposted 42 hours ago
...so that they can transfer their imagined souls into the mythical land of the gods where they can reside as immortals for all eternity?
Oh but you imagine that we imagine!!! LOL
I agree to disagree with your OP!
I'm not really "inti" the news like some people are,
So feel free to correct me when I am wrong !!
The big Oil Money is feeding the politicians.
Green money is going out of Washington.
At least that is what I thought.
As I said I don't get that involved in what is going on in the news CAUSE they are going to keep on doing what they do no matter what "I" think.
by JP Carlos4 years ago
Do you think the world has become more materialistic?
by andrew savage4 years ago
After reading scripture, I realized that there was an angel named Satanel who was a regular angel while there was also Lucifer one of the nine original archangels. Also, I noticed that Lucifer is much like that of a...
by IDONO2 years ago
Atheists: What Do you believe in?Everybody believes in something, whether it be spiritual or something else. Instead of people constantly trashing them for what they don't believe, maybe you'll be surprised in what they...
by Healing Herbalist5 years ago
Why do people care what religion you are?
by Ruben Rivera5 years ago
First off I want to say I'm not against atheism and I am not religious at all. I do believe in a higher power and I do have my own beliefs on that but not following any major religion, having said that.I find that...
by Kathryn L Hill7 months ago
The government or God?Hint: Its not the government.
Copyright © 2018 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.