|
I think Paul's letter precede these dates somewhat.. or that's what I hear anyway. Interesting it is how the earlier you get, the miracles just disappear!
The gospels are great (and I'll admit to not having read them in their entirety for a few decades, but here's the impression I got as a young boy);.
Matthew - Jesus was way cool and did these cool things. He loved us all and died for our sins.
Mark - Jesus was way cool and did these cool things. He loved us all and died for our sins.
Luke - Jesus was way cool and did these cool things. He loved us all and died for our sins.
John - Jesus was cool, and did like seventy billion miracles, but I did miracles, too! I was his favorite disciple and he loved me best of all, and sometimes he'd go take a nap or something and I'd speak for him, kinda like I'm doing now that he isn't around to smite me for my presumption. Did I mention baptism, 'cause he totally stole that from me... Also, me. And, me. Don't forget! Me! I'd say more about Jesus, but I can't hear over the sound of how awesome I am.
|
|
And on the scientific side the conclusion that if it can be biologically explained, then our experience of it is somehow trivial or irrelevant or wrong or just a hallucination.
This seems to apply to external events as well. The weather was a source of mystery and prominent dieties in many pantheons become associated with it (Thor, Zeus, etc.). Similarly, the sun was a mystery, and many prominent dieties associated with it (Amaterasu, Ra, etc.).
Science strips the mystery from things, which doesn't mean that the sun-god or thunder-god is any more or less 'real' than it ever was, only that the sun (or the storm) seems less mysterious and magical than it did before you knew that our sun was one of a couple thousand that we can see every night, and, by stellar standards, not terribly impressive at all, just another burning ball of gas up in the sky, remarkable only for being closer to us than the others.
A person who has grown up with a sense of wonder, whether from a strong imagination or from a religious upbringing, feels that the cold dehumanizing scientific explanations aren't just 'explaining things,' they are taking something away from the believer. It's like the scientist is trying to rip into your heart and take Thor away from you, by telling you that clouds are created by evaporation and pushed along by the expansion of air during the day. Lightning isn't Zeus' fury and thunder isn't 'God re-arranging the furniture,' it's just static, no more magical or wonder-inspiring than zipping your wool socks across the rug and shocking the cat.
Science isn't just 'telling you something,' it can feel like it's beating you up and stealing your innocence in the process.
What science, IMO, has failed to do, is retain the sense of wide-eyed wonder in the face of new discoveries, or, at least, to demonstrate it. It creates the impression of being soulless and very, very serious, when it's all about understanding the world and finding your place in it, the *exact same damn thing you do with faith.*
The coming together of molecules in chemical synthesis (such as DNA splitting to replicate) can be beautiful in it's complexity, like a whirling dance with a million partners. But we aren't going to be inspired by that description if it isn't told that way, just as the modern day religious movement here in America is moving away from 'stuffy traditional' churches (like the Catholics) and embracing energetic and sometimes wild evangelical churches.
Just like anything, religion or science or education, if the dude standing up there in front of me doesn't look excited and inspired by what he's talking about, then why the heck am *I* supposed to get excited about it?
We need science programs narrated by people who don't sound like they are scolding us. That's what turns so many secular people off of religious programming. Tell me what to *like* about your position, don't tell me what a bad person I am for not already being part of it (with it being anything from 'your church' to 'the environmental movement').
Preachy = bad, whether it's coming from Jerry Falwell or Al Gore. It just gets our backs up and makes us knee-jerk react against the people who appear to be judging us.
As always, add IMO to the end of any sentence that beings with a capital letter.
Preachy = bad, whether it's coming from Jerry Falwell or Al Gore. It just gets our backs up and makes us knee-jerk react against the people who appear to be judging us.
+1
And Taking a certain stand and interpreting facts to fit with said stance=bad, whether it's a sacerdote or a scientist. Dismissing others because they don't believe as you do=bad whether it's a priest or a politician.
Hubris spans the human experience. Or to put it more bluntly, everyone loves the smell of their own farts.
And on the scientific side the conclusion that if it can be biologically explained, then our experience of it is somehow trivial or irrelevant or wrong or just a hallucination.This seems to apply to external events as well. The weather was a source of mystery and prominent dieties in many pantheons become associated with it (Thor, Zeus, etc.). Similarly, the sun was a mystery, and many prominent dieties associated with it (Amaterasu, Ra, etc.).
Science strips the mystery from thing...
We need science programs narrated by people who don't sound like they are scolding us. That's what turns so many secular people off of religious programming. Tell me what to *like* about your position, don't tell me what a bad person I am for not already being part of it (with it being anything from 'your church' to 'the environmental movement').
Preachy = bad, whether it's coming from Jerry Falwell or Al Gore. It just gets our backs up and makes us knee-jerk react against the people who appear to be judging us.
As always, add IMO to the end of any sentence that beings with a capital letter.
Two words: Carl Sagan.
Yeah, I was gonna say that. Understanding that the sun is billions of years old, a fusion reactor where incredible nuclear processes constantly occur to actually create new elements out of simpler ones, in the process emitting ALL of the energy used on Earth and making all life possible -- that's pretty freakin' awe-inspiring. More so when you consider that photosynthetic organisms also use that energy to generate the free oxygen that sustains us, and ultimately all of the food we eat.
Some magic dude in a chariot? Not so impressive. You want reverence, grandeur, a sense of majesty and astonishment? Give me the scientific explanation for the sun any day. If you really understand what it's doing up there, there's no way to beat it with some ancient dude and his horses.
Lightning as a bolt of energy travelling 130,000 mph, with temperatures over 50,000 degrees, striking all over the planet -- that impresses me more than a guy with hammer who is consistently outwitted by giants.
I think part of the issue is that we're conditioned since childhood to believe that "unknowable = awesome," whereas "potentially understood = boring." The only way to break out of that mind-set is by really understanding stuff, at which point the awesomeness level -- far from disappearing -- actually gets ramped up another order of magnitude. Sagan looked at the stars and was struck dumb with awe. Say what you want about Dawkins, he gets a hundred times more excitement out of wasps pollinating flowers than most people ever get out of a church service.
|
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say about the human experience. I am well aware that human emotions and experiences are physiologically driven. But explaining those physiological processes does not describe the experience. If you tried to explain surprise to somebody who had never been surprised, and explained to them the neurological and endocrinal processes that drive that emotional response, the person you were explaining it to would be no closer to understanding what the experience felt like.
Emotional or poetic language, on the other hand, can provoke a level of emotional response in the audience, that can give them a glimpse into the emotional state being described, in a way that a biological explanation never can.
Something that amused me some time back, seeing as both these guys have now been brought up:
John Shelby Spong and Carl Sagan, though they weren't good buddies or anything, are said to have had long and extraordinary conversations every time they met (I guess both were often involved in talks relating to science & society), and despite Sagan's atheism he loved engaging Spong in talks about God.
Spong called Sagan a "God intoxicated atheist". And there's a character in Contact that I suspect is based on Spong.
And as far as I can tell from the take various friends have on Sagan, while he was propagandizing the awesomeness of the natural world for atheists, he was also doing the same thing for God in a lot of believers.
And really, Contact drinks very deeply of the current discussion on this thread all the way through.
Ellie Arroway in the capsule looking out at some amazing celestial phenomena: "They should have sent a poet."
There's a story that was crafted to speak before both the religiously and the scientifically minded.
And as far as I can tell from the take various friends have on Sagan, while he was propagandizing the awesomeness of the natural world for atheists, he was also doing the same thing for God in a lot of believers.
And that's hopefully, in my eyes, where things are leading: a case in which each new scientific discovery, rather than being seen as an attack on faith, will be viewed as further proof of the awesomeness of the universe. The big debate in scientific circles now seems to be between the "New Atheists" (notably Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, et al.) on the one hand, and those they brand "Accomodationists" (Ken Miller, et al.) on the other. All are unabashedly pro-science and anti-Creationist, but they differ strongly on tactics: whether to "coddle" religion (as the first group accuses the second), or to "attack" it (as the second accuses the first). A good case is made for attacking it, insofar as the thought process of supernatural faith and divine revelation is totally antithetical to the scientific method. But if that method could be seen as the sublimation of what the theists call "God's gift of reason" -- rather than a misuse of it -- it seems that science would be better accepted all around. And if religion could manifest itself as more as an appreciation of the natural world, rather than a rejection of it, then religion would no longer represent a "Delusion" as Dawkins puts it.
I have chosen to neither attack nor accommodate the religious.
Perhaps it's because, standing in the middle, I find some serious deficiencies on both ends of this spectrum and if I go one way or another I'll invariably take one in the butt.
So I like to call things as I see it, then always back out of debates with a hand on my ass.
I have chosen to neither attack nor accommodate the religious.
A wise policy, if you can manage it.
It should be obvious from this thread that I err on the side of Accomodationism... despite the fact that I'm no closet theist, and identify more strongly with Coyne than with Miller, for example. Because, honestly, why go out of your way to annoy people? Yes, Jerry has pointed out clearly, "Where has accomodationism [the dominant strategy in the last couple decades] gotten us?" -- and it's hard to argue that point, with the Dover trial and 9/11 both being so recent. Then again, the alternative has never yielded good results, either -- look at poor Socrates.
P.S. Terms like "accomodationism" are rightly offensive to believers -- I think that's why they were coined. I use them in this context because, having been introduced, they've become clear indicators of how one leans in these matters, however snide they might be.
At times, at times.
Wow... that's honestly the saddest and most pittiful thing I've ever read. Dude are you so jaded that you don't even hold love in reverence?While I disagree as to Sam's insistence on its relative unimportance, I fail to see why it couldn't be a bioneurological phenomenon, without a God overseeing it.
Why are natural things "not worthy" of being held in awe? The fact that love exists inspires me deeply. Whether it's natural or supernatural in origin really makes no difference.
Hi Kirth, I am Moorluck's Wife...I know..Lucky me right! :D
I don't think that Moorluck was saying anything about love being overseen by God. Simply that he felt it sad that Sam had reduced it to something so simple and logical.When we find that love and emotion are anything but logical. :)
Nice to meet you by the way. Moorluck has said great things about you, I coulda used a little of your help in my Geology class last term..I only got a B. :\
I have chosen to neither attack nor accommodate the religious.A wise policy, if you can manage it.
It should be obvious from this thread that I err on the side of Accomodationism... despite the fact that I'm no closet theist, and identify more strongly with Coyne than with Miller, for example...
I am uncomfortable calling myself anything just from sheer exhaustion...
On one side, calling myself a Christian has resulted in some pretty fierce attacks, and on the other side I see a lot more to Jesus... (and the Buddha, and others)... more to than their being just great teachers of wisdom. I should confess that in particular I find something in Jesus that goes farther, and reaches more deeply into the human spirit than the Buddha and others.
And I certainly do feel something divine, I feel it in both nature and humanity (one and the same--but still both deserve a nod) and I've had more than my share of mockery from the scientific corner on that despite the fact that I make nothing supernatural about it in any way.
So, not getting on so well with the radicals in the scientific and religious corners, I find that I do groove with some of those who take a more aesthetic world view, which I suppose is to be expected with my having got my "religion" and "spirit" first through literary channels.
Also, attacking and accommodating are not the only options. I find subversion to work quite well. Where so-called "accommodation" is necessary I think that I'd prefer to use simple "education" or with the contentious "civil but pointed engagement". I think attackers do nothing but entrench fundamentalism and close channels of communication.
And as I already said I find engagement to be necessary with both the religious and scientific fundamentalists.
Hi Kirth, I am Moorluck's Wife...I know..Lucky me right! :D
I don't think that Moorluck was saying anything about love being overseen by God. Simply that he felt it sad that Sam had reduced it to something so simple and logical.
For my part, I didn't get that from Moorluck's post--I mean I didn't take "reverence" to necessarily entail God giving it to us and playing around with it or anything like that.
And really I couldn't care less if people believe God does do that because the biology doesn't disappear, and frack all changes when people blame that kind of thing on God.
And now excuse me if I follow where this takes me...
Really one thing scares me, and I'm with the attackers on this: claims of revelation are scary. Believing in revelation is opening pandora's box. Now most of the stuff that is revealed is harmless, and sometimes it does good, but it's that revelatory crap that hurts and divides and excludes and lays waste that is the problem.
It's like opening the Pandora's box of your subconscious and giving the angels and demons that burst free letters or marque....
I'm fine with inspiration. I'm fine with muses. I'm fine with feelings of enlightenment and purpose. But people giving themselves a warrant to say and do what they feel without recourse to rationality or even common sense is just plain stupid.
|
|
I'm fine with inspiration. I'm fine with muses. I'm fine with feelings of enlightenment and purpose. But people giving themselves a warrant to say and do what they feel without recourse to rationality or even common sense is just plain stupid.
What bugs me is when people abdicate personal responsibility to authority, whether that authority is God or country or party or race or gender.
When George Bush got up on stage and talked about how Jesus rescued him from alcoholism, my thoughts were;
1) What about your family and friends, who stood by you? What about that woman standing next to you, wearing that ring you gave her?
2) What about people who *didn't* get rescued from alcoholism? Does Jesus love them less than you?
3) What happens if you start drinking again? Does that mean Jesus has *failed?* Is the Devil responsible if *you* fall down?
It's not bad enough that some people refuse to take the blame when they mess up, but it's even more destructive to their ego, to their maturation as human beings, if they refuse to even *take credit for their successes.* By placing success (of failure) on a higher (or lower) power, you abdicate all responsibility for your own words or actions or behaviors, for either your mistakes in judgement or the times when you did something totally brave and heroic.
By refusing to recognize when you've been awesome, you lose the ability to positively reinforce yourself to be awesome (kind, brave, compassionate, etc.) even more of the time, to recognize the strength within yourself to *choose* to be a good person, not just in exceptional situation, but every day. They take the power away from themselves to choose to behave in a moral or ethical fashion, by putting the onus of their decisions and their actions on some external force or entity.
Pride may be a sin, but denying responsibility for your own actions and for your own beliefs, that's just self-annhilation. And it leads to people standing up in front of war crimes tribunals saying, 'Und I vas under orders' in their defense.
What bugs me is when people abdicate personal responsibility to authority, whether that authority is God or country or party or race or gender.
I'm always amazed that people think they actually can abdicate their responsibility by picking some creed someone else invented and following it. You picked the thing; you're the responsible person when it comes to your adherence and the outcomes it generates.
Hi Kirth, I am Moorluck's Wife...I know..Lucky me right! Nice to meet you by the way. Moorluck has said great things about you, I coulda used a little of your help in my Geology class last term..I only got a B. :\
I'd say you're very lucky indeed; Moorluck has a rare gift of listening (even when it's electronic). Glad to see you on the boards; my wife doesn't post, or we could have introductions all around! Sorry I couldn't help last semester, but do feel free to let me know if anything else geological comes up that I can help with; I owe you both at least that much after the very pleasant conversations I've had with your husband, whom I hold in high regard.
Nice to "meet" you, as it were, as well, and thanks again for the post!
Kirth, I know you keep an eye on this thread, but I was wondering if you could help me. I am interested in learning more of the historical background of Buddhism. Is there a good book you could reccommend? I am looking more for historical, not philisophical.
Kirth, I know you keep an eye on this thread, but I was wondering if you could help me. I am interested in learning more of the historical background of Buddhism. Is there a good book you could reccommend? I am looking more for historical, not philisophical.
A bibliography for a college course led by my own teacher, John Koller, is linked here. Dr. Koller is knowledgeable about Hindu tradition as well, so he's in an excellent position to remark on how the Buddhist tradition, while in some ways an offshoot of the Hindu one, often goes to great lengths to rebel against it as well.
As far as the life of the Buddha is concerned, every English teacher will of course point you to Herman Hesse's Siddartha, which is of more literary value than historical... then again, hardcore historical documentation is hard to come by for a guy who lived something like 2,500 years ago, because you hardly want to trust the stuff written by his disciples.
...because you hardly want to trust the stuff written by his disciples.
Hmmm.
...because you hardly want to trust the stuff written by his disciples.Hmmm.
Yeah, I know that runs contrary to the central tenet of Christians, vis-a-vis the New Testament ("Written by His own disciples, so you know it must be good!") My point is that first-generation followers are more often unconsciously engaged in myth-building, more than in historical archiving.
Or, to put it differently, I don't believe anyone was literally born from a lotus blossom any more than I buy into the whole "virgin birth" thing. It's human nature to ascribe all manner of embelleshment to those we look up to. In the words of the immortal Yogi Berra, "I never said most of the things I said!"
Just so I know what I am getting myself into Kirth, what are the different veiw points being bashed around here. I don't keep as good of an eye on this thread then I would Like to and it is hella long.
Tell us what you believe in and I am sure we can accommodate you in some bashing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Just so I know what I am getting myself into Kirth, what are the different veiw points being bashed around here. I don't keep as good of an eye on this thread then I would Like to and it is hella long.
No free passes. Start at the beginning and read all the posts, taking careful notes. Otherwise, you can't participate in the conversation. Everyone else posting here has done that, why can't you?
Then again, if he doesn't, we could always brush off any argument he poses as being proven false already.
Just so I know what I am getting myself into Kirth, what are the different veiw points being bashed around here. I don't keep as good of an eye on this thread then I would Like to and it is hella long.
No topic is off-limits, but if you bring up something that's always discussed ad nauseum (e.g., "Well, if God is so benevolent, then why is there evil in the world?" seems to be a perennial favorite), expect people to say "see above." Overall, though, there are no requirements except that (a) remaining civil, even if trolls pop up occasionally, is a must, and (b) we're mostly here to discuss beliefs and their ramifications in an open and honest way, not to gain converts or "save the heathens." Also, overtly bashing anyone's views is a bit gauche, to say the least.
I will then keep a bottle of llama hair removal and a pony wax with me at all times.
And catnip. Poodles hate it.
What science, IMO, has failed to do, is retain the sense of wide-eyed wonder in the face of new discoveries, or, at least, to demonstrate it. It creates the impression of being soulless and very, very serious, when it's all about understanding the world and finding your place in it, the *exact same damn thing you do with faith.*
With all due respect, i think your wrong. Science doesn't stripe away wonder, it lets us truely appreciate the true wonders of the universe.
The idea that the sun is some dude on a chario, racing across the sky is frankly a little dull when compared to understanding that you are falling through space towards the sunrise on ball of rock, iron and fire so large the brain cannot imagain it easily. Caught in an eternal orbit around a cloud of hydrogen so massive it ignited billions of years ago into a fusion powered bonfire so bright that its light can warm planets. That star in turn dances in a whirling mass of stars, which orbit a tear is space so vast that imaginiation cannot even concieve its size without the aid of mathimatics.
Such truths make the myths of primative people's in near by deserts quaint.
It is the greatest triumph of science, that it shows us the beauty and scope of the universe, rather than showing us simple dull stories.
Good info
Thanks Kirth. I did read Siddhartha many moons ago, and I will have to look that up again (that and Steppenwolf now that I think on it).
I will peruse the list you linked. I am really not interested in 'the life of Buddha' more of the historical development of Buddhism as it evolved in India and then spread out to other places (China, Japan, et. al). I find religion, especially the historical aspects of religion and their impact on humanity and philosophy endlessly fascinating.
I must ask, have you never seen beauty in anything but science?
It is the greatest triumph of science, that it shows us the beauty and scope of the universe, rather than showing us simple dull stories.
No, i see beauty in all sorts of things. From litriture and film, to music and the natural world. Generally however, understanding the hows and whys of such things makes them even more beautifil to me. One of the most beautiful and memorable sights of my early childhood was my first sight of a scanning electron microscope image of an H.I.V. virus, knocked the socks of the stained glass in the church across the road from me, and that was before i discovered how many people that virus was killing.
It is the greatest triumph of science, that it shows us the beauty and scope of the universe, rather than showing us simple dull stories.
My thoughts are similar. I think the greatest triumph of science is the progressive extermination of ignorance.
The beauty of knowledge is so great that it renders any other concept of beauty insignificant by comparison, though.
|
Beauty of the nature of science is the first thing I will speak to. And the nature of stories is my second. I will preface this with the understanding I am not attacking your views rather I am using this forum to express my own and am using yours to build upon how I feel about both cosmology and religion in specific.
I must start with saying that I believe in and in fact support the understanding of and expression of the joy that is nature and the natural world. The knowledge of life and its amazing uniqueness never fails to astonish me. To know that the sun is aflame with so much power and majesty. Burning Hydrogen at such heat that it turns to Helium. That the magnetic explosions that jet off of the surface can change the weather for years on this world. That this is just one of several more suns. Billions of more in the universe. Worlds are around these stars and there is always the possibility that we are not alone in this multitude of worlds. The nearest of which may have the ability to watch classic TV Rigel getting I love Lucy right now, if I remember correctly.
Does this take away from my similar feelings from my knowledge of Christ. Not in the least. It in fact makes it more substantive. More tangible even. For knowing what the sun is, in my mind is only half the knowledge of the truth. Know who made the sun and that it is here to light and warm this world so that we may grow and learn.
There are many types of stories, many types of reasons for stories. Romances, adventures and others. Some are used to give us emotions and yet others to teach. Stories that teach should and often do have a grain of truth to them. They can bring us a better understanding not just of the world around us but of ourselves as well. One of the biggest hazards someone can face when looking at their life or others spiritually, is lumping all such stories together. Such as examining the sun with a story of a chariot that flies through the sky each day to merely die that evening and be reborn the next. Such a story taken out of context is easy to ridicule. But looked at in perspective. Of people struggling to understand, it too can be a thing of beauty. And while we no longer look at these stories, or myths as real they still tried to do the best they can to explain this world we live in.
So how can I possibly believe one story and yet not another? I had once been asked this same question if so much more rudely. Not from someone from these boards I might add. It took me some time I shall also add to come up with a good response. Not due to lack of faith or anything. It was just a good question, even if poorly worded and spitefully addressed. I took a look at many myths then. Both those contained in the bible and those contained else where. The words of Christ as handed down these two millennia and those of Siddhartha 500 years before him, as well as others. Years later I came to a conclusion, and it was also some time later also pointed out to me, that well frankly we grow upon the knowledge of those who have come before us. Both scientifically and spiritually we have grown on the past. And like old scientific thoughts which we have learned are not the truth, the aether, alchemy, astronomy or humors. Religion is something similar to me. We build upon the knowledge of the spiritual from those who came before us. We increase our understanding. We do not and should not hold forth the specific details of every story we have. The Bible is a group of books. Some historical, some poetry, and others such as Jonah, kinda fishy. This does not decrease the truths being shown. Nor does this mean I must believe every story if I find truth that resonates as deeply as the knowledge of the power that resides in the sun. As a Pope once said we hold this day Dec 25 in honor, not because it is the day of the birth of the sun but rather in honor of he who created the sun.
I hope this adds to the conversation and does not detract from it. :) and coherent enough to understand.
Jester
I think the greatest triumph of science is the progressive extermination of ignorance.Religion aside, I feel that there will always be ignorance.
Less ignorance is better than more ignorance, though.
Alas, ignorance and asshattery can always find a way to triumph over our thirst for understanding.
And incidentally, that website is banned by the government of the state in which I live. The very same state that scorns religion and claims to conduct itself scientifically.
Thank you Lord for encrypted tunneling proxies!
You're welcome, my son.
Religion is something similar to me. We build upon the knowledge of the spiritual from those who came before us. We increase our understanding.
I'm not sure we "build on" so much as "rediscover." Otherwise the Hindus would all have converted to Buddhism, and then the Buddhists to Zoroastranism, and then the Zoroastrans to Judaism, and the Jews to Christianity, and in the present day we'd all be Muslims. But that's not how it seems to really work.
|
|
Religion is something similar to me. We build upon the knowledge of the spiritual from those who came before us. We increase our understanding.I'm not sure we "build on" so much as "rediscover." Otherwise the Hindus would all have converted to Buddhism, and then the Buddhists to Zoroastranism, and then the Zoroastrans to Judaism, and the Jews to Christianity, and in the present day we'd all be Muslims. But that's not how it seems to really work.
No, by that timeline, we should all be Scientologists.
No, by that timeline, we should all be Scientologists.
Heh. I was talking religions, though, not SciFi novels!
Although to be really up-to-date, I'm thinking of maybe converting to Last Thursdayism.|
|
No, by that timeline, we should all be Scientologists.Religion is something similar to me. We build upon the knowledge of the spiritual from those who came before us. We increase our understanding.I'm not sure we "build on" so much as "rediscover." Otherwise the Hindus would all have converted to Buddhism, and then the Buddhists to Zoroastranism, and then the Zoroastrans to Judaism, and the Jews to Christianity, and in the present day we'd all be Muslims. But that's not how it seems to really work.
:) I said Building upon the past not putting blinders on and loosing all sense of any reality.
one of my favorite quotes is that reason and faith are the two wings which shall fly us to truth.
:) I said Building upon the past not putting blinders on and loosing all sense of any reality.
Would that be just as funny if it were said about Christianity?
No, by that timeline, we should all be Scientologists.:) I said Building upon the past not putting blinders on and loosing all sense of any reality.
How does one tell the difference?
:) I said Building upon the past not putting blinders on and loosing all sense of any reality.Would that be just as funny if it were said about Christianity?
Haha!
one of my favorite quotes is that reason and faith are the two wings which shall fly us to truth.
"There is in every village a torch: the schoolteacher, and an extinguisher: the priest." --Victor Hugo
Faith and reason are very difficult to reconcile. Faith is an apriori defiance of reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.
Faith is an answer that cannot be questioned. Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered. Science asks good questions. Religion is a collection of bad answers.
Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into skyscrapers.
|
|
But why do the scriptures fail to mention the fact that God created the earth as a teeny tiny speck in a huge universe filled with countless other planets and stars? Seems like something God would have mentioned since earth was such an infentesimal fragment of what he ceated.
Why would that get mentioned? One the one hand, the Bible was written by a bunch of dudes who didn't know any of that. On the other hand, that information was irrelevant. The Bible also doesn't explain plate tectonics, or that solar energy creates weather, or the existence of dinosaurs, or the existence of Asian people. All of that stuff exists, but didn't get mentioned in Genesis because it's not important to the story. The writers of the Bible, whatever faults they may have had, were not Robert Jordan, compelled to explain and detail *everything* in mind-numbing detail.
The 'burn in Hell' stuff is just disappointing to read about, like stumbling into a Flat Earther Society meeting. Sheol means 'the grave' and was conflated with, and occasionally outright replaced with, Hades, the *Greek underworld.* Gehenna was a real place, where they burned garbage. 'Everlasting Destruction' was mistranslated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, and referred to a lake of fire that sat by the left side of the throne of God *in Heaven* and into which souls that didn't pass muster were destroyed. Not 'tortured by red-skinned pitch-fork weilding cloven-hooved depictions of popular Pagan fertility dieties for all eternity, in His mercy.' Just destroyed, in a single fiery instant, with no coming back and no 'take-backsies.'
It is written that 'By their works shall ye know them.' Anyone tries to tell you that Jesus, who died forgiving everyone for their sins and said stuff like 'turn the other cheek' and 'forgive your enemy' and 'do unto others' and 'judge not, lest ye be judged' and 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' approves of judging others and torturing people for all eternity should be walked away from and left to preach to the air.
They can keep the Hell they've invented. Indeed, given the perpetual state of fear, desperation and apocalyptic anxiety this sort of person seems to live in, they pretty much already are living in the Hell they've invented.
Christians are admonished not to judge, merely to forgive, and to worry about the beams in their own eyes, so to speak, instead of pointing out the motes in other's.