Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: B.C. Tours


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: B.C. Tours Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/1/2005 6:19:19 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

In the long run, what I think or what you think really won't make any difference regarding how we pass on our habits to the next generation; it will continue to happen and changes will be slow and incremental over time. But once you see what's happening and been happening, you can't deny it's wrong for children to be imbued with information they cannot evaluate and are trusting the judgment of others as to its validity and benefit. This especially applies to their parents.

I do give children credit but I also know how beautifully innocent and trusting they can be. I have over two dozen nieces and nephews and have spent enough time around them to see your point but also mine. I am not hobbled in this regard.

anthrosub


I'm curious what you think about people who have deep spiritual beliefs in the bible, jesus christ, the whole nine yards --- who are all extremely intelligent, well read, arguably brilliant scientists or biologists or philosophy professors?

Athiests often bring up the santa claus analogy..or how religion (or christianity for example) are really no more than fairy tales and fables. If you hold respect for those that are more intelligent than you -- or more well read on the matter -- is it so easy to say "it's all a bunch of baloney?"

I tend to fall back on "I know what I don't know" when it comes to making evaluations of what the validity of things are when I know there are people that know far more about topics than I do -- like theology, philosophy, biology and evolution. But what can you say about people who are of extremely high intelligence that have not abandoned deep faith, despite the evidence in front of them? Do you call them stupid, or ignorant? What is it that is so compelling to them that they hang on to their faith, even though you know, as human beings, they, too, have thought long and hard about faith vs. science?

You can't argue that you know more than they do; someone, or many people, *are* more educated than you are, both booksmart and pure wisdom. The thing is, you don't see them talking illiteralely on TV and having rallies and making dumb statements. They hold a quiet faith and don't preach.

Akasha


I understand your question and point and have asked myself this very same question. It does seem to beg the question of how can intelligent, informed individuals continue to maintain faith in something that intellectually doesn't seem to prove out. I obviously cannot answer for them specifically but instead can suggest a possibility. But before I do, I'll take this opportunity to try and lay out my own perspective on the matter.

My perspective is based on a combination of philosophical, psychological, social, and scientific analysis (with a little history thrown in for context).

To start off, let's look at a person who states, "I believe that God exists." and we will use the Christian God for this example since that's a fairly predominant religion here in the United States.

From the statement, "I believe that God exists." two suppositions can be drawn.

1. God exists
2. The belief in God's existence exists.

If God exists, then the belief in God is irrelevant (God exists whether the belief is there or not). By the same token, if the belief in God's existence exists, then whether God actually exists or not is irrelevant (the believer's "belief" acts as a buffer/filter to the truth). In other words, if a person believes in God, that's all that's needed; just like Santa or the Easter Bunny is quite real to children so long as they believe. I'm not sure if this is the basis for others using the Santa myth in their argument but this is how I apply it.

When I worked through those two suppositions many years ago, I took a fresh look at humanity both past and present and asked myself in which of the two are most people vested. Clearly most people profess a belief that God exists. Nobody so far as I know has direct, irrefutable evidence they can produce of God's existence (they can produce lots of symbols but those are not God). So I conclude that a good number of people (probably the majority) really don't know if God's existence (as they understand it to be) is true or not. Why should they if their belief prevents them from needing to look any further?

Now let's look at the bigger picture. There are many different religions in the world, most with their own version of God and sometimes more than one God. In addition, there have been religions in the past that people held to be true that today are considered myths. This leads me to conclude that religion is something of a social construct, necessary in many ways but not the truth. By that I mean no single version is THE ONE. They are all different but all talking about the same thing.

So what is the truth? Besides being a very subjective term...for me the truth is whatever we call God in all the different forms today or in the past...they are all wrong in that none of them is THE correct explanation. Religions are a representation of the truth. At best, God is that which is beyond our comprehension and religion is a projection of our own imagination trying to understand that which cannot be understood because of our inherent limitations. God is us (as is the universe of which we are all a part) so in that sense, God exists.

This is why the people in B.C Tours are full of it. What frustrates me is their blind stupidity (ignorance) and how that drives their attack on science. It's not about being right or wrong...it's about being accurate. In spite of themselves, they don't know what they're talking about.

So why do intelligent people maintain a particular faith? I suspect if they were hard pressed to explain themselves, they would give a similar answer to the one above. Perhaps they have a liking for a particular version even though they know deep down it's purely symbolic. For those that don't, I would say perhaps they really haven't gone into it deep enough despite how intelligent they may be. I don't think I've said anything that isn't there to see if you have the willingness and take the time to look.

If this message insults or upsets anyone, I apologize. It was not written for that purpose. I'm simply putting my cards on the table. For those of you who enjoy making merry of this subject...be my guest...it really doesn't matter what you care to think of what I'm saying.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/2/2005 10:08:51 AM   
AAkasha


Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub



So why do intelligent people maintain a particular faith? I suspect if they were hard pressed to explain themselves, they would give a similar answer to the one above. Perhaps they have a liking for a particular version even though they know deep down it's purely symbolic. For those that don't, I would say perhaps they really haven't gone into it deep enough despite how intelligent they may be. I don't think I've said anything that isn't there to see if you have the willingness and take the time to look.

anthrosub[/color]



I don't know that your assumption is very on target. Why not ask some of these people? I have; the answers are interesting and enlightening. I do know that from the people I have asked these questions, the idea that it is symbolic is not it at all, and to say they have not gone "deep down" is far from true. Scientific, analytical people go deep down into everything. There's nothing wrong with taking a stab at why you "think" they can hold faith as strongly as they do. I think it's a very important part of the puzzle though, and if you really want answers, maybe you would take time to investigate. But I will say that what you explained is not the reality I have found, because in my own quest for spiritual answers I've had conversations like the one above.

Akasha


_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/2/2005 3:27:43 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		I agree it's best to get answers about others from the source. I need to ask something about your last sentence as it sort of lost me. Are you saying you've explored the same line of reasoning I outlined in my reply or are you referring to the segment you quoted in your own reply? Just curious as it makes a difference in how I'm receiving your thoughts.

I also want to add something else that I feel deserves consideration regarding religion. To me it seems like simple common sense. Compare religions with language and note the following similarities.

  • There are many languages and religions all over the world that have developed independently of each other, some overlap, some do not, some are obsolete.
  • Languages and religions are different yet reference the same thing.
  • Languages and religions deal with both the tangible and the intangible.


What I can draw from this is an explanation for how people can be so vested in something even though there's a completely "valid" alternative right beside it. It's just a matter of where you grew up and what your cultural background is made up of.

It also can be used to demonstrate my point about how no single religion is the truth. Take the following example...you and I could go to a farm and look at a two-legged creature pecking at the ground. I say to you, "Look at that chicken." But if we lived in Mexico, I would be saying, "Mire ese pollo."

The point is that the creature is not really a "chicken" or a "pollo." Those are just the words we use to decribe it. I feel the same holds true for religions. You can't take any of them literally because they are conveniences for talking about something beyond the religion itself. This is why I don't take the story of Genesis literally and don't believe the story of creation or how humankind came to be on this planet.

The story of Genesis is just one of many different stories that have a long history embedded in the culture of their origin. It's beyond me how some people can literally believe it and not recognize it as a parable. But I will say in my experience, the people who are willing to talk about it are usually the more liberal and open-minded of the lot.

I've also noticed when you get into a discussion like this with others...a point is reached where people start saying they don't know. At that moment, the atmosphere starts getting uncomfortable. It's as if people aren't comfortable with not knowing the real answer and don't like their personal construct starting to fall apart. For me, not knowing the whole story seems like the most reasonable and intelligent conclusion one can have. I think it's pretty arrogant for anyone to say they know the full answer and silly to lay it all on "faith."

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/2/2005 4:50:15 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
Hi anthro

What I am going to write may seem by some a little selfish now, and in a way they are because I would like you to understand how hurtful your words above are to me. You have assumed in the past wrongly, that I take all you say as 'attacking christians'... and thats something I have always tried to explain to you as not at all so - but right now - if you were to assume such now, you would be right. I like you anthro, I really do. I have total admiration for your stance. I have no real 'knowledge' of you except for what you write here and I have always admired your intellect and written ability. But I write this with tears, and that rarely happens that I am affected in such ways, especially by written words. But then, they do say that the pen is mightier...

I think it is saddening you have only met people who say that their religion is the only true way. I find that in many religions and faiths and therories and beliefs - whatever the person wants to call it. But I have met so many more who know that they don't know it all and that is where faith comes in.

I don't know it all, if I did I would indeed be God. I know that God is me and that He (and I say He only as a symbolic word)is all around me. I also believe in His love and compassion and in His wisdom to have created such a diverse existance - one that is constantly changing and evolving - one we as humans learn from and abuse and mistreat and nurture and worship. I know you cannot accept that and is all good because you are walking your path and whatever lays at your end is your destiny or fate or whatever concept you hold dear. But claiming I am silly because I have faith is demeaning - and I know thats not your intention but its how you are portraying yourself,possibly unintentionally, to some people with faith. It's like me saying its silly that someone puts all their heart into science is silly. It's just something I would never do because I respect anothers belief or thought process. Now, you could now claim I am making accusations based on what I think you have said, not what you mean. But that is no different to how your portrayl of people who have some kind of faith is.

I dont have faith just because a book says I should. I have it because God has shown me its beauty. I have it through personal experience. Not because I am weak or need a crutch, but because I know Gods love. I do not always know the big words and meanings. I don't think people could possibly know everything. But I do know that God loves me - just as Demon loves me and thats all that is important. I dislike seeing people thrust religion down the throat of those who don't believe just as much as you do - but I also dislike people pushing that there is no God because science proves otherwise and that I am silly or arrogant or any other number of names I can be called - from bible basher to x-tians to sheep. But hell, I wear my love of christ with honour and with faith. It could be said I don't know - but the atmosphere isnt uncomfortable for me because I have faith. I know I am supposed to learn. I know I am supposed to grow. Why? Because I am told and shown every single day I breath. It is great your belief in science is so strong. Its up to you to decide that you dont believe in a God or Gods or Godess or the 'creation'.... but to claim its all based on lies or misinterpretation is like claiming you know it all - which is the exact difficulty you are speaking about. What is a valid counter argument to you, is not to me. What is valid counter argument to me - you may dismiss... at the end of the day - your frustration at not being able to convince those that have faith that the faith is silly is no different than claiming that the world was created in 6 24 hour days...

As much as you see discussion, its hurtful to be told time and time again that my God is silly, or irrelevant or made up or of no consequence and therefore I should look elsewhere. How would you like to be told that someone you love is pointless? How would you like to be told that this God, who is me, is pointless? He is real to me - and I am sorry if that in someway offends you - but I am not sorry for His love and faith in me.

I believe in Him. I believe in myself. I can't help if you dont understand that, I am sad that you can't accept that - but it doesn't make anything I believe silly or arrogant. I just wish you could show some of that compassion, understanding and acceptance of others ideas that you seem to be wanting from christians or any other faith or belief - to people like me.

Peace and Much Love anthro.

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/2/2005 6:36:25 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		I would like to say (gently) I think you're taking what I've written and running with it a bit. It's true you can only go by what I've written and I think it shows you wish you knew me better by how much you try to cover all the bases in where I might be coming from. From there, you react to where that might be, yet not really sure at the same time.

This is a sensitive topic and it's difficult to voice alternative views without raising emotions. But should I simply censor some of where I'm coming from for that reason? It leaves holes in stating my position. If you digest what I've said, you will see I haven't disclaimed the existence of God but rather the "description." If you were so inclined to get involved in the study of this phenomena, you would find there's a point where you can talk about what's beyond and not lose any sense of your faith's validity.

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Well, I like to have a whole toolbox...some people don't. I recognize you personally consider science as part of the equation...the "silly" people I'm talking about are those who insist their belief is the end all, be all truth and attack science (and other explanations) as being some sort of anti-crusade against them. They usually have no understanding of science at all (or a very distorted one). In many ways, they are like those who belong to the "Flat Earth Society" claiming our trips to the moon and the entire space program is some sort of conspiratorial hoax.

I'm also not saying "your God" is silly if you think about it. Again, I'm speaking of those I just mentioned. What you may be taking exception to is the idea that religions, all religions, are descriptions of something that by definition is infinitely beyond final comprehension. There's a parallel to this in science by the way...if the universe is in fact infinite, we will never be able to see or know it completely...ever. Should that cause me to lose confidence in science? No.

You use belief to embrace authority, I don't. That's the difference between us. That's why you keep referring to my "belief" in science when in fact "belief" doesn't enter the equation. Science is what you can witness time and again without fail. That's not belief. There are some who would split hairs over that statement but I think most people know what I mean.

You asked me about having someone you loved being pointed out as pointless. Let me ask you this...Do you absolutely have to love God according to the religion you practice in order for it to be valid? If God is infinite omnipotence, infinite love, do you really believe God can only be experienced through your religion alone? I don't think you do.

I ask this because I have learned that it's possible to have direct experience of life (God) without following someone else's set of instructions. A man once said, "There are as many paths to truth as there are people to walk them." The people I have issues with are those who would have everyone walk one path. What I have written is a description of my own path and how it has shown me that people like those in the B.C. Tours are the ones who think there's only one path and all others are false if they challenge it.

You have read my description and are taking exception to it because it challenges your own path. But if you were to look into what I've said and think it through, you might see how the two can coexist. Sometimes you write things that make me feel you are already doing that but other times (like now) I'm not so sure. Perhaps your reading my posts is a part of your path...have you ever considered that?

I will apologize again for what I've written to have upset you and ask if you might look inward and ask yourself why it did. Maybe there's something more to it than you think. Maybe later you can tell me what you think of the parallels between language and religion I mentioned. You know, you rarely ever reply with any feedback on points I make. Instead, you write about what you think my motives are or who's toes I'm stepping on. Is this not true?

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/2/2005 8:45:18 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
Anthro

You said that the two legged creature is neither the chicken nor the pollo, just words we ascribe to it yes?
In fact, in my interpretation, it is both the chicken and the pollo - rather than being neither - it is in fact both for the very reason that they are the words we have chosen for it. It has a duality - it can be both at the same time. Just as science and faith. Now faith and science are different just as english is different to american, but some people can live with both and understand both - doesnt make them the mexican less valid or the english harder to understand.

Of course I can see they both exist.


quote:

This is a sensitive topic and it's difficult to voice alternative views without raising emotions. But should I simply censor some of where I'm coming from for that reason? It leaves holes in stating my position. If you digest what I've said, you will see I haven't disclaimed the existence of God but rather the "description." If you were so inclined to get involved in the study of this phenomena, you would find there's a point where you can talk about what's beyond and not lose any sense of your faith's validity.


Never censor what ones own belief is for themself, but empathy and compassion for others beliefs is equally as important.
You say you do not disclaim the existance of God, but the description. However, the description is unique to each individual and your narrow definition is far too limiting for such a wide arena. It may suit you, but will insult others whos faith you are trying to limit with your unique individual definition - which represents your understanding. If you were so inclined in the study of religious phenomena, you will find a point where what is achievable by faith goes beyond what science currently has an explaination for.
quote:

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Well, I like to have a whole toolbox...some people don't. I recognize you personally consider science as part of the equation...the "silly" people I'm talking about are those who insist their belief is the end all, be all truth and attack science (and other explanations) as being some sort of anti-crusade against them. They usually have no understanding of science at all (or a very distorted one). In many ways, they are like those who belong to the "Flat Earth Society" claiming our trips to the moon and the entire space program is some sort of conspiratorial hoax.


No mans or womans toolbox will ever be complete because the understanding we have can only come from this one lifetime and it would take many lifetimes to understand(even in a reincarnation is this based on a single lifetime - or - on a single strain of understanding ie buddhism). The remaining tools would come from the study and experience of the great philosophies, religions and sciences. Do you have the tools that can only will obtained by the lifelong study of buddism? No - You may own some of the tools, or have tools that can do a reasonable job on dealing with something they were not made to do - but only devoted,lifelong study can bring such enlightenment. And to dismiss such tools simply because you do not possess them at the moment, would mean that the widdler would never progress onwards to becoming the master craftsmen.
It is clear that you see science as the be all and end all of everything as even to the point where you believe that God must be defined as an element of the human psyche. Even some science sees religion as being some 'anti-crusade' - it isnt just a religious phenomena. Science has no real personal experience or understanding of religion (again, only a biased distorted one) or the relationship between creator and created. Without such understanding it should not seek to dismiss religion or faith but should instead have an open minded acceptance of the possiblity that faith is held in something that is real. Simply because it currently cannot be measured or quantified, doesnt mean it cant exist.

quote:

I'm also not saying "your God" is silly if you think about it. Again, I'm speaking of those I just mentioned. What you may be taking exception to is the idea that religions, all religions, are descriptions of something that by definition is infinitely beyond final comprehension. There's a parallel to this in science by the way...if the universe is in fact infinite, we will never be able to see or know it completely...ever. Should that cause me to lose confidence in science? No.


And should that cause me to lose confidence in faith? No.

By contrast the universe must be finite - it must have an end because to take the big bang theory for example it started from nothing and expanded outwards - so initially the outer limit was very small and now it is very large - but that doesn't make it infinate - it just makes it very big - and possibly growing.

quote:

You use belief to embrace authority, I don't. That's the difference between us. That's why you keep referring to my "belief" in science when in fact "belief" doesn't enter the equation. Science is what you can witness time and again without fail. That's not belief. There are some who would split hairs over that statement but I think most people know what I mean.


On the contary. I use my belief to reject authority. And science is witnessed time and again with failiure at times. Just as belief and the presence of God and all I believe He created is witnessed time and again.

quote:

You asked me about having someone you loved being pointed out as pointless. Let me ask you this...Do you absolutely have to love God according to the religion you practice in order for it to be valid? If God is infinite omnipotence, infinite love, do you really believe God can only be experienced through your religion alone? I don't think you do


I am unsure of this point as it confuses me. God does not absolutley have to be loved for a religions validity to exist, He just does exist. Religon doesnt even need a god to exist, let alone love. That had nothing to do with my point. My point was from a personal view.
Assuming your childhood was good, for someone to come to you and claim that your fathers thoughts and existance was invalid just because he doesnt effect them in any knowing way is insulting on a personal level. It is disrespectful from a personal point of view, regardless on the father. If you were Owned, and someone said to you that your Mistress and all her rules and training was pointless, it wouldn't make her authority over you less valid, but it would be an insult and a great personal disrespect. Now You may be a person who doesn't care about others feelings or thoughts(which I have assumed from your posts, is quite untrue for I know you do care about others)and ifso, my point would seem pointless. But I was not speaking of validity - I do not need your acceptance to validate my faith - but we both need acceptance on a personal level or else we could not communicate or exist together. That is why religon does not cause wars - people do.

quote:

I ask this because I have learned that it's possible to have direct experience of life (God) without following someone else's set of instructions. A man once said, "There are as many paths to truth as there are people to walk them." The people I have issues with are those who would have everyone walk one path. What I have written is a description of my own path and how it has shown me that people like those in the B.C. Tours are the ones who think there's only one path and all others are false if they challenge it.


I see and understand this statement, but for me it doesn't meld with the rest of your posts - It makes perfect sense to me - no religion or science can be blind without risk of falling into a hole or stumbling into brick walls. My own realisation is that there are many paths, many choices and each path I wander takes me on a new sight to see, a new view, something else to learn and experience. Many people are walking down different paths and sometimes our paths will med or cross and we can learn from each other, maybe even share the road a while... but at some point, they seperate again - maybe to meet again in another time.


quote:

You have read my description and are taking exception to it because it challenges your own path. But if you were to look into what I've said and think it through, you might see how the two can coexist. Sometimes you write things that make me feel you are already doing that but other times (like now) I'm not so sure. Perhaps your reading my posts is a part of your path...have you ever considered that?


Nothing challenges my path, for I just circle around it. My God has a wonderful way of building bridges for me to help me cross, of causing me lessons to learn so I can take those challenges head on and succeed. If I had read the statement before(above) then we could be in agreement and this discussion would not have taken place. But your post did not say that - it argued against faith and belief and for science and that those who choose to ignore science are silly. Maybe there are people who do not accept science - I am not one of them - just as there are those men and women of science who cannot accept faith - but I don't call them foolish or silly - its there choice. That is what I have a problem with - when someone - anyone claims superiority over another just because of something that they lack or do not wish to follow or believe. There will always be those that push their ethics, moralities, and belief onto others - science does it all the time and so do some religions. We do not have to accept it for ourselves, but what makes it more right for us to say they are silly? That makes us no better for doing so. The written word does not always carry well without inflection - at times, your words do not make sense to me and I feel like you that at times, you get the co-existance thing and at others, you would wish that some people would just go away and not be able to voice their thoughts. My stance is that science and faith can coexist and my intolerence is for the intollerent - those who insist that with science life has no meaning - and those who insist that belief in science must exist otherwise faith is silly. As for your path comment - lol - see my comment above paragraph.

quote:

I will apologize again for what I've written to have upset you and ask if you might look inward and ask yourself why it did. Maybe there's something more to it than you think. Maybe later you can tell me what you think of the parallels between language and religion I mentioned. You know, you rarely ever reply with any feedback on points I make. Instead, you write about what you think my motives are or who's toes I'm stepping on. Is this not true?


I dont require an apology for there is nothing to forgive - my faith and belief does not subscribe to such. I look inwards constantly, and I know why it did - because it attacks a minority - and I never ever see why that needs to be done by anyone. It is also because I love my God and even though my love is not important for Him to Exist, for He would with or without it - I know that my Love pleases Him and He revels in it, just as I do in His. If I use faith as an answer, my faith supaceeds any science, even when I believe in science and that isnt silly - its my faith. I know it is a personal reaction, but thats because I feel.
If you feel I dont respond to you, its not because I dont want to, I just see no questions, only statements. If you desire me to respond specifically, then ask me. Right here and now - please. If there is something I seem to have missed as a question by all means ask it of me. I will endeavour to respond.
Maybe sometimes I respond to your motives as assumptions simply because you do not open freely. It is a regular occurance anthro that you will say to me and to others that we are only saying what we think you are saying, not the reality. Maybe you should wonder why that is - maybe you are not making yourself clearer in your points and become consumed in your anger? I could suggest that you have done the same to me quite frequently(only responded to what you have assumed I have said not what I have said), but to me - its not an accusation or a misrepresentation, it just your interpretation and this leads to communication.

I do not think you are standing on anyones toes - only how your words effect me on a personal level. Maybe that is were we part - for your motives to me seem are community based - the children, the museum, the scientific community. Whereas I have empathy for the individual and try to sense the core - where your realisation on...
quote:

It's true you can only go by what I've written and I think it shows you wish you knew me better by how much you try to cover all the bases in where I might be coming from. From there, you react to where that might be, yet not really sure at the same time.


I believe we essentially agree, but my God, my faith is me
and if it is silly, then sobeit, so am I - proudly so for my father.

Peace and Love



_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/2/2005 10:12:59 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		I'm glad you're okay and not upset. Your first post had me concerned and I've decided this will be my last post here on this thread. In spite of myself, I give in to wanting to discuss this topic from time to time but it's really a dead horse and probably best left for in-person debate where more information can be communicated instead of just words.

One short note for you on the big bang theory and a basic explanation. It's not a theory that the universe came out of nothing. The theory proposes that all matter in the universe at one point was compressed into a very small space, reached a critical mass, and then exploded outward in all directions as a colossal cloud of gas, the gas slowly began to consolidate until galaxies, solar systems, and all the other phenomena we see took shape.

At some point, the expansion will reverse and the universe will once again recede into another single, super compressed mass and the whole thing will start all over again. If this is true, our universe is not the first or only universe but one in a series and those could be infinite in number. The process of compression and explosion is how stars are formed and eventually die out. On a much larger scale, this could explain the big bang.

Of course, there's still the question of where the matter came from. This is similar to the question if God created the universe, then where did God come from. You see, it never really ends regardless of what explanation you want to follow. But I'm sure you've thought of that as well.

Just thought you'd like to know.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/4/2005 6:48:39 PM   
domtimothy46176


Posts: 670
Joined: 12/25/2004
From: Dayton, Ohio area
Status: offline 		This has been an interesting discussion thus far, suprisingly enough, given the topic. I'm impressed that no one has resorted to insults and/or derision.
To the OP, I have several observations. As a parent, I can say with certainty that a secular education will often teach impressionable children erroneous information, presented as scientific or historical fact. I have, on occasion, educated my children on the fallibility of their school books and lessons. It happens, we deal with it and they learn to question what they're told. I find it no more reprehensible to teach ID than I do to teach evolution since neither can be disproved. While one can show that evolution is an ongoing process, one cannot disprove the theory that the entire sum of existance came into being in the blink of an eye or even in 6 24-hour days. As you well know, a lack of empirical evidence supporting one theory does not serve to prove an opposing theory.
Religous education, or indoctrination if you prefer, is intended to present the impressionable children with an alternative explanation for the secular "truths" they will encounter. You may not approve of such indoctrination but your approval is irrelevant. I support the rights of parents to teach their children ID and to demand it be included, as an alternative to evolution and Big Bang theory, in discussions of biology and astronomy. The alternative, with which I'm also perfectly comfortable, would be to teach the truth, i.e. we don't know how it all started, we can only guess and/or theorize, based on what we see now.
I enjoy observing the ever-expanding base of scientific knowledge and have no problems teaching children facts as they are discovered. My greatest problem with this current discussion is the zealotry inherent in the position that "if it can't be proved, it doesn't exist". I prefer to acknowledge those issues which rightfully belong within the category of Unprovables and recognize that my positions on them are only personal opinion. Personally, I have found my opinions on the origins of life and the universe have no great value to anyone but myself. It can be fun to theorize with others as long as all involved recognize the underlying basis of Unprovability and keep the discussion within those bounds.
Timothy

< Message edited by domtimothy46176 -- 12/4/2005 6:50:54 PM >

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/4/2005 9:11:06 PM   
Sunshine119


Posts: 611
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		What I find interesting is that most people believe that creationism and evolution are incompatable. If the "Big Bang" theory is the leading one regarding creation at this moment, what created something from nothing? Or, the explosion of a superdense atom?

Ever notice that one of the stories of evolution cited in the Old Testament closely follows evolution's theory of life development? It starts out with light being seperated from darkness (Big Bang perhaps) and ends with humanity? In between the earth, plants, fish, birds, animals, etc are all "created"?

If one day can be any amount of time in the eyes of God, who can tell how long this process took? Is each day a billion years? Now don't get me wrong, there are people who think they've got all the answers, but having taught philosophy, with a student reading off the days of creations, making a graph on the board and looking at the similarities between that account and the alledged progression of evolution, I don't see much to fight about.

After years and years and years of studying theology and philosophy, don't ask me for answers. I only have more questions and only know what I DON'T know. But during this quest, I have realized that what I have gained is more faith.



(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/4/2005 9:13:08 PM   
Sunshine119


Posts: 611
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		Wow! On a theological post, I became "Indecent"! What irony. LOL

(in reply to Sunshine119)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/6/2005 4:20:03 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Sunshine, you seem to be touching on Infinate Regression. That is the idea that all things can be traced back infinately through time and de-evolved to the point where there is no matter in the universe, at which point God created everything. Mathematically, it has never held water. Another problem with it, as it relates to God is that clearly there is something in existance if one all powerful being caused it to exist. Once that is realized, the idea of Infinate Regression begins anew, and follows an infinate cycle. Hence the name Infinate Regression.

The main problem though comes from Genesis. If God did indeed make man in his own image, yet there was no matter until God created it, then man can not be made in Gods image as He cannot be made of physical matter since it did not exist prior to it's creation by Himself. Quid pro quo.

Now lets assume that before God, there was infinate nothingness. Nada. Nix. Zero. Theologists would have you believe that this period of nothingness lasted for an infinate time into the past. God is therefore nothing, and has always been thus.

However, assuming that God DID exist in this infinate nothingness, then it must be assumed that He is composed of some sort of physical matter in order to have made man in His image. At which point, the theological arguement again unravels because the existance of matter disproves the concept of Infinate Regression. If matter does not exist then God, as a physical entity, cannot exist.

The only way God can exist from a theological standpoint is that one perfect, all powerful being spontaniously came into existance in and from an absolute lack of anything. Then this being created everything from that same infinate nothingness. This is the mathematical equivelant of 2+2=Jello.

Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with faith. Considering how long the phenomenon has plagued mankind, one must assume that there is something in it. Perhaps it is in our genetic make-up to believe in something greater than ourselves in order to evolve as a species. Perhaps it is just a manifestation of our creative thought processes, or perhaps, as with so many things the human animal has achieved, Godhood is our species collective vision of our own evolution.

However, as with so many other issues of faith like recycling or animal rights, God simply does not withstand the power of reason. As we envision God in our times, one certainly loses nothing by believing in Him, as we choose which aspects of Him we choose to believe in. In ages past, God simply was. His laws were to be obeyed. In this age, we conveniently pick and choose which aspects of His Word we will take to heart. We have a "personal relationship" with God that allows us to disregard those things which we choose not to believe. It is our unspoken belief that Gods Law, once infallible, is merely a guideline for us on an individual basis.

This is not faith, it is a placebo for the weak of heart and the weak of mind. It is a rare thing these days to hear of, let alone meet someone whose convictions and faith are such that they live in the word of God for His glory rather than their own. This being the case, I must ask myself, of what good is faith when the faithful cannot live in the way which their "God" has prescribed?

Then there is the arch-nemesis of religion; science. Science teaches us that through it's dogma, we can eventually find all the answers we seek. Even to the existance of God. Science also teaches us that even if we don't like the answers we find, we shall be doomed to live with them anyway. In other words, science, once proven, remains unchanged, unalterable, and infallible. Science as religion enforces itself without failure. There is no "personal relationship with the science of my understanding", nor is there an exception to a rule that cannot be understood through time and study.

If God exists, He/She is clearly unlike anything mankind has yet concieved in popular Dogma.

-SD-


(in reply to Sunshine119)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/6/2005 4:37:44 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

However, as with so many other issues of faith like recycling or animal rights, God simply does not withstand the power of reason. As we envision God in our times, one certainly loses nothing by believing in Him, as we choose which aspects of Him we choose to believe in. In ages past, God simply was. His laws were to be obeyed. In this age, we conveniently pick and choose which aspects of His Word we will take to heart. We have a "personal relationship" with God that allows us to disregard those things which we choose not to believe. It is our unspoken belief that Gods Law, once infallible, is merely a guideline for us on an individual basis.


I have to disagree. I find it astounding that people look back on history as a more simple and easy place. It is well documented that any faith - chrisitanity included has picked and chossen from day one. If that were not the case, the bible would be a much bigger book than it is and was. It is important when analising any traditions or beliefs or structures that we don't keep harping on about the 'good old days' - or looking back on past times as if they were that much different. People are people and the majority are not changing. Evolution doesn't bring around change, it brings around a change.
quote:

This is not faith, it is a placebo for the weak of heart and the weak of mind. It is a rare thing these days to hear of, let alone meet someone whose convictions and faith are such that they live in the word of God for His glory rather than their own. This being the case, I must ask myself, of what good is faith when the faithful cannot live in the way which their "God" has prescribed?

Then I would suggest you need to look further - there are many people who have lived and do live who are very godly peoples and individuals... I made an effort to meet these people or at least talk to them once - It may not be your 'thing' to want to meet these people, or be affected by them in some way - but if you feel that something is missing because you have noticed that you cannot find these people or ever met them, then effort on your own, individual part is always important.

Peace and Love

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/6/2005 2:26:15 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		DA, you know I love ya. :)

When religious institutions hold more power over people than a government, the laws of the times tend to reflect the power of the church in question. All you have to do is look to the middle east for a modern day example of this.

One of the reasons western culture is so unacceptable to the middle eastern mentality is that the socially progressive ideas that take hold in the middle east threaten the religious power that is ingrained in the psyche of their entire culture.

So it is with Chritianity and science. Christianity is an institution with a history of power over the hearts and minds of many cultures. Science threatens Christianity in the same way that womens rights threatens Muslims. Coincidentally, womens rights are incompatable with Biblical dogma. Perhaps they are just hoping to avoid repeating the history of Christianity.

As science has come to understand the natural world, the concept of God has less power over man. Advances in travel and communication brought about a profound change in the power-base of the Christian church. With these things, new ideas were introduced to people that threatened the old beliefs of the church.

Look to the history of the Catholic church. When Rome governed Christendom through religion, even kings bowed to the will of the Pope. As technology grew, the church's influence over Europe waned exponentually. Today, Rome holds little power over governments and does not influence the enactment of law. In the last 100 years the church has changed their own belief system in order to attract followers several times.

Has God suddenly changed his mind about key religious issues? I think not.

I'm inclined to believe that in order for any church in western civilization to continue to exist, it must concede to the power of the people. This is a complete reversal of the history of the Christian faith.

-SD-

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/6/2005 2:49:13 PM   
Sensualips


Posts: 1013
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

This is the mathematical equivelant of 2+2=Jello.


quote:

This is not faith, it is a placebo for the weak of heart and the weak of mind.


I plan to steal these lines and reuse them as my own. I love it when someone says what I am thinking, only much much better.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/6/2005 4:01:11 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

DA, you know I love ya. :)


Who wouldn't

I do not disagree on the social-religious issue you speak of, I do disagree that womens rights with biblical dogma. With personalised and misrepresented dogma yes. And yes - it all comes down to the your bible/my bible debate, but as I tried to discuss, it isn't recent history - it is history to misrepresent that which threatens authority.

Does religion have to conceed to survive? No. But people do evolve - so does religion (sound fanfare) ta-da - and we are at the original statement! - and as that which evolves, grows and expands... and eventually - it will recede into a single compressed masse that will start anew.

Peace and Love

< Message edited by darkangel -- 12/6/2005 4:04:22 PM >

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/6/2005 11:20:10 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Very nicely said DA.

Lets look at some real old testiment stuff here. In the OT, women are considered to be slightly less important than goats. They are property without rights, without substance, and without consequence. There are many passages that support this in the Bible.

This is the word of God. The arguement goes that this is Gods word as written by man. Suggesting that an all knowing, all powerful God cannot find the right man to copy His words as He has given them. I've always thought this arguement made God out to be some kind of twit who went out to get estimates from scribes and took the lowest bid... anyway, I digress.

One cannot make a claim of piety while dismissing this fundamental principal of Gods law. To say that a religious teaching is wrong draws two conclusions. 1; God was wrong to structure the life of mankind in such a way, meaning that God is capable of error and therefore fallible. 2; One cannot have absolute faith in the belief of such a religion if they deny fundemental principals of that faith.

If indeed, the Bible is Gods Holy Word, then those of faith should follow it's teachings due to the perfect nature of their God. If God said it, it must be so. As it is written, so should it be done. Anything else is blasphemy unless Gods word is wrong. If it is wrong, and capable of being in error in it's fundemental principals, then the whole body of evidence created by such a dogmatic shift brings the entire theology into doubt and disorder.

One cannot claim to be a devout and faithful servant of God while refusing to follow basic teachings of their church. So, this goes back to my statement earlier. If an entire religion recants on basic teachings of their church, then the perfection of God is proven false. Since the teachings of the Bible revolve around Gods perfection, the entire work is therefore proven false.

God, as a perfect being, has no need for evolution for Himself. As a perfect being, there is nothing to evolve to. Therefore, God cannot change. This also points to the imperfection of God. If God changes, then he clearly was not perfect to begin with. This supports the idea that the concept of God is no more than a social construct intended to bring order to the masses. If God cannot change, but the beliefs of the Church must, then Gods perfection is dubious at best, since man has evolved beyond His laws.

Your thoughts?
-SD-

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/8/2005 4:26:09 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Very nicely said DA.

Lets look at some real old testiment stuff here. In the OT, women are considered to be slightly less important than goats. They are property without rights, without substance, and without consequence. There are many passages that support this in the Bible.


And more than that disproove it. There was a huge amount in the bible explaining the strength of women. Also that they should be acknowledged and that their wisdom was and is an integral part of christianity. I urge you to read it again - in all translations. They are not hard to find

quote:

This is the word of God. The arguement goes that this is Gods word as written by man. Suggesting that an all knowing, all powerful God cannot find the right man to copy His words as He has given them. I've always thought this arguement made God out to be some kind of twit who went out to get estimates from scribes and took the lowest bid... anyway, I digress.


People do use the argument that it was written by man - of course God uses the 'right men' - and women. But it is important to remember the era in which it is written and what was appropriate then, isn't that which is appropriate now, because God used the men and women knowing of their imperfections, because man is not perfect. Potentially, the only person God spoke to face to face was Moses and the next selection to whom He spoke to most clearly are the prophets - the point is - you don't get a face to face-copy this down... you recieve dreams and visions given to men and women who lived in days and times when leprosy still wasnt understood - that illness were signs of doing something wrong because our imperfection stops us from hearing God as He speaks - we can only hear how we speak - even in the post jesus times books like revelation were written which was a dream - and interpreted in the ways men and women could in those days... and that the books hold many parables as well as stories - facts and fables... counter matching these are vital to obtain as clear a view as possible is extremely important. That isn't Gods imperfection, that was ours and the fact that we have the choice to leanr and hear - or to ignore. Its like communicating with a person whos language we cannot understand - we either learn it and have words that still wont always fit - or we can just hear jibberish to us.
As you have rightly said elsewhere - christianity is watered down - so it is correct that a 'christian' - or as I relate to myself as a disciple of Jesus and of God and a vessel of the Holy spirit - look further than the bible that is given to us in easy formats - and now I am digressing...

quote:

One cannot make a claim of piety while dismissing this fundamental principal of Gods law. To say that a religious teaching is wrong draws two conclusions. 1; God was wrong to structure the life of mankind in such a way, meaning that God is capable of error and therefore fallible. 2; One cannot have absolute faith in the belief of such a religion if they deny fundemental principals of that faith.


Agreed

quote:

If indeed, the Bible is Gods Holy Word, then those of faith should follow it's teachings due to the perfect nature of their God. If God said it, it must be so. As it is written, so should it be done. Anything else is blasphemy unless Gods word is wrong. If it is wrong, and capable of being in error in it's fundemental principals, then the whole body of evidence created by such a dogmatic shift brings the entire theology into doubt and disorder.

One cannot claim to be a devout and faithful servant of God while refusing to follow basic teachings of their church. So, this goes back to my statement earlier. If an entire religion recants on basic teachings of their church, then the perfection of God is proven false. Since the teachings of the Bible revolve around Gods perfection, the entire work is therefore proven false.



See above. God is perfect and knows of our non perfection - thats why Jesus was sent to earth. That isnt to say you can use your belief and following of Jesus as an excuse - but if you believed and have faith in God as I do, then as I do (and I am only speaking from my faith and belief, not others) - then I realise that God will see to these people in the end times. I am fully aware and realise that people who may have commited no 'sin' knowingly and who have never known God are more likely to be accepted to the side of God than someone whom has followed God dutifully, and sinned with the knowledge that 'Jesus will save'. Jesus doesn't save the sinner - He saves the person who has done all they can, to the best of their ability with a true heart, dignity and love.

quote:

God, as a perfect being, has no need for evolution for Himself. As a perfect being, there is nothing to evolve to. Therefore, God cannot change. This also points to the imperfection of God. If God changes, then he clearly was not perfect to begin with. This supports the idea that the concept of God is no more than a social construct intended to bring order to the masses. If God cannot change, but the beliefs of the Church must, then Gods perfection is dubious at best, since man has evolved beyond His laws.


God has no need for evolution, but religion does. Man does not evolve beyond Gods laws - because the evolution of man is moving towards Gods laws and ultimately God.

Peace and Rapture

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/9/2005 3:17:34 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		I stopped posting here because this debate is really about apples and oranges. In order to work through the points of contention, one must have a common basis from which to draw but unfortunately there isn't one. If you read through the arguments from both sides, you can see how one side (religion) must necessarily reference the other (science) as a "belief" while the other side (science) cannot talk about it's opposite (religion) because there's no empirical evidence with which to compare notes.

Trying to nail down religion is like trying to grasp water with your bare hand (it just slips through your fingers). People who are religious can interpret their faith any way they please and nobody can disprove their claim, since there's nothing to point to as a benchmark. People can say God picked the people to write the bible, that throughout history there were people who actually received "God's word," that God is perfect, omiscient, and so on. People can say that and that's the beginning and end of their argument.

Trying to nail down science is easy...just test the theory in question. If it's wrong, it's wrong and back to the drawing board we go for more research. Over time, scientific theories get honed in accuracy as tests and new information become available. The main difference between science and religion is "knowing" versus "believing."

I can take a tray of ice cubes, a half gallon of water, mix the two together, wait a couple minutes and stick in a thermometer...the temperature will always be 0 degrees Celsius. I don't believe this will happen...I know it will. Likewise, I can watch the news and see a report of a man who got hit by a car while crossing the street. Even though it didn't happen to me, I "know" it's a good idea to be careful when crossing the street.

A person who claims to have received God's word could just as easily be hearing his own thoughts. There's really no way to tell the difference because nobody can directly experience another person's mind and find out (and what would you use to prove or disprove even if you could?). As far as what happened in the past, all we have is what people wrote down in books or parchments. We have no way to verify the events described within the text (ironically, unless we employ science). When science proves an event but can offer a concrete alternative explanation it's rejected and if it can only give partial results it's deemed prone to fallacy.

Aristotle claimed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything orbited the Earth. Everyone believed Aristotle without question because he attributed everything to God (via the writings of Saint Augustine). When Giordano Bruno (a former Dominican priest) and later, Gallileo showed Aristotle to be wrong, one was burned at the stake and the other was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. It only took the Catholic church a few centuries to finally admit it was wrong. That was a couple years ago.

In the end, it's really comes down to what you choose to accept.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/9/2005 3:30:33 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

Trying to nail down science is easy...just test the theory in question. If it's wrong, it's wrong and back to the drawing board we go for more research. Over time, scientific theories get honed in accuracy as tests and new information become available. The main difference between science and religion is "knowing" versus "believing."


Hi anthro.

You cannot nail down science - it evolves constantly. What is known now can change. Same as religion. I know we disagree and you cannot accept the same as me - but for me - religion is known - by an individual and although you have no ability to understand that concept, I would hope that you could accept it as true for others. Some science is known, some is believed... just as some concepts of religion is known and some is believed - there is no difference save the people that utilse them - and sometimes - they are even the same!

Just on the comment of recieving Gods word - again that is a concept you cannot grasp because you haven't experienced or seen it. Whilst it is true that individuals cannot have their mind 'read'(although, even that can be disagreed with by those that believe such) I have encountered multiple occurances where people recieve the exact same 'words' at the same time. sometimes in the same place - sometimes not. Just offering other alternative information...

Hugs and Love to You
Peace and Rapture

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/9/2005 4:18:20 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkangel


You cannot nail down science - it evolves constantly.


Science is not a set of facts. It is a way of finding and evaluating data.

It's not techniques or tools. It is a way the information yielded from those tools is tested against other information.

Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is.

Subtle but important distinction.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: B.C. Tours Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125