- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ July 12 2011,07:01) Hi Stuart, I don't mean to neglect you… what?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What princess said.Stuart
Stuart,
Perhaps edj feels that you are comparing his writing style, beliefs with Istari, and is has taken offense to the matter. I know what you meant when you wrote such however, perhaps a more defined and in depth wording will ease him.
Hi Princess,
Thank you for your insightfullness!
He should explain what he meant.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHello Edj,
He meant no harm Edj. I understand Stuart is marked as a predator of christians, and one may take his comments as having some underlying message to it, which it did not and it is not like I could come out and say 'Prince Stuart, quit playing with your food', I did not want him to take it the wrong way, and since time has passed without his objection to my understanding, all seems to be well.
Take care of yourself Edj, you do take a lot of greif over your number theology, that is why I so wanted you to see KJ post, you could have taken that post to another level.
Quote (princess @ Aug. 20 2011,14:51) I understand Stuart is marked as a predator of christians,
…which I hope can be seen as a misconception. I am not against christians, it is the christian belief system that is the abomination.BD either really believes that I would want to remove christians from the planet, but it has only ever been him who has made that claim on my behalf. He is wrong, and his logic is typically fallacious.
Some christians say love the sinner, hate the sin, which is a platitude, but I say love the christian and oppose the christianity which makes the person say silly things.
Same applies to islam, except with that abomination it is sometimes the case that the person does deadly things.
As the comedian Marcus Brigstocke asked a few years ago, once all the religious lunatics have played out their apocalyptic fantasies, can we please have our planet back?…if there is anything left of it.
Stuart
Dear Prince,
To speak that you are only christianity or islam is being bias, you my friend are just against any god concept, tis a difference.
Quote Some christians say love the sinner, hate the sin, which is a platitude, but I say love the christian and oppose the christianity which makes the person say silly things. At this point in time, I really do not see the difference in your understanding or a christians, they seem to be level. One is religous platitude the other is secular platitude, the names have changed, the message is still the same.
I do not think that religions are the main source of the way humans treat the earth, tis the way of thought of an individual, the age of convience has done much to speed the process up. The persuit of technology has not helped matter much either. Much can be discussed in this area of caring for the earth.
You cannot keep blaming religion for everything Prince. If one digs deep enough, ones understanding can be traced back to some form of religion, as of late I find this to be more and more true.
I do not think that you are out to rid the world of religion, I do know that it is of great importance to you for ones to 'think' what they say and how they represent thier understanding of such though.
I have never really understood the saying of love the sinner, hate the sin. Seems hard to remove one from the other, would create a thought in my mind that one deep down really does not love me, due to my actions. I tend to keep them together, loving one means there is fault somewhere along the line, one can come to many conclusions, you accept the fault of the person and continue to understand why the fault is there and perhaps help the person to see what you do, or love the person with the fault and accept it a priori, or just love the person without continuing the relationship, due to you cannot accept the fault.
However, then we can continue to debate what a fault is.
princess
Quote To speak that you are only christianity or islam is being bias, you my friend are just against any god concept, tis a difference.
I don’t know what it is that I am supposedly against in regards to that three-letter word. You say god concept, and that is an improvement on just begging the question of existence, but nevertheless no one can tell me what a god is. Why should I not assume it to be a delusion?Quote At this point in time, I really do not see the difference in your understanding or a christians, they seem to be level. One is religous platitude the other is secular platitude, the names have changed, the message is still the same.
Well let me explain the difference then. I have no preconceptions about how the universe works, all I can do is observe and make conclusions, or take on trust (not faith, by the way, because I can check it for myself if I want) the work of others who honestly report what they find. None of that meets the definition of the word platitude, because none of it constitutes meaningless statements that are designed to sound impressive. They are meaningful statements and it would be a mistake to hype them up, even though much of that real science gives staggering explanations of our origins and status in the universe beyond the wildest hopes for knowledge of people living even 200 years ago.Now, consider the statement “Jesus died for our sins”. What, actually does it mean? Actually nothing. Jesus might have existed, but we cannot know anything about what he did or said with any reliability, we cannot check these things for ourselves, we cannot know Jesus made any claims of divinity, we can know he did not walk again after the Romans executed him, if that happened, and meantime christians would attempt to hype that meaningless statement up into something they think should be a point of worldview for every human. That’s a platitude.
Quote I do not think that religions are the main source of the way humans treat the earth, tis the way of thought of an individual, the age of convience has done much to speed the process up. The persuit of technology has not helped matter much either. Much can be discussed in this area of caring for the earth.
Indeed, but don’t underestimate the effect of the conservative religionists in the US who know that the End is coming, and stirring up Israel may bring an apocalypse closer, and that “This World” won’t really matter after this. They coincide with the moronic climate-change “skeptics”. Of course they are not actually being skeptical, they are just denying the evidence. I don’t see islamists thinking of the planet either. It is true that there are many religious people who are concerned about such issues, but if they are sola scriptura types then their environmental concern is not derived from their cult beliefs, because they all have some eschatological fantasy or other that has the planet emptied of humans at some point “soon”. Idiots.Quote You cannot keep blaming religion for everything Prince. If one digs deep enough, ones understanding can be traced back to some form of religion, as of late I find this to be more and more true.
I don’t think you could be more wrong.Quote I do not think that you are out to rid the world of religion, I do know that it is of great importance to you for ones to 'think' what they say and how they represent thier understanding of such though.
It is of great interest why people believe nonsense. However if religion disappeared, which it is doing:http://www.voxy.co.nz/lifesty….19
…then there are plenty of other things to be interested in.
Quote I have never really understood the saying of love the sinner, hate the sin. Seems hard to remove one from the other, would create a thought in my mind that one deep down really does not love me, due to my actions. I tend to keep them together, loving one means there is fault somewhere along the line, one can come to many conclusions, you accept the fault of the person and continue to understand why the fault is there and perhaps help the person to see what you do, or love the person with the fault and accept it a priori, or just love the person without continuing the relationship, due to you cannot accept the fault.
Yes, the sinner saying is glib, and hence my mockery of it. What is a sin? “Missing the mark” as some christians claim? That is a platitude too.Quote However, then we can continue to debate what a fault is
Yes, and attribute it to the cultural verities of the zeitgeist that makes it called that. And appeal to universal ethical arguments that highlight “faults”. No gods needed there, of course. The word sin does not even help in that discussion.Stuart
Quote (princess @ Aug. 20 2011,14:51) Hello Edj, He meant no harm Edj. I understand Stuart is marked as a predator of christians, and one may take his comments as having some underlying message to it, which it did not and it is not like I could come out and say 'Prince Stuart, quit playing with your food', I did not want him to take it the wrong way, and since time has passed without his objection to my understanding, all seems to be well.
Take care of yourself Edj, you do take a lot of greif over your number theology, that is why I so wanted you to see KJ post, you could have taken that post to another level.
Hi Princess,Doesn't look like Stuart is going to explain himself?
What post of Jack's are you referring to?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEdj,
Stuart would most assuredly make any corrections needed.
Here is somewhat of a reflection of the thread, with KJ.
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2011,12:11)
Prince,You are not so delusional that you do not understand concepts, one can understand a concept, however does it mean that one accepts the concept as truth. To denounce anothers view on a concept is somewhat delusional in itself, due to this would go against your very own statement as one to think for themselves.
You have your current understanding of the how the universe works, until your current understanding changes due to experiences or evidence, then it will change. I am total agreement with this type of thought process, and perhaps I should refrain from using a platitude with your 'what god' statement and take it as a cliché.
How does real science effect the day to day going ons of a person life? So when one does not adhere to such, platitudes can be reflected with ones that do, and vise versa. Would it not be best to try to avoid such all together.
I will agree with somewhat of what you say, any attempt to hype meaningless statements up into something they think should be a worldwide view for every human is platitude. No matter what the subject is.
Yes, sad but true, in regards to how some sects take it as the world is going to end, so it does not matter how we treat it. However, the ones that do not believe in such can also, dig into the most inter regions of the earth, send pollutants in the air, use the sea as trash containers, and space as trash collectors, are no better. I agree Idiots to the fullest.
Stuart, once you read the comment to the other post in regards to 'creator' perhaps your current understanding will change on the matter.
History shows religions disappearing all the time, however, does not deter a new one forming.
Here you are making a mockery out of the 'love the sinner, not the sin' and I am giving you my insight on the matter. Please mark when you are mocking such, so I can skip the matter all together, and not waste time on replying to such.
There is a universal ethics handbook, this perhaps would be a good start on faults, would bring about an interesting discussion.
princess
I would love it if “what god?” were really to become a cliché. No matter whether there was a change in the number of believers or not, a better world lies that way. If the concept of a god is well articulated then there might be fruitful discussion, but I think it is only they who define their gods to the nth degree which lend anything concrete, and those gods are roundly rejected by most believers. So it is like sifting sand through a sieve three grades too coarse for the sand.
I delight when my view of the universe changes due to new evidence. At least I do have a view of the universe based in reality.
I shall ignore your suggestion that science has no effect on daily life. That is so absurd it does not warrant a reply. This is meant partly as a compliment, not wishing to run others down who certainly would get a reply!
I must apologise for not sufficiently acknowledging your position on the sinner / sin platitude, I was ranting against others’ views not yours.
There is no ethics handbook, such a thing would be an abomination.
If you mean the “ethics handbook” that others here might mean, then indeed it is an abomination.
Stuart
Quote How does real science effect the day to day going ons of a person life? Quote I shall ignore your suggestion that science has no effect on daily life Don't start shaking the trees just yet, I meant to portray, does an individual apply real science into their every day lives. My apologies for upsetting you or seeming disrespectful. Was not my intention.
Yes, Prince, I know, physical evidence must be provided for you to concede to a concept, this is your own, however, I cannot grasp why ones spiritual experiences which are physically real to them cannot be even considered. Now this is just in concept at this point. Even though one understands a concept does it nessecarly mean one trust the concept?
There has to be some sort of a universal ethics handbook, or the world would not get so upset over such things as war, and the other ethical handbook that you are speaking of would not happen to the canonized bible would it?
Canonised was not the adjective I had in mind!
You unite the concepts well now. If you ignore science then you are being ignorant, or willfully so of important information regarding god beliefs. For example, if you were to learn that people who have the same genes very often end up with the same degree of religious devotion no matter what upbringing they had, then it might make you consider in a different light the experiences you call spiritual with attribution to a god, whatever you think a god is. Would that be fair?
Well, it happens to be a fact that this is true.
Is science of little interest, or centrally important to really understanding the nature of religious experience?
Stuart
It is easy for me to understand that during the evolution of mankind, that genes that encouraged religious beliefs could help to socialize groups of people, thus making them more able to survive.
It also explains why such a large percentage of the world is religious, even though believing in different religions.
The religion that you believe in isn't as important as the fact that you believe in the same religion as your closest companions.Tim
Prince,
Is an interesting study of sort, however, i am not totally convinced. I have met many people in my life, and can pair many up that do not know each other and have the same mannerisms, beliefs. Also, it seems a comparison was not done with a random of say 100 people to see if the same, I tend to think this is what the 'dating services' use a 'compatibility test'. Perhaps with this information a proper comparison can be done.
I think science is very interested in religion, tis what started the whole matter of science, was questioning the religions and gods. So without religion would it be called science today, or would it still be considered philosophy.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 23 2011,22:50) It is easy for me to understand that during the evolution of mankind, that genes that encouraged religious beliefs could help to socialize groups of people, thus making them more able to survive. It also explains why such a large percentage of the world is religious, even though believing in different religions.
The religion that you believe in isn't as important as the fact that you believe in the same religion as your closest companions.Tim
You don't understand the theory of evolution, it is not progressive and it is not based on evolving in a way to survive it is based upon the precept that the surviving species evolves, in other words biological viability is pre-eminent and not the result.So many people do not even understand the theory of evolution they give the theory false concepts that darwin never intended. They actually create a conscious idea of evolution where “evolution” has a “purpose” but the ToE does not conclude any such purpose or will
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 23 2011,22:50) It is easy for me to understand that during the evolution of mankind, that genes that encouraged religious beliefs could help to socialize groups of people, thus making them more able to survive. It also explains why such a large percentage of the world is religious, even though believing in different religions.
The religion that you believe in isn't as important as the fact that you believe in the same religion as your closest companions.Tim
I have wondered (aloud, by posting it here before) whether that survival advantage is tribal in nature, and whether the kind of useful unquestioning loyalty which results from the action of such genes might now be a liability.If you believe that only your tribe has the “absolute truth”, and that truth is so absolute it is worth fighting for (cf the actions of islamists in Somalia, for whom the preservation of Absolute Truth is more important than feeding people in the middle of a famine as discussed earlier, and added here for the benefit of BD) then there will be trouble when your tribe meets another with conflicting truths.
When tribes don't meet very often there will be little trouble. In today's global village almost all tribes meet constantly. The liability appears to me to well and truly outweigh the original advantage.
I have noticed that the countries which advocate for internationalism most enthusiastically are the same ones that have the lowest rates of professed god belief, and rates that are dropping fastest.
Is natural selection already beginning to reduce the frequency of god genes? Apparently believers are faster breeders so perhaps the effect will be slow.
Stuart
Quote (princess @ Aug. 24 2011,08:40) Prince, Is an interesting study of sort, however, i am not totally convinced. I have met many people in my life, and can pair many up that do not know each other and have the same mannerisms, beliefs. Also, it seems a comparison was not done with a random of say 100 people to see if the same, I tend to think this is what the 'dating services' use a 'compatibility test'. Perhaps with this information a proper comparison can be done.
I think science is very interested in religion, tis what started the whole matter of science, was questioning the religions and gods. So without religion would it be called science today, or would it still be considered philosophy.
Without experimental methodology science would still be philosophy. Perhaps you could claim that it was really Stalin that started the human rights movement because people questioned his approach. Despite the cheesy platitudes of those who have been awarded the Templeton Prize…http://www.templetonprize.org/
…religion and science are not complimentary, they are entirely contradictory.
I can't remember how many pairs of separated twins the researcher in the video has worked with, but it is well over 100. His conclusions regarding the degree of religious commitment are not made just on the basis of one or two cases. This is a well established pattern.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2011,12:16) Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 23 2011,22:50) It is easy for me to understand that during the evolution of mankind, that genes that encouraged religious beliefs could help to socialize groups of people, thus making them more able to survive. It also explains why such a large percentage of the world is religious, even though believing in different religions.
The religion that you believe in isn't as important as the fact that you believe in the same religion as your closest companions.Tim
You don't understand the theory of evolution, it is not progressive and it is not based on evolving in a way to survive it is based upon the precept that the surviving species evolves, in other words biological viability is pre-eminent and not the result.So many people do not even understand the theory of evolution they give the theory false concepts that darwin never intended. They actually create a conscious idea of evolution where “evolution” has a “purpose” but the ToE does not conclude any such purpose or will
So please demonstrate to us where in his post Tim stated or even implied that natural selection has purpose.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2011,12:16) Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 23 2011,22:50) It is easy for me to understand that during the evolution of mankind, that genes that encouraged religious beliefs could help to socialize groups of people, thus making them more able to survive. It also explains why such a large percentage of the world is religious, even though believing in different religions.
The religion that you believe in isn't as important as the fact that you believe in the same religion as your closest companions.Tim
You don't understand the theory of evolution, it is not progressive and it is not based on evolving in a way to survive it is based upon the precept that the surviving species evolves, in other words biological viability is pre-eminent and not the result.So many people do not even understand the theory of evolution they give the theory false concepts that darwin never intended. They actually create a conscious idea of evolution where “evolution” has a “purpose” but the ToE does not conclude any such purpose or will
You did not understand my statement.
Just read it again, more carefully.Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
