Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Science is man-made too. It didn't just pop up out of nowhere on it's own. It's a man-made field of study.
Religion is often overblown, and science sometimes elevates itself to pedestals it isn't worthy of. Neither is immune from error. As long as man is involved, flaws will enter the picture."
I am a little surprised by this from you...
Of course everything we can touch up in terms of any field of study is man made, but the difference in what man has made is at the crux of this issue. What man has made AKA religion is not at all the same as what man has made AKA science. Just because neither is immune to error DOES NOT MEAN they are both equal in terms of promoting error and/or correcting errors. DOES NOT MEAN they are both equal in terms of promoting, distilling and/or proving the truth of these matters.
"Science elevates itself to pedestals it isn't worthy of?"
What examples of this can be offered for consideration? Who is doing this? When it comes to science and/or religion, where do we find the alters? Where do we find things "elevated?"
I think we have finally crossed that bridge. Thank you for your response.
The Bible can be read many different ways, as can almost any written word. Once the word is out there the author is dead, it is the reader who brings his intellect, awareness, his experiences to those words, no matter what the author intended. This is one of things one understands in creative writing.
In many ways religious texts are like creative writing. The writer struggles to express all that he wants say and feels by manipulating words. Some do it well and others poorly. Spirituality is to be experienced AND understood. Words alone are inadequate, it requires the engagement of the reader. And readers bring all kinds of capacities to the work.
The same piece of writing could inspire one to see what he was blind to so far, and another can only see the words.
Reading is a two way street.
Science does not deal with metaphors and similes. Only the mind can do that. Metaphors are complex, to make and to understand. So to rely on science to read a spiritual work is like using a hammer to peel an orange.
You seem to have a very self-centered way of looking at all this...
After someone reads the Bible, the Bible remains no matter how that person may have read it or understand it. The Bible remains for thousands and thousands of priests to refer to, preach from, invoke as the truth and interpret as such. Often regardless what Christians, for example, may think on their own accord. In large part and/or in many cases this is why they go to church, to listen to a sermon. True it all boils down to what is personal for all people who follow a religion, but there is much more and much else that is a part of religion that goes beyond what you may personally take from it, or anyone else might take from their religion.
In fact, despite all the many millions of people who have taken their own take from the Bible since B.C.E., the Bible remains pretty much as originally printed. Taken quite literally by a good many millions of people as well. The Bible, Christianity and then moving on to the other religions is not JUST a personal matter by any means.
"Why Have Some People Adopted BCE/CE? An important reason for adopting BCE/CE is religious neutrality. Since the Gregorian calendar has superseded other calendars to become the international standard, members of non-Christian groups may object to the explicitly Christian origins of BC and AD."
there is no problem with religion and science.
the vast majority of people have no problem with this.
the problem is the cognitive distortion that is dichotomous thinking.
With you too, I think we have a different understanding about what we are talking about here. Seems what you view as the "problem" is not what I have in mind when I consider the problem and/or the problems. Problems I have touched upon in this thread in more detail than you seem to be taking into account.
Or..., I suppose you could say I don't have any problem with religion and science either, if we are simply talking about properly understanding what they are and/or what they are not. As well as their relationship with one another. I've got no problem with understanding any of this or recognizing how we all are living with this sort of relationship between religion and science. Along with all the "good, bad and ugly" that comes with that relationship.
I think we have finally crossed that bridge. Thank you for your response.
The Bible can be read many different ways, as can almost any written word. Once the word is out there the author is dead, it is the reader who brings his intellect, awareness, his experiences to those words, no matter what the author intended.
The Scientist claims to measure the speed of light, and in doing so, claim darkness as their constant. They must also stand in complete darkness outside of light, as light being something separate from them to make their claim and for them light is always fleeting away from them and the beginning point they have chosen in complete darkness in which they remain, as to them light is always fleeting away as they must remain in darkness to make their calculations. While they claim to be light.
I look to the eternal light God spoke in that One Verse on Day One as the constant to live in, eternally more constant than sun light, and of which material objects cannot block or impede the view of for those who know and love what God shared on Day One and the Life revealed in that gate opening moment in all its goodness as the constant in their hearts in looking to and following God's word.
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light (the constant). But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness (the constant). If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct. Please cite some reliable sources that show that scientists claim darkness is used in the measure of the speed of light. The rest of that paragraph makes no sense to me at all.
That is demonstrably incorrect. There are blind people that are full of love, and [figuratively] light up a room when they enter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief scum
It is explained in what I wrote, darkness is their ruler, their constant. If light was their constant, they could not claim to measure it.
A blind person can know the light of God in their heart, which is why I wrote, "the constant in their hearts in looking to and following God's word". The healing of the blind is a beautiful thing, especially when they can see and sense things that you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
OK, if that's all you've got. I don't know how the speed if light is measured, but I've never heard of using darkness as a standard. I assumed you had something more to base that claim on beyond your own opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
My impression was that in speaking of darkness he was not talking about physical darkness, but what I will call 'emotional darkness'. Only they can see it because they are special .
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Indeed. The chief likes to use metaphors that tend to confuse these issues more than just a little bit. Much like the Bible, we're called upon to understand the metaphors rather than read or take the explanations literally. As I too tried to address before. What are "matters of the heart" is a very different subject from what the heart is in physical form as the organ that pumps our blood throughout our body.
Confuse and/or intermix the metaphors with the actual literal explanations about what's going on around us (or in us) and you are basically "mixing apples with oranges" which can get a little frustrating when trying to distill the actual truth of these matters. When trying to distinguish fact and reality (apples) from what is not fact or reality (oranges).
What I wrote was not opinion or metaphoric. You three could not refute it, so you cut down and belittle the messenger as irrelevant, trying to obscure what was shared.
It appears you three consider yourselves to be so wise, and yet cannot grasp a simple child like base level observation. And further prove what I shared in those posts and where it comes from, in your attempt to obscure.
Last edited by chief scum; Yesterday at 08:43 AM..
Are you of the impression the purpose of religion is universally agreed upon by all religious and/or non-religious people?
For example, what do you think Joseph Smith might have said was the purpose of the religion he started and promoted? Or the Buddha. Or their followers. Just for starters...
I think one of your problems may be that you imagine there is an universal agreement on what are personal experiences, perceptions, importance. There is no such thing as universal agreement, not even among scientists. Why should religions be different?
The purpose of religion may be stated in different ways, but what is true among all of them is to be one with God. Some may believe in heaven and hell, evil and good, some may not. But unity with God is expressed in all of them, as longing, in prayer, and in a variety of way.
Buddha as far as I know did not say anything about it. His focus was in eliminating suffering and he taught people the only way is be detached from desire. Many religions also say the same thing, only in different ways.
To a large degree, what constitutes a "religion" is quite open and variable. One very common aspect though is having faith, belief, and conviction in something that can't or isn't being confirmed in usual tangible ways as other matters. Astrology is a belief in celestial positionings influencing people. Can it be proven conclusively? No. Evolution is religion too, because the actions and abilities of DNA that the core of evolution promotes, is not and cannot take place, but many still believe it anyway. There's a lot of religion in politics too, that their person/party is who they claim to be and is beneficial. People are very religious today - emotionally and in attitude - in many matters that involve no deity / God.
Last edited by Thoreau424; Yesterday at 09:41 AM..
Some strange stuff right there. Maybe I'm in need of a serious Thought Adjustment, though. Curious atheist that I am--what's your source for this? The Seven Master Spirits aren't responding to my inquiry
...I would be curious how an atheist would explain their belief that they believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes. Is the presumption they believe in supernatural phenomena then? And 34%?
...
What I found interesting in the above is that there seemed to be, on the part of a couple of our posters, the assumption that had something to do with christianity or other mainstream religions. Could it just as easily include things like ghosts, poltergeists, voodoo, etc.?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.