Religious views in today\'s world
|
|
| #121 Posted 4 months ago | Reply | Surprisingly, this thread seems less intense that the other one... I'm gonna hang out here to rest for a bit...
@Darkarcher: Spirits, not Souls... That which humans were uniquely created with, is Spirit. Dogs think, feel, memorize things, get hurt, mourn, learn, have all range of emotions that humans do, same goes for all animal life - this is what the Soul is: Our Mind, Emotions, Will and Memories, and everything attached onto those. It is the Spirit which gives a human the ability to have relationship with God and thus makes us unique.
@Killshot: The concept of the Trinity is difficult to understand and I, nor anyone else on the planet can explain or understand the extend and complexity of God's tri-unity. However tri-unity of a sort happens in human democratic government. In a democratic system, the State is made up of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. All are the State, but all play different yet equal roles. They are different institutions, but are inseparably linked to be the same entity. The Legislature and Judiciary without the Executive is not the State. All three institutions are inseparable, linked and yet are not the same as each other.
Also, most, worldviews (atheism being the notable exception in for the most part rejecting the notion of the Spirit) subscribe that a Human Being is made up of Mind(Soul), Body, and Spirit. In a sense, we as humans are also a Trinity (which also shows a further link to us being made in God's image). My Mind is Me, My Body is Me, My Spirit is Me.
- I hope this goes some way to clarifying slightly... ^_^ |
|
|
| #122 Posted 4 months ago, in reply to post #121 by JesusRocks | Reply | I do not like the concept of so called "spirits"
I do not like it due to it only deals with human beings.
This leaves many animals out of the loop aswell as the possibility of alien beings (Why create a universe just for us?")
I have never liked the idea of the earth being special to God nor humans being Gods children because that only assumes aliens do not exist leaving possibly more intellegent species without a spirit.
That is my views on Spirits
PS: I Still believe in a God, And/Or gods |
|
|
| #123 Posted 4 months ago, in reply to post #119 by killshot | Reply | | If I didn't know what I was talking about, I would have neglected making an arguement against you. |
|
|
| #124 Posted 4 months ago, in reply to post #123 by Yoh | Reply | Sigh...
Gather round boys and girls and Uncle Killshot will tell you all about the story of evolution.
Every time a piece of DNA is replicated, the long chain of nucleotides unwinds and splits into two halves. DNA polymerase then synthesizes a new strand of DNA by adding the complimentary nucleotide to the 3' end of the existing nucleotide strand. (I'm skipping quite a bit. Anyone with an interest in biology can look this process up later.) During the process of replication, mistakes are sometimes made. DNA polymerase synthesizes nucleotide pairs at a rate of 50 pairs per second and this results in about one error per every million nucleotides added. Luckily, DNA polymerase has a self correcting process which fixes the mistakes made during the process. However, sometimes these errors are overlooked or the proteins that do the correcting can be damaged. This can result in a mutation within an organism. An example of a mutation within an organism would be the mutation of oncogenes which can cause a tumor to develop.
This is just how mutations can occur with mitosis. Meiosis has much more mixing and matching involved and has a greater possibility of mutation.
Now, moving onto how mutations can be beneficial. Consider this scenario: Once upon a time, all giraffes had short necks. One day, a giraffe was born with a mutation that made it's neck grow much longer than the necks of the other giraffes (Not sure of the plural form of giraffe.) This special giraffe could eat leaves from the tops of the trees and it never had to compete for food. Naturally, this giraffe survived to produce offspring that carried the genes for long necks. After several hundred years, the long neck giraffes outnumbered the short necked variety. The short necked giraffes died out and were replaced by the long necked giraffes that were better suited to the environment.
This process is called natural selection. Charles Darwin observed that finches had different shaped beaks depending on which environment they are native to. He hypothesized that the finches that were better suited to their environment were the ones who survived to pass on their genes. Similar observations were made with several species of animals.
Now for evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes. The common misconception is that we evolved from apes, which isn't true. Somewhere along the line, a single species split into two different species, humans and apes. Since we are so closely related to apes, we should be able to find genetic evidence that links us together. Some people make the claim that since apes (when I say apes I am referring to gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans) have 24 pairs of chromosomes, they can't be linked to humans because we only have 23 pairs. However, upon closer inspection we can see that one of our chromosome pairs (second pair I believe) appears to be a fusion of two chromosome pairs found in apes.
More convincing evidence can be found in the form of retroviruses. Retroviruses are the remains of an ancient infection found in human DNA. (Once again giving the short version) Traces of these retroviruses can also be found in ape DNA. What makes this discovery so profound is the fact that the virus is found on the same nucleotide pairs in both humans and apes. The odds of this happening coincidentally are astronomical. This is solid evidence that humans and apes indeed have common ancestry.
The end.
Maybe you should take a biology class before you start making up facts out of the air. |
|
|
| #125 Posted 4 months ago | Reply | No scientist worth their salt completely rejects natural selection. The problem is when we think the process can go on for eternity. It cannot. This is why mutation is used as an excuse, because they allow us to defy that boundry. And thus my mention of incest comes into play, because that's a fine source of mutations.
Wow, the chromosome "apears" to be fused? The Atheistic habbit of learning entirely via observation is getting old. I'd like to see this chromosome unfused in someone. They'll give birth to a chimp or something, right?
If astronomical odds automatically equil solid evidence, then there would be no such thing as amino acids, which cannot be created naturally without amino acids previously existing. Just for the record, proteins (the building blocks of all organisms, both single and multiple) are made of amino acids.
What I pulled "out of the air" was thrown up (pun intended) by those who take this seriously. I made no claim of my own about the subject other than the most logical conclusion between a Scientific fact and a popular excuse used by supporters of Evolution.
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to create the master race with my cousin. (Or not.) PS: I took Biology in 10 Grade, it was just better than yours. So was NOVA. |
|
|
| #126 Posted 4 months ago | Reply | They'll give birth to a chimp or something, right?
Why even open your mouth? If astronomical odds automatically equil solid evidence, then there would be no such thing as amino acids,...
Does not compute? Honesty, what are you trying to say?
I have already explained the process of mutation into another species. If you already know that changes within a species can occur, then it should be obvious that these changes can and will keep occurring until a new species is formed. You are quick to point out that not all mutations are good, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that some are beneficial.
You bring up incest quite frequently so I suppose I have to explain this too. Incest is indeed a source of mutations, however incest causes the gene pool to shrink and in turn decreases the genetic diversity of the organism. You are also forgetting the "natural" part of natural selection. Organisms that are born with mutations can be advantaged or disadvantaged. The disadvantaged organism will most likely be unable to survive and pass it's defective genes onto future generations. In the case of humans, children (defective or not) are protected from harm and are not subject to nature's unbiased judgment. Survival of the fittest does not apply to humans because all people are protected, no matter what their capabilities are.
What exactly do you mean by "excuse?" It seems rather silly to brush off scientific evidence by referring to it as "just an excuse." The Atheistic habbit...
My disbelief in God has nothing to do with the theory of the diversity of life. Please don't pretend evolution is some big atheist conspiracy. |
|
|
| #127 Posted 4 months ago | Reply | Please don't pretend evolution is some big atheist conspiracy.
Its not an atheistic conspiracy, its more of a Christian conspiracy, really. Scientists who studied evolution were not trying to destroy the world while studying evolution: they were just trying to learn more about us and animals. But fundamentalists/evangelicals hate the idea because they feel their bible is the only true source of all the answers, and therefore felt that they should control what we think and are currently trying to force religion onto us. The only bad thing evolution did was unleashed the dark side of christianity and amplified it even more, even though this is probably not the first time this has happened in the past.
Your argument is that evolution will destroy society is false. Believing in evolution will not cause you to shoot down people or bomb buildings or start war. In the same sense, believing in god will not also cause you to do the same thing. However, the people that do these things in the name of god are not influenced by theism, but the so-called pastors in these megachurches that claim they know god that use people in their church to gain undeserved political power. Inorder to keep their followers they want to get rid of other ideas, and evolution is just an idea (a theory). Once you trick them to ignore other ideas, you then have control over your new political puppets.
Now, about god. You cannot prove him, yet you cannot disprove him. In other words, we have no idea whether there is a god or not, and we need to stop its either one or the other. It is pretty much driving us apart.
|
|
|
| #128 Posted 4 months ago | Reply | Amino acids require a certain tempature to be created, but that same environment will destroy them just as quickly. To remain in existance, their environment must change very quickly to maintain a different tempature. For microscopic structures, such travel is impossible in the time it takes to make and keep an amino acid. Even if a natural environment had the ability to do so, the proteins that would eventually be made from the amino acids rolling into a ball have no more power to build an organelle than a a pile of bricks have the power to build a factory or train station (both of which share identicle functions as certain organelles). The same must be said for cells and cities. All of these things strictly require blueprints. On a microscopic scale, these blueprints are called DNA. Our DNA is determined by fusing the DNA of our parents because DNA can not be made on its own. The idea that instructions to build a structure can be made on its own is preposterous. I also demand an explanation as to how mutations could possibly produce genetalia, especially with such perfect timing.
I don't think it is a complex enough matter to be called a conspiracy. I just find it odd that ever since Darwin stared at some animals, anybody who's tried to provide evidence or proof puts very little effort into actually showing work. They just say "hey, look that that!". Atleast Darwin himself was man enough to never called it anything more than a theory and even regretted writing those books by the time he died.
Religion can only destroy society if it or parts of it are written specifically for that purpose. Take the Quran, for instance. Real Muslims fallow the Old Testiment where Muhammud promotes peace. But then again, terrorists fallow the New Testiment which is just as much a part of the Quran as the Old Testiment. This is where terrorists get the idea that killing non-believers is Alah's will for them. Namely the U.S. and all its allies, because we are the big bad country of the West . Muhammud even safe-guards the possiblity that he might make contradictions by telling fallowers that later verses must be valued over the former. which I believe to be proof that Islam is a religion unworthy of our worship, because the messiah is so fickle. |
|
|
| #129 Posted 4 months ago, in reply to post #128 by Yoh | Reply | Your first paragraph is just a lengthy version of the watchmaker argument. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that life is too complex to arise on its own and therefore must have been created. I will not even attempt to explain how life began in the first place since there are no scientific theories to explain the phenomenon. However, the basic structures that make up all organisms are relatively simple. Even structures that some scientists have claimed to be irreducibly complex can be broken down into simpler parts. I cite the flagella as an example of how a complex structure can be further reduced. The flagella (molecular propulsion system) contains over 40 proteins that all must function together for the flagella to work properly. However, each one of these proteins can perform its function independently of the others. What some claim to be too complex to have been created on its own is actually a system of simple proteins working together simultaneously.
To answer your question about genitalia, a method of reproduction is essential to the survival of a species. Any species born without genitalia or some other method of reproduction would not live past the first generation. Since our very existence depends on the ability to reproduce, the "timing" seems prefect. What you call "timing" is actually a prerequisite to existence. I just find it odd that ever since Darwin stared at some animals, anybody who's tried to provide evidence or proof puts very little effort into actually showing work.
Have you ever hear of a man named Alfred Russel Wallace? He came up with the theory of natural selection at about the same time Darwin did. Although the two men worked independently of one another, they both came to the same conclusion. The only reason Darwin is credited with the theory is because Wallace was afraid to have his theory published. Making the statement that no one has challenged Darwin's theories just shows an astounding level of ignorance on your part. The scientific community is all about poking holes in the work of other scientists. In order to show that a theory is accurate, many other scientists work to disprove or find flaws in the theory. To this day, Darwin's work is still relevant despite what creationists do to discredit him.
anything more than a theory...
I don't hear you complaining about the theory of gravity.Muhammud even safe-guards the possiblity that he might make contradictions by telling fallowers that later verses must be valued over the former.
The bible contains many more contradictions than the Quran. If you are going to apply logic to one religion then you might as well be reasonable about the others. |
|
|
| #130 Posted 4 months ago | Reply | Yes, there are scientific theories on Spontanious Generation. It just so happens they've all been proven wrong because they all suck.
Wow, your second paragraph essentially admits you can't say shit in defense.
Atleast gravity doesn't take millions of years to take into effect. In the end, what we preceive is the only final word in the world of Science. If we can't even make it happen, then a theory will be lucky to remain as such for long.
Your first assumption is that I am actually Christain. Once again, Mr. Atheist jumps to conclusions. Actually, I happen to be Christain, but I'm also open to suggestion that there are flaws in the Bible. Funny thing is, every single time someone makes this claim; they never EVER cite even one example. I find it really sad, to be honest. |
|
|
| #131 Posted 4 months ago, in reply to post #130 by Yoh | Reply | | Go easy on the flames or I'll have to temp-ban you. It doesn't matter if a person disagrees with you, or even if their argument is weak or not; please address their viewpoint with the courtesy with which you would want them to address yours. |
|
|
| #132 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #130 by Yoh | Reply | Yes, there are scientific theories on Spontanious Generation. It just so happens they've all been proven wrong because they all suck.
Assuming you are talking about classical theories of spontaneous generation from the 1800s, then you'd be correct. Not all current models have been proven wrong. That's why they are current. The Miller-Urey experiment, which replicated the conditions that were found in the primordial earth, showed that organic molecules can generate spontaneously. Which theories are you talking about? How have they been proven incorrect?Wow, your second paragraph essentially admits you can't say shit in defense.
From reading killshot's post, I didn't get the impression that he was "admitting" to anything. Perhaps, specifically, point out flaws in his argument.Atleast gravity doesn't take millions of years to take into effect. In the end, what we preceive is the only final word in the world of Science. If we can't even make it happen, then a theory will be lucky to remain as such for long.
This is a flawed argument, you are essentially likening two distinct scientific concepts in order to refute one of them. The fact that gravity does not "accumulate" over millions of years, while the effects of evolution do, does not disprove evolution. killshot was merely pointing out that claiming evolution is nothing "more than a theory" is a cop-out argument which would be silly to apply to other scientific theories, like gravity. Your first assumption is that I am actually Christain. Once again, Mr. Atheist jumps to conclusions. Actually, I happen to be Christain, but I'm also open to suggestion that there are flaws in the Bible.
You're telling me that killshot assumed you were Christian, and now you're berating him because he was correct? Funny thing is, every single time someone makes this claim; they never EVER cite even one example. I find it really sad, to be honest.
killshot, as a few examples, has cited DNA replication (Post#124), the evolution of giraffes (Post#124) as a classical example found in any Biology textbook (he forgot to mention how giraffes and acacia trees evolved in competition with each other with acacia trees developing thorns and giraffes developing prehensile tongues to combat such thorns but we'll let it slide ...), Charles Darwin's finches (Post#124), and retroviruses (Post#124). I find it sad that you've resorted to attacks on the individual, as opposed to valid attacks on said individual's arguments. |
|
|
| #133 Posted 3 months ago | Reply | Well that certainly saves me a lot of time. Its not everyday someone posts my response for me. I guess this is what it feels like to finally have someone agree with me (or at least not oppose me.)
My wording in the second is a little confusing. What I am essentially saying is that if the "timing" had not been perfect, you would not be alive to ask that question. A rather weak statement I know, but I haven't done the proper research to make a more convincing argument.
I assumed you were a Christian because of the way you dismissed Islam as a legitimate religion. Up until that point I thought of you as an agnostic. Dismissing Islam on the basis of having a fickle prophet seems like the reasoning of a Christian to me. It tells me that you are open to the idea of religion, but only the one you were brought up to believe. This combined with your earlier statements lead me to the conclusion that you were indeed a Christian.
Since the current discussion was of a scientific nature, I did not feel the need to list biblical contradictions. However, if you insist I have no problem doing so.
"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. " Jeremiah 3:12
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." Jeremiah 17:4
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized."
John 3:22
"Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." John 4:2
"With God all things are possible." Mathew 19:26, Mark 10:27
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Judges 1:19
"Covet earnestly the best gifts." 1 Corinthians 12:31
"Thou shalt not covet. " Romans 13:9
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery." Mark 10:11
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." Deuteronomy 24:1-2
I think that should suffice for now. The Bible is bound to contain flaws due to the large number of authors, but if the book was divinely inspired, then there should be more continuity in the core beliefs of the religion. |
|
|
| #134 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #133 by killshot | Reply | I'd like to point out that your last comparison there is actually picked up on by Jesus when he says, in Matthew's Gospel, about it being written in the past that a man can give such a "bill of divorcement" to his wife, he then goes on to say "but I tell you..."
I don't have a Bible on me currently, so I don't know the exact quotes or references... But Jesus does mention that Moses gave this law because the people were stubborn and didn't want adultery to be the only grounds for divorce...
On the subject of "coveting", remember that the commandment about not "coveting" refers to earthly things... Paul's mention of coveting the best gifts speaks of aspiring to have spiritual gifts, the best of which he regarded as being prophecy... This kind of seeking for Spiritual gifts stems from an overarching desire to grow in our relationship with God which is a constructive desire as opposed to the commonly destructive desires associated with being envious of another's property...
Like I said I don't have a Bible on me at the moment, so I won't go into the other verses you have picked out at the moment... However I would like to point out that effectively what you have done is exactly what you have accused me of previously: "Cherry-picking verses". I would also like to draw your attention at this time to the fact that the first time you accused me of cherry picking a little while back, it was actually my attempt at throwing context into the verses which you yourself "cherry picked"... (i.e. quoting the verses which immediately surrounded the ones which you picked out)... So please, can we drop the "cherry picking" thing entirely, we both do it... and in fact it's not really cherry picking at all... it is the same type of referencing which is actually encouraged in the vast majority of academic subjects... |
|
|
| #135 Posted 3 months ago | Reply | The reason that arguement about perfect timing is so week is because it is under the assumption that there is no intelligence behind our developement. I would like to see you researching on the subject because I very much doubt there is any information on such an impossible annomoly. Mutative extra body parts never have a purpose of their own, and they certainly don't fit perfectly into the body like the female genetalia. I also recall a single mutation never involves two completely seperate structures. (groin/penis)
The thing is, Overmind, one does not congradulate a blind man for shooting a Ninja unless you are congradulating his luck. I had made no reference to my own religious alignment, therefore his apearently truthful stab at the Bible was potentially pointless. You yourself asume I am trying to prove against Evolution, when in fact with that statement I was merely proving against the factuality of it. Surely you know the Scientific Method? Technically, Gravity is perpetually in the last stage for all eternity, never to pass the final test. But Macro-Evolution barely even scratches that stage if at all. Also, I though we'd given up on Spontanious Generation. And your organic molecules isn't relavent. Carbon has over 5 million shapes on the molecular level and I'm pretty sure that comes before amino acids.
As for the examples, I have a dandy little theory about that. King James was weeding out tons of books, chapters, and verses that he deemed unworthy. I find it plausable that he simply didn't do the job well enough. Which would, of corse, depend on whether or not he also had devine inspiration. This is why I pay minimal attention to the Bible despite it being the word of my God. So I'll leave all the Bible-related debate to Mr. Painfully-Obvious Christain. |
|
|
| #136 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #135 by Yoh | Reply | The reason that arguement about perfect timing is so week is because it is under the assumption that there is no intelligence behind our developement.
Why would you assume an intelligence is somehow involved? You yourself mentioned the scientific method. The way the method works is to start with known facts and derive conclusions based on these facts. If you assume life was created by an intelligent being, then you are starting with a conclusion (with no evidence to support it) and trying to determine facts based on a potentially faulty assumption. I would like to see you researching on the subject...
What's stopping you? If you're genuinely interested then do the research yourself. I am not going to waste my time looking up the information for someone who couldn't care less what the results may be.
Will you please stop pretending to be offended at my assumption you were Christian? I have already explained myself, and it wasn't very hard to guess. This is why I pay minimal attention to the Bible despite it being the word of my God.
Do you find nothing wrong with this? If you do not believe what is written in the Bible, then how can you claim to be a follower? If you have nothing to base your idea of God from, then isn't your God just a reflection of who you want him to be? I'm curious to know how you determine what to follow and what to ignore. The Bible contains some pretty vile passages in addition to its many contradictions. If your belief in God does not come from the Bible, then where does it come from?
Since I will no doubt be told to provide examples of the vile passages I mentioned, I will save you the trouble of asking.
"Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them." Jeremiah 11:11
Jesus speaking:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
Matthew 10:34,35
"And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy." Leviticus 26:25
Pretty much the whole book of Leviticus is filled with nasty things that will happen if you don't obey God. That doesn't sound very loving to me.
@ JesusRocks: I suppose cherry-picking isn't the correct word for this situation. Maybe I'm just a hypocrite. However, the Christian religion is composed entirely of the "good parts" of the Bible. I am just pointing out that the Bible contains much more evil than the average Christian is aware of. |
|
|
| #137 Posted 3 months ago | Reply | As for the examples, I have a dandy little theory about that. King James was weeding out tons of books, chapters, and verses that he deemed unworthy. I find it plausable that he simply didn't do the job well enough. Which would, of corse, depend on whether or not he also had devine inspiration. This is why I pay minimal attention to the Bible despite it being the word of my God. So I'll leave all the Bible-related debate to Mr. Painfully-Obvious Christain.
If you're going to dismiss the Bible, please at least know the history of it. King James had nothing to do with what was in the Bible, it was merely named after him when it was first translated to English. The composition of the Bible as we know it today has existed since only a few centuries after Christ. However, that was merely the "official stamp" on what books were included. The texts that were in the Bible had already existed and been considered together since their creations. The later compilation was merely to ensure that nobody attempted to add anything else to it."Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them." Jeremiah 11:11
You're ignoring the fact that God is also considered holy, and punishes sin. In the context of this verse, Jeremiah refers to the covenant that the children of Israel had made to worship only God, yet they turned to idols time and time again. God continued to give them second chances until it became time that they had to take accountability for their own actions."Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
Matthew 10:34,35
Once again within context, Jesus is talking about what it takes to follow the Christian walk. He notes that if a person is not willing to give up their lives for Christ, then they are not worthy to be acknowledged. He then uses this verse to say that one's relationship with God is more important than even their relationship with their family."And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy." Leviticus 26:25
This is once again just referring the consequences of Israel's disobedience to their contract with God. |
|
|
| #138 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #135 by Yoh | Reply | The thing is, Overmind, one does not congradulate a blind man for shooting a Ninja unless you are congradulating his luck.
I hear this analogy a lot, and I can definitely see how it applies.I had made no reference to my own religious alignment, therefore his apearently truthful stab at the Bible was potentially pointless. You yourself asume I am trying to prove against Evolution, when in fact with that statement I was merely proving against the factuality of it.
For all you know, I could be a right-wing neo-conservative playing devil's advocate for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of you. Or, I was simply offering rebuttals to your arguments regardless of what you were trying to prove.Surely you know the Scientific Method? Technically, Gravity is perpetually in the last stage for all eternity, never to pass the final test. But Macro-Evolution barely even scratches that stage if at all.
Surely you read my post but failed to address my position that gravity and evolution are two distinct concepts from two completely different branches of science that have little to do with each other. Thus, showing that gravity works differently than evolution doesn't really prove anything, now does it?And your organic molecules isn't relavent. Carbon has over 5 million shapes on the molecular level and I'm pretty sure that comes before amino acids.
And how many, among the 5 million or so carbon molecules, are relevant? I was under the impression that amino acids, complex structures that form basic building blocks of life, would have a bit more importance, but I suppose I am wrong. |
|
|
| #139 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #135 by Yoh | Reply | Mr. Painfully-Obvious Christian
I'm assuming that here you are making reference to myself... considering my username... |
|
|
| #140 Posted 3 months ago | Reply | See, really getting into addressing the topic of this thread (which I don't think I've done yet on this thread) I think a lot of people go about approaching religion the wrong way. And it's a shame, because a lot ends up getting wasted over nothing when they do...but still, religion...
I mean, all in all what is religion? It's a way of life, embodied by specific practices and rituals rooted in a particular philosphy, generally of a spiritual nature, perhaps also providing ideas about other concepts, such as ethics, and the like. This philosophy is often centered around a belief in a particular diety, and is also generally illustrated in written texts.
You know, I know this is all really obvious, but it has to be said. Religion is a way of life, it's ideas concerning spirituality and the like and, moreover, the path and practices one chooses to follow in relation to one's own spirituality. Yep. |
|
|
| #141 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #140 by Tatterdemalion | Reply | Well, that's definitely an idealistic way of looking at it.
Practically, though, I find that many (not all, just many) people adhere to a watered-down, "cafeteria" version of their declared faith (e.g. see cafeteria Christianity). If you're not familiar with the term it refers to picking beliefs and ignoring others ( like picking items from a cafeteria). Christians, I find, have relegated themselves to merely believing in the existence of God and ... that's it ... I'm sure there are other parts of Christianity other than belief (which, don't get me wrong is important, but it's not the only thing). Apparently, If you live a sinful, non-Christian-like life, but believe in God, your chances of making it into heaven are equivalent to those of Mother Teresa!
If you claim to be a Christian, and the Bible states that homosexuality* is sinful/hateful/blasphemous (and it says it somewhere in there, explicitely, I'm sure) then engaging in such acts, or even supporting them, is not a Christian thing to do. There are no grey areas. In a Christian's eyes, it's wrong, that's it, end of discussion. There's no way to validate this as Christian-like activity without rejecting the Bible. Not just the passages that are anti-gay, but the whole Bible. If it's incorrect about homosexuality, then why is it correct about anything else. And, if you throw the Bible away, then what foundation are you basing your religion on? Jesus Christ? Like from the Bible, which you just threw away? You either accept your religion as a whole, or you become an atheist/agnostic/wiccan/etc.
* I'm not anti-gay, this point was made for argument's sake.
Is it ever a wonder that religion needs to be skewed to be relevant, then? It mentions a whole slew of arbitrary things that no one in their right mind would follow today (like slavery) unless you're living in the Middle-East. But, you either accept it all or you don't accept any of it. |
|
|
| #142 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #141 by OverMind | Reply | What you're saying is that traditional religious texts must be the exclusive source of authority in the context of religion, and that they must be interpreted as either absolute, indivisible and unchanging. To this, I have to say that's a pretty silly way of looking at it. First off, keep in mind that it's far more complicated than either "believing" in the Bible or not (I say the Bible because you used the Bible as an example). Keep in mind that the Bible is a pretty big collection of stories, poems and such, written over a pretty long period of time, and containing a great deal of content, ranging from philosophical and spiritual ideas to religious law, to mythology, to stuff that doesn't really mean much of anything (so-and-so begot so-and-so, who lived for such-and-such a number of years,that sort of thing). It's not really a matter of true and false, because what is of religious significance is the meaning of the text itself. The alternative, I suppose, would be a sort of biblical literalism, believing that everything written in the Bible consists of an absolute, irrefutable account of historical events, but I'd say that view is at best misguided.
As far as religious law specifically is concerned (which is only a portion of scriptural texts), such as that found in the Torah, keep in mind that this stuff was written over 3 thousand years ago, and as far as the little details go, was in many ways a product of its time. Since then, the world has changed, culture has changed, and attitudes have changed. Religion is not static, it is a social phenomenon, and as a result, as society continues to change and evolve, religion evolves as well. This isn't skewing religion, as the same core beliefs, values and philosophies continue to exist, all it is is that how these beliefs are applied, how they relate to people and peoples' lives, and the form in which they are practiced changes as the world changes.
If you want an analogy, try comparing it to the Constitution (I don't know if you live in the US, but it's the closest example I can think of). The Constitution is based on certain very strong political philosophy and ideas (liberty and democracy, for example), which are embodied in the political structure of the government, the Bill of Rights, and the like. Now, this is all well and good for when the Constitution was first ratified, but over a couple of hundred years the world changes, society changes, ideas evolve, new ideas introduced, and such. As a result, we have the ability to make certain changes/ammendments and to otherwise allow our political/legal system to develop to adapt to the changing world. This doesn't mean that we reject the Constitution, or the ideas on which the Constitution was based, but rather it is our attempt to better live up to the ideas of the Constitution and its framers in the context of the modern world.
Also, keep in mind that being of a particular religion is not necessarily the same as "believing" in a particular religious text. Keep in mind that a religious text is considered sacred because of the content, and the ideas expressed by it. It's not as though the ideas are sacred because they happen to be expressed by a text. I'd say that if you start treating the text as being sacred simply because it's a text, you'd be very backward indeed.
And overall it seems as though you're suggesting that being religious is synonymous with a strict adherance to every aspect of a religious text in its entirety, without any though given to context, relevance, meaning and significance, instead being sort of a dictatorial "do what I say" attitude. All I have to say to this is that this would be an extremely orthodox (or even worse, radically fundamentalist) interpretation of any religion, were it made from within the context of a religion.
And I've said it before, and I'll say it again (at least I think I said it befre): Why is it just Christianity people talk about? What about the Hindus? There are around 900 million Hindus in the world, that's three times the population of the United States...is it just that nobody cares? |
|
|
| #143 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #142 by Tatterdemalion | Reply | I'll repeat: You either accept the Bible in its entirety, or you don't.
If you take the Bible as being flawed (e.g. in the sections ignored by today's modern, secular world) or fictitious (e.g. creationism) in certain respects, then why is it not flawed in its entirety? You don't pick-and-choose segments that are relevant to your current cultural context and reject the other parts.
You can't have the God part, without the rest, otherwise its not Christianity. It's just theism.
The Constitution, from what little I know about it, is not divinely-inspired. Unlike the Constitution, which can be amended, the Biblical text remains immutable. However, people are prone to choosing what parts of the Bible they will adhere to (thus, somewhat amending it to their lives). I don't think you can choose to adhere to only certain parts of the Constitution.
If you don't believe in the sacred text of your declared faith, then what are you basing your faith on? As I've mentioned before, by rejecting the text, you merely become theistic.
Hinduism is very complicated that, in the times I have brought it up in these forums, people have not known enough about it to argue properly for or against it. Christianity, on the other hand, is a simple (comparatively) which most people can relate to here. It's used as the de facto religion for argument. However, feel free to use Hinduism in arguments, I'll try to address them. |
|
|
| #144 Posted 3 months ago | Reply | If you don't believe in the sacred text of your declared faith, then what are you basing your faith on?
Rabbinical interpretation and scholarship? The ideas of philosophers and theologists throughout history? That sort of thing?
But again, you're missing the point. It's not as though believing in the teachings of a particular religion is synonymous with a literal intepretation of the text. Religious beliefs aren't dictated by text, rather the ideas expressed by the text form the core belief of the religion. So if a more liberal interpretation of particular texts, or a more modern approach to certain ritual and practices is still in keeping with the general beliefs, ideas, and meaning (not literal meaning necessarily, but philosophical, cultural and spiritual meaning), then it is still of that particular religion. And don't make the mistake of treating a religious text as the sole source of religious belief, because while the text may illustrate those beliefs, it is only one part of a much larger religious tradition.You don't pick-and-choose segments that are relevant to your current cultural context and reject the other parts.
Of course you do. What you're ignoring is that religion is cultural. When the Bible was written, it was culturally relevant. It was intended to be culturally relevant. If certain ideas and practices of a religion never change, and grow obscure over time, then what use are they? On a personal level religion is only significant so long as the individual cand find meaning and significance in it. If you force a religion to be dominated by traditions that never change, and are never reconsidered or re-evaluated, until they become obscure and irrelevant, then you are just creating a barrier between the individual and the main beliefs of a religion, which end up detracting from the general meaning of the religion rather than living up to it. Keep in mind that while the texts of a religion may remain the same (at least, they usually do), religion itself is a constantly evolving thing. Even if it involves sacred texts and the like, religion as a body of beliefs and practices is in many ways of the people, and will change with the people. Hinduism is very complicated that, in the times I have brought it up in these forums, people have not known enough about it to argue properly for or against it. Christianity, on the other hand, is a simple (comparatively) which most people can relate to here. It's used as the de facto religion for argument. However, feel free to use Hinduism in arguments, I'll try to address them.
And it's just that with the whole Hinduism thing, I just think it's a shame because when talking about religion, people tend to base a lot of their ideas on Christianity, when Christianity is not only markedly different from Judaism and Islam, but so vastly different from Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism that most arguments (why are we arguing?) made about Chistianity aren't even applicable to some or all of the others. (I've actually been talking about Judaism, if you haven't figured it out already) |
|
|
| #145 Posted 3 months ago, in reply to post #144 by Tatterdemalion | Reply | Rabbinical interpretation and scholarship? The ideas of philosophers and theologists throughout history? That sort of thing? But again, you're missing the point. It's not as though believing in the teachings of a particular religion is synonymous with a literal intepretation of the text. Religious beliefs aren't dictated by text, rather the ideas expressed by the text form the core belief of the religion.
Scholarship is nice but, as I've mentioned countless times before, it's all based off the original source, the holy book. And, there's only so many ways you can interpret explicit parts of a holy book condoning homosexuality (for example). There's no way to sugarcoat that all Western religions are, based on their holy books, anti-gay. Why are parts like this rejected by mainstream religion (see some sects of Protestantism) is all I am asking? And, why do we bash religions like Islam when, everything they do that seems counter-Western, is in-line with their holy book? The anti-gay ideas are pretty clearly outlined in all of these texts. But, suddenly, it's not cool to bash gays anymore so, we'll just sweep those parts under the rug and, by doing so, also sweep at least a millenium of "rabbinical interpretation and scholarship" which, not only agreed with these parts, but further justified them too.So if a more liberal interpretation of particular texts, or a more modern approach to certain ritual and practices is still in keeping with the general beliefs, ideas, and meaning (not literal meaning necessarily, but philosophical, cultural and spiritual meaning), then it is still of that particular religion. And don't make the mistake of treating a religious text as the sole source of religious belief, because while the text may illustrate those beliefs, it is only one part of a much larger religious tradition.
Goddamit, I'm talking about the parts of any holy book which are not subject to interpretation and are pretty clear as to what they mean. I'm talking about slavery, stoning people, anti-homosexuality, etc. Sure, you can interpret the creation story until the end of time, but there are parts of any holy book that are in so great a collision with modern, liberal ideals that there's no way to interpret them. Thus, they are rejected. Why? Why reject one part, but not the rest? That's all I'm saying.
Apparently, one's supposedly infallible religion doesn't make sense in today's culture so, rather than reject irrelevant text written thousands of years ago (and, *gasp* take away influential power from religious power bases), and become Atheist (like we should have done somewhere along the line) we'll just tweak it a bit and, hey, everyone's happy. The masses still have a mysterious, fictitious Father-like entity (Big Brother anyone?) to:
A. Complain about and to when bad shit happens.
B. Start wars over.
C. Ask for undeserving favours from only when it's convenient.
D. Attribute scientifically-explainable miracles.
And the traditional religious power bases and institutions still maintain unnecessary power over the people. Of course you do.
Are you telling me that I can selectively choose to only believe in the God part of the Bible (e.g. just merely believing that God exists) while rejecting the rest? And that I can still go to heaven because, despite breaking all the commandments several times (I rejected that part of the Bible, remember) and not repenting (I don't need to repent, I don't believe in it), I'm covered since the commandments weren't so popular in my particular culture and, thus, God understands?
I guess our all-knowing creator is very accomodating as long as you just believe in him.
I don't feel that religion is supposed to be fragmented in order to fit the person. No, the very opposite, religion intends for the person to fit it (It is to be taken as a whole, not in parts). Obviously, people find this very difficult and attempt to justify the former as still being in-line with whatever religion they've been born into. I'm just saying, if you find it difficult to adjust to philosophies written by the ancients, why try it all? Why not just reject it? Sure, modern society evolved from one that was devoted to it, but today's society does not need it. It's vestigial; a by-product of our evolution that we're just waiting to lose as society continues evolving into the future. Well, most of us anyway are hoping to lose it. Society won't collapse at all and, in fact, we're moving that way anyway (see secularism).
(I've actually been arguing from an Atheist perspective, if you haven't figured it out already) |
|
Add Post
You must login before you can post. If you don't have an account, please register with us. |
