|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 05/30/2001 : 20:24:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
You are making an appeal for "special revelation". I am pointing out that this revelation knowledge not only exists in those people who do not accept Jesus it exists in the animal kingdom who have never heard of him.There by demonstrating a simplier "natural" bases and not relying on a conjectured supernatural source
So are you, then, suggesting that the golden rule is demonstrated in the animal kingdom? I can think of several off-handed instances where it isn't apparent.
What I said was that you could find it is several groups of predators who hunt in packs. Dogs, wolves, chimps, bonobos and humans.
------
In the mid 1700's from one end of New England to the other ministers were warning their congregations about the "Monster of Philadelphia" the mad man, the blasphemer. The horrible devil they were decrying was Benjamin Franklin. This wasn't about one of his books on Deism or even one of his scandalous books (Barns & Nobel Press has put out a collection of his writings worth reading call "Fart Proudly")
All this damning of Ben's soul was because he had invented and was marketing the lightening rod. The ministers considered lightening to be, as the bible clearly states, the sword of god. Franklin was opposing god's will by blocking the bolt and not letting sinners homes burn down.
Ironically enough, churches (who refused to use this devils invention) were the most likely buildings to burn down due to the steeples with the crosses on top being the highest point in most towns.
As counter intuitive as "big bang" physics is I don't think we are going to drop it in favor of "Let There Be Light." Any more than we will drop electricity for the wrath of god theory.
To say that we have "faith" in science is a misuse of the word. We "trust" theories only because we have worked hard on them, step by step. We can demonstrate (prove) every step that was taken. If we find out that a theory doesn't work we chuck it.
Faith has nothing to do with it.
------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 20:35:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I know this isn't proof even in the farthest stretch of the imagination, but I did recently see an episode of Law and Order where a scientist did try to kill a fellow scientist over intellectual property.
This is not the same as killing someone over belief. It's not even close.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 20:41:25 [Permalink]
|
Sega:
I deleted my post which was apologizing for my accidentally copying your (previous) post. One "click" and it appeared that I had authored an identical post to yours.
Well, I am learning -- the hard way.
Actually, I wanted to state that the Romans put slaves into the "programs" at the Colosseum. Some of the slaves who "performed" were Christians, but it had nothing to do with their being Christian, because the Romans permitted all religions. They were slaves and the Romans wanted entertainment. (Nice guys, those Romans!) Of course, along came Constantine and one was put to death for not professing to be a Christian. (Nice guy, Constantine!)
I am not going to argue about religion, only about its effects. From what I can see of the religions of the world, many of the true believers are busy killing everybody else who profess to believe in a different religion. With the great number of individual faiths (and perhaps in any single religion, where each person has his/her own individual interpretation), there is no hope for any kind of reconciliation. Getting along with others of differing faiths (or of no faith) does not seem to be an important goal of any of the true believers.
"The Demon-Haunted World" by the late Carl Sagan brought this out. Then again, look around the world and what does one find? Religious hatreds.
Now, scientists get along without the necessity to murder each other. Peer review keeps them honest. Of course, scientists have their differences, but there is no need for any of them to murder anybody else over a differing scientific opinion.
Now, I need to find the method for deleting that last message which was a repeat of the previous message and I clicked on the wrong button. Dumb...
ljbrs
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 21:05:30 [Permalink]
|
Sega:
See my previous post above. I found the way to delete incorrect posts. Whee!!!
Now to get back to typing something I shall, again, need to delete because of carelessness. Oh well, as I always have said: "Perfection is a state of growth."
ljbrs (learning)
|
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 21:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the beginning Christianity was an arm of the Imperial Roman Government
I am curious as to what your source materials are. In my history, christianity, in the beggining, was a thorn in the Roman empire's side. It was later adopted, in the great spirit of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Thus began what is now Roman Catholiscm, a concept which does not agree with what the Bible has to say. (No offense to any catholics among us - heh heh. Any catholics here? Show of hands. . .)
quote:
One confessed all their sins not in their hearts but to a priest. A priest who was in the employ of the Empire.
A catholic concept. Not a biblical concept. I've often wondered where this idea came from. Maybe you have the right idea there, Slater.
quote:
You, however, are looking at a Christianity now that has been changed (evolved?) by having Humanism forced on it for nearly 250 years. You feel that all of mankind are brothers. This is not an original Christian concept, although parts of the bible have been reinterpreted to support it.
OK, I have a basic opposition to the "250 years" part, but we'll let that slide for now. (Or, at least, I will). As for the bible: I know the whole Genesis account is allegorical. But what is trying to say? That God created everyting and that includes humans. It's allegorical in the sense that it doesn't make an attempt to explain his methods, but, instead to show certain truths in an over simplified way. Within this allegory, he created all the beasts (No mention of a male and female only - although the Flood allegory differs there) But humans he created only two. Indicative, in the allegorical sense, that we are all brothers (also in an allegorical sense). There are also many moments where it is said that Jesus came to save both the Jew and the Gentile. The gentile's being anyone who wasn't Jewish. So what he did he did irrespective of heritage. This also implies that we are not discriminated against, and, therefore, equal, in God's perception. There are a couple of points anyway. If early christianity didn't understand this otherwise simple concept, then I can't explain that. Maybe the source material you are using is scewed?
quote:
One of the basic assumptions of Christianity is that all men are sinners. They are fallen. They should not follow their own judgement but rather follow that of Jesus.
I disagree with you on this point (which you hav emade in other posts besides this one). I don't see where we are called upon to be blind followers so much as we are called upon to actually look at ourselves honestly. Maybe I'm just explaining things away, but, I think in the few instances where someone was praised for their belief without question, it was intended to imply that they were following their inborn understanding and knowledge of God. But it wasn't stated that the more inquisitive among us were being excluded. We were still being asked to examine ourselves and decide if we were right or wrong.
quote:
All you have to do is follow orders.
As an ex-military man, wouldn't you say that there is a distinct difference between having to "follow orders", with the consequences involved in not doing so, and being given free-will, to chose your actions, and your outcome? The difference between "Attention!" and "At ease".
quote:
All of these creatures on all of these levels have one thing in common. They are all corporeal entities. The one you are proposing is not.
By corporeal I assume you mean that they exist within some defined dimension. (Can you see this one coming?  ) Since we have no current way of knowing what additional dimensions may exist, why isn't it possible that this being (namely, God) exist in a very real corporeal state, within dimensions beyond our knowledge?
quote:
why should we obey (much less worship) it any more than a beetle obeys us?
Well, if we truly cared so much about the beatles that we would never steer them wrong, it might be in their best interest to do what we suggest, just because we know more than they do. On the other hand, would I let my only born son die to save the beetles? probably not, but I might let my only born beetle die to save them. . . (Thats just a really bad joke. . .I just couldn't resist, since it occurred to me in the first place. . .)
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Edited by - broven on 05/30/2001 21:24:32 |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 21:21:44 [Permalink]
|
@tomic
quote:
This is not the same as killing someone over belief. It's not even close.
Possibly not. I was just taking exception to a statement made by someone else that implied that the two were somehow equivelant.
But, since you made such a strong objection (or, at least, what seemed to be a strong objection - it's so hard to tell when you can't see the other persons face) I'll ask for your explanation on why the two are so different. They both seem to be matters of pride to me.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 21:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Here is my explanation:
You said it was a killing over property(intellectual). Kind of like "You stole my spoon, so you must die" This is not just about pride, it's about ownership.
The better question is how do you compare this to killing someone over what god they believe in? I don't see any connecion at all.
quote:
Since we have no current way of knowing what additional dimensions may exist, why isn't it possible that this being (namely, God) exist in a very real corporeal state, within dimensions beyond our knowledge?
If we have no way of knowing, why do you try to hide god in something we could know nothing about or even if they(all these dimensions) exist. You or I could "suppose" things till we are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean anything we dream up is real without some tiny morsel of a reason.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 22:18:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You said it was a killing over property(intellectual). Kind of like "You stole my spoon, so you must die" This is not just about pride, it's about ownership.
OK, try this perspective. I'm joe-scientist and I want to advance mankinds knowledge. But some other guy has stolen my idea (intelectual property was perhaps a poor choice of words - Einstien doesn't "own" relativity any way that you look at it.) He's gonna get credit for something that I should have gotten credit for (notice the whole idea of advancing knowledge has slipped through the cracks). I'll admit that joe-scientist has a right to feel slighted or abused or whatever, but when he kills the other guy, it's pride that motivates him. In the same way, although under a different guise (we almost always act under some guise when we are doing something wrong) one religious person kills another of a different faith because they feel slighted by someone-elses refusal to agree with them. "My God is better than your God, and I'm staking everything that I am on it! If you don't agree then you have nullified everything that I stand for." With religion being a highly emotional subject (as it is) they just find a way to cover themselves by saying that they are doing God's will - irregardless of wether or not they are actually doing anyone's will beyond their own (or, as some think, the Roman empire's). I'm not sure of this, but I'll go ahead and throw it out for discussion - You kill because you have to, or because of pride. Every form of killing that is coming to mind at the moment can be classified as one or the other.
quote:
why do you try to hide god in something we could know nothing about or even if they(all these dimensions) exist.
Well, I'm not trying to "hide" God there. I'm merely suggesting that perhaps he exists there. It was just a thought really. Another question might be, why do you discard it so off-handedly?
quote:
You or I could "suppose" things till we are blue in the face,
And I think we SHOULD. . .
quote:
but that doesn't mean anything we dream up is real without some tiny morsel of a reason.
That is, in part, why I'm exploring the "reasons" here. We run up against the proverbial wall here, because I feel that I do have some reason (although not the kind of reason you are undoubtedly talking about). And, anyway, debate is good for you, even when it's futile. Of course, I can't prove that either. . .
Peace
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Edited by - broven on 05/30/2001 22:21:58 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 22:34:48 [Permalink]
|
The example you first gave about a scientist killing another over intellectual property I could maybe see, but it's not just about pride. It's often about money. I also think I should point out that I don't recall hearing about this happening in real life though you might be able to drag out some anecdote from 300 years ago. This was another "what if" but the number of deaths over religion is very high and I don't have to refer to a TV show for my example.
I discard the idea of god skulking around in some dimension we know nothing about, because we know nothing about it.
You yourself said we don't know about these things. So if you don't, why do you insist we look at it and seriously consider it? Come up with an argument that has some substance and we could go somewhere.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 22:57:40 [Permalink]
|
I get the impression that this degenerating. . . Oh well. . .quote:
The example you first gave about a scientist killing another over intellectual property I could maybe see, but it's not just about pride. It's often about money.
It may in fact be about money. Of course, it doesn't HAVE to be about money, but it could be. But then, how far do we have to go to connect money to pride. . .? If youa re at the point where you absolutely need the money to survive, then it becomes the "kill because you have to" arguement. If it's just 'cause you want a BMW and a house on the cape, it's pride. (OK, technically, it's greed, but the two go hand in hand)
quote:
I also think I should point out that I don't recall hearing about this happening in real life though you might be able to drag out some anecdote from 300 years ago.
I don't recall hearing about it either, just saying that it is entirely plausible (unless you think scientist are incapable of being human- which is a whole other conversation)
quote:
This was another "what if" but the number of deaths over religion is very high and I don't have to refer to a TV show for my example.
Compare the ratio of scientists to religious people. . . It stands to reason that the number of deaths relating to religion would be higher.
quote:
I discard the idea of god skulking around in some dimension we know nothing about, because we know nothing about it.
Do you disregard the existence of other dimensions simply because we know nothing about them. That line of reasoning would have stalled out the human race a long time ago.
As to wether or not God "skulks" around in some other dimension. . . Well, it's an interesting picture, anyway. Kind of puts me in mind of Gollum. . .
quote:
why do you insist we look at it and seriously consider it?
I don't insist at all! You can, in fact ignore this whole topic if you want. Maybe there are some here who haven't seriously considered it, though. Seems like a good opportunity for them to do so.
quote:
Come up with an argument that has some substance and we could go somewhere.
What do you suggest?. . .
That's a joke, by the way. . .
Peace
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 23:13:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't recall hearing about it either, just saying that it is entirely plausible (unless you think scientist are incapable of being human- which is a whole other conversation)
Sure, this is plausible, but like I said people killing one another flying the religious flag of their choice is more than plausible. It happened and happens all the time. There is a tremendous difference between what is plausible and what is real.
quote:
Do you disregard the existence of other dimensions simply because we know nothing about them. That line of reasoning would have stalled out the human race a long time ago.
I disagree here and I'll tell you why. We had many instances of people believing scientific truths that turned out to be utterly false. They were things that everyone knew were true and to think this was not the case went against Church doctrine(See Galileo). This was the line of reasoning that did in fact stall the human race for a long, long time. Real science, you know, the science where things can be tested and observed, finally dug us out of that.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2001 : 00:50:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My proposition was that human nature itself is aware of right and wrong.
This is a concept known as social conditioning. For a society, even small groups (2 or more) to function, certain 'rules' must be followed. Through social conditioning (Pavlovian and nurture) we learn right from wrong.
Laws are formed to allow a social group to function otherwise you have chaos. How would a small village survive if everyone was stealing from the other. Instead of chancing getting killed over bread from the baker the farmer trades corn he grows. These simple things result in a socially acceptable system for living with others.
Right from wrong is grown from people learning over time to live with each other inside a social structure. The 'golden rule' as espoused is simply and extension of living in a close society.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2001 : 03:45:13 [Permalink]
|
To refer back to the whole "extra dimensions" discussion, I must agree with our @tomic compatriot: The reason theoretical physicists are looking into the possibility of having more than the standard 4 dimensions (time and 3 space) is purely aesthetic. The equations can be unified (we assume) if we allow for the possibility of 10 spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension. This seems very similar to the Ptolemaic system of spheres and epispheres with the Earth at the center of it all. This system was constructed because it was more pleasing to the rigid geometric thinking the Greeks adored. Of course, it is quite possible that higher dimensions do exist, but until we can find a way to physically prove it, the idea will remain in the musty tomes of Theoretical Physics and Topology.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2001 : 12:59:43 [Permalink]
|
YIKES! Are you people on speed? How did you all learn to type so fast? I'll never catch up.
Since we have no current way of knowing what additional dimensions may exist, why isn't it possible that this being (namely, God) exist in a very real corporeal state, within dimensions beyond our knowledge?
You are right. If god is in these Einsteinian dimensions then there is no way I could ever know about him. But then neither you nor the people who taught you about god would ever be able to know about him either.
There is the logical dead end to that argument. If it is physically impossible for me to know then it is physically impossible for anyone to know. Unless a person has magical super powers--as some people occasionally claim. In that case it is up to the claimant to prove their claim of these powers if they expect a suspension of disbelief.
In my history, christianity, in the beggining, was a thorn in the Roman empire's side. It was later adopted, in the great spirit of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
By your history I take it you mean "church history." In the decades that I've been studying this subject I have tried to stick with sources (which are very hard to find) that were non-Christian. Church history contains a great deal of legend and propaganda and it gets hard to tell fact from fancy.
What I have found is that the Christianity that existed in Rome (I'm just talking about the city now, not the empire) for the second half of the first century and the entire second century CE had nothing to do with Jesus. It was founded by the charismatic Apollonius of Tyana and worshiped the quarter man / three quarter god, Christ that Apollonius had learned about when he went on a pilgrimage following Alexander the Great's footsteps to India. Christ (Krishna in Indian) was a savior of mankind who had been killed (on the first day of spring) and came back to life. This shares the same "base myth" with Heracles. They left plenty of evidence behind.
When the Emperor Hadrian says that Christians are harmless and should no longer be persecuted these are the Christians that he is talking about.
They (not the Jesus people) may actually have burned Rome just as Nero claimed.
Exactly when and why the followers of Jesus took on the name of this Indo/European god, and why they incorporated the miracles of Apollonious into their life of Jesus, I have never been able to find out.
Thus began what is now Roman Catholiscm, a concept which does not agree with what the Bible has to say. (No offense to any catholics among us - heh heh. Any catholics here? Show of hands. . .)
Oh good grief. Now what do you want? Should I ignore the largest, the oldest and the only (with the exception of Eastern Orthodoxy) version of Christianity with any valid claims of authority? For what? Protestantism, an iffy reinterpretation of the bible by Luther, that has been around for only five hundred years and discount the Catholics who have been with us for eighteen hundred? You've got to be kidding.
You follow the bible and the RCs don't? Funny, when I ask my Jesuit Priest friends they have a different take on the situation.
I, wouldn't you have guessed it, have a third take.
The bible you have is shorter than the Catholic one. All the extra Roman nonsense has been edited out to leave you with the same bible that the "historic" (read pre-Catholic) church had.
But it's not. You've got less than half the book they did. If you don't believe me pick up your copy and look for The Gospel According to Thomas or The Sophia of Jesus Christ or The Apocryphon of John or The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) or how about The Acts of John or The Pistis Sophia.
All these books were Gospel to the Early Church and they are all gone.
After Constantine the Great used Christianity (his mothers religion, not his. He was Mithric.) to wrest the Emperorship out of the legal hands of his five co-Emperors and into his alone, he found that Christianity didn't truly mesh with his vision of government. So he did what any Emperor of the known world would do. He changed it.
Ecumenical Council of Nicea, 325 CE all the church leaders, dressed in the uniforms of the Mithric chaplains Corps of the Roman Army, gather to vote on what is the word of god and what is not. Until this time they hadn't realized that any of the bible was not--but Constantine had other ideas.
On hearing that the Emperor wanted to toss out all of the books I mentioned above, and some that I've missed, a large delegation walked out in protest. Before they could reach their homes the Imperial troops arrived and strongly suggested that they return to the Council. However, before a new vote was taken a banquet was held to show that there were no hard feelings.
During the dinner all of the leaders of the delegations which opposed the Emperors changes dropped dead.
When a vote was finally taken the survivors chose to see these deaths as a sign from god and all of the offending parts of the bible were tossed in the dumpster.
After the Council, where the will and nature of god were proclaimed and defined for all mankind, Constantine slew his son Crispus and his own wife Fausta who had not been in favor of the judicious editing.
That's the earliest verifiable record (they kept a record of every word spoken) of Jesus based Christianity I can find. Everything from the previous 325 years is very suspect as to its authenticity.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2001 : 17:55:37 [Permalink]
|
I spent so much time on Mithra in the "Did Jesus Exist?" old forum file that I'd like to spend a little time on the Christ/Krishna god of Apollonius.
Krishna was the eighth Avatar or incarnation of the god Vishnu, one of the Hindu Trinity. To understand what that means let me explain that Buddha was Vishu's ninth Avatar.
In this incarnation Vishnu, it is said, "appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory."
(Later we can touch on the Hindu version of an Iranian god Mithra-Vishnu)
His mother was Devaki. He is believed by some to be a historical character, but his real history, like that of Jesus, is almost entirely obscured by myths. He lived somewhere in between 900 to 1,200 BCE .The story of his life is to be found in the "Bhagavat," one of the "Puranas," while his religious
teachings are given in the "Bhagavad-Gita," a poem belonging to the "Mahabarata."
1. Both Jesus and Krishna were miraculously conceived.
2. Both were divine incarnations.
3. Both were of royal descent.
4. Devatas or angels sang songs of praise at the birth of each.
5. Both were visited by neighboring shepherds.
6. Both their mothers retained their virginity after the birth.
7. In both cases the reigning monarch,(Kansa in the case of Krishna) fearing that he would be supplanted in his kingdom by the divine child, sought to destroy him.
8. Both were saved by friends who fled with them in the night to distant countries.
9. Foiled in their attempts to discover the babes both kings issued decrees that all the infants should be put to death.
The subsequent careers of these deities are analogous in many respects. Their missions were the same -- the salvation of mankind. Both performed miracles -- healed the sick and raised the dead. Both died for man by man. There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindu scriptures, that Krishna, like Jesus, was crucified.
Krishna washed the feet of his disciples because Krishna had washed the feet of the Brahmins. He taught his disciples the possibility of moving a mountain by faith, because Krishna, to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra, raised Mount Goverdhen above them. (Note: this is the same base myth as Heracles. In that myth Indra is replaced by {note the similarity of names---it's still the same goddess} Hera. In the Jesus version Hera is then replaced by Herod. That's why there is no historic record of Herod the Great actually killing the innocents. If it happened at all, it happened a thousand years before the time we are looking at.)
The earliest followers of each were from the lower classes of society, those of Krishna being herdsmen and milkmaids.
Jesus' most ardent worshipers have from the first been women.
Miracles, with which Krisna's life abounds, include the raising of the dead and the cleansing of the leprous. Apollonious was able to do the same.
The name Apollonious of Tyana was too much of a mouthful for his followers. Usually they just called him Pol. The saintly Pol. Hmmm?
------------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
