The Faith & Religion mega Thread

"I am that I am", Only truth in the bible. Everything else has been spun and distorted by the ignorant translators who didn't really understand the teachings.

Originally Posted by enorbet I totally agree that such awe is nothing new, only expanded as we can see and understand so much more of our Universe, of which we are a part. In fact I often wonder just why it is that religious people work so hard to try to keep an old book valid when Science reveals a much larger image. If this was some Supreme Being's work then isn't he/she/it far more glorious with the more we can see of that work? It seems to me that what so many consider a literal translation of the old books makes the concept of God so much smaller than Science implies if one is willing to make that leap ot is just wired that way. (It's hard for me to describe what it is that makes a person a "believer" since apparently it just isn't within me) but hopefully you get my drift.

I believe that is the point I was trying to make. The great scientists of the past saw scientific research as a Christian duty precisely because it was a way of finding out more about God by studying His creation.

OTOH because of the sheer power exercised by The Church we will never know how many scientists were suppressed, jailed, and even burned at the stake nor how many others such terrorism caused to silence or abdication.

Shame on you, enorbet! I thought better of you than to use such a dubious argument. If we don't know how much evidence has been suppressed then we don't know if any evidence has been suppressed. Absence of evidence has to be taken seriously; you can't just assume that something happened, but that there has been some kind of conspiracy to hide it.

It's worth pointing out that there was nothing secretive about the Catholic Church's campaigns against heresy or witchcraft. If a lot of scientists had been persecuted for their studies, we would certainly know about it. In fact there was only Galileo, and he had his knuckles rapped for making fun of one of the pope's pet theories about the relationship between observations and underlying facts, not for teaching the astronomical ideas of Copernicus. Oh yes, there was also Giordano Bruno. He was a practising magician and occultist, not a scientist, who was burned at the stake because he taught that Christianity was a big mistake and that the true religion was Egyptian sun worship (which he believed he had a divine destiny to restore). Any interest he had in Copernican theory was quite coincidental. And the Church never persecuted Copernicus or Kepler at all.

Incidentally, people who are interested in this subject should read Arthur Koestler's book The Sleepwalkers. Although it was written some time ago, it's probably still the best book on the 15th-16th century astronomical revolution.

God is light and makes perfect world's, and it's the duty of Angels to maintain those world's. Let me explain...

"All evolutionists and virtually all old-earth
creationists believe that animals were killing and eating one
another for millions of years, long before the Fall of man.
Young-earth creationists argue that this is incompatible with
Scripture."

They explain why in the following quote -

"Young-earth creationists believe that the biblical account of creation is incompatible with an earth history of billions of years. One reason is that if fossil record represents the millions of years of Earth history, it has to be said that God’s method of creation was both cruel and wasteful.(Contradictory to the Christian belief) It was a long, drawn-out process of violence and carnage, involving the suffering and death of billions of animals over millions of years."

The previous quote is in contrast to the following -

"Old-earth creationists believe that the Fall had a much more
limited effect on creation, and they interpret Romans 8:18–
25 in accordance with that belief. They believe that creation
was essentially the same before and after the Fall. They limit
the effect of the Fall to man’s failure to accept responsibility
for the world, and his abuse of it."

I tend to side with the Old-earthers on certain aspects, because the Young-earthers go on to say that basically God put a curse on man (Causing the Fall of man) and the world in result to man's sin, and is why there's suffering/fighting. But like I said God made the world perfect in his image, and it's the Angels job to maintain order. So I don't think there was a "curse", and is where I tended to side with the Old-earthers on, but with my own interpretation. Which is that it's my belief there was not a curse, but it was the result of an Angel tinkering with God's creation, (Well before the existence of man) probably unknowingly of the results, as the world was brand new (But who knows). Also I believe only God is omniscient and all knowing, but if God is all knowing why didn't he stop the Angel from doing whatever he did to cause disorder in the animal kingdom? Well in my opinion I think God allowed it to happen, to set the stage for Earth as a learning ground. For man to study the animals and learn from them. To learn between right and wrong, as well to take care of them, until WE create peace on earth..This would strengthen our souls, as well as prove ourselves worthy to enter God's kingdom..To those who say "Well before the fall what did the animals eat, then?" In the bible it says all animals were herbivores before the fall, but after the Angels's modification (Or man's sin, however you see it) there were serious genetical changes.. Also basically I think all men are supposed to learn to be herbivores, but admittedly I have a hard time with that...

Originally Posted by bluesclues227 "All evolutionists and virtually all old-earth creationists believe that animals were killing and eating one another for millions of years, long before the Fall of man. Young-earth creationists argue that this is incompatible with Scripture." They explain why in the following quote - "Young-earth creationists believe that the biblical account of creation is incompatible with an earth history of billions of years. One reason is that if fossil record represents the millions of years of Earth history, it has to be said that God’s method of creation was both cruel and wasteful.(Contradictory to the Christian belief) It was a long, drawn-out process of violence and carnage, involving the suffering and death of billions of animals over millions of years."

These people obviously aren't familiar with two very important biblical themes: that great things often come from small beginnings, and that death and suffering can be creative forces.

Well in my opinion I think God allowed it to happen, to set the stage for Earth as a learning ground. For man to study the animals and learn from them. To learn between right and wrong, as well to take care of them, until WE create peace on earth..This would strengthen our souls, as well as prove ourselves worthy to enter God's kingdom.

Bravo! You have just arrived independently at the teaching of St Irenaeus, that the earth was created as a school for souls and is "very good" because it is very suitable for that purpose. How after all could we ever learn what "good" and "bad" mean if there was no difference between what is and what ought to be?

In the bible it says all animals were herbivores before the fall.

Not necessarily. Genesis 1 v.29 could be interpreted that way, but it could also mean that plants are the basis of the food chain and ultimately provide all animals with nourishment directly or indirectly. If the authors had intended us to understand that the Fall brought about a major change in the diet of animals, I'm sure they would have said so explicitly.

In any case, Gen 1 is a poem about creation and not a scientific textbook. As C.S. Lewis once acidly remarked on this subject, people who don't understand poetry shouldn't read it.

Originally Posted by ugjka "I am that I am", Only truth in the bible. Everything else has been spun and distorted by the ignorant translators who didn't really understand the teachings.

Originally Posted by bluesclues227 God is light and makes perfect world's, and it's the duty of Angels to maintain those world's. Let me explain... "All evolutionists and virtually all old-earth creationists believe that animals were killing and eating one another for millions of years, long before the Fall of man. Young-earth creationists argue that this is incompatible with Scripture." They explain why in the following quote - "Young-earth creationists believe that the biblical account of creation is incompatible with an earth history of billions of years. One reason is that if fossil record represents the millions of years of Earth history, it has to be said that God’s method of creation was both cruel and wasteful.(Contradictory to the Christian belief) It was a long, drawn-out process of violence and carnage, involving the suffering and death of billions of animals over millions of years." The previous quote is in contrast to the following - "Old-earth creationists believe that the Fall had a much more limited effect on creation, and they interpret Romans 8:18– 25 in accordance with that belief. They believe that creation was essentially the same before and after the Fall. They limit the effect of the Fall to man’s failure to accept responsibility for the world, and his abuse of it." I tend to side with the Old-earthers on certain aspects, because the Young-earthers go on to say that basically God put a curse on man (Causing the Fall of man) and the world in result to man's sin, and is why there's suffering/fighting. But like I said God made the world perfect in his image, and it's the Angels job to maintain order. So I don't think there was a "curse", and is where I tended to side with the Old-earthers on, but with my own interpretation. Which is that it's my belief there was not a curse, but it was the result of an Angel tinkering with God's creation, (Well before the existence of man) probably unknowingly of the results, as the world was brand new (But who knows). Also I believe only God is omniscient and all knowing, but if God is all knowing why didn't he stop the Angel from doing whatever he did to cause disorder in the animal kingdom? Well in my opinion I think God allowed it to happen, to set the stage for Earth as a learning ground. For man to study the animals and learn from them. To learn between right and wrong, as well to take care of them, until WE create peace on earth..This would strengthen our souls, as well as prove ourselves worthy to enter God's kingdom..To those who say "Well before the fall what did the animals eat, then?" In the bible it says all animals were herbivores before the fall, but after the Angels's modification (Or man's sin, however you see it) there were serious genetical changes.. Also basically I think all men are supposed to learn to be herbivores, but admittedly I have a hard time with that...

Originally Posted by hazel These people obviously aren't familiar with two very important biblical themes: that great things often come from small beginnings, and that death and suffering can be creative forces. Bravo! You have just arrived independently at the teaching of St Irenaeus, that the earth was created as a school for souls and is "very good" because it is very suitable for that purpose. How after all could we ever learn what "good" and "bad" mean if there was no difference between what is and what ought to be? Not necessarily. Genesis 1 v.29 could be interpreted that way, but it could also mean that plants are the basis of the food chain and ultimately provide all animals with nourishment directly or indirectly. If the authors had intended us to understand that the Fall brought about a major change in the diet of animals, I'm sure they would have said so explicitly. In any case, Gen 1 is a poem about creation and not a scientific textbook. As C.S. Lewis once acidly remarked on this subject, people who don't understand poetry shouldn't read it.

Yous may very well be good people but I must question this as your "good" books (all religions) can be interpreted anyway, anyone wants, especially guano crazy as is mythology. Demands, gods, heavens and hells prove it! Oh wait yous do, you send your kids to war!!!

Ultimately all is well, there is nothing wrong, there is nothing right. What you see is what you get. BUT YOU DON'T WANT THAT, what can anyone do...

Originally Posted by ugjka Ultimately all is well, there is nothing wrong, there is nothing right. What you see is what you get. BUT YOU DON'T WANT THAT, what can anyone do...

Educate! And, spaghetti monsters must come first...

Originally Posted by hazel These people obviously aren't familiar with two very important biblical themes: that great things often come from small beginnings, and that death and suffering can be creative forces. Bravo! You have just arrived independently at the teaching of St Irenaeus, that the earth was created as a school for souls and is "very good" because it is very suitable for that purpose. How after all could we ever learn what "good" and "bad" mean if there was no difference between what is and what ought to be? Not necessarily. Genesis 1 v.29 could be interpreted that way, but it could also mean that plants are the basis of the food chain and ultimately provide all animals with nourishment directly or indirectly. If the authors had intended us to understand that the Fall brought about a major change in the diet of animals, I'm sure they would have said so explicitly. In any case, Gen 1 is a poem about creation and not a scientific textbook. As C.S. Lewis once acidly remarked on this subject, people who don't understand poetry shouldn't read it.

It was kinda of a big article so maybe I was missing something. But anyways I'm glad to know that I'm not being too out there... So good 2 know thanks Haze.

Originally Posted by ugjka Ultimately all is well, there is nothing wrong, there is nothing right. What you see is what you get. BUT YOU DON'T WANT THAT, what can anyone do...

Meditate love energy towards Earth, maybe something will change. I do this sometimes..

Originally Posted by hazel I believe that is the point I was trying to make. The great scientists of the past saw scientific research as a Christian duty precisely because it was a way of finding out more about God by studying His creation.

Tes. I got it which is why I agreed.

Originally Posted by hazel Shame on you, enorbet! I thought better of you than to use such a dubious argument. If we don't know how much evidence has been suppressed then we don't know if any evidence has been suppressed. Absence of evidence has to be taken seriously; you can't just assume that something happened, but that there has been some kind of conspiracy to hide it.

It isn't like there is no evidence that any scientists were suppressed. We know there were. It is a matter of scale and details. Some were actively suppressed by direct action while others were "dissuaded' from publishing, communicating or even entering the field given the often hostile environment.

Originally Posted by hazel It's worth pointing out that there was nothing secretive about the Catholic Church's campaigns against heresy or witchcraft. If a lot of scientists had been persecuted for their studies, we would certainly know about it. In fact there was only Galileo, and he had his knuckles rapped for making fun of one of the pope's pet theories about the relationship between observations and underlying facts, not for teaching the astronomical ideas of Copernicus. Oh yes, there was also Giordano Bruno. He was a practising magician and occultist, not a scientist, who was burned at the stake because he taught that Christianity was a big mistake and that the true religion was Egyptian sun worship (which he believed he had a divine destiny to restore). Any interest he had in Copernican theory was quite coincidental. And the Church never persecuted Copernicus or Kepler at all.

I completely disagree that we would know about the scale and every individual case since the persecutors who documented it either thought such studies were trivial and beneath contempt or heretical and "not to be named". In a few cases entire towns were wiped out. Do you really imagine they looked into the professions or hobbies of each person? The largest scale is simply the created environment much like being a freed slave in the Old South. It was essential to survival to "know ones place" and not "step out of line", don't expect to vote or likely get a decent education, let alone a degree. Also be certain to not make eye contact, especially with a white woman. Accept that anytime you drive a car you are "running a gauntlet" or don't even try to get a driver's license. This is both repression and suppression on a grand scale and it took place for milennia. Actually, to a lesser degree, it still goes on now.

######## ######
Saying Galileo "got his knuckles rapped" is as condescending and dismissive as saying a rape victim "should have just laid back and enjoyed it. What's the big deal?" or as if she was forced to publicly say "it was my fault. I shouldn't have worn that miniskirt. It's only natural that a man would consider that's what I wanted, and maybe I secretly did."
######## ######

If I seem as if I am overstating my case, then perhaps the above references to Galileo underestimates how many scientists and would-be scientists there have been or the importance of not caving to oppression and suppression of factual evidence by those who were/are completely ignorant of the subject and who are forced to kiss the....ummm ring of shallow, pompous. sanctimonious fools who just happen to have the power of life and death over you and don't require evidence nor assume "innocent until proven guilty".

Just FTR in England (and a few other countries) for centuries after the Magna Carta Clergy were given "Get Out of Jail Free cards" in the form of "privilegium clericale" where for example several peasants (the number did vary over time) could be slaughtered for such things as not giving the right of way on a muddy road without even being questioned. It was simply a God-given right. Any more than half a dozen was considered unreasonable and cause for stern words or knuckle rapping but if one kept within the quota the very worst that could happen was if the murdered man, woman or child was owned, having to provide a chicken or a pig as recompense. Also, Prima Nocta was not just a plot invention for Braveheart. If you weren't noble, and clergy were such a privileged class actually above civil law, you were property. Case closed.

Originally Posted by hazel Incidentally, people who are interested in this subject should read Arthur Koestler's book The Sleepwalkers. Although it was written some time ago, it's probably still the best book on the 15th-16th century astronomical revolution.

Thank you. I will dedinitely give that a read

I think it was not so much religion's fault, but it was a few bad apples who just needed a reason to kill for power,greed or something of the like. This is prevalent not just in religion, but in everything, like governments, tribes,gangs or whatever. Something we need to grow out of as a species, just live and let live..

IMHO much of history is simply about the Biological Imperative, a function of being alive in the terms of existence of that lifeform. What I mean is ... well please allow me to use a song quote for starters

Originally Posted by Jefferson_Airplane--Crown_of_Creation Life is change How it differs from the rocks I've seen their ways too often for my liking

I'm referring to the differences between Animal, Plant and Mineral. Minerals do change but only in Geological time with the exception of cataclysms like volcanism and impacts. Almost all of the forces that affect the existence of minerals are external. Plants otoh while relying on external interaction require internal processing, mainly photosynthesis but they also act to evolve chemistry for defensive purposes and to promote symbiosis (colorful flowers and nectar, and perhaps chemistry to attract or kill) mostly to spread seed with the rarer exception of those plants which feed on animals directly and not merely the remains of animals in the soil. Animals must kill to live whether they kill plants or other animals they must strike a balance between destruction and creation.

Note## Here I'm using the word "creation" in the only way we know it functions on this level since nothing alive can create something from nothing. It is the combination or reduction of things to bring into existence something that did not exist of it's own. Minerals on their own, without external forces, do not create. They depend solely on the four fundamental forces for change. Plants create in the sense that for example they convert Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen. Animals process O2 and exchange CO2 as well as a great many other processes and some employ tools in order to change their environment into one that benefits their existence.

There's the main subject - To be alive means other beings must die. at least for the present. Within that process there are results that both enhance and threaten one's own life. Kill too many and their is nothing to eat. Procreate too much and there may not be enough to eat. Dispose of waste improperly and foul the nest. Thus, for me (and I think animals as a whole but certainly the human animal), morality is based on that balance which achieves a symbiosis that enhances ones own life and that includes other humans that are not a threat. When there is little threat from others, creativity is enhanced, since before that point many found it easier to to steal from those who worked to create. This condition existed for centuries driven by the fact that, without pressing external forces, civilizations increase in population, requiring ever more energy sources. War is just organized and ritualized theft or the defense against those that would steal your land, people (especially women) food, livestock, money, etc.

It is interesting to note that after The Black Death, existence was generally easier for the remaining population with the exception of a few laws that reduced that benefit for peasants (who could theoretically charge more for their services due to the reduced labor force) while improving the wealth and position of "nobility".

For a very long time civilizations were divided into three classes all of whom flourished best if "they knew their place" - Fight, Pray, or Work. Since it was believed prayer could influence the outcome of fighting, it was deemed more important than work. That continued until the few that studied to improve the efficiency of work succeeded in making it easier (certainly less dangerous) to produce than fight to steal.

As civilizations evolved to where it is more productive to create, this threatens the existence of prayer and fighting, and thus we have politics as it exists today since the only alternative to negotiation is violence. Once creativity passes a tipping point, there is little need for Military and Clergy and they know it, even if only subliminally. These are the battles we fight today and the stakes include survival of the entire species, now that we are grown, both in population and the creation of the means of destruction, to the point where we have massive global effects.

The vision of a few, like Gene Rodenberry in Star Trek where poverty, ill health, poor or missing education and even the need to kill to eat (the banes of existence), are all banished this is accomplished solely by the effects of cheap, renewable energy and fundamental understanding of creativity. The only war that remains assumes that a space faring species is somehow advanced enough for interstellar travel yet poor enough to still require conquest. This is quite possibly a contradiction in terms, assuming that enough time must transpire until interstellar travel is possible that greed, avarice, the blind, wanton desire to lead or follow, etc are bred out of our species.

Originally Posted by Crown_of_Creation Soon you'll obtain the stability you strive for In the only way that it's granted In a place among the fossils of our time In loyalty to their kind They cannot tolerate our minds In loyalty to our kind We cannot tolerate their obstruction

Originally Posted by enorbet There's the main subject[/B] - To be alive means other beings must die. at least for the present. Within that process there are results that both enhance and threaten one's own life. Kill too many and their is nothing to eat. Procreate too much and there may not be enough to eat. Dispose of waste improperly and foul the nest. Thus, for me (and I think animals as a whole but certainly the human animal), morality is based on that balance which achieves a symbiosis that enhances ones own life and that includes other humans that are not a threat. When there is little threat from others, creativity is enhanced, since before that point many found it easier to to steal from those who worked to create. This condition existed for centuries driven by the fact that, without pressing external forces, civilizations increase in population, requiring ever more energy sources. War is just organized and ritualized theft or the defense against those that would steal your land, people (especially women) food, livestock, money, etc.

It doesn't have to be that way.. I firmly believe we are meant to be a space faring species.. If we only learned our lesson from WW2, or even well before hand, we'd realize that war benefits nobody in the long run.. Our's and the global space programs would be well far beyond what it is today if we understood this earlier. We would have been working together on innovative new propulsion systems, and rocket designs that would have taken us to the stars by now.. We'd have colonized the next closest most habitable planet, that would have kept the Earth greener, and in it's most natural state then it is today..I dream't the U.S. would have been thought of as a shining example for other countries to look at, and strive to be like..Will it still be that way, one could only hope, but it doesn't seem to be like it anymore, it would take a miracle.. We're helping countries around the world at the expense of our own well-being. How can we possibly help anyone without taking care of ourselves first? I know this sounds like wishful thinking, of a war free world in freedom.. But I honestly think it's the only way forward, by working together in peace with common-sense compromises, (no, I don't mean gun control) and charities... And to think war is inevitable, I'd say is detrimental in itself..

Originally Posted by enorbet (..) I don't know what a proper moderator can do beyond castigating that person and asking that such behaviour cease as certainly unproductive and possibly destructive.

He or she shouldn't (have to) really. Ensuring LQ remains a welcoming place where people feel free to constructively discuss a wide range of topics is something that concerns regular members as well as moderators. Peer and self-moderation are important. And it is the task of first and foremost the LQ Community to actively seek truthful representation. There is no place here for spreading FUD or any misinformation. (*Moderators are subject to more rules than the LQR and due to impartiality should exclude themselves from entering discussions they moderate.)

*We do allow LQ members to explore certain volatile topics in the General forum that sometimes do not lend themselves to the established academical way of verification. If one views the combination of knowledge and eagerness to learn, restraint and compassion, openness and introspection and a balanced view of what's wrong and right as the minimum for engaging in meaningful discussion then it should not be hard to gauge the effect of contributions... Or, free after Theodore Zeldin: only those willing to have their point of view changed will benefit from such conversations.

Originally Posted by enorbet (..) Are there strict guidelines for using quotes? and any machinations to alter them to say something not meant by the (however loosely) quoted?

No, but I interpret part of the LQR as basis to combat FUD / misinformation. I think proper citation is of the essence. And obviously in serious discussion altering a quoted text to suit ones purpose is killing. I think Wikipedia:intellectual honesty conveys the idea best. If that doesn't do I'd be happy to join you if you open a new discussion in LQSF?


//This also concludes me watching this thread. Most of you have done admirably getting things back on track.

To me "firm believer" says it all.

It sets a mind in stone to any others "gods," "truths" and ideas thus blind.

What puzzles me is how peoples can ignore all the other "religious" books on that library self?