The Faith & Religion mega Thread

enorbet there are masons in that crowd.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq enorbet there are masons in that crowd.

And female impersonators probably in secret behind closed doors also.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq enorbet there are masons in that crowd.

On one level I don't give a flip what clubs they belong to or what their sexual proclivities are, I just care that they are power-hungry greed machines heavily steeped in Schadenfreude. .... quite literally a bane on human existence.

...so it is written...

Shouldn't force kids into your(\parents) religions but wait until their old enough, explain the differences, then let them decide: Marvel or DC?!

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Shouldn't force kids into your(\parents) religions but wait until their old enough, explain the differences, then let them decide: Marvel or DC?!

The trouble is you have to bring up kids somehow! The ideal would be if you asked them at 15 how they'd like to be brought up, then wound time back to their birth and brought them up the way they chose. If they wanted a religious upbringing, they could have one; if not, not. But we don't have time-reversal technology. So in practice we bring up our children to believe what we believe. We tell them what we think is true. Atheists believe that God doesn't exist, so that's what they tell their children. Christians tell their children that God does exist and that Jesus is his Son. Muslims tell theirs that God exists and that Muhammad is his prophet.

And when the children are 15 or so, they usually rebel against what their parents have taught them and choose to believe precisely the opposite. My mother was brought up by devout Jewish parents and ended up an atheist. I was brought up by atheists and ended up a Christian. It doesn't look as if the supposed "brainwashing" of children by their parents has much effect, good or bad.

And when the children are 15 or so, they usually rebel against what their parents have taught them and choose to believe precisely the opposite. My mother was brought up by devout Jewish parents and ended up an atheist. I was brought up by atheists and ended up a Christian. It doesn't look as if the supposed "brainwashing" of children by their parents has much effect, good or bad.

I believe otherwise. Pardon my excuse. If government is able to brainwash the adult citizens why not parents unto their own child whom they sustain? Maybe, somewhere, growing up the child is later misplaced in bad company and develops bad thinking and beliefs. Otherwise, somewhere, in child brainwashing, the washing machine was out-of-order, or at least, the washing machine was not properly used --say for e.g. if it was used for storing drinking water.

Yes we muslims raise our children the islam way and it is doing good.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by hazel ... Atheists believe that God doesn't exist, so that's what they tell their children. Christians tell their children that God does exist and that Jesus is his Son. Muslims tell theirs that God exists and that Muhammad is his prophet. And when the children are 15 or so, they usually rebel against what their parents have taught them and choose to believe precisely the opposite. My mother was brought up by devout Jewish parents and ended up an atheist. I was brought up by atheists and ended up a Christian. It doesn't look as if the supposed "brainwashing" of children by their parents has much effect, good or bad.

These are assumptions one may expect from "complacency," remember we're all infinitely different but human. You and Malekmustaq hit the screw on the phillips head with "brainwashing" as we all are... but; then there's mythology and scams,
with one-third suffering beyond real-belief!

Physicists Claim that Consciousness Lives in Quantum State After Death

http://globalnetwork.info/2016/08/09...m-state-death/

They must be on some real good: N,N-Dimethyltryptamine... ie:

The psychedelic drug that could explain our belief in life after death

http://littleatoms.com/science/psych...fe-after-death

Agnostically.

Jam, please allow me to quote therefrom, to wit:

Testimonials from prominent physics researchers from institutions such as Cambridge University, Princeton University, and the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich claim that quantum mechanics predicts some version of “life after death.” They assert that a person may possess a body-soul duality that is an extension of the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles.

Nothing more than conjectures. If we are capable of rejecting prophets making predictions then we can equally ignore these *probably* drunken physics researchers, intoxicated by extreme dose of personal pride and ignorance.

Scientifically it’s somewhat tricky. I’ve been researching in this area for about 10 or 15 years. DMT struck me as being extremely curious because there’s no other psychedelic we know of that naturally occurs in the human body. I mean the human neural system has endocannabinoids which are related to cannabis THC, but there’s a big difference between that and the presence of DMT.

I have been in extreme use of Cannabis Sativa playing Eric Clapton Blues and Deep Purple hits, the experience has always been great and edifying. But I have never been in a bad trip to see any of those silly dwarves and nypmhs.

Honest question is: DMT presence in human body --is it the cause of human esoteric tendency, or its effect? For there are/is evidence that the invisible --qualitative-- property is rather the cause to produce visible --quantitative-- property in human body; e.g. stress and fear secretes adrenalin to improve muscular responses to meet instinct need; or that emotional depression (qualitative) secretes the tear affecting the heart beats (quantitative). Therefore, if DMT is the cause then science can be correct in that perspective, but if DMT is merely the effect then the prophets can still be right.

Just an opinion. But I know there are buddies around with masteral or doctorate standards of thought and speech who can elaborate contrary opinions better than that.

Thank you for the linked materials jam.

m.m.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Nothing more than conjectures. If we are capable of rejecting prophets making predictions then we can equally ignore these *probably* drunken physics researchers, intoxicated by extreme dose of personal pride and ignorance.

So you place more trust in prophets from thousands of years ago when superstition was rampant and education was minimal and who also suffered all the ills of being human (eg: pride and ignorance) more than highly educated (gaining information, understanding and the test of time from those thousands of years), who live in an age where anything said by anyone even remotely a disciplined expert in any field will "go global" and be scrutinized intensely and from every angle? Add to this the fact that Religion attempts to be static, a Final Answer above scrutiny or reproach while Science not only welcomes scrutiny but has it as a basic tenet to maintain an evolving, improving understanding.

Furthermore how is it that Scientific discipline deserves "conjecture" (and I agree that in most cases it does, and knowingly so) but ancient Prophets have an inside track on indisputable Truth? Perhaps I'm overstating the case, but it appears there is not a level playing field in your judgment of the two.

Logic and reason or not?!.

To me, these "prominent physics researchers" are merely, and fruitlessly, throwing their 'scientific credentials' (sic ...) against "a Big Kahuna™ Question."

... and, in so doing, (may I kindly suggest ...) "blind men" are earnestly striving to coin a substitute for [their lack of ...] "sight."

Unfortunately for all of us:

1. "You cannot See [beyond The Veil™]" and there is absolutely nothing ("sux™" ...) that you can do about it.
2. "Nevertheless ... from time to time, you still have "intuitions" and "(logically ...) unexplainable 'encounters.'"

... ("oh yes, you do." Even though the experience utterly confounds 'your intellect,' you still cannot deny it ...)

---
Before my father-in-law passed over, from time to time both of us would, upon stepping into a room of our house, be fairly-confronted with the unmistakable scent of my mother-in-law's signature perfume. (Perhaps significantly, I have not detected it since he also, mercifully, "passed.")

In a dream (which I absolutely do not deny ...) my (late ...) mother-in-law expressed it to me very simply: "in the state that you are now in ... 'asleep' ... how, exactly might you go about the task of influencing 'the physical world?'"

It was, if I may say, "a damned good question," and I have never forgotten it. It made a good deal of practical sense: "if you earnestly wanted to contact someone who was now so utterly disconnected from you, if only to convey to them the fact that you were 'still alive,' how would you go about doing it?"

How, indeed. Although "a physical manifestation" might be logistically unmanageable, "a comforting but quite-unmistakable scent" might be just what the other-party needed. I absolutely believe to this day that my very-pragmatic mother-in-law did succeed in communicating to her equally-pragmatic spouse ... and, to me ... what he we so very desperately wanted to hear believe. "Mission Accomplished."

Since the aforesaid encounter absolutely was (albeit, "in my dreams ...") absolutely consistent with what this woman ... whom I knew for more than twenty years ... "would have said in a similar situation," I am perfectly willing to accept it(!) as valid. Even though, of course, "my intellect" cannot explain it.

But, of course, I do not ask you to do the same. "By now, I guess it's just between the three of us."

---
So: I am entirely comfortable with(!) the essential notion that "I am, fundamentally and quite-irretrievably: "a 'b-l-i-n-d(!) man.'"

"You do not know, and, like it or not, you cannot know" ... therefore(!) "you are officially off the hook!" ...

---
I do not, and shall never, ask you to agree with me. I shall never judge you if you should happen to judge me, no matter what you say.

(In fact: once both of us have, in our inevitable turn, 'passed over to the Other Side,' the first "ROTFLMAO drink" is on me!)

("Aww, sh*t ... in our entire Earthly lives, did we ever have a cloo?" "Hell, no! But remember, we're both now officially done with that! Bartender ...")

Can all agree to disagree but there's still(shhh(cricket-chirp)) ri8ht, wr∞ng with ev∞luti∞n &sea, &see, &c... we chivy. :P

Evolution we are... until we're not ???why educate!

IMH(-occasionally;) only infinity in space & time is far more likely & helpful than ANY fairy tales as many choose to ignore the rest of them?

So you place more trust in prophets from thousands of years ago...(sic)

It depends purely on personal choice. If you are asking for my personal choice I say yes I trust the prophets more on prophetic matters than the blind scientist because the latter are employed to other professions and they are not learned in the subject matter.

when superstition was rampant

If you take superstition in your personal definition applied to prophetic points then it is yours alone. Mine is different. We can be equally correct though.

and education was minimal

Again the word education depends in what you accept and not accept as education. If you mean mathematics there were mathematics and calendars thousands of years ago. Education is more on refinement of human person, rather than a stock of silly theories blindly applied in faith and practice, e.g. concept of *human rights* which is heavily distorted in the western thought and practice, something new that can hardly apply among most oriental cultures, cultures that has been in the place thousands of years ahead than the west.

Add to this the fact that Religion attempts to be static, a Final Answer above scrutiny or reproach while Science not only welcomes scrutiny but has it as a basic tenet to maintain an evolving, improving understanding.

When did UN pass a Law not to scrutinize religion? I think you are welcome to scrutinize, cannibalize, or even revise to your own taste whatever religion you choose. The only inhibition is RESPECT WHATEVER YOUR FELLOW MAN HOLD DEAR TO BE HIS OWN because this is the foundation of all HUMAN RIGHTS.

Perhaps I'm overstating the case, but it appears there is not a level playing field in your judgment of the two.

If you are of that opinion then Thank You.