|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2006 11:51:40 AM · #176 |
HOLY COW! sorry pardon the pun
and now back to your regularly scheduled program |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:00:19 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
...Albeit, the government does have said authority to do so. And in lines with the established precepts for such a judge can sentence someone to life imprisonment. Of note, that judge cannot sentence just anyone to life imprisonment. He has no authority on his own to do such. He cannot imprison his neighbor for life. It must be through the act and dictates and establishment of the government. |
*****
Yes, we are well aware of a specific dictators dictates who has been imprisoning his neighbors and sentencing them to "life." In fact, he's even been accused of playing god. God help us all!
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:05:42 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Did you know that, if you are poor, you can get a discount for your “cleansing”? If your were poor, you could go down to your local Sacrifices-“R”-Us wholesale store and purchase one male lamb, two doves, two pigeons, about six quarts of grain and a log of oil. You still have to go through getting a blooded ear, thumb and big toe, however.
|
Actually, for those in need of the biblical leprosy cure, WALLmart is offering it totally free if you sign up for their credit card and have paid up your annual tithe in full. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:13:55 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Actually, for those in need of the biblical leprosy cure, WALLmart is offering it totally free if you sign up for their credit card and have paid up your annual tithe in full. |
I take it you're referring to the Jerusalem-based Wailing Wallmart. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:16:36 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Where in scripture does god say it's ok to use open-heart surgery, or genetically engineered medication for disease alleviation? |
So far as I can determine, nowhere. But it does contain references to "operations" ranging from circumcision to amputation, so I must assume that at least some surgeries are scripturally acceptable. Far be it from me to draw the line just what is and is not acceptable, within limits - For example, I would not consider an abortion of convenience to be a valid surgery, although I would consider an abortion to save the mother's life a valid surgery.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Seems to me that religionists require...demand, blind deference to their god, except when it suits their purposes otherwise. |
"Religionists" requiring deference to their god except when it suits their purposes? Yes - that seems to be a fair definition of "Religionists" to me. But, then again, I do not esteem "Religionists", in general, and am not, myself, what I would consider to be a "Religious" man.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If in the Christian view this life on earth is a mere passage to the final "glory of god" that awaits all those good christians after death, then why protest or rebel against a disease that was inflicted by the ultimate source of all fates, god? |
Your question is pre-loaded with the erroneous presumption that all / any disease is inflicted by God. While it is true that God occasionally directs that one becomes diseased ( Miriam of the O.T., for example ), it is far from the norm, and contrary to God's nature.
On the other hand, you are fair to criticize when a Christian protests and rebels against a disease when God has "permitted" that disease to come upon them. Rather, their energies should be focused on a) drawing closer to God to gain understanding of its purpose, and / or how to endure under it, and b) what course of action ought to be taken.
It is for each to determine God's will for them in the circumstance, then proceed accordingly. Of the Christians that I admire who have found themselves suffering severe, life-threatining diseases, some have accepted death as the end without fighting, and others have fought tooth-and-nail. Some have died, others have been cured - some in "normal" ways ( e.g. surgery, chemotherapy ), some miraculously ( e.g. no surgery, no medicine, just "healed" between visits to the doctor ).
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Why question god's actions? |
Why? To discern God's will, that's why. If your parents denied you something you desired, or disciplined you in a way you thought was too harsh, would you not inquire of them the reasons? Would you not determine through such questioning how to avoid such denials or disciplines in the future? One ought NOT question God's authority, but it is scripturally valid to seek clarification of His actions and His reasons. ( See Abraham's response when God told him that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah ). |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:25:26 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Your question is pre-loaded with the erroneous presumption that all / any disease is inflicted by God. While it is true that God occasionally directs that one becomes diseased ( Miriam of the O.T., for example ), it is far from the norm, and contrary to God's nature.
On the other hand, you are fair to criticize when a Christian protests and rebels against a disease when God has "permitted" that disease to come upon them. |
Hmm... wasn't this just mentioned? Ah, here it is... "Leviticus 14-
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ...if I put a leprous infection on any house of the land you occupy..."
That sure looks to me like God is being quite proactive in the infliction and, given the published procedures for handling a whole litany of skin diseases (see Leviticus 13), such inflictions would seem to be commonplace. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:28:29 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
To those who can read and understand, it should be extremely obvious from the introductory phrase, that the latter portion of my statement was in reference to a MAN, and a MAN only, not a house. |
OK, suit yourself... scripture offers no cure for a man with leprosy, only for HOUSES with leprosy. Yeah, that makes so much more sense. But I'm still confused... if in fact those those items are only used for a cleansing ceremony after a person is cured of an infectious skin disease, why aren't dermatologists or priests stockpiling doves and yarn? Was there some point at which God later said oh, nevermind... it's OK to skip all those old mandatory regulations? |
Good question - and the answer is Yes, it IS OK to skip all those old mandatory regulations. The old regulations were done away with when the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant - that would be the one instituted by the death of Christ. The Jews wouldn't stop their old ways, however, until, in AD 70, the Temple at Jerusalem was completely destroyed - thus preventing them from completing the rituals ( without a Temple and Altar they couldn't ( and still cannot ) perform the necessary sacrifices. ). |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:35:42 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
... then why protest or rebel against a disease that was inflicted by the ultimate source of all fates, god? |
To be fair, not all do ...
"... it has been a nervous year, and people have begun to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
--Tom Lehrer, from the introduction to Send the Marines! (1965)
Additional note: I recently chose to have my son's inflamed appendix removed -- I can post a photo the surgeon snapped for me if anyone's interested.
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 12:37:37. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:40:43 PM · #184 |
"I am sorry, but the Prof did not become the Prof without being able to present an argument intelligently. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter. "
Sorry, I've been to college. Therefore the title of Professor does not automatically equate to ability to present arguments intelligently.
In fact, said statement is a common fallacy. ("Appeal to Authority"). So whether I agree or not, the standards of common reasoning agree that such is not a valid argument but indeed a fallacy.
"If I had made it entirely devoid of controversy, there would be no interesting discussion"
Issue at hand is not one of being devoid of controversy, but simply questioning the need to attack a group with such a subjective based post. And as I've been criticized for doing such in the past. I simply want the same standard.
"Nazi vs. NAZI"
[ Sorry, my bad. I forget that Nazi is a diminutive expression for Nationalist, kept thinking of it more as an acronym. (akin to USA & USSR) ]
"My point was very much more direct in the way that I stated it '
[ Actually I said that was a good start. And said as long as it was kept there and added focus wasn't added. The rest of what I wrote was commentary and explanatory as I've found I have to go to great lengths to ensure the concepts I am stating is understood. It's clear you did not understand "[That's] a better start....as long as it is kept there."
"I do try and keep a modicum of objectivity in the phraseology of most of my posts: you are accusing me of something that we had quite a heated debate about when I accused you of using deliberately loaded phraseology"
[ As I recall, I was censored, had the title of my post changed, etc. Which was one of my objections that such were not applied universally on the part of the SC.]
"You have previously tried to argue that morality and the concept of rights is founded (to an extent) in religious principles. "
[ No, I have not...I've simply asked people to provide the reason and rational for the morals they accept. You always seem to interpret such statement incorrectly. And my multitude of endeavorings to re-iterate in numerous discussions appears to still have fallen on deaf ears. ]
"The vast majority of both atheists and religious people believe murder is wrong. Why? Sure, one might retort - "God said it!" but if he did, wouldn't he have reasons for doing so. So whether atheist or religious,...let's delve in to reason and see if we can come up with rational reasons that justify the common morality that most accept (Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not lie, etc.) "
[I added a point that expresses a specific exclusionary sentence for those who are religious who might retort "God said it! So I believe it!" as an endeavor to discourage such statements and keep it to rational discussion. I was not trying to compose a topic. Though perhaps if you were looking for such, the following might work, with the italicized section optional.
"The vast majority of both atheists and religious people believe murder is wrong. Why? Let's see if we can come up with rational reasons that justify the common moralities that most accept." ]
"I am not sure that you mean to put the belief in one true god in the same category as the belief in whote supremacy: I don't believe in either, but some people may be offended by your comparison. The post is about religion, so I am not sure why I would want to make the point more broad. Certainly, your suggested re-wording makes the point vague and pretty irrelevant as a point for discussion."
I think you are mistaking my statements as alternative wording. They're not. They're addressing aspects of the statements. They're commentary. And in that I was in no way equating the two topics to one another, except in that they are both a belief that when fundamentally held creates tension. The commentary was pointing to the fact that you did not need "one true God" aspect of belief common in the Abrahamic faiths to create tension and intolerance that is unhelpful in modern society
]
"Why else bother, if not to learn about (and sometimes from) different points of view?"
To provide opposing rational or rather show the weakness and fallacy of statements for the benefit of others who are reading.
I am not sure you are capable of changing your view. Perhaps you are, but I do not expect such. However, as much of what was in the article is easily dismissed as subjective and neither solid logical argument nor scientific I posted so as to show said statements for what they were. So that they would not continue unaddressed.
"If you only had dirty birds and blue yarn available, could you reduce the leprosy to psoraisis or maybe just a rash?"
Not likely...I do not believe such was a miracle cure nor that any of the remedy was in the natural events of said dictate. A method of obedience perhaps. As such, I believe said example is where one steps into faith.
"I am not sure that this overcomes the basic point that the death penalty does not sit comfortably with the comandment. "
[ As stated before, the commandment was to individuals and the methods and responsibilities of government & judges were expressed seperately. As well as the denotion that the judge does not enact such sentence of his own authority. ]
"While imprisonment was an option (I have passed the cells where St Paul wrote his letters in Ephesus)"
Really, hmmm...i missed that did I? I thought I denoted that the Romans were fairly efficient at it. And sure there were dungeons and prisons earlier such as Babylonian empires. But I do think I mentioned nomadic lifestyle is not conducive to such. And I did not say there were not other punishments for various tasks. But we were specifically addressing capital crimes. Were we not? Under Jewish law slavery was not a permanent punishment.
Scripture does indeed offer a cure for leprosy, albeit for infected houses (presumably this was before homes were vaccinated).
Thanks for a great example. And just what disease exactly is leprosy? Are we referring to Hansen's disease?
A quick trip to Wikipedia gives some insight: "The terms "leprosy" and "lepers" can also lead to public misunderstanding because the Bible uses these terms in reference to a wide range of skin conditions other than Hansen's disease."
In fact, the actual disease or infection that is being referred to and translated as Leprosy is not really known. It was translated into a disease that carried the common stigma of the time.
I find it very interesting that the prescribed cleansing dictates even the removal of the bricks. It calls for a stringent cleansing. Quite reminds me of the velveteen rabbit when they burned the sheets, bunny, etc. to rid of scarlet fever.
Now, if you realize that certain acts were of ritual cleansing but in fact the infestation/infection was removed by quite methodical, rational, even scientific methods. (Observe, if found scrub clean, observe some more, if infection continues remove stones and mortar. Gee...this sounds exactly what I had to do to deal with the mold infestation of my bathroom.) The hysop, the pidgeons, etc, were the ritual part of the process. I would in deed find it fascinating to see some of you try to explain modern knowledge and bateria to people 3,000 yrs ago. Likely terrify them and convince them they had millions of tiny demons in them called bacteria. So I find it very interesting that the process entails the necessary physical cleansing then incorporates a ritual process to declare it clean, which would allay many fears of the super-stitious. Is this an example of foolish mysticism or amazingly intelligent technique for controlling an infestation.]
Where in scripture does god say it's ok to use open-heart surgery, or genetically engineered medication for disease alleviation?
Why do atheists always assume that we need permission to do things. We were giving free will. Creativity. Etc. Yes, we believe some things are forbidden but nothing says we can't use the "wheel" cause it's a new invention. I've never quite understood why or from where you guys derive such logic. Is it simply derived from the fact (a) is restricted, therefore (b-z) must be restricted as well? A "Guilt by association" fallacy.
If in the Christian view this life on earth is a mere passage to the final "glory of god" that awaits all those good christians after death, then why protest or rebel against a disease that was inflicted by the ultimate source of all fates, god? Why question god's actions?
If the atheist thinks that they simply came about through random chance and once they die that's the end. Why continue to live?
There are many answers: to further one's family, to further humanity, to pursue dreams....I've faced the prospect of dying before. Did I want to die, not really. Was I determined to try and live...sure... but I also had a peace about accepting the result if otherwise. Now, mind you...there are matters of the heart. I am sure I would have much less peace if it were my child struggling with death and not myself. To which I reply...."I am, afterall, only human!"
why question God's actions? because we've been granted to do so. And frankly, I'm of the belief that many times, that's exactly what God wants us to do. So that we can understand...
- Saj
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:49:56 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Your question is pre-loaded with the erroneous presumption that all / any disease is inflicted by God. While it is true that God occasionally directs that one becomes diseased ( Miriam of the O.T., for example ), it is far from the norm, and contrary to God's nature.
On the other hand, you are fair to criticize when a Christian protests and rebels against a disease when God has "permitted" that disease to come upon them. |
Hmm... wasn't this just mentioned? Ah, here it is... "Leviticus 14-
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ...if I put a leprous infection on any house of the land you occupy..."
That sure looks to me like God is being quite proactive in the infliction and, given the published procedures for handling a whole litany of skin diseases (see Leviticus 13), such inflictions would seem to be commonplace. |
You seem to have a propensity of quoting out-of-context - even after having been exposed for doing so previously. The Leviticus quote that you mis-quoted actually reads thusly ( again, emphasis mine ): "When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession".
Note that God didn't say IF, He said WHEN...AND. How you derive that the infection was "commonplace" from that ( accurate ) quote is beyond me, especially considering that the Hebrews didn't enter the land of Caanan for many, many years. But then, it is becoming more and more apparant that you have no limits on the lengths you will go to in your quest to mock scripture.
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 12:55:24. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 12:55:12 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
In fact, the actual disease or infection that is being referred to and translated as Leprosy is not really known. It was translated into a disease that carried the common stigma of the time. |
Leprosy was used in those times to describe a variety of skin diseases. Pick whatever skin disease you like- houses don't get them. You might attribute this to a description of mold, but the priests are given the exact same visual characteristics to look for when diagnosing leprosy in people, and how many skin diseases look like mold?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Is this an example of foolish mysticism or amazingly intelligent technique for controlling an infestation. |
...or plain old common sense. Even the most primitive peoples might logically try to eliminate contaminated items. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:02:09 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Leprosy was used in those times to describe a variety of skin diseases. Pick whatever skin disease you like- houses don't get them. You might attribute this to a description of mold, but the priests are given the exact same visual characteristics to look for when diagnosing leprosy in people, and how many skin diseases look like mold? |
Really? Where in scripture does it say that the priest was to look for "hollow streaks, greenish or reddish" ( Leviticua 14:37 ) on a Man to determine if he had leprosy?
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 13:03:57. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:03:03 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to have a propensity of quoting out-of-context |
Just trying to keep it short. The only part of the quote that was really relevant is this: "I put a leprous infection." If you're suggesting that this was just a one-time infliction of disease at a specific time or place, note that there is no mention of Canaan in the King James or New International versions of Leviticus. Those are GENERAL statements. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:03:39 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to have a propensity of quoting out-of-context - even after having been exposed for doing so previously. The Leviticus quote that you mis-quoted actually reads thusly ( again, emphasis mine ): "When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession". |
I believe here God is speaking to the Jews as a people, not to an individual, and the English translators of this passage are almost certainly referring to "a house" as the members of the ruling family (as in Shakespeare's "a plague o' both your houses" -- Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene 1) and not to a literal dwelling.
Leprosy, or Hansen's Disease, as it is now known, is both a specific disease and the common name given to a variety of other skin conditions. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:07:06 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Really? Where in scripture does it say that the priest was to look for "hollow streaks, greenish or reddish" ( Leviticua 14:37 ) on a Man to determine if he had leprosy? |
Turn back one page. Leviticus 13- And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin... |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:09:49 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to have a propensity of quoting out-of-context |
Just trying to keep it short. The only part of the quote that was really relevant is this: "I put a leprous infection." If you're suggesting that this was just a one-time infliction of disease at a specific time or place, note that there is no mention of Canaan in the King James or New International versions of Leviticus. Those are GENERAL statements. |
Really? No CANAAN in the King James Bible in Leviticus? Check again. May I suggest this site: Leviticus, KJV
Look for verse 34, the ninth word.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:12:08 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to have a propensity of quoting out-of-context - even after having been exposed for doing so previously. The Leviticus quote that you mis-quoted actually reads thusly ( again, emphasis mine ): "When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession". |
I believe here God is speaking to the Jews as a people, not to an individual, and the English translators of this passage are almost certainly referring to "a house" as the members of the ruling family (as in Shakespeare's "a plague o' both your houses" -- Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene 1) and not to a literal dwelling.
Leprosy, or Hansen's Disease, as it is now known, is both a specific disease and the common name given to a variety of other skin conditions. |
If it were as you say, then it makes no sense to follow it with instructions to scrape its walls, and remove its bricks as a remedy. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 01:22:31 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Really? Where in scripture does it say that the priest was to look for "hollow streaks, greenish or reddish" ( Leviticua 14:37 ) on a Man to determine if he had leprosy? |
Turn back one page. Leviticus 13- And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin... |
Again, I would caution that one actually READ and attempt to UNDERSTAND scripture before mocking it.
The "skin" referred to in the phrase you quoted refers to skin used in garments - in other words, what we modernists would call "leather". In context it reads thusly ( Lev 13:47-49 ): "The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment; Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin; And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be showed unto the priest"
"The skin" ( underlined above, and used as your invalid reference ) is completely enclosed by references to garments and garment related materials.
Not the skin of a man ( unless used as a material to make garments - but then it is no longer part of a man's body ). |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:42:38 PM · #194 |
This thread appears to have become a debate about interpretation of one holy book. It was not intended to be so: the question was not directed specifically at Christianity, and I do not think that anyone here will beat RonB at interpreting versions of the Bible very carefully so as to support his consistent view. RonB has studied an awful lot and/or he has a very good book setting out responses to standard challenges to Biblical interpretation that have been very well thought out (I suspect both).
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:21:12 PM · #195 |
I will chop some of this for length and because I am working v hard and it is v late.
Originally posted by theSaj:
the title of Professor does not automatically equate to ability to present arguments intelligently. |
My comment was off the cuff, rather than a reasoned statement. He is a very intelligent man who speaks and argues very well in that documentary and in his many books. I am not sure why you think that two hours of documentary can be dismissed as unintelligent, especially as I suspect that you have not seen it.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Issue at hand is not one of being devoid of controversy, but simply questioning the need to attack a group with such a subjective based post. And as I've been criticized for doing such in the past. I simply want the same standard. |
I said that the issue, which essentially revolves around the fact that bad things are often done in the name of religion for subjective reasons, was interesting and the argument persuasive. I did not, for example, use diminutive words in relation to any religion or religious people, or use inflammatory language or deliberately misleading comparators.
Originally posted by theSaj:
[ As I recall, I was censored, had the title of my post changed, etc. Which was one of my objections that such were not applied universally on the part of the SC.] |
I was thinking of post-London bombings and you suggesting that Jewish people love their families whereas Palestinians send their children out as human bombs. But your post on Turkish politics was pretty offensive: you denigrated a specific religion and country and the damnatory heading in respect of one religion involved a logical leap from the evidence you posted.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"You have previously tried to argue that morality and the concept of rights is founded (to an extent) in religious principles. "
[ No, I have not...I've simply asked people to provide the reason and rational for the morals they accept. You always seem to interpret such statement incorrectly. And my multitude of endeavorings to re-iterate in numerous discussions appears to still have fallen on deaf ears. ] |
You assert that certain specific moral issues can be derived by rational thought. The implication is that finer moral points do not appear to have a rational reason for existing. In this context, the implication is that religion provides the moral background for finer moral issues. If you mean something else, please explain more clearly your reason for responding to a point with this long story, as this is the only coherent way that I can understand your reasons for telling it.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Why else bother, if not to learn about (and sometimes from) different points of view?"
To provide opposing rational or rather show the weakness and fallacy of statements for the benefit of others who are reading. |
Here we go again: you alone speak facts in black and whiteâ€Â¦ I find your style of “debate” very frustrating, as this is yet another post on the “meaning” of words or phrases, etc, without ever addressing the interesting issues at the heart of the matter, and I have gotten sucked into it again.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"While imprisonment was an option (I have passed the cells where St Paul wrote his letters in Ephesus)"
Really, hmmm...i missed that did I? I thought I denoted that the Romans were fairly efficient at it. And sure there were dungeons and prisons earlier such as Babylonian empires. But I do think I mentioned nomadic lifestyle is not conducive to such. And I did not say there were not other punishments for various tasks. But we were specifically addressing capital crimes. Were we not? Under Jewish law slavery was not a permanent punishment. |
My example was merely pretty much within the 2000-4000 year range that you were referring to, and more of an aside. Criticising it as here is petty and does not make your point any more valid. Getting back to a more interesting question, the argument you appear to be pushing relates to the practical implementation of a religious text: if religious texts were intended as practical guidelines, intended for application in and by a nomadic society, what quality should we give them in modern society? Literal interpretation, or within the understanding that they were prepared in and for practical use within ancient societies?
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 20:27:01.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:33:16 PM · #196 |
This thread makes me question the paranoia of the scientific community feeling that religion is overtaking them and their compiled tomes of facts. The mistake they make is that they expect to replace the scope of human experience with a paradign that throws out the human soul along with all spirituality. Not everybody is ready to accept this premise.
It will not matter how much science progresses. Even a simple human detects dimensions that are not measurable. A human is not as simple as the chemistry that constitutes his existance.
As you read this you will be experiencing a firing of neurons and no where is the curiosity aroused as to the unique ability to be perceiving the experience of life and awareness and the novel feature of the mind to penetrate and appreciate the abstract. No way to measure any of this.
Look, science is both good and bad and you have as many mule headed scientist as you have religious fanatics and both of these tend to take advantage of their supposed knowledge to misinform the populance at large.
In the larger scheme both religion and science are quite able to coexist and both have the right to feel superior to the other and also feel equally threatened. None can fill the need of the other. Some humans feel that spirituality is their path while others abhor any attachment to something bigger then they.
Yes, it is true that humans are born with the innate stamp to be both good and bad. Scienstist should never use the term evil because that is the property of the religious jargon. The subject of morality can not be addressed as a passing statement. Religion as well as science has helped many people and will continue to do so. Both have universal appeal and both camps can feel proud of what side they are on. The moment one side looks down on the other then you have an inferiority complex in the making which yields nothing good because such feelings blind an otherwise level headed being. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 09:07:52 PM · #197 |
religion SEEMS to be the root of all evil (I think)
coz it just made us all argue over it, LOL |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:49:31 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by crayon:
religion SEEMS to be the root of all evil (I think)
coz it just made us all argue over it, LOL |
Its also currently got half a million people in the street protesting and causing violence OVER SOME CARTOONS. Way to go. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 01:41:57 PM · #199 |
If I got an email claiming that a cartoon published in a Danish newspaper would cause global riots and violence six months later, I would have brushed it off as total insanity. And yet, it's TRUE total insanity. What's even more insane is that relatively few people knew or cared about the images when they were published, so Muslims themselves ran a huge publicity campaign to make sure everyone was sufficiently offended.
From CNN- "The Muslim coalition turned to foreign embassies, and then went on a tour of the Muslim and Arab world between December and January to call attention to the cartoons."
Of course, showing the illustrations is an affront to Islam (news reporters who've tried have been sacked), so these people can't even see what it is they're supposed to be offended by. This is like somebody telling you that an editor of a Cuban tabloid called Jesus a nasty name (but they can't tell you what it was), and then encouraging you to violently attack Cuba, Libya, Syria and Venezuela in protest.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 13:43:29. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 01:43:13 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This thread makes me question the paranoia of the scientific community feeling that religion is overtaking them and their compiled tomes of facts. |
This is nonsense. Science is not scared of religion in that it can be proven true against; it’s that it makes the people ignorant of science. It shouldn’t, but in today’s America, it does.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The mistake they make is that they expect to replace the scope of human experience with a paradign that throws out the human soul along with all spirituality. Not everybody is ready to accept this premise. |
I also think this is nonsense. In my personal opinion, those who seek out huge man made organized religions are the ones who lack their own spirituality.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It will not matter how much science progresses. Even a simple human detects dimensions that are not measurable. A human is not as simple as the chemistry that constitutes his existance.
As you read this you will be experiencing a firing of neurons and no where is the curiosity aroused as to the unique ability to be perceiving the experience of life and awareness and the novel feature of the mind to penetrate and appreciate the abstract. No way to measure any of this. |
No way to measure it yet. But this doesn’t change anything anyways, only increasing the wonder. Nor is it something that needs measure as it’s different for every human.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look, science is both good and bad and you have as many mule headed scientist as you have religious fanatics and both of these tend to take advantage of their supposed knowledge to misinform the populance at large. |
Show me one scientist who commands millions of followers who is even 1/8th as insane as Pat Robertson. And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else that’s more BS.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
In the larger scheme both religion and science are quite able to coexist and both have the right to feel superior to the other and also feel equally threatened. None can fill the need of the other. Some humans feel that spirituality is their path while others abhor any attachment to something bigger then they. |
I recommend you check out the book Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution written by a Christian scientist.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Yes, it is true that humans are born with the innate stamp to be both good and bad. Scienstist should never use the term evil because that is the property of the religious jargon. |
I agree. As Noam Chomsky once said; ” It’s a fair assumption that every human being is a moral person. We got the same genes, were more or less the same. But our nature, the nature of humans, allows for all kinds of behavior. Everyone one of us under some circumstances could be a gas chamber attendant and a saint.”
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The subject of morality can not be addressed as a passing statement. Religion as well as science has helped many people and will continue to do so. Both have universal appeal and both camps can feel proud of what side they are on. The moment one side looks down on the other then you have an inferiority complex in the making which yields nothing good because such feelings blind an otherwise level headed being. |
Again you’re trying to compare religion and science as if they are in the same category, which is obviously false. As I’ve said before, bald is not a hair color.
You don’t see “crazed atheists” burning embassies and killing people because someone insulted Darwin or Einstein. Yet TODAY its chaos in the Middle East because of some comics about Muhammad.
If people cannot make the distinction that religious dogma often creates separation, hate and violence, they refuse to see it.
The main argument by people like Dawkins (again I have provided a way for everyone to view this documentary on the previous page for free) is that that sort of irrational mentality, the one who would kill someone over a comic, discriminate and hurt someone for being gay, or murder their daughter because she had sex before you sold her into marriage, is detrimental to human society and has been throughout human existence. Examples are plentiful.
Today Christian white supremacists are regularly attacking blacks in Russia and Europe. It’s become a huge problem especially in soccer games. I just watched a special on this by Bryant Gumbel.
My girlfriend grew up in a US oil camp in Saudi Arabia. She had Saudi neighbors. One time one of her Saudi neighbors, who regularly beat his wife, murdered his wife. The man was never charged of a crime and continued to live there at the camp because in Saudi, women are the property of the men.
Today the most non-progressive and backwards places on earth are in the Middle East, which is also extremely religious. Religious people and governments.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 13:44:52. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:56 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:56 PM EDT.
|
