Originally posted by finti
which meansthat the entire baseic of their believes is wrongwell the leaders of the Christian cult picked what they wanted to be put in the bible, a lot of thing was scraped. Things that didnt make Jesus perfect as a son of God should be, Jesus being married wouldnt make him the perfect and pure divine being they wanted him to be displayed as.
And some of the gospels that were scraped, like the Gospel of Thomas very much said that Jesus was married. But the Gnostic gospels didnt tell about Jesus as a divine being nor that you had to be divine to have a direct contact to God, so it never made "The NT".
Please link me to this information. I know of many mistranslations, but I've never heard of Jesus being married or things that Jesus did that made him imperfect.
Jesus being married would make him imperfect as the pure son of God the Church wants him to be. Married people tend to do something the church cant handle......sex. Jesus is suppose to be clean, untouched and pure as the sacrificial lamb of humanity he is portrayed in the church.
The gospel of Thomas ,the gospel of Phillip ,secret book of James, Gospel of Mary. I learned about them in the Religion classes in college, at least their they teach about all religions not only christianity. Christianity the sole subject of religious teachings we had throughout the 9 years we went to primary school
Just search the web for it and you will find out about them
The church and especially the Vatican dispute these gospel as being heretic which aint a surprise since they rock the foundation of what christianity is built upon.
Just to emphasize on the purity stuff here is some lyrics by Christian Rock group Petra
Red is the color of the blood that flowed
Down the face of Someone Who loved us so
He's the perfect man, He's the Lord's own son,
He's the Lamb of God, He's the only one
That can give us life, that can make us grow,
That can make the love between us flow.
Blue is the color of a heart so cold
That will not bend when the story's told
Of the love of God for a sinful race
Of the blood that flowed down Jesus face
That can give us life, that can make us grow
That can keep our hearts from growing cold.
Gold is the color of the morning sun
That shines so freely on every one
It's the sun above that keeps us warm
It's the Son of Love that calms the storm
That can give us life that can make us grow,
That can turn our mornings into gold.
Brown is the color of the autumn leaves
When the winter comes to the barren trees
There is birth, there is death, there is a plan
And there's just one God, and there's just one man
That can give us life, that can make us grow
That can make our sins as white as snow
That can give us life, that can make us grow
That can turn our mornings into gold.
That can give us life, that can make us grow
That can keep our hearts from growing cold.
That can give us life, that can make us grow
That can make the love between us flow
Windancer> I am sorry if I can’t remember your first post in this thread! I can’t honestly remember every single post in this thread.
Once again: Why shouldn’t I dismiss religion. I look back at the past 1000 years, and see religion causing wars, famine, poverty, racism, genocide, death and seen church-officials whose morals are questionable to say the least. The Catholic church still bans contraception in areas were a lower birth-rate and condoms would help societies. That is LUNACY!
Religion burned and tortured scientists, and would preferably have women running around in the kitchen as birth-machines. What good has religion and religious thinking done?
And the people you mention, like Descartes, did what to further religion? Living in a time when NOT being religious was considered heresy and could get you sentenced to jail or death wasn’t really furthering freedom of choice, no?
What is the meaning of life in your view? I see NO meaning with life metaphysically speaking. I can enjoy it regardless, free from ancient feelings of guilt and sin over things that are not a crime.
What can you prove using metaphysics? Nothing. Perhaps things do NOT have an essence beyond what you, yourself, put into them. Maybe we’re not MEANT to do anything while we’re on Earth. Life is what you make of it, and how you use it.
MCELite> I think religion is wrong because of this thread – among things. That a group of people with power now want to teach young people something which cannot be proven. I think it’s a terrible idea to teach our youth to just believe in stuff and not question it and ask for some kind of evidence.
And I agree> Life is a lot more fun without purpose and meaning aside from the purpose and meaning I, myself, give to it. I’m free of the fear of Hell, should I trespass against some ancient law. If my parents are idiots I don’t want to respect them.
I’m a moral person. Not based on religion, but based on the simple observation that people are just that – people. And none are better than others. So do to others what you wish done to yourself.
I can’t remember when, but sometime before the year 1000 there was a meeting between church-officials. They sat down, and chose the books that now, today, comprise the Bible. Some were left out – the apocrypical (??) books.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html
http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/JesMar-Letter.html
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/davincicode.html
Darwin himself, in his work, The Origin of Species, acknowledged that there was missing from the fossil record definite links that verify his theories. He states:
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.
But it may be urged that when several closely-allied species inhabit the same territory we surely ought to find at the present time many transitional forms. Let us take a simple case: in travelling from north to south over a continent, we generally meet at successive intervals with closely allied or representative species, evidently filling nearly the same place in the natural economy of the land. These representative species often meet and interlock; and as the one becomes rarer and rarer, the other becomes more and more frequent, till the one replaces the other. But if we compare these species where they intermingle, they are generally as absolutely distinct from each other in every detail of structure as are specimens taken from the metropolis inhabited by each. By my theory these allied species have descended from a common parent; and during the process of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states. Hence we ought not to expect at the present time to meet with numerous transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed there, and may be embedded there in a fossil condition. But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. But I think it can be in large part explained."
Darwin goes on to explain this by using the earth's changing crust to explain the lack of fossil record backing up his claims of evolution. Without that concrete fossil record showing the bonafide link between one species and another, his claims are empty, to a great degree.
Don't get me wrong, you can't deny changes in nature. And you can't deny that evolution takes place to some extent. However, never in the past and never in the future will one species "evolve" into another species. It just doesn't happen.
I'm a Christian, yet I know that science has a place in this world, and I'm willing to let science explain a great many things. I'm perfectly aware that our old blue ball is billions of years old, and I'm not afraid to say it. Anybody who takes the Bible literally, especially concerning the creation, is a moron.
Having said that, I'll stop typing.
corn
The Omega>Metaphysics proves nothing??? To quote Aristotle "All men by nature desired to know" This innate desire is not only desire to know in order to do or make something. In addition to these pragmatic motives, there is in a person a desire to know certain kinds of things simply for the sake of knowing. An indication of this, says Aristotle is, "the delight we take in our senses, for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves" inasmuch as our seeing "makes us know and brings light many differences between things". Metaphysics is a study of the ultimate nature in things!
In my view the meaning of life is to "question" every thing in nature. Including my own nature, and my own existence! If possible the nature of others as well. What is Philosophy, Religion, Science ultimate goal? Here is a posible answer: "Knowledge". All 3 take very VERY different paths in their search for that "Knowledge" that is beyond our experiences! When you tell me "Religion kills people" that's your negative view on Religion! I gave 2 examples of Philosophers Saints that contributed to Teleology! Whether you chose to consider knowledge or not their contribution is greatly appreciated.
Also my example of Descartes is very simple. Here is a man who is a great scientist (of his time) also a mathmatician, that help answer many questions about God. He was also a religious man! Proving that both Science and Religion can work together! Instead of bashing each other both should work together and find the reasons of the purpose of humanity! But nooo!!!!..... both creationist and evolutionist are too proud to view each others ideas!
By my theory these allied species have descended from a common parent; and during the process of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states.
well like the apes we humans are primates so that kind of goes along with your theory of descending from a common parent.
Only thing is all the primates evolved differently, one into being far superior to the others
Cornponious> Yes, there are things missing from the fossil-record. It’s not that easy to MAKE a fossil. That biologist are able to draw conclusions from the fossil-records however shows the power of it.
During the Cretaceous period (up until 65 Mio years ago) the continents broke up into the forms we know today and started drifting.
“Linkalicious> About opening doors and convicts. We want culture and nature. The well-mannered guy appears to know his way around in cities. The convict appears as a rebel, a fighter, exiting and dangerous (generalised of course).” Reda my firts replies to this thread. Macro-evolution HAS been observed in nature.
Windancer> Metaphysics does indeed prove nothing. It’s belief and faith. Yes, humans are curious by nature about our surroundings and originally religions explained that, which we did not understand about our world. Today science does.
Yes, we take delight in the simple use of our senses. And? You say metaphysics is a study of the “ultimate nature” in things.” How do you know that “thing” have this “ultimate nature”? perhaps they just exist and have no ULTIMATE attached to the?
It’s good to question every thing around us. But to me, only to a certain degree. Perhaps that is how we differ in nature. I find no pleasure in questioning why my lamp is shaped as it is, beyond it is an effective way of getting light to my table. I prefer looking at the Universe, and ask scientific questions about said Universe. What I feel, what I sense is something that goes on inside me.
You say Descartes answered many questions about God. Descartes being a great scientist and mathematician doesn’t make him an expert on whether or not God even exists. I did not say there are NO religious scientists. Nor scientifically-minded religious people. Some people just need to believe there is a meaning to life, or a life after death, but do not take religious texts to the letter, and waste our time insisting the Earth is 6000 years old, when that cannot be proven.
“Instead of bashing each other both should work together and find the reasons of the purpose of humanity!” But you are, once again, ASSUMING that such a reason or such a purpose even exists. I question that. So should you, to quote you from the beginning of your post.
The Omega> Of course I question my own way of thinking. Even my own ideas of existence. We agree that as human beings we question all. Shouldn't you question Evolution? Or do you accept it as the absolute reason for our existence?
So in you opinion Metaphysics will get us nowhere. Then you say that a thing exist and it doesn't have an "ultimate nature". How are we gonna know this without digging deep into question of the thing itself. You reply that we should question everything to a certain degree. But isn't that putting limits on our method of thinking? If we were to put limits in our ways of thinking then there is no purpose for Philosophical inquires, that could be disastrous! We cannot put a limit on our questions! Because that particular desire that is in us continues to ask this question: Is that it?. I would answer NO! There is more to search. What makes me think that there is more to search? Simple is called "The Forms". To quote Aristotle once again in the study of Metaphysics "The forms are the cause of the essence of all other things, and the One (The Prime Mover of existence) is the cause of things".
Philosophers are notirous for not putting "restrictions" on asking questions. For example What is the nature of consciousness? Asking the question is simple, but determining the answer is not! By studyin the brain's physical processes scientist are seeking clues about how the subjective inner life of the mind arises. Once they find it do you think they will say "We are done" Of course NOT. New questions will arise, that will be more complicated and will involve many more philosophical inquiries! So you see no matter how many discoveries science makes, there will always be new inquiries. Until the "ultimate nature" is found.
Windancer> I do not question evolution as I question and disregard Creationism. There is too much evidence in support of evolution. It would be terrible arrogant to just discard what more than a hundred years of studies in biology, zoology, paleozoology and evolution has shown us about how life arose, evolved, and changed during millions of years for me to question the general idea. The details of it are not 100 % clear, but the general idea seems to me to be the correct one. COULD it, conceivably be wrong? Yes it could. But there are no theories out there, that comes even close to explaining life as well-founded as evolution.
But evolution is not the REASON why we exist, understood in the contexts of “Meaning of life.” Evolution just happens.
Let me try to explain better my views on metaphysics. To me people are just people. We all seem to work the same way – more or less – we have the same fundamental needs like food, water, air, shelter, companionship, that we attempt to cover. We freeze when its cold, sweat when its hot, get ill, get hungry and eventually die. What we perceive and agree upon is a common ground. Now, if someone tells me rocks are alive I’ll sure as Hell question that. I’ll ask for proof. If the other person says “I feel it in my heart”, that proves nothing. What one single person feels, insists upon or believes doesn’t cover the “common ground.” It depends upon the person looking at the rock. And I think it’s a terrible waste of human resources and time – call me pragmatic if you like, I probably am, but to me there is ultimate freedom in the short amount of time we have on Earth, if I don’t get other peoples’ personal ideas and beliefs shoved down my throat. Can they PROVE that they’re right it’s something else. Can other people prove the same thing, it’s common ground. Then it will be the kind of thing that will unite people instead of driving them apart.
So “no”, I don’t think “things” have any “ultimate nature” beyond what we can measure. How can we know this? There doesn’t seem to be ANY evidence pointing in that direction. If someone tomorrow proves, say, that rocks ARE alive I’ll change my mind, but as long as its something that you have to BELIEVE – nope, I’m not buying it.
I don’t see that as limiting our thinking. On the contrary. Why not put our energy, time and resources into the things we can prove, instead of basing our lives on beliefs (which are INDEED often limiting in how we think). How will you know what metaphysical ideas are right and which ones are wrong? Look at all the cults and sects. Maybe they are right? Look at all the different Christian groups, who can’t even agree on how to interpret the Scriptures.
Sure, go ahead and question everything. But do you question how your computer works? That the sun shines? That it’s cold on the North-pole? I’d rather ask questions about the things that are still puzzles and riddles, and which science still hasn’t found an answer to: How to cure AIDS and cancer. How to understand gravity in the atomic-world, how to rid the world of famine and illness. I prefer to ask the kind of questions where the answers will actually make a DIFFERENCE to more people than ME.
You have chosen to believe there is MORE to life. I don’t see any reason to believe that. And of course Aristoteles and co. in Ancient Greece marvelled at forms. They invented geometry, and to them forms were absolutely amazing. Back then people also believe the Earth had the shape of a large cylinder, and that the four elements were the foundation of everything. So not everything from “back then” is to be taken seriously, you know? So maybe there IS no “ultimate nature” to things at all. Maybe there IS no meaning to life.
Philosophy is fine. Sometimes I just think it gets terribly muddled and philosophy is notoriously riddled with lack of proof.
And there is a big difference between asking about our conscience (which each person on Earth will agree exists) and then asking for a higher meaning of life.
Perhaps you can understand MY way of thinking with the following: Is there life after death? We don’t know that. Maybe we never will. My answer is :”I have no idea. I’ll cross that bridge when I find it.” 🙂
Once again: Science is NOT religion. And it won’t be – just because you say it.
The Omega> So when you say "I do not question Evolution. There is too much evidence in support of evolution" that means you don't accept revisionism??? Are you aware of the importance of reconsidering any established practices, views, or beliefs? For me it is important to be inquisitive about ANY idea, theory, or even law in the sciences! Not because I feel like it! But because there isn't an absolute truth! The only case I could accept an absolute truth would be in the realm of mathematics. But even there, you will find formulas or even answers that require further investigation!
You continue to dismiss Metaphysics and saying that "life may NOT have a meaning". If that's your choice then that's fine! So for you the forms established by Plato and Aristotle were only ideas of "back then" and not to be taken seriously? There is far much more to that! It most certainly consider that their ideas are no longer consider scientific, but just because they are no longer scientific therefore we should dismiss them? What a terrible mistake that would be in the search of knowledge! Which does exist! Problem is finding the "correct" way of thinking! Because it does exist in our mind. The human mind is the most incredible tool of reasoning and thinking! Which I cherish and most certainly appreciated!
When you tell me that scientists should concern with the "real" questions of finding solutions to the problems like cancer, famine, or AIDS, I have no objection to that! But when scientist or supporters of evolution claim that is the ONLY reason of our past.....I seriously question that! Same with creationist and their ideas of our past!
Pragmatic? Maybe more like Existentialist! Because an Existentialist focuses on the individual person. It concerns more on the concrete existing indiviuals as they face choices and decision of life. That's fine! if you or anyone else accepts to be that. But then again is that enough for a person? Not really! In view as long the persistence of inquiries exist in a person's mind the individiual would not settle for fragments of an idealism.
To quote you: "Perhaps you can understand MY way of thinking with the following: Is there life after death? We don’t know that."
We as humans with the power to think, cannot even understand life! How are we gonna understand death? 🙂
You probably heard this before: "Where chaos begins, classical science stops. For as long as the world has had physicists inquiring into the laws of nature, it has suffered a special ignorance about disorder in the atmosphere, in the fluctuations of the wildlife populations, in the oscillations of the heart and the brain. The irregular side of nature, the discontinuous and erratic side -- these have been puzzles to science, or worse, monstrosities." Jame Gleick in Chaos: Making A New Science
“Linkalicious> About opening doors and convicts. We want culture and nature. The well-mannered guy appears to know his way around in cities. The convict appears as a rebel, a fighter, exiting and dangerous (generalised of course).” Reda my firts replies to this thread. Macro-evolution HAS been observed in nature.
TheOmega> When in the heck did i say anything about this? I haven't been a real part of this arguement since the very 1st thing i typed and i haven't participated in this discussion for days...
So erm obviously the evoloution theory should be taught and the creationism theories shouldnt be taught as fact but they should probably be mentioned being a major part of a religion ... and i know that religious people of done alot of stupid stuff in the past using scriptures and stuff to justify their actions but u shouldnt just give up on religions because of crazy people religion has also done a lot of good for the world. It would be like banning violent movies cos it "makes people violent" they would be violent any way.
Originally posted by WindDancer
The Omega> So when you say "I do not question Evolution. There is too much evidence in support of evolution"
You put that in quotation-mark, so WHERE did I say what you just quoted me for saying? Ob-viously you do not really read WHAT I write, or you wouldn’t make such an obvious blunder. SO, please re-read my last reply and we can discuss revisionism all you want.
What I DID say was that I do not question evolution as I question Creationism. There is too much evidence in support of evolution for me to do that. While some details are still hotly de-bated, the fact that we’ve evolved from less advanced life-forms to the form we have today, and will continue to evolve seems quite clear to me.
We’re not talking about reconsiderations here. For me to dismiss evolution someone will have to prove another theory to me, that both explains what evolution does and more and does it better. I’m not a biologist, so I won’t go around claiming I can prove a better theory, when I’m not educated in life-science. I can do research in the field of science I’m schooled in. I’m not arrogant enough to believe I can topple, say, deeply held principles in psychology, sociology or zoology. I’m not an expert. So why should I waste my and others time pretending I could do that?
Yes, I dismiss metaphysics. Could you tell me ONE good reason why I shouldn’t? What good has claiming metaphyics done mankind? And again, not all ideas that arose in Ancient Greece are still valid - or do you think we should claim the Earth is shaped like a cylinder?? Come on, answer me that simple question, I asked you once already.
”There is far much more to that!” Say you! You don’t KNOW that, you can’t prove that, you just BELIEVE that.
”It most certainly consider that their ideas are no longer consider scientific, but just because they are no longer scientific therefore we should dismiss them?”
Sure. Once people believed thunder arose when god Thor swung his hammer. I’ll dismiss that today, thank you very much.
”What a terrible mistake that would be in the search of knowledge!”
What? Dismissing false ideas or superstition?
”When you tell me that scientists should concern with the "real" questions of finding solutions to the problems like cancer, famine, or AIDS, I have no objection to that! But when scientist or supporters of evolution claim that is the ONLY reason of our past.....I seriously question that!”
As is your right. It just doesn’t necessarily lead anywhere. You must accept that fact that per-haps here is NO meaning to life, no higher purpose, no ultimate nature. If you cannot at least accept the possibility your questions are flawed.
It IS enough for me - a person - to be what you may call an existentialist. I have no problems with ideals or idealism - my problem is pointlessness. Or what I view as pointlessness.
What caused humans to develop the way they did? No debate. I just find it strange that we as humans are so much more advanced than any of the other creatures on the planet. It seems to me that there would have to be some event that pushed us in this direction while not affecting the other organisms of the world.
Originally posted by The Omega
You put that in quotation-mark, so WHERE did I say what you just quoted me for saying? Ob-viously you do not really read WHAT I write, or you wouldn’t make such an obvious blunder. SO, please re-read my last reply and we can discuss revisionism all you want.
You said: " I’m not arrogant enough to believe I can topple, say, deeply held principles in psychology, sociology or zoology. I’m not an expert. So why should I waste my and others time pretending I could do that?"
Why do you continue to use the word "arrogant" No one is being arrogant here! Also No one is claiming to be a certified expert on any field. Including me! I don't see why would someone be wasting time with a topic that involves a theory. What we are doing is discussing our ideas or views on the debate of Evolution.
You said:"Yes, I dismiss metaphysics. Could you tell me ONE good reason why I shouldn’t? What good has claiming metaphyics done mankind? And again, not all ideas that arose in Ancient Greece are still valid - or do you think we should claim the Earth is shaped like a cylinder??" then you said: "Come on, answer me that simple question, I asked you once already." Now how can I answer you in a metaphysical sense when YOU continue to say "I dismiss metaphysics" So how do you expect me to reply? I gave the suggestion of the "Forms" why don't we start from there? As for the answer in your second question: No! the Earth is not shaped like a cylinder! (Unless a person is member of the Flat Earth society, but I won't get into that) I don't recall Aristotle ever claiming that the Earth was flat!
Then you said this: "You must accept that fact that per-haps here is NO meaning to life, no higher purpose, no ultimate nature. If you cannot at least accept the possibility your questions are flawed." I could accept that, but am I doing the logical thinking? No! I said earlier I question my way of thinking! I also asked if YOU question your own thinking! If a person doesn't question her/his own way of thinking, then it can be consider flawless! Again I point to revisionism argument.
There one thing I want to make clear before I go on. For me Evolution (in a biological sense) is the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits. Now what I think (I could have the wrong idea) is that certain people confuse the theory of evolution with what is known as "Social Darwinism" which I think are two very different ideas.