Religion anyone?
-
@unknownuser said:
...you should judge a man by his fruits.
(sorry, can't help having dirty thoughts sometimes...) -
Guys,
I wrote just a few ideas for those of you who desire A TRUE LIFE, not a "religious" one! Every person is direct (i)responsible for himself, for his faith! If that faith is based on his own idols (above, there are many deductive examplesâŠ), Iâm very sorry for that âliving human beingâ!
Think regarding âsalvationâ: âHow shall we escape, if WE NEGLECT SO GREAT SALVATIONâŠâ?! (Hebrews 2:3)
Cornel
-
@chango70 said:
I agree sure but my point was the alternative you posited are based on previous experience of the person which can be independently shared by any number of individuals who experienced rain before encountering this event.
How's that again?
@chango70 said:
It doesn't in anyway make God more likely.
Actually, I think God is inevitable (as in Alan's excellent post). All that really remains is discovering the mechanisms He used.
But it points out that you've been trying to argue the evidence does not prove the existence of God, while I've been arguing that the evidence does not prove a single conclusion. It's akin to a debate between two fellows:
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
I'm telling you, that wall is red!
@unknownuser said:
That doesn't prove that the window doesn't needs curtains! They absolutely need curtains!
@unknownuser said:
See, your last response fails to show that the wall could be any color but red!
@unknownuser said:
That dogmatic stance is exactly why you fail to see the need for curtains for the windows!
Ad nauseum...
-
I think this is an interesting reading about Religion :
True Unity
There are two methods of unification; the first way of unification is practiced by governments and religions: subduing the masses, restricting freedoms and ultimately reworking the human psyche to serve the wholeâunity. In order to accomplish this goal each particular must be weakened to the state were the combining of particulars becomes possible. The law, governmental or religious, is administered with this goal in mind.Jails are a prime example of a system meant to break the spirit, similar to how the regiment of military discipline hammers the soul into rigid service. Those who survive the punishment of the law remain hard-crusted and often aloof to protect their hard won freedom from the system. Religion is another way of breaking the spirit; religious laws implore guilt not as a verdict, but as a way of life from which there is no relief. In Torah, law and justice are symbiotic, each unable to exist aloneâthere is no justice without law and law without justice is: just us.
The true unity is found hereon earth, not through the melding of particulars into nations with governments or religions with their ideologies and dogma, but through compassion. Compassion goes beyond law and into the way of the divine. Just as the torso is the fulcrum of the limbs, so too is compassion the place of unity; true unity which is synonymous with love and beauty is personified in woman and is the coming reward in the last 1000 years cycle called the Thousand Years of Woman.
Destined to encompass the earth in just a short few centuries beginning in the year 6000 in the Hebrew calendar, this seventh and final thousand years is also known as the Shabbotâ1000 years denoting rest like the seventh day of the week. Now and for the next couple of centuries is the time of preparation for when the next stage of human evolution: human bodies will grow from the bones planted in the earth, bodies that will live for a thousand years because they are a pure housing of the entirety of the soul.
from Dovid Krafchow
-
@alan fraser said:
Any true scientist knows that there is more than one explanation and that all theories are just that...supposition based on observable fact...even if they are often initiated by unsupported moments of inspiration.
Aargh! Nonsense. A theory is NOT that. For goodness' sake try to at least read some serious philosophy of science before you make daft claims like that.
Snip religious nonsense...
@unknownuser said:
Although I fully support the advances in knowledge of the scientific Greats,
'the scientific Greats' is another bit of nonsense. The theories are not good because they are proposed by 'scientific Greats'. Science is NOT NOT NOT a religion where Truth is handed down by Great Powers.
@unknownuser said:
The Wave/Particle duality of light is well known, but I'd bet good money that it is, in fact, neither a wave or a particle.
Light, as all electromagenetic phenomena, is transmitted as photons. Photons are discrete chunks of energy. Read a bit about Quantum ElectroDynamics - I recommend some of Richard Feynmans popular books for a rough introductions.
@unknownuser said:
Gravity is even more mysterious. It is everywhere; its range is apparently limitless; its effects are instantaneous, or at least it travels far faster than light. Some believe it to be particle-based, others more like a wave or universal matrix. Basically we don't have a clue other than it appears to be intimately related to both space and time.
What? Where on earth do you get that idea from? Certainly not from any serious scientific source. There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light.
@unknownuser said:
Sure, we can model it mathematically in precise detail
...we can send spacecraft to slingshot their way from planet to planet and end at a destination with near pinpoint accuracy...but we don't know what it actually IS.Did you know that Newtonian mechanics is adequate for handling probes to Pluto etc?
@unknownuser said:
The way it is traditionally modelled is that every atom of matter in the universe is exerting a gravitational pull (by whatever means) on every other atom. This is an inferencing system that puts SU to shame. Furthermore...whether you attribute this to attractor particles or some kind of wave...energy is involved. The performance hit in SU would be nothing compared to this. To keep this up forever and over infinite distances would require more energy than exists in the entire universe.
What gibberish. If it were the case that 'would require more energy than exists in the entire universe' then it couldn't be that way - not to mention that you are abusing the terms 'forever' and 'infinite distances' horribly.
Snip more nonsense...
@unknownuser said:
Entanglement appears to be an observable fact...and Entanglement seems to suggest that everything is still touching, not racing away from everything else at vast speeds.
Oh, ok, let's not let reality get in the way. I'll go rub my Special Crystals with Holy Water soaked Blessed Tissues or whatever.
-
@tim said:
argh! Nonsense. A theory is NOT that. For goodness' sake try to at least read some serious philosophy of science before you make daft claims like that.
Id be interested to hear what you think the definition of a scientific theory is.
@unknownuser said:
'the scientific Greats' is another bit of nonsense. The theories are not good because they are proposed by 'scientific Greats'. Science is NOT NOT NOT a religion where Truth is handed down by Great Powers.
But their are people who have had better ideas, and have subsequently thought of better theories than others. I think this is the sort of person alan was talking about, rather than some all seeing scientists who dishes out theories by popular demand.
@unknownuser said:
What? Where on earth do you get that idea from? Certainly not from any serious scientific source. There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light.
Do you know what gravity is, at the most fundamental level?
@unknownuser said:
What gibberish. If it were the case that 'would require more energy than exists in the entire universe' then it couldn't be that way - not to mention that you are abusing the terms 'forever' and 'infinite distances' horribly.
Not a fan of the fundamental forces then?
-
I want to write something to response somehow to all your thoughts Paris, Modelhead and others. I wanted to find a comfortable time to add something, but it seems I have to join here, otherwise it could be completely out of a context.
My own vision of the World is pretty crystallized, although I do my best to keep my ears open. Paris it talking about common intelligence, something we all share, have access to. Connel is writing about salvation and Juan want to hear something about eternity. I have so much to say. Probably I will write a book, when will be older.
My world is build around love. I have written about my personal experience of a deepest feeling ever in 'I believe.... part two' thread.
What if Love is this energy that binds all together? Love that is humble and fragile, yet powerful. What if we all are able to 'tune ourselves' to receive it? What if salvation means letting this love to dwell within us? What if I am crying out to meet the Love again? It is my deepest desire. I could call it a 'longing for an eternal meeting'. Plot you will live not as a part of collective spirit, but as a individual submerged in Love. It will do nothing to stop you doing bad things. In its presence, you will not be able to. It would be too rude, too cruel. There will be no condemnation by Love. All whose lives were far from love will simply be condemned by their acts as they will realize instantly how blind they were, how stupid, how selfish, how empty. There will be nothing to say, no defence at all. We all we will see us as we really are. That is why it is important to live in a truth.. there will be less surprise for us,in what we will see.
Being good doesn't mean being perfect. So many are trying to be and get just a frustration. Willingness to be good takes source in meeting someone good, you want to follow.
Jesus said that his 'food' was hearing and doing everything what Father said. For him Father and Love it is same person, same thing. That is how I feel it. My spirit following the Love, that is alive within me, cryies out: 'Father!!!' and this inner shout takes birth in a deepest point in my soul. It has same authenticity, as my memories of the meeting with the Father. I want to do more, to help others discover we are not orphans. We ALL have a Father.
To easier understand how love works I am using a comparison with an opposite - hate. Hate, if will take you in its possession, will drag you, force you to do something, will internally destroy you and in the end will spill you out completely wrecked. Love works opposite. Its invitation can be easily missed, it will guide you, but you will find your will is not compromised at all. You will notice that it feeds you and helps to develop your talents and in the end will leave you wiser and surprisingly more independent.
Reaching to the root of my experience is my ultimate goal in my life. I want to get there and take as much as I can to share with others. Being a husband and a father helps me a lot. It was looking much easier to hide from the World and play a monk, but it was not what I really wanted.
Take care
Tomasz
-
Solo - chop liver?
-
@unknownuser said:
plot - funny guy!!
Cornel - relax you are saved
Rick - still tangled in symantics
JuanV - you got the spirit!!
Tomasz - love will make it happen
Tim - other than the shots at Alan....I don't get it?
solo - chop liver
model head??????
nomeradona - appreciate this thread coz the more i understand the heart of the people around me.
in this forum the moment i open it, i dont go to the gallery, nor su discussion, nor other appli, but corner bar first. because i find this corner really interesting. other forum sits , its always the other way around.
-
Back off Tim. I both read and understand serious science...rather more than the populist introductory stuff you recommend. I'm also discussing this thread while working alongside my son...who happens to agree with me. His degree's in Astrophysics. Serious enough for you? Arrogance never is pretty...especially when coupled with ignorance. For instance, you scoff at the notion of wave/particle duality. Do YOU know anything about Quantum mechanics? The double slit experiment demonstrating wave/particle duality was performed decades ago. Richard Feynman seems unaware of the fact that is has been performed for real, rather than just in theory.
You, however, seem to reject the notion of wave/particle duality altogether, informing me that light is simply a stream of photons. If not, why quote me on it, as if it was gibberish instead of a central tenet of quantum mechanics?@unknownuser said:
What? Where on earth do you get that idea from? Certainly not from any serious scientific source. There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light.
I refer you to the last line in the Abstract at the top of this paper. It is not written by some religious nut. I'm not saying he is right, but then neither are you in your assertion that..."There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light." Even after Kopeikin's 2002 experiment using Jupiter to validate Einstein's theory, there still seems to be a measure of controversy that refuses to go away.
You seem to be willfully misinterpeting what I wrote and making out it's semi-mystical mumbo-jumbo. It's nothing of the sort.
You're at liberty to dispute the science; professional scientists do that all the time to each other; that is the nature of scientific debate. However, mistaking science for a religious rant leads me to doubt your powers of comprehension.
You're disputing Entanglement? You'd better inform Stanford and other leading research facilities...and Schrodinger who came up with the concept...and the guys that have already proved it by laboratory controlled experiments in quantum cryptography. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
I assume you think superstring theory is just mystic hippy weirdness as well? -
nomer, I have to agree with you. this thread is responsible for me spending hours of my time in the office reading instead of modelling (may that be the reason why I have been fired yesterday?
). it is a great discussion with faszinating points of view and (sometimes almost too) enthusiastic posts.Tomasz, I like your idea of love being an elemental force in our world (I understand you talking about the love that makes a parent stand between the danger and his children to protect them rather than the love that makes two young people do naughty things on a sofa).
but instantly I have two questions, that I always have been uncomfortable with and that could break lose some new discussions:-
my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
(I allways refused this idea, because it is depressing. but I think to a certain extend he is right. on the other hand, when love goes beyond life, when someone is willing to take up punishment or pain to protect others (the "parents protecting children" thing again)... doesn't that go beyond selfish love?) -
second question: if we assume, that love is the force that keeps our world together - doesn't that mean that, like with all forces of nature, there has to be a balance? like the fact that to cool a fridge down inside, you will produce a lot of heat. so if you create love at some point, does there have to be a balance somehwere, a creation of the opposite (hate, despair, frustration)?
one fact that supports this view is, that quite often love shows it's strongest form in difficult times. your love to someone will be most palpable (and even hurt you, create pain) when you are away from him/her.
or in times of great evil, like the third reich in Germany, such great examples of selfless love can be found (like German people, hiding jewish families, risking their own lifes to protect others).
and a last thought. can you describe love as a drug? because I am really high, when I am in love. when I break up with someone after a serious relationship, I suffer for a serious withdrawal syndrom for some time...
I know, very dark thoughts. and Tomasz, I still agree that love is the right way to go! but nevertheless these are question we should answer
-
-
@unknownuser said:
Rick - still tangled in symantics
Semantics? It's not semantics. People can't have a meaningful discussion on an issue if they're not discussing the same issue. Perhaps you thought I was being critical or derogatory - I assure you, that was not the case. I simply commented that we were not discussing the same point - no blame anywhere.
-
Lets mix it up a little.
Miracles for sale?
[flash=425,355:3n5atrk3]http://www.youtube.com/v/P4_CYVGN15E[/flash:3n5atrk3]
[flash=425,355:3n5atrk3]http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2HbQ1JdZuA&feature=related[/flash:3n5atrk3]
-
@plot-paris said:
and a last thought. can you describe love as a drug? because I am really high, when I am in love. when I break up with someone after a serious relationship, I suffer for a serious withdrawal syndrom for some time...
Been there too, plot. They've already isolated some of the peptides that course through your body while "in love". We have to separate the high and the addiction from the core of our devotion. It is hard to do, and I've said "never again" multiple times. Experience both the temporal and spiritual highs, but one endures.
-
LOL
Wish the second video quality were better. I like the organ swell after they announce how much money he got. Then when they announce how he used the money, I thought they were going to talk about the "good works" he did, but no, he goes out and buys a car! That's entertainment.
-
wow! you really always manage to get these little gems, solo.
do you by any chance happen to know if they sell these "Miracle Manna" biscuits with chocolate coating?
-
Here is another ... love the part where the guy counts money on his bed rejoicing "Jesus has been good to me tonight".
[flash=425,355:2b4iu3mz]http://www.youtube.com/v/wo0eqDcKY08&feature=related[/flash:2b4iu3mz]
-
@plot-paris said:
I have two questions, that I always have been uncomfortable with and that could break lose some new discussions:
- my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
(I allways refused this idea, because it is depressing. but I think to a certain extend he is right. on the other hand, when love goes beyond life, when someone is willing to take up punishment or pain to protect others (the "parents protecting children" thing again)... doesn't that go beyond selfish love?)
Selfish "love" isn't really love. So, what are the characteristics of true love? Love is patient and kind, not jealous or boastful or proud. Love is not self-seeking, nor easily angered, and it does not keep a record of wrongs. Love embraces truth. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. We sometimes put our trust in people, governments, economies, jobs, relationships, investments, speculations, and all kinds of things that will eventually let us down. But love remains. There may be pain in unrequited love, or love lost, but true love perseveres, conquering the selfish false-love that would become angry, bitter, or despondent.
(my paraphrase of the Apostle Paul's description of love)
- my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
-
Scary videos.
-
well, I am afraid to really answer my own question of whether love is selfish or not we have to refer to the dear old greeks and their different variations of love (earlier mentioned Eros, Agape, Filia, Caritas...).
but another question (that I already answered for myself) jumps to my mind:
Do you distinguish between "I love you" and "I am in love with you"?
(I do. if I have a crush on someone, it is mostly defined by desire and perhaps curiosity. when things go further and you are like on drugs when with the other and absolutely devastated when without... thats what I call "being in love with someone.
finally, after months of a relationship, when you deeply know the other and when the first wave of "being in love" is not as strong and confusing anymore, you will know, if you love the other.
during a long relationship "being in love" may subside at some point and come back at another. but love is the deep feeling that is always there)
Advertisement