Greatest I am

Great post !!!!!thanks for useful post, I really nice and informative thread,,,,,

best regards

kajal,,

 

 

 

------------------------------------

[edit: spam link removed]

I blush.

Regards

DL

Before the church or the state, humans created science.

Even in a place of science, idiots abound.

Man has two natures. The spiritual/religious and the political.

Did man create science to feed the one or the other?

Was it a sharlaton or a scientist.

Regards

DL

God created the earth and the humans. It were humans who created science. Science actually is a way of understanding what God has done for us. Understanding everything in the whole universe.

Perhaps but did this alien God have our immage?

Your hint of homosexuality shows much.

My my my.

Such wisdom.

Enough to recognize the many other times that biblical twinning is used?

Your rendition of those in Eden left out this form that happens to match the descriptions of scripture better.

I found a picture of Adam & Eve.

Depending on how you read scripture, the above could be a picture of Jesus and god as well. The word adam if used instead of Adam, for instance, could make a huge difference in how you see God.

Now I know what this means.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-28

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-28

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15

Regards

DL

Not sure what that means, but I'm agnostic, so, while I may play devil's advocate, I don't promote religion, in fact, as someone who was raised catholic, spent a lot of time at christian services, and have been associated with some of the other major religions, I sincerely feel that, religion/spirituality being neither here nor there, the religious institutions are the major problem with that entire area of human life.

 

Mainly I have what might be called an obsession with veracity. I don't believe science to be absolutely true, but love it for being a search for some form of truth, generally, the form of truth that humans can share in common, and thus can use to best deal with the world around us. I think the saddest thing is how science's attempts at truth are corrupted by many flaws in humans, but even more so, how it often never translates into the "real" world, as in, the things that are taught in schools as science, reported in news (even science journals) and other media, and they way that, in that context, a great many things are portrayed as some sort of absolute truth. i'm afraid that in those respects, I often find myself seeing "science" and "religion" as highly analogous.

 

Personally, I feel that the closest thing I can get to truth is experiential. What I perceive directly through my own senses is what's most true to me. Even so, believing that my perception is built on a) physical processes both outside and inside my body and b) ideas and beliefs that are a part of me because of my physical make up as a human being and cultural upbringing (general culture, family culture, personal culture), as well as many other factors, I chose to believe that my truth is subject to change, and needs to be constantly questioned as much as possible.

Yes. Daily judgments are a must.

I do not see the institution at fault.

I cannot give fault to a mindless entity like institution.

Fault only exists for one who can understand the concept of fault and that takes a man.

In these for instance. You will see that it is humans within the institutions that do evil.

African witches and Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can.

Regards

DL

I don't see what this has to do with psychiatry or psychology.

Shouldn't you have posted it under religion?.

I agree that that may have been my best choice but I cannot post there yet.

I did want to see what those who are learned in the workings of the mind though about the guilt angle that some theists must live under for years at a time.

I recently found this----

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/minnesota.catholic.gay.marriage/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

and could not for the life of me dither out why these two women did not throw off the shakles of tradition that, to me, kept then in, and giving $$$ to, an orgonization that they had lost faith in and who was basically rejecting their children.

Regards

DL

Do we sin against God or man and does God usurp our healthy forgiveness.

I saw this video and did not agree with it.

If I sin, I think I sin against another human. Not against God. Against his law of course, or to be more specific, against the laws that men have attributed to God, but not against God.

This clip ignores the human victim altogether as if the victim has no right to feel offended and also have no responsibility to forgive the offender.

I find it rather droll that we are supposed to see God as the victim of all our sins.

If you were to visualize, for instance, God being the victim of all Gay sins, well you see what I mean.

Rather a startling picture right?

Sin also brings up the topic of forgiveness.

If you or I forgive a sin done against us, is there any reason for the sinner to kowtow to God for more forgiveness?

The sin, once forgiven by you or I is, well, forgiven. What exactly is God forgiving. The sin has been annulled by our forgiveness so God forgiving it is rather superfluous and in reality, if at the pearly gates, God were to seek to punish a forgiven sin then one could make a case that God is unjust.

Is God sticking his nose where it is not required in the case of saying we sin against him and in our seeking forgiveness for a forgiven sin?

Most here will know that psychologically speaking, it is quite healthy for us to forgive.

Is there any psychological damage being done when forgiveness is denied us as the forgiving person and is it also damaging for the sinner to go through life wondering and or fearful of what God will forgive or not.

Are religions actually hurting it's adherents with the guilt that they create?

In the case of Gays and women and the denigration and discrimination they suffer we know that there is damage but what about all the other sins that might not actually be sins?

Regards

DL

Hello, I'm Jack, brand spanking new here, and I seem to have navigated my little canoe of reason through the murky sea of science and come out on philosophy... should I be worried?

Straight philosophy will likely be well accepted. Philosophy of religion would see you in white waters.

Regards

DL

A lot of God haters in this thread, sad sad sad.

I do not think it is possible to hate what you do not believe in but after all, this is a science forum, The majority of science minded people wil reject the possibility of a God. Who can blame them. Theists have done a piss poor sales job and have been fighting amoung themselves for 2000 years while bringing tons of wars and other damage to society.

I am a converted atheist only because of my apotheosis and frankly, I probably hate literalists and fundamentals more than atheists do.

Regards

DL

Truth about nature is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what the majority believes, it's what they can demonstrate.

It is getting to that I hope.

In the past though, it was all about the numbers and the power they yeilded.

It still is in unfortunate locations. Even where you would not expect it. The West. Check how womwn and gays are discriminated and denigrated without just cause.

In a civilized world, that would be a hate crime.

Let us pray, so to speak, that that changes quickly.

Regards

DL

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55694664@N03/5355658072/sizes/m/in/photostream/

I think the supernatural was mans first attempt to explain the natural world, it was totally unsuccessful, but it took a long time for humans to realize that there was no supernatural and actual observation and tests were the only way to know the natural world.

The majority do not as yet agree with you that there is no supernatural.

That would include most religious and quantum physicists. Not all the quantum physicists mind you.

Regards

DL

I think the reason you don't want to discuss your personal God(head) is not because you don't want to hijack the thread but because you don't want to view your beliefs in the same light as all other humanly constructed divinity. By using words like "cosmic consciousness" and "not divine, just natural," you are just re-constituting divinity as its empirical basis (i.e. nature) and you are acting as if divinity itself means anything more or less than "cosmic consciousness." All these concepts are human constructs used to transcend the banality of the particular. All divinity is is projecting human knowledge onto some entity imagined to transcend embodied human existence.

You think wrong and I will be happy to discuss it over there.

Regards

DL

What happens when you accept that God has only ever existed as a human construction/projection? Do you then reject all theology as being based on a projection or do you embrace God as human culture of (faith in) divinity?

I left a rather detailed answer to my beliefs in the intro site but let me just say that I do not quite believe in God the human construct that most believe in. The God we know, yes, is a pure human construct. The Godhead I believe in is somewhat different. It is a cosmic consciousness and not divine. Just natural.

I will not throw this O P off track and not knowing if the mods here want pure religion discussions in any place other than the religion forum, they have already spoken of religion here above, and I do not want to have them peeved.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51253-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/page__st__1940

Regards

DL

The origins of science you find depend on what aspect of science you're trying to trace or seek precedent for. Enlightenment scientists like Galileo do seem to have been part of the same ideological movement as the protestant reformers of the time, like Martin Luther, in that they were not interested in submitting to authoritarian governance of their studies of nature, interpretations of scripture, theorizing/philosophizing, etc. The anti-religious character of the enlightenment/renaissance was, however, more of a crusade against authoritarian control and dogma than it was a rejection of theology. Protestant reformers were disenchanted by "false idolatry" and other corruption they saw in their churches and they sought reform with reference to higher ideals prescribed by Christianity, such as putting authority of truth ABOVE worldly authority (and they saw the church administration as worldly and thus sought a more direct connection with divinity).

 

The state, on the other hand, evolved from a long history of authoritarian institutionality. Statists have been influenced by theology and ethics, and they are interested in utilizing science for social-economic purposes, but I don't see the state as having developed the same level of anti-authoritarianism that science did, except to the extent that advocates of republic and self-governance by reason promoted freedom/independence. Actually, I shouldn't accuse statism as having a monopoly on authoritarianism because a lot of science has been appropriated for social control purposes as well. Personally, I see science as a spirit of critique toward existing knowledge in favor of questioning, testing, falsification, etc. but some see it as the process of refining established knowledge for the purpose of establishing truer dogmas to adhere to. Obviously, religion seeks to do the same thing but I see that as a radical digression from the original ideologies of Christ, which promote questioning of religious dogma and direct revelation through (holy) spirit; not uncritical adherence to church doctrine.

I agree that Jesus was more Gnostic than what the Church eventually became thanks to the greed of men. Constantine's killing and book burning made sure of that.

Christianity became quite good at creating dependence on it instead of God for salvation. At a price of course.

You went further up in history than what I was thinking of for the creation of science.

I was back in the early bronze age and further where man had worked for quite a while already with engeneering of wooden tools by then.

I attributed science more to religions because of the so called magic that they worked to grow their religions.

Regards

DL

I'm guessing that it would have to do with whether the observation (or application of it) was treated as a natural or supernatural phenomenon. History points to numerous examples of The Church attempting to suppress or discredit science when it went against canon. (Happens in business, too, but that's not one of the options in the title)

Business I usually place in the political sphere but in a sense religion is all about business as well. Both are in the make work field.

Well GOD created Science, not the church or the state, science is the understanding and process of how things work or how to make things work, which is what God is all about, remember men cannot create, only make, we still have yet to make anything with life in it,

 

 

Dont believe anything else, science is a truly divine concept.

I like science but I do not give anything any divinity.

Nothing is divine that has not been named so by man.

After all, God does not have a tongue to speak with.

Our first God was a man and our last shall be as well.

We will just have to change the definition back to what it was in the begining.

I would say science has always been there, even before church or government. The first primitive human who threw a stone at a an animal to get food and found he had to throw it at a steeper angle the further the target was away from him was applying science.

I agree. I just wonder if he became the political chief or the religious shaman.

!

Moderator Note

Just want to post a note of caution here that this is posted in the science education section, and NOT the religion section. Please post accordingly. We are NOT discussing validity of any particular religious viewpoint

I agree. That is why I did not name any religion.

P S. I would have posted in your religious section but am not allowed to at present.

If you would like to move it there, by all means do.

Regards

DL

Did religions create science to further their Gods?

Did the State create it to further their Gods?

After a bit of research on how religions began and knowing that what were relatively small temples in the beginning, almost what we would call house churches today, I wondered how and why they became popular or won converts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2h4KueeElo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMXHL...eature=related

Add these prophets and God’s to the Gnostic mystery schools and you get an idea of all the competition. Was it just between magicians and scientists with a bit of theology thrown in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvEHObMMH4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_meC...eature=related

Science would have been the tool to fool people into thinking that magic was being done. Everything from fire walking to levitation and mysteriously crying and moving statues.

God then would have been man made even as Gnostics of various religions were pushing for a God within as opposed to the God without pushed by the Churches who were more interested in locking in their converts to their thinking and that their hierarchy were required as the pathway to God.

Gnostics on the other hand said that all had a direct path to God and that Churches and priests were not necessary. Could they have been the true shaman of that day?

Gnostics believed more as Joseph Campbell did and pushed for personal growth an apotheosis by confronting God and mastering of ones self.

Add that to this. Wait till minute 5 + for the good stuff on myths and ignore the fear mongering of the LHC. It just happens that I could not find this work on it’s own.

These show just how religions began and how they differed from the religious beliefs we hold today.

It was all myths from mostly plagiarized Egyptian sources.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84...st-1-of-3_news

If I am lucky, after viewing all of this information, you will conclude as I do that---

Religions, other than the Gnostic based ones are pure myth.

That religions may have been the first to push science forward to help perpetuate it’s myths, through magic.

That the state likely took over this science to further it’s war efforts.

That Gnosticism, defined as basically the questioning of all beliefs, can lead to apotheosis or a rapprochement to the Godhead via knowledge and that this is the only way to truly have that personal relationship to God that all religionists seek.

It just happens to not be the mythical Bible God.

What are your thoughts?

Regards

DL

I am brand new and here to try to dissuade literalists and fundamentals from their current God and introduce a better one.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can.

-----------------------------

Religions have yet to make their case for a real God and the Abrahamic cults, Christianity and Islam follow a God who is demonstrably a rather immoral dude that could just as easily cure those he thinks defective yet murders instead. These murders are of course just good old justice to his deluded followers.

It is also impossible for non believers to prove that there is no God and they are foolish to try to do so. When I discuss God with theists I try to speak to their Gods moral character instead of his reality. This, with the few who can think, reduces the name calling and makes for a sometimes winnable argument unless they bring out theist trump card of----God is God and he can break whatever rules he sets for man with impunity because he is of course God.

The above shows why we cannot prove God’s non existence.

Below I include to show what I give to the I D crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNiTsYCkyI8&feature=more_related

My thinking, as a Gnostic Christian, my closest but not exact label, is closer to atheist thinking yet because of my personal apotheosis, I cannot call myself this old label that I once took. Since the mode of access to the cosmic consciousness is through our minds, I am a strong supporter of the notion of the God within much like Gnostic Jesus was.

The Godhead then that I know is a cosmic consciousness and our next evolutionary step. No proof and no dogma to sell so please do not ask for any. I have also enjoyed all the labels that non believers reserve for any that claim belief without facts so please do not bother. It is like water off a ducks back. As far as I could ascertain from my brief touch of this Godhead is that it is not a miracle working super absentee God. That one as far as I know never existed. I am an evolutionist. It was born of the first true human and awaits us all. There is no hell. Theists tend to not like that as they tend to love to hate and want to see the --others-- burn. Yuk.

What lead me to my apotheosis was thinking like this------

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

And I call us all Gods WIP’s and evolving perfection.

I try to KIS and give and take at whatever decibel level you want but tend not to take just plain abuse unless it is teaching me something and like a lively down and dirty debate.

Patience with fools is definitely not my style and I do not mind calling Bible God a genocidal S O B.

I also like to accentuate that kind of statement with You Tube, which BTW, I use often.

Regards

DL