Yes. There IS a time issue here, we can't wait around forever to be served by a retarded fruit tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Is this a tree-hugger thing?
Printable View
Yes. There IS a time issue here, we can't wait around forever to be served by a retarded fruit tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Is this a tree-hugger thing?
It would suit me more to say "The universe IS God"
...than to say "The universe has one God".
I see God as the speeding bullet on yon horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
And Jesus says God appears different as your moments of clarity improve.
And yeah, Fred, I scored my latest batch of herb at the foot of the Exorcist Steps in Georgetown. It's legal there now.
I'm not sure if he was quoted as saying that...lol...but -Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
it really doesn't matter, does it?
I take it you're a believer no?
What actual difference would it seriously make if you weren't?
Anyways...thumbs up for scoring and in a cool spot...I'm nursing what I got left because I lost a connection.
There are seven and a half billion different religions, yes. And I am one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
.......maybe not the best.............butt....
I want Hillary to make those sour-grape republicans give me my weed in accordance with the laws of these united states!!!!!
[QUOTE=martin48;1684333]
A few thoughts
Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.
-While appearing to behave in ways similar to humans, I think animals are aware of their own mortality, which is why they take risk-avoidance strategies to avoid deathly situations, but I am not sure that the rituals animals use in mating, in hunting in risk-avoidance and so on, we would 'normally associate with religion' because among other things, we associate religion with the soul, and we cannot know if animals know or believe they have souls, this is a weak comparison and a weak argument.
Was religion (which grew out of the proto-humans in Africa –
sorry, but we are all descended from Africans [this is debatable as the evidence is still so limited])
was a response to fear. We, as a unique species, were self-conscious, had long-term memories, and above all had language that could express abstract thoughts and allow oral traditions to develop. These developing abilities of proto-humans were a double-edge sword. On the one hand, they aided their chances of surviving in a cruel and unpredictable world. They helped each successive generation to build upon the knowledge base of their ancestors.
-Fear must be an element, but so too is joy and something called glory. Among the rituals of sacrifice which exist in many pagan and monotheist religions, are festivals of joy which celebrate life- the bacchanal, the carnival, and these, moreover, were often -in some senses, such as Carnival in Catholic countries still are- brief moments when all the rules that bind society together can be transgressed, but without threatening the integrity of the bonds -thus men become women, women become possessed, humans take on animal form, strange brews are imbibed. Religions that bind social groups for security can also enjoy themselves.
A set of moral truths to govern human behavior.
These formed an oral tradition which was disseminated among the members of the tribe and was taught to each new generation. Much later, after writing developed, the beliefs were generally recorded in written form. A major loss of flexibility resulted. Oral traditions can evolve over time; written documents tend to be more permanent.
-If the development of writing enabled existing narratives via oral poems and recitations to become sacred texts, the one thing this did not lead to was 'a major loss of flexibility', if anything, writing merely establishes the extent to which existing oral traditions are contested, both at the time, and in succeeding centuries. Textual analysis of scripture has been one of the most enduring headaches for believers and scholars and explains centuries of exegesis by Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars out of which no consensus has been met on fundamental issues and also explains the schisms within those religions. Scholars with Hebrew or Arabic texts without diacritical marks are still arguing over the precise definition of words which might be past, present or future tense. Jacques Derrida built an entire philosophy on the argument that texts are unstable and you only need to consider the fate of Islam since 9/11 to know how fluid and controversial the Quran is. But what is just as important is that the ability of religions based on sacred texts to survive for so long may be based precisely on the flexible use of those texts in different times, and that the pursuit of the original meaning by fundamentalists is doomed because the precise contexts of a Quranic revelation or the words of Jesus have been lost and cannot be retrieved.
Unfortunately, because these belief systems were based on hunches, the various religions that developed in different areas of the world were, and remain, different. Their teachings are in conflict with each other. Because the followers of most religions considered their beliefs to be derived directly from God, they cannot be easily changed. Thus, inter-religious compromise is difficult or impossible.
-I wonder how different religions are from each other, and they are not based on hunches but on the firm beliefs people had at the time. I am not suggesting as is implicit in some theories of languages or pragmatics, that there is a syncretic project to be realised here, and if there were it would be intellectual and synthetic, yet most religions share a common concern with the way the past, the present and the future are linked; they prescribe behaviour on the basis of moral judgement; they have central concerns such as fertility and reproduction, dietary regulations and notions of kinship and/or gender role; they attempt to explain natural phenomena as supernatural in force and origin. They appear to be hostile to science, largely because modern science undermines their claims about the supernatural origin of things and in doing so challenges structures of authority.
I think that at the point where humans gathered together in social formations which brought together people not linked by blood relations, we have the beginning of politics, the distribution of power as a relationship of authority, and the concept of leadership, but also as a result of that, stratified societies. Religion in this context enables articulate people, charismatic people, people known to be wise, powers which result in status be it priest, king, pharoah. It may not be that the disciples believed Jesus was literally the son of God but that he had such charisma and awe that it was 'as if' he was the son of God, and in the sense that Jesus himself used it, we are all sons/children of God anyway so that to separate out one man as divine was allegorical rather than factual, just as Muhammad always insisted he was merely human like the rest of us while later Muslims have attempted to prove he was made divine by his mission (Muhammad splitting the moon is an obvious example). I am not sure there is a lot to be said here other than to suggest that historians of politics -in Europe and the US- tend to place more emphasis on the Greek heritage through Plato and Aristotle, seeing the emergence of the Christian empires as something of a diversion, so that while Aquinas and Augustine will appear in histories of political thought, the tendency is to leap from Plato to Machiavelli as if nothing really interesting happened in between, or because the concepts of citizenship that do emerge in the Christian era look rather too much like servile obedience to the Pope 'or else', rather than as a positive contribution to the study of politics. A discussion for another thread.
"Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.
-While appearing to behave in ways similar to humans, I think animals are aware of their own mortality, which is why they take risk-avoidance strategies to avoid deathly situations, but I am not sure that the rituals animals use in mating, in hunting in risk-avoidance and so on, we would 'normally associate with religion' because among other things, we associate religion with the soul, and we cannot know if animals know or believe they have souls, this is a weak comparison and a weak argument."
The anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote in his book Denial of Death that nonhuman animals know nothing about dying: “The knowledge of death is reflective and conceptual, and animals are spared it.” There are scenes repeated endless on the internet of animals seemingly being emotional on a mate's death. We need to be careful in assigning anthropomorphic qualities.
Was religion (which grew out of the proto-humans in Africa –
sorry, but we are all descended from Africans [this is debatable as the evidence is still so limited])
The "Out of Africa" theory is the most widely accepted model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans. The theory argues for the African origins of modern humans, who left Africa in a single wave of migration, which populated the world, replacing older human species.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559480
But this is science so it’s our current best guess given the available evidence.
We need to be careful in assigning anthropomorphic qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
-Not to labour it, but this was what you did. As we cannot know, this is all speculation.
Sorry, you have lost me. I urged caution but you label me as being definitive.
The universe , and all it's unholy creations: Atoms, fungus , ai's and gods.
I fear such things.
That's like the kidney being fearful of the body and all its squishy constituents: the cells, the liver, the lungs and the spine.
I wonder if we have lost the wonder of seeing the night sky as it 'is' rather than as it is. The last time I was in Canada we went to a remote location in northern Ontario, and at night the sky was a fabulous curtain of stars that can only strike awe into the mind of man. It is from this astonishing sight that so much about human life on earth and 'up there', in past present and future has been created, derived, imagined and probed, that without it we either rely on films and tv, or probably don't think about it at all, because we cannot see it with the naked eye. For most people who live as I do in urban areas, the best you can hope for from the night sky is the Moon, maybe the vague outline of the Plough. It does not automatically follow that seeing stars invokes the need or belief in a superior creator but perhaps it does offer a corrective to the arrogance of humans who believe themselves superior to everything else. The latest shots from Jupiter, in addition to its sounds, reminds us that we are fortunate to live in a quiet neighbourhood of the universe, and that however much power we acquire, there is always going to be something 'out there' more powerful than ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
Speaking for myself, the feeling of wonder hasn't been lost. If anything, it's stronger.
As I view the vast magnificence, with my present day eyes, I am also reminded of what I am part of...and I've never felt so certain and unafraid...and happy.
Nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You have the advantage of grasping some of the concepts that the scientific community's scratching the surface of. I am just content to see it as an endless jigsaw puzzle - I will never see solved, but occasionally a hint of a picture is completed, which I may not completely understand, but gives me a sense of clarity of 'being'.
It's as if, for the blink of an eye, I have been shown the picture on the cover of the box...but I didn't have my reading glasses on...not enough to see clearly or fully understand, but enough to gain a feeling of security.
We may not be cogs or gears, but at the very least we are perhaps molecules in the metal of those gears.
It's beautiful.
Jediism, the worship of the mythology of Star Wars, is not a religion, the Charity Commission has ruled.
The commission rejected an application to grant charitable status to The Temple of the Jedi Order.
It said Jediism did not "promote moral or ethical improvement" for charity law purposes in England and Wales.
In the 2011 census, 177,000 people declared themselves Jedi under the religion section, making it the the seventh most popular religion.
It has more adherents than Rastafarians and Jains, according to the census.
But the number of Jedis fell sharply from 2001, when 390,000 people said they were followers of The Force.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
May the sauce be with you...
maybe not fear, but the kidney should (if possible) at the very least, be aware of what the other organs are up to. i don't know why, but i find the concept of everything being linked together quite beautiful and harmonic. i keep mine organs always up to date with the rest of my system.... i recommend you do tooQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wphlv0ShcQ
There is no such thing as God. If so, i wouldn't be on this forum anyhow.
:confused:Attachment 986737Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz
Speaking of strange religions ,The Church of the Subgenius ,has got to be one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Attachment 986738Attachment 986739
I have seen that picture of the guy with the pipe many times over the years but never realized it was actually a "religion" until I stumbled across this recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
I see they appear to be headquartered in the US and Canada but in 1992 they were involved in a brouhaha in Bedfordshire,UK.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/archiv...-b179-9641c152
Here are some interesting facts regarding the tax exempt status of Scientology as a 'religion'.
Here in the US it qualifies but in the UK the results are mixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciento...tus_by_country
I view Scientology as a commercial enterprise rather than a religion, because the religion does not have a basic set of beliefs that define the religion, but offers a sequence of challenges through which a candidate must pass before being declared 'clear' which confers superior status on a member compared to someone who has just joined. Crucially, every stage of 'enlightenment' must be paid for, and the simple fact that in effect, you cannot 'become' a Scientologist without paying for it makes it a private club or commercial enterprise. There is no entry fee for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and so on.
More to the point, Mike Huckabee once declared that God's law is superior to the Constitution, stating in 2008
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
https://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/H...Gods_0115.html
His view at the time was considered typical of the 'Evangelical Christian' movement but too marginal to be taken seriously, but he doubled down on his views in 2015 when he stated publicly
I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God," he said. "When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/p...urt/index.html
The passage of time has resulted in the very same people once believed to occupy the margins now occupying positions of influence in the White House, Congress, and most worrying of all, the judicial system.
Here is an almost excellent overview of the Evangelical movement, particularly interesting to read of the 'Know-Nothing Party' fearful of an 'invasion' of Roman Catholics as an example of the actual divisions within American Christian communities, carried forward to those who supported Jefferson and those afraid he was going to confiscate their Bibles. But what John Fea does not do is justify any connection between Evangelical Christians and the political system, he takes it as a given fact of American life, but in doing so has nothing to say to the millions with a different god or none at all.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...l-fear/563558/
I am not sure if I should fear God, but I fear for Pastor Paula White, the President's' Spiritual Advisor'. Here she is on a marathon rant about the victory God must bring to the Republican candidate, but it looks and sounds more like a pagan ritual staged by Tadeusz Kantor. She strikes the air with her fist as behind her, some dude in shorts and a towel on his arm walks up and down behind her, reading from I assume is a Book of Spells. I was expecting her to sacrifice a pigeon and examine its entrails, -if it happened they didn't record it. It also appears to be the case, that for all her prayers and invocations of Angels coming from Africa and South America, their trip was a waste of time. But hey, God's paying for it all, and bullshit is cheap in America these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67R3vqk-f3Y