What do Scientists think of Science and Religion (hell, origin, different)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gaslighting is what this post bring to mind. Let it go when you are still ahead
Love you too, but I've really not got the time for any of these hugs and kisses as this Christmas morning with other loved ones is about to kick into hear here...
I am unsure what you're on about here. Science doesn't even concern itself with gods. And any scientific explanatory framework has limitations on it: what the data supports or doesn't support.
You are simply decrying that gods are not falsifiable / provable and evolution is. No one can help you with that. It just happens to be the case.
Oh THAT's what you're trying to say. Your "satan/serpent" is simply asserted without evidence, and so can be dismissed without same.
It would seem by "rest" you mean "certainty" or the state of certitude, as well as any sort of final settled set of conditions that never change. In this you are correct; the real world out here is constantly changing and it can be hard to keep up with it in some ways and this is part of the work of science.
But when you speak of the "value of the present" you are forgetting that 1 second from now that present will be the past already, and beginning to diverge from it. The "present" is ephemeral and fleeting. You cannot pick some particular "present" and try to pin yourself to it. It's a fool's errand. But this is what I used to try to do when I was a believer. I had some oddly unspecific concept of "the good old days" that never really existed that I was trying to drag the present day back to. I just got tired of that effort.
Trying to have a final state of total certainty in some unchangeable bedrock being or belief is understandably human but that neither makes such a thing real or practical, nor does it make the alternative bad. Simply going with the most accurate understanding we have at any given moment, even knowing it is imperfect and potentially might have to change when new info becomes available, is plenty adequate to have a very interesting and fulfilling existence. The bogey man some people try to make of simply admitting you aren't all-knowing about all things, is just silly.
I look at the "value of the present" in God's first spoken words.
I look at the "value of the present" in God's first spoken words.
What would be your thought if god chose to speak some new words now that involved a "change of plans"?
Would that automatically disqualify it as god's voice?
It certainly would have for me, because god and his word are supposed to be immutable.
Yet when for the sake of argument these "original" words were spoken ... they would have been new to the people of that era. And they would reject god's life-changing words on the same basis you would reject them now: they are too different.
What would be your thought if god chose to speak some new words now that involved a "change of plans"?
Would that automatically disqualify it as god's voice?
It certainly would have for me, because god and his word are supposed to be immutable.
Yet when for the sake of argument these "original" words were spoken ... they would have been new to the people of that era. And they would reject god's life-changing words on the same basis you would reject them now: they are too different.
You can cast doubt and rejection all you want. The satan/serpent casted doubt and rejection upon God's word.
I am thankful that God listened to my cry for help. And delivered me past that.
Love you too, but I've really not got the time for any of these hugs and kisses as this Christmas morning with other loved ones is about to kick into hear here...
Merry Christmas to all!
Love??? Hugs and kisses???
Too much eggnog on Christmas morning. May the good lord Christ be with you.
there are a whole lot of areas that a person can only validate and verify for themself.
because other people can't do it for you.
if someone is interested they engage. if not they don't.
the whole point of paths of religion and spirituality is engagement, how a person lives their life, developing awareness, seeking to improve our own character traits, utilize resources which improve quality of life for self and others.
that's what i mean by other people can't do it for you.
I agree.
One thing though, if a person doesn't engage, it doesn't always mean they are not interested. It just means that they can't contribute.
One thing though, if a person doesn't engage, it doesn't always mean they are not interested. It just means that they can't contribute.
It may also mean they have arrived at different conclusions from you. The conceit of may theists is that they or their sect are right-thinking and all others are clearly "wrong", "not interested", "hostile", or any of a host of other negative traits.
If you accept that revelation is inherently personal, why is it so discomfiting to some that others have a different experience, or no experience at all? It's like their world falls apart if other's personal experience doesn't confirm or at least doesn't conflict with theirs.
It may also mean they have arrived at different conclusions from you. The conceit of may theists is that they or their sect are right-thinking and all others are clearly "wrong", "not interested", "hostile", or any of a host of other negative traits.
If you accept that revelation is inherently personal, why is it so discomfiting to some that others have a different experience, or no experience at all? It's like their world falls apart if other's personal experience doesn't confirm or at least doesn't conflict with theirs.
There are all kinds of beliefs from ignorance to denial to immersion to zealotry in both directions. nobody is totally wrong or right. those spiritually inclined, and it is an inclination, are always seeking without the NEED for certainty. the extremists on either side do not seek, are uncertain, and what they want is someone other than themselves to provide this certainty to their satisfaction.
well. that is simply not available. sorry. it is not like baking a cake with a recipe. you ARE the recipe.
One thing though, if a person doesn't engage, it doesn't always mean they are not interested. It just means that they can't contribute.
Can one not always contribute either their agreement or disagreement with comments posted, even if nothing more to add? Needless to say, that's what a lot of folks do in this forum, although I always think the reason(s) or justifications for opinions expressed here are what's more interesting to read over simple agreement and/or objection. With specifics even better...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
