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.
This is indeed the point of using the "spiritual fossil record" to truly understand the "spiritual DNA template" that has been encoded within our brains' DNA for understanding God and our place in the universe.
Which DNA are you talking about? I am unaware that the genome mapping of humans has identified and DNA for understanding God.
Also just for clarification purposes alone what exactly is the "brains DNA" to which you refer? As opposed to what? The DNA in your brain is the same as the DNA in your big toe. The lay man reading your post might be erroneously led to believe that the brain somehow gets a different set of DNA to any other part of your body when in fact it does not.
Which DNA are you talking about? I am unaware that the genome mapping of humans has identified and DNA for understanding God.
The DNA codes responsible for our physical characteristics are being mapped successfully . . . but the ones for our cognitive constructs and the attendant brain structures responsible for them are not. The protein fold-up of the central nervous system is not remotely understood . . . let alone what specific structures are related to which DNA sequences or RNA activations. We are at the same state of ignorance about our cognitive structures as we were about our physical structures prior to the discovery and decoding of DNA. But we were able to use the fossil record to learn much about the evolution of our physical structure without it. It is my contention that the "spiritual fossil record" (oral traditions, myths, legends, and other cognitive recordings) will allow us to achieve a similar understanding until we can decode the DNA for the central nervous system.
Quote:
Also just for clarification purposes alone what exactly is the "brains DNA" to which you refer? As opposed to what? The DNA in your brain is the same as the DNA in your big toe. The lay man reading your post might be erroneously led to believe that the brain somehow gets a different set of DNA to any other part of your body when in fact it does not.
Don't be silly. Everyone knows that DNA is the basis for all protein fold-ups wherever they are located within an organism. Anyone thinking there are separate "DNAs" within the same organism would not have the knowledge to follow any discussion of DNA anyway. This cannot be a genuine criticism . . . as so many of yours are not.
Then I don't understand what you are saying, Mystic. What's the difference between brain DNA and big toe DNA, if there is no difference? I get your point about protein fold -ups and the imperfectly understood relation between 'structures' and DNA/RNA activities, but the analogy of the 'spiritual fossil record' as somehow telling us about ore brain's evolution from the palaeontological fossil record as telling us about our evolution seems a speculative one indeed.
It sounds a bit like the false argument that nobody believed powered flight as an argument that we should believe some particular speculative claim. The problem with with taking myth and legend or religious development and regarding it as evidence for something about the way our brain works is not only that it is a bit speculative, but that it ignores the other possible speculations in favour of one. In fact, I'd rather see myth, legend and religion as conditioned by our social circumstances and can tell us nothing much about the DNA or protein folds in our brains.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-15-2012 at 07:28 AM..
Then I don't understand what you are saying, Mystic. What's the difference between brain DNA and big toe DNA, if there is no difference? I get your point about protein fold -ups and the imperfectly understood relation between 'structures' and DNA/RNA activities, but the analogy of the 'spiritual fossil record' as somehow telling us about ore brain's evolution from the palaeontological fossil record as telling us about our evolution seems a speculative one indeed.
It is not that hard to understand, Arequipa. We accept without question that DNA/RNA has determined our physical make-up and our physical abilities. Before we had the DNA evidence we used the physical fossil record. There is also no question that DNA/RNA determines our brain structure and that determines the cognitive constructs we create and respond to, Arequipa. We have no idea how the DNA relates to those cognitive structures but we can observe the evolution of them in our oral traditions, myths, legends, and other recordings of our cognitive creations in the "spiritual fossil record" . . . as we did with the physical structures. Mithraism is just an earlier less cognitively advanced (more carnal) version of the Jesus story.
Quote:
It sounds a bit like the false argument that nobody believed powered flight as an argument that we should believe some particular speculative claim. The problem with with taking myth and legend or religious development and regarding it as evidence for something about the way our brain works is not only that it is a bit speculative, but that it ignores the other possible speculations in favour of one. In fact, I'd rather see myth, legend and religion as conditioned by our social circumstances and can tell us nothing much about the DNA or protein folds in our brains.
Everything that involves our cognition is determined by our brain structures that are determined by the DNA directed protein fold-ups.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-15-2012 at 08:45 AM..
How do Christians deal with the similarities between Mithras and JC?
Mithraism was the main religion before Christianity came from about 800BCE to 300CE and Mithras was worshipped just about everywhere, from Syria to the UK.
Mithras was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. Mithraism was the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. Mithras was believed to have been born of a virgin. Like JC, their births were celebrated yearly on DEC-25. Mithra was also visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days later, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to the rituals of the Catholic church. Some individuals who are skeptical about stories of JC' life suspect that Christianity may have appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same God as he did.
Many of the stories found in the bible can be found in the ancient religious tablets of civilisations the predated Christianity by thousands of years.
The very 1st Commandment was to worship God and Him alone.
It is not that hard to understand, Arequipa. We accept without question that DNA/RNA has determined our physical make-up and our physical abilities. Before we had the DNA evidence we used the physical fossil record. There is also no question that DNA/RNA determines our brain structure and that determines the cognitive constructs we create and respond to, Arequipa. We have no idea how the DNA relates to those cognitive structures but we can observe the evolution of them in our oral traditions, myths, legends, and other recordings of our cognitive creations in the "spiritual fossil record" . . . as we did with the physical structures. Mithraism is just an earlier less cognitively advanced (more carnal) version of the Jesus story.Everything that involves our cognition is determined by our brain structures that are determined by the DNA directed protein fold-ups.
Ah. I see. Before we discovered DNA and its role in evolved instincts we thought it was goddunnit and Mithraism and the like were earlier gropings towards the more evolved Jesus story, which was itself superseded by the more mentally evolved Islam of course.
But now we know better, even if we can't explain exactly how all the protein folds provide the mental mechanisms but, like all aspects of the materialist/naturalist default, some credit can be given to the expectation that the mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
The reason I didn't understand your not hard to understand explanation, Mystic, is that I was labouring under the misconception that you had a hypothesis that made sense in biological terms.
Ah. I see. Before we discovered DNA and its role in evolved instincts we thought it was goddunnit and Mithraism and the like were earlier gropings towards the more evolved Jesus story, which was itself superseded by the more mentally evolved Islam of course.
Except that Islam is more carnal than the Jesus story . . . so wrong, Arequipa. There is no more spiritually evolved version than the unconditional agape love of the Christ . . . even through scourging and crucifixion. "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do." Buddha never achieved that level of maitri (agape love) . . . and the marauder Mohammed certainly did not remotely resemble it.
Quote:
But now we know better, even if we can't explain exactly how all the protein folds provide the mental mechanisms but, like all aspects of the materialist/naturalist default, some credit can be given to the expectation that the mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
The reason I didn't understand your not hard to understand explanation, Mystic, is that I was labouring under the misconception that you had a hypothesis that made sense in biological terms.
Not quite, Arequipa . . . your monist views are the problem. You are still interpreting things in the physical realm and ignoring the spiritual (cognitive) . . . you know the "it's all in your mind" realm. Just as there has been evolution of our physical construction . . . there has also been evolution of our spiritual construction ("world of the mind"). As long as you continue to conflate the two . . . you will never understand my views, Arequipa.
[quote=MysticPhD;26113691]Except that Islam is more carnal than the Jesus story . . . so wrong, Arequipa. There is no more spiritually evolved version than the unconditional agape love of the Christ . . . even through scourging and crucifixion. "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do." Buddha never achieved that level of maitri (agape love) . . . and the marauder Mohammed certainly did not remotely resemble it.[quote]
Then it's not a question of spiritual evolution, but of holding up the religion you favour as being the most evolved.
Quote:
Not quite, Arequipa . . . your monist views are the problem. You are still interpreting things in the physical realm and ignoring the spiritual (cognitive) . . . you know the "it's all in your mind" realm. Just as there has been evolution of our physical construction . . . there has also been evolution of our spiritual construction ("world of the mind"). As long as you continue to conflate the two . . . you will never understand my views, Arequipa.
I am not 'ignoring' the spiritual or cognitive, but not believing what is hypothetical.
The DNA codes responsible for our physical characteristics are being mapped successfully . . . but the ones for our cognitive constructs and the attendant brain structures responsible for them are not.
I know. That is why I asked. The fact we have not mapped DNA for such things made me question your comment about us having DNA for the beleif in god. I was wondering if you were aware of a DNA break through that I was not - or was this just sciencey sounding rhetoric that you thought sounded good enough to bolster your arguments. Clearly it is the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This cannot be a genuine criticism . . . as so many of yours are not.
Perhaps if you did not see every question as an affront to your manhood you would not see criticism everywhere even where there is none. I made it very clear that I was asking a question for clarification purposes alone. Nothing to do with criticism. I simply wanted to clarify a point that was not clear. No more than that. There are lay people who could read your post and assume that the brain has different DNA than the rest of the body. Many people are ignorant enough of science to make that error and your posts wording does not help that. Also given your own science knowledge has often seemed patchy at best I see nothing wrong in asking a simply clarification question to make sure you were not also making that error.
I know. That is why I asked. The fact we have not mapped DNA for such things made me question your comment about us having DNA for the beleif in god. I was wondering if you were aware of a DNA break through that I was not - or was this just sciencey sounding rhetoric that you thought sounded good enough to bolster your arguments. Clearly it is the latter.
Clearly all you ever want to do is try to discredit me or my views without ever establishing your own bona fides. Why should the cognitive structures of our reality be any less related to our DNA than are our physical bone structure and other physical attributes? The Mithras story is a product of our earlier more carnal cognitive processing and reflects a less evolved cognitive structure . . . as we would expect.
Quote:
Perhaps if you did not see every question as an affront to your manhood you would not see criticism everywhere even where there is none. I made it very clear that I was asking a question for clarification purposes alone. Nothing to do with criticism. I simply wanted to clarify a point that was not clear. No more than that. There are lay people who could read your post and assume that the brain has different DNA than the rest of the body. Many people are ignorant enough of science to make that error and your posts wording does not help that. Also given your own science knowledge has often seemed patchy at best I see nothing wrong in asking a simply clarification question to make sure you were not also making that error.
This is pure irony . . . especially after criticizing and questioning my science knowledge repeatedly without EVER establishing that YOUR science knowledge even exists.
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.
