-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Christianity support?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Oh, the DIRs are meant to be for those of that particular faith/tradition. However, others outside are allowed to ask respectful questions and participate with the bounds or respect. Debating and insults and the like are not allowed. But there is a fine line between "discussion" and "debate". Debate is about trying to win the argument and be right. Discussion is about difference of view and dialoguing back and forth. I feel that's what we're doing here. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing and arguing the point, but it's really the spirit and manner of it.
To me, this discussion is in fact very pertinent to the Christian religion, and theism in general, as well as any of the "revealed religions". The points I am raising speaks to all of them, and my "home base" is the Christian religion when I find words to talk about the divine and these types of discussions. It drives home the point it is not necessary to believe in "Biblical literalism", and the like.
Just to clarify, when the forum software changed the Dir rules became more strict. This Dir used to be 'Green', and it worked as you described. Now every Dir is code 'Blue', so that outsiders may only ask respectful questions and may not comment at all.
The Dir is blue. If someone hits the 'Report' button on your post, this will put it into a process of review. You may get a notice about it or possibly a warning. Anyone may report any post. If this happens it is not an automatic suspension for you. Whether it happens or not you should move the conversation out of the Dir. I suggest either the Comparative Religions section (non debate just discussion) or Religious Debates (can debate heatedly).
Ok thanks. I'm using Tapatalk app so I don't see blue but I was able to unsubscribe from DIR forums but then how to move this and where I haven't a clue. Any advice most appreciated.
Well as long as your happy then I'm honoured to be your guest!
And this is where you are flatly wrong. There is mountain ranges worth of evidence flattening any denials. But as the saying goes, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still." And that is what we are dealing with here. It's not a matter of proofs, but a matter of willingness to accept it. I would not be saying this if it were not the truth of this.
Not really. Most certainly not at the biological level. And that's what you are struggling to comes to terms with here. Biologically, we are absolutely related to and descended from earlier species. The evidence clubs you over the head with this. It's undeniable. What you are mistaking here is trying to say we are "above the animals". And in a sense this is true. We are.
But what you are talking about is our behaviors. Our moral sensibilities, as we hold them. But that does NOT mean we are not biologically related. What you are focused on is our "higher thoughts". And you don't like the notions that we may have these "lower instincts". That, honestly, is the crux of what I see being the disagreement here. It's nothing more than that. Certainly not the science, but the comfortableness that we do not want to acknowledge our baser instincts.
No, we biologically were actually animals, and are animals still. We are mammals. That is a fact. What is so hard in accepting that, while respecting our higher minds evolved beyond just following nothing but our baser instincts? It's all there. It's all include. Instinct/impulse, and higher mind. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Oh I disagree! I think it's the very core of your objections.
Then why do you insist we are not like the animals but a distinct species? No science whatsoever in the world support this. Stop and look at that. Why do you fly into the face of science in your insistence against science if you feel one with all beings? Why not embrace the science that says exactly that?
You're going to have to spend some time thinking about this.
Yeah, but you have elevated these people above humanity to pseudo demi-gods. The fact is you when it comes to actually humanity, not these elevated symbols, you do not want to accept our "earthiness". That's a fact in everything I hear you saying. And as far as appearing once in about a thousand years.... all I can say is you should be a little less "defined" in your thinking. God manifests himself a whole lot more than just that! You may be speaking with these people you idolize more regularly than you imagine! Probably closer than your own nose.
Oh, but those grains of sand are shining, unique, glorious diamonds each glistening their individual radiance into the Eternal itself! And such is you! Such is me! Such is everyone on of us! You have no idea how brilliant a light each one of us is! You have no idea. I wish you did.
Beliefs, shmalifes. Blah. The reality is, on a deep existential level, you and the rest of humanity struggle with this. We don't like the idea we are "nothing" in the comparison game. That you want to be servants of humanity is great. But it will only happen when you totally come to terms with the idea we are "nothing". That we empty ourselves of seeking to validate our self-importance. Many can mouth these words, few understand them.
"Mere animal"???? Why not say, "animal", what a glorious creation!!!! Listen to your words. You don't hear ego screaming in them?
I have to break here....
Last edited:
Maybe I'm just making you upset so I will just try and read what you say and not say much more.
Last edited:
I wasn't upset. I was being emphatic about how gloriously beautiful all life is. Why say merely? I was simply being passionate.
So let me clarify a bit more here now that I'm in front of my computer and not typing from my cell phone. When I said I have to break here, I did not mean from the discussion. It meant I was typing too long and had to go do something else. Secondly, my use of exclamation points was solely for emphasis. I was not expressing frustration. Thirdly, when I said, "Listen to your words. You don't hear ego screaming in them?", that was not in any way meant to insult you. Reading it now, I could see where you may have taken the words that way, but it was not my intent at all. What I meant was simply that when people try to make themselves "not animals", which is what this is all about here, that is in fact our ego trying to be "better" than other lifeforms. That is in fact "ego" speaking.
That is what I was getting at. It is our ego screaming out "I'm not a mere animal!". It's ego, wanting to define ourselves as "this and not that". I hope that clarifies, and I apologize if my emphatic presentation came off as if I was upset at you. That wasn't the case.
That is what I was getting at. It is our ego screaming out "I'm not a mere animal!". It's ego, wanting to define ourselves as "this and not that". I hope that clarifies, and I apologize if my emphatic presentation came off as if I was upset at you. That wasn't the case.
I was worried when you said you had to break that I had offended you. I do get passionate. Anyway I'm glad you didn't break for good.
Yeah, when I read that this morning it hit me how that sounded, but not what I meant.
I spend a lot of time thinking out and posting my thoughts in each post and sometimes I have to say "enough" for now. That's why I usually only post a few maximum each day. There's a lot of meat to each post and people often say it takes two or three reads to unpack it.I'm actually working to write a book as well, taking a lot of what I post here as some of the content of it, since I already put the thought and energy into the posts here. I'll rework them a bit for the book, but a lot of it's already here. Conversations like this are part of the thoughts and direction I want to discuss in the book. So, this discussion with you is more than welcome for me! I enjoy the sincerity and honesty you have, as well as the thoughts you give to your points. You have a basis for what you say, and it shows me a lot about how those who hold certain points of view create their structures of support for themselves.
Last edited:
Yeah, when I read that this morning it hit me how that sounded, but not what I meant.
I'm actually working to write a book as well, taking a lot of what I post here as some of the content of it, since I already put the thought and energy into the posts here. I'll rework them a bit for the book, but a lot of it's already here. Conversations like this are part of the thoughts and direction I want to discuss in the book. So, this discussion with you is more than welcome for me! I enjoy the sincerity and honesty you have, as well as the thoughts you give to your points. You have a basis for what you say, and it shows me a lot about how those who hold certain points of view create their structures of support for themselves.
That's wonderful. If I can be of any help let me know.
Okay, coming back around to this where we left off...
While it is true that "survival of the fittest" applies to all animals, including the human species, that does NOT rule out compassion. Believe it or not, empathy and compassion, which on the surface seems to go against a "dog eat dog" mentality, actually serves the organism. To see beyond the "selfish gene" into "the other", seeing beyond our own individually selfish motivations, we actually do serve ourselves as a group, as a collective species, with not only all humans of every race, creed, and religion, but all life everywhere, to the whole of Creation itself. To "love one another", as Jesus taught, serves us by making us collectively stronger. Even to sacrifice one's own life for another, makes us as a species more fit for survival.
If you have 10 minutes, I highly recommend watching this brief but wonderful presentation of a lecture presented to the Royal Academy of the Arts called The Empathic Civilization. He covers a lot of ground quickly, but it's entertaining and extremely informative to watch. If you would like to understand how I see these things, this video is like lifting my skull cap off and looking directly into my brain. It's within the understanding of these areas he speaks to, and in how he presents them, that I in fact am doing what the Baha'i' nobly claim people should do in "harmonizing science and religion", but are not in their saying we are not an animal species, in rejecting the science because of abuses like a misapplied interpretation of the science in justifying the opposite of love and compassion.
There's a ton of stuff in here, and I would love nothing more than you watching it and asking me to elaborate further. I think you'll see the light in brings works far better to "harmonize science and religion" than to deny the scientific evidence which proves our actual origins. It shows it's all there, but just more evolved in us.... and where our continuing evolution is taking us! Pay particular attention to where he goes starting at 5:12 onward. To me, this is what a Jesus pointed us to, an Empathic Civilization.
Let's come back to where I left off after you watch this. You'll see how this rejects the whole abuse of science for a "selfish" civilization used to justify the likes of genocide, which he touches on at 8:34 in the video.
That people misapply philosophically the meaning of what science reveals, as well as abuse the data to justify their greed and lack of compassion does not justify rejecting the facts that are in, that the actual evidence shows we were descended from non-human animal species. What you do is go after the philosophy, not the science! There are other valid ways of interpreting the science of evolution than Social Darwinism which was used to justify genocide and the like. Naziism citing a type of "Social Darwinism" is a bad philosophy. Evolution is not bad science. You see the difference here? You do not need to reject the science. You need to better understand the science and apply it towards a richer, kinder, more loving world.
While it is true that "survival of the fittest" applies to all animals, including the human species, that does NOT rule out compassion. Believe it or not, empathy and compassion, which on the surface seems to go against a "dog eat dog" mentality, actually serves the organism. To see beyond the "selfish gene" into "the other", seeing beyond our own individually selfish motivations, we actually do serve ourselves as a group, as a collective species, with not only all humans of every race, creed, and religion, but all life everywhere, to the whole of Creation itself. To "love one another", as Jesus taught, serves us by making us collectively stronger. Even to sacrifice one's own life for another, makes us as a species more fit for survival.
If you have 10 minutes, I highly recommend watching this brief but wonderful presentation of a lecture presented to the Royal Academy of the Arts called The Empathic Civilization. He covers a lot of ground quickly, but it's entertaining and extremely informative to watch. If you would like to understand how I see these things, this video is like lifting my skull cap off and looking directly into my brain. It's within the understanding of these areas he speaks to, and in how he presents them, that I in fact am doing what the Baha'i' nobly claim people should do in "harmonizing science and religion", but are not in their saying we are not an animal species, in rejecting the science because of abuses like a misapplied interpretation of the science in justifying the opposite of love and compassion.
There's a ton of stuff in here, and I would love nothing more than you watching it and asking me to elaborate further. I think you'll see the light in brings works far better to "harmonize science and religion" than to deny the scientific evidence which proves our actual origins. It shows it's all there, but just more evolved in us.... and where our continuing evolution is taking us! Pay particular attention to where he goes starting at 5:12 onward. To me, this is what a Jesus pointed us to, an Empathic Civilization.
Let's come back to where I left off after you watch this. You'll see how this rejects the whole abuse of science for a "selfish" civilization used to justify the likes of genocide, which he touches on at 8:34 in the video.
Last edited:
More than happy to watch it. Note that evolution is not rejected just interpreted differently as we look at man holistically not purely biologically.
I have no problem with that, of course. My only point of contention is when you deny we evolved from an earlier, non-human animal species, that our biological evolution is not part of the animal kingdom. That is not just interpreting science differently philosophically, that's rejecting what it has demonstrable evidence proving to be true. How we chose to interpret the meaning or the implications of the evidence, is much different than interpreting the evidence itself.
To interpret the evidence itself to say it says we did not evolve from an earlier species is in contradiction to what all scientists (not philosophers) confirm to be a fact. It may seem like a slight distinction, but it's a night and day difference, one which accepts the science and offers interpretations of it, and the other which rejects the science and offers a different science of their own. That's a whopping big difference, wouldn't you agree? The latter is saying it does not agree with the scientists themselves. That's a rejection of the science. That's a denial of the Theory of Evolution. And there's no getting around that.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Do you believe that other animals have no souls?
where is your proof that we have souls.
and that Other animals do not.
The proof comes from quoting a prophet who is seen as Authoritative, the final arbitrator in all matters of faith and science. If science contradicts the prophet, science is wrong. Empirical evidence is unnecessary and irrelevant to the question. It's an entirely different system of truth and knowledge.
Another way of seeing it other than a confrontational view is that often a Messenger or Prophet will state something well ahead of His time that may take centuries to be discovered or proven.
For instance Baha'u'llah is way ahead of NASA and other scientists and even sciences that weren't born when He made this remarkable comment in the 1860's.
"Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."
"Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures."
Now until this is proven we will be laughed at, ridiculed and made fun of but when it is proven people will then learn that the statement was ahead of its time.
Also other statements which we can be highly criticised for now will be vindicated in the future so we have to just grin and bear it for now but we'll have our turn.
Being seen as being opposed to science couldn't be any further from the truth but also it can't be seen that these statements are ahead of their time. Ahead of NASA and space science and ahead of biology and evolutionary scientists.
The day will come when science itself will vindicate the truth of what has been said about creatures on planets and evolution but for now we just have to accept the criticism but we are not opposed to science.
Galileo contradicted the current sciences of his time and was opposed and we will be opposed too for saying some things but that is to be expected because the people who opposed him are the same people who will jump to conclusions about what we say instead of asking maybe they have got it wrong.
But as in his time they couldn't have been wrong so Galileo was the one who had to be opposed.
This narrow mindedness to go along with the contemporary thought just because it's contemporary doesn't mean truth.
Now he claimed that some of those who opposed his ideas had even refused to look through a telescope!! It's the same situation today.
Just one question. If Christ said you were wrong would you oppose Him? I mean really. He actually came to you and told you you were wrong. How would you react? Would you tell Him you know better or that your mind worked better than His?
If Jesus told me. I wouldn't question Him personally because I would trust that God had told me the truth.
To me it's as clear as the sun that man is not an animal and has a soul and animals do not. The world around me, our inventions, discoveries, our reason and intellect are more than enough proof for me but add to that God and religion and I don't need anymore proof.
An ape cannot worship God or become a Prophet, scientist and never ever will because they are not human and do not possess a soul.
We shape our own destiny. Animals are slaves to the world of nature and their senses.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
What has a soul to do with intellect?