tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Perhaps Creationism should be referred to as "The Big Faux Pas"
-
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!
Why don't some people like being created?
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I like "Kent Hovind Disease"...Perhaps Creationism should be referred to as "The Big Faux Pas"
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It's not realistic and that is why it is problematic. My suspicion is that these attitudes are rooted in a deep insecurity and distrust of our natural grace. That grace is what connects us to all other beings and it is when this grace is supplanted with illusory ideas of special status that we create a disconnect from the very root of our being. It is because we are disconnected that we, in turn, create gods to fills that void, that hole in our being. If only people could learn to trust their nature and reconnect with all that is, our troubles here would be considerably diminished.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
An excellent post, Ymir.
Sadly, it's probably destined to fall on deaf ears that need to hear it the most.
Sadly, it's probably destined to fall on deaf ears that need to hear it the most.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Help me out here, Walkntune. When you say that science has changed through the years, are you referring to the scientific method itself (assuming that you know what that is), or are you talking about the explanations of the natural universe that science embraces?
Please tell me that you understand the difference between incorporting new evidence in explaining what is happening around us, and the methodology used to verify that evidence (or lack thereof).
See, science is not embarrased when new evidence is discovered. Unlike religion, there is no need to act as if mankind is already perfect, nor any reason to fear change. In science, the pursuit of knowledge is more important that deluding ourselves that we already know everything worth knowing.
Come on, Walkntune. You do realize that people thought you could sail off the edge of the world too - but it was science - not religion - that laid that myth to rest. It is always science - and never religion - that expands our base of knowledge. Or perhaps you would dispute that statement?
If so, we can start a thread in the debate section, so that you can dazzle us with your evidence to support such a claim.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The fact that science changes over the years is evidence of the success of science.
Rather than stagnate is dogma, science changes as new knowledge is gained.
The only embarrassment is the dogmatic adherence to superstition and ignoring the world as it changes around you.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Who is in charge at a zoo?
tarasan
Well-Known Member
Would you say that religion has been the cause that allowed science to make the discovery? for example like the monks who took care of the sick in the monestaries, or perhaps the urge that drove people to make discoveries? I just want you to define it a little more for the sake of my curioisty Im not trying to trap you.
I know its a little off topic.Also What do you mean by discovery, because could you say it was religion that discovered spirituality, or am I going to far/misunderstanding?
RedOne77
Active Member
Sure, I'll dispute it. It wasn't science or religion that taught us the Earth is round, it was Greek mathematics!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I see.
God gave us control of all animals......
But only in an enclosed environment....
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
No, the reason they are in the zoo is because we have control of them.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
In my opinion, science has arisen in spite of the efforts of the religious leaders throughout history, rather than because of them. I'm sure that there have been times in the past where a religious leader has aided in the search for knowledge, but overall, the record tells us that religious leaders have not only stunted the pursuit of knowledge, but have openly punished those that participated in the chase. It isn't religion per se, but the leaders of the various religions that have historically tried to retard the pursuit of knowledge. Galileo and Darwin are two of the best examples of this - but there are tons of others.Would you say that religion has been the cause that allowed science to make the discovery? for example like the monks who took care of the sick in the monestaries, or perhaps the urge that drove people to make discoveries? I just want you to define it a little more for the sake of my curioisty Im not trying to trap you.
It is no accident that the time when science was crushed in the effort to maintain religious authority is known as "The Dark Ages", and the era beginning with the advent of the scientific method is known as "The Age of Reason".
Some countries in the Middle East currently suffer from just this situation. Theocracies that insist on following Islam (or any other religion) at the expense of knowledge will always suffer from this limitation.
I don't consider spirituality to be something that was discovered. Just as no one ever "discovered" love, desire, or anger - spirituality is simply an emotional response to the human condition. At least, that's my view of it. Perhaps one of the other members can state that in a better manner than I have.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.
Charles Darwin
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
"They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground."
God
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Blasphemer!
Quoting the devil's spawn is no way to debate with an open minded opponent like MoF.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. "
God?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
OK come on lets be real!!! It is only those who step out in intuition and open up there awareness to possibilities (not trying to make reality line up with there own methods) that advance knowledge.
Mainstream science comes along after the facts to pick up the glory.
Logic follows awareness! Awareness does not follow logic!
That underlined was the science of the day, not the religion !
Last edited:
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Sure, I'll dispute it. It wasn't science or religion that taught us the Earth is round, it was Greek mathematics!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
No.
Upon noticing that one could see the tops of the sails of ships far out to sea, but not the hulls, a prediction that the earth was not flat was made (observation).
It was Greek mathematics that postulated the idea that the earth's surface was curved (hypothesis).
It was the captains of ships that sailed over the curvature of the earth (testing the prediction).
It was the safe return of those ships (collecting the evidence) that confirmed the accuracy of the hypothesis.
And THAT, my friend, is what we know as the scientific method. Granted, it was not called that at the time, but it was the methodology just the same.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Certainly not in your world.