Religious discussion thread

[chen zhen]

Isn;t there a religon where you have to chop your testicles off and put um in a jar??? Serious. I saw somthin on it. on the internet

That would be Catholicism.

But seriously, maybe they should do it with the priests, to stop the child-molesting

[Ming Yue]

While the essence of "faith" is there, I just dont think you can purely compare theosophical faith to an understanding of scientific fact or theory. Scientific theory, while it necessarily extrapolates available information, is usually based on physical evidence (especially when we're talking about evolution and even the formation of planets) and not historical allegory or cultural parable.

I'm not saying there is no truth in the bible, or no mistakes in science. The two are different, but not mutually exclusive.

[Chang Style Novice]

Exactly Ming Yue. Religion and science are different animals concerned with different things. Mixing them up results in sad, confused headcases.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Ming Yue

I'm not saying there is no truth in the bible, or no mistakes in science. The two are different, but not mutually exclusive.

This was my point. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. It's human nature to try to understand our origins whether you explain it religiously or scientifically. I get tired of "religious" people or "scientific" people asserting that the two cannot coexist.

I just don't believe that either perspective will ever be proven in this reality.

[Evad]

concerning "faith" there is more than one definition of faith, and it does not necessarily have to be attached to religious context exclusively. Faith can be simple trust and assumption. For example, if you ever fly on an airplane, you don't really stop to worry about if the gas tanks are filled with enough fuel to get you where your going, you just have to have faith that someone did their job. Or if you are driving a car at 60 mph on a non-four lane hwy and an approaching car in the opposing lane is traveling at 60 mph, you have a closure rate of 120 mph and your gonna miss each other by a distance a few feet, you assume that that vehicle is not gonna vear into your lane and possibly kill you.

There's a little bit of faith in nearly everything we do, including MA, we have to place some faith on techniques and ourselves to be able to make those techniques effective.

Faith and trust go hand in hand and do not have to be limited to religious connotation. Basically, whatever floats your boat is what's true for you no matter what you place your faith in.

"For those who believe no explanation is necessary, for those who do not believe no explanation will do." - quote from somewhere I do not remember, but I thought it was cool.

I'm not advocating either side of the creation/evolution thing, I just think somewhere underneath all the controversy are common threads of belief that may or may not be true, and that could lead to even greater truth and discovery.

[Judge Pen]

How is this for a definition of faith:

Assurance of what we hope for and proof of what we cannot see.

Does this not apply to religious and non-religious beliefs?

[red5angel]

judge pen has it right, science is as much faith as any religion. At one time Copernicus knew how the planets rotated around the sun. Before him someone knew that the world was flat. Darwin knew that evolution must exist...

[Former castleva]

"judge pen has it right, science is as much faith as any religion. At one time Copernicus knew how the planets rotated around the sun. Before him someone knew that the world was flat. Darwin knew that evolution must exist..."

Quite a definition for science.Sometimes it kicks in when one is trying to infer it out of emotion.
I wonder if someone knew the world was flat and planets rotated like that,it sure was hard to tell those days.
What about "Darwin knew that..."...if we assume that you´re using ancient understanding of earth and planet as an analogy for this,I think you´re applying reverse gambler´s fallacy (I don´t know)I recommend "The Origin of Species" for those interested,most critics have not probably read it.It was published in 1859.
The book presents lots of experiments and data after data (actually the book was supposed to be bigger) and what they have to do with it´s general conclusion.It does not say "it must be so..." but rather lets one think and shows why it could indeed be so.The year is 2003.A lot has improved since those days,a lot has been added,the central arguments have been kept and verified by multiple fields of study.Things can be told and observed much better,the synthesis still has not changed essentially,only improved greatly.Even the central ideas concerning human origins first presented in the 19th century are enjoying popularity.

[Shuul Vis]

There is no Dana only Zuul..........

[Evad]

I agree, do you think that the old CMA masters, monks, taoists, etc had conversations similiar to these in some mystic brainstorming sessions? Or do you think they argued the point with just whoever was outside there belief's?

I'd like to think that as African Tiger pointed out, we're showing our scholarly side with some intelligent extrapolation, instead of juvenile points and counter points that lead nowhere. Soap operas are better off left to the television...

Great definition of faith JP. My point exactly.

[red5angel]

FC, read origin of species, thngs have changed a lot since Darwins time he only had it part right.

FC - experiments and data can be as perceived and as contrived as anything else. Do some research into the "brain pun" to see what I mean. Science is not better offthen any other religion out there, it is just a matter of how you choose to percieve it.
Don't get me wrong, I choose to look through "science" colored glasses for my world view, but I am not so foolish as to believe it is only because that is the way I choose to percieve things. 1+1 doe snot always equal 2.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Former castleva
I recommend "The Origin of Species" for those interested,most critics have not probably read it.It was published in 1859.

I've read it, and I'm not really criticizing the theory of evolution or the data that supports it. You can believe in a creator and not disbelieve in the theory of evolution. The two, like faith and science, are not exclusive.

I've met several scientists who believed in both a divine creator and evolution. I've also met several atheists who would use scientific data to support their personal disbelief. You cannot use science to prove the existence of a creator anymore than you can use it to disprove a creator. Thus faith applies to explain ones beliefs regardless of their application of the scientific method.

[MasterKiller]

1+1 doe snot always equal 2.

In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood says when men add 1+1+1, they get 3; When women add 1+1+1, they get 1+1+1. Her point was that focus determines your reality.

I've met several scientists who believed in both a divine creator and evolution.

Einstein's "Universal Constant" was something he fabricated because he could not let himself believe there was no God.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Evad


Great definition of faith JP. My point exactly.

I can't take credit for that definition. I paraphrased Hebrews 11:1.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller

In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood says when men add 1+1+1, they get 3; When women add 1+1+1, they get 1+1+1. Her point was that focus determines your reality.

Good book, but the movie was not up to par.