Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 68 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Ok, this is just bizarre. It's ridiculous to diss Scientific fact because some idiots choose to abuse it. Science is not bad in and of itself! There is nothing more loving than knowing reality.

For you to call them "atheistic scientists" is ridiculous -- many of them espouse a belief in God.

Sure, all people have opinions, and they have BLEEPS too. Evolutionary biology receives contributions from paleontology, genetics, anatomy, ethology, mathematics, embryology, and many other fields besides. People study for years to become experts in any one of these disciplines, but you give no credence to their efforts and base any layperson's opinion on the same level as those who have spent their lifetime studying issues! Screwy thinking, Arielle.

Did you even read the links in either the OP or the ones supplied by Aquila Kytori? You going on and on but not once mentioned anything contained in those papers. Just because you know some scientists, doesn't make you one by osmosis :)

And I am giving credence to their efforts but not always to their conclusions because that's where bias starts setting in. In the case of the previously posted links, it's not even about that but how the author wants to "extend" the Darwinian theory rather than reject it even though it is no longer valid in light of new evidence. One doesn't have necessarily understand the science to realize when someone is attempting to avoid a crisis by playing a shell game.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

18 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

Except that for many it is not a case of free will

 

I am trying to clarify some of  the statements.

When i read your post i was upset  as to the treatment you stated  your grandfather experienced.. 

My real life husband who is a scientist,  read your post and said  "Ask for a clear clarification" .

My husband who was not catholic did attend the catholic school  and highschool and  was curious as to your response of free will.

 My  husband  said  he was not required  take religion since  he was not catholic and was given the choice if he wanted to attend the religion class as were the other non catholic   students .

So asking when you stated   ((( for   many it is not a case of free will )))

.Were you referring to classes in school  or living in a country w requirements about  type of allowed religious beliefs?

NOTE

Being Christian is still  illegal in  some  countries . 

18 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

My paternal grandfather had his education beaten into him by Jesuit priests.

trying to clarify

so the words  beaten  into him   is it the literal or figurative  meaning???

Did the Jesuit priests use physical force if he was not learning. Were all the priests at the school doing this ? Where is the school .When did this happen?

Or is it the  way the older generation would phrase  trying so show some one  how strict  the school was but there was in reality no physical beating

so the word beaten  is it the literal or figurative  meaning  

18 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

can remember him repeating to me the saying  attributed to these Jesuits  "Give us a child until the age of 8 and we will have him for life.

  philosopher Aristotle
 the great Greek philosopher Aristotle once said, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man
St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits said: "Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man."
18 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

The primary school I attended (age 4 - 11) was Church of England. I don't remember it being particularly religious but I left indoctrinated all the same. I guess because Christian parables etc are aimed at young children, science not so much.

 the parables were to teach moral lessons and aimed at the adults.

My husband said in his schools  there were all the sciences  and gave him the love and desire to become  a scientist.

18 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

Later I began to silently question this religion with its threats of hell and limbo

I grew up in strict polish home so   consequences  were part of life ,,,, example, if you steal there will be a consequence that you will not enjoy. 

I  was told that hell was  the  consequence for the wicked   meaning ,those who deliberately participated and got enjoyment from  another's torment . Hell was also a consequence for people who have  deliberate  evil  intent  towards another.  

Edited by roseelvira
spacing etc
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I feel a need to confront their mindset to protect others who are victimized by it.

Perhaps you don't understand how their mindset harms others?

Oh I understand, I also inderstand that your "confrontation" is seen by them as persecution, and that makes them think they are martyrs doing the work of God. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drayke Newall said:

I understand most points of view very well when talking about Christianity

Except that Chistianity is far more diverse than what you were exposed to. In one of your posts you said man's free will is central to the Bible, but in actually free will is one of the most debated and divisive ideas in Christianity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

The rest is endless contradictions other than some of Jesus' other teachings and words to us.  Most of the Gospel is a recording of Jesus going up against the Pharisees and the Sadducees, a Jewish government at the time.  

I needed to amend my other post by clarifying what I meant and including how much of the Gospel is a recording of Jesus going up against the Pharisees and Sadducees, a Jewish government at the time.  But, also a Jewish government that was not following all the law; i.e. they were hypocrites and selling to people a way out of their sin.  Jesus even threw them out of the temple.  It is a recording of events but should not spur anti-Semitism because churches have been known for selling icons and things and Jesus would not have wanted that.  As far as the Roman Catholic church, they were accused of selling indulgences at one time; i.e. somewhat like buying the stairway to Heaven.  

 

1 hour ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

It's literally the same level of crazy as this entire thread.

I hope you don't mind my post about all the banging that is constantly occurring in the universe and how with such similar matter in the universe it might stand to reason there would be more "earths" occurring the same way.  I got to thinking about the constant banging of matter in the universe when the slightest tip of my boot yesterday touched a 2" pollen pod in the back garden and it "powderised".  I knew millions of pollen spores were released into the air but I also knew I could not see the pollen spores.  Thus, matter in the universe is constantly banging around or colliding to create life.  And, since matter is mostly the same and easy to replicate itself, why not more earths?

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

 the Pharisees and Sadducees, a Jewish government at the time.  But, also a Jewish government that was not following all the law; i.e. they were hypocrites and selling to people a way out of their sin.  Jesus even threw them out of the temple.

where do you find this info?... they weren't a government at all, just groups with a slightly different accent in the Jewish faith, and totally not related to the happening in the temple.

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

where do you find this info?... they weren't a government at all, and totally not related to the happening in the temple.

I thought I wrote a kind of Jewish government.  Sorry about that.  How would you describe the Pharisees and Sadducee's?  

What happened in the temple then when the money-changers were thrown out?  Who made the temple a den of thieves?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

 How would you describe the Pharisees and Sadducee's? 

Pharisees : Traditional Jewish philosophers / Religionists

Sadducees : Jewish philosophers following the Greek tradition

What 'happened' there, although some regard it as inspired text, is, historically speaking, fictional.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

Pharisees : Jewish philosophers / Religionists

Sadducees : Jewis philosophers following the Greek tradition

That doesn't explain why Jesus was saying so often "Whoa to ye Pharisees, scribes and teachers of the law".  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Did you even read the links in either the OP or the ones supplied by Aquila Kytori? You going on and on but not once mentioned anything contained in those papers. Just because you know some scientists, doesn't make you one by osmosis :)

And I am giving credence to their efforts but not always to their conclusions because that's where bias starts setting in. In the case of the previously posted links, it's not even about that but how the author wants to "extend" the Darwinian theory rather than reject it even though it is no longer valid in light of new evidence. One doesn't have necessarily understand the science to realize when someone is attempting to avoid a crisis by playing a shell game.

Oh for crying out loud, it's evolution, not Darwinism. If the paper concludes that life didn't evolve over time through natural means, it's news. If it concludes that one scientist wasn't completely correct in the details of a theory it isn't. Your posts seem to be obsessed with Charles Darwin the person rather than science. You're not disproving Darwin, you're proving Pavlov.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

That doesn't explain why Jesus was saying so often "Whoa, to ye Pharisees, scribes and teachers of the law".  

It does. Religion IS law ( of God) for believers, remember ? ;)

 

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

How would you describe the Pharisees and Sadducee's? 

nearly the same as we see in christianity... different opinions about the teaching .. more strict or more flexible, there were several of those groups. The Jewish government was the Sanhedrin.
 

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

What happened in the temple then when the money-changers were thrown out?  Who made the temple a den of thieves?  

you said it were the same.. it are not. The temple's first level was taken over by merchands ... thát was where Jesus was upset about. The Pharisees and Sadducees were for sure not those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

nearly the same as we see in christianity... different opinions about the teaching .. more strict or more flexible, there were several of those groups. The Jewish government was the Sanhedrin.

I'm not so sure after reading this scripture.  Ah, but yes, I forgot about the Sanhedrin. 

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 23&version=ESV

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

I'm not so sure after reading this scripture.  Ah, but yes, I forgot about the Sanhedrin. 

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

and what does that text say ? This isn;t about government it's about their expression of the practice of the faith. Like you have street preachers now, they tell what's right to their opinion, not what Jesus teached. Thát is what he fights against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

and what does that text say ? This isn;t about government it's about their expression of the practice of the faith. Like you have street preachers now, they tell what's right to their opinion, not what Jesus teached. Thát is what he fights against.

Well, I'm not going to split hairs with you as it would take too long but this scripture says quite a lot more than an average street preacher.  Jesus went up against the teachers of the law at that time, so I don't see how you cannot see them as a kind of government - they had an awful lot of power and a power that put him to death.  They were more like a religious government.  Even the Sanhedrin was not as powerful as the Roman government. 

 

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talligurl said:
4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I feel a need to confront their mindset to protect others who are victimized by it.

Perhaps you don't understand how their mindset harms others?

Oh I understand, I also inderstand that your "confrontation" is seen by them as persecution, and that makes them think they are martyrs doing the work of God. 

What do we do with people who, when one points out (even in the most gentle manner) that they are doing something wrong by harming another, choose to feel they are being persecuted? In such a case, instead of entertaining the idea that they might indeed be doing something wrong, they turn it around to say the accuser is doing something wrong by even pointing the fact out. This is a defense mechanism, designed (albeit often subconsciously) to not face reality.

I'm not going to help someone avoid facing reality by not confronting them as they harm another, although I will tailor my confrontation according to the person (some need a more gentle approach, while others may need a stronger confrontation).

When one of my brothers goes on and on about the Nephilim, supposed giants on another planet who influenced Earth in the past and are due to return any day (yes, hearing this for too many minutes harms me..lol) I simply do a masterful deflection and say "hey did you hear what happened in the news today"?

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Jesus went up against the teachers of the law at that time, so I don't see how you cannot see them as a kind of government - they had an awful lot of power and a power that put him to death.

This is kind of interesting : You keep repeating the word law , while reporting about distinctions in philosophy.  The Romans ruled Israel by Roman law, not Jewish. Herod was placed as a national king only by Roman approval. The Farizees and Sadduccees did not hold office in governments.

Jesus rantings are about ideas. Not actual laws.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Well, I'm not going to split hairs with you as it would take too long but this scripture says quite a lot more than an average street preacher.  Jesus went up against the teachers of the law at that time, so I don't see how you cannot see them as a kind of government - they had an awful lot of power and a power that put him to death.  They were more like a religious government.  Even the Sanhedrin was not as powerful as the Roman government.


There is no clear line between government and the faith. The Sanhedrin was the highest Jewish ruler, in worldly and faith issues. And these were Levites, the priestly orde. The Sadducees and Pharisees were nó part of that. You could in simple words say, they had their own churches within the Jewish faith.
Jesus doesn't spend any time in teaching or pointing to the Roman occupation, and they had to be obeyed because they were the occupiers, had nothing to do with the internal Jewish faith. And in this matter irrelevant.

Edited by Alwin Alcott
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

This is kind of interesting : You keep repeating the word law , while reporting about distinctions in philosophy.  The Romans ruled Israel by Roman law, not Jewish. Herod was placed as a national king only by Roman approval. The Farizees and Sadduccees did not hold office in governments.

Jesus rantings are about ideas. Not actual laws.

No, I don't see it that way.  They were a religious government of the Jewish faith.  They held the highest (best) seats at the temple and were the rabbi.  That is a form of government similar to the Pope, I'd guess.  The laws Jesus is speaking about are the 612 or so laws of the Torah, the Hebrew laws, not the Roman laws.  Jesus is not ranting about ideas in any way, shape or form - he is speaking about The Torah, The Law of Moses as well as other names it goes by.  This is vital because this "law", the law of Moses, is what Jesus set us free from.  Jesus did not set us free from actual government laws.

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FairreLilette said:

No, I don't see it that way.  They were a religious government of the Jewish faith.  The held the highest (best) seats at the temple and were the rabbi.  That is a form of government similar to the Pope, I'd guess.  The laws Jesus is speaking about are the 612 or so laws of the Torah, the Hebrew laws, not the Roman laws.  

"I am ticketing you for speeding. "

"No officer, I only am to be held responsible by my Lord and Saviour and your accusation is invalid, because I prayed to God and promised I would drive safely. "

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

"I am ticketing you for speeding. "

"No officer, I only am to be held responsible by my Lord and Saviour and your accusation is invalid, because I prayed to God and promised I would drive safely. "

Now you are ranting now.  

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Nobody at my work has been vaccinated yet, because our tier hasn't come up yet.

I'm in an online neighborhood community in a red state and in a town that is pretty much red also..

I find it funny that I don't ever see posts like that pop up , but I do see people telling others where they can get vaccinated or asking where or when the health department or the rec center are doing their next vaccinations..

I've heard maybe two people since the start of the pandemic ever say the virus was a hoax, when  everyone everywhere else was saying they were hearing it all the time..

I must just live in some special redzone that is different from the whole rest of the countries or something.. hehehehe

The technician who drew my blood during my last physical expressed scorn for the clinic for "forcing" her to take the dangerous vaccine against her will. I asked what her concern was and she said she didn't want to contract the virus from an insufficiently tested vaccine. I explained that the virus was not used in the production of the vaccine, so her particular fear was completely unfounded. She seemed unfazed and I expected her to repeat her disinformation campaign with future patients.

I reported the encounter to my physician and the technician was either removed from patient contact work, or terminated (unclear from the wording of the clinic's replay to my report.)

The technician clearly believed the virus was real, not a hoax. Still, she harbored distrust of the vaccine for an unfounded reason. I might excuse that from a layperson, but she's a health care provider and should have received proper training. In my report, I stated that, while the technician might be uncomfortable receiving the vaccine, I was uncomfortable receiving medical care from people who know less about medicine than I do, and proselytize that ignorance. That was a little hyperbolic, but I did actually leave the clinic and move to one associated with a large research hospital in Milwaukee which has demonstrated a much higher level of competence throughout my cancer care.

Shortly after I switched clinics, the chain running the one I left made the news when one of their pharmacists purposely attempted to spoil hundreds of doses of vaccine...

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2021/01/31/grafton-pharmacist-who-sabotaged-covid-19-vaccines-flat-earther/4333699001/

Both the technician and the pharmacist went undetected in the hospital system for years.

If you can obtain vaccination statistics for your community and company, watch them in comparison to the rest of the country. If, by fall/winter (when issues of availability should have been addressed), the vaccination numbers show a disparity in vaccination rates between red and blue regions, check yours. Only then (unless other mitigating factors overwhelm) will you know if your redzone (or any, for that matter) is special, and whether it's a company or community thing.

ETA: There is a presumption that anonymous surveys reveal thinking (vaccine skepticism) that people don't necessarily express to each other (so you don't see them). Covid-19 is providing a pretty big dataset, so the truth of that presumption will be put to a test.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 68 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...