Discussion in 'Ancient History and Mythology' started by juantoo3, May 9, 2017.
Are you nuts?
Care to elaborate? Seems from what I see you presume already that Deity / Divine exists and trying to force the evidence to fit your preconceived notions. Rather, I've taken the opposite tack, attempting to see how humanity could have possibly contrived "god" if no such thing exists...
Scholarship teaches me to set aside my biases and suppositions in an effort to follow where the evidence leads. Starting with the conclusion, and working backwards forcing things to fit to suit your agenda is not scholarship...that is propaganda.
or confirmation bias... something i have issues with...
because despite we can't prove a G!d or Christ as the connection....I believe that the words, the congregation, the contemplation, the interpretation can benefit me in my life and those around me....and that is why I am religious.
Of course I also believe the words of Buddha, Krishna, Lao, Thay, Moses, at and McGiver can have benefits as well..
Oh, and I forgot 123...that guy is always great to take in some thought...but he as everyone also has to be taken with a grain of salt...some a Lot more than others.
OK, but then would that not also include Star Trek, Harry Potter and the Marvel comic universe?
Beneficial words can be found all around if one only takes the time to look, or more appropriately listen. Whether all beneficial words are on the same level of benefit is a source of debate. Is the wisdom of Captain Kangaroo of the same caliber as that to be found in the Vedas? On some level the answer is yes, on another level the answer is no. One distinction I notice right off is that one does not take itself too seriously, where the other does nothing but take itself seriously.
In all you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. In Captn Kangaroo it may be the serious from the not serious, or inspiration from the joking....but even in the joking you may often find metaphor or parable. In the vedas, I don't know them well enough. But in the bible, time has eroded some of the texts...anyone here wear clothing of mixed fabrics or think adultery to be a crime punishable by death?
You don't wear Poly-cotton underwear? Mixed fabrics abound in modern, first world wardrobes.
And I only have to open the newspaper to find instances of jealous spouses executing their cheating mate or potential rival...doesn't matter what I think, it happens all around me.
Like I said, some do nothing but take themselves (too) seriously.
Yes, I imagine M, M, L, n J left out Jesus's good jokes...and I'll bet they were almighty knee slappers.
LOL...I know G-d has a sense of humor. He smote one of the Old Testament bad guy groups with hemorrhoids. Just not enough of the funny stuff to take it out of the serious column.
Nasruddin was a 13th century Sufi who was basically a comedian. His jokes often conveyed deep spiritual meaning, but I think he also used humor for shock - just to wake people up from sleepwalking. He was often considered to be inappropriate by leadership, but people loved him then and now.
1. Maybe because we are hard-wired to be spiritual?
2. Maybe because we experience an existential vacuum that only spirituality can fill?
3. Maybe because from the earliest times humans have experienced "things of the Spirit", shared the experience, after which sects, cults and religions arose based on others' belief in the experience of the "Founders"?
1. Can you demonstrate the "hard-wire" and its specific location?
2. Can you demonstrate the "existential vacuum," let alone the spirituality that fills it?
3. As with #2, can you demonstrate "things of the Spirit?" Can you demonstrate "Founders?"
It is one thing to posit conjecture...the world is full of conjectures, soliloquies, anecdotes and platitudes.
It is quite another to support with actual evidence. That is what makes this subject so difficult to tackle in a scholarly manner.
Not that I particularly disagree, but there is no evidence that I've found to support your assertions.
Yay! Welcome back Juan
God fed the Ravens.
And the Ravens fed Elijah.
Hi Juantoo3 —
New Scientist seems to think we are.
Really, it's one of those 'science v religion' questions and that's where it falls down. is there 'hard' = 'empirical' evidence?
But there is evidence — experience — that can be measured within empirical parameters and therefore constitute evidence but the interpretation is something else ...
Separate names with a comma.