Religion, Science, and Government

[RavenHawk]

This started in Weird, Bizarre & Offbeat News under http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=278195&st=30 but the reply I think belongs elsewhere, so I’m starting a new thread here since it seems to be more about religious skepticism rather than offbeat news (which it shouldn’t have in the first place). Just trying to practice what I preach.

It all falls from the same tree, so some of us can't see much difference between Muslims and Christians.

Over all, I would agree. There isn’t that much difference. But there is one thing that does make a huge difference. Christendom has matured and evolved. That doesn’t mean that every sect. or branch has but the main trunk has. Islam isn’t anywhere close to evolving. And that is where the problems originate.

The Cleric is just an example of what happens when people use an out of date book on religion as a science book.

In many ways, the Quran is not out of date. It has its modern day incarnations like in Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” or Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”. But I agree that it is not a science book. And that is where people end up in trouble. The Bible is not a science book either, but it does record scientific principles. Genesis 1 is a record of evolution, but it is not a scientific model that can be manipulated and tested. In the 1600s a Bishop Ussher determined the age of the Earth from careful reading of the Bible, however, he made a really bad assumption. He assumed that the chronology in the first 11 chapters of Genesis was sequential. Even in Moses’ time, these stories were ancient, disjointed, and incomplete. Nowhere in the Bible does GOD specify the Earth’s age. In Genesis 2, we see where Adam creates science to explain GOD’s universe. The implication was that all the answers would not be in religious texts but in the curiosity of Man.

It really doesn't matter which one they are using, you're going to come up with the same answers.

So far, that hasn’t been the case. The Bible is about the message of Christ. The Quran is about the Conquest of Mohammed. Christianity and the Church went astray for a couple of reasons, the first was Roman influence and the other was Muslim influence from first contacts with the Visigoths and Byzantines. That forced the Church to become militant.

Let me ask, though, how do you define who is leftists and rightist?

There are many labels that a leftist and rightist can fall under (Socialism, Monarchy, Marxism, Communism, dictatorship, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Anarchy, and Democracy). Any form of government that leads to Totalitarianism. So leftist and rightist are of the same fabric. And this is where most of the world lives. True freedom can only be found in a system of government where that government is limited and controlled, not the people. A very benevolent government toward its people, protecting them from every ill is slavery. It is too much control of a government over the people.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Genesis 1 is a record of evolution, but it is not a scientific model that can be manipulated and tested.

I think you have to do some incredible gymnastics to say that Genesis 1 is a record of evolution. If it was, I would have expected when Darwin came around that we should see lots of responses from theologians stating, 'ah, of course, Darwinian evolution fits perfectly with what Genesis 1 says'; maybe there was and I haven't noticed them because of religious people complaining so vehemently that evolution conflicts with Genesis.

In Genesis 2, we see where Adam creates science to explain GOD's universe.

I'm not sure where Adam creates science but am no expert on the bible either, can you let me know specifically what you are referring to?

Christianity and the Church went astray for a couple of reasons, the first was Roman influence and the other was Muslim influence from first contacts with the Visigoths and Byzantines.

It also went astray because the Church simply thought that the Bible, "in context", "properly understood", instructed them to do and believe things that they've now changed their minds on.

[eight bits]

LG

I think you have to do some incredible gymnastics to say that Genesis 1 is a record of evolution.

Amen. And let's face it, hardly anybody cared about the origins of pond scum, what got the churchly energized against Darwin was the origin of people. "Are you descended from apes on your grandfather's side or your grandmother's?" It was all about the Sixth Day.

Of course, nowadays, pond scum is the last frontier of the God-of-the-gaps, and so how the first replicating lifeform got going is supposedly some enormous crisis for a secular worldview, or for that matter, for any traditional religion whose gods aren't the creators.

[RavenHawk]

I think you have to do some incredible gymnastics to say that Genesis 1 is a record of evolution. If it was, I would have expected when Darwin came around that we should see lots of responses from theologians stating, 'ah, of course, Darwinian evolution fits perfectly with what Genesis 1 says'; maybe there was and I haven't noticed them because of religious people complaining so vehemently that evolution conflicts with Genesis.

Not at all. A few years ago, I posted an article on it here. When Darwin proposed the theory, theologians or most people for that matter, didn’t understand evolution. Fear and ignorance took over from there. Even the Church today is starting to understand that there is no conflict. But Darwin wasn’t the only one that was developing this theory at this time. So what caused this “collective consensus” independently? Darwin was just the first to push it to the next level. What I think happened was movements like Millerism (Adventism) in the 1830s spread across the globe and basically got people to get back into reading the Bible. I think that many people began to see something in Genesis 1 but only a few went on to consider origins of life. It was probably so subconscious that linking Genesis with observation was the farthest thing from an epiphany. My thinking processes from the 1980s probably replicated some the thinking processes of many in the 1830s, but I had the benefit of already knowing the theory.

I'm not sure where Adam creates science but am no expert on the bible either, can you let me know specifically what you are referring to?

Genesis 2:19-20:

“Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.”

You’ll notice that GOD didn’t tell Adam what each animal was called. It was up to Adam to name them. This was the first scientific postulate made. Naming the animals.

It also went astray because the Church simply thought that the Bible, "in context", "properly understood", instructed them to do and believe things that they've now changed their minds on.

And that was because of the influence from the world around them (Roman and Muslim). At the time, it needed that influence because it was that influence that stopped Muslim encroachment into Europe. The Early Christians were not so militant in spreading the faith. Some of the oldest Christians are Copt and Assyrian. They didn’t force the faith on anyone but today they are being killed.

[Leonardo]

True freedom can only be found in a system of government where that government is limited and controlled, not the people.

Why call that "true freedom" when you can simply eliminate government and any rule of law and simply allow anyone to think, speak and do exactly what they desire to think, speak and do? That is "true freedom" and it is a scenario far more horrific than the "controlling, overgrown government".

As for Christianity having 'evolved', that is debatable. Christianity has, by circumstance, been forced to accommodate secular ideas and ideologies in order to survive and draw in fresh victims generations of adherents. However, the core tenet of the Church has not 'evolved' at all and it would make as bad a form of government as Islam or any other religion would.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Don't get sucked in.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

Why call that "true freedom" when you can simply eliminate government and any rule of law and simply allow anyone to think, speak and do exactly what they desire to think, speak and do? That is "true freedom" and it is a scenario far more horrific than the "controlling, overgrown government".

Freedom is a natural right, which means it has responsibilities too. The Greeks knew “the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government”. So what you describe may be a freedom, it is not true freedom. And on the other end, living in a gilded cage as most people under a Socialist government do today also have freedom but that is not true freedom either. It is an illusion because the government is in absolute control. The government should act like a traffic cop, not a jailer. Unfortunately, the US has been going down that path for more than a century now. It may eventually catch up to the rest of the world. It just depends on what the next President does.

As for Christianity having 'evolved', that is debatable. Christianity has, by circumstance, been forced to accommodate secular ideas and ideologies in order to survive and draw in fresh victims generations of adherents. However, the core tenet of the Church has not 'evolved' at all and it would make as bad a form of government as Islam or any other religion would.

The Peace of Westphalia and the Ecumenical Council Vatican II indicates a slow progression of tolerance and acceptance. Can you point to similar events in Islam? Circumstance is certainly one force that brings change or evolution. So to you, what is the core tenet of the Church and is it the same as that of Jesus?

[Grandpa Greenman]

All you have done, RavanHawk is show me why all the Abrahamic religions seem the same to me. First thing y'all scream is Marx's, Darwin, Hitler... Then comes the, my way is better than Hitler/Marx's way... Well, you don't have to go very far to be better than the likes of Hitler or Marx's. It doesn't have to be so black and white. Religion is not the business of government. Theocracy is just another form of fascism. Religion should be irrelevant to the to the operations of government and the courts. What changed in Europe wasn't so much Christianity changing as much as limiting the role of religion in government. That way everybody gets to have their own religion or no religion, because it doesn't matter.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Not at all. A few years ago, I posted an article on it here. When Darwin proposed the theory, theologians or most people for that matter, didn't understand evolution. Fear and ignorance took over from there. Even the Church today is starting to understand that there is no conflict. But Darwin wasn't the only one that was developing this theory at this time. So what caused this "collective consensus" independently? Darwin was just the first to push it to the next level. What I think happened was movements like Millerism (Adventism) in the 1830s spread across the globe and basically got people to get back into reading the Bible. I think that many people began to see something in Genesis 1 but only a few went on to consider origins of life. It was probably so subconscious that linking Genesis with observation was the farthest thing from an epiphany. My thinking processes from the 1980s probably replicated some the thinking processes of many in the 1830s, but I had the benefit of already knowing the theory.

Okay, well, that is a theory. I'm not sure what you mean by 'see something' as there really isn't anything in Genesis that I see that really even suggests evolution; I don't think it necessarily conflicts if not taken literally, but it does unfortunately talk about 'kinds' in a way that may not exactly suggest evolution. 'Fear and ignorance' sure prevailed for a long time, and again is just a theory, a somewhat presumptive one; I think a good number of people opposed the theory not out of fear and ignorance but because it conflicted with the Bible, 'properly understood' according to them.

You'll notice that GOD didn't tell Adam what each animal was called. It was up to Adam to name them. This was the first scientific postulate made. Naming the animals.

I really don't think that's consistent with what we usually call a scientific postulate. Assigning words to things is a necessary part of language, and since we can assign words to things that are not scientific, I don't know how naming can then be a scientific postulate.

[Emma_Acid]

You'll notice that GOD didn't tell Adam what each animal was called. It was up to Adam to name them. This was the first scientific postulate made. Naming the animals.

I'm speechless.

[Doug1029]

I'm speechless.

Linnaeus is rolling over in his grave.

Doug

[Imaginarynumber1]

This thread is absurd and pointless.

[Leonardo]

Freedom is a natural right, which means it has responsibilities too.

Rubbish. How can one be "truly free" if one has the expectation of responsibilities to 'obey'?

Nothing in your argument suggests you understand the concept of 'freedom', merely that you are anti-government and this thread is largely an anti-govt and anti-Islam rant by yourself.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Rubbish. How can one be "truly free" if one has the expectation of responsibilities to 'obey'?

Nothing in your argument suggests you understand the concept of 'freedom', merely that you are anti-government and this thread is largely an anti-govt and anti-Islam rant by yourself.

[ellapenella]

.

As for Christianity having 'evolved', that is debatable.

Leonardo , come on, you know it has . You know your statement here is debatable . I know you know . I see your conversations. I'm sort of surprised you said this.is all.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

Not at all. A few years ago, I posted an article on it here. When Darwin proposed the theory, theologians or most people for that matter, didn't understand evolution. Fear and ignorance took over from there. Even the Church today is starting to understand that there is no conflict. But Darwin wasn't the only one that was developing this theory at this time. So what caused this "collective consensus" independently? Darwin was just the first to push it to the next level. What I think happened was movements like Millerism (Adventism) in the 1830s spread across the globe and basically got people to get back into reading the Bible. I think that many people began to see something in Genesis 1 but only a few went on to consider origins of life. It was probably so subconscious that linking Genesis with observation was the farthest thing from an epiphany. My thinking processes from the 1980s probably replicated some the thinking processes of many in the 1830s, but I had the benefit of already knowing the theory.

Genesis 2:19-20:

"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."

You'll notice that GOD didn't tell Adam what each animal was called. It was up to Adam to name them. This was the first scientific postulate made. Naming the animals.

And that was because of the influence from the world around them (Roman and Muslim). At the time, it needed that influence because it was that influence that stopped Muslim encroachment into Europe. The Early Christians were not so militant in spreading the faith. Some of the oldest Christians are Copt and Assyrian. They didn't force the faith on anyone but today they are being killed.

RavenHawk...

I sort of feel like you're wanting to make a point about something ,only the posters are not trying to hear what you're saying. I don't know. I figure that with all going on in the world maybe you see something , like some sort of reason or connection and that was maybe the reason behind this thread posted. Maybe it's not and i'm confused , wouldn't be a first..

Like I kind of read through the lines of comparative perspectives . I'm not as cool as the other posters here .I just believe in giving a person a fair chance and even if I don't agree with a religion or a non region view of , I still would like to hear a person out. Especially one who gave of themself so that I may have those freedoms.

Thank you RavenHawk ((hugs))..

[XenoFish]

We're all slaves to something. The only freedom that comes is when you realize the chains that bind you.

[ellapenella]

We're all slaves to something. The only freedom that comes is when you realize the chains that bind you.

^^^

Edited February 21, 2015 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

Rubbish. How can one be "truly free" if one has the expectation of responsibilities to 'obey'?

Nothing in your argument suggests you understand the concept of 'freedom', merely that you are anti-government and this thread is largely an anti-govt and anti-Islam rant by yourself.

Oh You Who , excuse me, Mr. Leonardo , if I may , thats an American Soldier you're saying that too , our soldiers know all too well , the costs of freedom.

[Leonardo]

Oh You Who , excuse me, Mr. Leonardo , if I may , thats an American Soldier you're saying that too , our soldiers know all too well , the costs of freedom.

There's a difference between respecting what a person does (or did) and respecting what they say (or said).

What a person might say regarding something does not necessarily show you the whole of that person. I can accept that RH has good qualities and might be a good person while disagreeing strongly with certain opinions he holds, or even actions he takes.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Leonardo

[Mr Walker]

Rubbish. How can one be "truly free" if one has the expectation of responsibilities to 'obey'?

Nothing in your argument suggests you understand the concept of 'freedom', merely that you are anti-government and this thread is largely an anti-govt and anti-Islam rant by yourself.

This is a interesting philosophical debate in itself No man can be truly free unless all men are limited by duty and responsibility Ie a society evolves the best systems to trade off individual freedoms for a society which enables freedom for all SOme interesting theses have been written on how the American west shows the evolution of this principle in a relatively modern and well documented society The frontier was a place for rugged individualism where order was enforced by strong men and the gun. Whole social and quasi legal codes evolved which became known as "the code of the west." Then as women and "civilization" arrived, men had to trade their individualism and personal freedoms for social responsibility and lawful behaviour based on new social expectations, or pay the price. LAws became formalised, and were enforced increasingly by legal officers, from lawmen of different types, to judges and formal juries.

Guns often had to be surrendered on entering any township although they were still recognised as essential tools and protection for anyone outside of a township. (if your horse threw and dragged you, you would die unless you could shoot the horse for example)

Edited February 21, 2015 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

This is a interesting philosophical debate in itself No man can be truly free unless all men are limited by duty and responsibility...

So, no-one is 'free' unless everyone is wearing the same shackles?

[Grandpa Greenman]

We're all slaves to something. The only freedom that comes is when you realize the chains that bind you.

"we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key."

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I originally did not contribute in this thread, because of the the lack of knowledge of the bible and the Quoran. I find it interesting that the topic has switched to the idea of what freedom is. I read the different posts here, and I am fascinated. Ellapennella has a point, as a wife of a retired AF airman, most of the military individuals I do believe have a really good idea about the cost of freedom. Every since 9/11, the term, 'freedom isn't free' makes for a remarkable reflection. We do work hard for what we feel is our right. Xenofish, and GreensmansGod, and others here, I reflect positively too. So I reflect on the questions of 'are we really free when we have 'responsibilities' and such? The thing is, freedom as in the lack of freedom to do what you want. I still cannot say about what holy backs say, or what the various tenets of each belief has to say to this, but I always will have a memory of one friend in the past saying, 'the only thing you really have no control over is dying' Yeah, there is the usually the joke of taxes too, but I think some have tried to get out of that too.

We have obligations, we have responsibilities, we have needs, but one cannot submit to them unwillingly. You just experience the consequences of not submitting to them. I think that is the difference here.

Even today, we have various beliefs in various institutions, but you have the right to explore them, and wonder if you feel you will feel the consequences later on. We have the military, but in most countries, it's mostly voluntary and if you don't join, that's fine. If you do, you have the choice to not submit to it's disciplines, but there of course the consequences.

Are we not free to separate ourselves from various instructions? I think so, and I believe the consequences are not as severe as they use to be. In most areas of this planet.

I think with belief, our own feelings, that we cannot control, that come by earned by experiences, give us the freedom to live peacefully within each context of each belief. I just don't think we can generalize what one does over the other.

*shrugs*

[Leonardo]

I originally did not contribute in this thread, because of the the lack of knowledge of the bible and the Quoran. I find it interesting that the topic has switched to the idea of what freedom is. I read the different posts here, and I am fascinated. Ellapennella has a point, as a wife of a retired AF airman, most of the military individuals I do believe have a really good idea about the cost of freedom. Every since 9/11, the term, 'freedom isn't free' makes for a remarkable reflection. We do work hard for what we feel is our right. Xenofish, and GreensmansGod, and others here, I reflect positively too. So I reflect on the questions of 'are we really free when we have 'responsibilities' and such? The thing is, freedom as in the lack of freedom to do what you want. I still cannot say about what holy backs say, or what the various tenets of each belief has to say to this, but I always will have a memory of one friend in the past saying, 'the only thing you really have no control over is dying' Yeah, there is the usually the joke of taxes too, but I think some have tried to get out of that too.

We have obligations, we have responsibilities, we have needs, but one cannot submit to them unwillingly. You just experience the consequences of not submitting to them. I think that is the difference here.

Even today, we have various beliefs in various institutions, but you have the right to explore them, and wonder if you feel you will feel the consequences later on. We have the military, but in most countries, it's mostly voluntary and if you don't join, that's fine. If you do, you have the choice to not submit to it's disciplines, but there of course the consequences.

Are we not free to separate ourselves from various instructions? I think so, and I believe the consequences are not as severe as they use to be. In most areas of this planet.

I think with belief, our own feelings, that we cannot control, that come by earned by experiences, give us the freedom to live peacefully within each context of each belief. I just don't think we can generalize what one does over the other.

*shrugs*

I think there is a bit of confusion between the terms 'freedom', 'equality', and 'ethicality' in this latest twist of the discussion. Freedom is not equality, and neither is it about 'doing the right thing', or even 'doing the right thing for everyone'. It is easy to confuse the concepts, but it shouldn't be done.