• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?


  • Total voters
    131

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
What is Fact?
• Natural Selection - YES (micro evolution)
• Textbook examples of “evolution in action” are
illustrating natural selection or “Micro-evolution” only

Charles Darwin gave us natural selection in his book Origin of Species. And the sequencing of the genome shows that natural selection is true.

The sequencing of the genome puts all life, with digital accuracy, on the tree of life.

Sequencing the genome shows exactly what relationship you and I have with a banana, because we all share the same DNA, and all DNA is connected - bananas, elephants, bacteria, jamain and Mole.

You and I are one with all life on Earth, for about four and a half billion years.
 

Riva

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
2,371
Enneagram
7w8
Charles Darwin gave us natural selection in his book Origin of Species. And the sequencing of the genome shows that natural selection is true.

The sequencing of the genome puts all life, with digital accuracy, on the tree of life.

Sequencing the genome shows exactly what relationship you and I have with a banana, because we all share the same DNA, and all DNA is connected - bananas, elephants, bacteria, jamain and Mole.

You and I are one with all life on Earth, for about four and a half billion years.

If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?

I've seen books on that topic, on the other hand I tend to think God is transcendent of things such as that, if its possible to know it then its not God if you know what I mean and it should be so, there has to always be something other and unfathomable or mankind will become mad and believe they are God.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?

That's the magical solution.
It is also explained by a mutating replicating programming through which we can track back evolutionary lineage.

Why do we need to look for a signature? Mod staff here are more direct about our existence than god is. You don't have to "guess" that we exist simply because stuff changes and disappears. If we never said anything to you, you would likely end up assuming eventually the entire site was automated. And if people are this way, you'd think an interactive loving deity would be even more interested in being explicit rather than people having to guess whether certain smudges that could easily be explained by natural means would be some kind of fingerprint. Otherwise he's just the man behind the curtain who you never see and never know directly.

Typically the arguments are all circumstantial in regards to "guessing" why god can't really do better than smudges that we want to label as fingerprints.

[And yeah, I'm being devil's advocate, but these questions have to be asked if any "faith" we have is to be placed in context appropriately.]

I had a friend once who I would argue with about these things, although at the time we were both "believers" of some kind or another, and she said that even if it were shown to her that dinosaur bones were appropriately dated and all that jazz to "prove" evolution, she said she would still continue to believe in the tenets of her faith. While this might seem silly to some, what I appreciated it about was her acceptance that the facts were against her, and that she was choosing to believe anyway SOLELY on faith rather than trying to manipulate evidence to somehow support her.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
That's the magical solution.
It is also explained by a mutating replicating programming through which we can track back evolutionary lineage.

Why do we need to look for a signature? Mod staff here are more direct about our existence than god is. You don't have to "guess" that we exist simply because stuff changes and disappears. If we never said anything to you, you would likely end up assuming eventually the entire site was automated. And if people are this way, you'd think an interactive loving deity would be even more interested in being explicit rather than people having to guess whether certain smudges that could easily be explained by natural means would be some kind of fingerprint. Otherwise he's just the man behind the curtain who you never see and never know directly.

Typically the arguments are all circumstantial in regards to "guessing" why god can't really do better than smudges that we want to label as fingerprints.

[And yeah, I'm being devil's advocate, but these questions have to be asked if any "faith" we have is to be placed in context appropriately.]

I had a friend once who I would argue with about these things, although at the time we were both "believers" of some kind or another, and she said that even if it were shown to her that dinosaur bones were appropriately dated and all that jazz to "prove" evolution, she said she would still continue to believe in the tenets of her faith. While this might seem silly to some, what I appreciated it about was her acceptance that the facts were against her, and that she was choosing to believe anyway SOLELY on faith rather than trying to manipulate evidence to somehow support her.

All those debates are political in origin anyway and a throwback to church control over society. Notice how almost no other religions have frets about evidence interfering with faith, or figuring out what the true and right answer is. We don't see people fighting over Izanagi and such for example even though Shinto is still pretty big today.

We don't see people going "Izanagi and Izanami couldn't have created the land because the continental plates prove otherwise" and somebody else going "Yeah well science is a trick and I'm going to believe this anyway!" Why not? Because they have no need to validate the religion. It doesn't matter because they're not trying to control politics, e.g. what gets taught in schools. That level of social control seems to be unique to the Abarahamic religions and the reason it is like that stems from social control and state influence. The church can't let itself be questioned if it's telling you what to do.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
All those debates are political in origin anyway and a throwback to church control over society. Notice how almost no other religions have frets about evidence interfering with faith, or figuring out what the true and right answer is. We don't see people fighting over Izanagi and such for example even though Shinto is still pretty big today.

We don't see people going "Izanagi and Izanami couldn't have created the land because the continental plates prove otherwise" and somebody else going "Yeah well science is a trick and I'm going to believe this anyway!" Why not? Because they have no need to validate the religion. It doesn't matter because they're not trying to control politics, e.g. what gets taught in schools. That level of social control seems to be unique to the Abarahamic religions and the reason it is like that stems from social control and state influence. The church can't let itself be questioned if it's telling you what to do.

All of which requires that you accept the premise that the church (what church?) is totalitarian, authoritarian and the "baddy" of the piece.

Surely that is a ridiculous oversimplification?

If the western world or the part of the world in which the abrahamic religions are rooted has supposedly been the most socially controlled, which I highly doubt, it has also been one of he most socially contested and socially challenged or usurped in history.

And how have the challlengers in every instance sought to usurp their enemies in the establishment? By attacking the narratives which sustain them, challenging the orthodoxy and changing the script, that's how.

Shinto, if I recall properly, is the state religion, it was adopted by the emperors and was in contest or conflict for a long time with Taoism which thought it was superstition, and I think that Taoism was appointed state religion for a time too or maybe it was confucianism.

The conflict in that part of the world was between taoism and confucianism, one believing man was perfect in a state of nature, uncorrupted by artifice, the other believing that man was corrupt in a state of nature and requiring instruction in the way of the upright, just and good man. Which is a sort of perennial debate globally echoed by Roseau, Voltaire and their conservative detractors as late as the modern political revolutions.

The literal truth of doctrines such as the genesis story I would suggest is a legacy of the solo scriptural and biblical literalism doctrines adopted in opposition to traditionalism by the protestant opposition to the church during the reformation. Far from it being an overarching authoritarian and monolith church insisting upon it, it was the pretenders who thought asserting their own orthodoxy and dogma contra the establishment they could raise enough support to drive the establishment to extinction. Dont take my word for it though, check out The Discourse on Free Will by Erasmus and Luther from continuum classics for a first hand account.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
All of which requires that you accept the premise that the church (what church?) is totalitarian, authoritarian and the "baddy" of the piece.

Surely that is a ridiculous oversimplification?

If the western world or the part of the world in which the abrahamic religions are rooted has supposedly been the most socially controlled, which I highly doubt, it has also been one of he most socially contested and socially challenged or usurped in history.

And how have the challlengers in every instance sought to usurp their enemies in the establishment? By attacking the narratives which sustain them, challenging the orthodoxy and changing the script, that's how.

Shinto, if I recall properly, is the state religion, it was adopted by the emperors and was in contest or conflict for a long time with Taoism which thought it was superstition, and I think that Taoism was appointed state religion for a time too or maybe it was confucianism.

The conflict in that part of the world was between taoism and confucianism, one believing man was perfect in a state of nature, uncorrupted by artifice, the other believing that man was corrupt in a state of nature and requiring instruction in the way of the upright, just and good man. Which is a sort of perennial debate globally echoed by Roseau, Voltaire and their conservative detractors as late as the modern political revolutions.

The literal truth of doctrines such as the genesis story I would suggest is a legacy of the solo scriptural and biblical literalism doctrines adopted in opposition to traditionalism by the protestant opposition to the church during the reformation. Far from it being an overarching authoritarian and monolith church insisting upon it, it was the pretenders who thought asserting their own orthodoxy and dogma contra the establishment they could raise enough support to drive the establishment to extinction. Dont take my word for it though, check out The Discourse on Free Will by Erasmus and Luther from continuum classics for a first hand account.

I might add that another issue is people jumping in to defend.

This isn't an oversimplification. If you paid attention and notice, I said I was talking about a phenomenon caused by a throwback to another period. This so happens to be a time when the church was in fact totalitarian.

The church itself no longer has that kind of power. What I'm saying is the habit to debate and be defensive is a remnant of that nearly absolute power the church once had. This is the after effect of generations of dogma and social training. The church is no longer cracking the whip but people still jump out of habit.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
All of which requires that you accept the premise that the church (what church?) is totalitarian, authoritarian and the "baddy" of the piece.

Surely that is a ridiculous oversimplification?

Honestly, it doesn't seem less simplified than preaching the "homosexual agenda" out to eradicate the innocent forces of heteronormality. There's a lot of casting in extremes of both sides going on in these discussions, and I'd like to see it minimized on both ends.

Now, realistically in the United States, Christianity was installed as the cultural religion for years and developed its own particular flavor here. (Christianity does this, one reason why it has been so successful in so many settings -- it adapts to its surroundings even while still being recognizable as some flavor of Christianity.) The dominance of that faith is not surprising, considering the religious makeup of the earliest European colonists to the US and the reasons they came here. That framework for parsing the world, being the established faith, filtered its way into political decisions and cultural mindset (influencing not just our own internal affairs but how we interacted with the rest of the world) as per our particular flavor of the faith.

What we've been seeing here over the last fifty years or so has been a dismantling of that particular perspective as the dominant one, to a more diverse outlook (cultural infusion began in the 60's/70's, at least noticeably to the populace?); and we're basically experiencing a lot of social upheaval as various groups jockey for position. For those who adhere to the old views, it can be a disturbing time as the culture is changing and their perspective is no longer inherently dominant, so they must find a balance for themselves just as the minorities have been forced to do for years. Eventually it will settle; but right now, there's a lot of turbulence as each group's influence is being readjusted.

The literal truth of doctrines such as the genesis story I would suggest is a legacy of the solo scriptural and biblical literalism doctrines adopted in opposition to traditionalism by the protestant opposition to the church during the reformation. Far from it being an overarching authoritarian and monolith church insisting upon it, it was the pretenders who thought asserting their own orthodoxy and dogma contra the establishment they could raise enough support to drive the establishment to extinction. Dont take my word for it though, check out The Discourse on Free Will by Erasmus and Luther from continuum classics for a first hand account.

Yeah, I see where you're going with that. I think a lack of historical context can result in a lot of overgeneralization of where particular views originated from. It's kind of like dispensationalism ("Left Behind" is a clear offspring), which some associate with "Christianity" harkening back to the New Testament but is really an offshoot of thought that entered the US around 1850-1860, I think. Very very recent. Christianity in the US over a period of two hundred years is not necessarily reflective of the Church over the last 2000.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I might add that another issue is people jumping in to defend.

This isn't an oversimplification. If you paid attention and notice, I said I was talking about a phenomenon caused by a throwback to another period. This so happens to be a time when the church was in fact totalitarian.

The church itself no longer has that kind of power. What I'm saying is the habit to debate and be defensive is a remnant of that nearly absolute power the church once had. This is the after effect of generations of dogma and social training. The church is no longer cracking the whip but people still jump out of habit.

Leaping in to defend? I wasnt being defensive, I was providing you with a counter point and alternative, new, fresh information to the cliche you were peddling but your content with it so, I suppose, that's alright, it works for you.

Some day you might have second thoughts about it and decide to learn the truth instead.

I dont believe the church was totalitarian then or now or any time, that's centuries of different opponents propaganda heaped up and taken for fact, you could as easily say that the UN is monolithic and totalitarian, which is patently false, the UN contains the communists and the fascists, China and the US etc. but I'm sure you get the analogy.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Leaping in to defend? I wasnt being defensive, I was providing you with a counter point and alternative, new, fresh information to the cliche you were peddling but your content with it so, I suppose, that's alright, it works for you.

Some day you might have second thoughts about it and decide to learn the truth instead.

I dont believe the church was totalitarian then or now or any time, that's centuries of different opponents propaganda heaped up and taken for fact, you could as easily say that the UN is monolithic and totalitarian, which is patently false, the UN contains the communists and the fascists, China and the US etc. but I'm sure you get the analogy.

Why was it so important for you to do this then?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Honestly, it doesn't seem less simplified than preaching the "homosexual agenda" out to eradicate the innocent forces of heteronormality. There's a lot of casting in extremes of both sides going on in these discussions, and I'd like to see it minimized on both ends.

I dont preach anything and you are conflating two issues which are nothing alike besides your partisan interests in both.

When yous stop doing that maybe we can talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Why was it so important for you to do this then?

Wot?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I dont preach anything and you are conflating two issues which are nothing alike besides your partisan interests in both. When yous stop doing that maybe we can talk.

Did you bother to read the rest of my post? I actually engaged you, but you seemed to have hot-buttoned off my first sentence and didn't bother with reading the rest... kind of proving my point.

If you want to try again, I'll wait. I found your later comments interesting.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]
Also when you tell people about their cliche peddling or partisan stances, that comes across as adversarial which is quite more than sharing information or giving alternate viewpoints. Just so you know.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]
Also when you tell people about their cliche peddling or partisan stances, that comes across as adversarial which is quite more than sharing information or giving alternate viewpoints. Just so you know.

Physician heal thyself.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
You seem to be taking it a lot more seriously than I am, that's all.

Its safe to say your not taking things seriously when you feel you're going to lose face.

I prefer discussion to games, so I'll keep it in mind if I'm tempted to counter any of your points in future.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

No.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Its safe to say your not taking things seriously when you feel you're going to lose face.

I prefer discussion to games, so I'll keep it in mind if I'm tempted to counter any of your points in future.

How many times have you said something like this to me? You know I'm like this so it's your own fault when you engage me. Don't give me this highfalutin bullshit.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?
It is very easy to go from god to the facts and read him into them, but it is very hard (to wit: impossible) to go from the facts to god and read him out of them.
 
Top