Discussion:
Why is science different from God?
Add Reply
Jahnu
2020-02-09 23:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God, which makes science dependent on God.

Krishna says:

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance,
knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed
I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. —Bg
15.15


Sri Krishna Chaitanya propounded the philosophy of achintya beda abeda
tattva - inconceivably one with and different from God. Achintya beda
abeda tattva is the culmination of Shankaracharya's oneness and
Madhvacharya's dualism.

Where as Shankaracharya preached absolute oneness - that the jiva is
absolutely one with God, in fact the jiva is God, and Madhvacharya
stressed the point of the jiva being absolutely different from God,
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna Himself, came to combine the two
understandings. He taught that the jiva at the same time is one with
and different from God. The jiva is one with God in quality and
different from Him in quantity.

It's interesting to note in this connection, that there is progression
of roughly 500 years intervals - first Buddha came 500 years before
Christ and taught that everything is shunya or zero. Then 500 years
after Christ, Shankaracharya came and taught that everything is one.
The 500 years later Madhvacharya came and taught that everything is
two, and finally, 500 years after that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came and
taught that everything is one and two.


http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das




Lucifer
2020-02-10 03:24:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
Jahnu
2020-02-10 11:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:24:35 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
What makes you thin you are qualified to judge reality, Lucy?

Atheists? Happy lives? There is no such thing. There is nothing mother
nature hates more than atheism.

It is not possible to be happy and content in life, by living in the
illusion of thinking that nature is mine to enjoy as I see fit.

A happy atheist is an oxymoron. Sure, you get sense-enjoyment, but
sense-enjoyment has never, ever made anyone happy. It’s a statistic
fact.

And, besides, it’s predicted in the Vedic version.

Krishna says:

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures
do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul
there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. —Bg 4.40

Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
—Bg 9.12



http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das

http://youtu.be/Fq-n0bbhpaA

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Lucifer
2020-02-10 14:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:24:35 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
What makes you thin you are qualified to judge reality, Lucy?
I'll do the thinin' 'round here Bubba Louie and don't you forget it!

I live in reality Jesper. Thin about that.
Lucifer
2020-02-13 05:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:24:35 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
What makes you thin you are qualified to judge reality, Lucy?
I'll do the thinin' 'round here Bubba Louie and don't you forget it!

I live in reality Jesper. Thin about that.
Jahnu
2020-02-13 07:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:29:02 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
I live in reality Jesper. Thin about that.
Vishnu says:

When one resents the demigods, who represent God, the Vedas, which
give all knowledge, the cows, brahmanas, Vaisnavas and religious
principles, and ultimately Me, the Supreme, he and his civilization
will be vanquished without delay. -- Srimad Bhagavatam 7.4.27




http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das

http://youtu.be/Fq-n0bbhpaA

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Lucifer
2020-02-13 08:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:24:35 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
What makes you thin you are qualified to judge reality, Lucy?
I'll do the thinin' 'round here Bubba Louie and don't you forget it!

I live in reality Jesper. Thin about that.
Jahnu
2020-02-15 02:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:13:22 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
I live in reality Jesper. Thin about that.
Krishna says:

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the
non-existent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the
eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by
studying the nature of both. (Bg. 2.16)
So according to Krishna's definition, reality is that which is eternal
and unreality, or illusion, is that which is temporary. Note that
illusion does exist, but it is unreal in the sense that it's not
eternal.

Someone may object - if I smash my head into a wall, the pain I feel
is very real. How can it not be real? But if seen in the light of
eternity it is not real. For instance, I may break my leg today, but
10 years from now it will not be real, what to speak of 100 years from
now. It will be as if it never happened.

So illusion exists, it is not false or fictional, but the reason it is
not considered real is because it is not eternal. It's like a dream. A
dream happens, but when we wake up, we understand it was not real.
Life in a material body is like that - dream-like. Say, we have a real
nice meal today, a week from now, it will be no more real to us than
had it been a dream.

That’s how life in a material body is like a dream. We'll realize
that, if not before, then at the time of death. Death will be a rude
awakening for the atheist.

So reality and illusion are defined by time. One is eternal the other
is temporary. And if you think about it, it makes sense. Anything seen
in the light of eternity will be manifested for such a short flicker
in time, that it is as if it didn't really happen.

Brahma, the god of creation, is said to live as long as the universe
lasts - which is calculated to be 311 trillion solar years. So if you
live for such an unfathomable length of time, then imagine what a
person's life-span on earth of, say, 80 years must look like. I don't
even live a second from Brahma's point of view. How real would a
person be to you, if he existed for a second? Think about it.

If you take 80 years out of 311 trillion years it is such a miniscule
portion of time, that for all practical purposes it might as well not
have happened. But then again, if you take Brahma's lifespan and
compare it to eternal time, it is just as little. However long time is
taken out of eternal time, it will still amount to nothing.

The duration of the universe will make a lifespan on earth seem
completely insignificant, and the cosmic time of millions, billions,
and trillions of years will seem totally inconsequential and
insignificant from the angle of eternal time. So in the light of
eternity, anything that is not eternal is but an illusory glimpse.
That's how one can understand that anything which has a beginning and
an end is illusory. Only that which is eternal is real.

Now, in this world, what is then real, someone might ask. We don't
have any experience of something that lasts forever, do we? Yes we do.
The only thing, that lasts forever is the conscious self. The soul is
eternal, so in the material world the only real thing is ourselves,
our real selves, the soul, anything else, including our body and mind,
is temporary, and thus illusory.

That's why self-realization, according to Vaishnava theology, means to
realize one's eternal self beyond the temporary body and mind. Krishna
gives a brilliant argument in the Bhagavad Gita to help a thoughtful
person experience his eternal self.

A person's body goes through different stages of infancy, childhood,
youth, old age and finally death. But during all these changes of the
body and the mind, the self (the inner sense of I-feeling), or the
inner observer remains constant. I am the same ‘me’ when I’m young as
when I’m old. That's one way we can logically understand we are
eternal.

The human life-form is unique in the sense that it allows the self to
understand its own eternity. So the purpose of human life is to
connect with the eternal self. If one is simply absorbed in the body
and its demands, one is wasting this valuable opportunity - an
opportunity that is only available in the human life-form. Eating,
sleeping, mating and defending, the soul can do in any life-form, only
in the human form can the self connect with eternity, ie. reality.

Krishna says:

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these
kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. (Bg 2.12)

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood
to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at
death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. (Bg 2.13)

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg. 7.25)


http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das

http://youtu.be/Fq-n0bbhpaA

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
ravn
2020-02-10 23:38:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lucifer
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
What makes you thin[k] you are qualified to judge reality, Lucy?
What makes any consciousness, including infinite ones, *unconditionally* qualified to judge reality? (Wouldn't an infinite consciousness have infinite knowledge & infinite ignorance conjoined since at every instance of its existence involves both?) OTOH, how could you discount a limited qualification for any consciousness to judge reality?
Atheists? Happy lives? There is no such thing. There is nothing mother
nature hates more than atheism.
You mean there's nothing more than atheism *you* hate. Motherly love is unconditional. & given your hatred for atheism, could you claim that theism necessarily involves a happy life what with all the fretting over the non-theistic inclinations of others? Who is unconditionally happy outside of the momentary happiness of toddlers, anyway? (Not knocking toddlers, BTW. They're just in the process of growing up.)
It is not possible to be happy and content in life, by living in the
illusion of thinking that nature is mine to enjoy as I see fit.
Well, does atheism involve the promotion of the idea of dominion over the world & others? No, it doesn't. Both theists, & atheists can object to that notion unless either one happens to subscribe to it for whatever ulterior reasons. But it is not intrinsic to either atheism nor theism.
A happy atheist is an oxymoron. Sure, you get sense-enjoyment, ...
& you don't? You're just as happy to take a dump along with the rest of us.
but
sense-enjoyment has never, ever made anyone happy.
Oh, so when you take a long walk, that drink of water afterward doesn't make you happy? Come on. Get real.
Lucifer
2020-02-10 14:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Science deals with real things. God is not real.
k***@gmail.com
2020-02-10 14:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Once people started to ask the "how" and "why", without resorting to "godidit"
science started to advance faster.

KRYOEL
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God, which makes science dependent on God.
I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance,
knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed
I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. 唯g
15.15
Sri Krishna Chaitanya propounded the philosophy of achintya beda abeda
tattva - inconceivably one with and different from God. Achintya beda
abeda tattva is the culmination of Shankaracharya's oneness and
Madhvacharya's dualism.
Where as Shankaracharya preached absolute oneness - that the jiva is
absolutely one with God, in fact the jiva is God, and Madhvacharya
stressed the point of the jiva being absolutely different from God,
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna Himself, came to combine the two
understandings. He taught that the jiva at the same time is one with
and different from God. The jiva is one with God in quality and
different from Him in quantity.
It's interesting to note in this connection, that there is progression
of roughly 500 years intervals - first Buddha came 500 years before
Christ and taught that everything is shunya or zero. Then 500 years
after Christ, Shankaracharya came and taught that everything is one.
The 500 years later Madhvacharya came and taught that everything is
two, and finally, 500 years after that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came and
taught that everything is one and two.
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das
http://youtu.be/Fq-n0bbhpaA
http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Siri Cruise
2020-02-10 16:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article
Post by k***@gmail.com
Once people started to ask the "how" and "why", without resorting to "godidit"
science started to advance faster.
Actually early societies separated into peasants (descendants of
farmers and artisans) and nobility (descendants of successful
theives of peasants), a distinction which persists, but much
weaker.

The nobility tended to produced the scholars, the ThDs, who would
do the thinking without dirtying their hands. The peasants
produced the technicians who dirtied their hands but whose ideas
were ignored. That's where scientific method stopped: the
thinkers refused to do experiments, and the technicians could do
the experiments but were not allowed to think.

Christianity moral equivalency of nobility and peasants
eventually brought about a social levelling. That's when
theorists could do experiments and remain respectable, while
experimenters could think about what they were doing without
being accused of getting above their stations.

In fact many scientists do think goddidit and show their faith by
trying to understand a little of their god by learning how it was
done. So the subject line is a nonsequitur, and the kind of
condenscending comment intended to drive atheists and theists
apart,

Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|Â¥
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / ¥
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
k***@gmail.com
2020-02-10 16:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Indeed there are/were great scientists who were devout believers. Christianity does not exceptionally here , neither better or worse than other religions. However, the advance of science is easier in tolerant societies. Religion usually doesn't help here. But sometimes ...
Social and political change towards more liberal and progressive direction was done by a coalition of people of many faiths or dominions. Nobody would be able to do it alone.

KRYOEL
Siri Cruise
2020-02-10 17:00:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article
Post by k***@gmail.com
science is easier in tolerant societies. Religion usually doesn't help here.
Facts say otherwise.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Alex W.
2020-02-11 00:50:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
Post by k***@gmail.com
Once people started to ask the "how" and "why", without resorting to "godidit"
science started to advance faster.
Actually early societies separated into peasants (descendants of
farmers and artisans) and nobility (descendants of successful
theives of peasants), a distinction which persists, but much
weaker.
The nobility tended to produced the scholars, the ThDs, who would
do the thinking without dirtying their hands. The peasants
produced the technicians who dirtied their hands but whose ideas
were ignored. That's where scientific method stopped: the
thinkers refused to do experiments, and the technicians could do
the experiments but were not allowed to think.
That's a simplistic analysis.

For a start, "the nobility" is too generalised. What was and is
required are education, funding and time. This meant the younger
offspring of nobility who had all three because they were either put
into holy orders or whose duty to the family extended no further than to
secure a favourable dynastic marriage. Elder siblings tended to be far
too busy running countries or estates and waging war.

It also very much included members of the urban mercantile classes.
Science might be produced by the thinkers, but technological advances
came from this class, whether it be spectacles, microscopes, telescopes,
time-keeping instruments or the printed word. Guild membership
typically protected their members' livelihood and even encouraged novel
ideas and technologies because those increased profitability,
competitiveness and prestige.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.

A bigger part, however, was played by market forces. Expansion and
increased sophistication required an ever more educated workforce. The
larger the number of the professional classes, the more economic and
political weight they had to throw around. Lawyers, navigators,
bankers, doctors, engineers, chemists and all the others: in the
aggregate, they know their value and they demanded a seat at the table
of power to protect them from the slings and arrows or outrageous noble
prerogative.
Siri Cruise
2020-02-11 03:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
For a start, "the nobility" is too generalised. What was and is
required are education, funding and time. This meant the younger
offspring of nobility who had all three because they were either put
into holy orders or whose duty to the family extended no further than to
secure a favourable dynastic marriage. Elder siblings tended to be far
too busy running countries or estates and waging war.
They had the money and the power and didn't let anyone else into
their club. Prechristian roman, greek, chinese nobility ran the
economy. Peasants were there to make food, not get uppitty by
thinking too much. Merchants moved goods as the nobility directed.
Post by Alex W.
It also very much included members of the urban mercantile classes.
Science might be produced by the thinkers, but technological advances
came from this class, whether it be spectacles, microscopes, telescopes,
time-keeping instruments or the printed word. Guild membership
typically protected their members' livelihood and even encouraged novel
ideas and technologies because those increased profitability,
competitiveness and prestige.
Theodoric of Freiberg was one of the earliest practioners of the
scientific method c 1300. (He not only thought about rainbows,
but made practical models that verified his thoughts. He was the
first to understand the refraction, reflection, and refraction.)

By the time of microscopes, telescopes, and the printed books,
the scientific method had been percolating through european
society for a couple of centuries. The letters of Paul had been
percolating a tad longer.

Merchants were able to start industrial revolutions in Europe
because class barriers had been lowerred enough to allow people
to buy their way into nobility. In China class barriers remained
in place until the twentieth century; their industrial revolution
began in c 1950.
Post by Alex W.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
Paul's doctrine of moral equality initiated the uppitty notion of
social equality. It is has been propagated since by diverse
people, but don't pretend how it started.

Could it have started elsewhere or elsewhen? I don't see why not.
The basic concept is to be able to look into a person's eyes and
see not danger and strangeness but a fellow human. That's
biological, and seems to be hundred thousand to million years old.

Though I do wonder whether mirror neurons have further evolved
recently, maybe during the near extinction 70 Kyears ago. That
might have been why people trusted each other enough to form
mutually supportive farms and villages.
Post by Alex W.
A bigger part, however, was played by market forces. Expansion and
Market forces didn't exist until people were able to buy into
nobility. And that didn't happen until social barriers had been
lowerred. Trade before that was at government direction or not
sufficient to inspire run away innovation.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Don Martin
2020-02-11 11:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.

If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2020-02-12 02:09:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.

Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.

In other countries, the capture of the state by religions resulted in
state churches. This must have seemed a most desirable development for
the church leaders at the time, but invariably over time they lost
prestige, power and believers as the secular state undermined and
subverted them. Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Cloud Hobbit
2020-02-12 02:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.

Democracy is simply gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Good that we chose to be a republic.

When it comes to religion I think what undermines it the most is how easily it is these days to debunk it.
Especially true of Christianity. No evidence of a God.

No evidence of a fish that could swallow a man.
No evidence of the Exodus.
No reliable witnesses to any miracles.
No evidence of a world wide flood.

No evidence.
Alex W.
2020-02-13 00:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Democracy is simply gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
Good that we chose to be a republic.
A republic is a form of democracy.
Post by Alex W.
When it comes to religion I think what undermines it the most is how
easily it is these days to debunk it. Especially true of
Christianity. No evidence of a God.
No evidence of a fish that could swallow a man. No evidence of the
Exodus. No reliable witnesses to any miracles. No evidence of a world
wide flood.
No evidence.
Evidence, alas, is not required when it comes to belief.

Humans are world champions at pigeonholing, compartmentalising,
rationalising, interpreting reality to suit our fears, desires and
preconceptions. We can -- and do -- persuade ourselves that white is
black at the drop of a hat. We have no trouble making ourselves believe
six impossible things before breakfast. And yes, that also includes
atheists and scientists.

Note also that religion is in fact growing in many parts of the world.
Islam is growing. Christianity is growing. Nor is this growth organic
by way of natural reproduction. To assume that a stupendously
successful social and cultural concept like organised belief would
simply lie down and die just because we throw some facts at it and
dazzle people with technology is a dangerous misconception. Old
religions (like incumbent market-leading companies, in fact) are
ponderous and institutionalised, slow to react to changes ... but new
versions are far more nimble and are doing very well indeed.
Don Martin
2020-02-13 11:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Democracy is simply gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
Good that we chose to be a republic.
A republic is a form of democracy.
Post by Alex W.
When it comes to religion I think what undermines it the most is how
easily it is these days to debunk it. Especially true of
Christianity. No evidence of a God.
No evidence of a fish that could swallow a man. No evidence of the
Exodus. No reliable witnesses to any miracles. No evidence of a world
wide flood.
No evidence.
Evidence, alas, is not required when it comes to belief.
Humans are world champions at pigeonholing, compartmentalising,
rationalising, interpreting reality to suit our fears, desires and
preconceptions. We can -- and do -- persuade ourselves that white is
black at the drop of a hat. We have no trouble making ourselves believe
six impossible things before breakfast. And yes, that also includes
atheists and scientists.
Note also that religion is in fact growing in many parts of the world.
Islam is growing. Christianity is growing. Nor is this growth organic
by way of natural reproduction. To assume that a stupendously
successful social and cultural concept like organised belief would
simply lie down and die just because we throw some facts at it and
dazzle people with technology is a dangerous misconception. Old
religions (like incumbent market-leading companies, in fact) are
ponderous and institutionalised, slow to react to changes ... but new
versions are far more nimble and are doing very well indeed.
Bullshit thrives when there is money to be made; consider the anti-
climate change stance of our president and yours or the U.S. mortgage
market leading to the 2007-8, and the tax breaks for the clergy
(including the self-anointed) far exceed those of politicians,
brokers, or bankers.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2020-02-13 23:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Democracy is simply gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
Good that we chose to be a republic.
A republic is a form of democracy.
Post by Alex W.
When it comes to religion I think what undermines it the most is how
easily it is these days to debunk it. Especially true of
Christianity. No evidence of a God.
No evidence of a fish that could swallow a man. No evidence of the
Exodus. No reliable witnesses to any miracles. No evidence of a world
wide flood.
No evidence.
Evidence, alas, is not required when it comes to belief.
Humans are world champions at pigeonholing, compartmentalising,
rationalising, interpreting reality to suit our fears, desires and
preconceptions. We can -- and do -- persuade ourselves that white is
black at the drop of a hat. We have no trouble making ourselves believe
six impossible things before breakfast. And yes, that also includes
atheists and scientists.
Note also that religion is in fact growing in many parts of the world.
Islam is growing. Christianity is growing. Nor is this growth organic
by way of natural reproduction. To assume that a stupendously
successful social and cultural concept like organised belief would
simply lie down and die just because we throw some facts at it and
dazzle people with technology is a dangerous misconception. Old
religions (like incumbent market-leading companies, in fact) are
ponderous and institutionalised, slow to react to changes ... but new
versions are far more nimble and are doing very well indeed.
Bullshit thrives when there is money to be made; consider the anti-
climate change stance of our president and yours or the U.S. mortgage
market leading to the 2007-8, and the tax breaks for the clergy
(including the self-anointed) far exceed those of politicians,
brokers, or bankers.
Bullshit thrives, full stop.

All it needs is a growth medium: money, power, a desire for mischief, or
even a simple urge to believe. And the moment we decide to suspend our
disbelief and invest ourselves into a particular notion, it's game over....
Don Martin
2020-02-12 10:14:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
Nothing like receiving tax money to keep you preaching to three old
ladies and a dog each Sunday. Still, were I a European, I would
regard my tax contribution as a fair rental for those numerous
architectural tourist attractions the church operates.
Post by Alex W.
In other countries, the capture of the state by religions resulted in
state churches. This must have seemed a most desirable development for
the church leaders at the time, but invariably over time they lost
prestige, power and believers as the secular state undermined and
subverted them. Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Is not the Catholic the state church in France? I know it is in
Belgium but I have not kept up, apart from concluding that declaring
one sect a state church is the high road to the irrelevance of
religion. Our separation seems best suited at spawning ever more
sects, superchurches, and televangelists. If I had no morals, I'd
found a church myself.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Siri Cruise
2020-02-12 11:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Is not the Catholic the state church in France? I know it is in
Belgium but I have not kept up, apart from concluding that declaring
one sect a state church is the high road to the irrelevance of
religion. Our separation seems best suited at spawning ever more
sects, superchurches, and televangelists. If I had no morals, I'd
found a church myself.
Feel free to join my Church of Zen Discordianism. Weekly
donations are $230. Double on St Tibbs Day.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Alex W.
2020-02-13 00:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
Nothing like receiving tax money to keep you preaching to three old
ladies and a dog each Sunday. Still, were I a European, I would
regard my tax contribution as a fair rental for those numerous
architectural tourist attractions the church operates.
Tax money helps, of course. And in that regard, I am far less hostile
to religion than some here. I appreciate the fact that the social and
welfare institutions provided by such tax-funded churches offer good
value for money and create a genuine competition to their secular state
counterparts.

Also note that it is not always the money. England, for instance, does
have a state church whose nominal head is also the equally nominal head
of state ... but they do not receive any taxes or tithes from the state.
Churches and other tourist attractions are entirely maintained and
staffed from donations and investments.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
In other countries, the capture of the state by religions resulted in
state churches. This must have seemed a most desirable development for
the church leaders at the time, but invariably over time they lost
prestige, power and believers as the secular state undermined and
subverted them. Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Is not the Catholic the state church in France? I know it is in
Belgium but I have not kept up, apart from concluding that declaring
one sect a state church is the high road to the irrelevance of
religion. Our separation seems best suited at spawning ever more
sects, superchurches, and televangelists. If I had no morals, I'd
found a church myself.
France does most emphatically not have a state church. The idea of
"laicitè", or secularism, is mandated by the constitution and the
separation of state and religion is zealously guarded. They do not even
own the churches they worship in: each and every one of them is the
property of the French state and the Catholic church is merely a tenant.
Don Martin
2020-02-13 11:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
Nothing like receiving tax money to keep you preaching to three old
ladies and a dog each Sunday. Still, were I a European, I would
regard my tax contribution as a fair rental for those numerous
architectural tourist attractions the church operates.
Tax money helps, of course. And in that regard, I am far less hostile
to religion than some here. I appreciate the fact that the social and
welfare institutions provided by such tax-funded churches offer good
value for money and create a genuine competition to their secular state
counterparts.
Also note that it is not always the money. England, for instance, does
have a state church whose nominal head is also the equally nominal head
of state ... but they do not receive any taxes or tithes from the state.
Churches and other tourist attractions are entirely maintained and
staffed from donations and investments.
I was not clear--I really had not thought of taxes as supporting the
attractions directly, but simply as my fair share toward their upkeep.
Budgeting hath many pockets.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
In other countries, the capture of the state by religions resulted in
state churches. This must have seemed a most desirable development for
the church leaders at the time, but invariably over time they lost
prestige, power and believers as the secular state undermined and
subverted them. Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Is not the Catholic the state church in France? I know it is in
Belgium but I have not kept up, apart from concluding that declaring
one sect a state church is the high road to the irrelevance of
religion. Our separation seems best suited at spawning ever more
sects, superchurches, and televangelists. If I had no morals, I'd
found a church myself.
France does most emphatically not have a state church. The idea of
"laicitè", or secularism, is mandated by the constitution and the
separation of state and religion is zealously guarded. They do not even
own the churches they worship in: each and every one of them is the
property of the French state and the Catholic church is merely a tenant.
Then the state is on the hook for Notre Dame repairs. I did not know
that it owned the real estate; does it evict misbehaving tenants?
(Quasimodo is wearing a yellow jacket these days and is generally
innocent, but is sacerdotal sexual abuse lower in France than in the
Vatican?)
I would think that the French government would have been better off
letting the church keep the buildings but abolishing the real estate
tax waiver on religious holdings.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2020-02-13 23:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
Nothing like receiving tax money to keep you preaching to three old
ladies and a dog each Sunday. Still, were I a European, I would
regard my tax contribution as a fair rental for those numerous
architectural tourist attractions the church operates.
Tax money helps, of course. And in that regard, I am far less hostile
to religion than some here. I appreciate the fact that the social and
welfare institutions provided by such tax-funded churches offer good
value for money and create a genuine competition to their secular state
counterparts.
Also note that it is not always the money. England, for instance, does
have a state church whose nominal head is also the equally nominal head
of state ... but they do not receive any taxes or tithes from the state.
Churches and other tourist attractions are entirely maintained and
staffed from donations and investments.
I was not clear--I really had not thought of taxes as supporting the
attractions directly, but simply as my fair share toward their upkeep.
Budgeting hath many pockets.
Budgeting is more creative than the lies of a serial adulterer.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
In other countries, the capture of the state by religions resulted in
state churches. This must have seemed a most desirable development for
the church leaders at the time, but invariably over time they lost
prestige, power and believers as the secular state undermined and
subverted them. Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Is not the Catholic the state church in France? I know it is in
Belgium but I have not kept up, apart from concluding that declaring
one sect a state church is the high road to the irrelevance of
religion. Our separation seems best suited at spawning ever more
sects, superchurches, and televangelists. If I had no morals, I'd
found a church myself.
France does most emphatically not have a state church. The idea of
"laicitè", or secularism, is mandated by the constitution and the
separation of state and religion is zealously guarded. They do not even
own the churches they worship in: each and every one of them is the
property of the French state and the Catholic church is merely a tenant.
Then the state is on the hook for Notre Dame repairs. I did not know
that it owned the real estate; does it evict misbehaving tenants?
(Quasimodo is wearing a yellow jacket these days and is generally
innocent, but is sacerdotal sexual abuse lower in France than in the
Vatican?)
I would think that the French government would have been better off
letting the church keep the buildings but abolishing the real estate
tax waiver on religious holdings.
The state is most definitely on the hook for Notre Dame. That said, it
is such an iconic building and of such emotional significance to the
French that the citizenry has opened its collective pockets to fund the
repairs (pending the outcome of the budgeting exercises, of course).
This largesse actually annoyed quite a few people who took the
opportunity to point out that a great many churches and other old
state-owned properties are in more or less dire state of disrepair and
could well use some funds to, say, restore the roof or shore up the
foundations....

The trouble with your tax suggestion is that the maintenance costs of
old buildings ranges from "high" to "horrendous". If tax breaks are
removed, the churches need to be able to own serious assets in order to
fund the upkeep. In France, this would mean restitution of all the
properties and assets expropriated during the revolution.
Don Martin
2020-02-14 13:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
Nothing like receiving tax money to keep you preaching to three old
ladies and a dog each Sunday. Still, were I a European, I would
regard my tax contribution as a fair rental for those numerous
architectural tourist attractions the church operates.
Tax money helps, of course. And in that regard, I am far less hostile
to religion than some here. I appreciate the fact that the social and
welfare institutions provided by such tax-funded churches offer good
value for money and create a genuine competition to their secular state
counterparts.
Also note that it is not always the money. England, for instance, does
have a state church whose nominal head is also the equally nominal head
of state ... but they do not receive any taxes or tithes from the state.
Churches and other tourist attractions are entirely maintained and
staffed from donations and investments.
I was not clear--I really had not thought of taxes as supporting the
attractions directly, but simply as my fair share toward their upkeep.
Budgeting hath many pockets.
Budgeting is more creative than the lies of a serial adulterer.
You say "serial adulterer" as if it were a bad thing. I have never
done adultery, but I cannot imagine doing it only once, given the way
we males are hard-wired to yearn for harems like alpha-male baboons on
Viagra.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
In other countries, the capture of the state by religions resulted in
state churches. This must have seemed a most desirable development for
the church leaders at the time, but invariably over time they lost
prestige, power and believers as the secular state undermined and
subverted them. Democracy, in many respects, is as totalitarian a
political ideology as any other, and does not tolerate competition.
Is not the Catholic the state church in France? I know it is in
Belgium but I have not kept up, apart from concluding that declaring
one sect a state church is the high road to the irrelevance of
religion. Our separation seems best suited at spawning ever more
sects, superchurches, and televangelists. If I had no morals, I'd
found a church myself.
France does most emphatically not have a state church. The idea of
"laicitè", or secularism, is mandated by the constitution and the
separation of state and religion is zealously guarded. They do not even
own the churches they worship in: each and every one of them is the
property of the French state and the Catholic church is merely a tenant.
Then the state is on the hook for Notre Dame repairs. I did not know
that it owned the real estate; does it evict misbehaving tenants?
(Quasimodo is wearing a yellow jacket these days and is generally
innocent, but is sacerdotal sexual abuse lower in France than in the
Vatican?)
I would think that the French government would have been better off
letting the church keep the buildings but abolishing the real estate
tax waiver on religious holdings.
The state is most definitely on the hook for Notre Dame. That said, it
is such an iconic building and of such emotional significance to the
French that the citizenry has opened its collective pockets to fund the
repairs (pending the outcome of the budgeting exercises, of course).
This largesse actually annoyed quite a few people who took the
opportunity to point out that a great many churches and other old
state-owned properties are in more or less dire state of disrepair and
could well use some funds to, say, restore the roof or shore up the
foundations....
The trouble with your tax suggestion is that the maintenance costs of
old buildings ranges from "high" to "horrendous". If tax breaks are
removed, the churches need to be able to own serious assets in order to
fund the upkeep. In France, this would mean restitution of all the
properties and assets expropriated during the revolution.
On the bright side, old cathedrals, like old castles, make splendid
ruins and continue to attract the tourists. The iconic twin towers of
Notre Dame are all you need to biring the whole to mind, along with
Quasimodo pouring lead upon the spot where you are standing. If
France is not getting real estate taxes from them, it might as well
cut its losses on maintenance.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Kevrob
2020-02-13 06:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
French Huguenots (Calvinists) got slaughtered, were forcefully
converted back to Catholicism, or emigrated.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#Emigration_and_diaspora

In the northeast, there was Lutheranism, some of it
protected by the Peace of Westphalia.

The Reformation gets a lot of credit for modernizing the European
economy, but Catholic Scholastics in Spain came up with serious
economic theory before Smith,m ZRicardo, etc.

https://mises.org/wire/true-founders-economics-school-salamanca

Natural Law goes back at least as far as to Aristotle's "Nicomachean
Ethics" and does not require an "author."

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Alex W.
2020-02-13 23:57:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Oh, and did it have to be christianity that reduced social
barriers? Couldn't atheists have done it themselves? Or some
other religion? I don't see why not. But it wasn't. It was the
christian principle of moral equivalence that has slowly pushed
societies to be fairer, juster, more democractic, and more
inclusive.
Certain interpretations of Christianity certainly played their part.
We owe a lot to protestantism and its insistence upon the Bible as the
only sure guide to salvation (if not salivation). Illiteracy, in the
protestant view, paved the way to hell and was to be corrected by
schooling for all--even the peasants--and eventually mandatory
schooling for all. Speaking as one from peasant stock, I am rather
glad that they did.
Quite so.
Catholic education was as thorough as the state of knowledge permitted,
but it was never really suitable for the masses. Protestantism expanded
literacy and with it the spread of more practical knowledge. Without
this, there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution.
Post by Don Martin
If religion gave us democracy, democracy has not done much for
religion apart from dividing it into increasingly tinier sects--the
last estimate I have seen here claimed over 40,000 of them and
growing, under the "one man's opinion is as good as another's"
principle applied to notions about imaginary beings and states.
That's the US perspective. In Europe, things did develop differently.
In France, for instance, where democracy arrived early and secularism
was enshrined in constitution, law and political thought, the
balkanisation of religion did not occur. The Catholic church, albeit
deprived of its power and wealth, endured.
French Huguenots (Calvinists) got slaughtered, were forcefully
converted back to Catholicism, or emigrated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#Emigration_and_diaspora
Many of them came to England and enriched us immensely, in all sorts of
ways.

Even so: by and large, we have not seen the proliferation of sects and
denominations that are the hallmark of American Christianity. There is
a big split between Catholicism and Protestantism, most commonly the
Lutherans. Everything else is very marginal indeed.
Don Martin
2020-02-14 13:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
French Huguenots (Calvinists) got slaughtered, were forcefully
converted back to Catholicism, or emigrated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#Emigration_and_diaspora
Many of them came to England and enriched us immensely, in all sorts of
ways.
Even so: by and large, we have not seen the proliferation of sects and
denominations that are the hallmark of American Christianity. There is
a big split between Catholicism and Protestantism, most commonly the
Lutherans. Everything else is very marginal indeed.
While the U.S. forbade the establishment of any church, it provided
fertile ground for the proliferation of them. In grade school (in
Washington State) I was taught that every 6-mile by 6-mile township
was obligated to designate one of its 36 sections to religious
purposes. I doubt that this is still true, and it may have been true,
if at all, for some states only.

However, other encouragements remain, though they are more attractive
to gaming the system than to any religious belief. Anybody in the
U.S. can found a church, with or without formal ordination--all you
need is a handful of parishioners (I seem to remember three being a
sufficient handful). Once you have done that, any donations or fees
for services you squeeze out of them are tax free, and the area of
your home where you conduct services becomes a tax-free church. If
you are smart and can raise the money, you will build a separate
church next door and make your entire house a tax-free rectory; of
course the land upon which the buildings stand is freed of taxes as
well. Your car can display a "member of the clergy" sticker,
permitting you to park without penalty any place where you may be
performing sacerdotal duties, and you are eligible for any ministerial
discounts available for travel or lodging on church business. Should
you publish and sell anything like a prayerbook or missal, proceeds
from the sales are similarly exempt from tax. There are probably more
fiscal advantages, but these are all I can think of at the moment.

I am not surprised that we have over 40,000 sects here, but I _am_
astonished that we do not have many more than that.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Siri Cruise
2020-02-14 14:56:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
you publish and sell anything like a prayerbook or missal, proceeds
from the sales are similarly exempt from tax. There are probably more
fiscal advantages, but these are all I can think of at the moment.
In US income tax these are called 501c. It includes churches but
also other organisations like secular charity, museums, community
organisations like 4H. It's not just calling yourself a church
but that you spend most of the income on people outside the
organisation. The theory is this money will benefit the community
just like government welfare, but charities can raise the money
and spend it more efficiently than the government.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Kevrob
2020-02-14 17:57:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
French Huguenots (Calvinists) got slaughtered, were forcefully
converted back to Catholicism, or emigrated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#Emigration_and_diaspora
Many of them came to England and enriched us immensely, in all sorts of
ways.
Even so: by and large, we have not seen the proliferation of sects and
denominations that are the hallmark of American Christianity. There is
a big split between Catholicism and Protestantism, most commonly the
Lutherans. Everything else is very marginal indeed.
While the U.S. forbade the establishment of any church, it provided
fertile ground for the proliferation of them. In grade school (in
Washington State) I was taught that every 6-mile by 6-mile township
was obligated to designate one of its 36 sections to religious
purposes.
This provision was in the drafts of the original Land Ordinances
passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, that
organized the Northwest Territories.† The AofC didn't have the
First Amendment to limit this sort of subsidy, but those changes did
not make it into the Ordinance as passed. The provision to set aside
land for the purposes of supporting the ministry was in contract with
the Ohio Company and for the Symmes purchase. These were not repeated
in further land sales.* Lots, or sections, were set aside for schools
and colleges.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html#obj118

[quote]

It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent me by
Col. Grayson that in the latter Congs. had expunged a clause contained
in the first for setting apart a district of land in each Township,
for supporting the Religion of the Majority of inhabitants. How a regulation,
so unjust in itself, so foreign to the Authority of Congs. so hurtful to
the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated
Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Commtee is truly matter
of astonishment.

[/quote] letter from James Madison to James Monroe, 29 May, 1785

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0156

* https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/histrect.pdf page 24
Post by Don Martin
I doubt that this is still true, and it may have been true,
if at all, for some states only.
This practice did not survive into the era of the Federal
Constitution. This may have been a Washington law, but since
since the 1889 State Constitution would seem to forbid that,
I doubt it. (Article I, Section 11)

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Washington_State_Constitution
Post by Don Martin
However, other encouragements remain, though they are more attractive
to gaming the system than to any religious belief. Anybody in the
U.S. can found a church, with or without formal ordination--all you
need is a handful of parishioners (I seem to remember three being a
sufficient handful). Once you have done that, any donations or fees
for services you squeeze out of them are tax free, and the area of
your home where you conduct services becomes a tax-free church. If
you are smart and can raise the money, you will build a separate
church next door and make your entire house a tax-free rectory; of
course the land upon which the buildings stand is freed of taxes as
well. Your car can display a "member of the clergy" sticker,
permitting you to park without penalty any place where you may be
performing sacerdotal duties, and you are eligible for any ministerial
discounts available for travel or lodging on church business. Should
you publish and sell anything like a prayerbook or missal, proceeds
from the sales are similarly exempt from tax. There are probably more
fiscal advantages, but these are all I can think of at the moment.
There are circumstances where churches have to pay tax, and ministers
do pay income tax on their salaries. They are supposed to pay sales
tax on items for personal use, while purchases for the church would
be exempt. Do some try to push that? Oh, yes, but so do some
business owners whose purchases for resale or for supplies for the
business. Different states have different sales tax rules for
the sale of religious books and items. I spent a long time in the
book trade. I've seen every "I'd like to buy this tax-free" scam
there was, or close to it. The honest clergy would make one stack of
what they were buying "for the Sunday school" and another for things
they were buying for themselves. The stores I worked for gave discounts
to businesses and institutions in order to get repeat business. That
would apply to "Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt School" as well as GE.

See:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-churches-always-exempt.html

A lot of those benefits like "clergy discount" are custom, not law.
Post by Don Martin
I am not surprised that we have over 40,000 sects here, but I _am_
astonished that we do not have many more than that.
† Now the "Great Lakes States" north of the Ohio River, from
Ohio to Wisconsin, including a bit of Minnesota.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territory

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Don Martin
2020-02-14 19:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
French Huguenots (Calvinists) got slaughtered, were forcefully
converted back to Catholicism, or emigrated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#Emigration_and_diaspora
Many of them came to England and enriched us immensely, in all sorts of
ways.
Even so: by and large, we have not seen the proliferation of sects and
denominations that are the hallmark of American Christianity. There is
a big split between Catholicism and Protestantism, most commonly the
Lutherans. Everything else is very marginal indeed.
While the U.S. forbade the establishment of any church, it provided
fertile ground for the proliferation of them. In grade school (in
Washington State) I was taught that every 6-mile by 6-mile township
was obligated to designate one of its 36 sections to religious
purposes.
This provision was in the drafts of the original Land Ordinances
passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, that
organized the Northwest Territories.† The AofC didn't have the
First Amendment to limit this sort of subsidy, but those changes did
not make it into the Ordinance as passed. The provision to set aside
land for the purposes of supporting the ministry was in contract with
the Ohio Company and for the Symmes purchase. These were not repeated
in further land sales.* Lots, or sections, were set aside for schools
and colleges.
Interesting. In fourth or fifth grade, I clearly remember a township
map in a book showing one section (the 16th IIRC) marked as religious.
We did have a lot or religious nuts in Silverdale, and some of them
were on the school board: perhaps their book selection was really a
wish list.
Post by Kevrob
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html#obj118
[quote]
It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent me by
Col. Grayson that in the latter Congs. had expunged a clause contained
in the first for setting apart a district of land in each Township,
for supporting the Religion of the Majority of inhabitants. How a regulation,
so unjust in itself, so foreign to the Authority of Congs. so hurtful to
the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated
Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Commtee is truly matter
of astonishment.
[/quote] letter from James Madison to James Monroe, 29 May, 1785
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0156
* https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/histrect.pdf page 24
Post by Don Martin
I doubt that this is still true, and it may have been true,
if at all, for some states only.
This practice did not survive into the era of the Federal
Constitution. This may have been a Washington law, but since
since the 1889 State Constitution would seem to forbid that,
I doubt it. (Article I, Section 11)
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Washington_State_Constitution
Post by Don Martin
However, other encouragements remain, though they are more attractive
to gaming the system than to any religious belief. Anybody in the
U.S. can found a church, with or without formal ordination--all you
need is a handful of parishioners (I seem to remember three being a
sufficient handful). Once you have done that, any donations or fees
for services you squeeze out of them are tax free, and the area of
your home where you conduct services becomes a tax-free church. If
you are smart and can raise the money, you will build a separate
church next door and make your entire house a tax-free rectory; of
course the land upon which the buildings stand is freed of taxes as
well. Your car can display a "member of the clergy" sticker,
permitting you to park without penalty any place where you may be
performing sacerdotal duties, and you are eligible for any ministerial
discounts available for travel or lodging on church business. Should
you publish and sell anything like a prayerbook or missal, proceeds
from the sales are similarly exempt from tax. There are probably more
fiscal advantages, but these are all I can think of at the moment.
There are circumstances where churches have to pay tax, and ministers
do pay income tax on their salaries.
I wonder whether these tax requirements were imposed _after_ the
Universal Life Church and others began offering free ordination?
Post by Kevrob
They are supposed to pay sales
tax on items for personal use, while purchases for the church would
be exempt. Do some try to push that? Oh, yes, but so do some
business owners whose purchases for resale or for supplies for the
business. Different states have different sales tax rules for
the sale of religious books and items. I spent a long time in the
book trade. I've seen every "I'd like to buy this tax-free" scam
there was, or close to it. The honest clergy would make one stack of
what they were buying "for the Sunday school" and another for things
they were buying for themselves. The stores I worked for gave discounts
to businesses and institutions in order to get repeat business. That
would apply to "Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt School" as well as GE.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-churches-always-exempt.html
A lot of those benefits like "clergy discount" are custom, not law.
Post by Don Martin
I am not surprised that we have over 40,000 sects here, but I _am_
astonished that we do not have many more than that.
† Now the "Great Lakes States" north of the Ohio River, from
Ohio to Wisconsin, including a bit of Minnesota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territory
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
John Locke
2020-02-10 15:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why is science different from God?
...correction:

Why is science different then an imaginary god ?

...science=reality god=fantasy...BIG FAT fucking
difference I'd say !
MyNews Hot-Text
2020-02-09 18:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
Why is science different from God?
Why is science different then an imaginary god ?
Scientific Science Can Be Seen
A Theory: One See A Imaginary God
<
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-God-and-an-imaginary-friend >
Post by John Locke
...science=reality god=fantasy...BIG FAT fucking
difference I'd say !
But Johnny

Demon 666
Imaginary

Science See It
In You
Or Is It Just My Theory

Fantasy Science = Science Fiction = Scifi
Often Tell A Stories About Science
And Technology Of The Future

But Not All Stories Is True
Or Come To Pass

So A Man On The Moon
Is It A Fantasy
Or Imaginary God?
Davej
2020-02-10 16:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge
comes from God, which makes science dependent on God.
Sorry, science is fundamentally different. "Revealed truth" won't
teach you how to clean a wound, set a bone, or plant a crop. What
did Krishna ever say about potash, nitrogen, or phosphorus?
Christopher A. Lee
2020-02-10 16:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge
comes from God, which makes science dependent on God.
Sorry, science is fundamentally different. "Revealed truth" won't
teach you how to clean a wound, set a bone, or plant a crop. What
did Krishna ever say about potash, nitrogen, or phosphorus?
Many of us here, are only alive today because of modern medical
science.

For example, I almost died in 2006 from a chronic lung condition (not
smoking related). I spent almost two weeks on my back with a suction
tube in my side, and on a powerful antibiotic drip.

And when I broke my leg on some black ice outside my apartment, a
couple of winters ago, it wasn't some god who put in bits of steel to
join up the breaks or made sure that the injury didn't get infected -
again, I was on antibiotics which I had to continue taking for a
month.
Michael Christ
2020-02-10 20:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge
comes from God, which makes science dependent on God.
Sorry, science is fundamentally different. "Revealed truth" won't
teach you how to clean a wound, set a bone, or plant a crop. What
did Krishna ever say about potash, nitrogen, or phosphorus?
Many of us here, are only alive today because of modern medical
science.
For example, I almost died in 2006 from a chronic lung condition (not
smoking related). I spent almost two weeks on my back with a suction
tube in my side, and on a powerful antibiotic drip.
And when I broke my leg on some black ice outside my apartment, a
couple of winters ago, it wasn't some god who put in bits of steel to
join up the breaks or made sure that the injury didn't get infected -
again, I was on antibiotics which I had to continue taking for a
month.
Yes because man created antibiotics and whales! :-). From
non-existence to existence by itself, the Christopher Lee story.




Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
Lucifer
2020-02-10 21:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:22:13 +1100, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge
comes from God, which makes science dependent on God.
Sorry, science is fundamentally different. "Revealed truth" won't
teach you how to clean a wound, set a bone, or plant a crop. What
did Krishna ever say about potash, nitrogen, or phosphorus?
Many of us here, are only alive today because of modern medical
science.
For example, I almost died in 2006 from a chronic lung condition (not
smoking related). I spent almost two weeks on my back with a suction
tube in my side, and on a powerful antibiotic drip.
And when I broke my leg on some black ice outside my apartment, a
couple of winters ago, it wasn't some god who put in bits of steel to
join up the breaks or made sure that the injury didn't get infected -
again, I was on antibiotics which I had to continue taking for a
month.
Yes because man created antibiotics and whales! :-). From
non-existence to existence by itself, the Christopher Lee story.
A good post from Christopher and that's all you can add?
You are pathetic.
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Christopher A. Lee
2020-02-10 21:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:01:17 +1100, Lucifer
Post by Lucifer
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:22:13 +1100, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge
comes from God, which makes science dependent on God.
Sorry, science is fundamentally different. "Revealed truth" won't
teach you how to clean a wound, set a bone, or plant a crop. What
did Krishna ever say about potash, nitrogen, or phosphorus?
Many of us here, are only alive today because of modern medical
science.
For example, I almost died in 2006 from a chronic lung condition (not
smoking related). I spent almost two weeks on my back with a suction
tube in my side, and on a powerful antibiotic drip.
And when I broke my leg on some black ice outside my apartment, a
couple of winters ago, it wasn't some god who put in bits of steel to
join up the breaks or made sure that the injury didn't get infected -
again, I was on antibiotics which I had to continue taking for a
month.
Yes because man created antibiotics and whales! :-). From
non-existence to existence by itself, the Christopher Lee story.
A good post from Christopher and that's all you can add?
You are pathetic.
More than just pathetic. <He is a routine liar who imagines lies about
things which are nothing to do with atheism, as well as deliberate
misrepresentations of what people have been explaining to him for far
too many years, somehow attacks atheists and atheism.

It's serious mental illness to the point of certifiable insanity.
Post by Lucifer
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Cloud Hobbit
2020-02-10 21:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
Yes because man created antibiotics and whales! :-). From
non-existence to existence by itself, the Christopher Lee story.

You're lying again.
Man did not create whales.
Man did create antibiotics, but not from nothing.

Nonexistence can't create anything. Nobody here other than people like you says there was ever such a thing as nothing. Nothing does not exist. Its not another kind of something, it is the complete absence of ANYTHING.

Everything that exists is made from other things that exist. There couldn't have ever been a time when NOTHING existed.

Why must you keep telling the same stupid lie?
MyNews Hot-Text
2020-02-09 17:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Jahnu"

Scientific
Just A Theory
Cloud Hobbit
2020-02-10 21:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God, which makes science dependent on God.

Science is about reality.
God is not part of reality as far as anyone can prove.

Knowledge comes from actively seeking it. Humans have volitional consciousness, they must seek information, there's no waiting patiently for god to give you knowledge. YOU must seek it.

Nothing comes from imaginary entities.

God is imaginary.
Alex W.
2020-02-11 01:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God, which makes science dependent on God.
Science is about reality. God is not part of reality as far as anyone
can prove.
Knowledge comes from actively seeking it. Humans have volitional
consciousness, they must seek information, there's no waiting
patiently for god to give you knowledge. YOU must seek it.
Nothing comes from imaginary entities.
God is imaginary.
All true.

To be fair, though, there were (and presumably are) plenty of scientists
and researchers who are moved to research reality in order to uncover
the subtle and deep mechanisms by which their god orders the universe.
ravn
2020-02-10 23:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God
No. It's because science is the action of study, not the consciousness of one who studies.
LinuxGal
2020-02-11 01:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ravn
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God
No. It's because science is the action of study, not the consciousness of one who studies.
Not all knowledge comes from God. At least one branch of
knowledge (how to sacrifice children to Molech) does not
come from God, according to God himself.

Jeremiah 32:25 And they built the high places of Baal, which
are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons
and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech;
which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind,
that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Michael Christ
2020-02-11 02:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ravn
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God, because all knowledge comes from
God
No. It's because science is the action of study, not the consciousness
of one who studies.
Not all knowledge comes from God.  At least one branch of knowledge (how
to sacrifice children to Molech) does not come from God, according to
God himself.
Jeremiah 32:25 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the
valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to
pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither
came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause
Judah to sin.
Give it up already. An atheist trying to explain the bible is like a
person thinking they can run a marathon when they can't even run 100 meters!





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
ravn
2020-02-11 21:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
An atheist trying to explain the bible is like a
person thinking they can run a marathon when they can't even run 100 meters!
A person who can't run either can give *true* advice to those who can do both. You're trying to say that explaining a thing, & believing in a thing are necessarily the same thing. A person can understand a thing, & not believe in that thing.

& BTW, moron, it's possible that while you may believe in a thing, it doesn't mean you necessarily understand it. You've demonstrated that fact here time & time again.
default
2020-02-11 13:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Science tries to find logical explanations for things that do exist.
Religion looks for excuses to shirk responsibility.
Michael Christ
2020-02-11 21:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Science tries to find logical explanations for things that do exist.
Religion looks for excuses to shirk responsibility.
You shirk your responsibility to your Creator.

And, you have slipped a lot.




Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
ravn
2020-02-11 22:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
Post by default
Science tries to find logical explanations for things that do exist.
Religion looks for excuses to shirk responsibility.
You shirk your responsibility to your Creator.
& why would anyone need to be responsible to this alleged creator in the first place? It's all made up in the first place, & I certainly don't have any obligation to go along with your agenda. Your agenda has a stunning disrespect for other people.
Harry Krishna
2020-02-14 19:00:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God,
Scientists would beg to differ.
Post by Jahnu
because all knowledge comes from
God,
Demonstrably false. Take a light bulb out of its socket, flip the switch on, lick your fingertip, and stick it in the empty socket. Congratulations: you now have knowledge of what an electric shock feels like, without any help from God.
Post by Jahnu
which makes science dependent on God.
GIGO. You really aren't very good at this. Why don't you try trolling a Christian newsgroup for a few years before you argue with people who are much smarter than you?
aaa
2020-02-14 19:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God,
Scientists would beg to differ.
Post by Jahnu
because all knowledge comes from God,
Demonstrably false. Take a light bulb out of its socket, flip the
switch on, lick your fingertip, and stick it in the empty socket.
Congratulations: you now have knowledge of what an electric shock
feels like, without any help from God.
There is no knowledge given to you by the socket. The knowledge of
electric shock comes from God.
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by Jahnu
which makes science dependent on God.
GIGO. You really aren't very good at this. Why don't you try trolling
a Christian newsgroup for a few years before you argue with people
who are much smarter than you?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Harry Krishna
2020-02-14 20:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God,
Scientists would beg to differ.
Post by Jahnu
because all knowledge comes from God,
Demonstrably false. Take a light bulb out of its socket, flip the
switch on, lick your fingertip, and stick it in the empty socket.
Congratulations: you now have knowledge of what an electric shock
feels like, without any help from God.
There is no knowledge given to you by the socket. The knowledge of
electric shock comes from God.
Sometimes the only possible reply is "wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?". This is one of those times.
aaa
2020-02-15 17:12:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by aaa
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God,
Scientists would beg to differ.
Post by Jahnu
because all knowledge comes from God,
Demonstrably false. Take a light bulb out of its socket, flip
the switch on, lick your fingertip, and stick it in the empty
socket. Congratulations: you now have knowledge of what an
electric shock feels like, without any help from God.
There is no knowledge given to you by the socket. The knowledge of
electric shock comes from God.
Sometimes the only possible reply is "wow, you're pretty fucking
stupid, aren't you?". This is one of those times.
Why? Can you prove me wrong?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Mitchell Holman
2020-02-15 19:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by aaa
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God,
Scientists would beg to differ.
Post by Jahnu
because all knowledge comes from God,
Demonstrably false. Take a light bulb out of its socket, flip
the switch on, lick your fingertip, and stick it in the empty
socket. Congratulations: you now have knowledge of what an
electric shock feels like, without any help from God.
There is no knowledge given to you by the socket. The knowledge of
electric shock comes from God.
Sometimes the only possible reply is "wow, you're pretty fucking
stupid, aren't you?". This is one of those times.
Why? Can you prove me wrong?
Can you prove yourself RIGHT?




"when you can't prove me wrong, I'm automatically right"
"aaa", June 14 2019
http://tinyurl.com/y4eqqqkl
aaa
2020-02-16 00:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by aaa
Post by Harry Krishna
Post by Jahnu
Science is not different from God,
Scientists would beg to differ.
Post by Jahnu
because all knowledge comes from God,
Demonstrably false. Take a light bulb out of its socket, flip
the switch on, lick your fingertip, and stick it in the empty
socket. Congratulations: you now have knowledge of what an
electric shock feels like, without any help from God.
There is no knowledge given to you by the socket. The knowledge of
electric shock comes from God.
Sometimes the only possible reply is "wow, you're pretty fucking
stupid, aren't you?". This is one of those times.
Why? Can you prove me wrong?
Can you prove yourself RIGHT?
Yes, because there can be no other answer.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"when you can't prove me wrong, I'm automatically right"
"aaa", June 14 2019
http://tinyurl.com/y4eqqqkl
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Jahnu
2020-02-16 01:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:20:30 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Can you prove yourself RIGHT?
Can you?

Krishna says:

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)


http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das

http://youtu.be/Fq-n0bbhpaA

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Loading...