Superping-Jesus

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I agree with Easy Mac's middle paragraph there. There is very little brainwashing going on for either side of a religious debate. Some children are raised in religious households while others are raised in non-religious ones. Eventually, we all must decide what we believe, and although that may be influenced, very highly at times, by what our parents may or may not have believed, in the end it all comes down to the answers we find within ourselves. I wouldn't have much respect for anyone who did otherwise.

I buy this, too.

I wonder what share of adult Americans have chosen to adopt the same faith that their parents held? I don't think I'm out on a limb in suggesting that it's much, much higher than anything consistent with the notion of "the answers we find within ourselves."

So, where does that leave them (the many, many people who have clearly just accepted the faith principles of their parents) in terms of your respect?

[dawgfan]

If we presume that there is truth to the notion that most regions of the world have been fairly consistent in the predominant religion going back centuries of time (notwithstanding certain political events that specifically change the cultural landscape like the splitting of Hindus and Muslims into India and Pakistan), then there seem to be 2 main conclusions one could draw:

- Whether through overt pressure or more subtle forms such as familiarity and proximity, the predominant religion of one's family/community/culture does have a strong influence on the religious choices we make;

- People in other parts of the world that follow different religions really are coerced and pressured into believing religions Y & Z, whereas people in my part of the world make up our own minds and come to the one true religion X

My point being, if this contention about the relative static nature of the religious composition of different countries/geographic parts of the world is true (and I suspect numbers would support this contention), there are differing ways one could interpret that information depending on the mindset one has.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I buy this, too.

I wonder what share of adult Americans have chosen to adopt the same faith that their parents held? I don't think I'm out on a limb in suggesting that it's much, much higher than anything consistent with the notion of "the answers we find within ourselves."

So, where does that leave them (the many, many people who have clearly just accepted the faith principles of their parents) in terms of your respect?

I can't answer your question QS as I disagree tremendously with your assumption. As I've said in my previous posts, I am quite sure that there are many instances of people accepting their parents beliefs, religious or not, without giving the matter its due respect. I have never known a deeply religious person, however, who has reached their faith in that way. You say that "many, many people" have "just accepted the faith principles of their parents." If you're referring to people accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities, I can only reiterate that if it's such a large number of people, it seems incredibly strange to me that I've never met one. Granted, my experience in the world is perhaps not as great as others, and it is conceivable that there are many out there like this. My gut tells me, though, that it's simply not the case. If you're simply saying that, after considering all the options and questions, a person returns to beliefs similar to those held by the parents or persons of influence, I would, in fact, have respect for that person.

It is the concept of blind faith that I just don't buy despite seeing it asserted by a number of people on occasion. My point was: Not only do I not buy it, but if it does occur, then I simply wouldn't have a lot of respect for that person.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba's turn!

Evolution has NEVER been proven, its actually more theory than creation is: no 'species link' has EVER been found to demonstrate one species becoming another (although I concede that natural selection does operate).

Creation, however, is almost ALWAYS mischaracterized by the ignorant in superior and condencending tones (why its not even allowed to be brought up in public schools these days!) Genesis , when read properly and with original texts looked up, talks about the RECREATION and REPOPULATION of the earth after some calamity/series of calamities have occurred prior. (won't go into them, many fine works and studies available to those who really want to know what's going on.)

Finally, finding GOD is a HEART condition (heart in the Biblical sense, meaning the 'inner-man', the 'spirtual' part of man that lives forever) and not a purely intellectual one. I believe pure reason CAN and WILL point to the Creator, but the Bible tells us that the intellect is the Battle-Ground between good and evil "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" and this is the part that Satan also attacks ('Satan reveals himself an angel of light.)

Takes effort to find God, He sacraficed His ALL for us, don't think that He will just drop it all in your lap without you even seeking Him or asking Him for help to find Him "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open unto you." "God is SPIRIT and desires to be worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.)

[druez]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Bubba's turn!

Evolution has NEVER been proven, its actually more theory than creation is: no 'species link' has EVER been found to demonstrate one species becoming another (although I concede that natural selection does operate).

Creation, however, is almost ALWAYS mischaracterized by the ignorant in superior and condencending tones (why its not even allowed to be brought up in public schools these days!) Genesis , when read properly and with original texts looked up, talks about the RECREATION and REPOPULATION of the earth after some calamity/series of calamities have occurred prior. (won't go into them, many fine works and studies available to those who really want to know what's going on.)

Finally, finding GOD is a HEART condition (heart in the Biblical sense, meaning the 'inner-man', the 'spirtual' part of man that lives forever) and not a purely intellectual one. I believe pure reason CAN and WILL point to the Creator, but the Bible tells us that the intellect is the Battle-Ground between good and evil "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" and this is the part that Satan also attacks ('Satan reveals himself an angel of light.)

Takes effort to find God, He sacraficed His ALL for us, don't think that He will just drop it all in your lap without you even seeking Him or asking Him for help to find Him "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open unto you." "God is SPIRIT and desires to be worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.)

Can I get an AMEN!

On a serious note, what did god sacrifice? His son? Come on now. Jesus knew he was going to heaven when he died. So it really isn't that big of a deal that he died now is it?

If you know what heaven is like and you know that you are guaranted to go there if you do a,b,c get tortured then killed etc.... I'm pretty sure 99.999999999999 % of us would be ok with it.

So now tell me what did he sacrafice again?

[Cuckoo]

Are you serious druez? Come on now. If we assume that God is all-loving, which Christians do, then what kind of a sacrifice is it to give your Son to the cruelest and jealous rebukes of mankind? For people who believe strongly in Christ, it is only part of the equation to consider the physical torture that Jesus endured. The burden of carrying mankind's sins on his shoulders would've far outweighed any lash or beating.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Are you serious druez? Come on now. If we assume that God is all-loving, which Christians do, then what kind of a sacrifice is it to give your Son to the cruelest and jealous rebukes of mankind? For people who believe strongly in Christ, it is only part of the equation to consider the physical torture that Jesus endured. The burden of carrying mankind's sins on his shoulders would've far outweighed any lash or beating.

I would submit that the reason Jesus sweated 'drops of blood' in the Garden the night before His arrest is because He knew, for the first time in Eternity, that Jesus would be SEPERATED from the Father "Every Good and Perfect Gift comes from the Father" "Why Have YOu Forsaken Me?" and the experience of Spiritual death to the Creator and Son of God for our sins must have been beyond horrific.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I disagree tremendously with your assumption.

I have never known a deeply religious person, however, who has reached their faith in that way. You say that "many, many people" have "just accepted the faith principles of their parents." If you're referring to people accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities, I can only reiterate that if it's such a large number of people, it seems incredibly strange to me that I've never met one.

How do you know you have never met one? That seems like an awfully broad statement.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a lot of adults I know walking around with ash on their foreheads, signifying their religion. And what do you know, the overwhelming majority of them were named Hogan and McCoy and Dougherty and Fantozzi... and their parents, too, were walking around with ash on their foreheads.

I don't claim to know a lot of detail about how these many people came to adopt their religious faiths. I certainly can't tell you that they definitely did or did not consider anything in particular before adopting their faiths. (Though you seem to claim this kind of knowledge, since you assert that you have never met a single person who adopted a strong faith based on that of his parents)

What I do know is that there are an awful lot of people who are very religous, very spiritual, and who happen to be following the same faith that their parents did. Can I prove that they never gave a fair shake to other faiths and principles? Of course not. Does it stand to reason that many, many - if not most - of these people simply didn't invest much effort into this, and instead just opted to stick with the familiar path that offers least resistance? Of course it does.

If nearly everyone gained a completely even-handed understanding of every major faith, and was brought up without social context pulling them toward one over others, we'd almost certainly see a natural diaspora of faiths among any given culture - people would just adopt things that made the most sense for them. (And, I suspect, would be a lot less likely to adopt an off-the-rack faith at all) However, given the praqcticalities of role models and peer pressure and societal context... it's obvious that most people... nearly all people... are simply unable to reach any degree of "search" of this kind. Maybe they attend a service or two of a different faith, or read a book or two, or talk to a man of the cloth here or there... but all told, there's a lifetime of deep-seated influence telling us to just do what mom and dad did... and many, many of us basically decide between a) doing that or b) doing nothing.

So, am I accusing people of (to use your words) "accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities" here? Damn straight.

[druez]

I don't know. If you know that you will be given eternal salvation. I mean know it as truth. To live a life of eternal happiness and bliss, where is the sacrafice?

If Jesus was given to the human race to die and never goto heaven that is indeed a sacrafice. But, Jesus didn't even live life as a typical man. He never married or slept with a woman. He never found his soulmate.

I suppose, we will never see eye to eye on these things, but thats ok. I wish you all the best!

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

How do you know you have never met one? That seems like an awfully broad statement.

It is an awfully broad statement. I was assuming that readers of my statement would realize that I was speaking of people that I knew closely, not people that I happen to pass on the streets or meet in casual circumstances. Perhaps that was a faulty assumption on my part.

For people who have spent a significant time in religious environments, at least to my experience, there is a great deal of community involved in which people discuss their spritual feelings and the grounds for their faith. During my life, I have probably had discussions of these types with thousands of people, and that is not an overstatement. In those discussions, I have only encountered deeply religious people who absolutely did not simply accept blindly the views of their parents.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What I do know is that there are an awful lot of people who are very religous, very spiritual, and who happen to be following the same faith that their parents did. Can I prove that they never gave a fair shake to other faiths and principles? Of course not. Does it stand to reason that many, many - if not most - of these people simply didn't invest much effort into this, and instead just opted to stick with the familiar path that offers least resistance? Of course it does.

You come across as quite consdescending in your analysis of the knowledge that I'm "claiming," yet you turn around and do the exact same thing. The truth is that neither of us can know for sure. You say that it obviously stands to reason that people stick to the "path of least resistance." I say that based on my experience this is undoubtedly not the case. So, which of us is right? Neither one or both. I simply wanted to make the point to druez and to others that buy into this "blind following" of religious people that I have never seen such a case, and that if it is so common as many would have us believe, it seems strange that I have never encountered it amongst the deeply religious people I know well.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If nearly everyone gained a completely even-handed understanding of every major faith, and was brought up without social context pulling them toward one over others, we'd almost certainly see a natural diaspora of faiths among any given culture - people would just adopt things that made the most sense for them. (And, I suspect, would be a lot less likely to adopt an off-the-rack faith at all) However, given the praqcticalities of role models and peer pressure and societal context... it's obvious that most people... nearly all people... are simply unable to reach any degree of "search" of this kind. Maybe they attend a service or two of a different faith, or read a book or two, or talk to a man of the cloth here or there... but all told, there's a lifetime of deep-seated influence telling us to just do what mom and dad did... and many, many of us basically decide between a) doing that or b) doing nothing.

Again, the best I can do is disagree with you assumption based on my experience. As someone else pointed out, faith is not about an intellectual sampling of what you like and what you don't like about particular religions. Not to be condescending myself, but that sounds to me like a statement that someone who doesn't have faith would make. This thread began with a number of people who do not believe in Christ asking questions to better understand those that do. Therefore, to provide information to someone who has never experienced the faith that I feel, I pointed out that faith is not something done blindly. Nor, in my opinion, is it about sampling religion like a buffet line. It's spiritual. It's emotional. And it takes a great deal of though, reflection, and doubt before one reaches a point where they believe with all of their soul in something.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So, am I accusing people of (to use your words) "accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities" here? Damn straight.

Do I still disagree with your premise and that of others who subscribe to the theory that refuses to give a person of faith any credit for their decision to believe? Well, you know the rest...

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by druez

I don't know. If you know that you will be given eternal salvation. I mean know it as truth. To live a life of eternal happiness and bliss, where is the sacrafice?

If Jesus was given to the human race to die and never goto heaven that is indeed a sacrafice. But, Jesus didn't even live life as a typical man. He never married or slept with a woman. He never found his soulmate.

I suppose, we will never see eye to eye on these things, but thats ok. I wish you all the best!

I do understand your point, and I didn't mean to imply that I didn't. My only point was that knowing you're going to Heaven doesn't erase the knowledge of the suffering that must occur for that to happen.

And I wish you the best as well. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions when they're civil as this one has been for the most part.

[Cuckoo]

DOLA

I just realized QS, the difference that we may be having. What I'm referring to is the notion of faith, not the notion of religion. When a person finds faith, it typically has little to do with learning every aspect of all the world's religions. It has nothing to do with what church they go to. What you seem to be speaking of is a choice of religion, not faith, and that delineation needs to be made. There are a lot of people who go to church but don't have faith, and there are a lot of people who have faith and do not go to church. My comments regard that acquisition of faith, and I assert strongly that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of one's parents. In my humble opinion, it is absolutely impossible to "hand down" faith.

Now, if you're speaking about matters of denomination or sect or religious affiliation, I would agree with your assessment. The difference between the two, however, needs to be noted.

[dawgfan]

Cuckoo, here's something for you to consider:

It seems as though in most countries around the world, the predominant religion has remained static over a long period of time. For example, Christianity has been the primary religion in the North American countries, Western Europe and Australia. Islam has been the primary religion in most middle eastern countries, many African countries and parts of Asia. Buddhism has remained strong in many parts of Asia. The Indian subcontinent has been primarily Hindu and Muslim for a long time, with the split of those two groups into India and Pakistan with the independence of India from British rule. Some countries found their predominant religious ideas subverted by political means, notably Eastern Orthodox Catholicism in Soviet Russian and Buddhist, Taoist and other Eastern religions/philosophies in Communist China. Judaism has remained a strong sub-culture within the predominant Christian cultures in America and Western Europe and among predominantly Muslim cultures in the Middle East.

As Quik pointed out, if most people arrived at their religion of choice purely from their own independent investigations and choices, without outside influence from family, community and culture one would expect to find a more even distribution of the world's primary religions as opposed to the pattern one sees currently.

This is why it is suggested that whether through subtle or more overt means, the mores of a particular community seem to have an influence over the religious choices the members of that community make. I have no doubt you've observed people come to a decision on their beliefs through thorough examination of all the possible choices, but do you presume this is the case in a majority of situations? If so, how do you reconcile this with the observation of religions tending to be lumped by historical precedence based on location and culture?

[Cuckoo]

Dawg, see my DOLA post. I was never speaking about choices of religion. I was speaking about arriving at faith, and I do think there is a tremendous difference between the two.

Edited to add: I've realized after reading over my previous posts that I have not done a very good job of articulating my point which initially was a simple one - to defend the notion of faith as a process and not something taken lightly or done blindly by those that I know. I write a post, think I've expressed myself fairly well, then realize that there are a number of different ways to read it. For that, I apologize, and it's the reason I often stay out of debates like this because it's much clearer in my mind than I can transfer it to the written word. I hope my clarifications cleared up any confusions as to what I am asserting.

[Bubba Wheels]

Most people want to be accepted and fit in regardless of the price, so even if there is a 'true' faith (just making a point, don't lose your wireframes!) most folks will reject it out of hand because it would reguire too much sacrafice on their part.

[AENeuman]

why chew bubble gum if you are christian? or, why give to the needy if they are saved? it's a powerful thing to grasp the statement by Jesus that "the Kingdom of God is here", at the very least it could mean that the Holy Spirit is always present. Thus, how much more could heaven be, if what we are living in now is filled with the presence of God. Paul saw this problem of abandoning this life for the eternal and warned against it.
Finally, giving a nod to brother gibson, the allowing of the suffering of Christ by God seems to be more the point than Jesus not suffering because he lacked existential angst.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

My comments regard that acquisition of faith, and I assert strongly that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of one's parents. In my humble opinion, it is absolutely impossible to "hand down" faith.

I think the difference you are making between "faith" and "religion" might go a long way toward explaining the differences that we have expressed.

I still might be inclined to lose respect for people who are willing to entertain "religion" simply based on the rituals performed by family members (what does that say about the value of the religion?)... but I can see how "faith" (a more enigmatic concept) can be a bit more slippery.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Dawg, see my DOLA post. I was never speaking about choices of religion. I was speaking about arriving at faith, and I do think there is a tremendous difference between the two.

An interesting distinction, and one I don't necessarily disagree with. What I will say though is that those who arrive at faith as you put it I would think are a significantly smaller subset of those who identify with a particular religion, no?

There are those that will say that the U.S. is something like 70% Christian, and while there may be that many who when asked would identify themselves as such, the percentage who are really true believers I would suggest is a much smaller percentage.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Most people want to be accepted and fit in regardless of the price, so even if there is a 'true' faith (just making a point, don't lose your wireframes!) most folks will reject it out of hand because it would reguire too much sacrafice on their part.

I agree. I recall reading an article a few years back that was calling Catholicism the fastest-growing religion in the world, and no it wasn't because they were reproducing more than others

When interviewed, one of the common themes for many who had converted to Catholicism was the attraction of joining a community of people with a long history of traditions and customs. For many of these people, the attraction was as much about feeling like they belonged as it was a deeper spiritual belief in the principles of Catholicism.

I would also suggest that it is likely difficult, if one lives in a region where a particular faith is the primary cultural influence, to buck that trend and publicly proclaim a belief in a different faith. I would expect many in that situation either keep their own belief quiet, or move to a place more accepting of different beliefs.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think the difference you are making between "faith" and "religion" might go a long way toward explaining the differences that we have expressed.

I still might be inclined to lose respect for people who are willing to entertain "religion" simply based on the rituals performed by family members (what does that say about the value of the religion?)... but I can see how "faith" (a more enigmatic concept) can be a bit more slippery.

Agreed with you and dawgfan. I think there are significantly fewer people that consider themselves to have faith than simply those who identify with a certain religion. And I also agree that people who simply entertain religion because of a familial tradition are all too common, and I do find it regrettable.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Yup. I prefer the purely theoretical argument, though, without mention of the fact that there might actually be some evidence that this is how things actually work.

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. )

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Drake

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. )

Yeah, but how does the 'Flux Capacitor" work?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Drake

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it.

Drake, if there are any fairly approachable sources that you might be willing to share (links, biblio references, that sort of thing), I'd be very interested in understanding more about your subject here. Sounds really fascinating.

[druez]

Any of you see Event Horizon. Where the Universe would fold to allow travel between two spots. But, when you crossed through that place you went to hell. It was crazy but interesting.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Drake, if there are any fairly approachable sources that you might be willing to share (links, biblio references, that sort of thing), I'd be very interested in understanding more about your subject here. Sounds really fascinating.

Here are some quick solid resources on an introductory level:

http://superstringtheory.com/
-- nice general site for getting the basics down. Has some pretty pictures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
-- this is a link to the extra material from their nifty episode "The Elegant Universe". If you can track this down on video or something, Brian Greene is brilliant at taking hard material and making it accessible to non-scientists (like me).

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/refs.htm
-- A good starting place also, with links to resources around the web.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Physics/string2.html
-- Solid explanation of basic concepts, accessible to laymen.

For more intense research:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9411028
-- longish

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/...stringrev.html
-- papers, papers, papers


I'm not finding links to some of the more complex research I tracked down. (I tend to search for scientific papers and print them off University web sites, so I don't save the links.) When I get home, I'll take a look at my file folders and see what else I can find.

[fhasumi]

Drake...are you smoking weed or something? That idea sounds WAY messed up...and *pushes up hornrimmed glasses* highly illogical

[fhasumi]

I'm by no means a math/science wiz, but which direction would you point the radar dish in order to send information into that other dimension?

I've done some rough experiments with a pie-tin (washed), paper-clips, alligator clips (red plastic, NOT yellow), my walkman, tape, and an oscillating fan ...but so far the results have been hampered by the fact that my fan only moves from side to side, and not from dimension to dimension.

[druez]

Originally Posted by Drake

Here are some quick solid resources on an introductory level:

http://superstringtheory.com/
-- nice general site for getting the basics down. Has some pretty pictures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
-- this is a link to the extra material from their nifty episode "The Elegant Universe". If you can track this down on video or something, Brian Greene is brilliant at taking hard material and making it accessible to non-scientists (like me).

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/refs.htm
-- A good starting place also, with links to resources around the web.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Physics/string2.html
-- Solid explanation of basic concepts, accessible to laymen.

For more intense research:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9411028
-- longish

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/...stringrev.html
-- papers, papers, papers


I'm not finding links to some of the more complex research I tracked down. (I tend to search for scientific papers and print them off University web sites, so I don't save the links.) When I get home, I'll take a look at my file folders and see what else I can find.

That is one of the most intriguing things I've read in a long time. WOW, I didn't understand it all and I'll have to reread a good bit of it. But, that is some powerful stuff.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by druez

Any of you see Event Horizon. Where the Universe would fold to allow travel between two spots. But, when you crossed through that place you went to hell. It was crazy but interesting.

Yes. Bizzare movie, but I too thought it was interesting.



Here is something that I was thinking about on the way to work, and an I wanted to throw it out and see what everyone thought...

Religion can be used as a justification for racism. Does anyone else think that if some effort were diverted to teaching about other religions as well as your own it could lead to more harmony between the different belief systems of the world?

[fhasumi]

Not so fast, sachmo71. We're talking about dimensions here. Far more interesting than religious stuff

[druez]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Yes. Bizzare movie, but I too thought it was interesting.



Here is something that I was thinking about on the way to work, and an I wanted to throw it out and see what everyone thought...

Religion can used as a justification for racism. Does anyone else think that if some effort were diverted to teaching about other religions as well as your own it could lead to more harmony between the different belief systems of the world?

Yes I do, I posted something very similiar to that a while back on another message board. I was crusified for it, but I agree. The way religion is taught now it promotes just another form of racisim or eliteism or some other kind of ism...... But, yes I think it would be a great idea to teach people about all the various religions.

Now, where would they be taught it? Good question there. Can't have religion in school. Not sure why not? I mean religion is just another social science, I think it would be a great idea to have a teacher who was well versed on many religions to educated students about all the different paths in life. We both know that would never happen, because religion is based on we are right and everyone else is wrong....

I'm sad to see that the human race will stay on this lower level of development, untill we do away with our petty superstituions....

As Niche said, "i'm paraphrasing here" We will look at ourselves as monkies, as we now look at monkies. As we develop into the uberman or overman what we do now will seem like monkies. If someone wants to paraphrase better they can, but I get his point.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by fhasumi

I'm by no means a math/science wiz, but which direction would you point the radar dish in order to send information into that other dimension?

I've done some rough experiments with a pie-tin (washed), paper-clips, alligator clips (red plastic, NOT yellow), my walkman, tape, and an oscillating fan ...but so far the results have been hampered by the fact that my fan only moves from side to side, and not from dimension to dimension.

That's why I write science fiction as opposed to just science.

Seriously, the advantage of SF is that I can look at bleeding edge research, make some extrapolations, assume that someone will devise the technological tool to implement the raw science, and then build a plot around it as a given. The actual technical details can be (and probably should be) fuzzed. How this all actually works in the novel is really just background for the important bits. The point is that the whole of human space has become massively virtually networked to such an extent that most people spend their time viewing the world and interacting with people through the internet (which they call simply "the String") rather than living and interacting in their actual physical environments. Virtual life has become more meaningful than physical life...except, of course, for my protagonist, who is an old-school command line network hacker. The religious bits follow accordingly from this mind/body dichotomy. To get the picture of where I'm going, google "the singularity" (in quotes) or "Vernor Vinge".

For the record: in this novel, the technology that makes multiverse waveform storage and access possible was developed by porn consortiums. Porn has done more to advance end-user accessible technology in the last one hundred years than all of the governments, wars and universities put together. (I keed, I keed...maybe.)

For the record #2: My protag lives in a high rise apartment building in the section of his fictional city known as Quiksand. Yes, I stole the name. I needed one and it seemed perfect. I'm horrible at creating names.

But think of it as an homage.

[druez]

drake do you have any books we can read? I read about 2 novels a week. Sci-Fi, or old school Sci-Fi. Like Wheel of Time etc...

Anyway, did you ever read those books by CS Friedman forgot the damn name of the series.

Anyway, this colonoy ship is forced to land on this planet. When it lands there, the laws of Earth don't apply. So Science and Technology starts to fail. Dreams come to live and gods are born based on worship. Magic becomes real. One part of the world decides to believe in the Earths Old One God. And there science works fine. Its most interesting to read. I'll give you the name tonight when I get home, its a 3 part series.

[fhasumi]

Whatever happened to "suspension of disbelief?" I always thought that a good science fiction novel was fiction, yes, but at least plausable enough to allow the reader to think "well, maybe it's possible," and then focus on the real issues of the story.

It also sounds to me like technology is playing the role of the antagonist. In other words, technology itself is a main character in your novel. I certainly hope it's a believable character

[fhasumi]

Also...I just thought of this. How do you "store" information into the Schroedinger Equation? That sounds very interesting to me.

You've tickled my intrigue bone.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by druez

Yes I do, I posted something very similiar to that a while back on another message board. I was crusified for it, but I agree. The way religion is taught now it promotes just another form of racisim or eliteism or some other kind of ism...... But, yes I think it would be a great idea to teach people about all the various religions.

Now, where would they be taught it? Good question there. Can't have religion in school. Not sure why not? I mean religion is just another social science, I think it would be a great idea to have a teacher who was well versed on many religions to educated students about all the different paths in life. We both know that would never happen, because religion is based on we are right and everyone else is wrong....

I'm sad to see that the human race will stay on this lower level of development, untill we do away with our petty superstituions....

As Niche said, "i'm paraphrasing here" We will look at ourselves as monkies, as we now look at monkies. As we develop into the uberman or overman what we do now will seem like monkies. If someone wants to paraphrase better they can, but I get his point.

Isn't "we are right and everyone else is wrong" inherent for faith to work? So wouldn't that make it impossible to allow someone of one sect to accept the right of another as human equals?
Most of my thinking was inspired by the situation in the Middle East. The Islamic extremist groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews. The Jews have to defend themselves, and in many areas treat the Islamic groups as subhuman. Will there religious beliefs be an insurmountable obsticle to them ever accepting one another as equals? Does the faith that they devote their lives to make both parties racist in the extreme? Would education about one another as a people help quell the violence, and maybe bring some common sense to the region?

[fhasumi]

"The Islamic groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews."


That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's like saying Christians have a duty to kill abortion doctors.

Just because some extremists use religious justifications for violence doesn't mean that is a fundamental tenet of their faith.

No offense, just pointing out bad logic this morning. You have been warned.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by fhasumi

"The Islamic groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews."


That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's like saying Christians have a duty to kill abortion doctors.

Just because some extremists use religious justifications for violence doesn't mean that is a fundamental tenet of their faith.

No offense, just pointing out bad logic this morning. You have been warned.

When using the term "Islamic groups", I was inferring extremist groups. Sorry for not being clear.

[fhasumi]

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by fhasumi

Whatever happened to "suspension of disbelief?" I always thought that a good science fiction novel was fiction, yes, but at least plausable enough to allow the reader to think "well, maybe it's possible," and then focus on the real issues of the story.

It also sounds to me like technology is playing the role of the antagonist. In other words, technology itself is a main character in your novel. I certainly hope it's a believable character

The science *is* (distantly) plausible, but I choose not to dwell on the technical details. It's a novel, not a technical manual. Hell, it's a great deal more plausible than FTL travel, but writers get away with that one all the time.

I didn't intend to play up the technology as antagonist angle so much. It's an antagonist to the same extent that the moor in Wuthering Heights can be said to be an antagonist...which is to say, not really at all, but it is essential to understanding the motivations that drive some of the characters. The cultural, political and technological environment is important in SF, and how you draw those lines helps to say meaningful things about the human condition or the theme you're working with, but the environment itself doesn't really qualify as a character.

Hope that clarifies for you a bit.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Isn't "we are right and everyone else is wrong" inherent for faith to work? So wouldn't that make it impossible to allow someone of one sect to accept the right of another as human equals?

The answer to your first question is no. There are universalist faiths, relativist faiths, and faiths of various sundry names that take up the position that "all paths lead to God."

Now, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths do imply possession of the truth and other forms of worship as either distortions or absence of truth. I will speak only of Christianity, where the god-figure said, "no one comes to the Father (i.e. salvation, eternal life, paradise, heaven, the truth, etc.) but by me." Thus the notion that there is only one Truth is inherent in the Christian faith.

HOWEVER, this does not naturally lead to the second question or conclusion. The Christian faith also teaches us to "consider others BETTER than yourselves;" "this is my command, that you LOVE one another;" "no greater love has a man, than he lay down his life," etc.

Some could say, "But these teachings are only for how Christians treat one another." I suppose that's a valid textual interpretation, but to then conclude Christians have permission to treat others like crap, as inferior, in condescention, etc. doesn't jive with with other key teachings, namely "You're attitude should be the same as Christ..." "....God is love..." "...who humbled himself and made himself a servant."

In fact, the idea that Christians are being transformed into the character of God is foundational to the teaching. And there are only a very few passages that say point blank what God IS:

"I am...what I am"
"I am...the way, the truth, and the life."
"The Word was God." (complex theology, but I include it here just to try to fairly list all the instances I can think of)
"God is...love."

It is entirely possible, even commanded, for the people of faith to know the one Truth and still hold others in equal or even greater regard.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by druez

drake do you have any books we can read? I read about 2 novels a week. Sci-Fi, or old school Sci-Fi. Like Wheel of Time etc...

Anyway, did you ever read those books by CS Friedman forgot the damn name of the series.

Anyway, this colonoy ship is forced to land on this planet. When it lands there, the laws of Earth don't apply. So Science and Technology starts to fail. Dreams come to live and gods are born based on worship. Magic becomes real. One part of the world decides to believe in the Earths Old One God. And there science works fine. Its most interesting to read. I'll give you the name tonight when I get home, its a 3 part series.

You can find out about my novel via my website: www.darrenrhawkins.com (or, you could click the link in my sig to go straight to my publisher's website...)

Re: CS Friedman - Are you thinking of The Coldfire Trilogy? I haven't read it, but I've had it recommended to me a few times. May have to check that out.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by Drake

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. )

While I used to beleive this Theory although not all that together. Most of what you just said was made up in a book. The book is called Timeline by Micheal Crichton. The whole storing computer data in frozen waves is obsurd if you think about it scientifically. Also The deal with the infinite universes then Acually finding a way to defy the laws of this universe and getting there instatanously is going to be impossible.

Not an expert in this field but this is my opinion.

[wig]

"gravitons"

[sachmo71]

Thanks Rev. Looks like Christians are off the hook.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by wig

"gravitons"

Yes I am sure they would work in real life and Micheal never said anything because he didnt want to be in the world spotlight.

[druez]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Thanks Rev. Looks like Christians are off the hook.

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

[Drake]

Originally Posted by nfg22

While I used to beleive this Theory although not all that together. Most of what you just said was made up in a book. The book is called Timeline by Micheal Crichton. The whole storing computer data in frozen waves is obsurd if you think about it scientifically. Also The deal with the infinite universes then Acually finding a way to defy the laws of this universe and getting there instatanously is going to be impossible.

Not an expert in this field but this is my opinion.

I haven't read Timeline. Maybe I should check it out.

Sure, storing data in waveforms doesn't make any sense. I've always been suspicious of those fiber optic cables that govern my T1 connection to the internet. In fact, I've pretty much decided that the line is likely full of little demons passing the packets back and forth. I knew computers were evil.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by druez

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

The Bible interprets itself, you can take any ONE word (such as Truth) in the Bible and do an entire and complete study on it (hint: it always comes back to GOD being the eternal source for everything.)

To answer the second part, since it was brought up, a Loving and JUST God MUST judge sin and punish it, else there is NO accountability and no JUST God who DID love people would ever allow that. But even though GOD in His loving Mercy DID make a way out for ALL of us to avoid the consequences of our sins, that is the part you (as most) seem to have the most problem with. (Which just proves again, your real problem is with GOD, not me!)

[revrew]

Originally Posted by druez

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

Point A: I don't condemn to hell, people choose it.

Point B: I would ammend the capped and boldened section to say the following: Any all-powerful God of love CAN NOT ALLOW THOSE HE LOVES TO BE MURDERED, RAPED, AND TERRORIZED WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...that is 100% completely contradictory. Those consequences are hell, the kind of place Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin...and I...deserve.

Beyond that, the docrtine of hell is not an easy pill for anyone (even me) to swallow. I too wish God would just make a public appearance every couple of years, smash some mountains up and raise some dead people to prove he was God and not some nut, and then everyone could believe and we all could be saved. Except he did that already (with the Israelites of the Old Test.), and they still rejected him. They thought the gods of the harvest and the gods of sex were a lot more fun than this one, holy God guy. But back to the hell question...I consider it a mystery, yet I "make sense" of the mystery this way: there are those that chose/choose/will chose (to God, time is irrelevant) Him, and those that will choose hell. If he snuffed out the world right now, he'd be condemning some of those that WOULD choose Him to hell because he didn't wait for them to be born. Now how loving would that be?

The opposite of love is not hell. The opposite of love is apathy toward those who have suffered and been slaughtered.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by revrew

Point A: I don't condemn to hell, people choose it.

Point B: I would ammend the capped and boldened section to say the following: Any all-powerful God of love CAN NOT ALLOW THOSE HE LOVES TO BE MURDERED, RAPED, AND TERRORIZED WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...that is 100% completely contradictory. Those consequences are hell, the kind of place Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin...and I...deserve.

Beyond that, the docrtine of hell is not an easy pill for anyone (even me) to swallow. I too wish God would just make a public appearance every couple of years, smash some mountains up and raise some dead people to prove he was God and not some nut, and then everyone could believe and we all could be saved. Except he did that already (with the Israelites of the Old Test.), and they still rejected him. They thought the gods of the harvest and the gods of sex were a lot more fun than this one, holy God guy. But back to the hell question...I consider it a mystery, yet I "make sense" of the mystery this way: there are those that chose/choose/will chose (to God, time is irrelevant) Him, and those that will choose hell. If he snuffed out the world right now, he'd be condemning some of those that WOULD choose Him to hell because he didn't wait for them to be born. Now how loving would that be?

The opposite of love is not hell. The opposite of love is apathy toward those who have suffered and been slaughtered.

But why would a God that is all just and loving allow suffering and evil? If satan causes so much trouble why cant God simply kill him?