 |
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
I really appreciate your latter observation . . . it's a valid point, which bespeaks the fact that the growth of the field of science owes a great deal to the Christian worldview despite some infamous run-ins throughout history. The Christian worldview, of course, promotes the idea of an ordered world that can be the subject of study. Theology, IMO, is still the queen of the sciences . . . |
Theology is often the antithesis of science.
What you claim is a Christian word view simply isn't at least till modern times. Its a scientific view that has only been adopted by christians in recent centuries although there were occasional Christians that believed that studying the world was studying the mind of god. However prior the Age of Enlightnement the usual Christian world view was that all things were created specially and there were no general principles to learn. Each plant had no relation to anyother because they didn't evolve but were created. Each rock was placed there by god rather than move over time by natural forces. This sort of thinking made progress in the Dark Ages almost non-existent.
quote:
There was an interesting popular news article on this once but I cannot find it on the Web anymore:
Helweg, Otto J. “Scientific Facts: Compatible with the Christian Faith?” USA Today (March 1997).
If somebody can find it, please let me know. I tried the USA Today website but to no luck. I initially found it here:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/maga...query=worldview |
I may or may not have seen it. I certainly have seen articles with similar titles. Fundamentalists and Creationists of all sorts would be less likely to agree. Cybershy and Lars clearly demand that science changes instead of their beliefs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
The ancient Greeks/Romans never would have developed flight. Ikaros was punished. |
That is more of a Greek problem in thinking about things than something inherent in that particular story.
If the story was American rather than Greek the moral would be very different even if the rest of the story was the same. Daedalus would be the hero of the tale. After all HE SUCCEEDED. It wasn't flight itself that was wrong it was his son's exceeding the design specs of the wings.
I gave my mother a plaque with Daedalus on it once. I wish it had come to me when she died. Its lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
Anyway, the Christian worldview doesn't have a God who punishes human only for knowing/wanting to know too much. Even in the more basic/ancient versions of Christanity, God punishes for a reason, which could be understood.
I wouldn't wonder if this is a heritage of Judaism, because it has put a lot of efforts into (empirically) finding what God punishes. Most of the apparently senseless laws can be justified for hygienic reasons (even the obligation to eat no porc. If you don't know how to protect against salmonelles(sp?) it's better not to eat it. Most ancient religions knew gods punishing for transgessing the usual human sphere. The ancient Greeks/Romans never would have developed flight. Ikaros was punished. Nevertheless, there are so many theologicians who tell pure nonsense - My theology is comprised in Mt 18,3.  |
You sound like a remarkably level-headed individual when it comes to Christian theology. God Bless!
Oh, about the laws, another reason for the laws was as a hedge around the religion. As the Bible itself testifies, the Israelites often had a problem with syncretism. Many of the seemingly "senseless" laws acted to distance Israelites from the traditions, religions, and cultures of the surrounding peoples. It helped the Israelites preserve their religion as it were. And given that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as the legacy of early Israelite religion, are three of a very few religions that survived the B.C.E. period of Mesopotamia, I'd say it worked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I said "and/or," not "and," because I didn't know if Cybershy was a fundamentalist or not--nor do I particularly care, seeing as how he stopped answering my posts several pages back.
You're preaching to the choir...
I'm sorry. I was angry over apparently having my all of my posts interpreted by you in the worst possible light, and assumed (after it happened a second time) that there was a motive behind it.
I agree, you never did. However, when I said "It might help your worldview to believe that everybody who is skeptical is also narrow-minded, but unfortunately for you, it just isn't true", you did not try to disabuse me of the misconceptions I held over your beliefs, which I took as a confirmation given that your post struck me as inflammatory ("accused CyberShy of being a Fundamentalist" and whatnot). |
Fair enough. All is resolved then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Theology is often the antithesis of science.
What you claim is a Christian word view simply isn't at least till modern times. Its a scientific view that has only been adopted by christians in recent centuries although there were occasional Christians that believed that studying the world was studying the mind of god. However prior the Age of Enlightnement the usual Christian world view was that all things were created specially and there were no general principles to learn. Each plant had no relation to anyother because they didn't evolve but were created. Each rock was placed there by god rather than move over time by natural forces. This sort of thinking made progress in the Dark Ages almost non-existent. |
I would disagree with your assessment of the Christian worldview. While at times it was certainly true that Christianity and Science were at odds, I think it was more an issue of the RCC or other church hierarchies using religion as a social control. When Science offered something that "seemed" to undermine Christianity, it was condemned in order to maintain a status quo of power. The religious motives were often spurious at best.
I think you'd be surprised if you read some of the pre-Reformation and Reformation scholarship. They were remarkably enlightened. For instance, and I believe I'm correct on this (though its been awhile since I last read him), Calvin did not believe that Genesis 1-2 consisted of a "how" God created the world. Likewise, I believe, Augustine. Many Christian scholars in pre-Reformation and Reformation periods were rampant Platonists or Aristotleans, such that it often adversely affected their reading of Scripture. I think you'd agree that Aristotle was a scientist before science (at least, in some respects).
Christianity gave birth to the modern University system, which in turn gave birth to Science. Many of the private Colleges and Universities in Europe and the U.S. were founded by Christian groups. (ASIDE: Christianity is one of the only religious traditions that subjects its Holy Scriptures to rigorous academic study. It is forbidden in Islam and generally not pursued in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Generally, only non-adherents will study the texts of these other religions with a critical eye.)
Also, in the course of my research, I've found that it is fair to say that most early scientists were Christians.
At the very least, I think you could probably admit that Monotheism was much more conducive to the eventual development of Science than was polytheism, where the Universe operated according to the haphazard whims of the gods.
The lack of progress during the Dark Ages was not a function of Christianity. It had political and societal underpinnings rather than religious ones. With the fall of the Roman Empire, there was a power vaccuum in the European and Mediterranean world. This power vaccuum was filled by warring barbarians. Progress disintegrated because advancement requires a political and social stability wedded to the benefaction of either the aristocracy or in the case of capitalism, the consumer. Without political and social stability, the Dark Ages saw little progress. This had little to do with Christianity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Likewise, I believe, Augustine. |
I'm pretty sure that's correct. Augustine was extremely liberal for his time, even blending teleology with Christianity in ethical theory. IIRC, it was either he or Aquinas (or possibly both) who revived Aristotelianism. (My ethics professor in college was a tremendous fan of them both, at any rate.)
Also, I read a paper (I forget where, it was a coupla years ago) about the myth that Church officials tried to persuade Columbus not to attempt to sail around the world because it was flat. In fact, Church officials tried to persuade Columbus not to attempt to sail around the world because he was gravely underestimating the distances involved--Columbus assumed that the Earth's circumfrence was 15,000 miles (he was a poor scholar at best), while the Church officials well knew that the circumfrence was approximately 25,000 miles.
quote:
It is forbidden in Islam and generally not pursued in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. |
I'd thought that the Buddhists subjected their scriptures to analysis. Wasn't it a difference in scriptural interpretation that caused the split between the Theravada and Mahayana sects?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I'd thought that the Buddhists subjected their scriptures to analysis. Wasn't it a difference in scriptural interpretation that caused the split between the Theravada and Mahayana sects? |
You make a good point; I'd have to look into the Theravada/Mahayana split again--it's been some time. But, from what I recall, the disagreement was about whether or not to accept Scriptures outside of the core that was attributed to Buddha.
Also, by a critical analysis I mean analyzing it on literary, philological, historical, archaelogical, anthropological, etc. grounds. . . Christians don't merely analyze the Bible for the sake of gleaning devotional insights; they put it through the wringer to see if it holds up as an historio-cultural artifact. They also constantly pursue studies in textual criticism as they try to recover, as near as possible, the original documents. Textual criticism, in particular, is banned in Islam. There is only one authorized version of Qu'ran. In Christianity, there is considerably more freedom. Obviously, alot of the scholarship does not filter down to the congregations and so the average Christian is as unaware about advances in understanding the Bible as the average person is about theoretical science. And, as in any field, you have peripheral quacks who are often the loudest and get the most attention; nevertheless, their views would not be accepted by the majority of scholars working in the field.
Incidentally, going back to other religions . . . often times, because these religions do not analyze their texts critically, the public continues to accept the official dogma of that tradition, which is misleading. For instance, imagine if Buddha were subjected to the same type of historical criticism launched against Jesus . . .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by leftover_crack
Im laughing my ass off. Im reading through this and looking at all the flood stuff
Its funny you know. I see people try and explain away an ancient flood with all this and that. Look folks we all know that the writers of genesis didnt leave home often. We also know 10,000 years ago an ancient civilization thrived on the bottom of what is now, the black sea. We also know that about 9000 years ago. The bosporus broke open. We also know that Expeditions to the bottom of the sea have found ancient docks, and anceint cities. The flood story, which dates back to about this time. Sheesh, whats this!? Is it possible a flood did happen that was so devastating people thought it covered the world?
Lets dig deeper...
Oh wow. What the hell is this??? Its the EPIC OF GILGAMESH!!! Holy Crap! And look here.. the Sumerian journey of Homerash..and holy crap. NOAH's Flood story! 
Wow... omg.. im really suprised none of you smart guys could figure this out
What probably happened:
A flood leveled an early civilization in the Black sea region (it once was a small lake only and planes). The civilization's survivors would of probably been so damn traumatized they thought this disaster surely came from God. Shoot.. If the lake near you started rising 16 feet a day as Geologists who studied the bosporus break indictate. What the hell would you think it was?? The survivors were so traumatized they told there kids. Never, ever Disobey God. Ever..Or you the world will be flooded again. Make sense? If not..your pretty stupid
2+2 is 4  (yes im mocking all you smart athiest types )
way too funny. For all your genius you still refuse to accept the fact that a massive flood could of destroyed a very early civilization.
God bless |
You mock with all the humility of a good Christian . . . 
The only problem is that your answer isn't good enough for Fundamentalists, as Ethelred so repeatedly points out. For them, 9000 yrs. ago is too early; the world is only 4000 yrs. old for a Fundamentalist. Second, the Bible says the whole world was covered such that even the Mountains of Ararat were underwater. The flooding of the Black Sea simply does not qualify as a flood of those kind of proportions. So, as Ethelred rightly argues, your explanation doesn't cut it for Fundamentalists.
As for non-Fundamentalists, sure . . . it's as good a reason as any to explain the proliferation of ANE flood stories.
One thing I find curious is that flood myths aren't limited to the ANE. Practically every civilization has one. Now maybe this is because floods, of varying proportions happen all the time (just look at what's happened this year in Europe and Asia). They would have been all the more frightful to a pre-modern civilization. Flood myths, I think, represent a almost universal fear of drowning, of being wiped away, of losing one's livelihood. Here's a link to some of the many flood myths around the world:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Another explanation might be that the stories reflect a common unconscience; a preserved memory of an ancient and universal flood. Of course, geology provides little evidence for such a flood. But, science is a work in progress so who knows what scientists may yet learn about the world we live in.
The critical lesson of the Genesis Flood Myth, IMO, is that God is ultimately the lord of weather and he will not allow all of humanity to suffer its end through a flood. For pre-modern civilizations, this would have been a comforting thought amidst an uncertain world of capricious gods.
BTW, the really smart (which might be questionable ) atheist guys on this thread, as well as myself, are all well-aware of the story and theory you are proposing. It has been discussed many times.
Last edited by ckweb on 01-09-2002 at 09:01
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
Your Right Im Catholic. Damn proud too . Im not fundamentalist but if defending my God and religon is considered fundamentalism. Then I guess I am one (note the word-Defending)
quote:
the world is only 4000 yrs. old for a Fundamentalist. Second, the Bible says the whole world was covered such that even the Mountains of Ararat were underwater. The flooding of the Black Sea simply does qualify as a flood of those kind of proportions. So, as Ethelred rightly argues, your explanation doesn't cut it for Fundamentalists. |
Who cares about fundamentalists? Nothing cuts it for them. The mountains of Ararat wouldnt have been covered by the Black Sea flood 10,000 years ago. However, on a boat heading south towards present day Ukraine and seeing all blue salt water around him. One would probably take note and think they were covered up aswell. I also dont buy 2 of every animal thing. Its possible a farmer made a quick escape on a boat with his herd which could be the source of the whole thing. Remember, these stories tend to exagerate themselves like old men around a camp-fire telling war stories. It doesnt mean they werent in the Korean war. It just mean they werent part of a special squad sent to find Stalin
quote:
As for non-Fundamentalist, sure . . . it's as good a reason as any to explain the proliferation of an ANE flood story.
One thing I find curious is that flood myths aren't limited to the ANE. Practically every civilization has one. Now maybe this is because floods, of varying proportions happen all the time (just look at what's happened this year in Europe and Asia). They would have been all the more frightful to a pre-modern civilization. Flood myths, I think, represent a almost universal fear of drowning, of being wiped away, of losing one's livelihood. Here's a link to some of the many flood myths around the world: |
THere are alot of myths. This is where I think Atlantis and genesis may tie in. At one time a good portion of the human race may have been jumbled up in one large civilization (minus the basterd Greeks) And it took somthing like a flood to scatter them. However this has NO evidence to it so dont even ask. And is just conjecture on my part.
I generally believe the flood was real. While only limited and not global.
As for my personal belief in god. Yes. I know him. He is with me. I am way better off everyday for spending 5 minutes of prayer. And if I die in 5 minutes, ide rather be safe then sorry.
Who's to say which god is real? Thor? Odin? Jupiter!? Jesus? Who knows. I know Jesus to be my personal Savouir. I think also if you look at it this way. Almost all religons (even buddism) were inspired by the book of Genesis somehow. So thats your safest bet. And I dont care what anyone says, Islam is a hybrid Christianity. The Koran reads like revelations. Both have traces to Judiasm, and Judiasm gets its traces from...well a burning bush in the desert.
I believe god talks in many tongues and reveals himself to many people. Even the prophet Mohamed (and I have studied this) said he wasnt there to replace Jesus but to re-affirm he who sent Jesus (Yaweh).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
Im not up to fight ethelred. It doesnt seem like you are to capable of putting 2 and 2 together. Ive studied the topic very thoroughly and have came to the conclusion that the Flood of Noah, Epic of Gilgamesh and the others trace there roots to the Black Sea flood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Why do think this is some sort of astounding revelation? Did you just learn of it recently? You don't have the details right anyway.
|
Again I studied it. I do have them right. You are wrong.
quote:
With your incorrect dates that would be pver FOUR THOUSAND years later. With correct dates its still over a thousand years till the first written records and thats all we have to go on as to when the first stories arose.
|
Word of mouth anyone?
quote:
No. You really should look things up before getting things so wrong. No cities. Not 10,000 years ago. Doesn't match the story in the Bible in any case. |
10,000 years ago? What they havent told you yet?They found them bro.
Im going to sleep.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by leftover_crack
Im not up to fight ethelred. It doesnt seem like you are to capable of putting 2 and 2 together. Ive studied the topic very thoroughly and have came to the conclusion that the Flood of Noah, Epic of Gilgamesh and the others trace there roots to the Black Sea flood. |
Not only are you not up to fight Ethelred; you aren't reading him either. He's correctly pointed out errors of fact in your understanding of the Black Sea Flood, which would suggest you haven't studied it as thoroughly as you suggest.
Also, your personal conclusion does not a fact make. While it is certainly possible that the Black Sea Flood led to the proliferation of ANE flood stories, it can not, in the least, be proven conclusively. The stories themselves give absolutely no indication that they are based, in whole or in part, on the events of the Black Sea Flood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by leftover_crack
Im not up to fight ethelred. It doesnt seem like you are to capable of putting 2 and 2 together. Ive studied the topic very thoroughly and have came to the conclusion that the Flood of Noah, Epic of Gilgamesh and the others trace there roots to the Black Sea flood. |
I put those items together about the same time Bob published. That is as soon as I knew about the research. You are telling me I can't add when I am doing at least triganometry.
The stories may well have roots in the Black Sea Flood. However the time involved is quite long. Well over a thousand years. If you HAD studied it well why do you have the date so wrong. I am not talking about the wrong year. You have the wrong milenium and not just by one either.
The idea simply doesn't make the Bible a holy book with special knowledge of god and the universe. To me it looks exactly like fairly ordinary men with no special knowledge of the universe wrote it. Without that I don't see why I should accept the god of the Bible any more than I should any other god of any other set of writings. Sure some are more ludicrous than others. Some are even more ludicrous than the god described in the Bible.
You seem to be aggreeing with me even if you don't realize it. The Bible can't be trusted as a message from god if it has a world wide flood when such a thing didn't happen. So why believe in the god of the Bible?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by leftover_crack
10,000 years ago? What they havent told you yet?They found them bro.
Im going to sleep. |
Care to give a link. I gave one. I have yet to see anything mentioning an actual city. A dock may have been found.
Its around 5000 BC. The 10,000 years ago stuff is the end of the Ice Age and the time of the alledged continent of Atlantis that has only one single mention in any record. Just one.
Its an UNFINISHED story by Plato. There is no other source for the story of Atlantis. Nothing in Egypt where he claimed the story orignated.
Word of mouth might do it for a story to last from 5000 BC to the Gigamesh story. Not from 8000 BC. There were no cities anywhere at that time. Jerico is the worlds oldest known walled city and its about 8000 years old not 10,000.
Sleep is good. It calms the minds and elucidates thought. Try giving a link tommorow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Also, your personal conclusion does not a fact make. While it is certainly possible that the Black Sea Flood led to the proliferation of ANE flood stories, it can not, in the least, be proven conclusively. The stories themselves give absolutely no indication that they are based, in whole or in part, on the events of the Black Sea Flood. |
Still I think it may have done so. The Greeks came from Anatolia and they have the next most similar story to the Bible's story and to Gilgamesh. I think some survivors could have went north to what is now Turkey as well as south towards the Fertile Crescent.
I sure would like to have seen the water fall. It must have been something really spectacular at least at the start. The only one that I know of that would have been more spectacular happened before Genus Homo arose. That was the filling of the Mediteranean basin 5 million years ago through the Straits of Gibralter.
If the Great Rift Valley should continue to open there might be a big water fall someday that fills the Dead Sea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
The idea simply doesn't make the Bible a holy book with special knowledge of god and the universe. To me it looks exactly like fairly ordinary men with no special knowledge of the universe wrote it. Without that I don't see why I should accept the god of the Bible any more than I should any other god of any other set of writings. Sure some are more ludicrous than others. Some are even more ludicrous than the god described in the Bible.
You seem to be aggreeing with me even if you don't realize it. The Bible can't be trusted as a message from god if it has a world wide flood when such a thing didn't happen. So why believe in the god of the Bible? |
Y'know Ethelred, you are right that the Bible, in and of itself, does not prove the existence of God. You are also right that it was written by "fairly ordinary men."
It does, however, contain some pretty profound insight and special knowledge if you would take the time to read passed Genesis and Exodus; Job, Ecclesiastes (!), portions of Isaiah, the Gospel of John, some of the letters of Paul (most notably, Romans and 1 Corinthians), and Hebrews are my favourites. Perhaps not so special that it requires you to believe in the god of the Bible but maybe enough for you to spend some time with a Christian friend, observing and maybe even taking part in bible study, prayer, and worship. At least that way, you could say you jumped through the hoops and didn't experience anything supernatural.
The reason I suggest this course of action is my conviction that the knowledge of God comes most often through personal experiences. It is remarkable enough that the Bible has been preserved as a virtually unique corpus of writings without it having to contain the indelible mark of divinity; no other religious texts of the ANE carry anywhere near the same long-term cultural and religious significance. The Bible testifies to the experience of many people before you with their God; and it has been inspirational for the experience of many people up to this time; and it will continue to serve this function into the future. Unless you have a Lone Ranger complex, why not see what all the fuss is about in a more profound and earnest way then simply debunking irrational Fundamentalists and their Creation theories?
If God works in relationships, doesn't it make sense that getting to know him would require some effort on your part?
Just some thoughts . . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Edit: Ethel's got a point. Get some sleep, post a link tomorrow. |
Oh bloody hell. Did I mispell tomorrow? I tried it that way and changed it back to tommorow. I had Word open earlier for my larger posts just to use the spell checker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Still I think it may have done so. The Greeks came from Anatolia and they have the next most similar story to the Bible's story and to Gilgamesh. I think some survivors could have went north to what is now Turkey as well as south towards the Fertile Crescent.
I sure would like to have seen the water fall. It must have been something really spectacular at least at the start. The only one that I know of that would have been more spectacular happened before Genus Homo arose. That was the filling of the Mediteranean basin 5 million years ago through the Straits of Gibralter.
If the Great Rift Valley should continue to open there might be a big water fall someday that fills the Dead Sea. |
That's an interesting admission on your part . . . Yeah, it would have been a sight to see.
Can you explain your last paragraph? I've never come across this possibility . . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Perhaps not so special that it requires you to believe in the god of the Bible but maybe enough for you to spend some time with a Christian friend, observing and maybe even taking part in bible study, prayer, and worship. At least that way, you could say you jumped through the hoops and didn't experience anything supernatural. |
Actually I was raised Catholic. I spent six years in Catholic school with the Sisters of St. Joseph for religion even when I didn't have nun for the whole class as was the case every other year.
quote:
Unless you have a Lone Ranger complex, why not see what all the fuss is about in a more profound and earnest way then simply debunking irrational Fundamentalists and their Creation theories? |
I have a Lone Ranger complex. The fuss is about people believing in things that they can't actualy show happened. Believe it not the Host in communion does not actually turn into the flesh of Jesus. Neither does the wine turn into blood. Nor have there been any miracle cures that can be substantiated as being both real and miraculous.
That people in a group can convince others of all kinds of stuff is something I am aware of. Humans are social animals. Even Lone Rangers like me.
I could just as easily get together with Moonies. I would even be more likely to be successfully brainwashed should I be silly enough to allow them to try to use sleep deprivation on me. Then again I would insist they stay up as well and then my capacity to go without sleep would give me the advantage. Just think I could convert Moonies to Agnosticism.
quote:
If God works in relationships, doesn't it make sense that getting to know him would require some effort on your part?
Just some thoughts . . . |
If the relationships claim that god is needed then it should be no surprise they often result in people accepting things that aren't real. I am not about to believe just because others do. I want evidence and a 'feeling' that comes from group pressure or sleep deprivation or the self-hypnosis that prayer strongly resembles is not proof.
Most christians believe because they believe. You believe because other christians believe from what I can tell. When there is some sort of evidence then I will see what I can do about brainwashing myself. I have allready been through a lot of group brainwashing at St.
Maria Goretti when I was an impressionable child. If it didn't take then I don't see why it would suddenly take now.
Perhaps if I did some LSD as a friend of mine did before he bacame a Fundamentalist Catholic. There aren't many of those in the US but he was one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Can you explain your last paragraph? I've never come across this possibility . . . |
The Mediteranean or the Rift Vally?
The Rift Valley is something you can see on the map. It goes from the Dead Sea through the Horn of Africa. It may be quiescent at the moment. Sometimes rifts start and then stop and never start again. It appears to be the same kind thing as caused the split between the Americas and the rest of the world when it was one single continent. A splitting and then a spread of a continental plate. Ony the split is not finished and may never be.
Looking for links. I keep finding site only mention the Mediteranean event in passing when they are discussing the Black Sea Flood. Also Lambert Dolphin and other Creationist sites keep poping up for the same reason. Lambert by the way has his own timeframe for the flood but he can't really justify it biblicaly. He also into inconstant constants. Very inconstant. I allready have a link for Lambert though.
When I first found out about the Mediteranean flood the religous links hadn't yet been forged. So its a lot harder to find an actual science site on it now.
Even a porn site showed up in the search somehow but I can't find a real geology site that covers it from a geologist point of view.
This is about the best I can do for the Mediteranean at the moment.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aca...040/flood10.htm
And a link to a book on Amazon covering the research.
Now for The Great Rift Vally.
Basic summery
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0821681.html
This one is pretty good despite the claim at the start the the San Andreas fault is another example of a rift valley which it is not. The San Andreas is a North-South slip fault and not a spreading zone. I live close enough the thing to be aware of it as all Californians are. Anyway all the rest looks accurate. I guess someone just got carried away by the famous nature of the San Andreas fault. After all how many faults have been in as many movies? Or delayed a World Series?
http://www.marekinc.com/GeoOverviewGreatRift.html
Sure was a lot easier to find something on that wasn't loaded with Biblical comments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually I was raised Catholic. I spent six years in Catholic school with the Sisters of St. Joseph for religion even when I didn't have nun for the whole class as was the case every other year. |
I have heard that Catholicism leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many people; my brother-in-law and his twin were Catholics (their from Quebec so it's no surprise). Both them have alot of contempt for the Catholic Church; they are now Protestants after a long period of disbelief/unbelief. Perhaps, the Catholic Church wasn't the right place to embark upon the experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I have a Lone Ranger complex. The fuss is about people believing in things that they can't actualy show happened. Believe it not the Host in communion does not actually turn into the flesh of Jesus. Neither does the wine turn into blood. Nor have there been any miracle cures that can be substantiated as being both real and miraculous. |
Transubstantiation (the host becoming the flesh of Jesus; the wine becoming his blood) is an exclusively Catholic tradition. Some Protestant Churches adhere to consubstantiation, which claims that both the original elements, the host and the wine as well as the flesh and blood, are present together. My tradition takes them for host and wine, nothing more (except perhaps a spiritual significance). Actually, we do not use the term "host" for obvious reasons; it's just the bread.
About miracles and cures . . . There have been many documented cases of miracles and cures unexplained by science. Hospitals see it all the time; people who shouldn't pull through, do. Sure, doctors and nurses performed their work effectively but they are often the first people to admit that the person shouldn't have survived. Other surprising and inexplicable events happen all the time. Some are documented; some are not. Do they prove the existence of God? No, except perhaps to the converted. All miracles and cures demonstrate is that the world is more unpredictable than science sometimes lets us imagine.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
That people in a group can convince others of all kinds of stuff is something I am aware of. Humans are social animals. Even Lone Rangers like me. |
I think that is a pretty skeptical take on religious experience. Sure, the herd mentality is always present and at work in group settings but many Christians have searched themselves in earnest and come to a sharp, personal awareness that their beliefs are not rooted in that herd mentality but are heart-felt. I'm a lone ranger too and an academic-type; I haven't been to a church in a very long time. I've spent a great deal of time in introspection but I simply cannot deny the efficacy of my personal experiences that led me to faith in God in the first place. Given that the majority of my friends are non-Christian, I can assure you that I have wanted to lay aside my convictions and in that vein, I have tested them thoroughly. They have changed to a certain degree, matured might be more accurate, but the core remains.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I could just as easily get together with Moonies. I would even be more likely to be successfully brainwashed should I be silly enough to allow them to try to use sleep deprivation on me. Then again I would insist they stay up as well and then my capacity to go without sleep would give me the advantage. Just think I could convert Moonies to Agnosticism. |
You might do us all a public service!
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
If the relationships claim that god is needed then it should be no surprise they often result in people accepting things that aren't real. |
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please clarify, sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I am not about to believe just because others do. I want evidence and a 'feeling' that comes from group pressure or sleep deprivation or the self-hypnosis that prayer strongly resembles is not proof. |
I can certainly understand your sentiment but the evidence comes through participating in the relationship. The relationship seems to develop best in daily life, prayer, and worship.
I don't think that my experiences are the result of group pressure, sleep deprivation, or self-hypnosis; and I think you've taken progressively extreme examples to evade my initial suggestion. Personally, based upon our interactions in this forum and a gut feeling, I think you have the ability and independent character to withstand group pressure and self-hypnosis! Moreover, you've already stated that sleep deprivation won't work.
BTW, prayer, at least in my experience, is not self-hypnosis. In Protestant Churches, particularly the so-called low-churches, prayers are not recited. They are spoken personally and often individually.
And while trying to develop a relationship with God is not going to give you physical proof (unless of course God does something dramatic), your experiences may become more valuable than physical proof.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Most christians believe because they believe. You believe because other christians believe from what I can tell. When there is some sort of evidence then I will see what I can do about brainwashing myself. I have allready been through a lot of group brainwashing at St.
Maria Goretti when I was an impressionable child. If it didn't take then I don't see why it would suddenly take now. |
Like I said earlier on in this thread, most Christians believe for two reasons: (1) the legacy of testimony in the Bible as well as family and friends that attest to God's activity in history, and (2) their own personal experience with that God. My belief rests on these two reasons; both are important to me. With only (1), I would remain endlessly skeptical; my intellectual side simply would not give up. With only (2), I'd consider an insane asylum.
It might take now precisely because you are not an impressionable child anymore and you won't be able to shrug it off as an adolescent experience. You did not know any better back then; now you are informed. You are skeptic, with a good mind, many resources, and lots of questions that would need answering. This is the reason the experience would benefit you now more than it did in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Perhaps if I did some LSD as a friend of mine did before he bacame a Fundamentalist Catholic. There aren't many of those in the US but he was one. |
He "was" one. Did he pass away? If so, sorry to hear it.
Catholicism is an interesting breed of Christianity. It has so much history and strength; in some respects, it has a certain doctrinal integrity. But, on the other hand, it has a power complex that has led it to hold on to antiquated traditions and ideas that simply fail to add up. Even so, many people are profoundly served by Catholicism's positive traditions. God bless them.
BTW, Catholicism attempts to mediate your relationship with God through the Priest and the Sacraments. Protestantism, particularly the low-churches, encourage a direct relationship with that God.
Anyways, I do not want to come across the wrong way or anything. Just relating something of my own experience in case it is of some value to you now or in the future. If not, c'est la vie.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2002 04:07
|