Originally posted by AThousandYoung Eygptologists, schooled in the traditional thought resist any new ideas.
Would you elaborate?[/b]
In response to this point only: Yes, any radical new ideas about the ancient Egyptian civilisation is being actively supressed by Zahi Hawass et al in a orgy of self-preservation. There is significant evidence that The Sphinx at Giza is far older than current mainstream Egyptology allows based on observations made by a John Anthony West and Robert Schoch. Additionally, the Orion Correlation Theory presented by Robert Bauval has met with ridicule and ad homenim attacks, when clearly there is something there to investigate. Consider the following image:
Originally posted by David C In response to this point only: Yes, any radical new ideas about the ancient Egyptian civilisation is being actively supressed by Zahi Hawass et al in a orgy of self-preservation. There is significant evidence that The Sphinx at Giza is far older than current mainstream Egyptology allows based on observations made by a John Anthony West and Robert Sch ...[text shortened]... ww.enterprisemission.com/images/kennedy/giza-o&b.jpg
Off-topic, I apologize. Please continue.
Thank you, this was the example I was thinking of, but did not have any materials handy to note them.
Originally posted by Fersboo So there can not be any more arguement about the ambiguity of my freakin' question.
Do you believe that there is a personal benefit by living within some, most or all of the strictures of the Bible?
Do you believe that there is a community benefit by living within some, most or all of the strictures of the Bible?
Examples - Do not murder - Yes, there is a personal and community benefit if we follow this stricture.
Do you believe that there is a community benefit by living within some, most or all of the strictures of the Bible?
Yes, but keep in mind the xtian bible is not the originator of these ideals, whatever you've been led to believe. Much of the 'strictures' (sic) were co-opted from the Codex Hammurabi...which itself may be older than ancient Mesopotamia. What, exactly, are you attempting to demonstrate?
Originally posted by David C [b]Do you believe that there is a community benefit by living within some, most or all of the strictures of the Bible?
Yes, but keep in mind the xtian bible is not the originator of these ideals, whatever you've been led to believe. Much of the 'strictures' (sic) were co-opted from the Codex Hammurabi...which itself may be older than ancient Mesopotamia. What, exactly, are you attempting to demonstrate?[/b]
I am trying to demonstrate that 'religion' is not necessarily a bad thing.
I believe that people, some good & some bad, use religion and do bad things, sometimes unintentionally.
Originally posted by Fersboo I am trying to demonstrate that 'religion' is not necessarily a bad thing.
Fine, if the fundamentalists kept it to themselves and their families. They don't, won't, and can't. They are commanded to evangelise in order to perpetuate the jesus myth. Do you feel the pope should be able to dictate how you live your life? Should he be able to directly influence governmental policy outside of the Vatican?
Originally posted by Fersboo I am trying to demonstrate that 'religion' is not necessarily a bad thing.
I believe that people, some good & some bad, use religion and do bad things, sometimes unintentionally.
There is the "message" and then there is the messenger.
Imagine going to a fine restaurant and having a lovely meal, but your waiter was rude and disgusting. Would that impact the experience for you? I think it would.
Originally posted by David C Fine, if the fundamentalists kept it to themselves and their families. They don't, won't, and can't. They are commanded to evangelise in order to perpetuate the jesus myth. Do you feel the pope should be able to dictate how you live your life? Should he be able to directly influence governmental policy outside of the Vatican?
Is that just the Christians? Do Moslems fall under your statement? How about evangelical Atheists? Gaia Worshippers?
A question has been raised as to whether "religion" provides any benefit.
How are we defining religion in this question? Is the term religion simply connoting a personal belief in a deity or higher being? By that definition, a person who believes in God but never sets foot in a church and never says anything about their faith to another person is still "religious." True or false? What about religions that do not posit the existence of a higher being or deity? Is a faithful Buddhist who does not believe in a godhead non-religious?
The Latin root of the word connotes a tie or a bind. This suggests a relationship with something external - a community, a church, a mythology, a liturgy, etc.
When I hear people discuss religion and its place in human life (or when I participate) I notice we aren't necessarily talking about the same thing. I very rarely hear a discussion about religion as the relationship of one's faith (whatever it is) to one's environment.
My attitude about my own religious tradition is that the mythology and teachings are preserved by an institution, all of which exist only to support a simple practice that helps me live clearly in relationship to others. The external religious stuff is all theatre; the internal religious understanding is all a dream. What's important is how I respond to this moment. That's the true religion.
Originally posted by Algernon A question has been raised as to whether "religion" provides any benefit.
How are we defining religion in this question? Is the term religion simply connoting a personal belief in a deity or higher being? By that definition, a person who believes in God but never sets foot in a church and never says anything about their faith to another perso ...[text shortened]... espond to this moment. That's the true religion.
Thank you for accepting 2 cents from me.
Since I am just a humble layman, my understanding is limited. It is very possible for me to use the wrong terminology. I am also uneducated outside of 3 faiths known as Western Religion.
I was raised to believe that there is a personal relationship between God and I. It is my understanding that Catholicism and a few Protestant denominations believe that the 'church' is your intermediary with God.
I think I will now return to the General forum, where my feeble mind will not be taxed so much.
Nonsense. I generally have people tell me I am making thier heads hurt when I dwelve into the arcaner (is that a word? 😕 ) aspects of tax law or accounting principles. The same is happening to me as I have no clear philosophy of my own that I can articulate very well and it starts to hurt my wee little head.
16 Sep '05 03:01
Belief
Back to Top