Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke🙂
We usually buy a wedge of Stilton at Christmas, not because either of us like blue cheese, but because, well you know, it's tradition.
A tiny nibble once a year is enough for anybody, so the rest remains contentedly in the fridge until around June, when the first indication of emerging sentience is identified. By then the alien DNA has made the c ...[text shortened]... ou know, the Bible is an account of this occurring, (though you won't find a direct reference).
Originally posted by @lemon-limeLike I already said - on the previous page - yes, "soul" is what religionists like to call it. That's a word they use: "soul". Religionists like to frame it as a kind of supernatural thing.
The 'you' inside of you is your soul.
1 edit
Originally posted by @karoly-aczel... there is no external God as puported by most Christians. There is the Light of the universe, The Lord, which no one can fool but as far as a big external anthropomorphized bearded god is concerned, there is none to be found anywhere.
My theories are fairly standard. Not very out there, imo.
The external and internal must be dealt with. Every aspect of life can be managed when we understand the (psychological) mechanisms and the overall process of divination.
But yes, there is no external God as puported by most Christians. There is the Light of the universe, The Lord, which ...[text shortened]... s a big external anthropomorphized bearded god is concerned, there is none to be found anywhere.
The Bible doesn't characterize God as a bearded old man, so I think you're being somewhat disingenuous in your assessment of what Christains believe.
Aside from that it appears you are trying to combine many disparate e!ements into one cohesive religion or philosophy. I can understand why you might want to do this. But disparate religions and philosophies together with modern (and popular) ideas will not mesh cleany together to form one cohesive religion/philosophy.
Years ago I tried to reconcile my former atheistic ideas with Christian beliefs. But because of many obvious paradoxes and contradictions I was compelled to choose between one or the other... I could find no middle ground that made any sense.
I don't believe there is a spiritual equivalence to the scientific idea of a Theory of Everything. But just to be clear it would be folly for me to tell you what you should or should not believe, so all I'm really doing here is telling you what I believe.
3 edits
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelA belief in (or speculation over) alien life forms has been around longer than knowledge of DNA. The integration of alien DNA into your philosophy (religion?) would be a relatively new idea, seeing as how the existence of DNA was unknown until the last century. So is this a belief system that necessarily evolves and changes over time, and is there some immutable central thread able to hold it all together.
Just to be clear, I dont believe their is any direct reference to dna in the bible.
Genesis is a story of creation and the garden of Eden a metaphor for the fall of man. Please use your common sense and reference any athropological study to see how there is a gap in the physical evolution of man from apes.
The Sumerian civilization popped up virtua ...[text shortened]... emise that we are spiritual beings our enquiries will always be directed in the wrong direction.
I'm not sure how combining the idea of aliens and DNA can be integrated into (what ostensibly appears to be) a discussion of spirituality. So I need to ask if you lean more toward the material aspect of this belief or toward the spiritual.
It's not clear to us why you believe in the existence of alien life forms, but from the vantage point of our mother ship it appears you are leaning more toward material explanations.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelIf it is eternal it goes all the way back
It just doesn't feel right, it doesn't make sense either. .
If it is eternal it goes all the way back as well.
Another way of saying eternity is "everlasting" or "time without end", both of which are indicative of a "never ending" future.
by the way, there can't be an all the way back if there is no beginning.
It's like saying all the way into infinity, but this is contradictory because the word 'all' implies a boundary. There is no "all" because infinity cannot by definition be encapsulated, and the same goes for eternity.
This is not a trick of semantics...
Our minds naturally want to understand the meaning of difficult concepts, but at the same time will try redefining those concepts into an easily understood framework.
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThis is a succinct take on why some people become religionists and conjure up explanations based on supernatural causality. It is pretty natural, I agree. That many people are attracted to packages of superstitious 'answers' is part and parcel of the human condition.
Our minds naturally want to understand the meaning of difficult concepts, but at the same time will try redefining those concepts into an easily understood framework.
Originally posted by @fmfThat was a succinct take on why many people are not religionists and conjure up explanations based only on material causality. It is pretty natural, I agree. That many people are attracted to packages of materialistic answers is part and parcel of the human condition.
This is a succinct take on why some people become religionists and conjure up explanations based on supernatural causality. It is pretty natural, I agree. That many people are attracted to packages of superstitious 'answers' is part and parcel of the human condition.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIt seems we might might be more or less in agreement then about what I suggested at the the top of page 7.
That was a succinct take on why many people are not religionists and conjure up explanations based only on material causality. It is pretty natural, I agree. That many people are attracted to packages of materialistic answers is part and parcel of the human condition.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI'm not trying to combine disparate elements. I'm just trying to use my own words.
[b]... there is no external God as puported by most Christians. There is the Light of the universe, The Lord, which no one can fool but as far as a big external anthropomorphized bearded god is concerned, there is none to be found anywhere.
The Bible doesn't characterize God as a bearded old man, so I think you're being somewhat disingenuous in yo ...[text shortened]... at you should or should not believe, so all I'm really doing here is telling you what I believe.[/b]
Dont you think a cohesive take on Christianity should gel easily with other spiritual ideas?
Originally posted by @lemon-limethe premise that we are spiritual beings is not material.
A belief in (or speculation over) alien life forms has been around longer than knowledge of DNA. The integration of alien DNA into your philosophy (religion?) would be a relatively new idea, seeing as how the existence of DNA was unknown until the last century. So is this a belief system that necessarily evolves and changes over time, and is there some i ...[text shortened]... e vantage point of our mother ship it appears you are leaning more toward material explanations.
2 edits
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelI'm not trying to combine disparate elements. I'm just trying to use my own words.
I'm not trying to combine disparate elements. I'm just trying to use my own words.
Dont you think a cohesive take on Christianity should gel easily with other spiritual ideas?
I appreciate you using your own words. No joke, I really do.
I didn't mean to imply that you in particular combined disparate elements. I assumed you were talking about a philosophy (or a religion or idea) you had come across and agree with.
Dont you think a cohesive take on Christianity should gel easily with other spiritual ideas?
It doesn't matter if it should or shouldn't. Christianity does not gel with other spiritual ideas.
John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me."
The 'only' way and 'another' way (or other ways) are mutually exclusive.
When Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is at hand he was referring to himself... he was (literally) within their midst.
5 edits
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelThat could be interpreted as 'the premise is immaterial' (unimportant or irrelevant) but I'm fairly sure that wasn't what you meant.
the premise that we are spiritual beings is not material.
The premise wasn't what I was referring to. The idea of extraterrestrial DNA had to have been folded into the narrative fairly recently. This is why I asked if your philosophy/religion naturally evolves with time to include new ideas, knowledge and schools of thought. If so, what is the central thread holding it all together?
And by the way, saying spiritual is not material is like saying up is not down. Those concepts are not terribly difficult to understand... there's no steam or smoke shooting from my ears as a result of wrestling with those ideas.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeJust a correction here. The word in this verse is life, not light. This is a main cornerstone of Christianity, and I'll not let people get away with misrepresenting it. Characterizing Jesus as just 'light', when he is much more than that, is rendering what he did for us as worthless. You should be more careful with quotes of sacred religious texts.
John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me."
Originally posted by @suzianneYou're right, it's life (not light). This isn't the first time I've made that mistake.
Just a correction here. The word in this verse is [b]life, not light. This is a main cornerstone of Christianity, and I'll not let people get away with misrepresenting it. Characterizing Jesus as just 'light', when he is much more than that, is rendering what he did for us as worthless. You should be more careful with quotes of sacred religious texts.[/b]
It was John 8:12 where he said "I am the light of the world"
Originally posted by @lemon-limewhat is the central thread holding it all together?
That could be interpreted as 'the premise is immaterial' (unimportant or irrelevant) but I'm fairly sure that wasn't what you meant.
The premise wasn't what I was referring to. The idea of extraterrestrial DNA had to have been folded into the narrative fairly recently. This is why I asked if your philosophy/religion naturally evolves with time to incl ...[text shortened]... nd... there's no steam or smoke shooting from my ears as a result of wrestling with those ideas.
Is there a name I could google, or a website that describes/explains this?
I don't want to jump to any unwarranted conclusions, but what you've described thus far sounds very familiar. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm fairly sure I've heard something like this before.