Sometimes you have to take illogical actions to help bring logical
results. Comparing notes. That's how we help each other. That's how we
learn, grow, and evolve.

actaully you can use the scientific method on any subject. i don t have
to believe the sky is pink, or assume that a pink sky is infallable,
and written in stone,or belong to the pink sky society, to begin a
research on the topic. if i think the sky is pink, thats my theory. now
i apply the facts,, like walking outside and looking for example, mabe
look at some pictures, talk to some pilots, ask a sky scientist(lol),
take a public opinion poll,ect, and thake all the evidence, compile it
and compare it to my theory. i have then completed reseach on my pink
sky theory and am ready to announce my results, of my one study, to the
world.
mabe thats a bad example, as i saw a pink sky once over the industrial
area of detroit. lol

i saw a show once about some 1800s scientists who was going to prove the
bible was false. He travelled to the desert, press in tow, to show that
some city that the bible said was there couldent be there. he stood in
the sand with a shovel and announced to the reporters that obviously
there was no city there. he then took the shovel and jambed it into the
ground. clank. he had hit what turned out to be the top of the tallest
building in the city, all buried in desert sand.
anyone else see this one? cant remember the city or the scientist.

Don't want to come across as though I didn't want to play with you all.

On the contrary!!!

It's just that in my humble opinion, I sense that we might (most
certainly) be, maybe (without any hesitation on my part), missing the
bigger point that could be made with this interesting (truly) post!

So here's the point (bear with me):


ARGUING THAT ORANGES SHOULD REPLACE ALL APPLES, ... because I 'BELIEVE'
in oranges, and I don't like apples!!!

or,

ARGUING THAT SPAGHETTI MUST BE EATEN WITH A BASEBALL GLOVE IN ONE HAND,
AND A BASKETBALL IN THE OTHER ... AS UTENSILS, because I BELIEVE in
baseball and basketball!!!

... might rally a few friends who will engage in a discussion for
entertainment sake,
... or a few more, whom might share the same particular and specific
passion and Belief,
... might even start a cult or new religion. It's allowed, it's
possible, and within the realm of our free societies.

On a larger scale however, I don't think (just my opinion) there would
be a large following for such premises.
(get out of a particular group of Christians in the US whom might share
a similar belief, just move to the rest of Christian America, then move
to 'all religions' America, then add South America, then Europe, then
the 1,1 billion people from India, and the 1,4 billion people from
China. You see a whole bunch of these people have never heard of
baseball or basketball. Don't have a clue what an orange or an apple is.
Or have no intention in heck to eat spaghetti!!! And YES, regardless of
our borders, we share the planet with them, and must coexist with our
different beliefs !!!)

The competing phenomenons here, are humans need to believe, and equally
need to understand. Understanding, with great effort can be shared. Not
so for beliefs. Dignified coexistence for beliefs, is the most
respectable scenario.

To start working at it,
faith, religion and theology answer the one (belief), while science,
observation, validation of facts, and proof of concept feed
understanding and knowledge.

It is so, because BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE have nothing in common.

The only common denominator to both phenomenons, is rational thinking.
What concepts are we talking about? Where do these concepts belong,
such that we can access and discuss them intelligently? Inclusively: of
competing concepts and beliefs, and of people.


'... God created heaven and earth', belongs to the domain of faith and
belief!!! Thousands of years of rich thinking from our predecessors on
the topics of 'faith based' concepts and ideas, has yielded our modern
societies a huge legacy.

There really was a time in human civilization, where all concerned with
these faith based concepts, did not know how to approach and think
through their various beliefs.

There needed to be some form of 'thinking' order to help organize the
various beliefs, and stop the barbaric killings of entire tribes of
humans, whom didn't share the same beliefs as their more powerful
neighboring tribe.

Intelligence prevailed with some, and thus religions (several of them)
started to be thought through the perspective of 'theology': The study
of God and the divine, through the perspective of 'Revelation':
theological dogma. This took place with the emergence of science. Clergy
and religious scholars were clear that the divine could not be
articulate or represnted through science.

This represents a huge breaktrough in human civilization.
TO this day, it allows anyone, believer or not, to access in a very
rigorous and tangible manner,
through one's very material 'human reality' means,
the domain of immaterial and intemporal 'reality': the divine.

Theology in the beginning was thought by many to be this intelligent and
uncompromising human process that was going to allow peope to suscribe
to different beliefs, without having to resort to killing each other.
'Theology, from Greek: Theos (of God, or of the divine domain)- logos
(the study or understanding of).

In better understanding, through rational means, the founding
differences in beliefs, it was thought and hoped that people would
discuss, stretch their minds to understand others, and respect the
differences, rather than kill each other over them.

In that amazing moment of enlightment, from a few members of
civilization, Jesus made a huge contribution. Coexistence between
'tribes' and beliefs wasn't working when Jesus was born.

Jesus essentially entered the arena and paid with his life for among
other things, having said these amazing simple words:

'... as you love yourself, so love your neighbor.'

He didn't say, love your neighbor if he thinks like you. He didn't
say, love your neighbor if he's Christian like you (there were no
Christians at the time, and your neighbor was more likely than not,
someone whom would have felt totally legitimate in killing you for not
sharing the same beliefs).

So if one makes the effort, he only needs mastering the following two
principles in practicing his faith:

First: THEOLOGY (not science) is the only effective means to gain
better understanding of one's own faith, and thus, open an effective
dialogue of resect and sharing with anyone, refardless of religion of
degree of knowledge.

Second: The message from Jesus is the reminder that once you understand
your own faith through Theology, you may very well appreciate and repect
someone else's faith and thus, '...love thy neighbor'.
(I don't give more importance to Theology over Jesus' words, just
because I put theology first. It's just that Jesus' gift of love will
have a better chance of success if you are solid in your understanding
of faith (theology), rather feeling afraid or threatened by scientific
knowledge, or other faiths carried invariably by 'neighbors you are
invited to love'.

If we make no effort,

... and show no appreciation for thousands of years of intelligent and
constructive means (theology) to better understand the foundation of our
own faith,

... and disregard Jesus's most fundamental message (gift) to all mankind
('...love thy neighbor...'),

we simply and irresponsibly perpetuate the notion of fear of others
based on different beliefs, or in this case here, NOT even BELIEFS, BUT
SIMPLE KNOWLEDGE (theory of evolution is simple knowledge).

Confusion has never been a friend of progress, or enlightment.

To confuse:
faith and rational thinking,
belief and fact,
science and theology,
the Divine Dimension and a scientific theory on Evolution,
what's next, God vs Darwin!!! (Prussia answered that one way way back
with ample 'proof': Darwin is not God!)

If one 'believes' in oranges, because one likes them, that's OK!!!
But one shouldn't jump to the conclusion, and assert that someone else
must then 'believe' in 'apples', just because this someone else likes
apples, and eats them!!! (that's the disconnect between the scientific
approach and Faith. Rational thinking, treating faith throuh theology,
and material matters through science, is the connector)

Furthermore, to refuse the knowledge and progress we have made in
understanding what surrounds us (science and material proof of
relations),

... and to deny or ignore the most effective means to discuss and
forward the faith based dialogue through theology, arguing that faith
should be discussed from the scientific perspective

WHILE IT IS LEGAL AND PERMITTED,

... you can't expect anything constructive or forwarding out of it:
that's what life has taught us about confusion (science), and that is
what the Book says about confusion: Satan's noise (I'm paraphrasing
here!)

Imposing one's personal religious views without the means of proper
perspective (theology), sends the same barbaric and divisive (SEPARATES
AND DOES NOT UNITE) message to others whom wish to debate on faith for
what it is, and science for what it is.

Evolution and Creation can be discussed as part of the same forum. And
it's allowed to confuse the two to death. But I ask you, what would be
the point of opposing apples and oranges?

On the other hand, to discuss the distinct nature of both, to get to
their unique virtues, ...to the extent where these virtues might
converge and empower the human process, rather than limit or divide it.
NOw there's a trip!!!
(can't always agree with everyone!!! Although, nothing stops us from
authentically seeking, through debating, a mutual and converging place
of agreement (regardless of perceived differences. It is a most
enriching and endearing dimension which all human beings share.)


Rational thought, respect for proper perpective, allowing for other's
perspectives to be integrated to our own, is profoundly inclusive and
enriching, and ultimately brings all of us to genuinely practice :

'... as you love yourself, so love your neighbor.'

damn that was good. thanks.

That's where I believe that Love is the greatest also. But thelogy is
not just a light word as was stated. Everything is build on theroy
first, because everything starts with a thought. The fact is (I'm sorry)
that science does bring facts first beyound everything else. It is
science that will prevail to bring proof that there really is a God. If
and when you start thinking like a true blue 'regilious' person, then
you will have to realize that the non-believers wont even reconize you.
It takes facts to acomplish an argument, no matter how right or wrong
you are. Some have to be smacked in the face with it (the burning
bush).Yes you also have to be considerate of other peoples beliefs,
because everyone can learn from others, and somone elses beliefs can
give you another puzzle piece to yours.
By the way, apples and oranges both come from trees, just like we all
come from the same rock. 3rd from the sun.

I take it Voil is done with this one, so I'm starting a new topic.

The Gospel of Thomas - look for it in a community near you.

Redykeulous,

What made you think I was done? I'm just warming up!

And you are bringing a most complementary block, and consistent relay
to my previous comments (not a new topic at all)

The gospel according to THOMAS, is exactly the scriptures to stand from,
quote, or refer to, for a believer to 'tune into and get clear
reception' of the comments I have been making in this forum.

Fans of Thomas, if you allow me, have said of his gospel, that it
represented an...
"... unprecedented revelation",
"... found in it the clear confirmation of this presence which
enlightens and unites everything."
"... to fully be appreciated, the 'Gospel according to Thomas' requires
a fresh perspective from other gospels, a profound change in mentality!"

Once you make the first steps to access Thomas' Gospel, you penetrate
the dimension of 'Gnosis' or Gnostic', bringing the notions of "...
timeless and immaterial Universal Knowledge, or WHAT IS TRUE FO ALL". A
whole other domain than the limited and constrained: "...what's true for
ME".

By the way, a Gnostic is simply someone who's interested in at first,
and goes on to integrate later, the mental distinction of non-dualistic
thought, or the ability to be one with. (as opposed to the '... 'me' in
or opposed to the world' vision.

In other words: someone whom has no problem profoundly reconciling his
belief that god exists, and that there is absolutely no need, nor any
point in having proof of it. To a gnostic, proving a belief is absurd:
an oxymoron!!!

"Gnostics are rare" , it is said. Not that they are superior, special,
or even gifted. It's just that for the most part, people want to know
for sure what it is that they believe in. Most want and need the
knowledge that their beliefs are true to them. And while most
understand 'mystery', they are not comfortable experiencing mystery in
their lives.

Gnostics, on the contrary, draw great inspiration from mystery, and
make a constant distinction in their lives between the superior
'universal, immaterial and impersonal Knowledge, from the useful, yet
inferior material and personnal knowledge.

Here's what a Gospel according to Thomas fan said to the question :

"... Have you seen God?"

"... If God is to have the revelation of one's own presence, in other
words, to be conscious of one's true nature, then I can answer in the
affirmative. But, if God is an all powerful material and physical
'existing' being, 'different' from me, then I am foreign to this vision.
Only the unitary vision suppresses dualistic perception. If the
individual is unified and intgrated, only God remains."

NO SCIENTIFIC EQUATION REQUIRED!!!

net, are you implying that science does not support the creation story?
I would argue that it does a lot better than evolution.

Science has findly 'evolved' enough to prove that God does really exist.
Science is my basis. Science helps bring the logical mind into focus, by
helping to present facts that are more 'believable' to the average Joe.
I believe that everything in existence has a kinda 'helper' to
accomplish certain happenstances. (ex.) We depend on the trees for
oxygen while they depend on us for carbon dioxide. This is my basic
example of proof that we are all a part of each other. All molecular
structures are in a constant state of flux, by exchanging atomic make
up.

netuserlla,

What scientific journal has you published your claim of God's existence.
And what exact degree of acceptance has it achieved in the overall
scientific community.

I must have missed this human civilization 'quantum leap' while writing
one too many of these posts?!?!?

OK! I admit, it is friendly sarcasm! Don't mean to offend you
'netuserlla'.

... but what are you talking about when you claim:

'... Science has findly 'evolved' enough to prove that God does really
exist.' ('copy/paste' quote of your comment).

It's not the first time you fool around with this claim. You're starting
to worry me!!! If you don't watch yourself, I may take you up on it!!!

Respectfully,

Voileazur.

Thank you voileazur. I believe also that criticism can be very
constructive.

First of all I would need to know a little about your beliefs so it
would make life easier to find a starting point.

Second of all, all mankind has missed the 'quantum leap' for far too
long, but this even goes way beyond physics, and quantum mechanics, and
leads back to the basics.

Thirdly of all most all of the greatest minds were not considered the
greatest at thier time, and I don't ever care for rewards or prizes for
accomplishments. The things that I do in life is for the greater good of
all mankind.

netuserlla,

I can see you have a sense of humour!
You asked:

"... First of all I would need to know a little about your beliefs so it
would make life easier to find a starting point."

That's pretty funny netuserlla. Do you mean to say you haven't read
what I've written on this post? Or is it that you forget quickly? (no
offense)

Come on netuserlla, it's me 'voileazur'!!! Go back and read the posts
I've pitched on this forum (slowly, speedread, backwards, sideways, or
any other way you want!).
Take notes, and if you don't come out of this reconnaissance exercise
with a very clear idea of not just my beliefs, but my opinions,
positions, convictions, points of view, angles and perspectives 'as a
strarting point' for this subject, I'm afraid I will not be able to add
anything that could help you '...know a little about my beliefs'!


Again, most repectfully,


Voileazur.

Did anyone ever tell you that you reminded them of O'Reilly, (no
negative implemations intended)?LOL
I am just enjoying the fact that findly someone has inquired about some
facts that I have gathered.
I will just say to start that people have to realize that everything in
existence is apart of everything else.
The most basic example that is easy to understand is the fact that
humans and trees exchange assembled atoms on a constant basis.
Oxygen/Carbondioxide. This 'exchange' makes us a part of each other,
atomically.

look at the earth. just far enough from the sun so water exixts in three
states. tilted just enough to give us seasons but not enough to make a
mess. spins just right to distribute the suns heat. everything in
perfect balance. accident or design?

Nothing in the big picture is an accident.

yup i agree. probably the best study on the subject is a book by the
JWs. creationisn or evolution? its a very good read actually.

okay so who won, the evolutionists or creationists?

LOL.Neither.It don't work like that. But the leaning is tword
creationism.

ah well, i go back to the silver gorillas....and then, a friend said go
visit the oranutans, and see for yourself. personally, i am an
evolutionist, after taking a creation class.