Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on April 11, 2019, 08:31:28 AM
-
Hi everyone,
I came across the following quote from the bible.
************
Titus 3:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
************
It seems to match well with the Hindu idea that if we are cleansed, we can avoid rebirth and attain liberation (eternal life).
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
I came across the following quote from the bible.
************
Titus 3:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
************
It seems to match well with the Hindu idea that if we are cleansed, we can avoid rebirth and attain liberation (eternal life).
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
I cannot conceive of anything more unpleasant than eternal life. Once I die I hope I cease to be.
-
Hi everyone,
I came across the following quote from the bible.
************
Titus 3:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
************
It seems to match well with the Hindu idea that if we are cleansed, we can avoid rebirth and attain liberation (eternal life).
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
Yes, it's wishful thinking.
-
I cannot conceive of anything more unpleasant than eternal life. Once I die I hope I cease to be.
Wishful thinking?
-
Yes, it's wishful thinking.
Or metaphoric, symbolic, allegorical ... Not to be taken literally.
-
As a Pagan I believe in the cycle of life - Birth, Life, Dreath and Re-birth.
After death the spirit, the essence of the person journeys to the Summerlands where it can review and learn from the experiences. good, bad, and indifferent, of the previous life prior to rebirth.
-
Wishful thinking?
Whilst I don't know for sure, as no one who is truly dead has ever come back to life, I suspect once you die you stay dead.
-
Whilst I don't know for sure, as no one who is truly dead has ever come back to life, I suspect once you die you stay dead.
Depends on what you mean by "you". Certainly, the actual chemical stuff your body is built from can go around many times.
-
Depends on what you mean by "you". Certainly, the actual chemical stuff your body is built from can go around many times.
Please clarify that statement.
-
Whilst I don't know for sure, as no one who is truly dead has ever come back to life, I suspect once you die you stay dead.
Rebirth in Christianity refers to a pre mortem experience.
-
Whilst I don't know for sure, as no one who is truly dead has ever come back to life, I suspect once you die you stay dead.
People have come back in NDE's...and also talked of reincarnation. Problem is that people resort to a circular argument. Death is final (assumption)....so anyone who does come back to tell you about it cannot be actually dead. It assumes what we are trying to find out...and ends up 'proving' the assumption.
-
People have come back in NDE's...and also talked of reincarnation. Problem is that people resort to a circular argument. Death is final (assumption)....so anyone who does come back to tell you about it cannot be actually dead. It assumes what we are trying to find out...and ends up 'proving' the assumption.
I agree.
-
PL refer to Prof Jim Tucker....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhzoGvJsQdM
-
http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
-
People have come back in NDE's...and also talked of reincarnation. Problem is that people resort to a circular argument. Death is final (assumption)....so anyone who does come back to tell you about it cannot be actually dead. It assumes what we are trying to find out...and ends up 'proving' the assumption.
None of these people were dead, that's what the near part means.
They have strange experiences as the brain is starved of oxygen, big surprise!
-
http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
I'm not sure there is a good match between the Biblical rebirth and reincarnation.
The former is a premortem experience intimately connected to God's dynamic presence hence the mention of the Holy spirit.
Tucker is apparently sceptical about reincarnation but proposes some transfer of memories and emotions. I can envisage what that means in a scientistical reductionist/informationist secular context. Is this sufficient for rebirth in the hindu sense?
-
http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
I don't think bad dreams, of which I had very many as a kid, even dreaming I had been someone else, can be described as evidence for reincarnation.
-
Please clarify that statement.
I mean that all the atoms that you are made of can go on to be recycled in plants and creatures after your death.
-
I mean that all the atoms that you are made of can go on to be recycled in plants and creatures after your death.
If there is any consolation in that, I wonder what the nature of that consolation could possibly be.
-
I'm not sure there is a good match between the Biblical rebirth and reincarnation.
The former is a premortem experience intimately connected to God's dynamic presence hence the mention of the Holy spirit.
Tucker is apparently sceptical about reincarnation but proposes some transfer of memories and emotions. I can envisage what that means in a scientistical reductionist/informationist secular context. Is this sufficient for rebirth in the hindu sense?
To quote from my last link....
***********
Tucker, like Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, believes that discovery shows that the physical world is affected by, and even derived from the non-physical, from consciousness.
If that’s true, then consciousness doesn’t require a three-pound brain to exist, Tucker says, and so there’s no reason to think that consciousness would end with it.
“It’s conceivable that in some way consciousness could be expressed in a new life,” Tucker says.
***********
-
Sriram,
People have come back in NDE's...and also talked of reincarnation. Problem is that people resort to a circular argument. Death is final (assumption)....so anyone who does come back to tell you about it cannot be actually dead. It assumes what we are trying to find out...and ends up 'proving' the assumption.
Nope. “Death is final” is a working assumption in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If someone claimed to be reincarnated then the burden of proof would be on him to demonstrate his claim to be more probably true than not. So far at least no-one has done so, so the working assumption stands.
That’s got nothing to do with circular reasoning either, which means something else.
-
Sriram,
Nope. “Death is final” is a working assumption in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If someone claimed to be reincarnated then the burden of proof would be on him to demonstrate his claim to be more probably true than not.
At the risk of sounding controversial why would somebody convinced she is reincarnated frankly give a shit about her burden of proof? It needn't have any bearing on others and presumably it is not something that involves a decision which affects or effects any consequences.
-
That’s got nothing to do with circular reasoning either, which means something else.
Perhaps you'd like to justify that for us.
-
I agree.
Yo agree that ordinary humans can come back from the dead?
-
Yo agree that ordinary humans can come back from the dead?
No...……………. I agree that Death is final because, er, Death is final is a circular argument.
That people don't usually come back from the dead and I never expect to see it I can agree with......I am even prepared to accept we never come back to this universe.
-
No...……………. I agree that Death is final because, er, Death is final is a circular argument.
That people don't usually come back from the dead and I never expect to see it I can agree with......I am even prepared to accept we never come back to this universe.
So you don't think ordinary people come back from the dead because? Is it because death is final?
-
So you don't think ordinary people come back from the dead because? Is it because death is final?
You're not noticing things. I said they don't usually come back.....that's what I think. So I guess I think death is usually final as far as we are concerned.
And death is final because death is final is still a circular argument.
-
People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.
What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything.
Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.
-
People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.
What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything.
Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.
Nothing objectional about it. Having a clear definition is important to avoid a lack of clarity around claims being made, such as the thousands of claims you refer to.
-
You're not noticing things. I said they don't usually come back.....that's what I think. So I guess I think death is usually final as far as we are concerned.
And death is final because death is final is still a circular argument.
I am noticing what you are saying but was looking to clarify it.
-
Nothing objectional about it. Having a clear definition is important to avoid a lack of clarity around claims being made, such as the thousands of claims you refer to.
Yeah right!! So, you define it in such a way that the 'thousands' of cases are ab initio taken as wrong?!!! Nice!
-
People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.
What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything.
Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.
"Define death insuch a way....." What are you on about?
People die. They dont come back to tell us about it. I would love for mu Mum, who died a year ago, to come back and talk to me. She won't though, because she is dead.
The definition doesn't stop people coming back, the act of dying does.
-
People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.
What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything.
Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.
No one who is actually dead comes back to life, end of story! ::)
-
Hi everyone,
I came across the following quote from the bible.
************
Titus 3:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
************
It seems to match well with the Hindu idea that if we are cleansed, we can avoid rebirth and attain liberation (eternal life).
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
No, it doesn't.
In the context Paul is using, he mere echoes John and Peter.
The rebirth is another definition of thechange Christians accept happenswhen we acceptChrist as our Lord and Saviour,effectively wiping the spiritual slate clean and beginning a new life in Christ.
This does not happen when we snuff it - at least, if it does, I've been dead since 1977.
-
No, it doesn't.
In the context Paul is using, he mere echoes John and Peter.
The rebirth is another definition of thechange Christians accept happenswhen we acceptChrist as our Lord and Saviour,effectively wiping the spiritual slate clean and beginning a new life in Christ.
This does not happen when we snuff it - at least, if it does, I've been dead since 1977.
The accepting of that guy as my lord and saviour when I was a kid, was not a happy experience. I was more than happy to get rid of that unpleasant baggage.
-
Sriram,
People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.
What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything.
Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.
You still have it ass-backwards. Is it “objectionable” to define flying as staying in the air for more than a few seconds? Change that definition to, say, staying in the air for two seconds and there are thousands who have "flown" just by jumping too.
“Death” actually means something – absence of neural activity for one – so saying someone came back from death because their heart stopped for a while or because their neuronal activity slowed greatly while trapped under ice is just playing fast and loose with the term. Of course people have “come back from” death when you use the term colloquially (just as they have flown unaided when you use that term colloquially), but that’s a very different matter to being actually dead.
Oh, ignore by the way Vlad’s straw man version of what you said to arrive at the false conclusion “circular reasoning”. To be circular reasoning you’d have to put the argument something like:
Statement A: Death is final
Statement B: I would never accept evidence of someone returning from being dead
Conclusion: Therefore Statement A is correct.
Where you went wrong though was to say: “Problem is that people resort to a circular argument. Death is final (assumption)....so anyone who does come back to tell you about it cannot be actually dead. It assumes what we are trying to find out...and ends up 'proving' the assumption.” As I explained, “death is final” is just the working assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And there’s nothing circular about that.
-
Yeah right!! So, you define it in such a way that the 'thousands' of cases are ab initio taken as wrong?!!! Nice!
There are ZERO cases of people returning from death, ZERO.
-
Sriram,
Yeah right!! So, you define it in such a way that the 'thousands' of cases are ab initio taken as wrong?!!! Nice!
No, he defines it as the word actually means. It’s you who’s re-defining it to include, “not actually dead”, “almost dead”, “showing some but not all of the characteristics of death” and similar so as to allow for lots of people to “come back” from being not dead at all.
“Nice” indeed.
-
Sriram,
No, he defines it as the word actually means. It’s you who’s re-defining it to include, “not actually dead”, “almost dead”, “showing some but not all of the characteristics of death” and similar so as to allow for lots of people to “come back” from being not dead at all.
“Nice” indeed.
And further to that, even Sriram's oft quoted NDEs are Near Death Experiences, not after death experiences, and there is no evidence that they show anything but the workings of the human mind in such situations.
-
These days, given medical knowledge and techniques, death is best thought of as a process that can vary and be varied, such as where hypothermia is involved (or induced) or where interventions such as CPR are viable and can, in some cases, be effective in interrupting the process if applied promptly and properly.
If these options don't apply, or if tried they fail, then death will indeed become 'final': in that the process has become irreversible, which is why undertakers don't worry too much about any of their charges absconding.
-
No, it doesn't.
In the context Paul is using, he mere echoes John and Peter.
The rebirth is another definition of thechange Christians accept happenswhen we acceptChrist as our Lord and Saviour,effectively wiping the spiritual slate clean and beginning a new life in Christ.
This does not happen when we snuff it - at least, if it does, I've been dead since 1977.
But you are referring to 'rebirth' as something good that happens when you accept Jesus, like 'born again'. The quote above talks of 'washing of rebirth' as though it is something to be gotten rid of.
-
Sriram,
But you are referring to 'rebirth' as something good that happens when you accept Jesus, like 'born again'. The quote above talks of 'washing of rebirth' as though it is something to be gotten rid of.
Any thoughts yet on why calling the correct use of the term "death" "objectionable" has given you such a problem?
-
Sriram,
Any thoughts yet on why calling the correct use of the term "death" "objectionable" has given you such a problem?
blue,
I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.
But let me clarify this time....
No one knows what death is. This is a fact. It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of. We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.
In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.
People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on. There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it. (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).
However, several people (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.
But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion. There is no room left for any other explanation.
That is all I have to say on this.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
blue,
I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.
But let me clarify this time....
No one knows what death is. This is a fact. It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of. We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.
In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.
Death is the permanent cessation of life, which surely isn't all that difficult to understand.
People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on. There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it. (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).
So aside from falling into the NPF you also want to avoid the burden of proof - nice!
However, several people (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.
But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion. There is no room left for any other explanation.
That is all I have to say on this.
Cheers.
Sriram
Then all you have to say is essentially woo.
-
Sriram,
I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.
But let me clarify this time....
No one knows what death is. This is a fact. It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of. We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.
In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.
Except of course lots of people know just what death is – that’s why they bury people that are dead and try to revive the when they aren’t. Leaving aside the clinical tests – absence of neuronal activity etc – a pretty big clue is the decomposition that sets in almost immediately death occurs. Of course if you want to argue that some people have managed to recompose themselves after that by all means give it a go, but you’ll have given yourself a hell of a mountain to climb if you do.
People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on. There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it. (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).
Leaving aside for now that you’ve just driven a coach and four through the logic that underpins the burden of proof principle and moreover that you’re now squarely in negative proof territory, you’ve also just opened yourself up to accepting any other claim about anything else at all when the claimant just has to assert what he thinks to be true.
Is that really where you want to be?
However, several people (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.
It has been. They weren’t dead, and there’s no good reason therefore to think they experienced an “after life”.
Now what?
But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion. There is no room left for any other explanation.
Wrong again. We have a working assumption that death is final because that’s what all the evidence we have tells us. That’s not to say that evidence to the contrary could not be treated seriously, and indeed that if ever there was any the working assumption wouldn’t change. For now though, “coming back from not actually dead” is all you have.
That is all I have to say on this.
Probably just as well.
-
blue,
I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.
But let me clarify this time....
No one knows what death is. This is a fact. It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of. We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.
In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.
People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on. There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it. (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).
However, several people (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.
But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion. There is no room left for any other explanation.
That is all I have to say on this.
Cheers.
Sriram
People who come back to life after being declared dead, weren't actually dead, the medics got it wrong.
-
It seems that we merely have a difference of opinion on whether the definition of death invariably includes the ìdea of finality.
My own opinion is that some who insist on the inclusion of a finality clause have not been totally averse to definitional flexibility but here are insisting on an absolute definition.
To those people it might be worth testing their definition by running a scenario or two.
-
It seems that we merely have a difference of opinion on whether the definition of death invariably includes the ìdea of finality.
It isn't a matter of opinion though, Vlad: if by death we mean that the body no longer functions in a manner compatible with being alive (cardiac activity, respiration and neural activity) and any resuscitation efforts made have failed, so that the process of biological death completes and decomposition begins - which is why, at that point, we regard it as being safe to bury or cremate the dead body.
My own opinion is that some who insist on the inclusion of a finality clause have not been totally averse to definitional flexibility but here are insisting on an absolute definition.
I think it is more the case here that some of us recognise that certain well-established facts are more relevant than definitions that don't fully take account of these facts. Do you have a definition for 'just a little bit dead for a wee while but not really fully dead at all'?
To those people it might be worth testing their definition by running a scenario or two.
On you go then: propose a scenario or two.
One option would be for you to pay a visit to your local undertaker (experts in this field) and ask if there have been cases of dead people not staying dead.
-
It seems that we merely have a difference of opinion on whether the definition of death invariably includes the ìdea of finality.
My own opinion is that some who insist on the inclusion of a finality clause have not been totally averse to definitional flexibility but here are insisting on an absolute definition.
To those people it might be worth testing their definition by running a scenario or two.
The scene: An operating theatre. A team of highly trained professionals are working calmly and diligently on a high risk procedure. The only sound is the occasional beeping of machines and the rhythmic swish of the ventilator. Three hours in, suddenly all hell breaks loose – alarms sound, light flash etc.
Anaesthetist: “Mr Jenkins, I’ve got no pulse. We’re losing him!”
Scrub nurse Smith: “Confirmed Mr Jenkins – everything’s flatlining…”
Mr Jenkins: "Dammit! OK everyone, calm now. Nurse Smith – defibrillator please."
Several attempts with the defibrillator are made, and various drugs are administered; all fail.
Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m cracking the chest now. Begin open heart massage.”
After 20 minutes or so of frantic activity, all the machines are still flatlining and no signs of life remain.
Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m calling this. Time of death – 20.2…”
Suddenly the door slams open and a buck-toothed lad in blue cleaners’ dungarees appears.
Youth: “WAIT!”
Mr Jenkins (peering at the youth’s name badge): "Yes, Mr ….er…Vlad is it?"
Vlad (for it is he): “You just said time of death right?”
Mr Jenkins: “Er, yes….are you a relative or something?”
Vlad: “Never mind that now. This is an emergency!”
Mr Jenkins: “Pardon?”
Vlad: “Well, you didn’t say which kind of death did you? You know, did you mean the “might as well bury him now" kind or the, “he could come back from this” kind?
Mr Jenkins: “SECURITY!”
Vlad seen dragged down the corridor by two burly types in uniforms. His last, barely discernible words being: “But you didn’t even run the the scenarios…”
End
-
The scene: An operating theatre. A team of highly trained professionals are working calmly and diligently on a high risk procedure. The only sound is the occasional beeping of machines and the rhythmic swish of the ventilator. Three hours in, suddenly all hell breaks loose – alarms sound, light flash etc.
Anaesthetist: “Mr Jenkins, I’ve got no pulse. We’re losing him!”
Scrub nurse Smith: “Confirmed Mr Jenkins – everything’s flatlining…”
Mr Jenkins: "Dammit! OK everyone, calm now. Nurse Smith – defibrillator please."
Several attempts with the defibrillator are made, and various drugs are administered; all fail.
Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m cracking the chest now. Begin open heart massage.”
After 20 minutes or so of frantic activity, all the machines are still flatlining and no signs of life remain.
Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m calling this. Time of death – 20.2…”
Suddenly the door slams open and a buck-toothed lad in blue cleaners’ dungarees appears.
Youth: “WAIT!”
Mr Jenkins (peering at the youth’s name badge): "Yes, Mr ….er…Vlad is it?"
Vlad (for it is he): “You just said time of death right?”
Mr Jenkins: “Er, yes….are you a relative or something?”
Vlad: “Never mind that now. This is an emergency!”
Mr Jenkins: “Pardon?”
Vlad: “Well, you didn’t say which kind of death did you? You know, did you mean the “might as well bury him now" kind or the, “he could come back from this” kind?
Mr Jenkins: “SECURITY!”
Vlad seen dragged down the corridor by two burly types in uniforms. His last, barely discernible words being: “But you didn’t even run the the scenarios…”
End
;D
-
Hi everyone,
I came across the following quote from the bible.
************
Titus 3:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
************
It seems to match well with the Hindu idea that if we are cleansed, we can avoid rebirth and attain liberation (eternal life).
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
Further to my OP, the Gnostic Christians seem to have believed in reincarnation...
http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/PDF/ReincGnost.pdf
***********
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the reincarnation concept in no way is unchristian,
but only “unclerical”, since it was known among the Gnostic original Christians
***********
-
Further to my OP, the Gnostic Christians seem to have believed in reincarnation...
http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/PDF/ReincGnost.pdf
***********
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the reincarnation concept in no way is unchristian,
but only “unclerical”, since it was known among the Gnostic original Christians
***********
Whether ir is Christian or not is of little consequence.
It is bonkers regardless
-
Sriram,
Further to my OP, the Gnostic Christians seem to have believed in reincarnation...
Actually it's most likely pagan in origin - coming from the "death" of the year toward the winter solstice and the "re-birth" the following spring. Many religious traditions took it and incorporated it into their beliefs (a process called "syncretism" by the way), and there's nothing exceptional about Christianity doing the same thing.
-
A nice video....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOKljH6pBk
-
Sriram,
A nice video....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOKljH6pBk
If you've got a head full of cotton wool, it probably is. As ever, the problem with nonsense like this is that they cite approvingly the academics they think support them but never bother with critiqueing their work. See this article from Wiki for example re criticism of Ian Stevenson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
-
Sriram,
Actually it's most likely pagan in origin - coming from the "death" of the year toward the winter solstice and the "re-birth" the following spring. Many religious traditions took it and incorporated it into their beliefs (a process called "syncretism" by the way), and there's nothing exceptional about Christianity doing the same thing.
Thank you!
-
Whether ir is Christian or not is of little consequence.
It is bonkers regardless
It isnt orthodox, Catholic or mainstream see posts by myself and anchorman.
The Christian doctrine of regeneration isn't pagan either. It is not about cycles of or in nàture.
-
Sriram,
Actually it's most likely pagan in origin - coming from the "death" of the year toward the winter solstice and the "re-birth" the following spring. Many religious traditions took it and incorporated it into their beliefs (a process called "syncretism" by the way), and there's nothing exceptional about Christianity doing the same thing.
This post seems completely western oriented.
Reincarnation is in eastern philosophy too you know.
-
This post seems completely western oriented.
Reincarnation is in eastern philosophy too you know.
Either way, so what?
It is not true. When you die you will not be reborn.
-
Either way, so what?
It is not true. When you die you will not be reborn.
So what........it makes you look pathetically ill informed on this topic.......thats what.
Your very welcome.
-
So what........it makes you look pathetically ill informed on this topic.......thats what.
Your very welcome.
How, by knowing that it is not true?
I think not
-
How, by knowing that it is not true?
I think not
By being centred on what comes out of the west without acknowledging it is an eastern philosophy. That is what is known by being plain wrong since there is no'either way' about the matter.
What is worse is the criticism of Sriram who claims reincarnation for the east and non criticism of Owlswing who agrees with Hillside that it is a pagan idea.
-
By being centred on what comes out of the west without acknowledging it is an eastern philosophy. That is what is known by being plain wrong since there is no'either way' about the matter.
What is worse is the criticism of Sriram who claims reincarnation for the east and non criticism of Owlswing who agrees with Hillside that it is a pagan idea.
All immaterial to the actual claim that rebirth is actually true, which it is not.
I do not care where it originates, it is wrong.
-
All immaterial to the actual claim that rebirth is actually true, which it is not.
I do not care where it originates, it is wrong.
But not immaterial to your incorrect sloppy viewpoint of it's origin.
-
BR,
Either way, so what?
It is not true. When you die you will not be reborn.
You're entirely free to respond to him of course if you wish to, but I hope you realise he's just indulging in Vladdism in the hope of some attention? He's fully aware that the fact of multiple death/re-birth stories from pagan/tribal/shamanic etc traditions worldwide has sweet FA to do with Christianity drawing on just one or just some of them. Hell, it even draws on its own prior iterations (Lazarus etc).
The point being of course that personifying the myth with Jesus at the centre is the re-telling of a very old story indeed, and as it happens one that's emerged from many sources with seasons to observe.
-
BR,
You're entirely free to respond to him of course if you wish to, but I hope you realise he's just indulging in Vladdism in the hope of some attention? He's fully aware that the fact of multiple death/re-birth stories from pagan/tribal/shamanic etc traditions worldwide has sweet FA to do with Christianity drawing on just one or just some of them. Hell, it even draws on its own prior iterations (Lazarus etc).
The point being of course that personifying the myth with Jesus at the centre is the re-telling of a very old story indeed, and as it happens one that's emerged from many sources with seasons to observe.
You are of course entitled to outline your ideas but frankly it is a bit folk comparative religion and taking previous criticism I have made into account...….. very 'Golden Bough'.
George Frazer's shadow, of course hangs, heavily over the modern lack of understanding of religion, is vogue-ishly 19th century in it's Darwinism and a bit culturally er, superior......So as far as the Folk comparative religion it fosters goes it's Bronze aged Goatherders Nil Scientismical Western people three.
Check out the Wikipedia article on the Golden Bough for Frazer's critique of his own work.
-
Reincarnation could be taught in universities soon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKGEkr0v1Q
-
Reincarnation could be taught in universities soon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKGEkr0v1Q
I doubt that very much
-
Sriram,
Reincarnation could be taught in universities soon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKGEkr0v1Q
Not in reputable ones it won't.
-
Reincarnation could be taught in universities soon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKGEkr0v1Q
I can't see that happening in any British Uni.
-
I can't see that happening in any British Uni.
So you think the idea might die...….and then come back again in another form?
-
So you think the idea might die...….and then come back again in another form?
HA! HA! ::)
-
Reincarnation could be taught in universities soon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKGEkr0v1Q
I'm sure it is taught as part of theology courses and those in comparative religion and I would wager eastern beliefs are studied and given correct emphasis.
-
I would move that despite attempts to make tenuous links about reincarnation to Christianity involving minimising the role of world religions originating in the east, that this thread be moved to The philosophy or another more appropriate boards of this forum.
-
So anyway as we were saying before the king of the derail turned up, "death is final" is the working assumption until and unless anyone provides evidence to the contrary. So far no-one has managed that, and even leaving aside the manifest flaws in the Christian (and other religion's) tale of various individuals coming back from the dead the notion should at least give pause I'd have thought given that we see the basic death & re-birth narrative repeated endlessly in more ancient traditions, beginning with observations about the winter solstice. Now if Jesus had instead invented the iPhone or the MRI scanner then there'd be something interesting talk about...
-
Now if Jesus had instead invented the iPhone or the MRI scanner then there'd be something interesting talk about...
Hillside...…..
I wonder...…….
Do you ever get Trainspotters or Pylon enthusiasts coming up and advising you to ''Get a life?'
-
So anyway as we were saying before the king of the derail turned up, "death is final" is the working assumption until and unless anyone provides evidence to the contrary. So far no-one has managed that, and even leaving aside the manifest flaws in the Christian (and other religion's) tale of various individuals coming back from the dead the notion should at least give pause I'd have thought given that we see the basic death & re-birth narrative repeated endlessly in more ancient traditions, beginning with observations about the winter solstice. Now if Jesus had instead invented the iPhone or the MRI scanner then there'd be something interesting talk about...
Yes, I believe in "rebirth" - I do NOT, in any way shape or form, believe in the dead returning to life. AS I stated in my earlier post, my belief is in the return of the spirit of a person who has passed away in a new body.
Also as I have stated to the, apparent, terminal boredom of other members, and unlike Christianity for one - my religious beliefs are FAITH NOT FACT.
-
I believe I won last Saturdays lottery jackpot
but my beliefs are FAITH NOT FACT and when I went to buy a new car today I was laughed out of the showroom ;D
-
Yes, I believe in "rebirth" - I do NOT, in any way shape or form, believe in the dead returning to life. AS I stated in my earlier post, my belief is in the return of the spirit of a person who has passed away in a new body.
Also as I have stated to the, apparent, terminal boredom of other members, and unlike Christianity for one - my religious beliefs are FAITH NOT FACT.
Why would you believe anything on faith, just wondering.
I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things.
This is not your aim it would seem?
-
For those who want evidence, we must remember that 'evidence' isn't as straight forward as some might think...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
-
Why would you believe anything on faith, just wondering.
I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things.
This is not your aim it would seem?
Only religion - my choice - it doesn't work for things that can be proven like being able to prove that some sarky plonker HASN'T won the lottery!
-
For those who want evidence, we must remember that 'evidence' isn't as straight forward as some might think...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
It is, actually. The linked article is one of your silliest - it displays staggering amounts of ignorance and misunderstanding.
We can only have evidence for a hypothesis if it makes predictions about the outcome of experiments or observations that are not predicted by rival hypotheses. The evidence is the result of said experiments or observations.
-
Only religion - my choice - it doesn't work for things that can be proven like being able to prove that some sarky plonker HASN'T won the lottery!
As a matter of interest, why do you apply this faith based reasoning for your religion, when you would not use it in any other area?
Is is that you like the religion and just want to adopt it?
-
For those who want evidence, we must remember that 'evidence' isn't as straight forward as some might think...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
Read it: I'm afraid you have a lot of homework to get through, such as the need for a method to give context to what is claimed as 'evidence'.
-
Sriram,
For those who want evidence, we must remember that 'evidence' isn't as straight forward as some might think...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
This is particularly stupid stuff. Leaving aside the errors is contains, it tries to draw an equivalence between natural phenomena and "spiritual" claims, only for the latter the evidence must be so, like, really hard to find, out there but we just don't see it yet, and and and...
Well yes, anything might be. Trouble is, the same is true for any conjecture, guess, assertion or anything else anyone might believe. I for example might believe that the Queen (gawd bless 'er) is a shape-shifting lizard. Where's the evidence for that? Well you know, finding evidence is really hard and stuff but hey, she's deffo a shape-shifting lizard so my belief must be correct then right?
-
Well...many of you have been programmed to think in certain microscopic ways. That is not going to change....in this lifetime!
That is where rebirth comes in. A new body, a new upbringing, a new culture....that'll do the trick. :D
-
Sriram,
Well...many of you have been programmed to think in certain microscopic ways. That is not going to change....in this lifetime!
That is where rebirth comes in. A new body, a new upbringing, a new culture....that'll do the trick. :D
We've also been "programmed" to grasp that a head full of cotton wool is no substitute for thinking.
-
Well...many of you have been programmed to think in certain microscopic ways.
Whereas you seem to have been "programmed" not to think much at all, preferring to cling to your comforting preconceptions and misunderstandings...
-
So you think the idea might die...….and then come back again in another form?
So Jesus was reincarnated as himself? :)
-
Only religion - my choice - it doesn't work for things that can be proven like being able to prove that some sarky plonker HASN'T won the lottery!
when your head is full of woo there's not much room left for rational thinking . And for those who want a new car but haven't won the lottery there's always credit, as long as you can PROVE your ability to repay it.
-
So Jesus was reincarnated as himself? :)
Jesus was Elisha in his previous birth, some people think. And John was Elijah, I think.
-
Well...many of you have been programmed to think in certain microscopic ways. That is not going to change....in this lifetime!
That is where rebirth comes in. A new body, a new upbringing, a new culture....that'll do the trick. :D
One round in Saudi Arabia, performing namaz five times a day....would do some of you lot of good. Or maybe in a orthodox Jewish family.
A good possibility IMO.
-
Sriram,
One round in Saudi Arabia, performing namaz five times a day....would do some of you lot of good. Or maybe in a orthodox Jewish family.
A good possibility IMO.
Or maybe do the hosts some good when they realise that, like you, they too have replaced thinking with cotton wool.
One of the several problems with your approach is that, when it matters, you don't actually mean it. If you needed lifesaving surgery you'd opt for the surgeon who'd been "indoctrinated" in evidence-based education and not for the shaman who offered to light a bunch of sage leaves. If you needed to visit relatives you'd opt for a 'plane with a pilot who'd been "indoctrinated" in evidence-based education and not for a yogic levitator at the controls. If you wanted to build an extension on your house you'd opt for the structural engineer who'd been "indoctrinated" in evidence-based education and not for the mystic who told you it'd stay up just fine provided you remembered to bury a cat and a lucky horseshoe in the foundations.
I other words you can believe any nonsense you like, but when it actually matters my guess is that you'd rely on the "microscopic" thinkers you blithely deride over the woo merchants every time.
Am I right?
-
Sriram,
Or maybe do the hosts some good when they realise that, like you, they too have replaced thinking with cotton wool.
One of the several problems with your approach is that, when it matters, you don't actually mean it. If you needed lifesaving surgery you'd opt for the surgeon who'd been "indoctrinated" in evidence-based education and not for the shaman who offered to light a bunch of sage leaves. If you needed to visit relatives you'd opt for a 'plane with a pilot who'd been "indoctrinated" in evidence-based education and not for a yogic levitator at the controls. If you wanted to build an extension on your house you'd opt for the structural engineer who'd been "indoctrinated" in evidence-based education and not for the mystic who told you it'd stay up just fine provided you remembered to bury a cat and a lucky horseshoe in the foundations.
I other words you can believe any nonsense you like, but when it actually matters my guess is that you'd rely on the "microscopic" thinkers you blithely deride over the woo merchants every time.
Am I right?
What is so remarkable about that? The practical and the profound have always existed side by side.
-
What is so remarkable about that? The practical and the profound have always existed side by side.
Woolly thinking, baseless faith, and obstinate misunderstanding, are not actually profound...
-
Sriram,
What is so remarkable about that? The practical and the profound have always existed side by side.
It's not so much remarkable as contemptible. Why? Because by giving credence to woo you encourage others to do the same - only some of those people may not be as careful as you to allow themselves an escape hatch when it actually matters and will throw away their medicines to practice instead whichever charlatanism has taken their fancy. And that hurts people - real people in the real world that is.
To put it another way: there's nothing "profound" about gibberish, and asserting that there is is a retrograde act for all of us.
-
Don't be silly.....blue! Philosophy has always existed. There is always speculation about matters we cannot readily see and experience.
Even in science you have the very practical aspects of measuring speeds and distances and side by side you have the wave particle duality, the non local influence of particles, Dark Energy, Strings, 11 dimensions, multiverses and so on.
What are you getting so insecure about anyway?!
-
Sriram,
Don't be silly.....blue! Philosophy has always existed. There is always speculation about matters we cannot readily see and experience.
You can speculate about anything you like, but that doesn’t make it philosophy.
Even in science you have the very practical aspects of measuring speeds and distances and side by side you have the wave particle duality, the non local influence of particles, Dark Energy, Strings, 11 dimensions, multiverses and so on.
Yes, and they’re called hypotheses – ideas that await disconfirming, amending or confirming. You though skip all that in favour of just asserting the confirming bit. Then you rely on hopeless YouTube videos or mindless articles for support. The last article for example said that evidence was hard to get sometimes, and implied that that was the only problem with finding evidence for the “spiritual”. I may as well have said that you should take leprechauns seriously because, you know, the evidence for them can be hard to find and all that.
Doesn’t wash does it.
What are you getting so insecure about anyway?!
I’m not insecure at all. I just think that people who peddle idiocy and bad thinking encourage real world behaviours that hurt people: “The doctor said I need chemo, but I reckon homeopathy is the better option” etc.
-
You are going around in circles ...blue. Reincarnation is also a hypothesis. Some people like Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have even got evidence for it.
No need to get flustered about it.
As I said, a nice rebirth in a different (less blinkered) environment would do you lot of good!! ;)
-
And there are possible alternatives to chemo....
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-treatment/art-20047246
-
Sriram,
You are going around in circles ...blue.
Not so far I'm not - I'm just explaining to you where you keep going wrong and why it matters. Repeating it because you ignore it isn't going round in circles at all.
Reincarnation is also a hypothesis. Some people like Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have even got evidence for it.
I don't know about the second one, but if you'd bother to read the criticisms of Stevenson you'd know that what he actually had was lots of confirmation bias and wishful thinking - and not evidence at all.
No need to get flustered about it.
No-one is. I'd just prefer it if you listened, and think that the world would be a better place if you stopped peddling idiocies.
As I said, a nice rebirth in a different (less blinkered) environment would do you lot of good!! ;)
And as I said, no it wouldn't - not least because the only "blinkers" here are yours. Try taking them off and instead applying some analysis to your woo to see why it's gibberish.
-
Sriram,
And there are possible alternatives to chemo....
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-treatment/art-20047246
Wrong again. If you bothered to read the article you linked to you'd see that it does NOT say that these things are "alternatives to chemo" at all. What it actually says it that some people may find that trying them IN ADDITION to chemo helps relieves symptoms of anxiety etc. Can you begin to see now why someone who listened to you and acted on it could do themselves more harm than good?
Here's the relevant stuff you didn't bother with:
"Alternative cancer treatments may not play a direct role in curing your cancer, but they may help you cope with signs and symptoms caused by cancer and cancer treatments. Common signs and symptoms such as anxiety, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, difficulty sleeping, and stress may be lessened by alternative treatments.
Integrating the best of evidence-based complementary and alternative cancer treatments with the treatments you receive from your doctor may help relieve many of the symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. Discuss all of your options with your doctor and together you can determine which strategies might work for you and which are likely to have no benefit."
Now focus on that "Integrating the best of evidence-based complementary and alternative cancer treatments with the treatments you receive from your doctor" for a bit.
Have you go it yet? Can you see that "integrating with" is pretty much the opposite of "use as an alternative to"?
Anything?
-
Well.....chemo doesn't CURE the cancer either...
Anyway thanks ...blue.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
Well.....chemo doesn't CURE the cancer either...
Anyway thanks ...blue.
Cheers.
Sriram
Yes it can, and frequently does.
Why have you just lied about that, and why have you ignored your last error of claiming that an article argued for alternatives to chemo when it did no such thing?
Here's Wiki on chemo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
From which comes:
"The efficacy of chemotherapy depends on the type of cancer and the stage. The overall effectiveness ranges from being curative for some cancers, such as some leukemias,[10][11] to being ineffective, such as in some brain tumors,[12] to being needless in others, like most non-melanoma skin cancers.[13]"
Do you see that word "curative" there?
-
Sriram,
Yes it can, and frequently does.
Why have you just lied about that, and why have you ignored your last error of claiming that an article argued for alternatives to chemo when it dd no such thing?
Here's Wiki on chemo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
From which comes:
"The efficacy of chemotherapy depends on the type of cancer and the stage. The overall effectiveness ranges from being curative for some cancers, such as some leukemias,[10][11] to being ineffective, such as in some brain tumors,[12] to being needless in others, like most non-melanoma skin cancers.[13]"
Do you see that word "curative" there?
Our youngest daughter's father-in-law, had chemo for cancer two years ago and is now totally clear of it.
-
Sriram,
Yes it can, and frequently does.
Why have you just lied about that, and why have you ignored your last error of claiming that an article argued for alternatives to chemo when it did no such thing?
Here's Wiki on chemo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
From which comes:
"The efficacy of chemotherapy depends on the type of cancer and the stage. The overall effectiveness ranges from being curative for some cancers, such as some leukemias,[10][11] to being ineffective, such as in some brain tumors,[12] to being needless in others, like most non-melanoma skin cancers.[13]"
Do you see that word "curative" there?
Yeah...yeah ...I agree chemo is curative in some cases....but not in all.
Sometimes cancers even undergo remission without any treatment.
-
Sriram,
Yeah...yeah ...I agree chemo is curative in some cases....but not in all.
Yes, but that's not what you said. What you said was:
"Well.....chemo doesn't CURE the cancer either..."
You also linked to an article from the Mayo clinic that you claimed suggested "alternatives" to chemo, when it said no such thing.
Can you see now how people who took seriously the things you say could, if they acted on them, be done harm?
Sometimes cancers even undergo remission without any treatment.
Yes, some do - but there's no evidence that the various woo practices some patients try have anything to do with it.
-
Typically, you are digressing into subjects that have nothing to do with reincarnation. Just your microscopic way of searching for some chink that will win you the argument.
Point is that reincarnation has figured to various degrees in almost all religions. It is a valid hypothesis and is increasingly being investigated and studied by scientists. It is also being increasingly accepted by people around the world as a part of their philosophy of life. Nothing is going to stop that. Ten years from now you will be hearing more about reincarnation, not less.
Now, could we end this dead end argument? You can have the last word...no problem.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
Typically, you are digressing into subjects that have nothing to do with reincarnation. Just your microscopic way of searching for some chink that will win you the argument.
No, I'm just correcting the mistakes and misrepresentations you make and explaining why making them does potential harm. Why not be honest and withdraw the mistakes rather than throw pejorative language at the person who corrected them?
Point is that reincarnation has figured to various degrees in almost all religions.
And in the pagan winter/spring myths that preceded and informed them. So?
It is a valid hypothesis...
No it isn't. A hypothesis is a potential explanation made on the basis of limited evidence awaiting further investigation. There's no evidence at all for reincarnation, so what you have is an idea or a speculation - akin to the idea or speculation that leprechauns leaves pots of gold at the ends of rainbows – but nothing more.
... and is increasingly being investigated and studied by scientists.
Which scientists are doing that? So far as I'm aware the idea has no scientific credence whatever, so science in general is as indifferent to it as it is to the claims of leprechaunologists.
It is also being increasingly accepted by people around the world as a part of their philosophy of life. Nothing is going to stop that. Ten years from now you will be hearing more about reincarnation, not less.
That's just your unqualified assertion, but even if it's true that'd be further evidence of a collective descent into superstitionism rather than a scientific advance - at least unless any evidence for reincarnation ever turned up.
Now, could we end this dead end argument? You can have the last word...no problem.
As your "arguments' have collapsed and your claims have been falsified, consider it ended.
-
well that was fun . I love to watch a good trouncing . Well played blue.
-
And there are possible alternatives to chemo....
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-treatment/art-20047246
I don't think they are claiming treatment as an alternative to chemotherapy. This is a U.S.A. site, in the U.K. such therapies are usually referred to as complementary therapies used in conjunction with allopathic medicine rather than as an alternative.
-
I don't think they are claiming treatment as an alternative to chemotherapy. This is a U.S.A. site, in the U.K. such therapies are usually referred to as complementary therapies used in conjunction with allopathic medicine rather than as an alternative.
except they are making claims., and allopathic is a synonym for not snake oil.
-
NS,
except they are making claims., and allopathic is a synonym for not snake oil.
No - see Reply 101. Sriram said the site proposed non-chemo treatments for cancer as alternatives to chemo. It does no such thing. What it actually says is that patients may want to integrate other treatments with chemo, and then only to alleviate conditions other than cancer - eg anxiety. It's very clear about this.
-
except they are making claims., and allopathic is a synonym for not snake oil.
I must admit that I only read as far as this .....Alternative cancer treatments can't cure your cancer, but they may provide some relief from signs and symptoms.
-
ekim,
I must admit that I only read as far as this .....Alternative cancer treatments can't cure your cancer, but they may provide some relief from signs and symptoms.
That's all the site says - you were correct and Sriram was wrong. See Reply 101.
-
ekim,
That's all the site says - you were correct and Sriram was wrong. See Reply 101.
Oh, OK. I jumped into this topic later on without looking far enough back.
-
As a matter of interest, why do you apply this faith based reasoning for your religion, when you would not use it in any other area?
Is is that you like the religion and just want to adopt it?
Because in almost all other areas of my life there is solid evidence of the things that I believe in. Oh, they are not all cut and dried and easy to live with. Justice, politics, relationships.
Religious belief starts, as I see it, from a concept that is impossible to prove, no matter how hard some might try to do so, the existance of the deity applicable to their particular choice of religion.
I believe that my deities exist, I believe the Summerlands exist, I believe in the Cycle of Life - birth, life, death and re-birth.
I do not ask anyone to change their religious, agnostic or atheist views because I don't follow them and I do not, and neither does any Pagan or Witch that I know personally, proselytise. You want to know about my beliefs, for whatever reason, ask me 'cos I'm not chasing after you to explain them or try to force them upon you.
Not rational? Probably not, but, hey, it works for me.
-
Because in almost all other areas of my life there is solid evidence of the things that I believe in. Oh, they are not all cut and dried and easy to live with. Justice, politics, relationships.
Religious belief starts, as I see it, from a concept that is impossible to prove, no matter how hard some might try to do so, the existance of the deity applicable to their particular choice of religion.
I believe that my deities exist, I believe the Summerlands exist, I believe in the Cycle of Life - birth, life, death and re-birth.
I do not ask anyone to change their religious, agnostic or atheist views because I don't follow them and I do not, and neither does any Pagan or Witch that I know personally, proselytise. You want to know about my beliefs, for whatever reason, ask me 'cos I'm not chasing after you to explain them or try to force them upon you.
Not rational? Probably not, but, hey, it works for me.
As long as it works for you and you know your beliefs are not rational, so you know what you are doing.
Your approach would not work for me but hey ho
-
well that was fun . I love to watch a good trouncing . Well played blue.
Ditto. In fact, I only ever see what Sriram says via quotes in responses, as I can't bear to spend any time reading them - I'd rather sit and do nothing!
-
Ditto. In fact, I only ever see what Sriram says via quotes in responses, as I can't bear to spend any time reading them - I'd rather sit and do nothing!
Well...coming from some of you....you have no idea what a huge compliment that is!!! Thanks! 8)