|
Water on Mars
Ravings from the Frothy Middle |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 March 2007 August 2007 July 2007 February 2007 January 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January My Links Little Miss Attila Dr. Forbush Thinks Slashdot Games Slashdot User Friendly James Randi Snopes Home of the Underdogs The Sun Online tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog In which the middle-aged Peacenik mouths off about War Drones--and all the other things that make him cranky. Pnorny! Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. He is reachable at: littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma
Blogger Main Site
|
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.05.04 (11:57 am) If life is determined to exist (or have existed) on other planets, it does pose a problem for religion. But, the definition of God is such that it can be alterred to fit any circumstance. The dogma would certainly have to change, but any descrepancies in the Bible or other holy books can be attributed to man's fallibility. Even if Jesus Christ's body was discovered, the notion of Christianity could continue by simply changing its dogma. If this was to happen, or if life on other planets was proven, religions would lose a great deal of credibility, but it would not likely signify the end of religion. The problem with defining God as the grand power, or as nature itself, is that one of the basic functions of most religions is to provide meaning to life and give the individual a purpose- this is done through the idea of a personal relationship with God, and nature is impersonal. And yeah, if God does exist, and does require that we worship Him- assuming He is truly benevolent and omnipotent- it would only make sense for Him to make Himself known to us. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 03.05.04 (5:29 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 This is very true. Religion has already encountered the spector of extinct life here on Earth, and survived. I'm sure they'll come up with some excuse- the Martians legalized Gay Marriage, so God dried up all the water as punishment. posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.06.04 (9:00 am) The only religions to be effected by discovery of life would be those that require that life not exist elsewhere. I am not an expert on religion, nor do I claim to be religious (though others might think that I am,) but I am not aware of religions that require life to be limited to earth. If I assert that life is limited to earth, in what circles am I orthodox? Having said all of that, I have witnessed the audible voice of God when I was 13 years old. posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.06.04 (9:03 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 """it would only make sense for Him to make Himself known to us""" You mean like coming down and dwelling among us in flesh in blood? Last time He did that, we only wanted His body to assume room temperature. posted by: greeneyedgrrl (reply) post date: 03.07.04 (4:16 pm) I've heard many argue that completely ignoring scientific evidence constitutes "faith". posted by: greeneyedgrrl (reply) post date: 03.07.04 (4:24 pm) Reply to: Trent That's assuming that one believes that the Bible is true--an actual historical account of events rather than collection of parables. posted by: greeneyedgrrl (reply) post date: 03.07.04 (5:03 pm) Reply to: Trent Evidence of life elsewhere in the universe is a problem for religions that are based on the Bible in this way: God created (in this order) "the heavens and the earth" , Day and Night, the atmosphere or sky, dry land (which he called Earth) seperate from the water, vegetation, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, birds, other animal life, Adam (who was created in Their own image), and then Eve from Adam. No mention of other planets, much less life on them. This was supposedly THE story of creation, after which there is no mention of anything else being created by God throughout the entire Bible. So, what is the explanation for life elsewhere? posted by: greeneyedgrrl (reply) post date: 03.07.04 (5:27 pm) Which brings me to another unexplainable fact in the Bible: God created Adam and Eve, who had three sons (and later other sons and daughters). Where did all the other people come from? Except from incest? When Adam's son Cain was banished, he left to marry a wife from another city. Where did the people in that city come from? Then, after the great flood, the only human survivors where Noah, his wife, sons and daughters-in-law. How was the Earth repopulated after that event? Again, except by incest? posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.07.04 (7:15 pm) Reply to: greeneyedgrrl Thanks for the run-down about Genesis. You are right that it does not say that life was created elsewhere, but it does not exclude the possibility of such. (not that I am saying there is life on other planets.) There are parts that seem to be written more literal then other parts of any literary work. Some people think that the Genesis account is one of those parts, but clearly the context is metaphysical, and esoteric, and should be cretiqued without avoiding the deeper meanings. In other words, to critique spiritual content scientifically, is no less of an error then those that criticize the content of scientific postulations with spiritual ammo. I know that makes it harder, but deeper things are not easily gleened and the questions that have been around as long as written history ... can be scoffed alot easier then legitimately addressed. However, the work involved in addressing them is often out of reach for the microwave generation. So, we lampoon what we do not understand, and parade our ignorance to our own indignity. (no offense.) posted by: greeneyedgrrl (reply) post date: 03.08.04 (11:37 am) Reply to: Trent None taken. I'm actually pretty agnostic about the whole thing. I don't completely believe or disbelieve in any certain theology. What I was trying to say, I suppose, is that most Christians I know (and this may just be my limited experience being raised in the Bible belt) believe that the Bible is to be taken literally as a historical account of events and that it is scientifically sound as written, not in a metaphysical sense and not as understood in the context of its deeper meaning. ( For example, believing that the Earth is only 6,000 or 7,000 years old) Those who believe in a more literal interpretation of the work would have difficulty explaining life on other planets, I think. This is not a generalization to all believers. I completely agree with what you said about these questions being legitimately addressed, which I think means more than taking what "the Bible says" as literal without addressing possible deeper meaning and without the ability to see it as metaphorical or metaphysical in areas. Again, I don't disbelieve the spiritual truths/insights found in the Bible, I just don't think it can be taken as literal without question and without considering the context. Personally, when I think of a higher power, I think of it not as a male deity sitting up above somewhere but more as a (genderless) form of spiritual or divine energy. I am open to discussing other ideas about God, but my basic premise about God and creation is--I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else. posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.08.04 (6:05 pm) Reply to: greeneyedgrrl Hey greeneye's it is true that nobody can discover the beginning through the autocratic activity of reason, but that does not make it impossible to know. The whole premise of spiritual understanding is based on the unreliability of organic thought, but also the awareness revelation can arc the chasm between organic and divine intellects resulting in revelation. I wrote an article about this a while back, i think that I will blog it. Your reply would be most welcome. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.08.04 (9:25 pm) Reply to: Trent Prove it. ;) posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.09.04 (6:21 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 it. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.09.04 (3:39 pm) Reply to: Trent I'm going to need a little more there. posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.09.04 (6:20 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Is that a demand? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.09.04 (6:49 pm) Reply to: Trent Of course not, just a simple request (or so I thought). posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 03.09.04 (7:37 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Then I simply request that you prove it (whatever "it" is) to yourself. If "it" is true, then "it" will be proven. If "it" is not true, then "it" will be proven false. I'll prove what is true to myself as well. Just don't comfort yourself with the delusion that the fact that you have proven nothing true to yourself precludes the notion that there is nothing that is true. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 03.11.04 (9:42 am) if 1,000,000,000 people KNOW for themselves through what they consider to be divine intervention/revelation, and there are as many different ideas/beliefs as there are people, then how do you KNOW? does that mean only ONE is enlightened and the rest are dissillusioned? |
More Links:
POLITICS:
RELIGION:
|
