Since we have some people on SAGG who apparently don't understand about science and the scientific method I thought I would post a link to this discussion of why some people resist science.

The Edge:WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?
By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg

I'm not going to do much discussion of the subject, I will just post a few judicious quotes from the Implications topic in the paper.





Bill Gill

So, he's saying: there's little or no room for reasoning with people who have been brainwashed by religious bigotry at an early age; science is cool, suck it and see, and don't let myths stand in its way.

Conclusion: An erudite communication directed at the rational, scientifically inclined, eloquently informing them re what they already know. As for the rest, they don't want to know.

Undoubtedly true to a great extent, but don't give up; there are exceptions, even here on SAGG.

LOL

science cant even figure out what a force is.

science doesn't even know the definition of force.

science uses experiments / clinical trials to falsify data for large pharmaceutical companies.

science has become non-scientific.

science is a poser

This is true to a degree, but that does not mean bigots are hopeless. Usually there is a way to bring truth forward if there are not two who have their shields up and fighting for a universe that can only be seen one way.
Myths by the way have truth in them if one is open to view and not closed by their own bigotry towards any subject.
Reminds me of the story I was told by a doctor, regarding the reception given to a young doctor regarding a procedure he thought might help prevent the development of cancer in the uterus. The idea was laughed at and rejected during the first discussion. Now however the procedure is standard. The young doctor's name was Georgios Papanikolaou, and the procedure was name after him and is called the Pap smear.

What about that which they stand behind without direct experience as knowledge? God for example. The scientifically inclined have often shown as much prejudice towards spirituality as the religious do toward science due to a simple lack of experience or proof.
I might add the don't want to know's are in and amongst the crowds who claim they have an open mind, when something does not meet their expectations or beliefs.

TT, you are, of course, absolutely right.

There is a motorway (freeway) that runs along the top of "the fence". I wonder if we will ever find out where it leads. As a regular user, perhaps you know.

Choice...

Well said.

and you are one of those people , Bill

like it or not.

just because scientist or ( posers ) do not agree with religion , it surely does not make religion wrong.

show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs.

what about the brainwashing by sciences poser bigotry , I say
poser because true science does not even recognize religious beliefs.

show me one example where evolution was proven , surely you can easily accomplish that simple task because you place so much trust in it.

if science can't prove it , then scientist or ( posers ) really need to shut up about it because until you have a grain of proof, then claiming evolution is true is just sinking science deeper into the mire its been sinking into.

BTW

evolution is just a theory.

Gentle readers, Here he goes again. The same old arguments. In general I agree that just because (some) scientists don't agree with religion doesn't make religion wrong. But when science has determined that they cannot make scientific facts match what religious documents say then I feel that the scientific method has to be used to determine how the world works.

Paul says "show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs". But religious beliefs are not physical, so physics doesn't address them.

Then he goes on about not being able to prove evolution. I suggest he try one of the books that does explain about evolution with copious examples. Richard Dawkins has written several. There are also plenty of resources on the web.

He says "evolution is just a theory". True, but it is a scientific theory which has been tested and shown to explain many things about the relationship of living things. So far nobody has come up with any other theory that can do as much.

And of course he may come up with the "theory" of Intelligent Design, which has been shown in court (Kitzmiller v Dover) to be just a rehash of the creation story in the book of Genesis, which is not a scientific book, and which doesn't match what many observations have shown to be the way the world works.

And as such this discussion should be moved to the NQS forum, where discussions of creationism belong.

I wasn't sure when I started this topic whether I should put it in the General Science forum or the NQS forum, but decided on General Science because the paper that I linked to was more of a science oriented paper than a religious paper.

Bill Gill

I guess that's a good way for scientist to make money.



I haven't noticed that , since you know about it could you link to some small obviously mostly invisible well hidden web site that
shows the test and how the test was performed and with the test results.

I would love to see it.

This guy really bugs you doesn't he. Still trying to rally a force against this force that seems to invade your peace of mind..

Scientific instruments do not measure the world in the same way the human senses do, yet science can measure and qualify the unity of all that is relative to space time and particles of measure.

Religion is often a twisted version of spiritual sciences which are founded on repeatability of that same unity of mind body and spirit that physics has determined exists between the human consciousness and matter. The difference being that spiritual sciences don't use a physical instrument outside of the human nervous system to qualify what the nervous system can reproduce on its own.
Religion fantasizes about reality but spiritual sciences practice and maintain a lineage of historically recorded methods and results.
Within those results are cognitive understandings regarding the universe that physical sciences such as physics is matching in information that was recorded by spiritual masters thousands of years before physics began to establish itself as a science of relative measure separate from spiritual sciences.

Beliefs are physical, they just can't be measured. However beliefs are constantly changing and often derived from information not experienced. Here both scientists and religionists are guilty of accepting the written word without having done the calculations, or deriving the direct experience from a specific functioning practice or approach to the subject. What a man takes for granted as it is taught by those who have assumed the written word and passes it on to his friends family and the like, gets run thru the filters of the personal imagination and stresses of the human nervous system. The Truth gets convoluted in the same way a sentence gets twisted in a game of Chinese Whispers after being passed down the line. The story is never the same story.

There are also plenty of resources that substantiate the missing factors in evolution that seem to punch holes in Darwins theories.

Scientifically speaking this leaves room for evolution of theory regarding evolution. Seems you're just having an issue with Paul at the moment.

Science doesn't study the relationship of spiritual science with creation nor does it delve into the facts. It simply ignores what doesn't fit into its box o' facts. And since science is coming to understand Consciousness and its relationship to matter it is getting closer to finding out what Genesis was derived from.
The Bible as it stands, is grossly inadequate in its translations and interpretations, being that it has been passed thru the filters of those who want to limit the truth and disguise it for personal use. Religion has done a great disservice to its contents.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````And now for something completely different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dd2hnVRCn8

Does science actually claim to prove anything? I have always thought not. To some extent, that puts it in the same box as religion. All we, as rational beings, need to do is decide what makes the best sence to us.

Who then has the right to say to anyone else: "I'm right and you are wrong"?

In a way you are correct, Science doesn't "prove" anything it just provides rules that can be applied to cause specific things to happen. In theory any scientific law can be invalidated by another observation. At that point scientists change the law to reflect the new observations. The big difference between science and creationism and other crackpot so called sciences is that science answers questions in ways that unarguably work. The crackpots just keep claiming that they are right without advancing any repeatable experiments/observations to conclusively demonstrate they are right.

So, if the creationists want to believe that there is no such thing as evolution as a religious belief that is fine. But since there is no supportable theory of creationism that does not conflict with the evidence that is widely available then they do not have the right to claim that scientists must also follow that belief. This particularly follows due to the fact that creationism is a Judeao-Christian religious belief and insisting that it is true for everyone will cause clashes with the beliefs of other religions.

Bill Gill

basically evolution is a belief then.

then answer this question.



roaches eat dead roaches , and so do other insects and animals.

above are four species or variations of roach.
there is no telling how many species or variations of roach
have became extinct.

looking at the picture its easy to think of these four roaches
as a example of evolution.

however none are extinct.

now suppose that three of the species went extinct years ago.
and 1 specimen of each of the three was trapped in amber.

darwinist would claim that the evolution of the roach is
clearly visible in the three extinct specimens as compared to the surviving roach species.

and I truly believe that that is what evolution uses as a foundation.

do you believe that evolution could be wrong?



looking at the picture its easy to think of these five
as a example of evolution.

all but one species is extinct.

four of the species went extinct years ago.
and suppose 1 specimen of each of the four was trapped in amber.

darwinist would claim that the evolution of the species is
clearly visible in the three extinct specimens as compared to the surviving species.

a 40 - 50 million year old cockroach , looks like one you
would find today.



how are fossils ages determined?

by the age of the surroundings they are found in.

how is the age of the surroundings they are found it determined?

by the age of the fossils found in the surroundings.

Paul, you now show your dedication to the refusal to accept science. You talk about differences between "things trapped in amaber" as if they didn't show significant differences. We don't have for example people trapped in amber. But we do have bones found in rocks. they are called fossils. We have a fairly good selection of intermediate forms between the earliest proto-human fossils and those of modern humans. Wikipedia has a list of various human fossils. Notice the changes in the fossils as time gets closer to the present. They mostly show a family resemblance, which is what you would expect from an evolutionary succession. Notice also the difference in ages. There is no inter-mixture between the older and newer species until you get to the Neanderthals. They were clearly different from us, but still bear the family resemblance. And they are no longer with us.

So now you complain about the ages of the fossils.

Your last statement is almost completely wrong. The ages of fossils are found by a number of different techniques. Most of the ones that give actual dates, rather than relative dates, use various scientific techniques based on the radioactive decay of various elements. Since the decay of radioactive elements is extremely well understood it can be used to very accurately date the age of the fossils.

Here are some references for how fossils are dated.
http://www.factmonster.com/dk/science/dinosaurs/dating-fossils.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

Of course according to Paul these are completely wrong because they use science and science is a tissue of lies. This despite the fact that science is the basis of our modern life.

And now gentle readers I leave you on this topic. I have made my best effort to show that Paul is once again wrong and hope that you will take his writings with a whole shaker full of salt.

Bill Gill

Of course it is, but that does not necessarily mean it is wrong, nor does oversimplifying the evidence on which it is based make it go away, however badly anyone might want it to.

and I suppose that since a fossil isn't actually the genuine
part of the animal but is only a shape that makes up what
the animal used to look like.

then the dating of a fossil is based on the radioactive elements
that replace the genuine part of the animal that the fossil represents then.

or is the fossil dated by the radio active elements found surrounding the fossil?

which is it?

or is it both?

is this how they determine the age of the radio active elements?



so they simply find the degree of radio activity remaining
in the rock surrounding the fossil then , am I close?

and the degree of radio activity of the rock is how the fossil's age is determined?

and , here is something else that I was wondering about.



how did they determine what the half life of potassium-40 was?

let me just toss this in and see what it looks like.

we know that there have been floods in the past , mostly small floods and some that covered very large geographical areas.

one that covered the entire earth.

flood waters and erosion from rain even tend to cause erosion
some times on a very large scale.

this could mix everything up a bit.

maybe noah didnt have time to build an ark big enough to
carry the dinosaurs so they drowned.

they settled to the bottom , then the sediments from the flood waters settled mixed in with elements from all the melted ice that was at the poles...are there any radio active elements in that ice?

wouldn't that mix things up a great deal?

I think it would.

and I wonder why (not really ) science also denies that a global flood ever took place.

of course if all the ice at the poles melted durring the 6-12 months that the waters were receding then that would
have erased the ice core record.



seem's like a plan to me.
now when science uses the word "rocks" arent they really speaking about sediments?

I mean after all a dinosaur couldn't really climb inside a rock and die could it.

and why is it that most dinosaur fossil's are found in a
clump of dead dinosaurs , did they plan that or did the flood waters cause that?

It turns out that half-life is pretty easy to measure. The following is an example.

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-physics/measuring-half-life-protactinium

Paul, the part does not necessarily equal the whole.

What you say is true of some fossils, but certainly not all. For example, I have a collection of fossils from the East Anglian Red Crag. All of these are composed of the calcite or aragonite of which the various creatures would have formed their hard parts.

In the underlying (older) London Clay, fossilization is more mixed. Some fossils, such as sharks’ teeth, show little or no alteration; whereas wood fragments are almost always replaced by pyrite, often with beautifully preserved detail.

On the North Norfolk coast I have collected fossils at Hunstanton, where the Lower Chalk overlies the Red Chalk with a very clear break. There is a marked difference between the fossils in each formation, and an even more marked difference in the lithology. The underlying Carstone contains no fossils, and is a deposit that is typical of a completely different depositional environment. How easily can one equate these differences, taken only from relatively recent deposits, with the belief that fossilization came about as a result of a single, global flood?

shake it up.

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-physics/simple-model-exponential-decay



so its a very accurate dating method then.

why not just tell people how old things are , like they do now , and avoid the need to actually do something to find out?

that's the way I would do it if I needed to protect a theory.

I watched a show last night where a scientist (?) dated a piece of wood , his determination was in a range from

8900 yr old to 900 yr old.

he then emphasized "somewhere in the middle ages" LOL

what a poser.

sounds like things did get mixed up quite a bit.

for some strange reason I would think that if a piece of
wood had elements in it that are 8900 years old then the
poser scientist should have established the age of the wood
to as old as 8900 years old.

how could the piece of wood travel back in time
from the middle ages to 8900 years ago to get some of the 8900
year old elements?

Clever, but certainly not an answer to anything other than the most superficial glance at the question.

BTW, Paul; this is not a catch question and will not be followed by any of those “Well, in that case……” type questions. I am just curious to know; do you accept the Genesis account of creation as being an accurate, detailed account of the origin of the Earth/Universe?

its hard to follow when you dont quote me.

like I did above.

Moses wrote Genesis , he was a extremely well educated man
for his time , possibly even our time.

he had to use history that was passed down from generation to generation to write the book of Genesis.

taking that into consideration , YES.

I do accept the Genesis account of creation as being an accurate, detailed account of the origin of the Earth/Universe

Thanks for the straight answer.

Bill, you do realize that a discussion with a creationist is kind of like hitting your head with a hammer. It feels so good when you quit. Look back at the link that I included in my first post in this topic and you may get some insight into why they act the way they do.

Bill Gill

BG, thanks for posting this topic.

BTW, I always ask Biblical literalists/creationists: Why is your "god" so silent, so shy and old fashioned? Surely, any god who wrote, or inspired the writing of, 66 documents called "the Bible" (the book) must be aware of the Internet and its power. How come "he" has avoided this powerful tool?

I write as one who values all the great minds of our past, especially those who had the courage to use their brains to do more than just survive. They seemed, intuitively, to want to improve things and to add to the storehouse of human knowledge.

Also, they had the courage to ask questions like: Who am I? And who are you? What, together, do we do next? When do we do it? Where is the best place to do it? And Why is it important and necessary?

This kind of topic stimulates--I know it stimulates me--to ask all kind of questions. Here, for now, are just a few for now:

1. What is the history behind what we call the sciences? To begin with, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Science_in_the_Ancient_Near_East

2. Before the first thinkers became scientists, what were they? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience

3. It is probably not by accident that the first proto scientists were the first clergy (witch doctors, shamans, etc.) who, claiming to have access to sacred knowledge given to them by the gods. For example, they were probably the first to discover the art of writing. No doubt they used this knowledge to impress and cultivate the friendship of the king (the chief) and others with power and wealth, who served the king. Naturally, they want a share of the wealth. And, to be fair: some did want the rich and powerful to share with the poor and needy.

THEOS--THE SKY GOD
Think of the familiar story that is part of the Christmas story. It is about the VISITORS FROM THE EAST--The Magi, the Three Wise Men, which is told only in Matthew 2.

Those ancient astrologers, who were polytheists, looked to the sky as the place of the gods.

I assume the Magi were Monotheists, or theists. Theists put all the gods together and speak of THEOS (The Sky GOD)--the One and Only True God. Some linguists suggest that our definite article 'the' comes from the same root. So do words like theatre, theory, theorem, thesis, therapy and theology. Makes sense.

Whether gods many, or as The One, the ancients looked for practical guidance in the present. THEOS-GOD helped travellers, by land and sea, to find their way. Farmers got help about the seasons and the best times to plant crops. Astrologers began to chart the constellations.

Thus they became the first astrologers. Later, many became astronomers.

Any astronomers here?

ouch!


so that's what happened?
there's got to be a better way for you bill.
have you tried sticking toothpicks under your fingernail's?

there wont be as much brain damage involved.

I thought you guys already knew , but I suppose you are all
newbies.

and I normally don't discuss religion with atheist , it's like
vomiting up some really good food , such a waste.


Isaac Newton's religious views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

a very smart man

einstein on the other hand was a fruitcake.

and he became a mad man.

he was also a atheist.

Bill G, et al: I assume that this thread is now kaput, defunct, dead! The victim, I assume, of the inability of some of us to use the dialogue method.

Like your Philosophy of religion thread? So many failing to meet your terms and cater to your need for attention by assuming the dialogue of your preferences.

I hate when that happens..

TT, from what you write in response to any number of posters here, I feel that it is you who, as one of us mere human beings, who really craves attention--as do all normal writers. Why else do writers write, if not for readership, attention?

The bottom line is: Tell us who you really are, your expertise, etc. And I, for one, will gladly agree to be of help, OK! and agape ...

Expansion of the subject at hand, rather than personal attention and expansion of ones ego or the need for self validation and personal glory.
Sorry. Unlike you who prizes the validity of information as the outpouring of title and self worth, I choose to let the subject be of importance rather than myself taking the spotlight and attention from the subject.

Who I am is of no consequence other than to those who are themselves finding a threat to their own need for attention, and their need to compare ones self worth to another and to self validate.

Selfless service does no invalidate one.
It only comes from those who are stable enough to live with themselves without needing to lean on others to stabilize their own feelings of worthiness.

Giving ones self title and then making comparisons to make sure one is worthy is not such a great human quality.

Truth is not the possession of those with a Title or those with a need to emphasize their worth by achieving a title.

Thanks for your offer to help, but I can do without your system of identity and measures of worth, as well as the need to attach ones self to others ideas to prove yourself as a worthy human being.

As per usual, TT, other than what you think of me, I just learned nothing about you, or from you. Thanks, for nothing! Why bother to write if that is all you have to say? Sad!

BTW, I agree that Jesus did not go around boasting that he was better than other people, but in Luke 2:52, it is stated clearly that, even as a youth he was no wimp. Even with older and wise teachers in the Temple, he did not hold back from having a dialogue with them. Luke writes that he grew physically and mentally and in favour with God and men.

Likewise, he deliberately told his disciples stand up, have faith in themselves, speak out, launch off into the deep, to get things done and not hide their light under a bushel, keeping others in the dark. Let your light shine.

Paul, in Philippians 2, 6-11--the famous KENOSIS passage--writes poetically that "He always had the nature of God ... " and many other wonderful qualities.

That leaves you free to make your determinations of what I am about and who I am, Just like you assumed your position of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi after your friend told you what he believed about him, and without ever getting to know him or spend time with him personally.

What worth is there to any assumption if it is not your experience?

You and your idea of God. The testimonies to the opinions of your interpretations of realities assumed, in the comparisons you make from others who write of their experiences in their books on reality as you present them, do not convince me you understand what you are talking about.
It takes more than words to convince me you know of what you speak. I will give you this, you know how to drop names and copy and paste, but the conversation you make always leads back to what you feel is the reason for writing, which is to get attention.
That being your belief, as you have stated, I'd like to know why? What do you need from this attention you crave?

Why just talk the talk to get attention when you can walk the talk and be free of the need to be fed by the recognition of others?
You mean why bother to write if it is something you can't get behind and make your own without the experience?
Maybe so you can do something different with your life rather than end it after assuming everything you attach yourself to.

Yes, what you represent and how you understand things is. Pretty much a waste of mind.

Yes and through the example of his knowledge and mastery. However it never impressed the Pharisees or Sadducees as they asked the same question you ask. "Who are you, but a son of a carpenter? We are men of breeding and of title! Who are you to tell us about God?!" They didn't much like his dialogue, because it made reference to their weaknesses in spirituality and character.

Some people will only accept truths that follow titles and the intimidation of authority.

Which obviously had nothing to do with preparing a resume or a list of background references, but rather to speak of Truth without insisting the ignorant agree, or take a liking to them.

Qualities that a man with no experience of God could appreciate. Which is why the authorities of title, and with the need to protect themselves from the scrutiny of others put him to death on the cross.

Rev, a man of your seeming perspicacity should perhaps have realised long ago that you will get no personal identification from TT.

Committing oneself to an identity is tantamount to committing to specific beliefs and a recognisable standpoint. Such a commitment militates against TT's style which allows him to appear to attack any/every one's posts, often without saying anything, other than words.

Don't waste your time trying to spoil his fun, nor let him spoil yours.

Agreed! You add Again, I agree. Your final point
As pers usual, wise words indeed, BillS. My ego is enjoying your commonsensical kind of advice. Perhaps this now-defunct and off-topic thread could be replaced with one in answer to the question: Is it wise for anyone to obscure and/or resist KNOWLEDGE? ...

Interpretation of any outward signs of any kind is always subject to a system of personal measure and identification. There is no guarantee anyone of any commitment will impress a particular set of values upon anyone who is not of the same mind.
There you go. Not stepping in to claim a particular mindset cast upon myself by another is my freedom from co-dependance and the measure of someones beliefs. Free will is everyone's right, and no one should be subjected to the idea that one must meet another's expectations or judgments by measuring themselves according to another mans standards.

The nature of spirituality don'tcha know!
Wise words. A man is not free when he is bound by what others think or do.
When it comes to binding God to these kind of principles, then so is one bound themselves.

Wisdom is not inherent in man, otherwise he would not have the capacity to make decisions that offer contrast to expansion and contraction of consciousness or evolution and devolution.

Wise old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Man once thought it was wise to keep from sailing off the edge of the earth. We all know now that the earth is not flat.

Imagine what wisdom will exist 100 years from now and how our impression of our own greatness in intelligence will be reduced to a memory of antiquated ideas.

The inference that if wisdom is inherent in man, un-wisdom is not, is dubious at best. A balance, or imbalance, of the two would permit the capacities you list, and would militate towards the sort of lifestyle choices that often seem to characterise the human condition.




It seems that not everyone agrees with that.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Also, can we be sure that the Earth was not flat when the majority of people believed it was?



It is, perhaps, rash to assume that knowledge equates to wisdom. It might also be reasonable to say: “Imagine what folly will exist 100 years from now…”

Very good answers Bill S but I fear TT will give us a very verbose reply that will say the usual absolute nothing.

So lets pose a task to TT and lets see if he can give an actual answer. Does such a thing as "free will" actually exist?

Many religions and philosophies believe in "fate" and "gods will" in my science area QM the same problem crops up a resonable but not brilliant discussion is on arxiv (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208104.pdf)

So TT question 1 do you believe in free will and why?


The second question has already been sort of posed by Bill S in an indirect way is this universe and life real?

Many religions and philosophies believe this is just some existential playground and again the problem pops up in science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time)

In my own area of QM science "reality" is among those ellusive controversial things we discuss. In my opinion none discuss it simpler or clearer than sascha vongehr (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/are_you_real_quantum_mechanics-90221)

Basically as he describes we scientists break into two camps and his description I love :-)



So even at a science level reality is problematic and scientists will break into two so called camps.


I have a funny anecdote from this week which fits in this discussion.

A student studying QM and after an electron split beam lab showing an electron passsed through both slits or one slit depending how you observe it. With a troubled look they walked up and asked me "is an electron real" it has charge and mass and a bunch of properties they could cite but they struggled how it could pass through both slits. I never lie to students and my answer was as accurate as I could give and I said "you have defined the properties of an electron what you have not defined for me is real and there in lies your answer". Stunned the student looked at me and sneared "everyone knows what real is". I simply asked then in your real world is a rainbow real, see things can be observable but not real?

So what say you about reality TT?

Yes. Will is at the very heart of all of creation. It is not bound by any rules regardless of whether levels of reality are created within laws of nature at any level.


In an indirect way yes and no.
I guess as long as science has a problem, whether will is free or not, sciences problems will extend themselves into every aspect of theory. For as soon as you gain an answer you create another question.

It's what you make it. Underlying that relative aspect, is an unqualified field of potential consciousness waiting to be explored and made into something. (relatively speaking)

You still avoided the question is the free will yours or is it gods will you are referring to ... in other words can you defy your god if you so desire?

You see the reason for the question if you have true free will you can defy your god and so your god is not omnipotent as he can not control you and hence it is a very important question.

There is no right or wrong answer some religions will answer with things like "it is allah's will" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insha'Allah)

=> Muslims believe that everything is maktub [lit.: written] and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan.

Some christian religions say god made man special not just in his image but with true free will so we as humans can defy god sure he can kill us or torture us into submission but he can not control us so he gave up his omnipotent control of us. The usual extension of this is to see who is good and evil and thus free will was given to us to test us.

The question is what do you believe?



Again you avoid answering the question is it your reality or your gods reality be specific and how is that reality defined?

You really don't like being on the end of questions do you? Are you uncomfortable in what you believe or don't you know what you believe or is your whole stance just a pose ... these questions shouldn't be hard I am more than happy to answer them if you want.

I should also say Rev K answered these questions for me without hesitation (if in a somewhat verbose way) when I put them to him and it makes understanding his religion much easier :-)

No I didn't avoid the question. I answered it as it was stated.
Now you've modified the question, so lets address these modifications.

God is not something personal, tho an individual can have a personal experience of what is labeled by many as God.
However the underlying presence of all perceptions is much larger than any boundaries of perception the individual can create in any personal experience. In order to understand the nature of ones SELF, one would have to pose the question: "Who am I".
The ego sees itself as the container and within the container are memories or experiences of what the container has been exposed to. Identification with the container and its experiences of itself is what the limited ego sees as the extent of itself. This extension of Self has a will that is free to think within those boundaries of self identification. However there are much bigger aspects to the mind than the human brain and the ego. Within the conscious awareness of an individual is both the conscious and subconscious, as well as levels of consciousness, such as waking dreaming and sleeping. The experience of ones self is often limited to these three states of consciousness with their own subjective and objective experiences. Many believe what is experienced on the level of the waking state is the true self, ignoring the subjective and objective experience of the dreaming and sleeping, since they don't get as much attention. The dreaming state of consciousness experience seems to allow our mind to experience a state of self without the boundaries of time and space or even gravity. The laws of the waking state do not apply.
In the Sleeping state when the dreams are not active our waking state believes we are not active either in mind or body, yet science having monitored brain activity in sleeping states sees something different and then there is the question: "What is Consciousness?" Is it something that is bound by the brain and the body within these three states of consciousness?
In the science of spirituality there are 7 states of consciousness. 4 states above and beyond the 3 described. There are both the subjective and objective experiences of Self/self in these states of consciousness.

To make a rather long story short, the elevation of awareness into these states of conscious awareness is similar to science finding out that the empty space in the Universe is not empty, or understanding the Self is not contained by the brain or the body, but rather the brain and body as well as the world is only an extension of mind.

Free will within any idealized system of containment is bound by the natural laws of the system that creates and supports the containment system. As you ascend the ladder of multidimensional aspects of any system these laws do not apply.

So to answer your question. Freedom is relative to any level of dimensionality and its natural laws as created by the underlying reality of all relative systems.

In the big picture there is only ONE, and all subsets of seemingly fragmented identifications with personal values at any level of consciousness are reflections of the One that have congealed themselves around conscious activity to give it the appearance and quality of form and function.
That is spiritual science.

Its relative to a kind of paradigm one creates in identification of Self.
You can imagine a certain set of clothes makes you appear and feel different than another, yet what is inside of those clothes does not change.
The choices you make in any identity you choose according to how you feel wearing a set of clothes would seem also to be different according to whether you are feeling strong or weak, important or depressed and without any self worth. All of these identities the psyche accepts then limits the individual to boundaries within the idea of ones capabilities.
Spiritual science and Quantum physics says consciousness actually affects matter. That being loosely said, we also find that matter is relevant to this equation. We know that an atom is 99.999% empty space. The empty space is not so empty and the other .0001% of this atom of empty space is conscious activity manifest as something other than what appears as emptiness, and that which works within the empty space to support the appearance and experience of solid matter to our conscious mind at any level of conscious awareness.

Well one has to have an experience of God or an understanding of God then to understand such an idea.
Freedom of thought around this kind of statement is going to be bound to the beliefs and judgments of what someone thinks God is, or what they believe the other person is, regarding his or her relationship with God.
IF one has no experience of God (personally speaking) then that person may make an assumption of what God is according to the assumption one makes about the other person, alternately carrying a judgment about their perspective having taken a stance in judgment and personal belief about the subject at hand.
If one has a judgment regarding the sensibility or personality of another, which corresponds to the personal value system assumed by that person making the judgment call, then that persons free will will only go so far as those personal beliefs and understanding of reality.

It's what you make it. Underlying that relative aspect, is an unqualified field of an infinite potential, consciousness waiting to be explored and made into something. (relatively speaking)

I did not avoid the question.
Beliefs change. What doesn't change is what underlies these changing value systems within the ego's identification with any single thought pointed back at ones self trying to mold ones self into a single idea or thought.
If you have an experience of ones self as a something and then that changes do you accept that you are one or the other, or both, or when your experience changes and you find yourself thinking something different do you become that?
You have experienced being 5 and 6, are you that person now or is that person that was... changed into what you are now?

My experience of Self is that it is not bound by these thoughts and ideas. My experience of God is that it is much bigger than even that Idea or any containment in definition.
So relative to who I am, then sets up the potential for answering the question of Who's will we are discussing.
IF there is a Unity of all matter, time and space, and that is all One, then there is only the subsequent identities that exist within the relative boundaries of thought when an identification is taken with that thought.

IF you will yourself into an box, your will is subject to the limitations of that box and all supporting laws you/consciousness creates in order to maintain the box and your identification with it.

In other words.. your scope of thought and sight is bound by your beliefs in who you think you are. If you never know there is something to look for or experience you may never discover anything other than what you accept are your boundaries in experience as the real world.

Imagination then is often stifled, where anything that doesn't fit within the accepted parameters of belief are unconsciously ignored.

Fortunately we are not so self absorbed in the dream state or the subconscious, which is why we are often able to change our beliefs when the mind catches a glimpse of something that is outside of the box.
If we are not so rigid with our thinking, we do not stand in one place and we do not stagnate in only one single thought or idea of self/Self for an entire lifetime. Generally speaking we tend to grasp onto a handful that we think we can control, and that ages our bodies and creates the experience of death.

I have no problem with questions. I don't necessarily get excited when I know that the questions are merely posed to see if I will follow bread crumbs that are laid down by the person asking, to see if I will follow the crumbs to their expected outcome when they have already made up their mind to the answer and aren't really interested in hearing what I have to say as an answer to their question.

Like I said, beliefs change. Reason being is that consciousness cannot be contained. We move thru experience as consciousness moves thru time and space according to the direction it takes within a single or multiple lifetimes.
I'm comfortable with my experiences and awareness of this reality. Choice to recognize what is, and Who I am, is going to be subjective and relative to whatever experience I am having.. There is a constant within the relative changes that I see myself and experience my self as and so I don't fear that any choice I make changes that or that any experience adds to or diminishes that.

There you go. You ask me the question and you already have the answers.
So really... why'd you ask me?
Seems anytime someone speaks in excess of the direct expected answer one become verbose. Science is verbose when it comes to describing the universe and reality yet science is allowed this type of transgression.
However concerning the Reverend:
Yeah, his ideas conform to the typical box everyone makes around God, religion, spirituality and the popular new age definitions of self while pandering to the good side of everyone so as to not lose the attention on himself.
So I can see where you feel he answered the questions the way you would have answered them for him, (altho in a verbose manner) and in turn feel you got what you wanted, with ease and without hesitation.

Maybe I will answer your questions with some satisfaction when I bend to the will of your ideas and come into conformity with your beliefs and judgments about me as well?

C'est la vie..

That is a very long winded answer that says absolutely nothing.

It's something that fascinates me with some religions they hide behind a wall of bullshit and try to convince me that in that bullshit is some deeper meaning.

Muslim as a faith is very upfront for example free will is illusionary there god is omnipotent and you can not defy god anything that happens is gods will.

Christianity and many other religions are not so upfront about it because they seem to want to hide whether there religion embodies free will or not so you get wallls of text that say and mean nothing like what you have put forward.

The base question in a religious sense of free will is simple condition can you defy god. If you can not defy god then you have no free will.

An animal in a zoo has free will it has control limits imposed on it but if the keeper walks in the cage it might just turn around and bite them.

So perhaps try to make your answer simple do you take the muslim view of god or are we caged animals it doesn't require a long verbose text wall answer and I assure you noone probably cares?

Lets try getting a straight answer to question 1 before we move onto question 2.

Orac, again you ask the question--I assume you are asking TT--about the god-hypothesis ...to which TT just responded. Yes, in addition to a whole lot of words, he added I agree with you, this is not clear.

Me? I want to know what the "its" is all about. Does it mean "god is what we make it"? Or does it mean "our belief is what we make it"?

To add to my confusion TT addsHere, sorry to say, all I read are words without meaning.

Then you mentioned that, though I did use a lot of words: I did, without hesitation, give you an answer about the god-hypothesis that makes sense to me that you could now at least understand.
===========================================
As a process theologian, I am not a fixed-position thinking kind of thinker. I am a unitheist--one who sees the universe as it is NOW, but who wills it to evolve and unfold as that which is good, orderly and desirable, beautiful and true.

As a unitheist I always I like to keep my options open--even to atheism.

However, I do value things that are morally good, orderly and, desirable, How about you, Orac? Are you a fixed-position thinking kind of atheist? What do atheists value?

Meanwhile, I write to make it clear that I do not believe in a god who is a human-like and three-dimensional entity with dimensions. Take note of my new signature:

GÕD~Tilde(~) will help guide us to Good/Opportune & Desirable UNIVERSE ...
[More on this]

I have no real position on religion Rev K it is all very new to me as you know and I am working my way through it.

What I find frustrating in my search is text walls that really mean nothing such as what TT offers as well as many religious people I have encountered. I am glad you also find it is a pile of text that says nothing I was starting to think it was just me although Bill S said the same thing.

You write rather expansive as well but at least you do not seek to hide meaning in that you engage openly with me and will answer my questions.

I understand your belief as I do muslims lets see if I get it right


"You believe god is a omnipotent being beyond space and time and even really beyond our understanding. He created this reality so we could become worthy to live with god in his kingdom and only those who are worthy will be chosen to reside with god in his kingdom. Thus all people should strive to be worthy to enter the kingdom of god"

It's less clear to me in your religion what happens to those who fail to become worthy .. perhaps hell or maybe they just cease to exist you have never really talked about that.


In science openess is easily defined as the ability to answer questions that is because you have to give up control to answer questions you have no way of knowing what will be asked.

You notice TT, Paul and PreEarth and many of that ilk do not like answering questions because they can not control a discussion.

Ask me a science question for example and I am more than happy to answer or at least discuss because science needs to be self consistant. There should be no question you could ask that would contradict what is known but there are questions we can't give you a answer to because we simply don't know.

You are open to me because you allow me to ask whatever questions I want and again as per your answer above as you give a similar answer to science that there are some questions you can't answer because you do not know.

I suspect your beliefs don't struggle with science because your GOD is beyond science and any human understanding where others like Paul for example seem to need science to be consistant with there beliefs and GOD.

There is a fundemental problem with human free will and an omipotent god they are completely incompatable and people can't talk your way around the issue. Muslims resolve the issue by acknowledging we don't have true free will and if my understanding of your religion is right then your religion resolves the issue humans have free will but only in this reality so your god boxes our current existance say like a zoo. I am guessing your view is our soul is outside this reality and is our true self our bodies are the confinement of our soul in this reality.

If I am understanding your religion as above then it passes my personal first test of a religion that it is self consistant. I won't say I don't have issues which I am happy to discuss if you want but at least it is self consistant a test which so many religions I look at fail.

Yeah, pretty amazing huh.

Like handing Tolstoy to a three year old who insists on instant understanding and gratification


I've had similar experiences with Religion. Even Science. You try to ask a scientist why the universe exists and they can't give you a simple answer.

Hate when that happens..

They also believe anyone who is not a Muslim is an infadel (lost soul/retard)... So when they strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a crowd, they can say God made them do it.


Not true. If you ask a question they will give you their reason, but like all religions its a matter of what they have been told and not from direct experience.

The wall is usually put up by the person listening that has no interest in what they say and are just looking for a way to make a comparison between what they don't like and do like. A religionist wants you to believe, and the listener wants the religionist to prove their religion.
So while the religionist speaks the other really doesn't listen.

You would have to define God and what God can do. If you have no experience of the God in question, then you just assume they are full of bullshit.

Besides I haven't an interest in speaking of free will in a religious sense. Not my thing.
Religion is not my thing. Spirituality is.

The cage pretty much represents everyone's limitations due to the personal belief system. Imagine if man didn't have a cage. Maybe he/she would bite God
No

No.
even if the question is long, verbose and has a wall of disinterest?

Already got that. Pretty much figured all of this as entertainment..

Sorry.. what was the question again?

Perhaps you could simplify it without all the religious connotations and the air of disinterest.



I believe the question referred to reality and what it is.

Yep. Gotta have the experience first before any real understanding occurs.



..snork..

Orac:

"The base question in a religious sense of free will is simple condition can you defy god. If you can not defy god then you have no free will."

My understanding is:

1) God is omnipotent.
2) God has given man free will.

If man does have free will then God is allowing the man to do anything the man can, so how can the man "defy" when no restrictions are placed on the man?

I hope that is both clear and non expansive.

We are upfront about it we have no idea why it exists we don't even offer conjecture what we don't do is offer a wall of text avoiding the question.




I am not here to pass judgement on them there are plenty of religious pedophiles should we brand all religious people on the behaviour of some in their ranks. The catholic church might have a problem if we did that as well.




The question is not hard free will I have defined as the ability to defy god so if whatever GOD is in your belief if your god is omnipotent you have a problem something has to give either GOD limits his omnipotentance in relation to humans or humans don't have free will.

Not really much to discuss everything is defined we have only 3 things

GOD = feel free to make your own version and understanding
FREE WILL = ability to defy god
OMNIPOTENT = Ability to do and control anything and everything

Should hardly take a wall of text to answer the question




Likewise I have no interest in spirituality I personally view it as a hidding place for confused individuals to gutless to face up to the real questions of life. The spiritual types will say I just don't get it but I am very logical comes from a communist enforced view of life :-)



And thats the issue thats at the heart of the question because defy means exactly that and the issue that follows from that is what happens if you do ... do you go to Hell, get killed etc which interests me.

Yep thats my understanding of Rev K's religion which sort of matches that but thats not how all religions see it in the above for example I gave you how muslims see it.

The reason it interests me is that it defines what our reality is according to that religion and there is usually a consequence of defying god if you are allowed such as going to hell.

By extension it should also give you a basis for why good and evil exist because an omnipotent god could have just swatted evil out of existance.

I do find it weird that so many religions struggle with such a simple question it really shouldn't be hard.

Orac: "...and there is usually a consequence of defying god if you are allowed such as going to hell."

Yes, and even if you have free will/choice but make the "wrong" choice there probably are consequences.


Orac: "...give you a basis for why good and evil exist because an omnipotent god could have just swatted evil out of existance."

Yes, possibly life is a test to see if man can make the "right" choices, and be rewarded. And avoid hell.

Orac you sayOK! If that is your position, I think of you as a non-theist. The late Christopher Hitchens, who wrote, god is not GREAT--How Religion Poisons Everything, was a non-theist.

Now, let me ask: What is your position on morals and ethics? In other words do you choose to be a moral, ethical and loving person?
=========================================================
Orac, you say of me that I believe that god is an omnipotent being beyond space and time and even really beyond our understanding. ==============================
Thanks for this comment, Orac. You write

I am happy I was able to at least grasp the basics of your religion but before I move on to answer your other questions can I ask when you talk of a "HELLISH PROCESS" is that the classic movie hell with a devil and eternal fire or a more expansive definition like meaning other than in the kingdom of god?




Strictly my morals and ethics in my formative years were imposed on me by the state instruments of my country as was were where I lived, my education and what I would do as a job.

Many in the West would say Russia had no morals or ethics but that is far far from the truth, Russian leadership worried extensively about moral decay because untimately it lead to inefficency or worse lack of faith and following of the system.

The only thing you were forbidden to do was choose your own morals or ethics the state standard was imposed on you.

You will still find that opposition to illicit drug taking and homosexuality are far lower in Russia and former russian states than for example in the USA which may or may not surprise some.

These sorts of comparisons are always difficult but lets take drug use for example which has some decent studies from World Health Organisation and was recently animated by the Guardian newspaper site

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/02/drug-use-map-world


You may also be aware that russia is in the process of making federal anti-gay laws because it is demanded by many citizens and supported by many in power

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/russian-parliament-federal-anti-gay-law


These are all hangovers of the morality and ethics that were enforced on citizens by the state.


So to be honest with you morals and ethics were not high on my agenda while growing up especially since because of my racial background my masters already had big issues with me and really a complete lack of trust.


I am not sure how to answer your loving question because of the oppression in those years and my memories are sort of very distorted over the years. One always asks were things really as bad as you remember because one always wants to remember ones homeland fondly if that makes sense.

Perhaps the only real answer would be to take a trip to Tibet and ask a local are they a loving person. Love is a scarce commodity in an oppressed society.

Seems to be a sense of equality there between the two, IF neither know what they are talking about, (regardless of whether one pretends to know and the other doesn't).




Well you're not speaking of any kind of God I experience, so I guess I can't enter into this conversation to any satisfaction if I need to fit into this box of yours.
Again outside of my experience, there is nothing separate from God. All choices are God's Choices. God there, God here... illusions of separation mean God is some thing rather than all that is.
Descriptions and measures of God, illusions of separation from God. Versions and understandings, varying viewpoints of perception based on whatever cage is built by the belief systems of the ego.


Takes direct experience to understand the answer.
Walls are built by those who need to filter perceptions thru holes in their walls.



Well you know communism maybe, but spirituality is hardly a separation from life. Life is not measured between birth and death. Birth and death are only changes in clothing.
Hell is living in the cage of self imposed boundaries derived from illusions of belief.
Remove the beliefs and you begin to get a glimpse of reality.

Yes. Now let me add Orac, how do you feel about revealing the roots of your family? Are you of Russian ancestry?

Now, may I explain what I meant when I asked you if you are a "loving" person, or not?

It is neither positive, negative or neutral. It can be all three, or none of them at all.

Definitely not Russian you would be insulting me if you said that.

If you go right back my roots are Transoxiania which is an area which is basically parts of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan.

Around the time of christ you would say my family was from Sogdiana.

In modern western countries we were often called persian but that is a very broad term incorporating hundreds of races over what was the Achaemenid Persian Empire which includes countries like Iran, Greece, Libya, Macedonia right up to Pakistan.

The home I grew up in is in Uzbekistan but my grand parents live in Tajikistan and I have family in almost all the neighboring countries.

Under Russian control we were forbidden from speaking in our native tongue it was punished brutally. The situation still presists in Uzbekistan today you will find this even noted in wikipedia with relation to Tajik people but it is true of any ethnic minority.

At the breakup of the soviet union I like millions of others from throughout the USSR had to flee. I had ethnic minority problems but I was also under forced repatriation to Russia orders as they had invested to much time in my education.

I initially fled with a group of jewish friends to Israel from there I was given political asylum in Australia and now on to USA. Australia was suggested to me by USA officials it wasn't my first choice. I suspect because USA were trying to patch up relations with Russia they did not want to directly give me political asylum.




Not that much I have alot of religious ground to cover and not much spare time. I go on break in a week so I will get a chance to perhaps make a dent.

I am however really interested the religion of my ancestory first which is Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism). I have a friend of friend (7 degrees of seperation type thing) who practices the faith coming from Sydney Australia of all places over the New Year.

I am hoping they aren't holding out too much hope of converting me but no doubt I will be doing some feverish background so I might not get a chance this break.


I am going to have to get back to you on the love subject I will need to do some reading your context is a bit weird to me in English and I need to work through it ... sorry that language thing.

Perhaps it would be faster if I ask is it any of these 2 which are islamic in nature

Ishq-e Haq'qi which literally means "the real love" but metaphorically it means "the love of God". It refers to the belief that only God is worth loving and He is the only one who can return His creature's love for Him.

Ishq-e Maj'zi which literally means "metaphorical love". It refers to the love for God's creation i.e. love of a man for a woman or another man and vice versa. It is said to be generated by beloved person's external beauty.


In my cultural roots it gets harder we don't have love as a generic term we have very specific terms.

If you look at the wikipedia definition of love even they have it wrong in respect to persians and they have piles of citations needed requests. It is an extremely complex translation to try and bring into english.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love)

This bit is true

"In the Persian culture, everything is encompassed by love and all is for love, starting from loving friends and family, husbands and wives, and eventually reaching the divine love that is the ultimate goal in life"

Now try and differentiate what you are calling love from that and I will probably understand your meaning.

Orac: Here is Paul's POEM on AGAPE-LOVE

===================
Agape-Love is the greatest power because:
It focuses on the physical, mental and spiritual good that we believe in and desire.

IT IS GOOD WILLPOWER CREATIVELY APPLIED, WITHOUT CONDITIONS, TO EVERYONE WE MEET AND TO ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Ok got it but that doesn't really work for me at a cultural level because you are joining up different things.

It probably works in english because of the width of the word love but as sort of an explanation if I told you I am giving some width to the word car and infact I now make it so wide all planes are cars.

See a plane transports people a car transports people they are henceforth the same now a car.

I am guessing that causes you a problem because you have a much more concise meaning and a plane isn't a car.

Thats what you are doing to me I now understand what you mean but I can't really answer the question because your width of the word love causes me problems.

I tried to translate the poem but it becomes mindless gibberish I am sorry have you got any islamic people in your church perhaps they can translate it and I can probably work it from there.

Ok forget it Rev K that won't translate it's not just me

http://islamicamagazine.com/?p=810

That explains the problem and although I am not islamic as you know my cultural roots are similar and I have the same issues.

=> The Arabic word for agape’is mahubba

Sorry but I have no translation of that sufi word and infact I have never heard it used.

Orac, interestingly, you say "In the Persian culture, everything is encompassed by love ..."

Farah, the wife (since 1987) of our only son--they met at York University, here in Toronto--and the mother of our three wonderful grandchildren (two girls and a boy)--is from the Persian culture. We share a lot of love-based cultural values.

No. It gives no special support or focus to what we believe is greater than another's idea of good or reality. It's like water which floats a boat regardless of whether it is filled with good or bad intentions.
Or slips around a rock as it flows as a river without bashing itself against the rock.
It supports all choices without investing itself in the outcome, giving freedom to choice, and the experiences following choice.
This allows for growth and experience in contrast of beliefs in relative applications of the ego and its identification with one scenario or another as being either good in varying degrees or bad in varying degrees.

A misplaced step can be seen as bad if it creates a fall. However it can be seen as good if the fall creates an impression to pay attention to where footing is placed. So unconditional love of the universe allows for something and everything without giving focus or special attention to anything.

Only man determines in his own mind a value of God and the reflection of God.

What God sees is simply God.

Man without the experience of God sees his own interpretations of what is God and not God.
Ridiculous. Will without any direction or intent has no power at all.

Intent to create something when asleep or awake is going to have a different outcome. Same as the intent directed from where you are (emotional state, Intellectual state, State of Consciousness, State of health and perception) has different outcomes based on the box you live in and what you can project.

Your definitions of Good also have a different parameters based on beliefs.
Mother Theresa and Charles Manson had a bit of a difference in their interpretations of Good.

What you think is good for another may not be what God has in mind for that person.(The reason why Jesus didn't Heal Lazarus before he died and subsequently waited until he had finished his own program to meet death)
God does not intervene or meddle in the will of the spirit of man.

Man however assumes what is best for others, and often without knowing what is best for himself.

Yes love and caring are very deep rooted in our culture because we have no social security system and this is what binds society together.

Hence you have to be careful calling it love in the classic romantic sense because there is also an element of insurance and respect ideals in it.

As I said english concept of love is very broad and actually crosses many terms for me.

When you bring it into religion in islamic regions there is another issue that crops up under your broad definition of love "the fear of god" will translate to love.

The Love of God, and the Fear of God, are two of the foundations of Islam and so are not seperable under your broad definition of love.

To give you some idea at a crass level here is number 8 rewritten with the above as insight.

8 "The fear of god" never fails!
Everyone who prophesies will stop, and unknown languages will no longer be spoken.
All that we know will be forgotten.


Hopefully you can begin to see what happens when I try and translate that.

Agreed. Agape-love, love without conditions, is not to be confused with eros (romantic love), from which we get our word "erotic", which comes with a lot of conditions. The word philos (friendship love) also has conditions.

Yes you have two seperations there culturally I have many more such as people to non human or things and even human to human breaks man-man, man-woman, woman-woman have different expressions.

Culturally homosexuality had no definition so we have imported western words for that.

By the way you just answered as I edited above what do you think of the translation of item 8 of your poem above I am not sure you would like it

8 "The fear of god" never fails!
Everyone who prophesies will stop, and unknown languages will no longer be spoken.
All that we know will be forgotten.

The Old English word "fear" can be translated in modern English as "loving respect".

That may make sense to you but I would never make that connection.

Ask you daughter in law Farah to translate "Fear no evil" and tell you what it means :-)

Can I ask is your Daughter in law muslim as that might be problematic with your faith and position and I assume you know why.

A small digression that might add another facet to the ideas of love:

“To love” is normally translated into Latin as “amare”. However, in some texts, especially in the RC Church, when it refers to loving God, “diligere” (to choose) is often used instead.

Orac, you say: "That may make sense to you, but I would never make that connection." ================
Then you ask me to I will. She speaks English very well. Of course, she also speaks Farsi and teaches Farsi speakers to speak good English.

I will need time to digest the larger text sections above.

Farsi is a modern dialect it may translate better and I am not fluent in it to try.

If she knows older dialects she will probably get close to the translation I come up with

I get something like Cautious of disaster where disaster is personal.

I don't think thats what it really means in the bible context is it.

I asked Farah about the meaning of "fear" in farsi;. She told me that there are several meanings--positive and negative. Negatively used, it can mean terror and fright.

However, when used positively, it usually means to take care because, take warning of and be cautious about--things, like fire, that can cause harm.

One of the Hebrew proverbs, 1:07, in Old English is "The fear of the Lord (keeper of bread) is the beginning of wisdom." In modern English it is: "The respect for the Lord ..."

We get 'Lord' by combining two words: loaf (of bread) and 'ward' (a warden is a keeper). Therefore a Lord is the one who stores and keep the bread safe.

Orac: Here is a good tool for understanding English. Be sure and check out the thesaurus section. A 'thesaurus' is a treasury, or storehouse of information.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fear

Ok so the newer persians languages translate fear exactly as tajik and the older ones do.

I suspect farsi will translate no evil as something like allah or god it's relatively obvious why. The older languages translate as no personal disaster.


So I am guessing the farsi transkation would be something cautious god.




I can't find an easy translation of "fear no evil" I sort of get what it means but would need to form a large expression to translate it's meaning.

Initially I was trying to negate fitnah but ethat really not what it means I worked out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(word)

I suspect that for good people--that is, ones who are connected to Allah (the highest power) and/or to God (the highest good, as love is)--there is no need to be afraid, fear evil. Does that make sense?

Then we can add the Greek idea, as expressed in Theos (the highest idea, all knowledge and wisdom). I try to put all three idea together.

It seems to me that all the good atheists that I have met agree that it is good to believe in good power, like the kind that science seeks, friendship and good will, and good truth and knowledge (again science).

Orac, ignore my last response to what you said. Here is a revised version of it: ========

Just declare evil to be a personal struggle and an affront to god, then name the evil, then declare a holy war. No Fear!

The idea of being connected to, or "TUNED" to a higher power, is always subjective.
For The Christians, it was the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. "Take no prisoners!"
Or an interpretation of a word as one might apply it to someone ideally fitted to make a point in ones favor....
I'm sure all those who have personally dedicated their actions to God, have made the same conclusion no matter what act was committed in God's name and glory.
No the dimensions are attached to the personal definitions
of what this non dimensional entity-less GÕD represents

What about them. They are all around us.. Damn them!!!!!
Well.... they don't look to seek attention for themselves, if they are in service to humanity, and they might not create acronyms for the word God, or slap a tilde on a letter or word just to give it a personal or special meaning. Probably because all that symbolism is just personal fluff.

Philosophy of Religion....
Oh Boy!.. That's rich.

Jesus was not a Jew
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

Reform his FAITH?! That's an interesting idea. Faith being personal, a man sets out to reform his beliefs (in this case) in his own unity with God!


Good, being something beyond the subjective in Belief OR Humble Opinion?