LtCmdrWorf1's tags:

con·ceive

verb, intransitive

1.                 To form or hold an idea: Ancient peoples conceived of the earth as flat.  

 

[Middle English conceiven, from Old French concevoir, conceiv-, from Latin concipere : com-, intensive pref.. See com- + capere, to take.

 

You said we were going for a walk in the forest.  All I can see are these stupid tress!

 

There are some of us who can’t see beyond what we have been taught, lead to believe, or read in a book somewhere and reach the conclusion that because they have been taught, led to believe, or read it in a book it must therefore be true.  They give up the search for knowledge and the search for truth because in their minds they have all the answers that they will ever need; that results in them looking down on those of us who seek to know more about spiritual and scientific matters.

 

The religious zealot will tell me that I’m going straight to Hell for not following the prescribed doctrine to the letter whatever may be the doctrine. In Christianity, with which I’m most familiar, the Bible has been the scapegoat for some of the most unethical actions in history.  It was used in the United States as an excuse to treat Africans as less than human, and the U.S Constitution still say that Africans are only 3/5ths of a man.  I guess Africans had it better than the original inhabitants, also my ancestors, who were not recognized at all.  Who perpetrated all this degradation upon the greater masses of people? Bible reading Christians.  I can go on with this diatribe, but let me start a new one.

 

Today some Christians in the United States scream at the top of their collective lungs that abortion and gay marriage are wrong and that God is punishing us with AIDS and assorted natural disasters.  I find that interesting since God tells us two times by my count in the Old Testament humanity would not be punished for their sins by God. God Tells us once in Genesis after the great flood, and again in the Book of Amos (look it up for yourselves).  One of the many things that I find interesting is that when I bring this up to some Christians they accuse me of mixing apples and oranges because they are Christians and not bound be the Old Testament.  Yet and still, when it comes to capital punishment or gay marriage they run not walk to the Old Testament scripture.  This is not just a Christian thing; Muslims and Jews are behaving just as badly.

 

I don’t want to go off the deep end with that and I don’t want the scientific zealots among you to think that I have forgotten all about you.  Those of you who put all your eggs in the scientific basket; that think that Logic can solve all problems have run into some snags as well. Paradoxes are contradictions that confound science.  Very few scientists like to dwell on those.  Paradoxes are kept in the closet, so to speak, until they can be worked out “Logically.”   You would think that people would have learned by now that logic does not apply to everything especially that, which is not logical.  For scientists to ask the universe to behave in a logical matter because we say that it should is like Christians telling us that it is all right to hate because the Bible says that God told the Hebrews of old to make war on their neighbors.

 

Logic is not the end all of anything.  We would like to think that reason would prevail in all things, but along comes nature, and its scientific paradoxes to throw a monkey wrench into the works. 

 

I remember reading an article in the Journal Science, and then seeing, some years later, a Science Channel documentary on the very same thing.  I don’t remember if the woman was an astronomer or and astrophysicist, but she set out to determine the age of the universe.  You know what she found?  She found that the stars we older than the universe itself.  How can that be possible established practices were used, why do we get this paradox? 

 

Well not only are there scientific paradoxes, but logical ones too.  Saying thing like the fastest runner can never catch a tortoise given a head start.  Why because if the tortoise starts at point B and the runner at point A By the time the runner get to B the tortoise will have gotten to C. and by the time the runner gets to C the tortoise will have gotten to D and so on.  Logically it makes perfect sense, but we know empirically that the runner will catch the tortoise and pass it probably in the blink of an eye.  There are many logical paradoxes and they all follow the rules of logic.  So what I’m hearing from some is that if I could logically prove that men were really women they have to go along because I’ve proved it in a logical fashion.  Now I don’t believe that most of us are that dim.

 

Science does not have all the answers and neither does religion.  For one to say that science is infallible because it’s totally logical is living in a dream world.  Fort he fundamentalist of your choice to tell me that God is in a Book is equally foolish.  In all that I read religious and scientific one thing shines through: they both talk about balance.  The trick is to find that balance, and I’d be lying if I said I had found one, but I do keep searching for one.  Science, religion, or logic by themselves are useless until one employs a modicum of common sense. 

 

Now, I’m sure that there are those of you who will take exception to how I see things and you know what?  It’s all good, you don’t have to agree because your experience may have taught you something totally different about how life the universe and everything works.  The things that make us beautiful are our differences. Yesterday when we read the Gospel and them discussed it, everyone have a different interpretation.   It meant something different to each individual and that was marvelous.  I think that as human beings, though, at heart we all want the same things for ourselves and for each other.  Peace, Love, understanding, and knowing that someone cares for us.  That’s how I see it anyway.  Peace and Long Life

 

Love Worf                                 

 




del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Worf...I just made a comment on your last blog that I'll just copy here to save myself a lot of typing...  :^)

    Exactamundo gentlemen......  The Bible was written...inspired by God or not....so long ago that one must take into account not only the language of the time but the linguistic expressions thereof also.
    When one reads in the Bible that ahhh...so and so....(no disrespect intended but can't remember the book or verse at the moment)  lived to be 900yrs and someone else lived to be 400yrs and so on.  
    You have to take into account not only the supposed language and expressions of the time but also the perceptions of the time.  In those days they thought the stars and the sun rotated around the earth so don't you think that may have some influence on how they express themselves?
    Back to the longevity of the people of that time. 
    Since they didn't have any clocks, internet time or any such system in place one has to think what methods they used to perceive time.  Such as the passing of the seasons.  If they expressed the passing of the seasons as a year and then you take the number of years such a person was said to live...divide by 4.....then all of a sudden the number of years start becoming more plausible don't you think?
    I am no expert but although I do believe (and very firmly) in God and the Bible, I also have to take into account that it was written by human hands...no matter how inspired they might have been...and those thoughts were expressed in human thinking terms also.
    My humble opinion....
    Rc  

  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    I'm going to reflect a bit and come back and read again your blog Worf...I think there is more to be expressed here ....     
    :^)
    Rc
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    i'm starting to write my response before i've even finished reading this, that's how excited i've become!
     
    i could have written this post myself, word for word! and i have written these things in other venues, to no avail. i too have been a 'voice in the wilderness' of this exact message, and suffered with blood for having spoken it! you see? i just used a scriptural quote with you, because it conveyed ellogantly, precisely, and coompletely, a common idea that we share. the bible has it's legitimate uses also! and even tho i took the quote out of context, it applies concisely to this situation, showing that the bible is not meant to be literal in nature, rather, it is referential.
     
    i see now worf, i should have been reading far more of your blog than i have, you and i have much more in common than i ever imagined!
     
    ok, enough sucking up, back to reading :-)
     
    scientific paradox. yes, it exists all over the place, and yes, just as with religious paradox, it is either kept hidden, or those who raise them are austracised for their questioning the 'pure faith'. most often, when i've come across a solution to one of the older paradoxes, it turns out that either the interpretation of the data has been faulty, or that the method of obtaining the data was improper, or improperly applied. same with doctrine. where there are paradoxes, it is always attributed to interpretation, just as your 'apples to oranges' comment points out. this makes both science and religion imperfect, but not mutually exclusive.
     
    your runner and tortoise reference is an excellent example of missapplied methods. the logical method applied was singular, the movement of two bodies. but the actual circumstance is polyphasic. the logical method ignored the physical reality of rate of motion. when you logically factor in the element that the runner is moving from point A to point D faster than the tortoise is moving from point B to point D, you logically find that the runner and the tortoise will meet at point D, and the runner, moving at the same rate, will surpass the tortoise at point D + 1. again, it is in the application and interpretation of the data by the observer that the paradox comes in, not in the circumstance itself.
     
    ok, just finished reading. are you an alt of mine that i don't know about? :-P you and i think exactly the same way on these subjects, so i'm sure there are many more on which we agree.
     
    i will say this tho. i will NEVER darken the door of another religious institution. even on those days that i start to think and then feel that i would like to have that experience again, and know that there are good people who attend those institutions, they will never have the chance to know me, or i them, because those in power at the institutions have taken so much blood from me, simply because i don't blindly fall in line with their interpretations, that i will not EVER give one of them the chance to do it again. right or wrong, that is my stance. and isn't it tragic that the very institution that is supposed to be open to all, provide comfort, trust, assurance, understanding and acceptance has done this to me? and i'm not alone, there have been BILLIONS of people throughout human history who verious religious institutions have rolled over in their quest for greater control over humanity! i believe we are living in a time where there are becoming enough of us who are aware of this fact, that religions are going to become a thing of the past. and that is also a tragidy. but it is becoming a necessity, because these instutions have proven themselves to do far too much harm to humanity, more collective harm than collective good, and there are other ways to provide the good that they do. they are and have been far out of balance for centuries, and the world as a whole, i believe, is finally waking up to that fact. so they must deminish in order for balance to be restored.
     
    one paradox of religion is that the interpreters have closeted one of THE most important quotes from the bible, 'work out your own faith'. it is the root cause of the downfall of every church, synagogue, religious organization that folds. they forget to allow the people who make up those instutions to do that, opting rather to create an environment of 'like believers' in order to preserve their specific doctrinal interpretation. so those people who make up the institution inevitably leave, and you're left with an empty building and a mountain of debt. i've personally witnessed this progression time and again. anyone who thinks for themselves cannnot, and will not, be forced to 'conform to the group thought', and so they either leave, or are forced out, which eventually causes a mass migration.
     
    wow, i'm really running on here, aren't i? i'm sorry worf, but you just got me so excited, to FINALLY meet someone who sees what i do! now, i know you and i have a different path we're traveling in this quest. that's fine with me, i respect yours, and am very glad you are on it. you are doing what you should be, and i am doing what i should be. but i would like to know more about why you are on that particular path.
     
    i see great hope, worf, that you and i become better friends in the future. near future or far, it matters not to me. i'll leave that to your comfort.
  • skald said on Sep 01, 2008....
    The trick is to find that balance, there you hit the nail on the head. So, many bad and cruel things have been done in the name of religion,any religion, some people are so narrow minded and think they are so Christian. 

    I usually don't talk about religion here because I find that many don't understand me. Yes, why can't science and religion not go hand in hand?
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Travelr,

    I don't know where to begin.  I understand what you mean when you say that you will never darken the doors of another religious institution.  I myself for a lot of years was very angry at God and anybody who would dare to tell me that I was wrong. Then a few things happened. One is that my uncle died my uncle died. 

    The night that he died I was in my bed and had just fallen off to sleep.  I was a young child maybe 13.  I remember that someone pushed me into the bed really hard so that it shook.  I woke up immediately and went to my mother's room and asked her if she had pushed me.  She was in bed under the covers reading, no way had she just been in my room.  the cat was curled up at the foot of her bed and I asked her if she had just got there.  she said no Sheba has been her with me since I got into bed. 

    It was the strangest thing, on the walk back to my room I was not scared of what had just happend.  I mean I had seen the exorcist and several other movies and read several book that scared the heck out of me, but I was not afraid to go back to my room.  I fell inot a deep peaceful sleep.

    The next moring my mother told me that my aunt called after I went to bed to tell her that my uncle had passed during the night at about the time I was pushed.

    Now that is what got me thinking that there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in my then childish philosophy.  The real turning point didn't come until I was 39 and I've been learning every since,  Using the knowlefge that I have gained as a student of the scienes and the Bible to try and find some truth.  I'm still looking for that truth.

    I don't mind telling you that I'm trying to get into seminary.  I want to be a Priest.  Not to knock people into line,but to show them what priests showed my when I was a child.  They showed my how to think for myself.  Maybe that's a trait of Episcopal priests, I don't know, but I do know that I want to do for humanity what they did for me. 

    Travelr i was never stupid or a fool, but I behaved that way (foolishly) for a good portion of my life.  I'm very greatful to be alive at all.  I possesed, as a younger man, a stunning lack of vision, and it led me into complete darkness. 

    Once out of the darkness I vowed never to return and to try and show others in that dark place the path back to the light.  That's the severaly abreviated story.  I can tell you though having read your entire posted comment that we do indeed have many things in common.  you know many things in our life are choices.  I chose to believe in God and go to church because that works for me.  I understand though that it does not work for everyone.  I really believe there is a balance to be struck and that if you go to far in any direction you tip right off the deep end. 

    Skald,  you too make a valid ponit.  many crimes have been commited in the name of God, and peeple are still trying to use God to their own ends not humanities.  Power or the illusion of it is the most powerful drug that there is and I know because I've tried a great many of them.  You can't beat power though for the ultimate rush.  Peace and Long Life People,

    Love Worf      
     
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    i am not angry at god, because i do not believe there is a god, not at least the kind that most people proport to believe in. if you want to know something about what i do believe, read this.
     
    i do believe you had the experience you described, that it was real. i believe that because i have had, and still have, experiences of that nature constantly. here's something to think about, i have them all the time, and i don't believe in a god, so would you say that there can be these experiences from more than one source?
     
    i understand, and commend you as to your chosen path, and to the motives behind your choosing as well. perhaps if my experiences with such organizations had been more like yours, i would not take the stance i do now. but i will never know, because stand on it i will.
     
    i too have done foolish and stupid things. it's part of being human. and often, we cannot see until later that what we did in the past was foolish. it must be evaluated through the lense of time. but those stupid, foolish things i did are part of what defines me, makes me who i am, so i cannot lament or regret them, i would be regretting being me in doing so.
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Travelr

    "i do believe you had the experience you described, that it was real. i believe that because i have had, and still have, experiences of that nature constantly. here's something to think about, i have them all the time, and i don't believe in a god, so would you say that there can be these experiences from more than one source?"

    Yes, I do.  Christians like to think that they hold the all the cards when It come to spiritual phenomenon.  I and others like yourself know differently.  There are many myths that predate religion as we now it today.  Some of them Native American and some of them African.  And...

    "i too have done foolish and stupid things. it's part of being human. and often, we cannot see until later that what we did in the past was foolish. it must be evaluated through the lense of time. but those stupid, foolish things i did are part of what defines me, makes me who i am, so i cannot lament or regret them, i would be regretting being me in doing so."

    Maybe we do share some spiritual relationship because your views and mine are identical with some what I would consider minor difference.  I OK though, if I read you right I have belief enough for both of us.  I know I have no other siblings by my mom.  My dad is another story, he was in the Navy.  God only knows at this point what he did while he was enlisted, and for the record I'm not calling you a bastard or trying to imply that you don't know who your mother and father are.  I'm just trying to emphasize the  kinship that I feel after reading your posted comments.  I may have gone off the deep end with it and if I did I'm sorry, but it's so rare that I can talk to anyone outside of certain "Heretic Priests" that I know about any of this.  Peace and Long Life Travelr.

    Love Worf   

       
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    that is just hillarious worf! and no, you're not off the deep end. you said what i was trying to say earlier, so it seems that it's mutual. i'm very glad of that. we can't be physically related, unless my mother has been lying to me all these years, but i do feel that we are spiritually related. i can better describe my perception of that relationship if you would read the post i linked in my earlier comment.
     
    and i never said that i am without belief. i have very strong  beliefs in what we label as 'supernatural' things. but i have a different understanding of this realm than is popularly held by most people. the vast majority cannot even understand what i am talking about, because the concepts are so foreign, and somewhat distasteful at times, to them. there is no 'history of belief' established with them as there is with other belief systems. so they do not just accept what i say as truth and go on from there. not that i expect, or ask anyone to. i am not, and never have, looked for converts. in my belief system, it does not matter what a person believes. what matters is how a person acts on those beliefs. and quite often, we are using two different ideologies to describe the same circumstance, as is often the case with humanity.
     
    so i say, hey worf, let's be buds :-)
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Travelr,

    I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that. I was talking about spiritual beliefs.  I'll be back later, I have something I want to do right this moment, but we'll talk more.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    yes, i got that worf. you were clear. i'm not sure why you fealt that you needed to say that, tho.
  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Travelr... I read your experience and I made a comment on your blog (of which my p/c started glitching and extra copies of my response were made) about an experience that I've heard about from a friend. 
    I don't doubt the experience (and that goes for your experience also) as I think that we all have a different spiritual road to travel on even though most have the same destination. 
    Rc.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Erm, What is this science in the closet stuff you are going on about? When do you hear of scientists developing a theory and then because it doesn’t fit with accepted understandings it is not explored or tested? That is the kind of thing Scientists love, they love to explore new theories and test their credibility.

    Without the Babble or the Torah or the Koran you would be worshipping Zeus or Dionysus or Mithra or Father Christmas. So really you should stick to the word of your holy book or you are arrogantly claiming that you know what the "People inspired by god" really meant when they wrote it. Religious people are all guilty of taking what they like from their holy book and pushing to the side a part that they don’t agree with. Science does that in no way what so ever.

    Name me a time when science hid something in the closet?

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    Travelr,
    "yes, i got that worf. you were clear. i'm not sure why you fealt that you needed to say that, tho"
    Probably because you said, "I'm not without belief."  I think I understand now though.

    RollingC,

    I know your response was to Travelr, but I couldn't help notice your comment "I think that we all have a different spiritual road to travel on even though most have the same destination."  I agree, we are all trying to get to the same place, but not all of us are on the spiritual road towards that place.

    SG,

    I don't know what to so with you.  I will not tell you to stop commenting because we do all have the right to our opinions, but you need to get off it.  you are one of those people who are blind and cannot, or will not see, and that's fine.

    If you want to know a time when science hid something I suggest you pick up a book or scientific periodical of your choice and read.  I've already given you one such example you'll have to find anything else on your own.  I"m not trying to prove anything to you, and I have nothing more to add beyond what I have a said to you.  

    I will admit one thing though, way back when I was a teenager I thought as you do now, then I grew.  I'm not a grown as I would like to be, but I keep striving to advance my knowledge and my thinking. 

    If you have read anything that anyone has written you would have the answer to your last commented question.  You don't, though, you just keep coming with the same old thing and not once have you engaged anyone in a conversation of someting that you do agree with.  So find a new dead hores to beat.     

    Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf  . 
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Why can’t you answer a question based on what you have written. Why do you need me to agree with something someone has said in order for the rest of my comments to be acceptable?

    You mentioned Paradoxes which you say are contradictions within science that cant be explained using current standards or logic etc. I just want you to state an example?

    If it makes you happy I will concede to you having the greatest intellect. I haven’t grown up yet so im still a poor little Atheist with no argument. I will answer any question you feel like, I don’t dodge, skirt or avoid anything.

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    SG

    I rest my case.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    I consider the question avoided. And in your own blog... tut tut tut!

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    SG Keep writing and when I see something new or worthy of a detailed response rest assured I will.  Like I said, keep beating the dead horse.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf  
  • beyondtheveil said on Sep 02, 2008....
    stupid genius- I am a dedicated agnostic and can agree with virtually everything worf said, and that includes what he said about science. I've written posts and commented much on related ideas similar to worf's. One was a post of my believing both science and religion were belief systems.

    Scientist are not happy about jumping in to work on and consider a new theory. Scientists are steeped in conventional wisdom of the time and they always have been. Many careers have been ruined and many scientists today have trouble finding jobs due to their beliefs and theories. There are scientists who will not publish theories because of backlash from either the scientific community or employer or both.

    A good example of this is the world's most innovative and possibly brilliant biologist in some opinions. His name is Rupert Sheldrake and has invented the theory of morphic resonance, an advanced theory on biology and consciousness.

    He is ridiculed by scientists who know little of the theory somply due to an explanation of it. He was recently stabbed at a scientific conference.

    There are many examples of this if you just care to look. Conventional wisdom is so entrenched by the scientific community that people such as pilots will not report incidents seen by many of them. A perfect example of this is one I related to hotaka in a comment. Scientists stated that lightening could not exist above storm clouds. Pilots had seen this since WW II. They talked among themselves, but would not report it for fear of losing their job.

    One scientist in the 1990's heard of this and decided to look into it. With the proper equipment, he went in an airplane and proved lightening formed in dangerous funnels above the clouds. If he had persented this as a theory he would have been ridiculed. Scientists would not have jumped in with him to prove his theory.

    Cases abound like this in our so called scientific age. Another thing scientists do is attempt to protect their own theories at all costs. And that of course includes attacking anyone with new ideas.
  • travelr712 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    i agree with you rc. you put it one way, i put it another, and we both agree. that's why it doesn't matter to me, or to my belief system, what others believe. we're all traveling toward the same place anyway. i do have a problem with those who proport that there are two final destinations, and if you 'believe right' you get to spend eternity in disneyworld, and if you 'believe wrong', you get to spend eternity scrubbing out bubba's toilet from the inside. that's a totally different thread than we've been discussing thus far, but i'd be happy to discuss it if worf is ok with that.
     
    worf - oh, gotcha!
     
    that's just two of thousands beyond. science has its own alters, its own zealots, its own doctrinal prisons, and always has. it also has its own advocates who are blind to those aspects. but there is one difference between science and religion. when science comes up with an incongruity, it attempts to find an answer to that incongruity. when religion comes up with one, they say 'it's god, and you'll never understand it'. that makes it magic. in that respect, i prefer science.
  • beyondtheveil said on Sep 02, 2008....
    trav- I don't disagree with you. Science and religion are very different. Science deals primarily with the tangible world and religion relies on many intangible beliefs.

    The key is how you stated science attempts to find incongruity. Much of science and what it says is the belief of the day and the advance of tomorrow is the belief of tomorrow with tomorrow's tangible results.

    My problem is with people who accept science as having attained its results with certainty. Little different than the people who state religion is proof with certainty. My position is that little of nothing is known with certainty and the proof of that is in  the changes they will give us tomorrow. This, in a sense, make both a belief system.

    Almost everything I believe today has been the result of science naturally, but with so many amazing unexplained things that happen my mind is open.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    I don’t think a group of scientists got together one day and decided to stab another scientist because he had a new theory. Even if they did im not sure that is any cause to doubt tests that are done by hundreds of different scientist on a single theory. No matter how much of a zealot a scientist, his/her theories will eventually be tested and found false by his/her peers. The same cant be said for religion. As has been said already, Science will always advance and religion will always stand still.

    Oh and another thing, if science is to be labelled as unreliable because of a few "Bad Guys" then religion must accept its label of being the most devastating, manipulative and war inducing of all history.

    SG

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Worf - thankfully what you find worthy has no bearing on my comments.

    SG

  • GrapeKoolaid said on Sep 02, 2008....
    Worf:  Another articulate, well thought out post.  Not much for me to add here so I'll just nod my head in agreement. 

    SG:  You said that you don't "dodge, skirt, or avoid anything" and yet, you conveniently ignored my comment directed specifically to you on Worf's previous post.  Then you chide Worf for not answering your questions?  Tut, tut yourself... 

    Cover yourself, your hypocrisy is showing. 

    Oh and btw, MENSA called.  They want you to turn your genius card in.  Why?  Because without the Bible, you wouldn't have Father Christmas.  :D
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Grape what was the question? Im answering in like four different posts. Point me in the direction or ask again and I will answer.

    Oh and the vineyard called they said the crop you came from has a bad habit of becoming bitter and leaving a horrible after taste.

    SG

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    By the way, St Nicholas was thrown in Jail for assault by Constantine, then claimed he had had a vision of Jesus and Mary and was once again restored to his previous status as Bishop of the Church of Rome. Jesus would not have appeared or blessed St Nick as the church he was a bishop in was considered to be an anti Christ church.

    So actually its down to Constantine that we have Father Christmas because being thrown in jail increased his notoriety.

    Do you really want to claim him as one of your own? You can have him my friend.

    SG
  • RollingC said on Sep 02, 2008....
    So what?
    The important thing is that he repented and did good afterward.
    St. Augustine was stoned by the villagers in the snow for being a fornicator.  The church moved him and he repented, found his faith again and became the renowned saint that he is today.
    Rc
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    Hello Everyone,

    I can see the wisdom in all the comments, but one.  Being contrary is cute for a moment, but it loses it's charm very quickly.  Once again someone has proved my point for me. Jesus threw all the money changers out of the temple.  What is that if not an assault?  So why would he not have a vision of Christ?  You don't have to answer that either because it will be just as contrary, and probably contradictory as these last comment. 

    Now somebody here  said that they believed Christianity was fraud perpetrated by the Romans to get the Jews to follow Roman rule and Worship the Emperor now wants to talk about Constantine who had a vision that started the Roman Catholic Church, "The one True Church."  Tut, tut Indeed.  Stick to what you know..  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf. .         
  • RollingC said on Sep 02, 2008....
    And then there are the people that have out of body...near death experience.
    How do you account for that?  It's all well and fine to disbelieve until you have an experience yourself.
    Here's an experience related to me by someone that  yes has a life long relationship with the church and is a faithful catholic.....

    There is a woman (from Central America) who had a near death experience and according to what I was told she " traveled " in some sort of tube(?) passage into another place.  That place was Earth...but different in the sense that there was an incredible amount of Peace.  It permeated, saturated, covered everything there if you will and you could almost cut it with a knife....not the words used to describe it for me but you get the gist of it.
    The place was also filled with people, as she saw groups of people walking about and towards her.  One of those looked familiar to her and she asked Him
    " Are you Jesus?" to which the answer was  " yes I am "
    " But are you the Jesus that I know, love and worship? "
    " Yes I am and I also have to tell you that you are not ready yet.  It is too soon and you have to go back.  It is not your time yet."
    She suddenly finds herself coming back (the same way I think) and wakes up in the hospital.  She related this to a priest (I think) and afterwards started a society
    (that I can't remember but I'll try and contact my old friend and get the info from him) of people that have had similiar experiences.

    She claims that this existence of ours in which we live is not unlike a negative film upon which a picture has been exposed to and over there in the other place it is the finished picture.
     
    Interesting to say the least.
    Rc

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    StupidGenius said about 6 hours ago.... delete block user

    I don’t think...

    That's the one thing you have said that I totally agree with because I can see that you don't .  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Worf -

    "Now somebody here said that they believed Christianity was fraud perpetrated by the Romans to get the Jews to follow Roman rule and Worship the Emperor now wants to talk about Constantine who had a vision that started the Roman Catholic Church, "The one True Church."

    Read my comment again. This time with your little thinking cap on and a pair of glasses. I said St Nick claimed to have the vision not Constantine. and I never claimed it was the one true church, why would I? Its a shame that losing an argument has made you lower your replies to un funny put downs but the fact you have to speaks volumes. It’s your blog so if it makes you happy then that’s fine.

    Rolling -

    Out of body is interesting but I treat it with the same scepticism I treat religion. People make all kinds of claims like being abducted by aliens but none of them have or can be proven.

    It is for religion to prove it is fact, If you make a claim as though it is fact. If you speak of god, as though it is fact, if you recount from the bible as though it is fact then back it up using facts. I don’t have to prove a thing. Anything I have claimed to be true can be backed up with sources, evidence and facts. Can you al say the same?

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 03, 2008....
    SG.......
    Actually the only one I needed to prove anything is myself.  I enjoy relating experiences of my beliefs and (encounters) with other people but proving it is not necessary.  That experience was meant for me alone and although I have no problem sharing that with people I don't have a need to prove it.
    You read the account of Fatima and wrote that off as mass hysteria.  I could just as easily come to you and say...can you prove the big bang theory ?
    Most, if not all, of the scientifically minded people take that as a given although there is no hard evidence to prove it.
    With Fatima you have documented statements and affidavids (?) of eye witnesses who lived through that experience.  I only wish I could've been there to see the rain stop, the sky open up, the sun gyrate up and down 3 times and suddenly all the mud, puddles and wet clothes were dry.
    Gee...that must've been some mass hysteria huh? Next you'll be suggesting they were all on some hallucigenic or something. 
    If you don't want to believe that's up to you kiddo 'cause you know as well as I do that you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. 
    But no matter....God loves you anyway.  :^)
    Rc
  • travelr712 said on Sep 03, 2008....
    actually rc, the big bang is not accepted as fact. it is accepted as a theory. it is used in the manor of 'in the absence of a better explaination, we will use that one, because it most closely fits the available data, but it is subject to change if a better theory comes along, or if something else can be proven'.  that bears no resemblance to saying that something is 'ultimate truth' that cannot be proven. all scientists know the difference between fact and theory, and not all of them believe the big bang theory is the correct one. but all christians believe that god created the universe, and accept and proport that belief as 'ultimate truth', or fact, not a theory that fits available data until a better one comes along.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 03, 2008....

    Good point well made Travelr.

    On this Fatima subject. You only have to listen to the story to know its hog wash. The rain stopped, the sun came out and bounced up and down. It is an impossibility that the sun was bouncing up and down. Did you ever consider that when the rain stopped that the people’s cloths started to dry? In hot sun, cloths dry fast. It is totally obvious that it’s a Delusion; you need to pick another more realistic example.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 03, 2008....
    The Fatima miracle...as far as the sky parting and sun bouncing up and down and then suddenly it was all dry...puddles and the muddy ground....not just the clothes...in just a few minutes all because it was just raining and then the sun came out....
    .......  Riiiight...... 
    When was the last time that you saw a puddle of water...after a rain.....not to mention the muddy ground all mushed up by the hundreds (or thousands) of feet trampling it ...
    dry up in just a few minutes..... ?
    And to that add all the people that witnessed it and later were documented........ government officials included.....
    mass delusions........ suuuure.....

    You go right ahead and believe whatever you want to believe and I'll do the same ok ?

    I've never tried to insult your intelligence and I'm sorry if I inadvertently did for I had no intention of doing that..
    But likewise I expect the same courtesy.
    The many witnesses that saw Fatima...some still alive today...are ironclad proof for me.  (and many other people too)
    Explaining how it happened? I haven't got a clue how to explain Divine intervention!

    We're still friends ok?
    God Bless
    Rc
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 03, 2008....
    Here is the conversation from 7 days ago on Truthsayer’s blog.
     


    CAESAR'S MESSIAH

    Diary Entry by Drew Terry | opednews

    http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/main.html

    Our understanding of Jewish and Christian history has changed dramatically with the publication of Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill (Ulysses Press), which had previously been privately published under the title The Roman Origins of Christianity. According to Atwill, the Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor ‘in disguise’. The essence of Atwill’s discovery is that the majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all the necessary evidence.

    [...]

    ·  Flagscipio said 7 days ago....

    Thank you. I accept your invitation.

    ·  FlagStupidGenius said 7 days ago....

    Brotherclaude that is an abosolutly facinating comment. I had never heard of that before but will be looking into it as soon as I finish typing this. Thanks for bringing it up!

    SG

    ·  FlagLtCmdrWorf1 said 7 days ago....

    Caesar's Messiah is a appears to be a work of fiction.  If it were true then I would have to say that the Roman's were taken in by their own fiction.  Read the Coptic Gospels.  You can rest assured that Roman's didn't write those.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf

    ·  FlagStupidGenius said 7 days ago....

    I have watched the interview with the author and I dont think you can claim it is fiction. It is based on the clear similarities between the gospels and a Roman war. Deserves to be read. His book has been tested by probability and it is 99% certain. Dont dismiss it, buy it, read it. What do you have to lose... oh maybe your faith but other than that...

    SG

     

    These are your comments today:

    FlagStupidGenius said about 10 hours ago.... delete block user

    Worf -

    "Now somebody here said that they believed Christianity was fraud perpetrated by the Romans to get the Jews to follow Roman rule and Worship the Emperor now wants to talk about Constantine who had a vision that started the Roman Catholic Church, "The one True Church."

    Read my comment again. This time with your little thinking cap on and a pair of glasses. I said St Nick claimed to have the vision not Constantine. and I never claimed it was the one true church, why would I? Its a shame that losing an argument has made you lower your replies to un funny put downs but the fact you have to speaks volumes. It’s your blog so if it makes you happy then that’s fine

     

     Yet in still you liked Brother Claude’s posted comment so much as to give credence to this author that you claim is 99% right in what he says because you watched and interview.  Then you want to tell me that’s not what you said or that you have been misinterpreted.   I’ll bet you have a big mouth too.  Peace and Long Life

     

    Love Worf 

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 03, 2008....
    And idiot child it was Constantine's Grand vision that made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire and gave rise to the Church. Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf 
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 03, 2008....

    Idiot Child? You are one funny guy. You took all that time to point out to me that im wrong and still you messed it up. I find your comments so amusing that I actually did just laugh out Loud.  You tried to argue and failed, you tried to ignore me and failed and now you try to pick my argument apart with a fine toothcomb and guess what... you Failed again. LOL.

    1. I said the "Cesar’s Messiah" was really interesting. You didn’t even watch the interview or read up on it. Instead you just dismissed the notion as Fantasy.

    2. I said that the author claims it has been tested by probability professors and they found it to be 99.99997% accurate.

    3. Constantine reworked the Christian faith, he used the council of Nicosia to select the gospels that went into the book and only then was it accepted. He did this because there were (Even then) disputes about Jesus, his life and gospels written about him being factual or lies. He did it to quell any segregation in order that Christianity be united in one organised belief system thus making his control over his people more complete.

    I would resort to name-calling but you are doing a good enough job embarrassing yourself in your own blog for me to bother.

    Keep going though it really is very amusing.

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 03, 2008....
    You find me amusing?  This should really bust your gut.. 

    you see, I had every argument that you posses when I was a child.  There is nothing here that you have written about that I have not thought about five time before.  They were specious arguments then and they are now.  You ignorance and lack of any real knowledge show through in what you say.  I don't believe you're laughing at all. I think you're hopping mad and trying to disguise that by making people think that you are cavalier in nature. 

    I don't often admit this, but I know many despondent people such as yourself who are angry because they can't get anyone to take them seriously.  Everyone knows them for what they are parrots. Your third point for instance, several years ago I took a course in religious origins.  this was before the Internet so I had to pick up a book or two.  Read the Interpreters Bible.  This way you will know that's not all that was discussed at the council at Nicea.  You might also discover that there was more than one. 

    So, take your "POP CULTURE" wisdom and cut / paste mentality somewhere and pick up a book.  So HA HA away Idiot child, and let the chips land where they may.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf       .  .  
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 03, 2008....

    You have just further embarrassed yourself worf. Did you want me to recount all of history regarding Nicea? You claim to know all my arguments yet you do nothing to disprove or correct my points. You simply claim to be on some higher intellectual level and then clearly prove you are not.

    You can’t make me mad worf, I pity you.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 03, 2008....
    Ok....let's put the shoe on the other foot why don't we?

    You say God doesn't exist?

    Prove it !

    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 04, 2008....

    I don’t need to disprove god anymore than I need to disprove the existence of Fairies, elf’s and flying pigs.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 04, 2008....
    You dodging the issue now ?

    Rc
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 04, 2008....
    "You simply claim to be on some higher intellectual level"
    Not once have you seen me claim that.  I can tell you this though, I'm smarter than the average bear.: ) And I'm reading you conversation with RollingC.  I see you can't answer that question either.  Just like you can't prove that love or thought exist. I"m sure you'll come up with another cut / paste to try and exp;ain using someone esle's words like you always do Idiot child : ) Peace andLong Life

    Love Worf      
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 04, 2008....
    "You simply claim to be on some higher intellectual level"
    Not once have you seen me claim that.  I can tell you this though, I'm smarter than the average bear.: ) And I'm reading you conversation with RollingC.  I see you can't answer that question either.  Just like you can't prove that love or thought exist. I"m sure you'll come up with another cut / paste to try and exp;ain using someone esle's words like you always do Idiot child : ) Oh, and I don't pity you in the slightest.  Pity is for people who suffer and I pray for them. Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf      
  • travelr712 said on Sep 04, 2008....

    i'm not sure which arguments from sg you're saying are invalid worf, but in factual evidence, he is correct. the bible did not exist before the council of nicaea in 325 a.d. constantine was tired of all the bickering between the 1800 bishops of the time, so he conveined a meeting to have them settle the argument. here is a quote as to the nature of that council:

    "Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate."

     it was characterized by the scribe who kept the records of the councils as more or less 'squabbeling' between hundreds, until eventually more and more were won over, with i believe only 3 left who still proported their own documents for inclusion. the creation of the origional bible was in fact, carried out by popular vote.

    the result of that was one bishop was stoned to death, two were banished, and all their 'heretical' documents burned, so that they are lost to us. then there was a huge week long party. you can recount the events just as i have from the vatican archive, the document is posted there for all to see, and is very clear as to the purpose and outcome, including the fact that constantine just sat up on his throne drinking wine and ignoring the proceedings.

    the purpose of this council, and the manor in which it was conducted, was clearly to establish political rule over the empire through religious means, and it accomplished just that by making a religious canon, backed by a religious document (the bible) the ultimate law of the empire.

    i know this is a different story than what at least i was told as to the origin of the bible when i went to a bible college, perhaps your story of origin given by your seminary differes from this account also. that's why i trust the document that was accepted as canonical law which formed the formal catholic church, and it's base document, the bible, posted by the vatican itself, over any other recounting of biblical or church origin. and keep in mind, those same scribes that copied this canon over the millenea were the same court of scribes that supposedly so accurately translated, copied and conveyed the bible through all these years.

    so worf, what information in that is not factual?

    rc - proving whether an intangible exists or does not exist is not possible, that is the crux of this whole debate. however, trying to use the argument 'prove god does not exist, and if you can't, it means he does' is not going to get you anywhere. for one thing, that means i could say 'prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, and if you can't, that means he does'. it is actually not possible to prove that something does not exist, because if it does not exist, there is nothing to prove. however, the actual burden of proof is on you, and all religious entities, because you are asking is for us to humbly submit to an intangible and let that intangible have control over our lives. this places the burden of proof on the prostelatizer (you) so at the very least i am sure that i am placing my life under the control of the proper diety. without such proof of said intangible, it is necessary for me to reject placing myself under control of that religion, because then i am merely placing myself under the control of other men. so, when you have tangible proof that this deity you claim exists and has done the things proported, show it to me and i'll be much more readily convinced to 'turn my life over to god'. until then, i cannot place myself under control of people who would use such stories and tactics to control my life.

  • RollingC said on Sep 04, 2008....
     Travelr.....With all due respect.  All I'm doing is using the same tactics that he's using as far as the discussion has been going on.  He wants proof that God exists...at least that's the impression that I'm getting.   I am within my rights to ask him the same thing in reverse.  
    Please note that I'm not talking about religion so don't get confused here ok?
    I'm not asking anybody anything let alone humbly submit to anything.  That burden is on you not on me.  If I submit to religion and God, what business is that to you? or to anybody else?
    Where did I say in my comment to SG anything else other than to prove God doesn't exist ? 
    SG and everybody else that doesn't believe in God wants us to prove that He exists yet when asked to prove their believe that He doesn't exist all of a sudden they start backing away and trying dodge the question/argument.
    I and nobody that believes in God fumbled the ball when it was tossed at us but when we toss it back it gets fumbled and then we get the blame?
    HHmmmmm....What's wrong with that picture eh ?

    Nobody....least of all me...is asking you to place yourself in the control of anybody or anything....where did that argument come from?

    As far as the Bible....sure the 2nd Testament did not " exist " as is until the first council.  But the 1st Testament existed all along in the Jewish Temples.
    As to what order they were in before the council I cannot say. 

    God Bless....(even if you don't believe in Him)
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 04, 2008....

    Where’s worf.... I wonder if he will call Travelr an "Idiot Child". This is why I love soulcast so much. People write crap, the crap they write gets called crap by someone else and then the person who wrote the crap in the first place talks crap in order to defend the crap. LOL

    Once again worf, your attempts at challenging logic, fact and evidence expose the fraud that you are. You try and put me down and talk about cut and paste (Not sure why but you seem to think you have found some kind of weakness on my part lol) and then in all the effort to put me down you forget to construct an meaningful argument hence you end up being one of the people i mentioned above who writes crap lol.

    Rolling - Travelr made my point for me and made it well.

    SG

  • travelr712 said on Sep 04, 2008....
    rc - you did not in this thread ask anyone to submit. but you know as well as i that it is part of the religious rhetoric. you can submit to anyone you like, you're right, it's none of my business, and i really don't care. true, i was expounding on your statement, that's what a discussion is for. it gave me a chance to bring out a key point about the dangers of religion.
     
    thank you sg.
  • RollingC said on Sep 04, 2008....
    Why do we have a free will? 
    You can freely choose to believe (or not) in God and still not submit yourself to religious entities and don't tell me one cannot because I know some people that are just in that position.
    That is the purpose of having a free will...you can choose your own destiny. 
    We can continue to argue and discuss as much as you want (or not) and I'll be the first to say that atrocities were committed in the name of God.  Of which I find very shameful.
    You also have to admit that atrocities were committed by human beings very shamefully without using religion as a smoke screen and both have been happening for a long time down history lane. 
    Nobody can argue that either.
    The nature of this blog by   Worf   I take as an exercise in different views as to whether religion and science can co-exist and frankly I think they can.
    But discussing whether God exists or not is just playing musical chairs and beating around the bush for we'll never convince each other.  
    I used to doubt and when I had my experience (and you can go to my early blogs to read about them for I had more than one) I decided to come back to church.
    My decision.
    My right.
    You have the same right to make a decision. 
    Your right.
    I will not try to convince you of anything and if asked I will relate why I chose to make that decision.  The same way I will respect your decision I expect my decision to be respected.
    To do anything else will result in mud slinging and calling names and frankly I'm not interested.
     I also expect the right to free speech just like you and anyone else has but without ridicule for that will lead to mud slinging also.
    I enjoy relating experiences that I've had with other people of like mind and beliefs.
    That is also a right that everyone has.
    The same way you (or anybody else) has the right to bring out key points about the dangers of religion gives me the right to bring out points about the dangers of not having a religion or at least some basic belief in a higher Authority...(like the commercial says) .
    So what's the problem with that?

    Rc 
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 05, 2008....
    Travelr,

    “ i'm not sure which arguments from sg you're saying are invalid worf, but in factual evidence, he is correct. the bible did not exist before the council of nicaea in 325 a.d. constantine was tired of all the bickering between the 1800 bishops of the time, so he conveined a meeting to have them settle the argument. here is a quote as to the nature of that council:”

    No travelr, I don't disagree with you there.  I know what Constantine did and why he did it in the fashion he did.  Realize, thought, those scriptures existed long before there was a Bible or a Constantine.  I'm sure you know the Bible is not linear, and there are many Gospels that didn't make the cut for reasons that are still in debate today. 

    Now, My problem with SG is that he is trying to use what he thinks he knows in the same way so called "Learned ordained ministers." use history and the Bible to try and prove things they think everyone should believe; they use it to their own ends, not to lift people up, but to put them down.  Others and I believe that the Gospel give us a message of inclusion not exclusion.  SG is the type of person who believes that the 95% of us who believe in some type of spirituality are delusional. 

    So, after reading comment after comment of his I've reached the conclusion that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and just wants to be contrary, an Idiot child if you will and even if you won't. 

    Travelr, if you say to me, as you have, I don't believe in God.  I say that's fine and I may even ask why.  Most people tell me of some bad experience that they have had regarding religious institutions and I can understand that.  What I don't understand and will never get behind are people who just hate for the sake of it. 

    Now, I do have a POV, but it is not a singular one (I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but it works for me).  I can understand why people can't get behind God, and I can accept their disbelief.  Then along comes SG (The Idiot child) who has no respect for the beliefs and practices or knowledge of others. 

    Travelr I like you and I don't see that changing.  You may have already read the essays from the link that I posted in the blog after this one "Does science make a belief in God Obsolete" there are some very interesting arguments pro and con, none of which are demeaning or hateful in tone.  They are written by people who don't have an ax to grind and I can understand the logic of the arguments they put forth, they make sense. 

     

    Now If you don’ want to believe in God, fine.  If you want to explore your own spirituality using some other means, fine.  If you wan to believe that science make God obsolete, fine.  You can come at me just about any way you want and I’ll probably be fine with your way of seeing things.  What I’m not fine with is a smart ass, which SG has proven to be. 

     

    Now if you don’t believe me just wait and see.  I’m sure he will put some idiot comment in response to this as well.   His writing is puerile, his arguments specious, and he has succeeded in boring me. 

     

    Now, I will never erase a comment or block anyone with the exception of spammers and people who want say things anonymously.  If you want to continue your discussion with SG that is your right and I will not stand in the way.  I can accept idiot behavior from children, I expect it as a matter of fact, but once you claim your adulthood it becomes sad.  Sure adult idiot behavior may be cute for a while, but it gets boring real fast. 

     

    I will not comment on anything that SG, the idiot child, writes for all the reasons stated and probably a few I haven’t thought of yet.  I say to everyone though, please feel free to converse with anyone you want in my blog, I would do the same in yours.  Go Forth in Peace to Love and Serve the Lord, or not.

     

    Love Worf             

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 05, 2008....
    Oh and Travelr, be careful of the Vatican accounts of history.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf  
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 07, 2008....

    Watch for yourself worf


    Give me an opinion not a childish remark

    SG

  • silverwhisper said on Sep 07, 2008....
    excellent blog entry, worf--as ever. :>

    ed
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 08, 2008....

    lol yes excellent worf, well done.

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 11, 2008....

      Back at ya' Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 11, 2008....

    Lol, heard this one before and the lyrics are pretty dumb. Not sure god would be too please about her bisexuality. Still maybe god is a "slob like all of us" and partial to a bit of T.V with bisexual girls on it. Lmfao.

    SG

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 11, 2008....
    Oh and "Right back at ya!" lmfao
     
     

    and one other thing....this is a funny funny funny song. Thought you guys might like it?
     
     

    SG

Comment on "Heretical Progressive Theological views on the Zealotry of Science and Religion"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

for my love....
Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."...
Since the publication in May of his book, ''Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science,'' Ian Plimer has been the darling of conservative media commentators and the global network of climate change skeptics...
Exactly how much "in the image of God" are we? Do we have Godly powers to create matter even without knowing that we are? How do we define "reality" and what does science say about the matter?...
Okay friends, folks and a few felonious philosophers: Does anyone besides my think-buddie, beyondtheveil think that we should re-open the Cosmic Cafe'?

This is your chance to vote.


cos-mic (kaz' mik) adj. [[Gr kosmikos...