What you say - Only His free gift can get us absolved. OK. So what is that free gift. A kiss on your cheek. Tell me, dear man, how is that going to absolve you of your sins?
No Christ's free gift is his death on the cross: John 3:16- For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Also: John 14:6- Jesus answered, I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. That means Christ, not Buddha, not Mahvira, not Gautama. Christ is no avatar come to teach the principles of Hinduism, he is God in flesh. Read John 1:1-5. Christ also said that no other way can bring one to Christianity except him. Matthew 7:13,14 - Enter through the Narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I may be quoting many verses here but I want to illustrate fully that Hinduism and Christianity are not the same. To claim so is wrong for either religion.
No One person can be called the God-man
Christ already has stated he is God made flesh. Read the beginning of both John and Matthew for the account of his birth and the fact he is God's son made flesh. Christianity is based on the fact there is only one God and only one sinless person in the world, Christ. There is no list of other sinless people. Righteous yes, blameless yes, but not sinless. You obviously believe quite strongly in Vipassana and Hinduism. However, please do not include a religion which has no place in it there.
If you want to assert your opinions further, join a course of Vipassana for ten days, then speak, else remain as you were.
I do not have any desire nor do I need to take such a course to. Just because an individual may not agree with your opinions or viewpoints concerning Hinduism does not mean they need to take a course in Vipassana in order to be considered worthy of conversing with you on the topic. Such an idea is veering towards becoming your stated "frog in the pond mentality".
I rarely see a similar emphasis on daily meditation and contemplation in Christian churches.
The emphasis may not be there in all churches but that doesn't mean Christianity does not espouse it. God says that those who meditate on his word day and night will be considered blessed. (Psalm 1:1-2) Also continuing through the Psalms there are 15 references to meditating on God's precepts, words,wonders, unfailing love doing so day and night. If you want to verify you will find them in Psalms 119:15-148, 143:5, 48:9, 77:12, 39:3, 19:14, 104:34 etc.
While your 2nd point is quite true I think that the same misunderstandings seen in regards to Buddhism and its followers may be applied to Christians. Yes the average Westerner is caught up in consumerism so are many Europeans, South Americans, Australians etc. The reason North Americans may get labelled as Christian is because the founding fathers professed that faith in their documents concerning the formation of the US. While some say they are Christian but only go to church every holiday they are not following Christianity. Those who live in Christ's image, or at least try, and attend church out of a desire to do so and not an obligation/token, are those who are more fully living out the tenets of Christianity. It too is a way of life and not a rigid religion.
Why does God make everything look as if it's older than the six or so millenia it is?"
I am not sure why some creationists would show little interest in this point. My understanding from listening to some of their arguments comes from the idea of melding the Big Bang with ID as I raised in my first post. Some may never agree with this idea but some see it as a possibility for the differing age relations. Since you raised the story of creation... Creationists quote the first portion of Genesis where the Spirit hovers as an unknown period of time, possibly millions of years. Others say the Big Bang could have been set off by God and the rest followed as evolution describes.
Fans of creationism just don't seem to care about how the world works as much as they care about a very superficial validation of their faith.
This I think is an unjust generalization of scientists who are examining the idea of ID. It tempts some individuals to cease looking at the issue being discussed and begin to slur or sling insults at other individuals. In my opinion this is not a productive addition to any debate.
In the case of Gallileo and Darwin, almost all of their critics invoked religion. Telling.
You must also take into account the society in which the individuals lived. They were living in society structured around religion and were bringing in the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. You cannot claim that religion is the bully and bad guy in this era just because it may have caused difficulties then. In any age or society when people are scared by new ideas they often turn to mysticism or religion in order to discredit these ideas. It's the nature of humanity to regress in certain situations especially when threatened. Fight or flight. Fear does not lend itself to rationality.
Which is why we should pass that wisdom on, in schools, as completely as possible. I'm truly sorry if the truth gets in the way of the crutch people use to prop up their flagging faith. But that's hardly a reason to avoid giving children their birthright.
Nowhere did I state that we should not teach evolution in school. I agree that every child should have the ability to learn the current scientific theories and discoveries. Yes with this information they may discover holes and flaws within existing arguments whether they be ID, or even aspects of evolution and the Big Bang theory. Just because my idea does not correspond perfectly with your own does not mean I am saying throw scientific learning out the window and school system. It is equally important. I think the survey is also suggesting that the majority of Americans believe that people should be able to have all the information available taught, thus they will be well informed and well educated individuals capable of using their intellect to reason and make decisions based upon their reason. I don't think truth gets in the way of faith. Scientists are still accepting the Big Bang in part on faith, because they are still unsure to all of the facts of how it occurred. As you yourself noted. So that also takes faith on the part of the scientific community.
Furthermore, the vast majority of those who pursue it as science, rather than the looking for the truth, are looking for a truth they've already decided on.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I don't presume to know the minds of every scientist as they examine evidence. However, I think your statement here also tends to over generalize. I stated some individuals use it as a jumping point, not as fact. They examine it as a hypothesis, some saying it's false with their evidence, others may come back and say some aspects are possible.
Science is about asking questions. That's it's greatest strength, and every theory's greatest foe.:) It's why the engineering that allows us to make our clever tools, like computers, is based on science as opposed to faith.
I agree that science is a wonderful field of study. I too, am grateful for the discoveries it makes every day that saves lives and encourages technological advancement. However, science is about asking questions and therefore one cannot ask those questions with a closed mind. Just because a theory or idea may not jive with the current one held does not mean it should be scorned and thrown away. How can one get answers when one's mind is made up as you pointed out already? Science is based on fact, but also in a small portion on faith. Theories may be incorrect or incomplete but that doesn't mean they are thrown away. They are held "in reserve" while the answers are searched for. (Theory of Gravity, and Atomic Theory, model of the atom) Yes, asking questions is a great strength, but hubris can still trip up even greatness.
While not exactly generalizable to all Americans, the last poll I saw (major web site, doesn't make ballot stuffing easy, and there are all sorts of biases that would need to be accounted for) something like 60% thought creationism should be taught along with evolution.
I would be interested to see this site so that I could also read the information you have mentioned. Given this debate is one fraught with emotion as well as intellect it would be interesting to view the current ideas being expressed by the population.
Creationism isn't a search for answers it's an excuse to not look for them.
I find your comment here interesting. The same could be said of one who accepts theory as fact without further exploring the possibilities and tangents that are opened up within the scientic community, especially since research is constantly discovering new aspects of humanity, the Earth, and biology. Given the fact that some individuals use Creationism as a jumping point for their own investigations I think that comment is slightly unjust. Just as the Big Bang theory has changed and the ideas of how life evolved on our planet has changed from the time of Darwin, so do some of the views in correlation to Creationism. Some believe that the two theories can be melded, some don't. However, being condescending towards either is a discredit to the quest for intellectual advancement. People scorned Newton, Darwin, and Gallileo when they first presented their views as well. It was NOT JUST the Church who did this, the scientific community in their eras did so as well. If they had not persevered in their ideas in the face of opposition, despite the fact they were considered unpopular, heretical, stupid, foolish and a score of other terms, we would not have many of the founding concepts of modern science. Therefore in my opinion, we should not cast out any possible starting point for scientific investigation, even if it may not agree with our own personal preferences. Who knows what we may miss out on if we do?
And here I thought I was saying something no one could disagree with. That'll teach me to share my wonder at man's achivements and my lament that not everyone chooses to share in them.
Yes we may wonder at our achievements but we should not view ourselves as demi-gods and the greatest gift to the world. After all as Douglas Adams said: "It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reasons."
Slashdot Mirror
No Christ's free gift is his death on the cross: John 3:16- For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Also: John 14:6- Jesus answered, I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. That means Christ, not Buddha, not Mahvira, not Gautama. Christ is no avatar come to teach the principles of Hinduism, he is God in flesh. Read John 1:1-5. Christ also said that no other way can bring one to Christianity except him. Matthew 7:13,14 - Enter through the Narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I may be quoting many verses here but I want to illustrate fully that Hinduism and Christianity are not the same. To claim so is wrong for either religion.
No One person can be called the God-man
Christ already has stated he is God made flesh. Read the beginning of both John and Matthew for the account of his birth and the fact he is God's son made flesh. Christianity is based on the fact there is only one God and only one sinless person in the world, Christ. There is no list of other sinless people. Righteous yes, blameless yes, but not sinless. You obviously believe quite strongly in Vipassana and Hinduism. However, please do not include a religion which has no place in it there.
If you want to assert your opinions further, join a course of Vipassana for ten days, then speak, else remain as you were.
I do not have any desire nor do I need to take such a course to. Just because an individual may not agree with your opinions or viewpoints concerning Hinduism does not mean they need to take a course in Vipassana in order to be considered worthy of conversing with you on the topic. Such an idea is veering towards becoming your stated "frog in the pond mentality".
The emphasis may not be there in all churches but that doesn't mean Christianity does not espouse it. God says that those who meditate on his word day and night will be considered blessed. (Psalm 1:1-2) Also continuing through the Psalms there are 15 references to meditating on God's precepts, words,wonders, unfailing love doing so day and night. If you want to verify you will find them in Psalms 119:15-148, 143:5, 48:9, 77:12, 39:3, 19:14, 104:34 etc.
While your 2nd point is quite true I think that the same misunderstandings seen in regards to Buddhism and its followers may be applied to Christians. Yes the average Westerner is caught up in consumerism so are many Europeans, South Americans, Australians etc. The reason North Americans may get labelled as Christian is because the founding fathers professed that faith in their documents concerning the formation of the US. While some say they are Christian but only go to church every holiday they are not following Christianity. Those who live in Christ's image, or at least try, and attend church out of a desire to do so and not an obligation/token, are those who are more fully living out the tenets of Christianity. It too is a way of life and not a rigid religion.
Why does God make everything look as if it's older than the six or so millenia it is?"
I am not sure why some creationists would show little interest in this point. My understanding from listening to some of their arguments comes from the idea of melding the Big Bang with ID as I raised in my first post. Some may never agree with this idea but some see it as a possibility for the differing age relations. Since you raised the story of creation... Creationists quote the first portion of Genesis where the Spirit hovers as an unknown period of time, possibly millions of years. Others say the Big Bang could have been set off by God and the rest followed as evolution describes.
Fans of creationism just don't seem to care about how the world works as much as they care about a very superficial validation of their faith.
This I think is an unjust generalization of scientists who are examining the idea of ID. It tempts some individuals to cease looking at the issue being discussed and begin to slur or sling insults at other individuals. In my opinion this is not a productive addition to any debate.
In the case of Gallileo and Darwin, almost all of their critics invoked religion. Telling.
You must also take into account the society in which the individuals lived. They were living in society structured around religion and were bringing in the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. You cannot claim that religion is the bully and bad guy in this era just because it may have caused difficulties then. In any age or society when people are scared by new ideas they often turn to mysticism or religion in order to discredit these ideas. It's the nature of humanity to regress in certain situations especially when threatened. Fight or flight. Fear does not lend itself to rationality.
Which is why we should pass that wisdom on, in schools, as completely as possible. I'm truly sorry if the truth gets in the way of the crutch people use to prop up their flagging faith. But that's hardly a reason to avoid giving children their birthright.
Nowhere did I state that we should not teach evolution in school. I agree that every child should have the ability to learn the current scientific theories and discoveries. Yes with this information they may discover holes and flaws within existing arguments whether they be ID, or even aspects of evolution and the Big Bang theory. Just because my idea does not correspond perfectly with your own does not mean I am saying throw scientific learning out the window and school system. It is equally important. I think the survey is also suggesting that the majority of Americans believe that people should be able to have all the information available taught, thus they will be well informed and well educated individuals capable of using their intellect to reason and make decisions based upon their reason. I don't think truth gets in the way of faith. Scientists are still accepting the Big Bang in part on faith, because they are still unsure to all of the facts of how it occurred. As you yourself noted. So that also takes faith on the part of the scientific community.
Furthermore, the vast majority of those who pursue it as science, rather than the looking for the truth, are looking for a truth they've already decided on.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I don't presume to know the minds of every scientist as they examine evidence. However, I think your statement here also tends to over generalize. I stated some individuals use it as a jumping point, not as fact. They examine it as a hypothesis, some saying it's false with their evidence, others may come back and say some aspects are possible.
Science is about asking questions. That's it's greatest strength, and every theory's greatest foe. :) It's why the engineering that allows us to make our clever tools, like computers, is based on science as opposed to faith.
I agree that science is a wonderful field of study. I too, am grateful for the discoveries it makes every day that saves lives and encourages technological advancement. However, science is about asking questions and therefore one cannot ask those questions with a closed mind. Just because a theory or idea may not jive with the current one held does not mean it should be scorned and thrown away. How can one get answers when one's mind is made up as you pointed out already? Science is based on fact, but also in a small portion on faith. Theories may be incorrect or incomplete but that doesn't mean they are thrown away. They are held "in reserve" while the answers are searched for. (Theory of Gravity, and Atomic Theory, model of the atom) Yes, asking questions is a great strength, but hubris can still trip up even greatness.
I would be interested to see this site so that I could also read the information you have mentioned. Given this debate is one fraught with emotion as well as intellect it would be interesting to view the current ideas being expressed by the population.
Creationism isn't a search for answers it's an excuse to not look for them.
I find your comment here interesting. The same could be said of one who accepts theory as fact without further exploring the possibilities and tangents that are opened up within the scientic community, especially since research is constantly discovering new aspects of humanity, the Earth, and biology. Given the fact that some individuals use Creationism as a jumping point for their own investigations I think that comment is slightly unjust. Just as the Big Bang theory has changed and the ideas of how life evolved on our planet has changed from the time of Darwin, so do some of the views in correlation to Creationism. Some believe that the two theories can be melded, some don't. However, being condescending towards either is a discredit to the quest for intellectual advancement. People scorned Newton, Darwin, and Gallileo when they first presented their views as well. It was NOT JUST the Church who did this, the scientific community in their eras did so as well. If they had not persevered in their ideas in the face of opposition, despite the fact they were considered unpopular, heretical, stupid, foolish and a score of other terms, we would not have many of the founding concepts of modern science. Therefore in my opinion, we should not cast out any possible starting point for scientific investigation, even if it may not agree with our own personal preferences. Who knows what we may miss out on if we do?
And here I thought I was saying something no one could disagree with. That'll teach me to share my wonder at man's achivements and my lament that not everyone chooses to share in them.
Yes we may wonder at our achievements but we should not view ourselves as demi-gods and the greatest gift to the world. After all as Douglas Adams said: "It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reasons."