Retro Foods Making A Come Back
Food & Drink5 mins ago
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me ?
179 Answers
Words from the cross by Christ. Can I add a tilt to them. They are supposed to be a fulfillment of the OT, but what if, when Christ uttered them from the cross, that they were more than that and utterly true, i.e. God the Father had momentarily forsaken his son ? Imagine for a moment that Christ in hanging there did indeed take all the badness of all time on his shoulders ? Can you imagine a pain any worse and a love any higher ? Just a thought, but by heck it sticks with me.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mfewell. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Again I am amazed at how close you come to answering some of your own questions. It seems that a little more thought about what you are saying might do the trick. The meaning of the words we use is how we think. If a words meaning is unclear than so will be our thinking.
I�ve found it productive to study the roots of a word, (the entomology), as well in helping to clarify their meaning. This can be found in most dictionaries (lexicons) for the basic form of the word you�re looking up.
Religion is typically a departure from meaning. Some people find comfort there in believing they are somehow exempt from the responsibility for their own lives and the �relief� of not having to think rationally. A desire to escape reason and logic is a desire to return to a more primitive state where we are no longer human. I know this seems desirable at times when we see how some �people� behave, but the way they are is not due to a fault in reason but from a lack of reason on their part. I have no desire to be that way. That�s why almost every day I ask myself �why�, just to be sure I remember why. I find that being human gives my life meaning. You don�t have to be a scientist to enjoy life although I imagine it could be wonderful.
I�ve found it productive to study the roots of a word, (the entomology), as well in helping to clarify their meaning. This can be found in most dictionaries (lexicons) for the basic form of the word you�re looking up.
Religion is typically a departure from meaning. Some people find comfort there in believing they are somehow exempt from the responsibility for their own lives and the �relief� of not having to think rationally. A desire to escape reason and logic is a desire to return to a more primitive state where we are no longer human. I know this seems desirable at times when we see how some �people� behave, but the way they are is not due to a fault in reason but from a lack of reason on their part. I have no desire to be that way. That�s why almost every day I ask myself �why�, just to be sure I remember why. I find that being human gives my life meaning. You don�t have to be a scientist to enjoy life although I imagine it could be wonderful.
Hi Mib
The book comment was directed at Loudickson - see her last post and all will become clear.
I think Wittgenstein said something like language is not a picture of the world, words are tools we use to do stuff. If we spoke a radically different language, our way of thinking would be radically different, but the world would be the same wouldn't it? So that shows (doesn't it?) that our language gives us an idea of how the world is, but the real absolute objective world outside our brains and outside the words we use to describe it is something else entirely, about which we know very little.
I'm all for reason, but reason is not everything. When you look at a worm in the garden, you're not looking at reason. When you're having sex or eating or dancing or playing music, reason is nowhere to be seen. And remeber, there are lots of eminent scientists who are also religious.
The book comment was directed at Loudickson - see her last post and all will become clear.
I think Wittgenstein said something like language is not a picture of the world, words are tools we use to do stuff. If we spoke a radically different language, our way of thinking would be radically different, but the world would be the same wouldn't it? So that shows (doesn't it?) that our language gives us an idea of how the world is, but the real absolute objective world outside our brains and outside the words we use to describe it is something else entirely, about which we know very little.
I'm all for reason, but reason is not everything. When you look at a worm in the garden, you're not looking at reason. When you're having sex or eating or dancing or playing music, reason is nowhere to be seen. And remeber, there are lots of eminent scientists who are also religious.
loudickson71, This may be long overdue but you asked earlier about my background. I haven't a lot to say about that but I will give you some details of how I've come to think as I do. I was raised to be a Christian with hopes that I would become a preacher. Nothing else was required of or desired from me however I was an emotionally abused child and became a very insecure individual. In spite of this I managed to retain a respect for reality and determined that happiness on this Earth was a good thing and something that could be real and that it was a justifiable goal.
I felt largely alone in my beliefs until my brother introduced me to an Ayn Rand book, I'm honestly not sure which one it was but I was blown away to find someone who not only saw the world as I did but also helped me to solidify my thoughts into concrete forms. I�ve since read most everything Ayn Rand has published. I�ve made it a point not to simply follow her lead but to test every thing I learned from her by understanding it on the most fundamental level and relating everything to my own experience. If you are not familiar with this writer or have questions about her I may be able to help you with this.
By now you probably realize I am a science fan. I especially like cosmology and physics but have no formal education in any of these.
I�m not sure I should post this here but this is where I find you lately.
I felt largely alone in my beliefs until my brother introduced me to an Ayn Rand book, I'm honestly not sure which one it was but I was blown away to find someone who not only saw the world as I did but also helped me to solidify my thoughts into concrete forms. I�ve since read most everything Ayn Rand has published. I�ve made it a point not to simply follow her lead but to test every thing I learned from her by understanding it on the most fundamental level and relating everything to my own experience. If you are not familiar with this writer or have questions about her I may be able to help you with this.
By now you probably realize I am a science fan. I especially like cosmology and physics but have no formal education in any of these.
I�m not sure I should post this here but this is where I find you lately.
Parental programming? lol Loud knows what books I read and now Mib knows about my upbringing!
Ok, just to try to clarify, and then I think it's time to leave this thread to die a natural death...
I'm not in any way anti-science or anti-reason.
Imagine a scientist. He's a bit of a ******, but a hell of a scientist. He carries out big research, government grant stuff. What the hell, let's say he's even won a nobel prize.
Now say he has an intense experience. Maybe he meets someone from his past, or a close friend or loved one dies. It doesn't really matter about the details, the important thing is that it really hits him hard, and it changes his life.
Suddenly his failing marriage is rejuvinated, he suddenly feels his own mortality, the fleeting nature of life, and he seeks to grasp it and make the most of it. His habits change, his sensibility changes, his whole world changes. He even gives up his position to take a more modest job, but one which ends at 5pm every evening and lets him go home and devote all his attention to his kids. And he's not a ****** any more.
You can imagine that, right? Not too far-fetched is it?
So has his understanding of the world, of life, of himself - increased? Was it his experiments that got him closer to the truth? Was it deductive or inductive logic? Was it science?
No, it was something not thought but felt, something that came home to him. Science/reason/logic is a part of the world, but it's not the whole story. There are other ways of coming closer to the truth.
Ok, just to try to clarify, and then I think it's time to leave this thread to die a natural death...
I'm not in any way anti-science or anti-reason.
Imagine a scientist. He's a bit of a ******, but a hell of a scientist. He carries out big research, government grant stuff. What the hell, let's say he's even won a nobel prize.
Now say he has an intense experience. Maybe he meets someone from his past, or a close friend or loved one dies. It doesn't really matter about the details, the important thing is that it really hits him hard, and it changes his life.
Suddenly his failing marriage is rejuvinated, he suddenly feels his own mortality, the fleeting nature of life, and he seeks to grasp it and make the most of it. His habits change, his sensibility changes, his whole world changes. He even gives up his position to take a more modest job, but one which ends at 5pm every evening and lets him go home and devote all his attention to his kids. And he's not a ****** any more.
You can imagine that, right? Not too far-fetched is it?
So has his understanding of the world, of life, of himself - increased? Was it his experiments that got him closer to the truth? Was it deductive or inductive logic? Was it science?
No, it was something not thought but felt, something that came home to him. Science/reason/logic is a part of the world, but it's not the whole story. There are other ways of coming closer to the truth.
I'm not assuming I know everything, though I do run into problems when trying to base my life solely on science. It just seems that while science hasn't had near as many screw-ups as religion has, it has made some pretty bad mistakes as well. Science is, after all man-made.
Science & Math could lead us to e=mc^2 but they didn't know about radiation. At least until we had guys looking through the rubbage. There were some things that science couldn't account for until they just... "boom", I suppose is the word I'm looking for.
Or even now, particle accelerators/mini-black hole theories, we're-all-going-to-die-stuff. Science, when it gets to its outer-fields, is based on simple theories, like Hawking radiation, theories that are based on assumptions that can't be proven until... But you are right, it is not worth discrediting science because of a few faults.
By the same token though, would you say religion should be thrown out for its faults? One example I can think of is, immigrants from Haiti, and you also see this in many third world countries. Often, when taken to doctors, they are treated for normal illnesses but do not "feel" better. It isn't until they seek aid from a high-practicioner of their religion, (many times Vodou, for the Haitians(not to be confused w/ Voodoo)) that they are "cured". A psychological symptom, another scientific anomally, but one cured through religion. It is defies reason.. but it works. The outcome itself, to me, is more important than the reasons behind it, because without the outcome, there is no reason. Although it can be equally countered that without the reasons behind it there would be no outcome, however the problem with science comes when you can't get/see/smell/test all the reasons. Basing one's reasoning on incomplete conclusions is the main problem plaguing quantum mechanics in science.
(little more on the next post)
Science & Math could lead us to e=mc^2 but they didn't know about radiation. At least until we had guys looking through the rubbage. There were some things that science couldn't account for until they just... "boom", I suppose is the word I'm looking for.
Or even now, particle accelerators/mini-black hole theories, we're-all-going-to-die-stuff. Science, when it gets to its outer-fields, is based on simple theories, like Hawking radiation, theories that are based on assumptions that can't be proven until... But you are right, it is not worth discrediting science because of a few faults.
By the same token though, would you say religion should be thrown out for its faults? One example I can think of is, immigrants from Haiti, and you also see this in many third world countries. Often, when taken to doctors, they are treated for normal illnesses but do not "feel" better. It isn't until they seek aid from a high-practicioner of their religion, (many times Vodou, for the Haitians(not to be confused w/ Voodoo)) that they are "cured". A psychological symptom, another scientific anomally, but one cured through religion. It is defies reason.. but it works. The outcome itself, to me, is more important than the reasons behind it, because without the outcome, there is no reason. Although it can be equally countered that without the reasons behind it there would be no outcome, however the problem with science comes when you can't get/see/smell/test all the reasons. Basing one's reasoning on incomplete conclusions is the main problem plaguing quantum mechanics in science.
(little more on the next post)
And on a side note, someone brought up the idea of two scholars trying to prove the New Testament false and instead converting. That can be a common effect, I believe there is a name for it but for now I'll just liken it to a modified Stockholm Syndrome, it isn't so uncommon for people who spend all their time studying a religion, immersed in it to eventually convert to it. Very common in Western scholars that traveled to China to study Buddhism and even in the example I cited above, the scholar studying Haitian Vodou eventually converted to the religion.
And lastly, that turned out longer than I thought. So to recap, Stockholm Syndrome, Particle Accelerators, why can't we all just get along, yadda yadda yadda...
And lastly, that turned out longer than I thought. So to recap, Stockholm Syndrome, Particle Accelerators, why can't we all just get along, yadda yadda yadda...
I wonder if someone had been bought up by scientific parents and had been groomed into a life of science and reason and never been allowed to explore an emotional/spiritual aspect to life; I wonder if they would embrace religion at the first opportunity of freedom?
I'm NOT mocking anyone's problems or upbringings and have the deepest sympathy for those who have had difficult childhoods whether damage by religious behaviour or otherwise; I indeed have my own baggage as I'm sure we all do to a lesser or greater extent.
I'm merely trying to be advocate; just because one set of people have portrayed something in a particular way and have displayed poor choices and behaviours, doesn't meant we are all like that. Indeed, if parents are going to emothionally abuse their children, or abuse them in any other way, I would think they would probably do so whether religious or not. If it were not religion, it would be something else.
A few rotten apples and all that, doesn't make us all abusive parents. And my heart goes out to all who have had a suffering childhood. I hope they can overcome their sufferings and not let parental behaviours force their ways of thinking.
mimififi, I agree that no one has the right to inflict their beliefs on another. Even if their belief is correct this is of no use unless this knowledge is submitted in a way that allows the recipient to base it upon their own experience. Knowledge is understanding. The threat of eternal damnation is not conducive to this process.
I agree with you too Mib. you should never have had the experience you had. I'm really sorry that you did. If anything, it has made me think very hard about how I am presenting the faith that is a deep part of my life and the way I choose to live (with a husband who is a scientist incidentally!) to my own children. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us, it never hurts us to be reminded that sometimes in our quest to share God, we could be hurtful.
The threat of damnation is never a good way to present a God of Love.
I sincerely hope you can overcome your experiences, for no reason other than you to be able to stop hurting.
Love MimiXX
mimififi, Thank you for your response. I believe your concern is sincere. I hope you will appreciate that I am not so much a victim as a survivor. Overcoming this has been difficult but rewarding. Although I may at times appear to be angry or bitter; this is not the case. I am however on a bit of a crusade to see that this kind of thing does not continue infinitum. This is therapy for me and if it helps someone else that would be fine.
I can�t say that I haven�t felt hatred and condemnation towards my parents but I believe that they suffered similar childhoods themselves. If you knew them you might find it hard to believe they were not wonderful people.
I want to keep this short as I know you have a lot to do raising children to live in this crazy mixed-up world, but I hope this eases you mind a little. If you should run across any more of my posts I hope this will help you understand where I�m coming from, and I�ll be thinking of the challenges that lay before you.
I can�t say that I haven�t felt hatred and condemnation towards my parents but I believe that they suffered similar childhoods themselves. If you knew them you might find it hard to believe they were not wonderful people.
I want to keep this short as I know you have a lot to do raising children to live in this crazy mixed-up world, but I hope this eases you mind a little. If you should run across any more of my posts I hope this will help you understand where I�m coming from, and I�ll be thinking of the challenges that lay before you.
Ahhhh, Mib: Although we have fundamental differences of opinions about some things, I think you are a little star. Thank you for your post. It was really nice to read. In a forum where debate can be heated it is difficult not take some things personally sometimes, but, it is lovely to find out that we can still see the positive in each other.
You are such a sweetie. Thankyou.
'Science/reason/logic is a part of the world, but it's not the whole story. There are other ways of coming closer to the truth.'
Which are? Do humans have an intuitive route? How is this verified? Once again the real issue has been obfuscated.
e.g.
'A psychological symptom, another scientific anomally, but one cured through religion. It is defies reason'
Yes, no, no, no.
OK, why? why? why?
The only defence against science from religion has so far been to denigrate empirical research - this itself is based on philosophical and not results based evidence.
Which are? Do humans have an intuitive route? How is this verified? Once again the real issue has been obfuscated.
e.g.
'A psychological symptom, another scientific anomally, but one cured through religion. It is defies reason'
Yes, no, no, no.
OK, why? why? why?
The only defence against science from religion has so far been to denigrate empirical research - this itself is based on philosophical and not results based evidence.
El D
I said, "There are other ways of coming closer to the truth."
And you replied, "Which are?"
I gave an example in my post of someone having an experience which made them a better person. I suppose I was talking about self knowledge - do you accept that someone can attain increased self-knowledge and therefore come closer to important truths without resorting to "doing science?
If I say, "I love you," must I be able to verify that statement using scientific proofs before it becomes acceptable as truth? If the answer is "yes" then I think you are mis-applying rules of science to areas outside science's scope.
Another example might be:
"Everyone posting on this site will be dead in a hundred years. In the scheme of things this life lasts a moment, and then it's gone. Like a blink, like bubbles coming to the surface and then bursting. Soon none of us will be here any more, we will be replaced by others.
Thinking about this gives me a strong and strange feeling of my own mortality, it makes me see some people whizzing about doing what they do in a new light. They spend so much time rushing about in an attempt to save time but they seem to be wasting it, it's slipping away from them and they don't seem to realise the preciousness of what they are losing. The more they try cram into each hour, the more of life they seem to be wasting. They spend this time trying to accumulate material junk, be amused and entertained - really it seems they are trying to take their mind off things and alleviate their boredom when in fact there is only cause for wonder every where they look, in every direction. They seem to be rational people, they don't appear to be blind, so why can't they see what is in front of their eyes?"
I said, "There are other ways of coming closer to the truth."
And you replied, "Which are?"
I gave an example in my post of someone having an experience which made them a better person. I suppose I was talking about self knowledge - do you accept that someone can attain increased self-knowledge and therefore come closer to important truths without resorting to "doing science?
If I say, "I love you," must I be able to verify that statement using scientific proofs before it becomes acceptable as truth? If the answer is "yes" then I think you are mis-applying rules of science to areas outside science's scope.
Another example might be:
"Everyone posting on this site will be dead in a hundred years. In the scheme of things this life lasts a moment, and then it's gone. Like a blink, like bubbles coming to the surface and then bursting. Soon none of us will be here any more, we will be replaced by others.
Thinking about this gives me a strong and strange feeling of my own mortality, it makes me see some people whizzing about doing what they do in a new light. They spend so much time rushing about in an attempt to save time but they seem to be wasting it, it's slipping away from them and they don't seem to realise the preciousness of what they are losing. The more they try cram into each hour, the more of life they seem to be wasting. They spend this time trying to accumulate material junk, be amused and entertained - really it seems they are trying to take their mind off things and alleviate their boredom when in fact there is only cause for wonder every where they look, in every direction. They seem to be rational people, they don't appear to be blind, so why can't they see what is in front of their eyes?"
Now El D, please could you take this sentiment I feel about life and subject it to scientific verificaton to discover whether there is any truth in it.
Another question in answer to yours: Is poetry capable of expressing truths about the world? Must it use logic and formulae to do so? Or perhaps you think that poetry cannot show us any truths which science cannot. Then again, perhaps your view is that poetry is merely a form of entertainment.
Finally, I wrote in an earlier post about how ants are very successful without necessarily knowing any truths about the world. They discover laws (eg, workers carry food in direction of nest = all ants eat - yum yum! = colony is strong) which work very well. Human science discovers laws which also work very well. They are much more complicated than ants' laws, but it's possible, isn't it, that these laws are no different in kind.
In conclusion, science is limited to discovering truths/laws about certain aspects of this world, but the world taken as a whole is wider than the field of scientific knowledge.
I've posted before about how in my view we are ignorant creatures who don't know what the truth really is about this world, so I should be consistent and say, maybe I'm totally wrong about everything I have just said.
Another question in answer to yours: Is poetry capable of expressing truths about the world? Must it use logic and formulae to do so? Or perhaps you think that poetry cannot show us any truths which science cannot. Then again, perhaps your view is that poetry is merely a form of entertainment.
Finally, I wrote in an earlier post about how ants are very successful without necessarily knowing any truths about the world. They discover laws (eg, workers carry food in direction of nest = all ants eat - yum yum! = colony is strong) which work very well. Human science discovers laws which also work very well. They are much more complicated than ants' laws, but it's possible, isn't it, that these laws are no different in kind.
In conclusion, science is limited to discovering truths/laws about certain aspects of this world, but the world taken as a whole is wider than the field of scientific knowledge.
I've posted before about how in my view we are ignorant creatures who don't know what the truth really is about this world, so I should be consistent and say, maybe I'm totally wrong about everything I have just said.
The problem with your first supposition, blinky, is that at the end of the day it is still experiential. This person observes/experiences something which causes a change in their perception of reality - this is the essence of empirical science. You are merely talking about internalising such processes. Self-knowlegde in the context of this thread is an extremely dangerous concept. It cannot be verified in a persons head, but it can be verified through a persons actions in the material world. Does saying I love you mean I love you? What if I never showed it with action? Does acquiring this supposed self-knowledge and never using it to better my physical life mean I have truly acquired it? A person is defined by their actions - these actions are observable and therefore can be empirically verified. Human nature, while confusing and unpredictable, is normally repetitive.
Take your post about the speed of life - you take this knowledge, and you use it to be more content with less, perhaps valuing a sunset more than an a plasma screen. This is observable in your behaviour. Your actions are the result of these thoughts formed through observing the world around you. If you had this thought and carried on the accumulation of wealth above all else, I would argue that you did not have this self-knowledge because it would not be logical for you to know something, consider its value, and ignore it. I believe that your interpretation of the word science needs widening - it is not just logic and formulae, it is a process of accumulating and assimilating knowledge of the world around us.
Take your post about the speed of life - you take this knowledge, and you use it to be more content with less, perhaps valuing a sunset more than an a plasma screen. This is observable in your behaviour. Your actions are the result of these thoughts formed through observing the world around you. If you had this thought and carried on the accumulation of wealth above all else, I would argue that you did not have this self-knowledge because it would not be logical for you to know something, consider its value, and ignore it. I believe that your interpretation of the word science needs widening - it is not just logic and formulae, it is a process of accumulating and assimilating knowledge of the world around us.
f you wanted to find if there was any truth in being content regarding the speed of life, exactly what truth did you wish to find? Whether you are right? Is that a truth? This would ultimately rest with your perceived values - themselves the results of your experience of the world around you. Empirical observation has no perceived values - the conclusions are drawn from the available evidence.
Unfortunately time is short and I will not have access until next week - I hope to continue this discussion then blinky as it is extremely interesting and you are indeed making me use my brain
Unfortunately time is short and I will not have access until next week - I hope to continue this discussion then blinky as it is extremely interesting and you are indeed making me use my brain
