Amanda Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 And recently there was a study that disproved the effects of prayer, in the sense of remote and blind test, but when it came to laying-hands-on it had positive effects, but it didn't matter which religion or faith it was. I remember reading two articles about this. Hi HanSolo! I think that prayer can work, just not the way the church has come to use it. IMO, prayer that does work is just forms of hypnosis and does not have to be affiliated with any higher power but the one within us all. Hypnosis can be very powerful. Here is a site that speaks of it quite conservatively, as I have heard of amazing results. This site here says this: In another trial, we taught self-hypnosis to half a group of patients who were undergoing invasive radiological procedures - dye injections, cut-downs to access the arteries, and other painful procedures where bad things can happen. Everybody was given access to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia if they wanted it. Those who were taught self-hypnosis used one-ninth the medication, and yet they had significantly less pain, less anxiety, less instability of their heart rate and blood pressure, fewer procedural interruptions, and got out of the recovery room sooner than those who were not taught self-hypnosis.(9) Q. If it's so wonderful, why isn't hypnosis used more often? A. People seem to have a hard time conceptualizing the notion that an intangible treatment has tangible benefits. Yet we now know that talking treatments have physiological effects - especially the highly focused interactions that we have in hypnosis. It's a powerful tool that we ought to be using more often to our patients' benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I do believe certain effects can be reached by "prayer" or hypnosis or other methods when the patient is involved in it too. This has been seen for instance in performance in sports or weightlifting. Suggestion and positive reinforcements does work. It can change body posture, muscle activity, nerve signal strength and much more. Endorphin levels increase when you laugh, or when you get scared. So if emotions can change chemical levels in our body, then right attitudes and thinking (or even belief) could as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. So how would you propose science should work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. Science is persued within naturalism, since anything other than the natural is untestable and unfalsifyable... To remove that paramater is to remove any form of limitation and all answers are as valid as any other. For instance, how did life go from single-cell to what we have now? In science, the only valid answer at the moment is ToE. Should you allow non-natural answers in, then the possible valid answers are almost infinite. In fact, any answer anyone could think of is valid... so, in your view, can we assume that the answer would be the result of a singular cell organism excreting waste products onto another single cell which stuck to it, got absorbed and caused it to have a biological fit and suddenly turn into a viable multi-celled organism? That answer is as valid as ID, since it is based on something that is non-natural to work, yet you would say that should be scientific... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. How do you know this? Do you have a method of getting at the truth that's better than the scientific method? Will it stand up under scrutiny? First off, does it entail that we hold two contradictory propositions as true? If not, then you can't use the Bible in your collection of evidence, since it contains contradictory assertions. I can't think of more "in the box" thinking than religious orthodoxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I can't think of more "in the box" thinking than religious orthodoxy. So very true. Actually it's thinking within the box called the "Holy Book". And nothing outside can be true to the believer. It's amazing that people actually believe that some authors 2000 years ago (and more) knew more about science and existence than we do today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Amazing... And embarrassing. It's also amazing how people gripe about science, because the establishment now won't allow for the verification of belief systems that have no frame of reference whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 It's also amazing how people gripe about science, because the establishment now won't allow for the verification of belief systems that have no frame of reference whatsoever. Yeah. It makes me think of kids in the playground, playing in the sandbox, one kid want to borrow a shovel from the other, the he won't let him, and then they start fighting and the first kids breaks the shovel because "if I can't have it, no one should have it." That's the attitude fundamentalists have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I do believe certain effects can be reached by "prayer" or hypnosis or other methods when the patient is involved in it too. This has been seen for instance in performance in sports or weightlifting. Suggestion and positive reinforcements does work. It can change body posture, muscle activity, nerve signal strength and much more. Endorphin levels increase when you laugh, or when you get scared. So if emotions can change chemical levels in our body, then right attitudes and thinking (or even belief) could as well. HanSolo... this is true, but I mean there is actual HEALING too! This site from Harvard here claims hypnosis to be effective in many things as these quotes from that site reveal. Ginandes says. A list of applications she provides includes treatment of phobias, panic, low self-esteem, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, stress, smoking, colitis, warts, headaches, and high blood pressure. Four years ago, Ginandes and Daniel Rosenthal, professor of radiology at the Harvard Medical School, published a report on their study of hypnosis to speed up the mending of broken bones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 HanSolo... this is true, but I mean there is actual HEALING too! This site from Harvard here claims hypnosis to be effective in many things as these quotes from that site reveal. Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I do believe a patients positive thinking can affect their healing. Even more, it's essential in many cases. I've seen it, so I don't doubt that. But I was trying to clarify, that I don't think it's supernatural, but all natural. Our mind is strongly connected to the centers that control bloodflow, heartbeats, muscle control etc. I don't see it strange that (or any difference) between my mind consiously calculating 2+2 or controlling my heartrate. And there are people that can control their heart rate (to a certain extent). So why not other functions? Maybe meditation, yoga and tai chi are techniques that opens up the channels for this control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think doubt is something that is healthy for all Christians. Really.......... is that a personal speculation or a scriptural belief? On the other hand what I can read from the bible, reason and doubt are highly frowned upon on the bible. Fear is a key factor for making people believe in Christianity. It's quite similar to the Mafia style, "believe in me for your own good, otherwise it is your fault that you will be punished if you don't comply with me" Simple unbelief in the christian god will send people to eternal torture. It drives them to discover the reasons for their faith and develop better understanding as to how God works. And in most of the cases like on this forum, it causes them to lose them As to your question on exclusivity, every religion holds to this concept as you have stated. Not really, Hinduism and Buddism doesnt hold that position. According to Hindu philosphy, all path lead to the same place. It doesn't matter if you are christian or Scientologist, eventually you'll reach to the same place. A If there is truth in the world, then not all could be correct in every aspect. I believe there is truth in many of the world religions but the question is then, which one is the best map of the territory. some maps correspond to the territory better than others. However many people on this website haven't reached your conclusion, on the other hand they feel it's the worst map that has been made. You may want to look up the position on inclusivism for your question of people outside of Christianity and their eternal destiny. This topic is debated within Christianity and I hold to the inclusivist position so I believe there will be people outside of Christianity who realize their need for forgiveness by God and act in a way in expectation of the grace of God. I am not sure what you saying here?Are you trying to imply that some people will be saved without accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 A If there is truth in the world, then not all could be correct in every aspect. I believe there is truth in many of the world religions but the question is then, which one is the best map of the territory. some maps correspond to the territory better than others. However many people on this website haven't reached your conclusion, on the other hand they feel it's the worst map that has been made. Even further, why would anyone trust a map that's 2000 years old. I don't trust a map that's 5 years old driving in South California. Complexes and roads are popping up every 10 minutes here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. And yet......religion (specifically yours), requires that we believe in talking snakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. And yet......religion (specifically yours), requires that we believe in talking snakes. Exactly! God (of the Bible) thrusts himself into the realm of science, or so we are told with wonderful stories, but as soon as we attempt to test him with the rules of science, his follower scream “supernatural” or cry “he cannot enter the debate.” In other words, he expects us to fall at his feet and worhship him based on supernatural "evidence," and yet, he does not provide us with a single supernatural event to convince us. It reminds me of what Thomas Payne said about miracles: The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough to do it, borders greatly on the marvelous; but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the whale. In this, which may serve for all cases of miracles, the matter would decide itself, as before stated, namely, is it more that a man should have swallowed a whale or told a lie? Or would God not have been more convincing doing something like this: "If I had the power that the New Testament narrative say that Jesus had, I would not cure one person of blindness, I would make blindness impossible; I would not cure one person of leprosy, I would abolish leprosy."Joseph Lewis (1889-1968) But we have no such evidence, not a single scrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science, if pursued within rule paramaters, is immediately subject to the interpretation of those rules. "In the box" mentalities are limited, unable to think past or perform beyond what the rules, as they understand them, permit. Science conducted on this basis is not likely to get to the truth. What do you expect science to be? Science by definition is the pursuit of knowledge by testing theories against known facts. From Wikipedia: Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth. The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. Science is SUPPOSE to be in thinking within the parameters of empirical knowledge. This means that any theory put forward must be able to stand up to a testing or an experiment. There is nothing wrong with this type of learning. Science has allowed the human being to explore the physical world we live in. "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven". There is a time for science and there is a time for pursuing an understanding of reality that is beyond the ability to be tested. These things do not have to be in conflict with one and other. Scientists recognize this - Albert Einstein had a sign on his office wall at Princeton which read: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein also said: "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom". Why do fundamentalists believe that religion should enter the realm of science??? The only answer I've been able to come up with is fear, fear that science may have experiential, tested knowledge that disproves literal theology. TX - I left a post for you in End Times Bullshit - you've not answered. And the post is just as relevant here... so I'll copy it. "Even if Darwin appeared to Hitler himself and told Hitler to do all the horrible things he did, what does that have to do with the theory of evolution?" I don't think that Darwin would do that. But his theory regarded and still regards humans as only highly evolved primates. This idea fused with any ideology that doesn't like some particular group has been and can be spectacularly deadly, whether the issue is racial quality or over-population. How does literalist Christian and Muslim theology regard humans? Humans are taught by literlist theology everyday that are flawed by "original sin". That somehow they have to appease an angry vengeful god who will send the majority of the human population to hell. What does the god of your theology think about humans if he is willing to consign the majority of the human population to eternal pain and torture that puts the Nazi concentration camps to shame? You see TX there is a difference between scientific theory - based on the study of the facts at hand and religious theology. To bring "Darwin's more poignant ideas" into the discussion has no validity. There are no churches of Darwin using his "more poignant ideas" to justify hatred and violence towards other human beings. His personal views have no bearing on the soundness, or unsoundness of the theory of evolution. To repeat - in the scientific world - a theory is just that - a theory. It is open for review, if new information comes along the theory can be revised. Literalist theology is different - literalist theology claims to have a "final, ultimate and absolute" truth. And because this "truth" is considered "absolute" it is NOT open to further revision as new insight and understanding comes along. And TX, this is very important, there may be an absolute truth, (I believe there is) but no human being on the face of this earth knows it because it is too big for our comprehension. When human beings use flawed theology to harm other human beings and this earth... then there is something wrong. End Times Bullshit is flawed theology and it harms human beings, it harms our earth. If people feel the world is coming to an end in their lifetime then why care for the earth, why worry about building a tomorrow, either for oneself or for society as a whole????? Darwin's "more poignant ideas" have no bearing on whether evolution is a valid scientific theory. Theologians personal feelings and biases have much bearing on the theology they profess. This is ultimately the problem. Theology generally is not held to a set of concrete or univesal standards. To my knowledge there is no cross-cultural peer review publication like "scientific review" in the world of theology. There may be, but if it exists it is most likely used by mainstream scholars of the world's religions. I can't even imagine fundamentalist theologians from different world religions consenting to peer review - or holding themselves to any kind of peer accountability. Mainstream theologians are more likely to hold themselves to these standards - but they are just "pinheads" in your point of view. When all is said and done, "End Times Bullshit" is just that. There are as many different theological understandings of the "end times" writings as there are theologians to write them. The theologians writing the bullshit, hold themselves to no standard except the biases they get from their particular world view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 Also, whether or not most Americans have more open beliefs than what is commonly portrayed, still does not address the underlying damage that literalism can do to an individual and to a culture. What is frightening to me is that the literalists are in charge now, and their beliefs are having a dramatic impact on the world and on our country This seems to be the source of the problem - on a personal level as well as religion as a whole. If Christianity - for example - suddenly embraced a very non literal view point (I mean from the top not just with some individuals) then it would cease to christianity wouldn't? The bible says only way to the father is through me (Christ) - so Christ HAS to be taken literally or else its not Christianity. But then that belief excludes all other religions and you have your first problem. The Heaven and Hell in the bible are essential beliefs of a Christian but which then cause problem 2 - How can it be fair that ALL who do not accept Christ go to Hell no matter how good they are trying to be Personally I don't really think of heaven or hell at all - Its the difference a faith can have on a person here and now that i am interested in But that means I am not taking Christianity literally enough and so where does that leave me. With no foundation for my faith? The same would then be true of the Church .. If they became less literal they would lose their foundation/identity and people would be confused about what they were supposed to believe (I think many people want to be TOLD exactly what to believe) and so how could the Church surive? So I think the Church sort of relies on Literal thinking desipte the down sides. Because it has no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If Christianity - for example - suddenly embraced a very non literal view point (I mean from the top not just with some individuals) then it would cease to christianity wouldn't? The bible says only way to the father is through me (Christ) - so Christ HAS to be taken literally or else its not Christianity. But then that belief excludes all other religions and you have your first problem. That is what most people believe, no doubt. But in my own searching I've come to a different conclusion. This discussion could get very involved, so I'll highlight some of my thinking here and if you're interested we can go further. It is possible to accept the life of Jesus without buying into literal interpretation of the gospels. This is very important - I do believe Jesus lived and died on a cross. But there is context to consider. 1st of all - Jesus was most likely a peasant and therefore unable to read or write. This means that the words of Jesus first came to humanity through an oral traditon. Every gospel we have is a later, written traditon based off the oral tradition surrounding Jesus. And every gospel we have, in the Bible, includes the oral traditon of Jesus' sayings but also includes an oral tradition interpreting the life of Jesus. Also - since the first gospels were written years after Jesus death it is really important to look at the sayings attributed to Jesus and find commonalities between the gospels. This gets us closer to understanding the actual life and sayings of Jesus. Scholars have done this - you may want to search the internet for the gospel of Q, or Q gospel. 2ndly the gospels in the Bible are first written in greek, not the original language of Jesus, which is Aramaic. When one studies the sayings of Jesus through the Aramaic language and culture of that time they can take on whole depths and layers of meanings not seen through the Western/Augustinian mindset given to us in contemporary western Christianity. An quick example of this is the concept of "sin" and "evil" in post Augustinian/western Christianity. "Sin" as we've been taught to look at it, is directly connected to the "fall of man" and the garden of eden. Because of this kind of sin we are taught to view ourselves as evil from the very beginning. The culture of Jesus did not look at "sin" this way. "Sin" in the ancient Aramaic culture was more a "missing of the mark" (it was actually a term used in archery - as in "missing the target"). Anyway - information like this can put a whole new light on the words and sayings attributed to Jesus. 3rdly when the followers of Jesus interpretted his life in their oral (and later written) traditions, they interpretted his life in the context of their time, their worldview, and their culture. We must look at their understanding of the cross and salvation and how they came to see things the way they did. 4thly within in the last 50 years - or so - new archealogical discoveries have pointed to a much more diverse early Christianity than is normally perceived. For example the discovery of the "The Gospel of Thomas" with the Nag Hammadi texts in Egypt. The first lines of that gospel reads "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. 1. And he said, 'Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.'" This - and other sayings in the gospel of Thomas point to salvation through wisdom, rather than through the cross. As I said, the answer to your question could get very long and involved. These are the highlights of the way I read Christian sacred literature and I'm willing to answer any questions you have about the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 "if I can't have it, no one should have it." That's the attitude fundamentalists have.Exactly! Couldn't have put it any better. Apologists keep pushing for the one thing in science that is not allowed: special pleading. They want special treatment for their claims. Why do fundamentalists believe that religion should enter the realm of science??? The only answer I've been able to come up with is fear, fear that science may have experiential, tested knowledge that disproves literal theology.I'm tapping the end of my nose right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Why do fundamentalists believe that religion should enter the realm of science??? The only answer I've been able to come up with is fear, fear that science may have experiential, tested knowledge that disproves literal theology. I'm tapping the end of my nose right now. HUH???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Hi Open Minded! You may have mentioned this before now, if so, I apogogize... Yet, I'm curious as to your summarized beliefs in salvation, who get's it and what it is. Additionally, what your concise beliefs are in regards to 'hell'. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If Christianity - for example - suddenly embraced a very non literal view point (I mean from the top not just with some individuals) then it would cease to christianity wouldn't? The bible says only way to the father is through me (Christ) - so Christ HAS to be taken literally or else its not Christianity. But then that belief excludes all other religions and you have your first problem. That is what most people believe, no doubt. But in my own searching I've come to a different conclusion. This discussion could get very involved, so I'll highlight some of my thinking here and if you're interested we can go further. I hope you don't mind if I jump into this conversation OM and Robert? Robert, I should qualify something first in addressing this topic, even though I consider myself atheist, this does not mean that I am strictly anti-religion, or science-only. So if I challenge certain ideas it's in the interest of offering alternative understandings that may or may not have more meaning to someone. I'll always encourage you to pursue what works best for you, not try to convert you to one particular way of thinking. For one thing, I myself am always modifying my views On the first point that most people believe that Christianity is the only way to God: I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Don't most people accept Christianity on a cultural and personal level and not so much theological? I know this is only one example, but I was out to dinner with some friends, one who calls himself "agnostic" (though he really is atheist in every regard), and his wife who attends church but rejects notions of "The Truth" etc. They went to a Christmas play recently and he was upset by the narrator telling the story of the Virgin birth, because he felt it was promoting a non-historical and theology error! I injected that most people there probably did not look at it the same way, but rather that it was the telling of the Christmas story - a non-historical tale of a religious hero figure. His wife looked at him and essentially said, "See, that's what all of us (her and their kids) have been telling you." It's my opinion that most Christians hate the literalists because it threatens the specialness of their beliefs by making it something on a human level that can be shot through with holes. It is possible to accept the life of Jesus without buying into literal interpretation of the gospels. This is very important - I do believe Jesus lived and died on a cross. But there is context to consider. I agree with OM above that it is possible to accept the life of Jesus with him being taken literally as a historical figure. Gnosticism for one was a branch of Christianity that did just this. Of course they were later vilified by the political machine that became Orthodox Christianity, but the point is they never viewed him as a real person. There are those that read the writings of Paul as never viewing Jesus here on earth (not to necessarily equate him with Gnosticism), but rather as operating in the heavenly realm only. That can sound strange, until you strip away all four Gospels which were written long after Paul's writings. In part, his language and views are very strange that he would never even reference the earthly life of Christ in his many appeals to divine legitimacy. I feel the debate could go either way, but lean more toward the mythicist position. Regardless of the specifics of those views, it shows that there are alternative Christian views than was the historical chuch up until the last century has taught. Most modern Scholars take a far more open minded look at things, (pun intended OM ) so the traditional view can be taken with a little less importance in today's world. The rest of what OM says, I would agree with from an historicist perspective. But in the end it doesn't matter that much if it is all taken metaphorically and symbolically. It's about what is meaningful, not factual. ____________________________________________________________ Hi Open Minded! You may have mentioned this before now, if so, I apogogize... Yet, I'm curious as to your summarized beliefs in salvation, who get's it and what it is. Additionally, what your concise beliefs are in regards to 'hell'. Thanks. Hi Amanda! To answer your question about for OM start reading here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...ndpost&p=108468 See OM? I too pay close attention sometimes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Hi Open Minded! You may have mentioned this before now, if so, I apogogize... Yet, I'm curious as to your summarized beliefs in salvation, who get's it and what it is. Additionally, what your concise beliefs are in regards to 'hell'. Thanks. No... I don't mind at all. I figured there would be questions. 1. Concise beliefs about "hell". There is no literal hell, anywhere at any time. 2. "salvation" well first in context of the time and place the gospel of Thomas was written in there was a very different world view. Most people in that culture did believe in literal hell and literal heaven. I do believe there is an after life, but I believe that after life is universal and encumpasses all of humanity. I do believe "wisdom" can lead to a sense of "salvation". But this would be more like feeling joy where one once felt sorrow, feeling a sense of release where one once felt constrained or trapped. And I believe this sense of salvation is a universal experience, not limited to Christianity. Within the context of the gospel of Thomas it is possible to look at that first line I quoted as saying, "'Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will feel joy where he/she once felt pain or sorrow". In more detail... the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. Scholars feel the collection dates back to one of the very first layers of the tradition surrounding the life of Jesus. The sayings are "wisdom" sayings and so the first line of the sayings is pointing to "wisdom" as a way of "salvation", not the cross. Please understand that in the 21st century the interpretation of "salvation" does not have to mean a choice between a literal heaven and a literal hell. One last thing, wisdom is also very important to other traditions, as well. This is one of the biggest reasons I decided to really pursue the wisdom dimension of Christianity. To me, if a line of thought can be found in other major world religions, it is pointing to something deeper than just a biased theology. Does this help???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Why do fundamentalists believe that religion should enter the realm of science??? The only answer I've been able to come up with is fear, fear that science may have experiential, tested knowledge that disproves literal theology. I'm tapping the end of my nose right now./color] HUH???? *grumble* Don't make me explain things! When you tap on the end of your nose with your finger, it means "Right on the nose!", (i.e., you are correct). I was making a reference to the accuracy of your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Hi Amanda! To answer your question about for OM start reading here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...ndpost&p=108468 See OM? I too pay close attention sometimes! Yes you do, yes you do *grumble* Don't make me explain things! When you tap on the end of your nose with your finger, it means "Right on the nose!", (i.e., you are correct). I was making a reference to the accuracy of your statement. *chuckle* Ah... now I see. More often than not, I'm the last one in the room to get the joke Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts