Can you sing "Archipelago"? You know, without music....

No, I'm just saying Eastern thought is deeper and makes more sense than christianity. For example, the founder of Buddhism , over 3000 years ago talks about major world systems. Time without beggining.

It makes more sense to me that the inequality in this world, the suffereing some endure for a lifetime and others enjoy life to it's fullest, cannot be the actions of a supreme being. Why would he make some suffer for no reason and others live happy fullfilling lives? Would you explain that to me?


BTW, I havn't mentioned the wars ect that have been fought in the name of christ, and the millions murdered.

Unfortunately there is as little evidence for reincarnation as there is for the existence of a Christian heaven.

As far as priorities go, though, I'd have to support Eastern dogmas such as Buddhism and Zen. They stress the oneness of human experience and desire to eliminate suffering and achieve enlightenment above all else, while Christianity seems to stress the importance of the acceptance of Jesus above all else.

Like I said there are thousands of forms of Buddhism practiced around the world today, and they are all different.

One critical difference is buddhism teaches that you are responsible for your life situation, where as in christianity, your life is controled by a god outside yourself. He has a plan for you only he understands. It's like you hear all the time after natural disasters, people saying, "why would god do this?" Why did god let 9-11 happen, the all knowing all loving, all powerful god he's supposed to be.

I mention this because it all comes back to the debate between creationism verses evolution.

Your right, there is no way to prove that life is eternal, that you have lived countless previous lifetimes, and well live countless more. We all have to find our own awnser.

Watching my dad die and what he went thru for a week has made me realize I have to make the most of the time I have. To try to change as much of my negitive karma as I can while i'm alive, to contribute to this earth in some way so I can meet death peacefully when that time comes, which maybe a week from now. Who knows.

Thanks AO,

We're good on that issue. First I would like to say I truely value the information offered in this thread on both sides of this controversy very much. It has caused me to investigate this issue deeper than ever before. It would appear though, because of the core perspectives perhaps on both sides of this issue there will be no resolve of this issue.
It appears, in the scientific community, when a theory is proposed, there must be evidence to support that theory. Evidence of a natural origin. It appears any suggestion of the possibility of a solution coming from a supernatural origin is quickly discarded and labled " ignorant assumption". Am I correct in this line of thought? It appears the thought of a supernatural influence in or over a natural occurence is not acceptable to the scientific mind because everything must have a natural origin. If my conclusions are correct, it leads me to some interesting paradoxes. To illustrate what perplexes me about this lets use the topic at hand. Darwins theory of evolution. The scientific community actually still calls it a theory because they will admit there are flaws, gaps, unknowns still to be solved by science. Given enough time though, these unknowns will certainly be unraveled and explained by natural means and Darwins theory will become fact and undisputable in every aspect. All the ducks will line up in a nice little row.
Faith based people say it is possible Darwins theory does not have everything correct because of things like irreducible complexity, DNA double helix, the eye, the heart etc. and are quickly labled by the scientific community as operating under ignorant assumption because their conclusions do not necessarily come from natural origins. Or, from the natural scientists way or method of research and or criteria for accepting said research. Truth is, the scientific community doesn't really know how to fill these gaps either and I would suggest as a result are guilty of the same thing they accuse creationist of. That is operating under ignorant assumption themselves, filling these gaps with their own conjecture or nothing at all beleiving that in the end result, their faith in natural science will ultimately lead them to the truth. Of all the people on the planet scientist are the ones that claim they never jump to conclusions, always keep an open mind, and are willing to investigate any possibilities that would ultimately lead to truth. However, based on what I have discovered in regard to natural science thinkers, that is not true. They only seem to be willing to investigate or accept idea's that come from natural origins. It would seem any other opinions that do not line up with and or agree with their dogmas are quickly discarded and labled ignorant. If I am not correct in this assessment I apologize because I am truly not trying to be antagonistic. If I am correct though with this assessment, it becomes pitiful to me because it would in my way of thinking put this segment of society in the same little nicely packed box so many dogmatic religions fit into. We're right, your wrong, its our way or no way. Thinking they have all the answers or soon will and wondering how the rest of the world lives in their fairytail existence.If this conclusion I have is true, it is sad because in the end putting a limit on possibilities on what may exist, will also limit ones ability for discovery of what could exist.
I am also wondering at what point Darwins theory of evolution became the litmus test everything else on the planet has to line up with. Particularly since it still hasn't been completely proven to be absolute fact.Has this popular theory along with secular humanism become the established fact and federal religion by which all other concepts are judged because certain fanatical people groups have lobbied it into law and school books over the last many years? As I said earlier, as technology increases we are discovering more and more things that cast a shadow of doubt on the absolute validity of this doctrine of evolution. Of course the challenges to these long held beliefs are quickly refuted by the natural scientist as not possible even though they can't seem to explain the solutions either. So, how and why does this qualify them to be right and everyone else wrong? Particularly in light of the fact they themselves admit there are gaps, holes, unknowns in their theory.
Faith based people look at life through a little different lens. They see, admire, respect and enjoy nature just as evolutionists do. They just attribute it all to a devine creator who had purposes we may not fully understand as of yet. They believe life has a purpose that transends this earthly existence. Man since the beginning of time has lived and died by convictions that were judged to be foolishness by others. Every person has a set of values they live by. A code of convictions that guide their actions. Every individual believes they have truth. That truth they possess is what they live by and in many instances are willing to die by. Whether good or bad. Hence opinions,selfishness, bickering, fighting,wars, murder. Or peace, love, harmony, giving, sharing.
I say all this to say that although I disagree with the conclusions of natural scientists, I think I now understand a little better where they are coming from. That understanding further helps me to respect their position in regard to their thoughts on evolution and how they arrive at their opinions of faith based people. It is my conviction and desire to honor equally all human beings whether I agree with them or not. So understand I am not at odds with anyone here. Some of us just obviously hold different world views.
In conclusion, its my opinion there can be no resolve to this debate because of the different perspectives on the origins of life we hold and because these perspectives are not just sporadic ideas we toy with but rather seem to have become part of the fabric of who we are. Thus affecting to a great degree what we believe to be true about life itself. To deny that, would to a great degree denying who we have become as a result of our convictions.
Further, on the topic of Christianity, it is becoming clear to me that many on this forum have opinions about Christianity and Christians that are completely false. I can only conclude these opinions are based on "ignorant assumption" Being a Christian is much more than going to church, giving them your money, belonging to the republican party, my way or the highway, etc.
However, many complaints I hear on this forum about christians I agree with and am ashamed so many apparent well meaning people,misrepresent something of such a high value to me. What I hear on this board in regard to complaints about christians in many cases does not represent true christianity. I will not go to the mat over doctrine or will I fight over theology. I am willing however,to converse with those who may be interested about what little I may or may not know of what it means to be a man of God and how that affects ones world view.

mixandburn, I made it 2/3 of the way through before getting frustrated by the lack of paragraphs. What you say is thoughtful but hard to read!

Anway, I think you're starting with one incorrect assumption: this is an argument between creationists and evolutionists, with both sides wearing the same armor and riding the same horses only one side is black and the other is white.

It's not like that. What we have is a group of people who understand that Darwin is 100% right, and another group of people who are wrong. In addition to some faulty arguments, the latter group assumes that the fact that there are lots of unanswered questions means Darwin is wrong and therefore creationism is right. He isn't wrong, and the answers to those questions will only refine what he says - just as Einstein doesn't mean Pythagorus is wrong.

And it's also not correct to say that people who know Darwin is right have a closed mind, or even that they don't believe in spirituality. I believe that my ass is pink; if someone says it's green and I say they're nuts, does that make me closed-minded?

And God said, "Let there be lava".

She needed something to put in the light.

LOL

Sorry Nick,

I know for someone like yourself who's career to a degree, has depended on the ability to place thoughts correctly on paper using english puncuation properly, this must be paticularly frustrating. The art of proper english and all the rules of how to apply that was never my strong suit in school. It seemed no matter how hard I tried ,I could only manage bone head english. So I do apologize for your frustration in this.
I hope this has not blurred the meaning of what I wrote too much for you.
Please allow me to clarify.

Nick wrote:
" I think you're starting with one incorrect assumption: this is an argument between creationists and evolutionists, with both sides wearing the same armor and riding the same horses only one side is black and the other is white."

I understand we are in some respects coming from entirely different view points but I would hope the example you gave would allegorize the fact that we are ultimately brothers on this planet and as such on the same team. (the armor)
As such, riding the same horses in the same direction indicating a common goal which hopefully would be truth.
Only one side is black and one side is white. As I stated, we obviously have different perspectives but I certainly don't think one is good, the other evil. At least not in the respect you expect.

Nick wrote:
"What we have is a group of people who understand that Darwin is 100% right, and another group of people who are wrong. In addition to some faulty arguments, the latter group assumes that the fact that there are lots of unanswered questions means Darwin is wrong and therefore creationism is right. He isn't wrong, and the answers to those questions will only refine what he says - just as Einstein doesn't mean Pythagorus is wrong."

I Posted:
"Truth is, the scientific community doesn't really know how to fill these gaps either and I would suggest as a result are guilty of the same thing they accuse creationist of. That is operating under ignorant assumption themselves, filling these gaps with their own conjecture or nothing at all beleiving that in the end result, their faith in natural science will ultimately lead them to the truth"

See full post for full context:

"If I am correct though with this assessment, it becomes pitiful to me because it would in my way of thinking put this segment of society in the same little nicely packed box so many dogmatic religions fit into. We're right, your wrong, its our way or no way. Thinking they have all the answers or soon will and wondering how the rest of the world lives in their fairytail existence."

By the way I don't think Pythagorus was necessarily wrong either. Rather just an incomplete picture of a good theory that concluded with incorrect applications.

Nick wrote:

"And it's also not correct to say that people who know Darwin is right have a closed mind, or even that they don't believe in spirituality. I believe that my ass is pink; if someone says it's green and I say they're nuts, does that make me closed-minded?"

Based on your paragraph above this one, it would appear that would be the case. If I am wrong in this assessment help me understand where you and others are not closed minded to this issue. People who understands Darwin is 100% right doesn't sound like it gives room for much discussion.
In fairness to you Nick, you have been quite gracious in your attitude toward the overall teachings of scripture and their application to ones lives in the purest sense of their meaning,but have made it very clear what your opinion of religion is and I would mostly agree with you on the latter point. Beyond that, you indicate you have a sense of spirituality that exists in some form or another. At the bottom of all this though, Is there room in your belief system for the possibility that a supernatural intelligent force could have possibly had anything to do with creation? Or in your opinion would the only possible explanation have to come through natural causes?

I think we all form our biases based on our current limited understanding of things and I think to some degree those biases become barriers to greater understanding. If we listen to a song and only focus or concentrate on the guitar part for example, we may well miss all the other intricacies of the music that really makes the song what it was meant to be.
Until we become as innocent children and gaze with wonderment into the unknown abyss, hearts pounding in our chests filled with expectation, I fear we shall miss the vast unexplored regions of truth that patiently await our discovery.

Ok, maybe a little over the top but still, kind of true.