Faith & DNA - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2006, 09:32 PM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:50 AM
I really don't see what's inherently hypocritical about it...yall can question the bases of his beliefs...why is he not allowed to question theirs? If a person believes in some things which cannot be proven rationally (and who doesn't)...that's tantamount to forfeiting their right to question the purportedly rational bases of other beliefs? Belief in the absolute truth or rightness of some things (love? justice? freedom?) means you aren't allowed to question the absoluteness of other things ever? Culture would be a pretty impoverished animal if we always applied that standard.
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Interesting, I thought this would be about the genetics of faith.
It is. It's about a scripture that stakes its authenticity on a claim to a traceable human ancestral lineage. Traceable to one particular individual who migrated from one precise location to another at one precise point in time. In the "literalist" version anyhow.
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 07:50 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Maybe we should do a DNA test on Roman Catholic communion. After all, according to the concept of transubstantiation, the bread and wine literally becomes Jesus' body and blood (rather than the Protestant concept that Jesus is just present within the bread and wine).

I would love trying to see Cardinal Rat try to explain that.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 07:51 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
it's difficult not to point out hypocrisy whenever it rears it's head.

so be it.

Christians don't want to acknowledge that their leaps of faith are no different in logic than that of their enemies. As such, they focus on the difference of substance.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:34 AM   #19
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
The God-fearing Nephites were "pure" (the word was officially changed from "white" in 1981) and "delightsome." The idol-worshiping Lamanites received the "curse of blackness," turning their skin dark.
Is this an Old Testament story?

I never really knew the origins of white supremacy. Wow.

Although I can relate to the notion of a group of people thinking they are superior through purity of blood. In some circles of francophone Quebec, if you can trace your lineage to the original founding families (I think there are a handful) of la belle province, you are considered "pure laine" (pure wool), and therefore a "true" quebecois.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:51 AM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Is this an Old Testament story?

I never really knew the origins of white supremacy. Wow.
No. It's strictly from the Book of Mormon.

I wouldn't say that this is the origin of white supremacy. On the contrary, passages like this exist because of how prevalent white supremacy was back in the 19th century. All non-whites were primitive savages in need of "civilizing."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:52 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Although I can relate to the notion of a group of people thinking they are superior through purity of blood. In some circles of francophone Quebec, if you can trace your lineage to the original founding families (I think there are a handful) of la belle province, you are considered "pure laine" (pure wool), and therefore a "true" quebecois.
I'm a direct descendent of one of the Mayflower settlers. I wonder if that makes me a "true" American?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:14 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I really don't see what's inherently hypocritical about it...yall can question the bases of his beliefs...why is he not allowed to question theirs?
Thank you. Sometimes elements of gamesmanship replace intelligent discussion. I appreciate the insight you've offered in this thread.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:34 AM   #23
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

I'm a direct descendent of one of the Mayflower settlers. I wonder if that makes me a "true" American?
I'm a direct descendent of Robert Burns, the Scottish poet. I wonder if that makes me a philandering drunkard.

We both betray our blood...cheers!

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:42 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
It is. It's about a scripture that stakes its authenticity on a claim to a traceable human ancestral lineage. Traceable to one particular individual who migrated from one precise location to another at one precise point in time. In the "literalist" version anyhow. [/B]
In this case yes, and it is one that can be effectively falsified. I was really touching upon the

The genetics of faith would probably be the basis of belief biologically. What conditions in human neurology lead to the imperitive of faith, how are these expressed (the ability to will a sense of pleasure for instance). I think that as these questions become better understood it will raise some extremely serious issues to the faithful, far more threatening to cherished beliefs than geology or biology. Faith is a behaviour, did it evolve or was it just invented.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:46 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I'm a direct descendent of one of the Mayflower settlers. I wonder if that makes me a "true" American?

Melon
We share more in common
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:58 AM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:50 PM
[q] I really don't see what's inherently hypocritical about it...yall can question the bases of his beliefs...why is he not allowed to question theirs? If a person believes in some things which cannot be proven rationally (and who doesn't)...that's tantamount to forfeiting their right to question the purportedly rational bases of other beliefs?[/q]

[q]Thank you. Sometimes elements of gamesmanship replace intelligent discussion. I appreciate the insight you've offered in this thread.[/q]



Melon pretty much answered this -- it just seems hypocritical to question the leaps of logic by other religions when all of religion is a leap in logic.

i sensed that this thread was simply another way of trying to assert one's religion as being "more real/rational than thou" and doing that through attacking another religion.

also, and while i'm not terribly sympathetic to many of the teachings of the Mormon church, i am very sympathetic to many Mormons who are among the nicest people i know. i grew up in a town with a relatively high percentage of Mormons (for the East Coast) and it is interesting to hear how much they resent being, as i said, punching bags for other Christians. basically, those crazy Mormons are no more crazy than anyone else who bases their lives around irrational thoughts and ideas (again, not that there's anything wrong with that, as yolland pointed out, we all do it ... let's just not think that some of us are a little bit less irrational than others).

this is also why i have some sympathy for Scientologists -- not *Scientology* itself -- but for those who practice a certain belief system and are ridiculed often most viciously by those who are themselves of another strong faith. the ridiculing of one religion over another -- and this is distinct, i think, from the ridiculing of religion itself -- is a sign of doubt and weakness, not faith and strength.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:58 AM   #27
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
What conditions in human neurology lead to the imperitive of faith
It suggests the hardwired will to survive/live is stronger than acceptance of inevitable death.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
how are these expressed (the ability to will a sense of pleasure for instance).
The ability to will life after death.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:09 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:50 AM
No, after brain death there is nothing, a brief but enjoyable trip as the brain shuts down, no thought or conciousness, might as well say that someone in a vegetative state is in a better place. Belief in the afterlife not only accepts inevitable death, it embraces it.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:16 AM   #29
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Belief in the afterlife not only accepts inevitable death, it embraces it.
Hmmm, I would say it explains death in a way that makes it acceptable and provides a reason to embrace it...the biological urge is still life.

Life after death suggests not only what might happen to you when you die, but the legacy you leave behind to be continued on when you're gone.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:25 AM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No, after brain death there is nothing, a brief but enjoyable trip as the brain shuts down, no thought or conciousness, might as well say that someone in a vegetative state is in a better place. Belief in the afterlife not only accepts inevitable death, it embraces it.



you know, as much as i hate to think it, you're probably right.

all other explanations seem like little more than smoke and mirrors.

a thought i once had -- there is no afterlife, there is no reincarnation, there is simply the awareness of consciousness (and the dread of the ending of that consciousness) that all human beings possess for our brief period on earth.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com