Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Isaac Newton: Christian Bible Scholar

  1. #1 Isaac Newton: Christian Bible Scholar 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Sir Isaac Newton [voted by scientists the greatest scientist of all time] the genius that founded physics and co-invented calculus, was also a Christian believer and a bible scholar. He wrote several treatises on the bible. He also tried to predict the bible end of the world and came up with a date of 2060.
    Here is some information about Newton and his Christian beliefs, with quotes by him.

    Newton quote:
    As all regions below are replenished with living creatures, (not only the Earth with Beasts, and Sea with Fishes and
    the air with Fowls and Insects, but also standing waters, vineger, the bodies and blood of Animals and other juices
    with innumerable living creatures too small to be seen without the help of magnifying glasses) so may the heavens
    above be replenished with beings whose nature we do not understand. He that shall well consider the strange and
    wonderful nature of life and the frame of Animals, will think nothing beyond the possibility of nature, nothing too hard for
    the omnipotent power of God. And as the Planets remain in their orbs, so may any other bodies subsist at any
    distance from the earth, and much more may beings, who have a sufficient power of self motion, move whether they
    will, place themselves where they will, and continue in any regions of the heavens whatever, there to enjoy the society
    of one another, and by their messengers or Angels to rule the earth and convers with the remotest regions. Thus may
    the whole heavens or any part thereof whatever be the habitation of the Blessed, and at the same time the earth be
    subject to their dominion. And to have thus the liberty and dominion of the whole heavens and the choice of the
    happiest places for abode seems a greater happiness then to be confined to any one place whatever.

    -- Isaac Newton,
    unpublished manuscript, quoted in
    Manuel, Frank. The Religion of Isaac Newton.
    Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. ISBN 0-19-826640-5.

    "About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
    --Sir Isaac Newton



    Isaac Newton predicted Apocalypse in 2060

    Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientific minds in human history,
    spend 50 years calculating the date of the end of the world. Through
    some 4,500 pages of analysis, Newton concluded that Judgement Day will
    fall in the year 2060.

    "Sir Isaac Newton, Britain's greatest scientist, predicted
    the date of the end of the world - and it is only 57 years
    away."

    "Newton, who was also a theologian and alchemist,
    predicted that the Second Coming of Christ would follow
    plagues and war and would precede a 1,000-year reign
    by the saints on earth..."[1]

    Unless Newton was wrong, we are now witnessing the End-Times and there
    will soon be a series of wars and natural disasters, according to
    original documents from Newton's research recently released by the
    Hebrew National Library.

    "Armageddon is just 57 years away, by the calculations
    of Britain's most famous scientist".[2]

    Newton is most famous for his great achievements in science, but his
    involvement with secret societies is also well documented. It is
    widely known that Newton was a student of prophecy and an initiate in
    the ancient mysteries.


    SOURCES:

    [1] Daily Telegraph (UK), "Newton set 2060 for end of world", 22
    February 2003.
    [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../22/newt22.xml
    ]

    [2] Reuters, "End of the World Is Nigh, Says Long-Dead Scientist",
    24February 2003.
    [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=2277289 ]


    FURTHER READING

    "The Insider" - Conspiracy Theory News
    [ http://www.theinsider.org ]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I don't really see your point, but I'd like to point out that Newton's works were so important because he used ONLY natural explanations for phenomena. I'd also like to point out that Charles Darwin also grew up deeply religious as did Galileo (and you know what happened to him). One must understand that their religious tendencies were only products of their culture and not their science.

    That whole post seems to have as much meaning as saying that some American scientist was an incredible baseball fan and spent years of his life attempting to find a statistical formula that would eliminate all doubt from who is the MVP of the league.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I am with silkworm on this: what is your point Ghost?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I don't really see your point, but I'd like to point out that Newton's works were so important because he used ONLY natural explanations for phenomena. I'd also like to point out that Charles Darwin also grew up deeply religious as did Galileo (and you know what happened to him). One must understand that their religious tendencies were only products of their culture and not their science.

    That whole post seems to have as much meaning as saying that some American scientist was an incredible baseball fan and spent years of his life attempting to find a statistical formula that would eliminate all doubt from who is the MVP of the league.
    My point is this. Don't try to hide behind science to support your atheism. A great scientist like Newton believed that God created the laws in the universe that he was discovering.
    So did George Washington Carver, greatest black scientist in America, and a Christian.
    Some scientists seem to falsely think that anyone that is a Christian is some how an ignorant person, and that proper scientists must be atheists.
    I want to show you that this view is in error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I am not an atheist. I never hide behind science. I only hide when people with loaded weapons look at me menacingly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Atheism does not require a defense. To pretend to believe in something to please other people is a lie that is far beyond lame, and to force your beliefs on other people is a sick sort of violence. I don't go around trying to force christians to renounce "God," so don't go around trying to force me to accept it. Don't tell me I need to defend my atheism, you can't defend your madness and inconsiderate pursuit of an insurance policy for eternal comfort. Religion failed in my life long before science came to the rescue. I think the point science has a knack for destroying the supernatural BS religion provides. For a more tangiable example, first you find out the tooth fairy isn't real. Then you find out that the Easter Bunny isn't real. Then Santa Claus. At that point is when any rational person stops believing in all of these mythical figures. If you listen to the stories that everyone tells you these people still exist, if you look at the facts, you've been lied to. There is a lot of lying in religion, and scientists generally don't like being lied to.

    Of course these scientists were religious, it was their culture and questioning religion in their time was a good way to get Galileoed. Remember, Newton was born the same year that Galileo died. What Newton believed is pointless, because he didn't use supernatural causes to explain nature. It's all a product of your culture. Sometimes your forced to believe something just to get along with the people around you or for your own protection. As for Carver, who interestingly enough was a family friend of ours, lived in a heavily christian part of Missouri so I think the interesting thing to note would be if he was Zoarostarian, either way its pointless. By listing this as important you're dilluting the fact that none of these scientists used God in their science. Another example would be Austrian monk Gregor Mendl, did you know he was christian? His science works because he stuck to natural explainations.

    As a general rule, scientists don't care about the religion of other scientists, only their science. And no matter what you're trying to imply, Isaac Newton sure as hell was nowhere approaching an intelligent design supporter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Much of what silkworm spins here has shades of truth to it.

    I am unaware of any organized atheist movement going around confronting religious people with a “Renounce-or-die” ultimatum. While there may be at least one group of religious zealots which employ that technique, it is certainly not any Christian movement I am aware of.

    No lie is based on 100 per cent fallacy. Lies are constructed by using and misrepresenting the truth. The more accuracy in the lie, the more effective and more believable the lie is.

    Since silkworm focuses his attack on Christians, without regard to any other religion, my response will tend to counter that specific area. The tenor of his approach is that Christianity is at odds with science in general. This is a misrepresentation of Christian thinking. The only areas of science with which modern Christianity has concerns with are some aspects of evolution and cosmology.

    silkworm says:

    To pretend to believe in something to please other people is a lie that is far beyond lame, and to force your beliefs on other people is a sick sort of violence. I don't go around trying to force christians to renounce "God," so don't go around trying to force me to accept it.
    I agree that those who would “believe” in an effort to satisfy some other human obligation or expectation is a total lie which does not tend to fool anyone. However, if you know such people, it does not seem fair to use them as representative of genuine Christianity.

    I am not quite sure what you consider “forcing” one’s beliefs. To suggest to others that the way of Buddha is good, or that Hinduism is personally satisfying, or that belief in Jesus as Savior guarantees eternal life is not the same as the “Repent-or-die” approach.

    I hardly see how this is different from one insisting that evolution is the one and only explanation for differing life forms.

    A big difference is that the atheist is locked into his positions. From an atheistic position, there is no other possible explanation of life forms other than adaptations or mutational accidents. Any other possible explanation necessarily involves some form of external causation or direction.

    One need not be an atheist to accept many aspects of evolution or cosmological theories. However, the atheist’s narrow view of the world pretty much restricts him to a rather limited and rigid set of explanations which must be maintained, in tact, in order to hold up.

    It is not Christians today who are attempting to indoctrinate (i.e. force feed) society. Anyone, at least in most of Western Civilization, is free to listen or to ignore the Christian message as it might relate to evolution or cosmology. In our public education system, however, students are forced, yes actually forced, to accept an uncontested, unchallenged atheistic view of life forms and cosmology.

    It is not Christians (as a movement) who are going around “forcing” anyone to do anything. They certainly speak out on moral and political issues, but no more so than those of other bents.

    Silkworm joins the empty-headed chorus of atheistic thinking which incessantly and ignorantly attempts to compare Christianity with wives’ tales and mythology and Jesus to the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. When someone can show a current significant movement of educated adult population placing some religious attachment on the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, I will concede there is a valid comparison. This kind of characterization of Christianity does not even rise to the level of infantile stupidity.

    silkworm adds:

    At that point is when any rational person stops believing in all of these mythical figures. If you listen to the stories that everyone tells you these people still exist, if you look at the facts, you've been lied to. There is a lot of lying in religion, and scientists generally don't like being lied to.
    I is difficult to find a cogent thought among the sentence fragments. You seem to suggest that expressing one’s beliefs is the equivalent of lying. A lie is the deliberate and knowing statement of information which is contrary to fact. A belief may not be accurate, but honestly expressing it, it not nearly so much a lie as the claim that it is a lie.

    silkworm suggests:

    By listing this as important you're dilluting the fact that none of these scientists used God in their science.
    I will attribute this contradiction of fact to the possibility that you have never actually read Darwin’s original treatise which is liberally sprinkled with references to God and the Bible while Newton was quite outspoken concerning his religious motivations.

    But you are correct that their religious position has no impact on the truth or untruth of their scientific investigation. The findings of Darwin and Newton are no more or less valid because of their religious positions.

    Nor does the work of either of these great scientists have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of God or the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

    Your belief or disbelief is found in your own heart and mind based on your own life experiences. It is true that science and religion are different things. It is not true that the two are incompatible.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Hey daytonturner, I haven't seen you for awhile. I was getting ready to pray for you.

    While there may be at least one group of religious zealots which employ that technique, it is certainly not any Christian movement I am aware of.
    You can't deny these movements (convert-or-die) based in Christianity existed in the past, not to mention there are plenty of insanely stupid and religiously motivated wars taking the lives of innocent people every day (Africa, Israel, Iraq, terrorism, etc.). But what is also insulting is tendency of fundamental Christian movements to impose itself on the freedom of others (for example, scientists, homosexuals, women, minorities, publishers, etc.).

    No lie is based on 100 per cent fallacy. Lies are constructed by using and misrepresenting the truth. The more accuracy in the lie, the more effective and more believable the lie is.
    Well, I have thought a lot about what honesty is, and I make it an effort to be an honest person. Not because I fear eternal punishment but because I feel lies are destructive. When you're a dilluted, indoctrinated, or otherwise weak person dependent upon an idealogy to make decisions for you it is difficult to comment on the truth because you may have never understood it. I still make an effort to cut through all the brainwashing and find the truth and I know it is difficult at times, especially when there's emotional involvement, so I won't take what you imply as an insult here daytonturner.

    The only areas of science with which modern Christianity has concerns with are some aspects of evolution and cosmology.
    Well, this is misinformed. A heavy portion of these Christians believe the Earth is much younger than what it actually is (due to literal reading of the Bible) and also have issues with geology and with chemistry because this same population believes carbon-14 dating to be invalid. This movement is against ALL TRUTH that contradicts the stories of the Bible.

    I hardly see how this is different from one insisting that evolution is the one and only explanation for differing life forms.
    I know you don't see the difference daytonturner. The difference is evolution is a product of human thought that uses natural explainations to explain phenomena and is true everywhere. Religions (generally) are traditions based in the values of fictional superbeings which vary by culture.

    From an atheistic position, there is no other possible explanation of life forms other than adaptations or mutational accidents.
    This is oversimplified, but the "atheistic position" (scientific position) evolves rationally when there is valid evidence.

    In our public education system, however, students are forced, yes actually forced, to accept an uncontested, unchallenged atheistic view of life forms and cosmology.
    That's right, public education. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a religion. There is no religion in atheism. Hey, daytonturner, atheism is not a religion. Hey, did you know that atheism is not a religion? All you're saying here is that religion is not included in the explaination.

    Without even taking science into consideration, did you know that christianity is not the only religion in America? So should public education then be based in christianity? That goes back to the whole "convert-or-die" thing, and it's fascist and I will never advocate fascism. Sorry.

    This kind of characterization of Christianity does not even rise to the level of infantile stupidity.
    You have to admit the more than symbolic relationship between parents and god, children and christians, Santa Claus and christ, and presents and heaven. It's conditioning.

    But you are correct that their religious position has no impact on the truth or untruth of their scientific investigation. The findings of Darwin and Newton are no more or less valid because of their religious positions.
    You're missing the point. Newton's work is valid because he used natural explainations for phenomena. He doesn't consider the supernatural in his work. I'll give you a fairly extreme example of religion compromising science. James Usher publsihed widely accepted work in the mid-1600s that claimed that the Earth was created, if I remember the exact date correctly (though I know the year is right) on October 31st, 4004 BC at 9 AM. Guess how he came to this conclusion? By reading the Bible. Although this view dominated in Western culture for a few hundred years, does that deserve even a mention with the scientifically accepted age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? Hell no, because science must have proof and not doctrine. Should Usher be considered a scientist? No, he didn't use natural explainations and he did nothing scientific. He just read the Bible. If Newton had used the Bible to arrive at his conclusions he would have come up with something equally invalid.

    In the words of Fiona Apple, "Give us something familiar. Something similar. That we know already. That will keep us steady. Steady, steady. Steady, steady. Steady goin' nowhere."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    From my perspective athiests are as brain dead and delusional and unscientific as theists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    I find silkworm’s posts very difficult to respond to because they are so chock full of meaningless rhetoric and unsupported non-facts, as exposed below.

    silkworm said:

    You can't deny these movements (convert-or-die) based in Christianity existed in the past, not to mention there are plenty of insanely stupid and religiously motivated wars taking the lives of innocent people every day (Africa, Israel, Iraq, terrorism, etc.). But what is also insulting is tendency of fundamental Christian movements to impose itself on the freedom of others (for example, scientists, homosexuals, women, minorities, publishers, etc.).
    Since you do not cite any instances in which you show that Christianity used a convert-or-die form of evangelism, I am unable to defend the charge. I agree that there are insane, stupid, religiously motivated wars taking place today. Muslims are slaughtering and enslaving Christians in Sudan; Palestinian Muslims are committing suicide murderous bombings in Israel; at least one Iraqi Muslim faction seems to be targeting another Muslim faction through more suicide murderous bombings and other Islamic terrorists have attacked the U.S. in the 9-11 air plane crashes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon; Islamic terrorists bombed an airplane in flight over Lockerby, England; Islamic terrorists bombed trains in Spain; Islamic terrorists have kidnapped and murdered several innocent people in Iraq who were there to help. And you are concerned because Christians do not agree with all aspects of evolution.

    Also please explain some instance in which Christianity attempts to impose itself on science, homosexuality, women, minorities or publishers other than using words and political process to advance their beliefs which is what other people do and which all people in the U.S. have a right to do. From my perspective, some entities insist on imposing their values on me, spending my taxes on things I disagree with, doing things that I don’t think should be done or failing to do things which I think should be done. This is a political society in which all philosophies have the right to advocate their positions.

    silkworm also says:


    Well, I have thought a lot about what honesty is, and I make it an effort to be an honest person. Not because I fear eternal punishment but because I feel lies are destructive. When you're a dilluted, indoctrinated, or otherwise weak person dependent upon an idealogy to make decisions for you it is difficult to comment on the truth because you may have never understood it. I still make an effort to cut through all the brainwashing and find the truth and I know it is difficult at times, especially when there's emotional involvement, so I won't take what you imply as an insult here daytonturner.
    Well, this is really interesting in view of the fact that your atheistic ideology requires you to make decisions which only support evolution. Your decision on anything to do with evolution is that it must be accepted while anything which dilutes or undermines even the least detail must be rejected without regard to its validity. Your atheism enslaves you to this postion even if you wanted to find fault in it.

    Moreover, silkworm says:

    Well, this is misinformed. A heavy portion of these Christians believe the Earth is much younger than what it actually is (due to literal reading of the Bible) and also have issues with geology and with chemistry because this same population believes carbon-14 dating to be invalid. This movement is against ALL TRUTH that contradicts the stories of the Bible.
    I do not know what percentage of Christians are young Earth advocates. Generally speaking, I think you will find college educated and younger aged Christians are less likely to be young Earth advocates. However, I am unable to confirm or deny your claim and suggest that you are unable to back it up with any study or poll. As a rather light weighted person, myself, I can assure you I am not in the heavy portion. The last sentence there is meaningless, irrelevant drivel. What movement, what truth and what stories?

    silkworm attempts communication:

    The difference is evolution is a product of human thought that uses natural explainations to explain phenomena and is true everywhere.
    I am sorry, but that sentence is devoid of any cogent deciphering. It is a classic example of meaningless, unfounded rhetoric and an obvious example of:
    ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (AP) -- A panel of linguists has decided the word that best reflects 2005 is "truthiness," defined as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.
    Next, slikworm says:

    This is oversimplified, but the "atheistic position" (scientific position) evolves rationally when there is valid evidence.
    Except that the evolutionists invoke the rule of the Mad Hatter. Whatever they determine is rational and valid is what is rational and valid. Evolution means what they say it means.

    Silkworm adds:

    Without even taking science into consideration, did you know that christianity is not the only religion in America? So should public education then be based in christianity? That goes back to the whole "convert-or-die" thing, and it's fascist and I will never advocate fascism. Sorry.
    You should be sorry. At no point have I said atheism is a religion, or that Christianity is the only religion in America or that education should be based on Christianity, nor have I advocated facism. Your tirade here is vastly inappropriate and does not address the point I was making and is a perfect example of a straw argument.

    silkworm now blithers:

    You have to admit the more than symbolic relationship between parents and god, children and christians, Santa Claus and christ, and presents and heaven. It's conditioning.
    No, I don’t have to admit that because beyond being just plain stupid, it is a super stupid statement even if I could figure out what you are trying to say. It is this kind of blithering which truly undermines the effectiveness of the few legitimate arguments you raise.

    silkworm almost concludes:

    You're missing the point. Newton's work is valid because he used natural explainations for phenomena. He doesn't consider the supernatural in his work. I'll give you a fairly extreme example of religion compromising science. James Usher publsihed widely accepted work in the mid-1600s that claimed that the Earth was created, if I remember the exact date correctly (though I know the year is right) on October 31st, 4004 BC at 9 AM. Guess how he came to this conclusion? By reading the Bible. Although this view dominated in Western culture for a few hundred years, does that deserve even a mention with the scientifically accepted age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? Hell no, because science must have proof and not doctrine. Should Usher be considered a scientist? No, he didn't use natural explainations and he did nothing scientific. He just read the Bible. If Newton had used the Bible to arrive at his conclusions he would have come up with something equally invalid.
    Everything in this paragraph, even if 100 percent true, is foolishness as argument. To the degree Newton studied natural phenomena, he provided natural explanations – so what? Has anyone said otherwise? Do you find anyone today who agrees with Usher. There are any number of crackpots who “prove” something contrary to fact using the Bible. Did anyone advocate that Usher get some scientific award for his dating? A couple of years back I underwent surgery at the hands of a Christian surgeon. While I am glad he has read the Bible, I am equally glad he read his anatomy books.

    Silkworm does concludes:


    In the words of Fiona Apple, "Give us something familiar. Something similar. That we know already. That will keep us steady. Steady, steady. Steady, steady. Steady goin' nowhere."
    Now I understand your world view.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    From my perspective athiests are as brain dead and delusional and unscientific as theists.
    Science, man's futile attempts to approximate the wholeness of the world, stubbornly ignoring that they are mere particles, and that we will never see the world for what it is, blind, deaf and dumb as we are. Than I, for disbelieving in God, Man and Animal am delusional? Silly rabbit!

    Except that the evolutionists invoke the rule of the Mad Hatter. Whatever they determine is rational and valid is what is rational and valid. Evolution means what they say it means.
    Generalisation, stereotyping, stigmatising, call it what you will, but your mindless rhetoric serves no side of the argument. Prove your claims, disprove your claims, or accept them as rhetoric.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    I feel obligated only to reply to rhetoric with rhetoric. I reply to facts with facts, on the few occasions I have found them here.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I feel obligated only to reply to rhetoric with rhetoric. I reply to facts with facts, on the few occasions I have found them here.
    And it is within your right to do so. I was merely pulling the ol' "turn the other cheek/ye hypocrite"-trick. Regardless, I'll be the last one to judge. I'm a walking hypocrisy :P

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Also Known As's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    88
    In our public education system, however, students are forced, yes actually forced, to accept an uncontested, unchallenged atheistic view of life forms and cosmology.
    Students (in public schools) are taught the facts as best we are able to understand them. If the goal is dogmatic indoctrination, that is what home schooling and churches are for.

    To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
    -- Thomas Paine, The Crisis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Has anyone considered that the Christian orientation of people like Sir Isaac Newton also says something about the lack of sanity in today's popular Christian groups as represented by the magazine cover presented by "Also Known As". When atheists initiate legal steps to ban crosses used as memorials for dead soldiers, the intolerance this represents is just as frightening. It makes me feel that the USA is getting ready to tear itself apart. The conflict between these two extremes has become so irrational and uncompromizing that I think it must be only a matter of time before it topples the US government out of democracy into the hands of an extremist.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Just to be clear, you do realize that The Onion is a satyrical work, yes?

    I think the Christian orientation of people like Sir Isaac Newton says more about the period and culture which he lived in than it does about anything else. As I recall, Newton, while brilliant and innovative, had some belief issues that conflicted with his Christianity, namely alchemy. Alchemists of his day were frequently executed or imprisoned, yet he pursued the subject with a zeal almost to, if not in excess of, the extent to which he pursued his examination of gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Has anyone considered that the Christian orientation of people like Sir Isaac Newton also says something about the lack of sanity in today's popular Christian groups as represented by the magazine cover presented by "Also Known As". When atheists initiate legal steps to ban crosses used as memorials for dead soldiers, the intolerance this represents is just as frightening. It makes me feel that the USA is getting ready to tear itself apart. The conflict between these two extremes has become so irrational and uncompromizing that I think it must be only a matter of time before it topples the US government out of democracy into the hands of an extremist.
    Have you ever turned the sound down on your tv set, and just watch the action? It is quite an interesting exercise, as you get a feeling of the pointlessness and madness.
    If you somehow turn the sound down (metaphorically) on this so-called conflict and just watch the actions, you will undoubtedely sense that there are in fact no divisions, that benefit mankind, and that nothing really changes apart from the scenory/backdrop.
    At one time christianity held the reigns, and now atheism (humanism) holds pole position. Underneath, it is all about power, not about truth or humanity.
    Crosses used as memorials mean nothing in realterms, apart from some kind of comfort for the living, in other words it is a symbolic gesture. Banning crosses is just as meaningless, and just another symbolic gesture. There is absolutely no difference, both are a materialistic type of religion.
    Imagine the scenario with the sound turned down.
    To me, they are the same people fighting over some little temporary power. Both types, userp known reality, and use it as weapons to subjigate the less powerful, so in my opinion both types are gross materialists, despite the claims from "institutionalised" christianity as being a spiritual entity, but that is not to say that there are not genuine individuals who wish to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.


    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Have you ever turned the sound down on your tv set, and just watch the action? It is quite an interesting exercise, ................. Jan.
    Forgive me for not replying directly to the point of your argument or whatever it is, but I think I will leave that to someone who has at least the faintest idea of what that point is.

    Ever seen the movie "Donnie Darko"? If you haven't, you have got to! Anyway in the movie there is this pseuo-religious group that reduce all of human experience into a spectrum ranging from fear to love. I think your reduction of human activity to the quest for power is just as ridiculous, a lot like Marx's reduction of human activity to economics. One can with equal absurdity reduce everything to just about any facet of human experience like parenting, education, communication, sharing, sex (Freud), ecetera.... There is always a two bit ideological group putting forth a flattening of human experience into a simple line that can fit into their little minds.

    My favorite is entertainment. No one cares if what you do is right or wrong as long as it has enertainment value. All of science, politics and culture derives from human efforts to combat boredom.

    Or how about this one: All of human society and culture ultimately derives from the human males' effort to make himself feel more important because of an innate feeling of inferiority.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Have you ever turned the sound down on your tv set, and just watch the action? It is quite an interesting exercise, ................. Jan.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Forgive me for not replying directly to the point of your argument or whatever it is, but I think I will leave that to someone who has at least the faintest idea of what that point is.
    I fail to see why you beg forgiveness, as it is your prerogative whether or not you respond.
    But to clarify, the idea behind my point is that it may be a useful exercise, a look at life from a different perspective for anyone who may be interested.
    Not, by any stretch of the imagination, is it an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ever seen the movie "Donnie Darko"? If you haven't, you have got to!
    Anyway in the movie there is this pseuo-religious group that reduce all of human experience into a spectrum ranging from fear to love.
    I'm sure I have seen it, but cannot remember it. However, I think I will look it up as it sounds very interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think your reduction of human activity to the quest for power is just as ridiculous, a lot like Marx's reduction of human activity to economics.
    I didn't reduce "human activity", if there was any reduction at all, it was the institutional strife between theist and atheist, human activity yes, but not all humans in a nutshell. Only those involved in the particular activity in question.
    This is what I mean about turning the sound down (metaphor), assuming stuff without actually understanding the initial point.
    Try and see things for what they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    One can with equal absurdity reduce everything to just about any facet of human experience like parenting, education, communication, sharing, sex (Freud), ecetera.... There is always a two bit ideological group putting forth a flattening of human experience into a simple line that can fit into their little minds.
    Does this reduction of yours fall into your own category?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    My favorite is entertainment. No one cares if what you do is right or wrong as long as it has enertainment value.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say "no one", although the category appears to be growing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    All of science, politics and culture derives from human efforts to combat boredom.
    Not as far as I am concerned. To me these these particular genres help shape human beings to embrace and understand their humanity. If of course they are not tainted with (false) egotistical ideologies.
    Without them we would be nothing more than wild animals, as opposed to rational animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Or how about this one: All of human society and culture ultimately derives from the human males' effort to make himself feel more important because of an innate feeling of inferiority.
    Surely that depends upon the individual males/society in question.
    Ask yourself where this feeling of inferiority comes from, and why you limit this action and feeling only to males.
    What about females?
    Are they immuned from this?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Forgive me for not replying directly to the point of your argument or whatever it is, but I think I will leave that to someone who has at least the faintest idea of what that point is.
    I fail to see why you beg forgiveness, as it is your prerogative whether or not you respond.
    But to clarify, the idea behind my point is that it may be a useful exercise, a look at life from a different perspective for anyone who may be interested.
    Not, by any stretch of the imagination, is it an argument.
    Ah good! Seeing as how I never assumed it was an argument my cautionary note did its job.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ever seen the movie "Donnie Darko"? If you haven't, you have got to!
    Anyway in the movie there is this pseuo-religious group that reduce all of human experience into a spectrum ranging from fear to love.
    I'm sure I have seen it, but cannot remember it. However, I think I will look it up as it sounds very interesting.
    It is a very unusual psychological thriller/time travel movie, with very interesting social commentary.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Or how about this one: All of human society and culture ultimately derives from the human males' effort to make himself feel more important because of an innate feeling of inferiority.
    Surely that depends upon the individual males/society in question.
    Ask yourself where this feeling of inferiority comes from, and why you limit this action and feeling only to males.
    What about females?
    Are they immuned from this?
    Of course, generalizations are as reliable as politicians and you can ignore them most of the time but that doesn't make them any less real or any less annoying.

    Being male myself, I wouldn't presume to speak for females. But while the females have the babies and feed them, the males have to do something to seem useful and make the females take notice of them. If the really useful stuff like food or jobs are in scarce supply then they have to think up a good "story" to take their place.

    But for pete's sake don't take this theory too seriously. After all it was introduced as an example of how we can oversimplify our perception of things, and no matter how profound the such a perspective may be it is still oversimplifying.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Isaac Newton: Christian Bible Scholar 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Sir Isaac Newton [voted by scientists the greatest scientist of all time] the genius that founded physics and co-invented calculus, was also a Christian believer and a bible scholar.
    Two points here:

    First, you might want to read a detailed biography of Newton. Yes, he was a Christian - but he also believed in alchemy and all sorts of strange mystical things that most people would find outlandish. And although he identified himself as a Christian, most Christians would find his beliefs deeply heretical. He didn't believe that Jesus was god, and thought that anyone could attain the same status as Jesus by living a 'godly' lifestyle.

    Second, you need to realize that no one believes Newton's ideas about physics simply because Newton is regarded as a great scientist; we believe Newton's ideas about physics because they have been very thoroughly tested through experimentation. If you think about this, it should become apparent to you why no scientist is likely to care very much what Newton thought about religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Islamic terrorists bombed an airplane in flight over Lockerby, England.
    This is a side issue, but one which can often lead to physical violence. Lockerbie (not Lockerby) is in Scotland, not England. Scotland and England are not the same. They are different. The Scots are very proud of this difference. They become incoherently enraged when the error of identity is made. In your defence, I suppose it is an easy mistake for someone living in Mexico to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Yes, you would think those of us of considerable Scotch-Irish descent would be more cognizant of those things.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Or how about this one: All of human society and culture ultimately derives from the human males' effort to make himself feel more important because of an innate feeling of inferiority.
    Surely that depends upon the individual males/society in question.
    Ask yourself where this feeling of inferiority comes from, and why you limit this action and feeling only to males.
    What about females?
    Are they immuned from this?
    Of course, generalizations are as reliable as politicians and you can ignore them most of the time but that doesn't make them any less real or any less annoying.

    Being male myself, I wouldn't presume to speak for females. But while the females have the babies and feed them, the males have to do something to seem useful and make the females take notice of them. If the really useful stuff like food or jobs are in scarce supply then they have to think up a good "story" to take their place.

    But for pete's sake don't take this theory too seriously. After all it was introduced as an example of how we can oversimplify our perception of things, and no matter how profound the such a perspective may be it is still oversimplifying.
    I ran into the following passage from Ray Bradbury's novel "Something Wicked this way Comes".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Bradbury
    His wife smiled in her sleep.
    Why?
    She's immortal. She has a son.
    Your son too!
    But what father every really believes it? He carries no burden, he feels no pain. What man, like woman, lies down in darkness and gets up with child? The gentle, smiling ones own secret. Oh, what strange wonderful clocks women are. They nest in Time. The make the flesh that holds fast and binds eternity. They live inside the gift, know power, accept, and need not mention it. Why speak of Time when you are Time, and shape the universal moments as they pass, into warmth and action? How men envy and often hate these warm clocks, these wives, who know they will live forever. So what do we do? We men turn terribly mean, because we can't hold to the world ourselves or anything. We are blind to continuity, all breaks down, falls, melts, stops, rots, or runs away. So since we cannot shape Time, where does that leave men? Sleepless. Staring.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •