I agree that you can place your own meaning on songs and that most song writers are cool with this unless we decide that it is instructing us to kill someone or something, as has been done with the U2 song exit, as well as Beatles songs. However, I think that the author's intended meaning is still important, and can illuminate the song for us.
Sure.
I don't think writers should be overly concerned by any meaning that someone else derives from their words, regardless of the actions or excuses people use to justify their actions.
Absolutely the author's intended meaning is still important but even that is an ongoing process. There are things that one can write based on where they're at in a particular time in their life that has no bearing on where they might be today. Some writers are able to see that as part of their life story and continue to embrace it but there are others that simply do not feel the same way about what they wrote and will no longer play or read or even acknowledge works from particular times in their lives. We all evolve and change as life continues. What holds meaning now and is relevant to us today may not be tomorrow, or we could feel entirely different about it.
Case in point Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil wrote and performed in one of the greatest activist bands of this generation but you'd never know it now that he's gone off to join the suits that he rallied so passionately against for such a long time.
See that little button marked quote on the bottom right of each post?
Well if you want to reply to someone's post you just hit that button and what they've said will appear and you can write your reply underneath it.
When you submit the post their text will appear with your reply underneath in the same post.
Just in case you're interested.
I'd just like to add, it never even occurred to me until I started coming here that anyone would consider Given to Fly or any of Pearl Jam's music as being about god or Jesus. Perhaps because I have always been aware that Ed is an athiest or maybe because I filter his words through my own belief system, I'm just not buying that these songs are religious or that he stopped being religious because I've never considered that he was in the first place.
If you take from them that they are religious so be it, what works for you works for you, the bottom line is that we'll all have our own interpretation of these songs based on how we view the world. So they mean many different things to many different people.
This is precisely what i meant about meaning being always derived from personal interpretation, which is based on their socialisation, rather than any inherent meaning behind the words.
A red light doesn't 'naturally' mean stop. It works that way cos that's what has been imposed onto our perceptions by what is around us. The same goes for any book, any song, any poem, any sign.
This is precisely what i meant about meaning being always derived from personal interpretation, which is based on their socialisation, rather than any inherent meaning behind the words.
A red light doesn't 'naturally' mean stop. It works that way cos that's what has been imposed onto our perceptions by what is around us. The same goes for any book, any song, any poem, any sign.
Ok so who is 'he' for you? is he someone hounded by the media?
What about the key to the locks on the chains he saw everywhere?
basically, He is you.
and the key is the freedom he allows himself to just be and find what works for him to acquire what it is he is looking for. whether that be solace or peace or equilibrium or whatever it is you want to call it that gives one inner strength and a sense of oneself. if one can step back and see the big picture (and i feel the big picture may well differ from person to person) and arrive at a place where they can contemplate all it is they need to and derive from it all they need to live their lives then thats the ultimate goal isnt it?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No I dont dig! I have not expressed any animosity towards Ed or PJ, just sadness. From your point of view, people can hold whatever belifs they like and it doesn't really matter. But if you took the Bible seriously, as I do, then you would want to 'share the key to the locks on the chains' that you see everywhere. For this reason, it is always sad when someone rejects the only key that can free them and decides that they are not chained. If your wife is a believer, I expect she is sad that you are not going to the same place, think about it next time you sing along to Hail Hail 'are we going to the same place? so can I come?' peace.
If God is your key to freedom then I am completely glad that you discovered It and broke the chains. You should embrace those of us that do not feel chained and can experience freedom without Him. "...you underestimate me."
This is precisely what i meant about meaning being always derived from personal interpretation, which is based on their socialisation, rather than any inherent meaning behind the words.
A red light doesn't 'naturally' mean stop. It works that way cos that's what has been imposed onto our perceptions by what is around us. The same goes for any book, any song, any poem, any sign.
Hence ends sociology 101.
Yes Hinny. I agree that the words convey their meaning through culturally conditioned symbols but if we are part of that same culture, we are abe to discern the intended meaning.
If God is your key to freedom then I am completely glad that you discovered It and broke the chains. You should embrace those of us that do not feel chained and can experience freedom without Him. "...you underestimate me."
I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace
If God is your key to freedom then I am completely glad that you discovered It and broke the chains. You should embrace those of us that do not feel chained and can experience freedom without Him. "...you underestimate me."
What's funny to me, since we're talking about GTF, is that the "others" who are chained in the song don't even realize they are chained.
It almost fits exactly with what we are talking about here. I'm starting to freak out. Maybe GTF really IS just a retelling of the gospel of John
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace
I really disagree. I think it's awesome that everyone can openly discuss their feelings on religion and GTF but at the end of the day...it comes down to how some people believe and some do not, hence: whats true for you is different to whats true for me. I understand that not everyone can be right and maybe one of the beauties in life is not knowing, 100%. But, not under any circumstances would I say you're deluded just because we disagreed!
The only people that are deluded to me, when it comes to this sort of discussion, is the sort of person that tells you that you're wrong (when they disagree with you) and the only "lucky ones" who know whats true and fake are people who agree with them.
This is true. There really is no room in there for "he was just a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
He was either the Son of God.
Or he was a crazy person running around claiming to be the Son of God.
He was either who he said he was.
Or he was David Koresh before David Koresh was cool.
i forgot about koresh......when that occured, i thought to myself, what a bunch of whack jobs.
then i began to think to myself.....if i lived during the days Jesus was on earth, would i have thought to myself, what a bunch of whack jobs. i do not know.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Intelligent Design has struch a death-blow to Darwinism by exposing its fragile foundations.
‘As a general theory of biological creation, Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on an a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature.’
The foundation of darwinism is philosophy, not science, and now that this has been exposed, the whole edifice is beggining to crumble.
I completely disagree with you.
First of all, are you talking specifically about Darwin's On the Origin of Species or about evolution. You should know they are not the same at all.
That being said, intelligent design has not delivered a death-blow to the theory of evolution at all. Not even close.
The Discovery Institute seems to be very biased.
" Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers."[58] The 2005 judge in the "Dover Trial", Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, came to a similar conclusion about the Institute in his ruling: "CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones." wikipedia
I find it extremely absurd you claim evolution is based on philosophy and ID isn't. ID is philosophy. Nothing more. There's barely anything scientific about it. It might look scientific, but it's not. That's what we call pseudo-science.
It is true, if you take the bible literally, evolution cannot be true. However, evolution does not rule out god or a higher being. It is fundamentalist chirstians, such as the Discovery Institue, who take the bible literally and are looking to fit "scientific evidence" into their theory. They try to make it fit and work out according to the bible. ID is creationism and pseudo-science. Why even call it intelligent design, they don't believe allah, brahma, the flying spaghetti monster, yahweh or jehovah or the rastafari Jah created the world, no... it is the christian god. Call it bible design.
Here's a great website that explains evolution. I'm not sure I'd trust what Discovery told you about it, or about atheism for that matter. You seem to think atheism and evolution go hand in hand. In many cases this is true (then again, evolution is actual science, not philosophy). Read what atheism is about here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/ (it'll be a lot more accurate than whatever the Discovery Institute is telling you).
So, in conclusion, evolution is still very much alive, it's not beginning to crumble (and if it is, certainly not under the pressure of pseudo-scientists).
people can and may infer from lyrics whatever they wish...doesn't make it true. we all can have our varying interpretations of the 'meaning'....second-guess e's motivations, etc. yes, what ed has spoken out publicly would suggest he would NOT be writing from a religious, christ-centered perspective.....ever. not on the first album, the last, or any in between. however, if one wants to believe that ed did in fact write from that perspective at one time or another...more power to you. get from the music whatever you can. enjoy it all. i may fully disagree with your perspective, but it in no way infringes on my musical enjoyment, or my personal perspective on it.
If we dont like the situation (most of us dont) we can do 3 things. 1. Hate God, 2. Convince ourselves that he doesn't exist, or 3. Shout at him and ask for some answers.
See, again the condescending attitude. You are right and everyone else is wrong. Once you get off your high horse, we'll be able to discuss this properly.
No, I did not "convince" myself god doesn't exist. I know for a fact that god doesn't exist. Just like you know he does exist. You don't know and I don't know. You don't have a monopoly on the truth. Neither do I.
You can believe what you want, as long as you don't bother me cool. If you want ID in science class, it bothers me because it's not science. Teach it in Sunday school or religious education classes, and if you do teach it in school, I hope they're also teaching the creation stories and magical tales of the other major religions too.
I don't exactly know what the soul is, I think it's the bit of us that discernes beteen good and evil, and can commune with God. Atheists can have hope for a good remainder of their life, and for the world once they are gone. But atheists have no hope for themselves beyond the grave. Interesting that Ed still had some hope for life beyond the grave on Binaural in 'lightyears' 'and wherever you are, and wherever we might go (even if somewhere good???), it dont seem fair, you seemed to like it here.' I wonder if that hope is still there?
Beyond the grave there's nothing. That's what I believe. I don't see why or how that is a problem? I find it very comforting.
You said the atheist view strangles the spirit, or cripples it? Something like that. Why do you think that? How does it do that?
Ed doesn't know. "Wherever we might go", that tells me he doesn't know. He could be thinking about 72 virgins too, or reincarnation. Who knows.
edit: this post was posted before I read some of your other posts.
i forgot about koresh......when that occured, i thought to myself, what a bunch of whack jobs.
then i began to think to myself.....if i lived during the days Jesus was on earth, would i have thought to myself, what a bunch of whack jobs. i do not know.
Hi.
Obviously we are all rather dubious about anyone who claims to be the son of God, but it was a rather different situation in 1st century Israel because evryone was expecting the imminant arrival of the messiah. The 300 or so prophecies about his arrival, plus the oppression from Rome, ensured this. Koresh also lived in a culture in which many are expecting the imminant arrival of the messiah, but alas not one called david Koresh. We now know who the messiah is and that he will return the same way he left, by coming down through the clouds to defeat all evil and take his throne in Jerusalem, not to be born as an american kid. How do people fall for that crap? The guy was a bit too friendly with the womenfolk too. Nevertheless the ATF went way, way, too far. What were they thinking?
Your post about intelligent Design being 'not science' serves to illustrate Philip Johnson's argument. Your statement is based on the popular definition of science that hold that only naturalistic explanations of the world are scientific. If only naturalistic explanations count as science then Darwinism wins by default because it automatically rules out its only rival (creation by an intelligent designer). If this definition of science is true then Einstein, Newton, and pretty much all the great scientists of history are 'not scientists' as they believed that God is the cause of the universe.
The biggest mistake we can make is to let something be defined by its critics
Johnson is a critic of the scientific method. It would indeed be rather foolish to let him define what science is. And he also defines what evolution (or as you like to call it Darwinism) is.
I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace
Who knows, eh? You know, he knows, she knows, they know and I know. But we're all wrong and right.
I guess it comes back to what we were talking about earlier. How much the god question means to you.
It means very little to me. I'm interested in religions and beliefs. But I don't care what you think as long as your not forcing down your beliefs on others. I'm an atheist and if a group of atheists wanted to cancel religious teaching in schools, I'd be against that.
People are free to believe what they want. And maybe none of these beliefs is right. Maybe they're all right. Maybe there are, in fact, more truths. How do you know there's only one truth. There could be millions of truths. We don't know.
That's my whole point. We don't know. You might know god is real and feel it in your bones and you might see proof everywhere... People experience the exact same thing you experience, except they believe in allah, or people know, feel and see that god doesn't exists.
So why force your belief onto others, why pity them, why laugh at them...
First of all, are you talking specifically about Darwin's On the Origin of Species or about evolution. You should know they are not the same at all.
That being said, intelligent design has not delivered a death-blow to the theory of evolution at all. Not even close.
I find it extremely absurd you claim evolution is based on philosophy and ID isn't. ID is philosophy. Nothing more. There's barely anything scientific about it. It might look scientific, but it's not. That's what we call pseudo-science.
It is true, if you take the bible literally, evolution cannot be true. However, evolution does not rule out god or a higher being. It is fundamentalist chirstians, such as the Discovery Institue, who take the bible literally and are looking to fit "scientific evidence" into their theory. They try to make it fit and work out according to the bible. ID is creationism and pseudo-science. Why even call it intelligent design, they don't believe allah, brahma, the flying spaghetti monster, yahweh or jehovah or the rastafari Jah created the world, no... it is the christian god. Call it bible design.
SORRY- the above is Collin, below is me
Wow, you've been busy.
ok. When I talk about evolution, I am refering to Darwinism, and to neo-Darwinism. I agree that ID has a large amount of philosophy in it too, unlike darwinism, it is open about this. The problem is that we are all taught Darwinism as if it is an observable fact but it is not, the past cannot be observed. We can only make inferences about the past by what it has left us in the present. One problem with Darwinism is that it requires a way of generating new genetic information, yet natural selection can only work with the information already available. Darwin suggested that mutations could generate the new data for new organs etc. but we now know that this is not true (although darwinists dont like to talk about this). One bio-physicist who has studied mutations for a long time, Dr Lee Spetner, sums up the current state of research in this area:'All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it'. Hence scientific progress has falsified the theory. ID has many philosophers within its ranks because ID is proposing a wider definition of science that allows design to be considered as a plausible alternative to Darwinism. ID also has many prominant scientists within its ranks, such as Dean H. Kenyon, Michael Denton, and Micheal Behe, who are doing ID science, i.e looking for evidence of design in biological systems. Many peer reviewed scientific papers have been published to this end. Saying that ID is 'not science' is such a lame piece of rhetoric. If You are a Darwinist and you are not afraid of ID, engage with the evidence and argument, dont just repeat the worn out mantra of the establishment. free your mind.
Another song that I think is relevant to this thread is insignificance. I think those who are familiar with the apocalyptic literature from the Bible will agree that this song sounds very much like a plea to God for mercy in the coming apocalypse. I love the image of someone in a bar selecting a 'protest' song on the dukebox and dancing 'with irreverance' as the great disaster strikes. Its so reminiscent of what Jesus said 'people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man'. the first chorus is interesting in saying 'the full moon is dead skin' and reminds me of wht revelation says will happen at the apocalypse: I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. 'The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red'. the song seems to call out to God for forgiveness, rather like Jesus did on the cross (forgive them father they know not what they do) saying 'please fogive our hometown, in our insignificance'. Any comments?
The problem is that we are all taught Darwinism as if it is an observable fact but it is not, the past cannot be observed.We can only make inferences about the past by what it has left us in the present. One problem with Darwinism is that it requires a way of generating new genetic information, yet natural selection can only work with the information already available. Darwin suggested that mutations could generate the new data for new organs etc. but we now know that this is not true (although darwinists dont like to talk about this)
Actually Darwinism does have observable facts in fossil evidence of animals that lived millions / billions of years ago which can be accurately dated by carbon dating the rocks, so actually the past can be observed, quite clearly. And i don't know what website you read that says that mutations reduce genetic information because that i complete b######s, mutations change (not reduce) the genetic information giving the animal/plant an advantage or disadvantage. A mutation that gives the animal an advantage means it has a better chance of survival than the rest and so has a good chance of replacing the population. Through fossil evidence and natural selection there is a clear map of how the animal kindgom evolved over 6.5 billion years ago. Do i believe that, or do i believe a fairy tale written by man 2,000 years ago that has more holes in it than a fishing net....hmmmm.
I'm not convinced evolution and divine creation can't co-exist.
Couldn't it be that this supreme being used evolution as the mechanism for creating this world and the species that inhabit it?
I mean, a river created the Grand Canyon. Couldn't you just as easily say that God (if you believe in him) used the river as a tool to carve the canyon.
By the same token, couldn't you say God used evolution as the tool to create life?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace
Now tim, that's not correct either.
I can be an athiest and still consider that I may be incorrect about the existence of God. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I think that those that do are deluded. There are even some who believe that make room for the idea they could be incorrect, granted I've not come across as many of them, but they're out there.
Truth is subjective because everybody is different. No two human beings exactly alike, so that's a lot of different perspectives out there in the world.
I'm not convinced evolution and divine creation can't co-exist.
Couldn't it be that this supreme being used evolution as the mechanism for creating this world and the species that inhabit it?
I mean, a river created the Grand Canyon. Couldn't you just as easily say that God (if you believe in him) used the river as a tool to carve the canyon.
By the same token, couldn't you say God used evolution as the tool to create life?
yeah, that true. Darwinism doesn't discount a creator or god or whatever could have made the universe, it just explains a pretty concrete theory on how natural selection and survival of the fitness created all the wonderful species on earth and totally contradicts what the bible says. A creator could have started it all off, i'm open to that, but as scientists have come up with plausable theories on how planets form and how the basic building blocks of life begin, im also open to that idea too. 'Something' must have created all this, maybe its the marsh mellow man!, however the bible isn't the answer IMO.
This is true. There really is no room in there for "he was just a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
He was either the Son of God.
Or he was a crazy person running around claiming to be the Son of God.
He was either who he said he was.
Or he was David Koresh before David Koresh was cool.
to compare Jesus to david koresh is just absurd. not only did Jesus perform numerous miracles that were well documented by different eyewitnesses, but Jesus NEVER took advantage of people for his own gain...ala mr. koresh. Jesus talked the talk and walked the walk. He backed up what He said. If you read all of His words it's quite obvious that He's not just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
Why isn't there room for "he was just a good guy that said a lot of neat stuff"?
How come it has to be black or white, either/or?
Because he claimed to be the Son of God. Actually, he claimed to BE God. And said anyone who did not believe him and follow him would die in the pits of hell.
He is either a false prophet, leading people astray, a crazy person who really believes this stuff, or actually who he said he was. Liar, lunatic or Lord ... he leaves no room for any other alternative.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
to compare Jesus to david koresh is just absurd. not only did Jesus perform numerous miracles that were well documented by different eyewitnesses, but Jesus NEVER took advantage of people for his own gain...ala mr. koresh. Jesus talked the talk and walked the walk. He backed up what He said. If you read all of His words it's quite obvious that He's not just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
Did you read anything that I posted, or did you just see David Koresh and Jesus in the same sentence and lose your freakin' mind?
This is often the problem with talking to irrational Christians. They don't listen and react purely on emotion. I'm basically on your side here, and you're jumping down my throat.
If you read all of His words it's quite obvious that He's not just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
Go back and read my post that you quoted (really, I'll wait). I specifically said he's NOT just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff." He can't be. He went out of his way to make people get off the fence and make a decision about him.
Liar, lunatic or Lord -- those are the only options available.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I can be an athiest and still consider that I may be incorrect about the existence of God. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I think that those that do are deluded. There are even some who believe that make room for the idea they could be incorrect, granted I've not come across as many of them, but they're out there.
Truth is subjective because everybody is different. No two human beings exactly alike, so that's a lot of different perspectives out there in the world.
i disagree with you jeanie. how can you be an atheist and still consider the possibility that you are incorrect about the existence of God? thats what i call agnosticism.
up until the age of 11 i was entertaining the idea that God was possible. then i guess i had a revelation of sorts and decided for myself through reading and conversation that i could not reconcile the existence of a God with what i felt inside. it just made zero sense to me. and it still makes zero sense to me. i have never wavered in this opinion and never ever considered that i could be wrong. i guess my extreme conviction is the only thing i have in common with believers.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah, that true. Darwinism doesn't discount a creator or god or whatever could have made the universe, it just explains a pretty concrete theory on how natural selection and survival of the fitness created all the wonderful species on earth and totally contradicts what the bible says. A creator could have started it all off, i'm open to that, but as scientists have come up with plausable theories on how planets form and how the basic building blocks of life begin, im also open to that idea too. 'Something' must have created all this, maybe its the marsh mellow man!, however the bible isn't the answer IMO.
I don't think evolution necessarily contradicts what the Bible said. It just depends on how you interpret it.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Comments
Sure.
I don't think writers should be overly concerned by any meaning that someone else derives from their words, regardless of the actions or excuses people use to justify their actions.
Absolutely the author's intended meaning is still important but even that is an ongoing process. There are things that one can write based on where they're at in a particular time in their life that has no bearing on where they might be today. Some writers are able to see that as part of their life story and continue to embrace it but there are others that simply do not feel the same way about what they wrote and will no longer play or read or even acknowledge works from particular times in their lives. We all evolve and change as life continues. What holds meaning now and is relevant to us today may not be tomorrow, or we could feel entirely different about it.
Case in point Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil wrote and performed in one of the greatest activist bands of this generation but you'd never know it now that he's gone off to join the suits that he rallied so passionately against for such a long time.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
A red light doesn't 'naturally' mean stop. It works that way cos that's what has been imposed onto our perceptions by what is around us. The same goes for any book, any song, any poem, any sign.
Hence ends sociology 101.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
basically, He is you.
and the key is the freedom he allows himself to just be and find what works for him to acquire what it is he is looking for. whether that be solace or peace or equilibrium or whatever it is you want to call it that gives one inner strength and a sense of oneself. if one can step back and see the big picture (and i feel the big picture may well differ from person to person) and arrive at a place where they can contemplate all it is they need to and derive from it all they need to live their lives then thats the ultimate goal isnt it?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If God is your key to freedom then I am completely glad that you discovered It and broke the chains. You should embrace those of us that do not feel chained and can experience freedom without Him. "...you underestimate me."
Yes Hinny. I agree that the words convey their meaning through culturally conditioned symbols but if we are part of that same culture, we are abe to discern the intended meaning.
I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace
What's funny to me, since we're talking about GTF, is that the "others" who are chained in the song don't even realize they are chained.
It almost fits exactly with what we are talking about here. I'm starting to freak out. Maybe GTF really IS just a retelling of the gospel of John
for the least they could possibly do
Hey slight.
welcome back, it sounds like you've had a revelation since you were last here. what have you been up to?
Lighting candles and listening to GTF
for the least they could possibly do
I really disagree. I think it's awesome that everyone can openly discuss their feelings on religion and GTF but at the end of the day...it comes down to how some people believe and some do not, hence: whats true for you is different to whats true for me. I understand that not everyone can be right and maybe one of the beauties in life is not knowing, 100%. But, not under any circumstances would I say you're deluded just because we disagreed!
The only people that are deluded to me, when it comes to this sort of discussion, is the sort of person that tells you that you're wrong (when they disagree with you) and the only "lucky ones" who know whats true and fake are people who agree with them.
and for discussion purposes, i would choose to eat lunch with an atheist that does good for others, over a person of any faith who does harm.
This is true. There really is no room in there for "he was just a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
He was either the Son of God.
Or he was a crazy person running around claiming to be the Son of God.
He was either who he said he was.
Or he was David Koresh before David Koresh was cool.
for the least they could possibly do
then i began to think to myself.....if i lived during the days Jesus was on earth, would i have thought to myself, what a bunch of whack jobs. i do not know.
I completely disagree with you.
First of all, are you talking specifically about Darwin's On the Origin of Species or about evolution. You should know they are not the same at all.
That being said, intelligent design has not delivered a death-blow to the theory of evolution at all. Not even close.
The Discovery Institute seems to be very biased.
" Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers."[58] The 2005 judge in the "Dover Trial", Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, came to a similar conclusion about the Institute in his ruling: "CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones." wikipedia
I find it extremely absurd you claim evolution is based on philosophy and ID isn't. ID is philosophy. Nothing more. There's barely anything scientific about it. It might look scientific, but it's not. That's what we call pseudo-science.
It is true, if you take the bible literally, evolution cannot be true. However, evolution does not rule out god or a higher being. It is fundamentalist chirstians, such as the Discovery Institue, who take the bible literally and are looking to fit "scientific evidence" into their theory. They try to make it fit and work out according to the bible. ID is creationism and pseudo-science. Why even call it intelligent design, they don't believe allah, brahma, the flying spaghetti monster, yahweh or jehovah or the rastafari Jah created the world, no... it is the christian god. Call it bible design.
Here's a great website that explains evolution. I'm not sure I'd trust what Discovery told you about it, or about atheism for that matter. You seem to think atheism and evolution go hand in hand. In many cases this is true (then again, evolution is actual science, not philosophy). Read what atheism is about here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/ (it'll be a lot more accurate than whatever the Discovery Institute is telling you).
So, in conclusion, evolution is still very much alive, it's not beginning to crumble (and if it is, certainly not under the pressure of pseudo-scientists).
I completely agree.
See, again the condescending attitude. You are right and everyone else is wrong. Once you get off your high horse, we'll be able to discuss this properly.
No, I did not "convince" myself god doesn't exist. I know for a fact that god doesn't exist. Just like you know he does exist. You don't know and I don't know. You don't have a monopoly on the truth. Neither do I.
You can believe what you want, as long as you don't bother me cool. If you want ID in science class, it bothers me because it's not science. Teach it in Sunday school or religious education classes, and if you do teach it in school, I hope they're also teaching the creation stories and magical tales of the other major religions too.
Beyond the grave there's nothing. That's what I believe. I don't see why or how that is a problem? I find it very comforting.
You said the atheist view strangles the spirit, or cripples it? Something like that. Why do you think that? How does it do that?
Ed doesn't know. "Wherever we might go", that tells me he doesn't know. He could be thinking about 72 virgins too, or reincarnation. Who knows.
edit: this post was posted before I read some of your other posts.
naděje umírá poslední
Hi.
Obviously we are all rather dubious about anyone who claims to be the son of God, but it was a rather different situation in 1st century Israel because evryone was expecting the imminant arrival of the messiah. The 300 or so prophecies about his arrival, plus the oppression from Rome, ensured this. Koresh also lived in a culture in which many are expecting the imminant arrival of the messiah, but alas not one called david Koresh. We now know who the messiah is and that he will return the same way he left, by coming down through the clouds to defeat all evil and take his throne in Jerusalem, not to be born as an american kid. How do people fall for that crap? The guy was a bit too friendly with the womenfolk too. Nevertheless the ATF went way, way, too far. What were they thinking?
Johnson is a critic of the scientific method. It would indeed be rather foolish to let him define what science is. And he also defines what evolution (or as you like to call it Darwinism) is.
naděje umírá poslední
Who knows, eh? You know, he knows, she knows, they know and I know. But we're all wrong and right.
I guess it comes back to what we were talking about earlier. How much the god question means to you.
It means very little to me. I'm interested in religions and beliefs. But I don't care what you think as long as your not forcing down your beliefs on others. I'm an atheist and if a group of atheists wanted to cancel religious teaching in schools, I'd be against that.
People are free to believe what they want. And maybe none of these beliefs is right. Maybe they're all right. Maybe there are, in fact, more truths. How do you know there's only one truth. There could be millions of truths. We don't know.
That's my whole point. We don't know. You might know god is real and feel it in your bones and you might see proof everywhere... People experience the exact same thing you experience, except they believe in allah, or people know, feel and see that god doesn't exists.
So why force your belief onto others, why pity them, why laugh at them...
Live and let live.
naděje umírá poslední
Actually Darwinism does have observable facts in fossil evidence of animals that lived millions / billions of years ago which can be accurately dated by carbon dating the rocks, so actually the past can be observed, quite clearly. And i don't know what website you read that says that mutations reduce genetic information because that i complete b######s, mutations change (not reduce) the genetic information giving the animal/plant an advantage or disadvantage. A mutation that gives the animal an advantage means it has a better chance of survival than the rest and so has a good chance of replacing the population. Through fossil evidence and natural selection there is a clear map of how the animal kindgom evolved over 6.5 billion years ago. Do i believe that, or do i believe a fairy tale written by man 2,000 years ago that has more holes in it than a fishing net....hmmmm.
Couldn't it be that this supreme being used evolution as the mechanism for creating this world and the species that inhabit it?
I mean, a river created the Grand Canyon. Couldn't you just as easily say that God (if you believe in him) used the river as a tool to carve the canyon.
By the same token, couldn't you say God used evolution as the tool to create life?
for the least they could possibly do
Now tim, that's not correct either.
I can be an athiest and still consider that I may be incorrect about the existence of God. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I think that those that do are deluded. There are even some who believe that make room for the idea they could be incorrect, granted I've not come across as many of them, but they're out there.
Truth is subjective because everybody is different. No two human beings exactly alike, so that's a lot of different perspectives out there in the world.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Why isn't there room for "he was just a good guy that said a lot of neat stuff"?
How come it has to be black or white, either/or?
Why can't Jesus be a person who actually existed who is now subject to the greatest chain of Chinese whispers of all time?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
yeah, that true. Darwinism doesn't discount a creator or god or whatever could have made the universe, it just explains a pretty concrete theory on how natural selection and survival of the fitness created all the wonderful species on earth and totally contradicts what the bible says. A creator could have started it all off, i'm open to that, but as scientists have come up with plausable theories on how planets form and how the basic building blocks of life begin, im also open to that idea too. 'Something' must have created all this, maybe its the marsh mellow man!, however the bible isn't the answer IMO.
to compare Jesus to david koresh is just absurd. not only did Jesus perform numerous miracles that were well documented by different eyewitnesses, but Jesus NEVER took advantage of people for his own gain...ala mr. koresh. Jesus talked the talk and walked the walk. He backed up what He said. If you read all of His words it's quite obvious that He's not just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
Because he claimed to be the Son of God. Actually, he claimed to BE God. And said anyone who did not believe him and follow him would die in the pits of hell.
He is either a false prophet, leading people astray, a crazy person who really believes this stuff, or actually who he said he was. Liar, lunatic or Lord ... he leaves no room for any other alternative.
for the least they could possibly do
Did you read anything that I posted, or did you just see David Koresh and Jesus in the same sentence and lose your freakin' mind?
This is often the problem with talking to irrational Christians. They don't listen and react purely on emotion. I'm basically on your side here, and you're jumping down my throat.
Go back and read my post that you quoted (really, I'll wait). I specifically said he's NOT just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff." He can't be. He went out of his way to make people get off the fence and make a decision about him.
Liar, lunatic or Lord -- those are the only options available.
for the least they could possibly do
i disagree with you jeanie. how can you be an atheist and still consider the possibility that you are incorrect about the existence of God? thats what i call agnosticism.
up until the age of 11 i was entertaining the idea that God was possible. then i guess i had a revelation of sorts and decided for myself through reading and conversation that i could not reconcile the existence of a God with what i felt inside. it just made zero sense to me. and it still makes zero sense to me. i have never wavered in this opinion and never ever considered that i could be wrong. i guess my extreme conviction is the only thing i have in common with believers.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't think evolution necessarily contradicts what the Bible said. It just depends on how you interpret it.
for the least they could possibly do