• A member of the original wondercafe, Punkins has passed away. There's a thread in the In Memoriam section
  • Our new header image is our own private beach. See Council News & Business for more.

Philosophy of Religion--All Religions, Including Atheists&Agnostics

Hermann

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
920
THE FUTURE


"I've seen the future, brother, it is murder."


-From Repent by Leonard Cohen
 

RevLindsG King

Well-Known Member
Messages
754
Reaction score
109
THE FUTURE

"I've seen the future, brother, it is murder."


-From Repent by Leonard Cohen
Arm: In 1975, as a guide and part of a tour guide, I made two trips to the Middle East.

In the first trip Jean and I--then both 45--saw and visited some of the refugee camps in the Middle East--crammed with families, including many young children, surviving in squalor--near Beirut, then called the Paris of the Middle East. This was just before the first Lebanese civil war started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

That evening, at a gathering of our group, I remember saying to one and all present: "Today, we witnessed the future ... think about it. Unless something is done, SOON--by those with the economic wealth, political power and will to take positive actions--the children we saw today, will be the terrorists of tomorrow."

Within hours, after we got on the plane that took us back to Toronto, we heard the news that the airport near Beirut had been attacked. WOW! That was close.
 

RevLindsG King

Well-Known Member
Messages
754
Reaction score
109
THE FUTURE

"I've seen the future, brother, it is murder."


-From Repent by Leonard Cohen
Arm: In 1975, as a guide and part of the tour, I made two trips to the Middle East.

In the first trip Jean and I--then both 45--saw and visited some of the refugee camps in the Middle East--crammed with families, including many young children, surviving in squalor--near Beirut, then called the Paris of the Middle East. This was just before the first Lebanese civil war started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

That evening, at a gathering of our group, I remember saying to one and all present: "Today, we witnessed the future ... think about it. Unless something is done, SOON--by those with the economic wealth, political power and will to take positive actions--the children we saw today, will be the terrorists of tomorrow."

Within hours, after we arrived back in Toronto, we heard the shocking news that an airport in or near Beirut was attacked. WOW! I thought to myself. Is the future that close?

Much later--after I had paused for a while and thought deeply about those two trips I took--I also began to re-think why it was I spent so many of my student years--nine in all, including two years (1954-1955) at Boston University School of Theology, studying the History of Ideas, including the ideas of philosophy and religion.

Obviously, I had, and still do have, a deep interest in the whole story of the people and their lands as mentioned in the Bible. I also want to know about the ancient (PAST) and modern (PRESENT) history of that part of the world we call, "The Holy Land".

WHAT IS THE HOLY LAND
?
http://www.seetheholyland.net/what-is-this-holy-land/

At this point I have come to the conclusion that, like many parts of the world, the place WE call the HOLY LAND, is the place where many of our ancestors were insane--and, today, many more still are. They kept on, and keep on, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. [Don't go away, I have not finished yet!]
 

RevLindsG King

Well-Known Member
Messages
754
Reaction score
109
A quote about THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY, which I find interesting:
I hear this every week, sometimes twice a day: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

No, it isn't.

To be clear, insanity is a legal term pertaining to a defendant's ability to determine right from wrong when a crime is committed. Here's the first sentence of law.com's lengthy definition:

Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.
and this,
Insanity is a concept discussed in court to help distinguish guilt from innocence. It's informed by mental health professionals, but the term today is primarily legal, not psychological. There's no "insane" diagnosis listed in the DSM. There's no "nervous breakdown" either, but that's another blog.

Where did this saying come from? It's attributed to Albert Einstein (probably not ), Benjamin Franklin ( probably not ), Mark Twain (probably not) and mystery writer Rita Mae Brown (probably so) who used it in her novel Sudden Death. It's not clear who said it first, but according to at least one blogger it's "the dumbest thing a smart person ever said." The catchy saying has gathered steam in the past few years (example I, II, III), and regardless of the source, it's gotten a lot of mileage.

I'm not in the habit of slamming cute sayings (with one exception), but I think there's a dark underbelly to this one. I've started hearing people use it in the service of avoidance, which is a defence mechanism. Rather than facing their fears, they grab on to this saying for protection against possible failure, pain or rejection. Some examples:

  • "I've asked out two women and been shot down both times, and you know the definition of insanity..."
  • "I jogged for a week and actually gained weight. They say the definition of insanity is ..."
  • "It's been a month and I'm still crying about his death. I'm living the definition of insanity."
This just for starters about this important concept--INSANITY?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hermann

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
920
Yes, the opposing parties in the "Holy" Land are very sane--from their respective perspectives. Each side argues from their viewpoint, and from their viewpoint, each party is right. Unfortunately, each party also believes that their viewpoint is absolutely valid. Each side refuses to even acknowledge the viewpoint of the other side, and the possibility of shifting to a different viewpoint, the unitive viewpoint. And, of course, both sides would have to shift their viewpoint in order for it to work, which seems almost impossible given the entrenched hatred and severe hostilities. Yet, incongruously, they both have peace, Shalom in Hebraic and Salaam in Arabic, as their foremost principle. Go, figure!?:cry:
 

RevLindsG King

Well-Known Member
Messages
754
Reaction score
109
Linds, if it wasn't for Tutor Turtle, it would just be you talking to yourself. Which it pretty much is for stretches.

Your threads seem to get views, but not much else. You link to them in places like Twitter and About.com I see. That will drive up views, and a lot of the views will be bot re-indexing the thread for search engines. Bragging about views like you do is pointless, as 8,000,000 views doesn't mean anything when you only have 2000 replies. That's 4000 views per reply, which is a nonsensical ratio. Either there is a bug in the counting system once it reaches a certain number, or Google had issues. One reply for every 4000 views is Nigerian email territory.

And for a subforum called "Not-Quite-Science", you're expanding the definition of "not quite". From what I've seen, I agree with Tutor Turtle, and I think he has been quite reasonable.
 

RevLindsG King

Well-Known Member
Messages
754
Reaction score
109
Linds, if it wasn't for Tutor Turtle, it would just be you talking to yourself. Which it pretty much is for stretches.

Your threads seem to get views, but not much else. You link to them in places like Twitter and About.com I see. That will drive up views, and a lot of the views will be bot re-indexing the thread for search engines. Bragging about views like you do is pointless, as 8,000,000 views doesn't mean anything when you only have 2000 replies. That's 4000 views per reply, which is a nonsensical ratio. Either there is a bug in the counting system once it reaches a certain number, or Google had issues. One reply for every 4000 views is Nigerian email territory.

And for a subforum called "Not-Quite-Science", you're expanding the definition of "not quite". From what I've seen, I agree with Tutor Turtle, and I think he has been quite reasonable.
============================================
Chansen:
You say my, " threads get views, but not much else." Right?

Then you need to take a second look. Just below, meet a boni fide climatologist and scientist, Samwik. We have chatted, many times. Now here is someone who does more than just "spin navel lint" and he knows how to be part of back and forth kind of dialogue.

Meanwhile, thank GOD, TT has gone back to "everywhere and no where". If you had something to do with making this happen, THANKS! :LOL: :)


BTW, long before TT came along in 2008--and became a spoiler--there were many chats with numerous posters. Take a quick peek through the Print Version:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=printthread&Board=2&main=1617&type=thread
====================
Originally Posted By: samwik--just recently

Revlgking said:
Sam, I ask, what, for you, makes my definition of 'god' a 'transcendent' one?
... And you said,

Quote:
It refers to something beyond the material/dimensional, such as when you say,"not as a 'god' in any way shape or form--that is, an idol with dimensions--or even a supernatural being, with dimensions ...."
=======================
Thanks, for that! Theologically speaking, I hope you can see what I have in mind. In my opinion, a 'god' that can be named and called 'God' is nothing more than a mentally created idol, not what I had in mind when the idea came to me to use an acronym like, GOD, G0D, G?D, or even the Jewish version, G-d.
Quote:

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I also ask: What do the common terms 'religion','gods','god' and 'God'--as used in English Bibles, theological writings and by virtually all monotheists, non-theists and atheists--mean to you?
To which you responded,
Quote:
...save for later ...though I like the omni-definition for God ...as being omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient ...in a transcendent way, of course....
You say you like "the omni-definition for God". This is why I no longer find it easy to stick with the proper noun, 'God'. If you do, you have the right to do so.

Interestingly, the ancient Hebrews made no use of capital letters, as we do. Unlike modern Hebrew, all letters were upper case.

When the ancient Hebrews wished to make a word, or a noun "proper", or "majestic", they made it into what is called a "majestic plural". That is, they pluralized it by adding the suffix IM. So GOD became ELOHIM--power (EL) in its highest form--that from which, even now, all matter emanates.

The modern Greek for power is dynami, from which we get words like dynamic, dynamo--logically speaking, it is the noun they should have used for 'god'.

However, as your helpful exegesis makes clear, the Greeks called 'God', Theos--which, I assume, they thought of as the highest idea behind all forms of power.

I REALIZE THAT THE FOLLOWING IS SIMPLISTIC--but here goes:
When we Anglo-speakers came along, I speculate that we simply chose to think of 'God', not as a being, or as a power, but as the ONE, POWERFUL and GOOD IDEA--in through us--including all people of GOOD-will--and around all that IS.

Modern philosophers and theologians, like A.N. Whitehead, coined the word, 'panENtheism'. I like to use a doublet of this word--coined by Warren Farr and me--'unitheism'. Our group on FaceBook welcomes one and all. _________________________
GOD?--thank GOD which is the Gift Of Discernment & helps us be god-like