Reincarnation

---

Please enlighten me with a few examples.

Shit, Shit, Shit. I had this beautiful response about finished and the friggin board crashed and I lost it. The stability of this board seems to be getting worse and worse.This is going to be short-handed because I don't have the patients to retype it all again. So my apologies to you Lanky._>>>"Actually it doesn't. I used the phrase "doesn't translate well into scientific fact" in my first post to specifically exclude science from what I was saying..."I disagree, by the inclusion of the word "well" in that statement science is included. The word "well" implies that beliefs, to some unspecifeid degree, can be applied to science. If science was meant to be excluded than, "[This] doesn't translate into scientific fact," would have been a clear exclusive statement. After the ensuing debate about science fact, any clarity that arguments presented were about science, philosophy or anything else were confused, for me. Sometimes split hairs matter.>>>"Let us with caution indulge the supposition..." Does this really seem to you to be a presentation of a sociological fact, or is it instead just a warning to be careful about accepting a certain 'supposed' idea?"I'll concede that point, in as far as it applies to Washington's quote. However, (you know I'm not going to give in that easy ) when the statement is read in it's full context, as it was presented, the meaning seems to be something different. The statement was made as: In reply to:"George Washington once said, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion" meaning that without a sense of accountability to a "higher power" we have minimal basis for morality. I have to agree..." When read within the entirety of the context it was presented in, it does give the impression, at least to me, that religion is elevated, "as fact" with other factors having no bearing. So, to that degree I stand by my original point about the statement. What is in bold, in the previous quote, is that claim that was made. What's in italics is the claimant. The quote is support for the claim. What's in bold seems rather finale, to me. Since the statement is made without qualification, the statement is going to appear pat and difinitive. Further, it is incumbant on the person making the claim to qualify the statement if they believe qualification applies. Qualification should not have to be infered from a quote.>>>"I guess you missed where I said in [European society's] current less religious state I imagine laws and the consequences of breaking them have something to do with it. More effective social programs and more socialist policies can have that effect too, as well as reduced access to weapons. Social/peer pressures also have a bearing, since hanging around with law abiding people tends to make someone more law abiding themself...Dude, how are you missing all of this good stuff?"How could I miss that? It's only somewhere in the next 50,000 words. While I can't find it, I recognize having read it. It qualifies the previous statement, for the most part, with regard to the Washington quote. Again though, had the original statement been qualified some of the confusion could have been avoided. By qualification I don't mean enumeration, I mean an open statement not a definitive one as it seemed to be.>>>"Huh? Which part of "First Cause points to (not 'proves', but points to) the existence of God, and if there's a God, then we have reason to believe in the existence of a soul" did you mistake for science?...It goes back to your original question."As you said it goes back to the original question and your answer explained it. As for what lead me to believe it was in reference to anything scientific was the phrase "(not 'proves', but points to)." I was unsure if you meant this as a philosophy or as many intelligent design advocates try and use it as a basis for science theory. In my response I explained my confusion to the usage and qualified my admonition of it.As I said in my first response to the discussion on "first cause" philosophy, I have no problem with it as that. As long as it remains well within the realm of philosophy, were the reasoning can be debated at infinitum, it can point to whatever the observer reasons that it points to.>>>"That's all it was presented as too."Then I'm cool with that.

Flashback to the times of Roman rule in the Mediterranean. Christians were persecuted everywhere...as were all followers of Christ back then. Then look what happened to him. I'd call being nailed on a cross to die as a fairly strong example of persecution. (Note: This has been historically verified outside of the Bible, for those of you who don't believe the Bible to be historically correct in this instance...have you ever seen "The Passion of the Christ", BTW?) Then look at what happened in communist Russia. The Orthodox Christians there were all but killed for their beliefs by an anti-religious government. Need I also mention what happened to the Jews at the hands of Hitler.You really don't have to think too hard to come up with a few big examples, do you.

Have you ever seen "The Passion Of The Christ"? The movie, based directly on the Bible or atleast Mel Gibson's interpretation of it, quite directly showed that Jesus' death was quite a religious matter on both sides. The Jews had Jesus killed for heracy, they demanded it. And there isn't much doubt that the man Jesus did exist and that he was quite influential in people's lives, its the accounts of his life and his declared divinity that are in question.But I do accept your points on the Orthodox Church in 20th century Russia, and altho the Nazis did follow a religious doctrine of their own, I admit that this was not their main reasoning behind the exploitation and extermination of the Jews. Altho many would argue that the majority of Anti-Semitism in Germany was because the nazis were jealous that the jews had the riches and the main businesses, and not specifically because of their faith or beliefs.

In reply to: I had this beautiful response about finished and the friggin board crashed and I lost it. The stability of this board seems to be getting worse and worse. Been there, done that. I can certainly sympathize too. I've had that happen so often in the past that now when I pass 4 or 5 paragraphs I automatically save any responses to a text file using Notepad so I can recover them if something like that happens. There's a text file named "Pending Post" on my desktop that always contains the latest long reply that I was worried about. In reply to: I disagree, by the inclusion of the word "well" in that statement science is included. The word "well" implies that beliefs, to some unspecifeid degree, can be applied to science. If science was meant to be excluded than, "[This] doesn't translate into scientific fact," would have been a clear exclusive statement. After the ensuing debate about science fact, any clarity that arguments presented were about science, philosophy or anything else were confused, for me. Sometimes split hairs matter. If you'd have heard my tone when I wrote it, you'd have recognized the sardonic understatement that was meant to be. Sometimes I forget to add the appropriate smiley, so that's my bad, and I'll accept a share of the blame for that. I was thinking that no one equates a belief to a scientific fact, but the truth is that on the 'net there are people who believe anything. In reply to: As I said in my first response to the discussion on "first cause" philosophy, I have no problem with it as that. As long as it remains well within the realm of philosophy, were the reasoning can be debated at infinitum, it can point to whatever the observer reasons that it points to. Sorry if my tone seemed a bit rough earlier. My efforts to stay on philosophy and religion were being ignored, and when you didn't address the lack of reason in that paper in the earlier link it seemed inconsistent and a bit like piling-on to me. Lanky"It looks like my work here is done."

Lanky, we're at war against "Islamofascism", according to the president. It's a war of civilizations, he says. The Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims are blowing each other up because they can't agree on whether there's a successor to Mohammad. So many jihads.After Tito fell, the Serbian Orthodox Church hitched its cart to Serbian nationalism. Remember Slobodan Milosevic? That was a big disaster.How about the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, between Protestants and Catholics?How about the religious wars in France between 1562 and 1598? ("Une foi, un loi, un roi")Then there were the Crusades.You can argue that those are examples of things that can go wrong with institutionalized organized religions, but it really shows how people can be manipulated once they accept magical beliefs. I wonder how many tribal wars started when one group decides that another group is sending evil energy in their direction.You can even argue that Kim Jong-Il is a religious figure in North Korea.Bottom line: magical thinking has bad consequences. In the U.S., we now seem to be at war with intellectualism. It's been equated with pointy-headed liberalism. We're having a reverse Renaissance.

A perfect example of drawing the wrong conclusion from a situation Steve. Thanks for playing.Modified slightly, though, it comes out correct:"...but it really shows how people can be manipulated once they accept magical beliefs" created by other men.You missed the part about men having to be involved somehow...even after acknowledging that the problem comes from "institutionalized organized religion" (having been made so by men, of course).

A perfect example of drawing the wrong conclusion from a situation Steve. Thanks for playing.You are such a clever wordsmith. Mind if I call the Nobel committe on your behalf?"...but it really shows how people can be manipulated once they accept magical beliefs" created by other men. Religious beliefs are an example of this.Whomever inspired the words that we read that have been translated to Enlish that constitute the modern bible (which itself comes in several flavors), they have been used by men to manipulate an supress people. The bible easily becomes a tool of repression, just like a rifle. It's far more insidious than a gun, though. Same goes for the Koran and other holy books.It's one thing when people really know that slavery is wrong; it's another thing when people think they're doing God's work. Take a look at the 19th century American slaveholders, and people who brought down the World Trade Center buildings, to understand what I mean.