Yes, indeed, but the basis of this symbolism is a pine tree in the snow with gifts placed beneath it.
It is indeed an amalgamation of so many different things but it is a great day where adults get to give gifts to children who are the real gifts they themselves were given...
'To me the Bible is the wisdom of an elder, who knows the challenges I will face in life, giving me the knowledge, judgement and wisdom to survuve, grow and thrive, until one day I will be accepted as a peer.'
I wonder if there is anyone alive who HAS read the entire Bible who does believe in it? Because once you read that thing through there are some serious holes in it. Newton - himself a religious scholar - as I have pointed out before, wrote of its notable corruptions and inconsistencies while being a devout believer.
It is such a sad thing that people do not have an open mind to the amount of books written 'by elders' to mankind because they have not the same following.
But of this: 'To me the Bible is the wisdom of an elder, who knows the challenges I will face in life, giving me the knowledge, judgement and wisdom to survive, grow and thrive’ I respect.
I also admire your faith, Gnome - stead fast and staunch - in what you believe.
But I do not have FAITH in what you believe, and that is my compromise.
Merry Christmas Gnome!!!
My accusations have never been to Christ, they have been to those who have followed him poorly and dared to called themselves Christians.
But who indeed can follow such a man and truly BE Christian?
I am retiring from this thread for Christmas – it is indeed a day to celebrate a change of human morality for the better (but not for the best - in my opinion).
Because it is SUPERhuman morality, and we cannot walk on water and heal our wounded with our hands.
I seek some other way to heal our wounded with our heads. And indeed there can be no healing where there are no wounds.
No, seriously, if you think putting Christmas presents under a pine tree is not symbolic of mushrooms you are mistaken my friend. And if you think the most traditional Christmas colours of white and red are not from that mushroom . . .
I have always believed in accordance with eastern systems of metaphysics a 'god' who did not create the world 'for fun' but out of necessity/cause.
At bottom I look at 'god and the various religions he is attached to' as systems of metaphysics (albeit childish ones) - maybe one day we will have an explanation and say, hey, that's what we used to call 'god' or what we used to use 'god' because we couldn't explain.
People will probably still not believe it.
God is indeed a non-explanation and it is impossible to gain information from non-information. However I believe in the logical rule that a true conclusion can follow from a false-premises.
Hence the fascination for these systems of metaphysics.
Thanks for that excellent post. I believe I said earlier myself that if we want to explain the world we need to keep our eyes solely thereon.
You have lowered yourself to a level lower than me my man. And your hypocrisy is two-fold so you need to apologise twice, for I have done the same thing to others that you have done to me for the same reason. You gone right to the pits my man. My 'minions' are stand alone individuals whom I respect. I even respect gnome and enjoy our back and forth banter. I don’t ‘hate’ gnome – I just gave him a scolding. He’s given me one or two. C’mon, it’s Christmas! I apologise to you if I have somehow upset you but is there any use? It's only going to happen again and 'I' ain’t gonna change. Keep your head up my man. Some favour the brave. Merry Christmas.
I see once again that Gnome is the trigger of sublime intellectual endeavour. I do pity the man. Merry Christmas Gnome!!! Hey, here’s a question for my wise gnome: why do people traditionally drag a pine tree into their living room and place presents under it. Why do reindeers come into this tradition and why is Santa traditionally dressed in red and white? Prepare to be enlightened if you cannot answer - and the answer will indeed be COUNTER TO YOUR TASTE as it comes from a most sordid practice . . .
And Jesus was a sailor, when he walked upon the water, and when he was certain, that only drowning men could see him, he said, 'All men will be sailors then until the sea shall free them' but forsaken, almost human, he sank beneath their wisdom like a stone.
A lizard licking its eyeballs is one thing, have you ever seen the genus of frog that freezes over stiff during hibernation and thaws out afterwards from a completely solid, frozen state and then an electrical impulse restarts its heart? Not bad for random mutation, but what intelligent part did evolution itself play in this? Or none?
Is evolution where the intelligence or ‘a semblance of intelligence’ lies in these ‘random mutations’?
Indeed as I have alluded to before in domesticated ducks wings become lighter and feet heavier, and many wild dog’s ears will droop after several generations of domestication . . .
When I look at the existence or non-existence of God, I always look at the existence of evolution itself as an objective consideration, and as what could be called in a very crude way indeed: the chisel and hammer of ‘God’. Hah! When one can prove to me that there is no intelligent design or intelligible objective to ‘evolution’ itself, then maybe we can look deeper at a more ground-breaking and better-founded refutation of the existence of God or an intelligent designer than this common drivel.
Hello Charlos, I read over this post previously and wanted to reply to it but was busy following up a different train of thought (a woman) - but now have come back to it.
I do not accept the existence of ‘imperfection’, or that there is from a subjective view-point ‘much left to be desired’ - given the incomprehensible design or rather ‘objective’ of evolution itself, and indeed the environmental adaptability of biological beings and the positive/negative transmutations brought about thereby - as sufficient grounds to refute an ‘intelligent designer’ or a creator/God . . . Anymore than I accept the existence of suffering and human misery as sufficient grounds amounting to a plausible refutation of ‘God’ [common among Atheist nurses as grounds for their Atheism]. Added to a totality of grounds given as a disproof, I will therefore immediately strike it as a subjective and not objective consideration. To do so is to claim that if there was no suffering, indeed no imperfection, then there WOULD be sufficient grounds for an intelligent designer. And, indeed, turkeys would fly around ready-roasted. Sounds human, all too human. A bit subjective for ‘scientism’ which should be purely objective, surely? The hand is perfectly evolved to do the tasks it has done and does or is at any rate seemingly ‘designed’ to do. If the human hand was able to move its fingers independently of the accompanying others it would in fact be far less efficient than it is NOW and it seems to me to work in accordance with what it is designed (or WILLED) to do and even BEYOND that to a remarkable degree. If the fingers were free to move individually, even in a relaxed state we would walk around with our fingers splayed like star-fishes and would in fact have less efficient hands for holding – which is what a hand is used for. Holding. Also, each hand is controlled by the opposing brain hemisphere including the fingers on each hand. They have flexor and extensor muscles and are connected to both the underside and topside of the forearm (a quick squeeze of the wrist will close the hand very suddenly), therefore the relaxed hand is in a constant/fixed state of readiness to clasp or grab hold for clear survival reasons. To restrain a child ASAP from running into the road, in example, or to stop oneself from falling by grabbing a nearby object. That this is a sufficient refutation of God or intelligent design is . . . hmmm . . . debatable . . . as much as I’d like to see one.
This tiresome (yawn) idea that ‘if there was an intelligent designer’ he/she/it was not a very good designer’ is about as sufficient an aid to a proposed disproof of God (as given or added or subtracted to a sufficient totality of grounds given for OR against God) as a totally subjective naysay in itself.
As for science and scientism being the authority over all other systems of consideration and further explanation or improvement of our human understanding of the mystery and riddle of existence:
‘The intuitive mind is a gift, and the rational mind its faithful servant. The problem is . . . we have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’ Albert Einstein (himself an avid reader of philosophy - – notably Spinoza and Schopenhauer whom he read from his youth up).
Hmmm . . . ‘just evolution producing random mutations’ but with an intelligible design brought about BY that evolution . . . ?
Thanks Yumie. Hey I sent an email to you about Lao Tzu, Taoism and The Veda (you wanted to know what I thought about the Upanishads in comparison), did you get it? I know some great essays by Schopenhauer on Eastern Religious systems of metaphysics and their superiority to west ones owing to their open-mindedness and encouragement of philosophical thought and speculation. Thanks again. I didn’t put East next to Bay for nothing. kiss:
You see, these are the ones who tell us to be open minded . . . I wonder if they have read the Upanishads or the Veda or Lao Tzu as WELL as The Bible? Have they read the Koran? Do they know how many key figures from The Bible appear in the Koran? Abraham, for one. But no! It’s inconsequential that there are other recordings outside of The Bible of the same people in it! And at any rate they must be fabrications . . .
Bah!
So what I must do is 'put aside my arrogance' and believe in Christianity.
EastbayRay Forum Posts (781)
RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.
Yes, indeed, but the basis of this symbolism is a pine tree in the snow with gifts placed beneath it.It is indeed an amalgamation of so many different things but it is a great day where adults get to give gifts to children who are the real gifts they themselves were given...
...but had to pay in full for.