Tables Turned Green for a Spiritual and Sustainable World

Chakra • 2 days ago Every methodology like Science has to to have a 'Reference'. And that reference cannot come from science itself. In that case, it will be a circular logic sort of thing and therefore completely invalid. Some things are axiomatic or self evident like Pythagorean principle etc. These are starting point or reference point. Obviously these cannot be proved by science. 2 • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Chakra • 4 hours ago • edited Good points for starters. By the term "Reference" you mean more precisely a "Frame of Reference." A key one historically has been and is Thomas of Aquinas´ clarification of Aristotle´s abandoned First Cause argument. He noticed that causes and effects exist by observation and induction, and that we can deduce and interpolate back to a First Cause. However, he assumed that the Universe is "eternal," which led him to believe that there was no First Cause. He assum...

Verisimilitude Chakra • 5 days ago • edited Me, I don't think the search into The Mystery is hard-wired, like, say, sex or need-for-food, both of which are, obviously hard-wired. Mind you, a Buddhist (perhaps Gautama, but I don't know for sure) said that even if his teachings died out, they would arise again in the human mind...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are hard-wired, of course) An additional point emerges in thinking how non-spiritual focus led and leads to inequalities and injustices in agricultural settlments and civilizations with institutions like religions instead of the individual activities that prevail in tribal living. As power becomes concentrated and abused and neglected, tensions will arise. The spiritual path in Buddha´s case emerged in Hindu India where inequality was institutionalized in the Caste system, and he was in the privileged class of Kshatriya warriors, I recall. Jesus´ heritage has the first element of Moses, and the inadequacy of...

Avatar Cha • 20 hours ago Any Ideology or a Religion is a MODEL for behavior / action with a sort of goal/s. Regarding Models, following points are generally true ... a) All Models are wrong b) Some models are useful c) Some Models are Gorgeous !! (Playboy ...) Religion falls in the (b) category .... Wrong & Useful, at least to many people. Hence it continues. My POV : Let it continue for the believers ... but the believers should not tell others that others should accept the Model as FACT or TRUTH. • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Cha • a few seconds ago That pretty much provides the beginning of a coherent account why Christianity´s unprecedented development in key areas as University-based society has been encapsulated in modern "secular culture." People have embraced it because it was exerted powerfully in colonialism that spread the tools of education and scientific philosophy. The establishment of the United Nations an...

Based on watching Bruce Gore´s lecture series, now in Church History, episode on Ambrose: Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago I´m enjoying Bruce´s lectures. However, his brilliant historical insight and combination of ministerial insights is orthodox. I didn´t have the luxury of his cultural enmeshment, having two foreign-born parents, which I´m grateful for. America´s good points, unfortunately, are fundamentally balanced by bad points that are reinforced by the morality Bruce id´d as "Might makes right." While Fundamentalists have been funded by profiteering corp execs, Mainstream denominations have their own problems of acquiescence to that very profiteering system and its indoctrination. FDR and Eleanor make a nice point of reference, since they ushered in a pro-social collection of policies. The Cold War´s combination of militarism converged with a wayward minister, however, told in K Kruse´s One Nation Under God, and corp execs ready and willing to fund ...

Avatar Cha • a day ago Every methodology like Science has to to have a 'Reference'. And that reference cannot come from science itself. In that case, it will be a circular logic sort of thing and therefore completely invalid. Some things are axiomatic or self evident like Pythagorean principle etc. These are starting point or reference point. Obviously these cannot be proved by science. 2 • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Cha • 20 minutes ago • edited Good points for starters. By the term "Reference" you mean more precisely a "Frame of Reference." A key one historically has been and is Thomas of Aquinas´ clarification of Aristotle´s abandoned First Cause argument. He noticed that causes and effects exist by observation and induction, and that we can deduce and interpolate back to a First Cause. However, he assumed that the Universe is "eternal," which led him to believe that there was no First Cause. He ass...

In relation to a video of WL Craig, P Atkins on "What Science Cannot Do" Sal Bis • 14 hours ago What proof do you have of sin? • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Sal • 7 minutes ago • edited Oh my, now there´s a sign of modern times. As Craig mentions, Nazi scientific evil versus Western democratic scientific bombs requires understanding the value of human life. Moral considerations have been extended to question the US´s use of the bomb, no less. FDR and Eleanor were wealthy, but raised with the Social Gospel that followed Washington Gladden´s and Jane Addam´s projects and lifeworks, no less. In the US, pro-rich theology promoted by the rich in opposition to FDR´s pro-social policies is one major influence, no less than scientific materialism´s anti-religious orientation as if it can´t take a higher moral ground than anti-science religious episodes. Truth to tell, scientists not uncommonly lose touch with Christian society´s roots in ...

In response to B Weinstein´s veiws on the evolution of religion.... brmc • 3 days ago • edited The gist of this seems to be that "a belief may result in an increase in the fitness of a person's offspring"....until conditions of abundance no longer exist and the "fitness" of those offspring becomes a liability. The lack of any metaphysics beyond the forces of evolution in that explanation leaves something to be desired. So why is he bothering? Except to point out that "religious" belief is natural and genetically based. But that would apply to the potential for enlightenment as well. Reality-as-it-actually-is does not start and stop at the boundaries of genetic expression. Our consciousness being more deeply rooted in the nature of Nature than mere survival of the fittest. 2 • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmc • 2 days ago • edited "So why is he bothering?" etc. Good points. Your thought follows...