Discussion Board

Very well stated. These types of forums seem to attract a good number of people who's only interest in religion is to bash it. It shouldn't be that way. And believers shouldn't entice non-believers into arguments that can't have any other outcome but to stir up trouble. This thread, for example, was started with the words:

"Do you believe we humans were created by Ape's?, or do you believe we were created by God?"

To define evolution as "being created by apes" is BEGGING for an unfriendly response. Frankly, I'm surprised the conversation stayed as civil as it did.

I am strongly religious and have been seeking to reconcile my long held religious beliefs with my new way of eating. I am finding they mesh very well. I'm seeing things in scripture that I haven't ever seen before.

As vocal as I am elsewhere, I haven't been vocal in this forum before now because my religion is very personal to me and reconciling my beliefs with my new lifestyle has been too personal of an issue for me to discuss publicly. If that is true for me then it is probably true for others. All the more reason to not bicker about things that don't regard that.

The McDougall forums are about promoting this way of eating. The religious sub-forum should be about helping people of religious beliefs reconcile any questions they have about this way of eating and their religion. This shouldn't be the place for arguing anything else (picture Norm pointing at himself in the mirror with fingers everywhere, all pointing at him).

I apologize for my part in stirring this pot.

-Norm

While, like Norm, I have deeply held religious beliefs, I have not posted much on this forum. I am not a Christian, and although this is a RELIGIOUS forum, I have felt excluded as the tone has become decidedly fundamentalistic. This particular post being a perfect example. If I were to feel that the forum were to be more inclusive of all religious faiths, I might be more inclined to think it should remain. But as it stands right now, no.
Kate

The forum is welcome to anyone of any faith. Please feel free to post looking for people of like faiths or even comment when you think you have something to add. If a particular religious faith seems to be dominating the threads it's because the other faiths participants are not as vocal and that isn't a good reason to stop those that are from making use of the forum. Perhaps it is use it or lose it. This forum has cycled through very active times and somewhat inactive times. If no one uses it we will discontinue it. Seems like the way to handle it.
f1jim

I've been in many conversations about creation and evolution online---never thought such a conversation would be on a health food message board however. My husband has both a theology degree from a very conservative college as well as a computer science degree. I have an education degree. My husband loves to study science, esp. physics and astronomy and I like to read about history and anthropology. He was ordained and was once a pulpit minister. One of our sons works for a very well known evangelist. While I am not going to get into the details of our lives, I will say this--the longer you live the more you become an observer of life. There are all types of belief and non-belief. Because humans have the ability to contemplate life--past, present and future and because we are diverse in our thinking, both belief and non-belief takes on many different meanings. Despite what some people think, there is no "one size fits all" description of people or their thinking. The problem comes when some people try to force others to agree with them. While some people think the existence of a supernatural creator can be extrapolated from observing the world around us, others like Charles Darwin think that observation of the world around us proves a natural beginning of life , e.g. evolution. Also while creationists think that the "first cause" was God, physicists like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss as well as biologists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers think that while the first cause of our universe was the big bang, there doesn't neccessarily have to be a beginning of all things. String theorists think that there may be multiple universes or even bubble universes which simply keep changing or going in and out of existence. The fact is, even though they have worked some of this out mathematically, no one knows for sure if or when there was a beginning or if a creator ever existed or not. The people who wrote the Bible believe one supernatural supreme being (God,Yaweh, El or the great "I Am") created everything. The people who wrote the Indian vedas believe something else. Chinese literature has even another account of how it all began, etc. etc. Religious people believe in unobservable things, while the non-religious don't. So that sort of draws a line in the sand and makes it very difficult to change anyone's minds on either side of the line. I have quit trying to change people's minds about such things. I wish everyone else would do the same.

There's a touch of irony in those last two sentences. But I think I know what you mean.

Bubble universes. Bubble. There's that word again. Do you believe in synchronicity? What does energy look like? Maybe we have to pop all the bubbles in order to find out.

Humans like to bubble-ize, don't we? Then we try to keep our bubbles from rubbing together. Compartmentalization. Religion shall not touch science shall not touch art shall not touch diet shall not touch...Kevin Bacon? Nope. Compartmentalization generally doesn't work for long. Probably stunts our growth and could lead to warping. We might end up mutants--giant heavy bubble heads with tiny useless feet stuck in one spot in the sand...unconsciously hoping, praying, wishing just for someone with a sharp pin to come along and rub against us.

http://thinksimplenow.com/wisdom/synchronicity/ :
"The bumps on our journey are the most powerful, transformational encounter. While these bumps may be disguised as interruptions, annoyances, something unplanned and unwanted in our day, there is meaning in its appearance.

Whether one believes in the concept of synchronicity or not, I invite you to approach the mishaps as gifts; the accidents as not so much of an accident; and the people we encounter as someone we can always learn and grow from."


The encounters we need will happen, with or without this forum. Shutting down the Religious forum (popping that particular bubble) won't change that. Is what we believe more important than what we are? Is what we believe energy, or is it just a bubble, a by-product of energy shaped by emotion and social conditioning? Where's a bell when ya need one?
~

I wrote this one a few years ago.


I don't have to have a story.
It's difficult to mind the path.
Divide a monk by ten laymen
to find your ten percent.
We are the same five elements.
We are forty sleepless nights.
Feeble. Ferocious.
Brilliant. Boisterous.
Puffed up. Pious.
Ignorant. Vexatious.
Arrogant. Useless.
Liars and loons, lapdogs,
landlubbers and luminaries,
right and wrong,
we are the same.
A dozen orange lilies, eight
pearls and a chunk of coal--
we are the same, clinging;
we are the same, letting go.
Devoted to distraction,
thinking
thinking
thinking,
driven and drowning,
gasping and grasping at air, still
suffering, still minding the words:
love your enemies like yourself,
I don't have to have a story.
We are the same.

~

Nothing matters except when you think it does. Have a great day, y'all.

Agnes, maybe if I used the words "everyone should" instead of "I wish" it would be ironic. We all have our hopes and dreams or wishes or whatever. That's not the same as saying it should or has to be that way. Alas, I was just sort of daydreaming about that, since people will always try to make others see things the way they see them. As far as compartmentalization goes, many if not all people do that even though I really try not to. It's a coping mechanism I guess. The late well-known paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote about "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) in his book, "Rocks of Ages." He proposed that science and religion are two knowledge systems which deal with different aspects of life and therefore should be separate and the adherents should stay out of each others business. So far, I haven't seen that happen a lot. There's always someone speaking out about their views whether they are religious or scientific.

Why do we wish anything if it's not because we think that our "anything" is how things should be? Isn't that irony? I dunno. This is just food for thought for people who want something to chew on next time the neighbors are partying at 2AM, people who'd rather not have to get out of bed to load a shotgun and release the hounds or call the cops.

The surface power struggles are what brings discomfort, even to a bystander. The hard part is looking past all of that commotion (science and religion) to what matters--our sameness. Ego hates that and fights us every step of the way, creating its own commotion inside our heads. But if sameness exists underneath ego and thought, it remains regardless of differences in belief. When we can look at others and see ourselves, everyone wins. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

The NOMA thing is interesting. If nothing else, it's a door to further discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Shall we open it, go inside, and see if they have any good snacks?

I wish people could live in peace, so yes in that sense it's because I think that's how things should be. I don't find my wishing for people to get along however ironic, since I don't tell other people what they should or should not do in that regard. As far as Jay Gould is concerned, he, like many scientists thought that the church had overstepped it's realm (for lack of a better word) when it began to try to get creationism taught in the classroom, since creationism is not founded on science, but upon faith. It would be like scientists insisting on teaching evolution in Sunday School. So when he said "non-overlapping magisteria, he meant that the church should confine the teaching of it's doctrine to faith based schools and instituions and the like and scientists should not tell the church how to conduct their business. I haven't decided if I agree with Gould or not--just stating his position on that. Even the scientific community is divided on that approach to the conflict between some scientists and some religious people.

If you're interested in history and education and religion, you might find this interesting, and probably have seen it or something like it already.
http://www.edocere.org/articles/liberal_arts_I.htm

Snippet:
The Liberal Arts and, consequently, the entire educational program we inherit from our ancestors, are meant to provoke and facilitate philosophical reasoning. It is not meant to convey "information." It is meant to provide the tools and initiate the movements of mind necessary for a reasoning concerning the relationship between what a man encounters amidst the toil of life and the ultimate reasons for and purpose of those things. This is critical. Education, as classically understood, was meant to engender a dynamic and on-going process of intellectually connecting contingent and "practical" facts, with necessary and eternal truths and causes. That was it. Everything else was "crafts." It is this engendered universality of outlook, which gave the name "liberal" to the Liberal Arts.

What does "I wish people could live in peace" really mean? Peace is a state of mind, and it starts with me. Whenever I get caught up in wishing others could live in peace, I've joined their chaos and left peace behind. Perhaps humans are meant to live in such chaos. Peace is hard to hold on to.

Another snippet from the above link:
"Here we come in sight of another critical fact, necessary for understanding the nature and the function of the Liberal Arts. These studies, so advocated by St. Augustine, are "liberal," primarily because they relate to the mind. The mind is free, meaning that it is determined to no one object of experience. Because only the fullness of God’s being would "fix" and rivet the human mind, it is free to range over the field of intelligible being and cull the fruits of truth and goodness that it may. This basic ontological and epistemological fact is at the basis of the universal reach of the mind. It is, also, the ontological and epistemological cause of boredom. Old Bessie the cow does not get bored. She, quite happily, chews the same cud."

Does this mean cows are closer to God or further removed?

A couple more links:
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.o ... ation.html

http://www.virtualsalt.com/libarted.htm
Snippet:
III. A liberal arts education allows you to see things whole
1. A context for all knowledge. A general education supplies a context for all knowledge and especially for one's chosen area. Every field gives only a partial view of knowledge of things and of man, and, as John Henry Newman has noted, an exclusive or overemphasis on one field of study distorts the understanding of reality. As one armchair philosopher has said, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." All knowledge is one, a unified wholeness, and every field of study is but a piece or an angle or a way of partitioning this knowledge. Thus, to see how one's chosen area fits into the whole, to see the context of one's study, a general, liberal education is not merely desirable, but necessary.

2. A map of the universe. A well-rounded education, a study of the whole range of knowledge, produces an intellectual panorama, a map of the universe, which shows the relative disposition of things and ideas. Such a systematic view of reality provides an understanding of hierarchies and relationships--which things are more valuable or important than others, how one thing is dependent on another, and what is associated with or caused by something else. As abstract as this benefit may sound, it is just this orientation that will give you a stable foundation for a sane and orderly life. Many people waste their lives in endless confusion and frustration because they have no context for any event or decision or thought they might encounter.

3. Life itself is a whole, not divided into majors. Most jobs, most endeavors, really require more knowledge than that of one field. We suffer every day from the consequences of not recognizing this fact. The psychologist who would fully understand the variety of mental problems his patients may suffer will need a wide-ranging knowledge if he is to recognize that some problems are biological, some are spiritual, some are the product of environment, and so on. If he never studies biology, theology, or sociology, how will he be able to treat his patients well? Shall he simply write them off as hopelessly neurotic?

The doctor who believes that a knowledge of cell biology and pharmacology and diagnosis will be all-sufficient in his practice will help very few patients unless he also realizes that more than eighty percent of the typical doctor's patients need emotional ministration either in addition to or instead of physical treatment. The doctor who listens, and who is educated enough to understand, will be the successful one. A doctor who has studied history or literature will be a better doctor than one who has instead read a few extra medical books.

The preacher, who would produce effective, understandable, memorable sermons that will reach his flock, will need a thorough knowledge of--yes--English composition and logic, that he might preach in an orderly, clear, rational manner. As writing and thinking skills have declined in recent years, so has the quality of preaching. In fact, you have probably noticed how disorganized, rambling, and consequently boring many young preachers are today--how many uncertain trumpet tones are sounding now. The preacher may be a brilliant theologian, but as long as he believes that the only rule of preaching is, "Talk for twenty minutes, say 'Amen' and sit down," he will continue to be ineffective.


And back to Gould's NOMA:
http://www.americanscientist.org/booksh ... d-religion

And a little Rabindranath Tagore
http://www.spiritualityworld.com/pages/ ... tagore.php

"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." [one of my favorite quotes]

"When the heat and motion of blind impulses and passions distract it on all sides, we can neither give nor receive anything truly. But when we find our centre in our soul by the power of self-restraint, by the force that harmonises all warring elements and unifies those that are apart, then all our isolated impressions reduce themselves to wisdom, and all our momentary impulses of heart find their completion in love; then all the petty details of our life reveal an infinite purpose, and all our thoughts and deeds unite themselves inseparably in an internal harmony."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore


Fill in the blanks:
A world without science would be _____.
A world without religion would be _____.

(There are no right or wrong answers. Only poetry. )

Going back to the term "evolution," I think this discussion has evoled into an esoteric conversation between just you and me. I have been engaged in many many discussions on other forums and message boards with both religious and non-religious people on the subjects of religion, science (evolution in particular) and philosophy. I really don't enjoy engaging in conversations about the etheral anymore or the differences between religion and science. I will leave that up to the theologians and the scientists or whoever else wants to engage in such back and forth.

As far as the education system goes, it used to be more about a synthesis of different academic disciplines with the end result supposedly being to produce graduates with broad understanding of many different things to prepare them for a full rich life. That time is past in my opinion and although I loved that type of education, especially the humanities, with the price of college as it is now, it stands to reason that students simply want to get in and get out of college and get a good job. Would I like to see the study of the humanites (philosophy, religion, music, cultural studies, etc.) done away with? No, but that may be the case someday. Afterall, other than internet discussions, there seems to be little practical use for such studies. I just asked my husband the other day if he regretted taking liberal arts studies along with his computer science courses, since he has and never will use what he learned in humanities and history on his job. He said, he enjoyed those studies and felt like they enriched his life. However, sadly, I don't think people will always feel that way.

Coming back to what I said about peace, it's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. You saying that I buy into the chaos is your opinion. I am not going to say anything one way or the other about that.

What are you and me?

I like Khan Academy. Maybe things like this will make high-priced universities obsolete. Here are a few videos that are available in Khan Academy's Biology section. (I think most are also available on youtube, and I used the youtube url here for those who aren't registered at Khan, in case they want couldn't access them there. I'm not sure if non-members can access videos at the Khan site or not.)

Intro to evolution and natural selection:
http://youtu.be/GcjgWov7mTM
Human Prehistory 101 Prologue:
http://youtu.be/Mm-IxK1GrYE
Human Prehistory 101 Part 1 Out of (Eastern) Africa
http://youtu.be/8183HPmA2_I (there are more parts in this series, but I'll let those who are interested dig them up)
Intelligent design and evolution:
http://youtu.be/qxOEz9aPZNY (fractals are fascinating)


Little practical use for humanities? I'm trying to imagine that world, but it's difficult. I don't think I'd fit in that world. I guess people like me would become extinct.