[QUOTE=Andrew, Jr.;19858
As for your thinking about stem-cells...JoAnn had stem cell treatments. It failed. I wish more was done with stem-cells. It is our only chance of helping those who have skin cancer, and those who are burned with 3rd and 4th degree burns over their bodies. I read somewhere on the NIH website that Rockefeller Univ. in NYC and Children's Hospital in Boston got the ok to donate stem cells they have to NIH - by a federal grant of some sort. It is my hope and prayer that someone will be saved by this and not have to endure the devistation that I have had to endure.

Namaste,
Andrew[/QUOTE]

It was March 9, 2009 that President Obama issued executive order 13505 removing barriers to respponsible RESEARCH involving human stem cells.

Off the top of my head, a couple of kings in England named Henry and James had their own versions of a bible written. Henry even started a whole new religion. I'm sure many other leaders have modified various and assorted texts over the centuries. After all, when a king says that he wants to rewrite a bible, who's going to argue with him?

The rest of your post really doesn't clear up anything. You discuss one of the many gods that people pray to, then reinforce my comment that there are a bunch of different bibles written by a bunch of different people. Again, if there were a god there would be just one and there's just be one accompanying set of texts. It's silly to me to think that a god would allow a bunch of folks to misinterpret a text that he/she/it wrote and then spend years hating and killing each other over the different translations.

How is "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" not gender-specific? Two of the three are male, and it's fair to assume that the ghost of a male is male ghost.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, just saying how all this stuff looks to someone peering in from the outside.

at least there are alternatives to 12 Step that are not faith-based..... LifeRing Secular Recovery .........ain't no 'higher power' in their program.....no praying....no powerlessness and deliverance from the evil demon substance required........

I'll be back later.........cuz this is an Aj thread......

AJ, I've been reading this thread and am very interested in this discussion. I'll admit to a very naive understanding of things and apologize in advance if I misinterpret things.


When I saw these references (particularly the Elegant Universe) I thought it had sound familiar. I had started reading the string theory when the book first got released but never finished them (damn life interfering with my reading). I now have a reason to read them again (plus additional ones). I'll have more to add (likely after the holidays) and a questions to it.

For now, I'll ask the following. Are we using science today to define the universe as we see it with the tools we have and eliminating other answers just on the basis of not having the tools or knowledge yet to see those? Historically, we once thought the earth was the center of the universe (we know this to be Chicago or Toronto, depending on who you talk to). We didn't see it otherwise until we got the tools (e.g., better telescopes and such) to see our mistake.

Faith is based on an unconditional belief of the things we cannot define. Science, in some regards, is also like this. We believe wholeheartedly that science answers things fully but in fact, to my limited understanding, much of it is based on what we understand at this point. There is still a lot of theory out there. For example, even string theory supposes different universes/dimensions (science fiction has espoused that in a variety of ways -- Star Trek Original version, Turtledove's novels, other alternate history novels, Fringe TV show, etc. are more recent examples) but I have yet to see or feel or experience these. Perhaps it's a limitation to my personal knowledge (unable to see the actual with the naked eye doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. or does it?) that I cannot see these dimensions beyond my basic 5 (6?) senses but it strikes me that in some ways, we have replaced faith in God(s) <insert deity of choice here> in faith in science. We quantify things and therefore believe it to be the truth.

But that quantification may only be on the tools we have. It makes me think of the Star Trek movie The Voyage Home where the doctor goes into the hospital and thinks we're a bunch of savages for our cancer treatment and injects a patient with a "cure-all" from the future. Certainly is science fiction but some truth to the human condition of viewing "savages". Are those that have spirituality, faith and belief "savages"? Are scientists of today "savages" for not having all the tools available and just believing the world is based on what we have at hand?

If I can try answer your question with a question: why do we not only have one language to communicate with and one human presentation rather than the myriad of "selfs" that are out there? I think the reasoning for multiple different definitions of "God" is how we communicate and how we've evolved in different parts of the world. We define it in the language we understand and the experience we have. Cultures define it differently. For example, North American Buddhism (Western Buddhism) is very, very different from Tibetan, Japanese, et al, definitions.

Our experiences are vastly different, our language different, our cultures, etc. If we have a limited view of what the world is, then we will see it in only one context. Is it better to see it in all context or just our one view? I personally prefer many but for others it's too much and they would prefer the world they see it in (e.g., Quakers, Amish, Amazonian tribes that have had no contact). They are happy with their world as they see it and have no need for anything else. They may define things as per a god or gods but it is their understanding.

See above. The reality is we define the world in our terms, whether with or without a definition of spirituality. There are many religions today that, IMO, pervert the nature of spirituality (which doesn't mean that one is religious -- at least to me). I find spirituality in the awe of nature. The beauty of a rainbow after a torrential storm; the sorrow of death that nature affords us in these limited bodies with an expiry date.

LOL. I'd imagine so (maybe that's why we are the way we are?). The texts are the human mind's definition of life and social contracts between each other. They are not, however, as some "pervert" the true definition of god(s). Some people want to believe so badly, I think, because they want to feel like they belong and that they understand why things are the way they are. They cannot control other stuff and fear that it's the result of something else (e.g., God) at work. Maybe. Maybe not.

To me, the Bible is an interesting quasi-fictional, misinterpreted piece of historical jargon (specifically referring to the King James as that's the one I've had the most exposure to). I recently read "Mis-Quoting Jesus" which delves into how the Bible was created and how it (or rather the letters that were put together to make it) may have potentially misinterpreted due to language variations.

I find it interesting that here in the US, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state there really isn't. Canada, which doesn't have that codified, actually does have a separation of church and state. I think a lot of it stems again from historical and cultural founding of this nation. The reality is that it was done from one point of view and it's been hard to dislodge that (people have a hard time letting go of something if they think or perceive that they lose something -- even if they don't)

This was an interesting piece. I suspect they will need more research on this but perhaps science fiction wasn't that far off (and often times, it isn't -- it's just a precursor of what is yet to come). I guess we really won't know (and even then it's questionable) if it's really true until we die. The idea that our lives restart again or vary over again elsewhere (another universe) would almost lead credence to the idea of reincarnation. And also, to a degree, helps continue the definition that energy doesn't just vanish but continues in another form (how we define that form, I think, is still limited by our tools we have at this time). What was of interest to me was this line:

If a Christian looked at this, they might say "AHA! Heaven!" while a hindu might say "AHA! Reincarnation!". A buddhist might say "AHA! More time to consider..". The question I'd love to ask is, if we continue into a plane that is outside of time altogether, how do we see things? Is it the same perception I have now? Do I see everything at once? Do I see nothing at all? Do I experience things at all in any sense close to what we do now?


Note: MsDeamenor --> your posts really twinged with me and got me really interested. I found your points very compelling and interesting although they appear, to me, pointed towards a specific kind of religion that seems found here -- nearly uniquely -- in the US in it's behaviour and arrogance (?). Perhaps the Puritan and white male privileged nature of the country's development?

Very interesting posts! So much to consider.

I do have a question,

What do you think about TV channels like the History Channel having documentaries in which they refer to the Bible like it is actual, documented history. Like everyone is a Christian and for example: it is accepted fact that God cast the Hebrews out of Palestine and so forth (just one teeny example). It seems to me, very religiopolitical, there is definitely an agenda on what is supposed to be a secular documentary.

Also, I think when we believe that God speaks to us, literally, we set things up as inarguable. How can we argue logically with Bush saying that God told him to go to war? The conversation ends there. (this is a small example, happens all the time).

Yellowband,

"Thirteen human embryonic stem-cell lines have been approved for use in federally funded research and approval of many more lines is expected to follow, the head of NIH announced on Dec. 2nd.

Dr. Francis S. Collins, who took over in August, said in a telephone conference with the media that it was a "significant day" in the efforts to achieve President Obama's goal of "a loosing up of what had been considered too stringent requirements" for federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells.

Collins said the 13 stem-cells lines 11 developed at Children's Hospital in Boston and 2 at Rockefeller University in NY - were approved after NIH staff determined the scientists who created the lines had followed the "very detailed informed consetnt process" outlined in NIH guildelines published in July."

By Nancy F. O'Brien, Catholic News Services, Dec. 10th

My late sister, JoAnn, was obviously not treated by these stem cells. Her cancer metasized within one year. The stem cells used on her were very different lines than these. It is my hope and prayer that these NEW LINES will offer hope and life to those who are sick. Melanoma is the deadliest cancers today. The survival rate is maybe 3 years, if that, and with treatment.


Namaste,
Andrew

[QUOTE=Andrew, Jr.;20275]Yellowband,

"Thirteen human embryonic stem-cell lines have been approved for use in federally funded research and approval of many more lines is expected to follow, the head of NIH announced on Dec. 2nd.

Dr. Francis S. Collins, who took over in August, said in a telephone conference with the media that it was a "significant day" in the efforts to achieve President Obama's goal of "a loosing up of what had been considered too stringent requirements" for federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells.

Collins said the 13 stem-cells lines 11 developed at Children's Hospital in Boston and 2 at Rockefeller University in NY - were approved after NIH staff determined the scientists who created the lines had followed the "very detailed informed consetnt process" outlined in NIH guildelines published in July."

By Nancy F. O'Brien, Catholic News Services, Dec. 10th

.........................

Nice copy and paste, I read it verbatim, in a report that came out Dec,09,09.......

My late sister, JoAnn, was obviously not treated by these stem cells. Her cancer metasized within one year. The stem cells used on her were very different lines than these. It is my hope and prayer that these NEW LINES will offer hope and life to those who are sick. Melanoma is the deadliest cancers today. The survival rate is maybe 3 years, if that, and with treatment.

.............................
I'm curious as to what type of stem cells she recieved over a year ago, when this was not legal?

The internet provides wonderful information, just saying.

Linus,

I think everyone has a different perspective on the afterlife according to their beliefs. For example, a Jewish person may think you will be reincarnated and start back here fresh. You may not be a human being, but a bird or a flower. A Catholic person may think you will go to Heaven for eternity. However, every person is interconnected to other people. What happens to you, affects me. And vice versa. That is because of love. In my perception, God is love. And love is God. When you do good for someone, it comes back to you 10 fold. That act of goodwill changes your life forever.

When someone takes their own life, I do believe they roam the earth searching for answers. They want to resolve the problems they had when they were alive. Until they make peace with their life, they are the losts souls here.

I believe that there are many facets/planes or layers of reality. For example, I believe that there are no right or wrong answers in life. Everyone has to journey along the same path. Everyone has to face some loss in their lifetime. It may or may not change you. For example, look at the Philidelphia Experiment.

The separation of Church and State - I agree with you. It really is pretty much stuck together here in the US. I cannot imagine what it is like in Canada.

I do wish the US Fed. Gov't would give up some closed files. I think it would be interesting, and most, not all, Americans are able to handle the truth.

I have more to contribute. I will be back later on.

Namaste,
Andrew

A Scientific God?
 

An interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_392849.html


"Can Science Resurrect God?"