stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
NO. I don't tell him he is dumb. IF he behaves arrogantly THEN I will tell him that arrogance is not a charmer.Does it really mean you have to argue toward the other person as if he/she is dumb?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
NO. I don't tell him he is dumb. IF he behaves arrogantly THEN I will tell him that arrogance is not a charmer.Does it really mean you have to argue toward the other person as if he/she is dumb?
My Master loved to teach us this type of lesson:What if both teachings are correct, but thought in different ways because they are meant only for those who chose to follow it?
didn't those doctrines evolve over time and had nothing to do with the original proto-religion that started the tradition?
Is moving the goalposts one of your favourite tricks?
You said...
"My annoyance is when they say the universe came from nothing and for no reason whatsoever. I ask them for the evidence and they give me none."
I explained why that won't happen,... meaning you misunderstood...
And i provide evidence that again you (perhaps deliberately) misunderstood, of how the universe could occur from nothing.
With time I've managed to overcome (to a 23% extent so far)Often it can be seen that someone from a certain religion says something that triggers some other person who follows a different religion, and yes that is a normal reaction because we are all different.
But a question that comes to mind is: Does it really matter what others believe? Is it not most important to yourself that you are able to follow the religious/spiritual teaching you have chosen to follow?
If someone from a certain religion says something you disagree with because the teaching you study your self say something different? Does it really mean you have to argue toward the other person as if he/she is dumb?
Sounds like maybe you're conflating administrators with scientists?
With time I've managed to overcome (to a 23% extent so far)
harsh judgments of those who are wrong (ie, disagree with me).
Until I get over the hump (50%) I must rely upon biting my tongue.
I agree.No harsh judgments please.
My Master loved to teach us this type of lesson:
Once My Master called in 2 women. He whispered in the ear of woman1 "tomorrow at the gate you only allow Indians to enter". And he whispered in the ear of woman2 "tomorrow at the gate you only allow non-Indians to enter". Next day the woman1 and woman2 were fighting like dogs at the gate. My Master asked them "how did it go at the gate?". Both were shouting "She did it wrong".
Then my Master said "you should both have done, as I told you, then all people would have entered".
Often it can be seen that someone from a certain religion says something that triggers some other person who follows a different religion, and yes that is a normal reaction because we are all different.
But a question that comes to mind is: Does it really matter what others believe? Is it not most important to yourself that you are able to follow the religious/spiritual teaching you have chosen to follow?
If someone from a certain religion says something you disagree with because the teaching you study your self say something different? Does it really mean you have to argue toward the other person as if he/she is dumb?
What if both teachings are correct, but thought in different ways because they are meant only for those who chose to follow it?
Often it can be seen that someone from a certain religion says something that triggers some other person who follows a different religion, and yes that is a normal reaction because we are all different.
But a question that comes to mind is: Does it really matter what others believe? Is it not most important to yourself that you are able to follow the religious/spiritual teaching you have chosen to follow?
If someone from a certain religion says something you disagree with because the teaching you study your self say something different? Does it really mean you have to argue toward the other person as if he/she is dumb?
What if both teachings are correct, but thought in different ways because they are meant only for those who chose to follow it?
Often it can be seen that someone from a certain religion says something that triggers some other person who follows a different religion, and yes that is a normal reaction because we are all different.
But a question that comes to mind is: Does it really matter what others believe? Is it not most important to yourself that you are able to follow the religious/spiritual teaching you have chosen to follow?
If someone from a certain religion says something you disagree with because the teaching you study your self say something different? Does it really mean you have to argue toward the other person as if he/she is dumb?
What if both teachings are correct, but thought in different ways because they are meant only for those who chose to follow it?
All is well with me yes Except for difficulty getting healthy food now I am managing ok Yes to have faith that all will be well soon is important, and even Norway is not hit very hard of the Coronavirus it is mostly lockdown here every day, so all I can do is to buy some food, then go home and stay at home for now.Hi Amanaki. I hope you are keeping safe. We are just staying at home and trying not to think about all the trouble but how is it possible not to feel distressed and distraught for our fellow humans as we are all connected by our humanity?
It’s very good I believe for each person to have or gollow a spiritual path that will bring them peace, happiness and comfort to themselves and others.
I believe that no belief is truly spiritual or based in truth if it does not love and accept all human beings as equal and all deserving to be loved and appreciated.
This "nothing" is the "nothing" of quantum vacuum. Within this "nothing" there's this bubbling
foam of particle and anti-particle which annihilate each other as soon as they pop out of the
"nothing." Sometimes this can lead to the formation of a new chunk of space-time, ballooning
out to create a new universe. It's all theoretical and we both are in no position to argue with
the pencil heads here. But this isn't creating a universe from a true "nothing" - it's creating
a baby universe from a parent universe - employing existing space-time and physics.
The "nothing" I speak of is what must have "existed" before the Big Bang, that which the
universe "pushes into." It's like time before time began, north of the north pole sort of thing.
Nope, not even theoretical but hypothetical, ideas based on observation and/or mathematics, as i said right at the beginning.
What must have existed before? This i got to hear and there may be a Nobel prize in it for you.
"Must" is a poor choice of word in the case of the unknown
We don't know what existed before the Big Bang. There's this theory called M-theory
which posits colliding membranes in higher dimensions. Maybe someone is trying to
bamboozle us here. Anyhow, such a membrane universe is just another iteration, one
more step back. The real question is why there is something rather than nothing.
There's only two option IMO - either the universe had a true beginning or the universe
has been here forever. The latter is a fudge as far as I can tell. And IMO to create the
first universe you had to have been outside that universe to create it.
Such a disposition should be applied without discrimination. Or do you think only people of religion can get dogmatic, have presuppositions, biases, etc.? Why only wince in one direction? The lack of wincing if you will, would be a disservice to science for example.Yes, I always wince, rather, when religions speak of "truth". How can they know, any more than we do in other aspects of our existence?
There are no theories. To make such a claim requires knowledge.
Oh, right i get it. You are applying the religious version of theory (i.e. guess) to science... Doesn't work like that. In science a theory must be capable of being tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method.
I know 29 hypothesis regarding the beginning of the universe the colliding membranes hypothesis of M theory is just one, an old one but still a possibility. I favour the colliding universe theory of Dr Mersini-Houghton, it makes sense of the 3 previously unexplained phenomenon visible in our universe and the winner, it came to her one morning while drinking a coffee
Oh tell your idea to the cosmologists at the perimeter institute, i am sure they would be over the moon to know that you need to be outside to crested the universe...
Not just a religious notion, not just a lack of knowledge, but a logic one.
1 - the universe always existed
2 - it had a beginning.
In the hyper-mind-bending way of the universe there could
be other options, but I suspect this is unlikely. Just the same, one day for
sure we will see the Big Bang not as the "cause" for the universe being
here but the effect of other phenomena.
Isn't the colliding universe also the M-theory one? Regardless - the next
question is where did these colliding universes come from?