Origin of homophobia?

[Spirit of Light]

More morally advanced? You haven't read much anthropology, have you?
People are tribal. Their moral consideration rarely extends beyond their own band members unless there is a considerable cultural overlay, and this is usually a feature of modern, cosmopolitan societies, not primitive ones.

I do not believe in science explanation of how human beings evolved, and I do believe what we today see as "other human races from past" are earlier forms of human beings. Long before our current homo sapiens.
And those earlier humans was more advanced then us. I believe today's human beings are far from well developed. I know this will make some people see me as unwise, but that's ok.

 

[wandering peacefully]

And those earlier humans was more advanced then us.

Maybe a few were more advanced than a few are today. That much is true, but for most of humanity, we have progressed a long way from the ignorant tribalism of our ancestors.

 

[Valjean]

I do not believe in science explanation of how human beings evolved, and I do believe what we today see as "other human races from past" are earlier forms of human beings. Long before our current homo sapiens.
And those earlier humans was more advanced then us. I believe today's human beings are far from well developed. I know this will make some people see me as unwise, but that's ok.

By "people before" are you talking about Australopithecenes or H. habilis? If so, what evidence do you have that they were more morally advanced?

I was referring to modern humans; H. sapiens. Anthropologists have studied hundreds of "stone-age" cultures. They're generally more culturally homogenous, but not necessarily more 'morally advanced'.They are less morally challenged.
Being ignorant of any cultural values but their own, they have few moral choices to make, but take them out of their cultural milieu and bad things can happen. I could give examples, if you want.

 

[Valjean]

I do not believe in science explanation of how human beings evolved, and I do believe what we today see as "other human races from past" are earlier forms of human beings. Long before our current homo sapiens.

"What we see today?" We don't see any "other races from the past" today. All are extinct except us. So what are you talking about here?
And what does this have to do with hominid evolution?

And those earlier humans was more advanced then us. I believe today's human beings are far from well developed. I know this will make some people see me as unwise, but that's ok.

What earlier humans? The extinct hominids you don't believe in? I'm confused. What are we talking about here?

 

[Spirit of Light]

By "people before" are you talking about Australopithecenes or H. habilis? If so, what evidence do you have that they were more morally advanced?

I was referring to modern humans; H. sapiens. Anthropologists have studied hundreds of "stone-age" cultures. They're generally more culturally homogenous, but not necessarily more 'morally advanced'.They are less morally challenged.
Being ignorant of any cultural values but their own, they have few moral choices to make, but take them out of their cultural milieu and bad things can happen. I could give examples, if you want.

Much of I understand comes from the spiritual cultivation I do, and it's teaching.
I believe much of the scientific "proof" about early man is false.
Sometimes science find something they can not explain, because it should not be "possible" according to modern science. So they dismiss it and hide it from public view.
But a few people brake out from the norm, and speak of the hidden truth. I believe them more then common science

 

[Spirit of Light]

"What we see today?" We don't see any "other races from the past" today. All are extinct except us. So what are you talking about here?
And what does this have to do with hominid evolution?
What earlier humans? The extinct hominids you don't believe in? I'm confused. What are we talking about here?

skeleton they find that does not match homo sapiens. That in my view are human beings from prehistoric times

 

[Valjean]

I believe your version is the wrong one. Not that it is your fault at all. It is science that got it wrong, and if I understand you correctly you believe strongly in science, not in spiritual teaching

I'm well aware we are great apes

Well, we're OK apes. A brief look at our history and it's clear there's little great about us.

 

[Valjean]

Much of I understand comes from the spiritual cultivation I do, and it's teaching.
I believe much of the scientific "proof" about early man is false.
Sometimes science find something they can not explain, because it should not be "possible" according to modern science. So they dismiss it and hide it from public view.
But a few people brake out from the norm, and speak of the hidden truth. I believe them more then common science

So your hunch is more reliable than tangible evidence? What are we even discussing, then? Why even be on a discussion board? if facts are irrelevant there's nothing to discuss.

Scientists dream of finding things they can't explain. It's what they live for. They certainly wouldn't want to 'hide it from public vieew'.
Remember, science is not a doctrine or belief system like religion is, so don't judge it by those standards. It has nothing to hide or protect.
Investigating the baffling is how science advances.

 

[Valjean]

skeleton they find that does not match homo sapiens. That in my view are human beings from prehistoric times

OK.... Sure. We've found lots of skeletons of earlier species. That's true.
But what's your point? What do you conclude from these finds?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm well aware we are great apes

So why "monkeyman"?

 

[ChristineM]

How is monkey man a slight when They have a face like a chimpanzee and walk on two legs? hahaha

Very funny, maybe you are in need of a bit of biology 101

I know a woman with a face like a fish, do i call her fishface? No but perhaps you would

 

[Spirit of Light]

So your hunch is more reliable than tangible evidence? What are we even discussing, then? Why even be on a discussion board? if facts are irrelevant there's nothing to discuss.

So because I do not follow the norm and believe blindly in science I can not discuss yes I have a different view point and a different teacher then science. But as you wish, I drop out of this tread that is no problem

 

[epronovost]

Much of I understand comes from the spiritual cultivation I do, and it's teaching.
I believe much of the scientific "proof" about early man is false.
Sometimes science find something they can not explain, because it should not be "possible" according to modern science. So they dismiss it and hide it from public view.
But a few people brake out from the norm, and speak of the hidden truth. I believe them more then common science

There is no such evidence of earlier hominids being more advanced than us and there are no such things as evidence showing that paleolithical homo sapiens being more advanced than neolithical homo sapiens or even modern homo sapiens. Sometime, a spiritual leader believes in things that simply aren't true because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Li Hongzhi is one such leader. He said a lot of stupid, untrue things in his life. For example his views on race and "race mixing" as presented in his interview in the late 90's in LA and Sydney are not only repugnant for their racism, they are also based on several blatant scientific, theological and historical errors.

Does that mean anything that escapes Hongzhi mouth is similarly false and repugnant? Not necessarily. You are a rather smart cookie and you have a good heart and found great value in his teachings. His meditative techniques as well as his mix of taoist and buddhist practices and values can certainly help focus a person on a journey toward understanding of oneself and to develop values of compassion and kindness. Does that mean he is correct when he talks about the state of the world, the origin of man, his prediction of a comming divine apocalypse and his belief that aliens have invaded Earth to replace us and steal our bodies? I think there is at least one thing in that list you think is silly and you know you got to that state.

 

[ChristineM]

Ha Ha not trying to free a religion ha ha

Seems like it with the many threads you have created that all attempts to absolve religion of homophobia

 

[Spirit of Light]

OK.... Sure. We've found lots of skeletons of earlier species. That's true.
But what's your point? What do you conclude from these finds?

That they are pre-historic human beings, not a different species, they are us from very long time ago.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is no such evidence of earlier hominids being more advanced than us and there are no such things as evidence showing that paleolithical homo sapiens being more advanced than neolithical homo sapiens or even modern homo sapiens. Sometime, a spiritual leader believes in things that simply aren't true because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Li Hongzhi is one such leader. He said a lot of stupid, untrue things in his life. For example his views on race and "race mixing" as presented in his interview in the late 90's in LA and Sydney are not only repugnant for their racism, they are also based on several blatant scientific, theological and historical errors.

Does that mean anything that escapes Hongzhi mouth is similarly false and repugnant? Not necessarily. You are a rather smart cookie and you have a good heart and found great value in his teachings. His meditative techniques as well as his mix of taoist and buddhist practices and values can certainly help focus a person on a journey toward understanding of oneself and to develop values of compassion and kindness. Does that mean he is correct when he talks about the state of the world, the origin of man, his prediction of a comming divine apocalypse and his beleif that aliens have invaded Earth to replace us and steal our bodies? I think there is at least one thing in that list you think is silly and you know you got to that state.

I do believe he is correct yes. If I did not believe so I would not follow his teaching

 

[epronovost]

I do believe he is correct yes. If I did not believe so I would not follow his teaching

So you believe that Native americans are inferior people to Chinese because they have been mixed with African blood to become the red race? I'm rather suprised to hear you say that. It's not the kind of racism I would have pinned you for.

I didn't thought you believed we were in the middle of a secret alien invasion and that aliens were responsible for the invention of computers and airplanes.

Are you sure you believe in those things or are you just professing some strong loyalty to Li Hongzhi? You can like him and his teachings despite a couple of stupidities.

 

[Piculet]

Primitive people use less clothes, or animal skin to cover them self.

So do the modern civilised progressives = westerners

Coincidence?

 

[epronovost]

So do the modern civilised progressives = westerners

Coincidence?

If you think westerners wear less clothes than you, I'd invite you to look at my peeps in January.

 

[Valjean]

So because I do not follow the norm and believe blindly in science I can not discuss yes I have a different view point and a different teacher then science. But as you wish, I drop out of this tread that is no problem

I'm not talking about believing blindly in science. Even scientists don't believe blindly in science. Science is all about following the evidence. Believing anything blindly is anathema to science.

What I'm saying is you leave nothing to discuss. We can't discuss the facts you base your opinion on because you say it's not based on facts. We can't discuss the reasoning behind your beliefs, because you claim no reasoning. All you say is that you believe "X" because that's what you feel.

I can say "I like green" but what would that leave to discuss, much less debate? (this is a debate thread).

No. Don't go. Just propose something discussable.