666

Not quite. Standard measures are only standard on earth.

For example, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. A kilogram here on earth would have far, far greater mass in the spaceship approaching the speed of light.

Even at considerably slower speeds, there would be a slight difference. Let's say that Mars was traveling at twice the speed of Earth around the sun. If we were standing on Mars, then a kilogram would have just a tad bit more mass than it would on Earth.



(Remember mass does not equal weight.)

In other words, the only way that standard measures have any meaning is if you define the parameters in which they are being used. Hence, even standard measures are relative.

Einstein kind of destroyed the idea of an objective universe. Objective is entirely a human concept and does not exist naturally.

 

All these concepts are just inventions, approximations, they are never final. But for the most important aspects of life on this one planet, here, most aspects of life are easy, possible, and inevitable, to objectify.

 

Relativity is easily testable. Hell, one the coolest experiments I ever think they did was take two atomic clocks that were synced to exactly the same time, put one on the ground and put the other in a jet which they flew at the speed of sound. Once they compared the clocks, the one that was in the jet had an earlier time than the one that was on the ground. Time had moved slower on the ground than it had move in the jet. Tell me that isn't cool!

You just defined the parameters, so yes, you can measure things at those given parameters. You can also measure things at other given parameters.

In summary, objective is a human perception.

 

Expectations laid out in your post (thank you, I was having trouble thinking of examples for my original post):
Unconditionally love God/Jesus
TRY not to hate
TRY not to be lustful
ect.

what if I don't want to? it is expected of me that I try. THATS the type of expectation I was talking about. Following that gives me about as much free will as a slave that so happens to have a forgiving master.

I will NOT love someone/something because I'm told to, simply because thats not love. I will grant that I haven't read every word of the bible, but I have read a a significant portion, and I have been going to church for eighteen years, so I have a good idea of who God is and what he's about, and I can't love that. I'll grant that Jesus would be a pretty chill dude, if he was exactly as depicted in the bible , but I have some strong doubts about that one.

[I have no good argument about the hate one, because I personally find it very difficult to truly hate anyone. ask Shai about that one.]

Finally, I find no true problem with lust, so long as it doesn't lead to harming anyone (such as in the form of rape). Checking someone out does NOT harm them. If you remember that the person is a person, and there is more to them than appearances, checking them out is a COMPLIMENT. It says that whatever happened/you did, its working for you very well.

 

Sure, I meant that the measures, like meters and kg, are inventions. They approximate well what we have in reach. They are not something final, and may not work in other places, but they DO work here. However, just because laws on Earth are not valid around the universe doesn't mean that such a problem is relevant to the life of humans /in any non-negligible way/. And also, just because the universe tends to be infinitely strange, doesn't mean that people on the planet are.

 

ROFL.

I'm just saying that both the universe and human perception are relative, and objectivity is the illusion humans create when they believe that their perceptions are the universal reality.

 

*Looks back at the OP*

Well this went into two wild tangents... of the two... NV I believe you're looking for the thought of religion without coercion. Which from the sounds of it Wiccan has.

 

Hey Barnabas this question is for you:

I was raised Roman Catholic and went through religious studies, but one thing never really made sense to me (and don't think that it applies to just Catholics seeing as it's a basic foundation of Christianity) was why Jesus had to die on the cross for us.

I just never really got the point of Jesus having to die, knowing full well that he was God and would go to heaven. I never asked questions, but I never understood the reasoning behind Jesus having to die for our sins, or what difference it made. I'm interested in your interpretation.

(sorry if this is too off topic for your thread, I'll move/delete it if you want)

 

Love is a pretty vague term. Love can mean anything from nurture to discipline. I would say that if you can see people as neither adversary or victim, but as an imperfect human who can makes mistakes, then you are loving them. That is how I interpreted Jesus's message, since he holds people accountable for their choices but he does not condemn them for their choices. He simply sees them as people who make choices, and he encourages them to make choices that will make them happy rather than choices that lead to suffering for them or others.

As far as saying love God, that isn't really any different than saying love what is good in life. See it neither vice nor virtue, but as something which should be approached with temperance and respect.

 

[quote=N

 

This:

is not great question. It's a repetitive one that gets smacked down time after time when answered properly.

Now I've had a good nights sleep I shall answer it.

Both logic and reason are ultimately based on assumptions - which are assumed according the data and/or tangible matter at hand, tried, tested, then proved to be fact or otherwise disproved.

Religion is a man-made fabrication, relying utterly on made-up miracles and events which have never had eye witnesses that are not delusional, and if you truly think it is on a 50-50 level playing field - which means you'd think it holds as many convincing arguments and verified chunks of data as reason, logic and science does - then I'm afraid, without sounding crude, you have a screw loose. Yes, many moral elements can be construed from scripture, but there is none that cannot be realised without the help of what is otherwise an equally cruel and archaic set of commands and demands of servitude. In other words, I vehemently oppose the continued championing of the bible, koran and torah etc based on the fact 'some people like it' regardless of it's frequently genocidal content.

The trial and error based method of corroborating logical assumptions is what makes the former infinitely more reliable than religion, and THEREFORE teaching in schools a superstition that has never proved or disproved aspects of it's own unchanging dogma would be a complete disservice to humanity.

Now, taking a stance like I do against the abhorrent totalitarian aspects and the superstitious baseless cloptrot of religion is still these days, and increasingly so, thought of as 'offensive', and many a member will take issue at my mentioning of 'delusional' and 'having a screw loose' despite the fact that calling someone who believed Hogwarts existed 'delusional' would not be thought of as offensive. I think society is still not yet evolved enough on the faith front to accept anything other than politely tip-toeing around the disagreement over faith and it's role. Believe you me, if religion had the monopoly like it once used to (and is arguably regaining through this relentless capitulation to the demands of it), dissenters would be quickly silenced - something those who drew their morals from common sense and their opinions from the reason-based camp would never consider doing. That is why religious 'ethics' shouldn't be propagated as fact or as an equal alternative to evidence based reason in schools.

Hopefully evolution will sort out this primitive aspect to the human psyche (NOT spiritualism in the emotive sense of the term, but the unquestioning mentality that religion encourages). However this won't happen for a while yet as we see capitulation after capitulation to the claws of organised religion all over the developed world in the name of human rights; as though it is deserving of default respect and has a green card to say and demand such obscene things to and from society and the education system that Hogwartists would be laughed at for doing.

 

The koran doesn't blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, infact the koran says that they crucified someone else in his place. So who's right? No way to prove or disprove either, whereas there are constantly emerging ways to prove or disprove scientific theories and discoveries - the result of which is reason. This goes to support my above post.

lol.

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

-Epicurus.

Apply that to god's supposed faultless creative skills.

 

Christ almighty, pardon the pun, I rest my case on the inanity of religion and the obtuse irrationality it gives rise to in the average impressionable human mind.

 

So basically you think sort of stuff should be treated with equal respect in schools and given equal time when taught:

 

so in fact you say, that since Jesus came to life, we can throw away the whole OT because "the Pharisees messed up the law, so the law was inperfect but Jesus' sacrifice replaces the law so the only thing we have to do is believe in Jesus and his sacrifice?"

great, *throwing away the OT* ... because I have been wondering why I have to follow the law that was made for the "favorite people of God". Since i'm not one of them (I'm not a Jew) the law is not written for me!

the way I have been told (And I have been to a Catholic nun school), is that only Matteus(or Mathew) new Jesus because he was a disciple. Lucas (Luke) was a Greeck and had written the gospel years afther the death of jesus and never saw him in real life and the same for marcus (mark) who is concidered an "unknown christian". And about Johannes (john) I have been told that this gospel has been written to long after jesus death to be concidered to be written by the apostel johannes.

And the fact that all 4 gospels disagree with eachother on many things make it even more plausible that they are not written by eye witnesses but by people who only heard the story.

I also find it very stupid to base your believes on a book that has been written after jesus' death. Only a book written by Jesus himself would for me be a bible. The one we have now is made by the roman empire Constantyn for the only reason to bring back peace in his empire and a whole bunch of man has been voting on which book was going to be a part of it and which book not. There are a lot more books written about Jesus, like the gospel of Thomas but because they didn't correspond with what the church want us to believe, they are not concidered "real" gospels. I ask myself: "what are real gospels"

the only thing that is real to me is what I see in my heart. I listen to my heart and that is exactly what Jesus told us to do. The kingdom of God is in each one of us!