Medicine Woman said:
M*W: Let me make this perfectly clear to all the Christians on sciforums who don't understand -- I DO NOT believe God to be the sun! That was the God of Moses.
Alright, bad choice of words, but don't assume that because I'm a advocate for Christianity that I therefore believe in a sun god. So don't tell me "wear lots of sun screen." I know it was a quip, and I understand that you don't believe in a sun god, but your posts usually foster hatred (toward Christians) than a movement toward mutual understanding.
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: No, you are wrong again. The original idea has not changed, it's just been renamed 'the SON of God.' Early humans feared looking directly at the face of the sun, and the elements they feared becasue they had no control over the elements. This is basically the same definition of God as it was some 5,000 years ago. The sun created a pleasant tropical environment where life could optimally occur. Philosophy hasn't changed a thing.
Actually, the son of God has a much older history than that title attributed to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, its symbolism has absolutely no attachment to the Sun god of the Egyptians. As for the fear of early humans for not having control over the elements, that is a supposition, not fact. You have chosen to associate that supposition with the symbolisms of the Bible. Fine, you do that, but that is not an association I would make, at least not without proof, or strong evidentiary support. Furthermore, the definition of God as an actual infinite would certainly not be the same as that of the sun god, unless the sun god was simply a symbolic representation of a deeper concept. Philosophy may not have changed the descriptions of the Bible, nor the rooted origins of that symbolism. However, philosophy has changed our understanding of what is written there (well... some of us anyway). It isn't true that philosophy hasn't changed a thing.
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: I understand, but I also see that you blindly believe that your concept of god is the only true concept -- which it is not. What you believe in is the evolution of early man's fear of the inability to control the sun. Again, this is NOT my belief -- it was the belief of the ancient humans that filtered down to Moses. The rest is history.
Blindly? Only true concept? I would say that my concept of God is a work in progress. As for your comment about me being blind, I'm sorry that I gave that impression. I think things through as much as I can. I've studied these concepts both in school and privately. I no longer hold many beliefs that I once did, and I believe much that I once never even conceived. If this is blindness, then I wonder what sight is. My beliefs about early man are not based in religious teaching. Rather, my beliefs about early man are based in logical conslusion that I have reached through archaeology, science, philosophy, history and religion. I do not believe that the concept of God is based in early man's fear of the inability to control the sun. I may be wrong, admittedly, but by the evidence that I have been given, it is my conclusion that this isn't the case.
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: You can believe in whatever it is that floats your boat, but please don't try to push YOUR concept of god on the rest of us. If most of us were sure there was a god, we'd probably not be on sciforums. I happen to believe more in sciforums than any creator-god that others believe.
Who's pushing? I believe you are the one who's pushing, since you are the one taking an active stance against Christianity, beliettling it and its members with every opportunity. THAT is pushing of beliefs. I present my beliefs, I propose arguments, and I am ready and willing to back those beliefs and arguments up. You may believe whatever you want to believe. If I find fault with it, I will say so, and tell you why, but I certainly don't expect you to accept what I have to say. I am always expecting a debate because I don't expect people to just accept what I have to say. I hope that they do, but don't expect it. I realize that I can do all the talking in the world, present as many arguments as I want, but when it really comes down to it, a person is going to believe whatever the heck they want to believe. You are not an exception. Therefore, I do not push my beliefs. I also do not push my beliefs because I believe that whatever is to be believed must be believed of a person's own free will. To push one's beliefs onto another is to belittle and attack that person's free will. I would never consciously do such a thing, for the destruction of a person's free will is dehumanising.
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: If you feel the need to 'clear up misconceptions' about what you believe and don't believe about God, then part of you doesn't truly believe. If there was a true God, there would be no question about it, and none of us would be here on sciforums! So, you either came here to find an understanding about what you and others believe, or you came here to preach Christianity. There are some very good religion forums discussing Christianity only on the Internet. sciforums is not one of them.
I would disagree with that a "part of me doesn't truly believe" just because I feel the need to make clarifications. I do not make clarifications for my sake, but for the sake of those around me. I know what I believe, but others do not. I clarify my stance so that a discussion may be had. If my stance isn't clarified, then a discussion can't be had, since we would actually be speaking about different things. The greatest divider among humans today is the lack of clarity in regards to terms being used. For example, most people think that Hinduism is polytheistic. That simply isn't the case. There are many 'gods,' in Hinduism, but there is only one 'God.' The difference being that God is a supreme and infinite being, while the gods are what we might consider saints or angels. Furthermore, many people believe that Hinduism teaches that humans are gods, this being based in the teaching that humans have divinity. However, in the understanding of what is meant by 'gods,' then the teaching is also held by Christians. Furthermore, what is meant by 'divinity' is simply the same concept as the image of god held by the Judeo-Christian belief (simply that humans have free will and intellect). It is because of misunderstanding of the terms involved that miscostruals of beliefs systems are had, and so there is division. When, in actuality, the teachings of the different religions are very much the same, and such division shouldn't be had if only the terms involved were understood properly. This is the reason that I make my own clarifications, NOT because there is a lack of belief on my part.
