Church of England apologizes to Darwin

[cdobe]

Er, hello?!?!?! Jerusalm anybody?

Ah, Teazer beat me to it, but I have the power of YouTube....

"And did those feet, in ancient times...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_th ... cient_time



Welcome to our unofficial national anthem.

Wow, at 0:14 they're doing the secret Wu style bayonet form (a form they lost in Shanghai). It's the Seven Stars posture in xubu just before the first Grasping the Bird's Tail.

[GrahamB]

Ah, so much was lost in Shanghai - it's lucky we're able to piece it all back together.

[Chris Fleming]

As for England and Europe's rather bleak spiritual landscape

'bleak' is one word for it, 'pleasant', would be another.

Indeed. Let's be honest, you don't need to believe in God to have a spiritual landscape. In fact, I find it rather gets in the way

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-History- ... 1847243401

Well that's a funny type of "honesty" "spirituality" without God.

[cdobe]

Indeed. Let's be honest, you don't need to believe in God to have a spiritual landscape. In fact, I find it rather gets in the way

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-History- ... 1847243401

Well that's a funny type of "honesty" "spirituality" without God.

that's a very narrow sense of what spirituality is/can be.

Spirituality as a way of life concerns itself with aligning the human will and mind with that dimension of life and the universe that is harmonious and ordered. As such spiritual disciplines (which are often part of an established religious tradition) enjoin practitioners (trainees or disciples) to cultivate those higher potentialities of the human being that are more noble and refined (wisdom and virtue). Accordingly, many spiritual traditions across diverse cultures share similar vocabulary. Terms such as the "path", the "work", the "practice" are universally applied to the ongoing discipline involved in transforming the coarser energies present in the human soul into more subtle and pleasing ones. As a spiritual practitioner one seeks to become free of the lesser egoic self (or ego) in favor of being more fully one's "true" "Self".

Wouldn't you call Buddhists or Zen practitioners spiritual ?

[Chris Fleming]

Narrow? I'd call any attempt at "spirituality" without God a glaring falsehood, regardless of what teh infallible wiki says.

[cdobe]

Narrow? I'd call any attempt at "spirituality" without God a glaring falsehood, regardless of what teh infallible wiki says.

If this were my mother language I'ld write small articles about difficult topics like Wuyizidi or Steve James. But since it is not, I just copy and paste, when it is good enough.
You just made statements so far, therfore it's 1-0 for Wikipedia at the moment ...

[GrahamB]

Narrow? I'd call any attempt at "spirituality" without God a glaring falsehood, regardless of what teh infallible wiki says.

Before we go any further I need to ask you a question.

Do you believe that Dinosaurs walked the earth just 4,000 years ago?

[Chris Fleming]

No.

[GrahamB]

OK, then you're not a literalist. Good man. Dialogue will be possible

[Chris Fleming]

Yes, it is very embarrassing to hear things like that from people--who mean it quite seriously. I must say though, the Bible does not say that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago. That is a mistaken understanding which is, like I said, embarrassing.

[GrahamB]

But if it did, categorically state that - would you believe it unquestionably?

[dragontigerpalm]

Narrow? I'd call any attempt at "spirituality" without God a glaring falsehood, regardless of what teh infallible wiki says.

If, in your view, spirituality is not attainable by Buddhists and Taoists is it an option for non-Christians?

[Chris Fleming]

But if it did, categorically state that - would you believe it unquestionably?

I would believe it and there would be science to back it up too. Science of course does not back up the zany positions of some, such as the whole earth-is-only-6000-years-old thing. Perhaps I should give an example or two:

It was, what, only 500 years ago people still thought the earth was flat. That was cutting edge science at the time. I know it sounds funny now but try to think what it was like at that time. Along with this, some postulated that the earth was held up by 4 big turtles. Perhaps a little older (but still believed) theory was that the earth was held up by a giant called Atlas.

However, the Bible, says:

"He (God) stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22

The word "circle" in Hebrew denotes a sphere. From these two verses it is clear that these people knew that the earth was a sphere in space, not flat, no giant, no turtles, despite what science (at the time) had to say.

Furthermore, we have:

"It (the earth) is changed as clay under the seal" Job 38:14

Ok, now what does this mean? The word "changed" in Hebrew means revolved. The clay in this verse is talking about the printing clay roller used in ancient Mesopotamia--it had an axle in the middle to turn it around. This is exactly what science discovered thousands of years later--that the earth rotates on its own axis.

Another example would be Kepler's claim that there are a total of 1005 stars. Again, at that time, that was cutting edge science. And obviously, with the invention and refinement of the telescope, that number kept climbing. There is a verse which says,

"The host of heaven (stars) cannot be numbered" Jeremiah 33:22

Now this is much more accurate, even with the modern numbers of exactly how many stars there are. Here's a website: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html

Even with those numbers, science is seeing more and more just how vast the universe is. Sounds like an incalculable number to me.

I don't knock science at all. Not in the least. The point is that science is a very detailed study of God's creation. And, just as science has been refined and updated throughout the centuries, it will continue to be updated. When man's knowledge and God's word don't match up, it is man who doesn't see the whole picture yet.

[Bill]

Well, not actually believing in God is the basis of most of the large denominations, particularly in the popish system.

This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I've read in a long time. Chris, you use the term 'popish' long used by protestant religeous bigots who hate the Catholic Church.
By the way, it's ok with me if you hate the church, but I see no reason you have to lie about our beliefs.

[GrahamB]

But if it did, categorically state that - would you believe it unquestionably?

I would believe it and there would be science to back it up too. Science of course does not back up the zany positions of some, such as the whole earth-is-only-6000-years-old thing. Perhaps I should give an example or two:

It was, what, only 500 years ago people still thought the earth was flat. That was cutting edge science at the time. I know it sounds funny now but try to think what it was like at that time. Along with this, some postulated that the earth was held up by 4 big turtles. Perhaps a little older (but still believed) theory was that the earth was held up by a giant called Atlas.

However, the Bible, says:

"He (God) stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22

The word "circle" in Hebrew denotes a sphere. From these two verses it is clear that these people knew that the earth was a sphere in space, not flat, no giant, no turtles, despite what science (at the time) had to say.

Furthermore, we have:

"It (the earth) is changed as clay under the seal" Job 38:14

Ok, now what does this mean? The word "changed" in Hebrew means revolved. The clay in this verse is talking about the printing clay roller used in ancient Mesopotamia--it had an axle in the middle to turn it around. This is exactly what science discovered thousands of years later--that the earth rotates on its own axis.

Another example would be Kepler's claim that there are a total of 1005 stars. Again, at that time, that was cutting edge science. And obviously, with the invention and refinement of the telescope, that number kept climbing. There is a verse which says,

"The host of heaven (stars) cannot be numbered" Jeremiah 33:22

Now this is much more accurate, even with the modern numbers of exactly how many stars there are. Here's a website: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html

Even with those numbers, science is seeing more and more just how vast the universe is. Sounds like an incalculable number to me.

I don't knock science at all. Not in the least. The point is that science is a very detailed study of God's creation. And, just as science has been refined and updated throughout the centuries, it will continue to be updated. When man's knowledge and God's word don't match up, it is man who doesn't see the whole picture yet.

Right... so we're a literalist, but we're picking selected passages and interpreting the meaning so it fits in with modern science... I get it! But what about all the other stuff in the Bible that's, quite frankly, barbaric? When Deuteronomy says that the punishment for not respecting your parents is to be stoned to death then, that's ok by you?

Deuteronomy 21:18 onwards...

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.