Christian philosophy and the Big Bang

Ameriscot said:
Yes they are blanket statements. I don't believe any psychologically healthy human being does not desire love.
Click to expand...

So an emotionally stoic person would be considered psychologically unhealthy? By what standard? Certainly not by the DSM ...

First off, people have been confusing need, want and love since Adam and Eve. Much of what we view as "love" nowadays is often one of the other two.

Second, are you saying that the monks who choose to live their lives in isolation, or at the very least in the company of like-minded brothers and sisters, are mentally bent?

Finally, if as the original article claims "We are all One", how does that explain the actions of so many animal species that definitely do NOT show "love"? If we are truly all connected, how can it be that one group shows love and the other does not?

Love is nothing more than a steamy mix of chemicals - oxytocin, dopamine, pheromones, estrogen and testosterone. Everything else is the work of poets. We as a society have bought into all of the fantasies that have been woven about love, but that's all they are - fantasies and a few bucks worth of chemicals.
 

SifuPhil said:
So an emotionally stoic person would be considered psychologically unhealthy? By what standard? Certainly not by the DSM ...

First off, people have been confusing need, want and love since Adam and Eve. Much of what we view as "love" nowadays is often one of the other two.

Second, are you saying that the monks who choose to live their lives in isolation, or at the very least in the company of like-minded brothers and sisters, are mentally bent?

Finally, if as the original article claims "We are all One", how does that explain the actions of so many animal species that definitely do NOT show "love"? If we are truly all connected, how can it be that one group shows love and the other does not?

Love is nothing more than a steamy mix of chemicals - oxytocin, dopamine, pheromones, estrogen and testosterone. Everything else is the work of poets. We as a society have bought into all of the fantasies that have been woven about love, but that's all they are - fantasies and a few bucks worth of chemicals.
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying love is only about sexual/romantic relationships. What about your parents, siblings, friends, etc etc? Is that not love? We even love our pets but that doesn't mean we are in love with them or want sex with them - well, maybe some do....

Are you saying monks don't love their fellow monks?
 
I believe this. Always have. Always will.

"We Are Already One
"There was no place in the universe that was separate from the originating power of the universe."

Scientists are open to the possibility of a "creator".

Religious scholars are open to the possibility of the "big bang". If you speak with any but the most fundamentalist of ministers/priests/rabbis/etc., you will find agreement on that point. BUT they dare not preach same to their congregants because the congregants have been so brain-washed they would revolt.

I agree with Phil. This was quite true to Taoist philosophy.
 
SifuPhil said:
So an emotionally stoic person would be considered psychologically unhealthy? By what standard? Certainly not by the DSM ...

First off, people have been confusing need, want and love since Adam and Eve. Much of what we view as "love" nowadays is often one of the other two.

Second, are you saying that the monks who choose to live their lives in isolation, or at the very least in the company of like-minded brothers and sisters, are mentally bent?

Finally, if as the original article claims "We are all One", how does that explain the actions of so many animal species that definitely do NOT show "love"? If we are truly all connected, how can it be that one group shows love and the other does not?

Love is nothing more than a steamy mix of chemicals - oxytocin, dopamine, pheromones, estrogen and testosterone. Everything else is the work of poets. We as a society have bought into all of the fantasies that have been woven about love, but that's all they are - fantasies and a few bucks worth of chemicals.
Click to expand...

I can see this is heading for a dispute over definitions. I agree with Ameriscot that just about all "normal" human beings want to be loved. There are quite a few psychotics and sociopaths whose brains are wired differently who do not.

I think the religious communities provide the "love" for each other. The solitary monks and hermits may be solitary because they were unable to find the love that they needed.

If "we' is meant to include everything in the universe, then we are all one. I include plants, and all inanimate matter in my definition of "we". Because everything is connected doesn't mean everything is the same. Many animals do show love. Plants, so far as we know do not. Nor do rocks.

As an incurable romantic, I wish it were not so, but I have to agree completely with your final statement.
An excellent summation in two sentences of the hard truth of the matter.
 
"Finally, if as the original article claims "We are all One", how does that explain the actions of so many animal species that definitely do NOT show "love"? If we are truly all connected, how can it be that one group shows love and the other does not": Phil.

Animal species demonstrate love amongst their own species. Humans do the same. Animal inter-species showing of love happens.

Perhaps we have all just not evolved enough to show love, caring, compassion to all sentient creatures. And I include any species in that statement.

Which sounds very Buddhist, doesn't it? But no, I am not a practicing Buddhist.

BTW, Phil, you knocked being stoic. To be stoic does not only mean to shun love/affection.
 
Ameriscot said:
You seem to be saying love is only about sexual/romantic relationships. What about your parents, siblings, friends, etc etc? Is that not love? We even love our pets but that doesn't mean we are in love with them or want sex with them - well, maybe some do....
Click to expand...

No, not differentiating between sexual love, romantic love, familial love or whatever other flavor you have - they're all based on the same chemical reactions.

Are you saying monks don't love their fellow monks?
Click to expand...

Depends on which monks we're talking about. Some will spread their New Agey messages of love among themselves, sure. But others are so inwardly-focused that they'll walk over a dying brother monk without even realizing it.
 
Underock1 said:
I can see this is heading for a dispute over definitions. I agree with Ameriscot that just about all "normal" human beings want to be loved. There are quite a few psychotics and sociopaths whose brains are wired differently who do not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And as a high-functioning sociopath with no desire to love or be loved I resent the implication that I am somehow sub-human.

I think the religious communities provide the "love" for each other. The solitary monks and hermits may be solitary because they were unable to find the love that they needed.
Click to expand...

Interesting possibility.

Or, it could be that their pursuit of perfection didn't allow time for love, or they discovered that love wasn't something that would further their training.

If "we' is meant to include everything in the universe, then we are all one. I include plants, and all inanimate matter in my definition of "we". Because everything is connected doesn't mean everything is the same. Many animals do show love. Plants, so far as we know do not. Nor do rocks.
Click to expand...

And yet by those final exclusions you are breaking the "code" that has been set - when they said everything did they mean it or not? Why are they so mealy-mouthed?

As an incurable romantic, I wish it were not so, but I have to agree completely with your final statement.
An excellent summation in two sentences of the hard truth of the matter.
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad - I used to be an incurable romantic myself. Whereas some would believe that I have somehow become dehumanized, I like to think I've become more realistic and moved beyond that particular urge.
 
I read this last night but I wanted to give it some thought before I replied.

Believe it or not, it was actually a Roman Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astronomer, and physics professor, not only proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, he was the first to note in 1927 that the expanding universe might be traced back to a single point of origin called a singularity. As Ilia Delio describes, "Science would say it appeared like a little quantum size blip on the screen [Creatio ex nihilo] and inflated rapidly like a balloon and since that time, it has been expanding."
Delio explains the implications for this cosmology--our story of the universe:

But where did the blip come from and why?



Deep within we long for unity because, at the most fundamental level, we are already one.


​Sorry but in looking at the history of mankind, I don't see any longing for unity. Perhaps unity with those who are like us but unity with all mankind? Nope, I can't see it.
 
Shirley said:
I read this last night but I wanted to give it some thought before I replied.

Believe it or not, it was actually a Roman Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astronomer, and physics professor, not only proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, he was the first to note in 1927 that the expanding universe might be traced back to a single point of origin called a singularity. As Ilia Delio describes, "Science would say it appeared like a little quantum size blip on the screen [Creatio ex nihilo] and inflated rapidly like a balloon and since that time, it has been expanding."
Delio explains the implications for this cosmology--our story of the universe:

But where did the blip come from and why?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Georges+Lemaître&pc=MOZI&form=MOZCON
Click to expand...
 
SifuPhil said:
No, not differentiating between sexual love, romantic love, familial love or whatever other flavor you have - they're all based on the same chemical reactions.



Depends on which monks we're talking about. Some will spread their New Agey messages of love among themselves, sure. But others are so inwardly-focused that they'll walk over a dying brother monk without even realizing it.
Click to expand...

New agey monks? Buddhism is 2500 years old, hardly new age.
 
SifuPhil said:
Well, wasn't / isn't the New Age movement really just a rehash of those ancient beliefs? That's how I've always seen it, anyway ...
Click to expand...

No. I have followed both at different times and they are not the same. New Age stuff is fluff, Buddhism is not.
 
Yet if you look in many bookstores they will list Buddhist books under "New Age" categories.

I always thought New Age to be a Western creation composed of many different older beliefs as well as newer ones such as the Human Potential Movement.
 
Yet if you look in many bookstores they will list Buddhist books under "New Age" categories. [Phil]
I always thought New Age to be a Western creation composed of many different older beliefs as well as newer ones such as the Human Potential Movement. [Phil]


Bookstores often put books in the wrong category. [Ameriscot]

If Buddhism is to be found under New Age, it is definitely not a bookstore where the proprietors/workers know what they're doing, Phil.

Buddhism should be found under the category Religions.

Which brings me to another subject, sort of ...... the chain bookstores have put the smaller, more inclusive bookstores out of business. Years ago I had a favorite bookstore where you immediately knew you would be able to find anything you could possibly be looking for. And if you couldn't find it quickly, the proprietor/owner/family member would be able to go with you and pick it out of a particular shelf. I so miss having a bookstore like that ...... one where you could get lost in the stacks and not care one whit that you were lost! The smells, the mustiness of the shop ...... so long gone now.
 
Rocky said:
Yet if you look in many bookstores they will list Buddhist books under "New Age" categories. [Phil]
I always thought New Age to be a Western creation composed of many different older beliefs as well as newer ones such as the Human Potential Movement. [Phil]


Bookstores often put books in the wrong category. [Ameriscot]

If Buddhism is to be found under New Age, it is definitely not a bookstore where the proprietors/workers know what they're doing, Phil.

Buddhism should be found under the category Religions.

Which brings me to another subject, sort of ...... the chain bookstores have put the smaller, more inclusive bookstores out of business. Years ago I had a favorite bookstore where you immediately knew you would be able to find anything you could possibly be looking for. And if you couldn't find it quickly, the proprietor/owner/family member would be able to go with you and pick it out of a particular shelf. I so miss having a bookstore like that ...... one where you could get lost in the stacks and not care one whit that you were lost! The smells, the mustiness of the shop ...... so long gone now.
Click to expand...

Actually Buddhism would fit better in the philosophy section as religion implies a belief in a diety(ies).
 
Rocky said:
But there is a belief in Nirvana ...... heaven in Christian/Muslim/Jewish thought -- more or less.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same as heaven.

Nirvana: (in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.
 
Ameriscot, I think what you're bringing up is, in truth, a matter of semantics.

P.S. I did write "more or less".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top