Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 30, 2008 21:33:28 GMT -4
You don't think that religion can be a force towards making people curious about what is over the next hill?
I noted already that Columbus thought he was on a holy mission.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 30, 2008 22:04:53 GMT -4
Well, maybe if the hill is on Sha Ka Ree.
I think it is too hard too answer a question like that since most explorers, kings, adventurers and even common folk have belonged to some sort of religious sect. So the question remains, if they were atheists, would philosophy, science, exploration and technology have advanced at a faster pace that it actually did. But we don't have that kind of data - yet. Maybe in a few hundred years we'll have some numbers to work with.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 31, 2008 5:58:02 GMT -4
You don't think that religion can be a force towards making people curious about what is over the next hill? I noted already that Columbus thought he was on a holy mission. Oh most certainly. But I would say it is hard given history to say what has driven discovery the most. From my point of view I would say the curiosity about the hill was there before religion.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 31, 2008 6:20:46 GMT -4
Well, maybe if the hill is on Sha Ka Ree. I think it is too hard too answer a question like that since most explorers, kings, adventurers and even common folk have belonged to some sort of religious sect. So the question remains, if they were atheists, would philosophy, science, exploration and technology have advanced at a faster pace that it actually did. But we don't have that kind of data - yet. Maybe in a few hundred years we'll have some numbers to work with. Many kings of yore were driven by conquest and keeping what they had and if no one was looking, a few more acres nicked from tour neighbor. The feudal system saw to that. The church had a big say in things but the average person in the street was more concerned about food and taxes. They had someone who told them how much land to till, when to work, when to die. But people being human also strove to discover where they could. It might have been in the name of the church or allah or to please your lord and master. Either way it was a human behind the searching. Prior to todays religions people still went out to see what was what. They still traded and knew the earth was round. Ish. Came up with many things like writing and siege warfare. Strange bed fellows. To some extent I wonder that if peoples had, for whatever reason, inhabited the northern regions with more gusto then the industrial revolution might have happened sooner. Lets say Greece with its many gods.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 31, 2008 10:53:46 GMT -4
My first question would be is cyanide a by product of combustion if it was confirmed to be present. Not looked into it myself.
I would also say that in certain circumstance self sacrifice is an option taken by individuals or groups that are part of a society. Thermopylae is one that springs to mind. There will be many when you look into it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 31, 2008 11:43:18 GMT -4
Self-sacrifice is wrong Really? Self sacrifice is an act performed by humans in everyday life. If you are married or have kids you know what self sacrifice is. Or if you play sports. Or if you have a job. Or have pets. I think that just about covers everybody. Self sacrifice comes in varying degrees. Now if you're talking about reckless volunteering for a medical procedure that is untested, unnecessary and has a 99% mortality rate - yes, I think that would be wrong. But going into an occupation that takes precautions, only performs actions that are necessary, tests its equipment, provides safety procedures and minimizes risks where possible, that surely isn't wrong? Like Jay said, crab fishing is a very high risk occupation. Or being a policeman in Baghdad. Or a soldier in almost any country in the world. Or building or working on high buildings or bridges. Which brings me to a sidenote: When New York city was getting into its skyscraper boom in the '20's and 30's they needed people who were used to heights and wouldn't be afraid of being up hundreds of feet in the air on a beam only about a foot wide. Where to find them? They recruited fishermen from Newfoundland, who were used to scaling the rigging in their sailboats. They had a lot of experience working up high, with the wind blowing ferociously and the waves pounded them relentlessly. Also, Native Americans were hired in great numbers on the skyscrapers. Today in New York there are many people that work on skyscrapers that are third and fourth generation Newfoundlanders.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 31, 2008 12:56:14 GMT -4
Self-sacrifice is wrong. The Bible teaches against human sacrifice. You're not supposed to put your children in the fire to please the god. When God asked Abraham to kill his son, he stopped him at the end and said just kidding. Because there is no redeeming value in it -- even if it's Jesus, he wasn't supposed to kill himeslf either, and if his friends liked him so much they would have tried harder at stopping him from being given over to the Romans. On the contrary - Christianity is all about self-sacrifice - Jesus' one perfect sacrifice for the rest of us, and his command that we all follow his example: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." That's in three of the four gospels. Sacrificing your kids, or someone else, is not self-sacrifice. Abraham's almost-sacrifice of Isaac was a test of faith for Abraham, and was counted as righteousness for him. The redeeming value there was that Abraham proved he was willing to do whatever the Lord asked of him. Jesus commanded the apostles not to fight to keep him from the soldiers of the Jewish leaders because he knew he was going to a necessary sacrifice. "Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" The animal sacrifices which the Israelites (not Israelis - that is a modern term) were commanded by the Law of Moses to practice were foreshadowings of Christ's own sacrifice. Those sacrifices are replaced in Christian ritual with the sacrament (communion) - looking back towards Christ's sacrifice. The "NASA poisoned Grissom" stuff is not the topic of this thread, so I won't bother to say anything more about how ridiculous the whole idea is. Which is of course why Abraham, Jacob, and the Israelites traveled thousands of miles to their promised land, why Jesus, Paul, and the early apostles traveled thousands of miles carrying religion to others, why missionaries today go to Africa or other distant lands to help the people there...hmm. I guess those are all bad examples. You're using fictional adventurers to make your argument?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on May 31, 2008 17:04:55 GMT -4
It reminded me that the moon adventure was about exploration and discovery and an existential desire in us all, or something, and not really about beating the Russians. That's more of a retrospective look on things. I think Dave Scott summed this up very well when he first walked on the moon: "As I stand out here in the wonders of the unknown at Hadley, I sort of realize there's a fundamental truth to our nature. Man must explore. And this is exploration at its greatest." I have no idea if Dave Scott is a religious person, but the man who walked on the moon with him (the late James Irwin) certainly was. In the book A Man On The Moon, he said, "God had a plan for me, to leave the earth and to share the adventure with others, so that they can be lifted up." Gene Cernan says in the ALSJ, "Being on the Moon was more of a spiritual experience for me. Religion is what you make it, where you make it. But the mission did bring home to me, very clearly, that Science has a long way to go yet to find an answer for the creation of the small part of the Universe that I was privileged to see. It doesn't make any difference who your God is or how you address him; the Earth was just too beautiful to have happened by accident. There has to be somebody bigger than me who put it together. And when I say spiritual, that's what I mean." history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.lrvload.html He used the phrase "too beautiful to have happened by accident" on other occasions as well.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 3, 2008 14:00:25 GMT -4
That's insanity! that's like if Kurt Cobain had told all his listeners to follow him in blowing his brains out. Only if you take the commandment as literally a commandment to go crucify yourself (which is a physical impossibility anyway). Jesus often taught in parables, and his words had primarily spiritual meanings, not physical ones. When he said "my kingdom is not of this world" he meant just that - he was not a king of any wordly kingdom. The commandment to take up your cross and follow him is a commandment to be humble and constantly improve ourselves, following his example, primarily in service to others. It is a not a commandment to commit suicide - the cross is a spiritual burden, not a physical one. "Israelite" refers to the twelve tribes of Israel as descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and no longer applied to anyone after the Empire of Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom (Israel) and took ten of the twelve tribes into captivity, effectively destroying their cultural and tribal ties. They haven't been heard from since. Babylon soon did the same thing to the southern kingdom (Judah), but they were able to retain their cultural tradition and eventually return, and have been known broadly as "Jews" ever since. "Israeli" refers to a citizen of the modern nation of Israel, whose population really only consists of the descendents of two of the ancient tribes - Judah (hence the term "Jew") and Benjamin. It can also apply to Arabs or other citizens of modern Israel that are not actually of Jewish descent. The modern Israelis do not typically practice animal sacrifice, as far as I know. It depends on what you term "far". Jesus traveled throughout the Kingdom of Judah during his three-year ministry, very seldom staying in one place. As a child he journeyed from Bethlehem to Gallilee to Egypt and back to Nazareth, and to Jerusalem from Nazareth several times. I'm sure he walked far further in his lifetime than most modern humans have. Paul traveled thousands of miles - from Judah throughout Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and to Rome. And this was in the ancient world, without automobiles or even trains. Taking the technology at the time into consideration I would consider that to be far. He was even ship-wrecked several times. The Mormon pioneers traveled thousand of miles by oxcart or even by foot for the sake of their religion. After they had established Great Salt Lake City they continued to send settlers out to remote locations in modern Idaho, Montanna, Nevada, Arizona, and further - all for the sake of their religion. And what of modern missionaries? Every time there is a disaster in some distant land you will find aid in the form of religious individuals arriving soon after to help. I traveled thousands of miles (from Utah to the Netherlands) and learned a new language and culture, living for two years in a foreign land, for the sake of my religion. The idea that "religious types like to stay home" is simply false. "Religious types" is too broad a category to make such a generalized statement about.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 3, 2008 17:30:58 GMT -4
But isn't that to convert? Religions are usually tied to locations and monuments and idols, and sacred sites. The religion isn't about exploring the world. It's a common belief that those that do explore, such as scientists, are less religious. Usually the wisdom has it that the grass isn't greener on the other side. It's certainly not greener on the moon A "common belief?" So in other words, a stereotype? Perhaps you should look for evidence that religions actually do discourage exploration before buying into a common stereotype. That approach would probably help you with this whole "NASA poisoned Gus Grissom and faked the moon landings" thing too.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 3, 2008 17:37:06 GMT -4
It could be argued that religion played a huge role in shaping the political map of europe and to some extend the rest of the world. Also involving exploration.
Spanish for example in the Americas. Although the spice race adds another dimension.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 3, 2008 17:41:10 GMT -4
Did Stalepie just delete that last post on purpose, or was this another technical hiccup on the forum?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 3, 2008 17:46:36 GMT -4
Ah, oh.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 3, 2008 18:13:54 GMT -4
Well, I haven't deleted anything, and I doubt it's a forum glitch. I really wish I could disable the ability to delete posts.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 3, 2008 18:17:53 GMT -4
No, I didn't. Why would I? It's not just any American Indian who goes into ironwork, it's mostly Iroquois, specifically Mohawks from the Kahnawake reservation near Montreal.www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_060.htmlForgive my meanderings, I tend to do that. ;D
|
|