IC please clarify for us

[phyllo]

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Says the guy who believes the talking snake story.

If looking beyond belief requires seeking the absolute within situational dependencies such as language talking that limits communication and thus communication of the infinite in action, then we can say that before electronic transmissions of blended vibrational frequencies that we call harmony, music, and vocalized lyrics, real time messages were transmitted in ways that are now judged as quaint and superstitious, but never-the-less were real enough to affect the actions of even the most intelligent humans. For example, the ancients could predict with fair accuracy one celestial body eclipsing another during a particular future confluence of space and time, and when the strangeness in the sky did occur as predicted, then other co-occurring phenomena, including human interactions, were interpreted as reactions to the inevitable eclipsing occurrence than had been predicted by the brainiacs, but withheld from the great unwashed just in case. In this way, when humans were part of the natural world and did not yet recognize their innate, dominionesque authority over the critters and everything else within reach, back in the days when everyone was what we now call ignorant and superstitious because of their tales, snakes likely did speak in the ways of snakes to be accurately translated by humans who, because of their oneness with the elemental forces of nature, heard the ill intent in the snake transmissions by absolutely groking the meaning rather than seeking limitations in narrow, culturally dependent language that denotes the totality of snake messaging with a single word. As an aside, perhaps the declining reading comprehension of ivy leaguers is due to seeking only one meaning in a shower of related multiples, any one of which could be a springboard into philosophy for those seeking more than a reason to throw peanuts from a branch.

For those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible there are two possibilities :

1. There was a literal snake, which did not literally talk because snakes do not have the organs to produce speech.

2. Something did literally talk but is was not a literal snake.

Either way, a literal interpretation produces a contradiction.

But sure, someone will imagine that Adam and Eve could "talk to the animals".

[Walker]

The natural way is tit for tat.
Everyone's happy with that.
It's the innate sense of fairness that all humans share.
Working hard to pay taxes so border jumpers can reap the largesse, stay home and raise a dozen citizens in government daycare ain't fair,
and everyone knows it.

The famous expression "kill the Buddha ..."
Includes killing fairness when it's a limitation,
Which leads to an inquiry into the nature of self-destructive limitations culturally and individually.

As an aside to fairness, strange that parents make a child share treasured toys. Where did they read that? Better for the child to discover innate fairness, which it does at a surprisingly young age without adult intervention, which points to the innateness of fairness and also points to conclusions made from observation.

[Walker]

Also, capacities of interpreting reality vary within and among the species.
Within the species, self-limiting blockages occur to natural capacity, and also natural capacity varies which accounts for pro sports.

Before electronics, folks heard and saw messages in quaint places ... the clouds, changes in the night sky, a babbling brook, birds, rhythms of the wind ... linking these messages to other perceived phenomena in ways forgotten so that the best of the volcanic isle was happily tossed into the volcano. Ouch, but who's to say it didn't work? I once read that Stevie Wonder was rarely without devices to record his vibrational merging with his surroundings, which technology has no doubt made easier for him.

[Immanuel Can]

For those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible there are two possibilities :

More, actually. Because a lot depends on what you surmise to be a "literal" reading.

It is more "literal" to say a snake is the same as what you know as a snake? Or is it more "literal" to understand the pre-curse creature as something different? The text itself claims such a change took place, the entity in question having been cursed after the Fall (Gen. 3:14). Or is it more "literal" to say that the conversation "literally" happened, but with a serpentine spiritual entity, since that's what the text itself suggests? And is it "literal" if one fails to acknowledge the manifest metaphorical teaching of Genesis 3:15, which is clearly a prophecy of Rev. 20:2, or to ignore all that, even though it's "literally" there?

To be genuinely "literal" is to take the text seriously as the text presents itself -- that is, to treat historical claims as historical, poetic passages as poetic, prophetic passages as prophetic, songs as songs, and so on. So the question returns: if the dialogue with the serpent is presented by the text itself as having metaphorical implications, how can one be "literal" by ignoring the metaphorical?

Your objection, then, is based on seeing "literal" reading as meaning only that one must read everything as if it were a newspaper. The text itself indicates otherwise, in various places. So the thing you're indicting is what we would call "crass" or "unsophisticated" literalism, not genuine literalism.

[Gary Childress]

For those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible there are two possibilities :

More, actually. Because a lot depends on what you surmise to be a "literal" reading.

It is more "literal" to say a snake is the same as what you know as a snake? Or is it more "literal" to understand the pre-curse creature as something different? The text itself claims such a change took place, the entity in question having been cursed after the Fall (Gen. 3:14). Or is it more "literal" to say that the conversation "literally" happened, but with a serpentine spiritual entity, since that's what the text itself suggests? And is it "literal" if one fails to acknowledge the manifest metaphorical teaching of Genesis 3:15, which is clearly a prophecy of Rev. 20:2, or to ignore all that, even though it's "literally" there?

To be genuinely "literal" is to take the text seriously as the text presents itself -- that is, to treat historical claims as historical, poetic passages as poetic, prophetic passages as prophetic, songs as songs, and so on. So the question returns: if the dialogue with the serpent is presented by the text itself as having metaphorical implications, how can one be "literal" by ignoring the metaphorical?

Your objection, then, is based on seeing "literal" reading as meaning only that one must read everything as if it were a newspaper. The text itself indicates otherwise, in various places. So the thing you're indicting is what we would call "crass" or "unsophisticated" literalism, not genuine literalism.

Is Buddhism incorrect about reality? And if so, what beliefs of Buddhism conflict with science? Or what about Buddhism makes you think that it is untrue or not the correct interpretation of reality?

[Immanuel Can]

For those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible there are two possibilities :

More, actually. Because a lot depends on what you surmise to be a "literal" reading.

It is more "literal" to say a snake is the same as what you know as a snake? Or is it more "literal" to understand the pre-curse creature as something different? The text itself claims such a change took place, the entity in question having been cursed after the Fall (Gen. 3:14). Or is it more "literal" to say that the conversation "literally" happened, but with a serpentine spiritual entity, since that's what the text itself suggests? And is it "literal" if one fails to acknowledge the manifest metaphorical teaching of Genesis 3:15, which is clearly a prophecy of Rev. 20:2, or to ignore all that, even though it's "literally" there?

To be genuinely "literal" is to take the text seriously as the text presents itself -- that is, to treat historical claims as historical, poetic passages as poetic, prophetic passages as prophetic, songs as songs, and so on. So the question returns: if the dialogue with the serpent is presented by the text itself as having metaphorical implications, how can one be "literal" by ignoring the metaphorical?

Your objection, then, is based on seeing "literal" reading as meaning only that one must read everything as if it were a newspaper. The text itself indicates otherwise, in various places. So the thing you're indicting is what we would call "crass" or "unsophisticated" literalism, not genuine literalism.

Is Buddhism incorrect about reality?

Well, no Buddhist nation discovered science. They had crafts, tools, arts...but no formal discipline of science. And no scientific revolution. Those nations that were Buddhist are now racing to catch up with the West...and doing well at it, I might add...but you've got to wonder why they didn't discover science themselves...

Why do you think that is, Gary? Why did the scientific method only appear in a little backwater like England, and not among the millions and millions more in China, or India, or Africa...?

[promethean75]

Industrialization and free market produced a need for engineering, mechanics, chemistry, etc, which in turn produced intellectuals and not just philosophers (as would remain in dynastic china for a great deal longer). Science was the 'how to' of capitalism, and the better the tech, the more opportunities for capitalism.

And it had nothing to do with the christians, bro. That a few scientists were also Christians doesn't mean anything except maybe that one ought to think carefully about hiring them.

[Gary Childress]

More, actually. Because a lot depends on what you surmise to be a "literal" reading.

It is more "literal" to say a snake is the same as what you know as a snake? Or is it more "literal" to understand the pre-curse creature as something different? The text itself claims such a change took place, the entity in question having been cursed after the Fall (Gen. 3:14). Or is it more "literal" to say that the conversation "literally" happened, but with a serpentine spiritual entity, since that's what the text itself suggests? And is it "literal" if one fails to acknowledge the manifest metaphorical teaching of Genesis 3:15, which is clearly a prophecy of Rev. 20:2, or to ignore all that, even though it's "literally" there?

To be genuinely "literal" is to take the text seriously as the text presents itself -- that is, to treat historical claims as historical, poetic passages as poetic, prophetic passages as prophetic, songs as songs, and so on. So the question returns: if the dialogue with the serpent is presented by the text itself as having metaphorical implications, how can one be "literal" by ignoring the metaphorical?

Your objection, then, is based on seeing "literal" reading as meaning only that one must read everything as if it were a newspaper. The text itself indicates otherwise, in various places. So the thing you're indicting is what we would call "crass" or "unsophisticated" literalism, not genuine literalism.

Is Buddhism incorrect about reality?

Well, no Buddhist nation discovered science. They had crafts, tools, arts...but no formal discipline of science. And no scientific revolution. Those nations that were Buddhist are now racing to catch up with the West...and doing well at it, I might add...but you've got to wonder why they didn't discover science themselves...

Why do you think that is, Gary? Why did the scientific method only appear in a little backwater like England, and not among the millions and millions more in China, or India, or Africa...?

Why should we assume that Christianity is what advanced the West scientifically, when Christianity has been understood by many historians to have been socially at odds with many discoveries of the sciences much of the time? The West dragged behind Islam for many centuries as well. It wasn't until Christian extremeism's relative popular decline in the West after the Middle Ages that the European Enlightenment happened. Was Islam superior to Christianity during Islam's heyday before that?

So unlike Christianity, which gives us a false story about things like creation and the flood, Buddhism doesn't contradict science. Other than the unsupported assumption that Christianity is more conducive to science, what does Buddhism do that makes you think it is not a "true" religion compared to Christianity? Asian societies are doing very well in STEM fields these days, BTW.

[Immanuel Can]

Is Buddhism incorrect about reality?

Well, no Buddhist nation discovered science. They had crafts, tools, arts...but no formal discipline of science. And no scientific revolution. Those nations that were Buddhist are now racing to catch up with the West...and doing well at it, I might add...but you've got to wonder why they didn't discover science themselves...

Why do you think that is, Gary? Why did the scientific method only appear in a little backwater like England, and not among the millions and millions more in China, or India, or Africa...?

Why should we assume...

No, no, Gary. No running away. Answer the question. Or admit you cannot. Then we'll go on.

[Gary Childress]

Well, no Buddhist nation discovered science. They had crafts, tools, arts...but no formal discipline of science. And no scientific revolution. Those nations that were Buddhist are now racing to catch up with the West...and doing well at it, I might add...but you've got to wonder why they didn't discover science themselves...

Why do you think that is, Gary? Why did the scientific method only appear in a little backwater like England, and not among the millions and millions more in China, or India, or Africa...?

Why should we assume...

No, no, Gary. No running away. Answer the question. Or admit you cannot. Then we'll go on.

I guess my question will go unanswered, then. As have many of my other questions posed to you.

[phyllo]

The scientific method was first developed during the Islamic Golden Age , most notably by Muslim scientist Ibn al-Haytham also known as Alhazen (965-1040 CE).

[Walker]

No, no, Gary. No running away. Answer the question. Or admit you cannot. Then we'll go on.

Gary knows where that road that goes on, goes to, and that rest-stop doesn’t fit the Leftist narrative.

What has most benefited mankind?
Light bulb? Telephone? Recorded sound? Airplane? Mass production?

All were invented in the USA, a country not randomly assembled from ignorance, but rather deliberately founded on Judeo-Christian principles that freed ingenuity and creativity (in the image of) from traditional limitations that from the beginning of time were based on mental subjugation, rather than the Enlightened mental freedom to exist in the image of.

After the Big One, Colonel Demining from the USA went to Japan to show them how to rebuild by using scientific Statistical Process Control, the key to objective analysis, and the rest is history.

[Walker]

(continued)

Heresay twice removed.

“Deming abhorred the cruelty he saw perpetuated by management systems – which are man-made. He was addressing the here, the now, the past, and the future in business, education, and human relationships. It wasn’t an abstract concern. He wanted to see deep change in human relationships. He tried to do this without referring to theology or religion, even though, as Ceil (Cecelia S. Kilian, The World of W. Edwards Deming) once said, he was devout.” –Dave Nave

The US Constitution is a devout management system. Some even say ... Divinely Inspired. The evidence is history, such as beneficial inventions, which are not belief.

[phyllo]

The light bulb was invented in England.
The telephone was invented in Canada.
Recorded sound was invented in France.
The airplane (engine powered) was invented in America. The glider was invented in Germany.
Mass production was invented in America.

[Walker]

The light bulb was invented in England.
The telephone was invented in Canada.
Recorded sound was invented in France.
The airplane (engine powered) was invented in America.
Mass production was invented in America.

Edison and Bell were merely thieves.
1619 ... The founding principle of The USA was slavery.
The hot air balloon was invented in France, by Italians.
Einstein was an immigrant, but cotton-pickers built the country.
Falling, which is flight neither motorized nor glide, was discovered by man, why just had to test it out.