# Another spiritual dummy



## ambush80 (Dec 7, 2015)

Max Tegmark talks about physics and the soul:


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 7, 2015)

Here's a guy that's not quite on board with Tegmark and he said this interesting thing in his blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

_Multiverse mania goes way back, with Barrow and Tipler writing The Anthropic Cosmological Principle nearly 30 years ago. The string theory landscape has led to an explosion of promotional multiverse books over the past decade, for instance

    Parallel Worlds, Kaku 2004
    The cosmic landscape, Susskind, 2005
    Many worlds in one, Vilenkin, 2006
    The Goldilocks enigma, Davies, 2006
    In search of the Multiverse, Gribbin, 2009
    From eternity to here, Carroll, 2010
    The grand design, Hawking, 2010
    The hidden reality, Greene, 2011
    Edge of the universe, Halpern, 2012

Watching these come out, I’ve always wondered: where do they go from here? Tegmark is one sort of answer to that. Later this month, Columbia University Press will publish Worlds Without End: The Many Lives of the Multiverse, which at least is written by someone with the proper training for this (a theologian, Mary-Jane Rubenstein)._

I find the part in blue interesting.  I have reserved her book at my local library.  I'll keep an update...


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 7, 2015)

Here's Mary Rubenstein.

http://


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 7, 2015)

Mary again:


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 7, 2015)

Why does Mary Rubenstein ONLY talk about the Christian Creation Mythology?

Hmmmm......Something stinks.

Does it strike anyone as odd that a Theologian would talk about how incomplete science is to describe reality and then use the findings of science to confirm God?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 7, 2015)

Woit is NOT a creationist, just a proper skeptic.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/mathematics/peter-woit-this-is-your-call-to-conversion/


----------



## 660griz (Dec 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Does it strike anyone as odd that a Theologian would talk about how incomplete science is to describe reality and then use the findings of science to confirm God?



That's fine. As long as they are not trying to describe reality.


----------



## Madman (Dec 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why does Mary Rubenstein ONLY talk about the Christian Creation Mythology?



Maybe she thinks her audience is most familiar with Christianity.  

She made the point that the Big Bang collided with the Christian creation story, I am not sure if there is another creation story that fits.

As a Columbia trained Ph. D. in Philosophy of religion, I am not sure what she is other than hyper liberal and probably no friend of historic Christianity.


She also tried to make some point about cosmology being the most important of the sciences, however historically theology has been the queen of the sciences.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 8, 2015)

Madman said:


> Maybe she thinks her audience is most familiar with Christianity.
> 
> She made the point that the Big Bang collided with the Christian creation story, I am not sure if there is another creation story that fits.
> 
> ...



Well.... I think we have established where you are on the continuum.

Pssssst.  She's on your side.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 8, 2015)

Madman said:


> Maybe she thinks her audience is most familiar with Christianity.
> 
> She made the point that the Big Bang collided with the Christian creation story, I am not sure if there is another creation story that fits.
> 
> ...




In your opinion, how hyper liberal would someone have to be before you would consider it impossible for them to be Christian.

Even thought Hiltler and the Westboro folk identify themselves as Christian, many people on this particular forum deny that they could possibly be so, contending that if they were truly Christians that they wouldn't have done the things that they do/did.

So what of her fruits?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> In your opinion, how hyper liberal would someone have to be before you would consider it impossible for them to be Christian.
> 
> Even thought Hiltler and the Westboro folk identify themselves as Christian, many people on this particular forum deny that they could possibly be so, contending that if they were truly Christians that they wouldn't have done the things that they do/did.
> 
> So what of her fruits?



Isn't this the exact same reason the POTUS and other liberals refuse to use the term 'radical Islam'? 
There rational is that true practitioners of the religion could never do such horrific things.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 9, 2015)

660griz said:


> Isn't this the exact same reason the POTUS and other liberals refuse to use the term 'radical Islam'?
> There rational is that true practitioners of the religion could never do such horrific things.



I would think westboro crowd qould qualify as radical Christianity depending on which definition we use of the word.



> rad·i·cal
> 
> 
> /ËˆradÉ™k(É™)l/
> ...



Perhaps their far reaching perspective affects the fundamental nature of that which they claim to believe  

I personally do not practice the same Christianity as that crowd, and in comparison, I would likely be closer to mainstream than they are.  So, their views would be "radical" relevant to traditionally accepted Christian views and practices which would be considered fundamental.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 9, 2015)

Radical reminds me of a sermon where the preacher was talking about "fanatics."   We often think of a religious fanatic in a negative way. Like a born again fanatic.
Yet the preacher was saying it was quite normal to be a baseball fanatic which is often shortened to "fan." 
The word first become popular in reference to baseball enthusiasts. Nothing wrong with being a baseball fan but a religious fanatic, watch out.

The baseball fanatic can act quite crazy and it is considered normal but a religious fanatic might be considered radical.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Radical reminds me of a sermon where the preacher was talking about "fanatics."   We often think of a religious fanatic in a negative way. Like a born again fanatic.
> Yet the preacher was saying it was quite normal to be a baseball fanatic which is often shortened to "fan."
> The word first become popular in reference to baseball enthusiasts. Nothing wrong with being a baseball fan but a religious fanatic, watch out.
> 
> The baseball fanatic can act quite crazy and it is considered normal but a religious fanatic might be considered radical.



Because one involves a game, and the other deals with perceptions on eternity and supernatural commandments...

That's like saying a potato canon is like a real canon in terms of damage because they're both canons.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because one involves a game, and the other deals with perceptions on eternity and supernatural commandments...
> 
> That's like saying a potato canon is like a real canon in terms of damage because they're both canons.



Good point.
But,all potato cannons are not the same.And all real cannons are not either.
Must be judged individually IMO.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 9, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I would think westboro crowd qould qualify as radical Christianity depending on which definition we use of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that the the Inquisitors believed that they were doing the Lord's work the same as the Westboro folk do.  They just interpret what "Love others as yourself meant".  

It's not that easy a concept in relation to all the other examples of Righteous behavior shown by God himself.

If you were to ask an Atheist or a child who had never been exposed to religion what "Love thy neighbor as thyself" means they would probably use the definition that Webster gives.  A Westboro person or an Inquisitor would see the examples that God has set and thus justify their cruelty. 

I imagine it goes something like "God doles out righteous condemnation and death with love and he comes with a sword and he kills the firstborn and..... So we should too. It's the Lord's way."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Good point.
> But,all potato cannons are not the same.And all real cannons are not either.
> Must be judged individually IMO.



Agreed. The definition of fanatic doesn't shift, a person either falls into, or out of, it.


----------



## Madman (Dec 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I imagine it goes something like "God doles out righteous condemnation and death with love and he comes with a sword and he kills the firstborn and..... So we should too. It's the Lord's way."



I missed the part in the Bible where God gives individuals the authority to "dole out justice" on his behalf.  Misuse of what God tells men to do is not a reflection on him

The inquisition was nothing more than a power play, Westboro needs to study homiletics.  
There are crackpots everywhere.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Radical reminds me of a sermon where the preacher was talking about "fanatics."   We often think of a religious fanatic in a negative way. Like a born again fanatic.
> Yet the preacher was saying it was quite normal to be a baseball fanatic which is often shortened to "fan."
> The word first become popular in reference to baseball enthusiasts. Nothing wrong with being a baseball fan but a religious fanatic, watch out.
> 
> The baseball fanatic can act quite crazy and it is considered normal but a religious fanatic might be considered radical.


I think the preacher may have oversimplified it for dramatic effect. I personally can't think of an example where baseball fanatics wielded their collective power to influence who could marry who, when they could buy a beer or whether a player and a team were properly yoked or not etc.
On the surface it may seem like he had a legitimate point but if you dig a little deeper. ....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think the preacher may have oversimplified it for dramatic effect. I personally can't think of an example where baseball fanatics wielded their collective power to influence who could marry who, when they could buy a beer or whether a player and a team were properly yoked or not etc.
> On the surface it may seem like he had a legitimate point but if you dig a little deeper. ....



But I have seen sports fanatics nearly burn a town down in celebration, or out of anger.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But I have seen sports fanatics nearly burn a town down in celebration, or out of anger.



I get your point but it strikes me in the same way as the preacher's  point did.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I get your point but it strikes me in the same way as the preacher's  point did.



It's not a direct analogy, you're right, but it is, still, an absolute violation of someone else's rights in pursuit of an overzealous interest.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not a direct analogy, you're right, but it is, still, an absolute violation of someone else's rights in pursuit of an overzealous interest.


That I agree with. For me the big difference is the thought process behind the two. Your scenario has a couple hours of mob mentality and probably little to no thought behind it while I see the scenarios I described above as being very different.


----------

