Zzyzx wrote:
.
William wrote:Gravity does not pull you down, it pulls you in.
More accurately, gravity refers to an attraction between center-of-mass of any object and center-of-mass of another. The larger the mass and the shorter the distance, the greater the attraction.
Common denominator "Center".
William wrote:
I don't think there is contradiction in what Jesus preached to the general public and what he taught to his disciples.
Politicians, dictators, CEOs, and con artists perhaps pattern after Jesus when saying one thing to their confidants and something different to the public.
Quite the leap. Difference being of course that we have access to both.
Of course, their supporters may claim 'there is no contradiction " its just saying one thing at one time and a different thing at another time " depending on the agenda'. Non-supporters may recognize it as contradiction or deception.
So you have a personal problem with your interpretation of Jesus and his agenda. What of that?
William wrote:
Central to the message is the core of the mission. One cannot help to change the world if one is involved in the normal things the world is occupied with/distracted by.
If that was the 'core of the mission' it could be clearly stated and easily understood (by any other than the simple-minded). Were / are Jesus' 'disciples / followers' unable to comprehend that simple a statement?
You conflate people of ancient times with those of today.
William wrote:
I think people tend to forget that Christendom has played an important role in the history of the world
Has someone here 'forgotten' that?
Perhaps. It does happen. Maybe the correct phrase is "conveniently forget".
William wrote:
and without it having done so, we would not have the science and advancements through the device of scientific discovery that we enjoy and oft take for granted today.
Is this to suggest that without Christianity science would not have developed?
This is to suggest that Christianity has had a hand in it which has helped science move forward.
It can be documented that Christianity HINDERED the development of science in cases such as Galileo.
I am speaking of the overall affect rather than pockets of resistance. Indeed, to claim 'Christianity' hindered Galileo is a misrepresentation.
More accurately politics did (and does) the hindering and achieved this through being able to infiltrate religion and organize it in such a way as to get an advantage in relation to political agenda.
But the point I made was that without the advent of Christianity (and not only that religion - and even despite the the political infiltration) the world would be much less advanced in scientific knowledge.
It can be demonstrated that Christianity had a very negative effect on science for a thousand years during the Middle and Dark Ages.
It can also be demonstrated that Christianity had a very negative effect on indigenous peoples throughout the world, but without those resources science could not have developed as it has done. Sometimes negative effects are not permanent and appear to be acceptable in regard to advancing.
Perhaps without such negative influence science today would be well advanced from its present state.
Science rides the coattails of political agenda, and lets not forget that not all science has proved to be positive.
Many scientists are working towards getting humans into space and setting up on Mars. They see this as a positive, but many see it as selfish and shortsighted and believe the money could be way better spent on helping fix the negative impact of systems of disparity, right here, on this planet.
Seems there are positives and negatives involved with all human interactions. Blaming a specific branch of human society for the ills of the world is dangerous.
Even today religious beliefs interfere with scientific study -- such as in stem cell research.
Q: Are only the religious against such research?
Q: Are all religious people against such research?
Q: In what way and why is this interference happening?
