Originally posted by Flores
Abrahamic religions??? You must have misunderstood the poor Abraham....He must be tossing and turning in his grave on the thought that anything is being called Abrahamic.
Eastern?? Again, bias and bad geography. Are you sure that you are not effectively contributing to the doctrination equation yourself.
I'm simply working within the terminology provided in the post. Although I agree that it is probably not the best way to categorize these religions it sufficed for a simple answer. Generally speaking, the religions that have the most difficulties with scientific discovery are those which rely primarily upon literal interpretations. The more philosophical, mystical, and gnostic expressions do not run into the same doctrinal conflicts and do not typically need to resort to denial or reinterpretation in light of discovery be they Eastern or Western.
What a horrible biased assumption. I would love to see you use that assumption to support the big bang theory.
By sustenance I was referring to food or nourishment not that which (if anything) sustains existence. I don't see where asking that question demonstrates a horribly biased assumption. There are many possible explanations. Perhaps perfect beings require no sustenance. Or perhaps their skin cells contain chlorophyll. Or maybe God rained manna down upon their heads daily. I was simply asking because it seems to be a problem in the hypothesis. Of course, the larger problem is that our observations run contrary to the hypothesis.
Seriously now, do you view our universe as a predator feeding frenzy machine?
No, I was making a simple observation that humanoids tend to need sustenance and satisfy this need by consuming other life forms. The model Jan provided did not offer any alternatives so I asked.
It doesn't take but one look at our environment to realize that our universe is an efficient system of sustenance that relies on transformation, sorting, and balance....Nothing is lost and nothing is destroyed.
Are you addressing the part or the whole? You appear to be mixing the two arenas here. While I might argue that efficiency is a relative assessment the observations you have made here really only apply completely to matter and energy from a Universal perspective. Certainly particular forms can be made and destroyed. And while nature strives towards efficiency certainly all courses are not equally or optimally efficient.
How is the so called Abrahamic message so different from Eastern philosophies.
It depends upon what you interpret the message as being. Primarily, I would say that the 'Western' philosophies have a strong tendency towards doctrinal assertion and literal interpretation. They also tend to rely upon the authority of specific revelations. Certainly there are exceptions but these are rather prevalent in 'Western' traditions while being almost absent in 'Eastern' traditions.
We might take a look at the following, which is attributed to Buddha, and ask ourselves how well this statement might fit into Christianity or Islam:
"Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honor for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sagas of old times; do not believe that which you have yourself imagined, thinking a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation, believe that which you yourself have tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others."
~Raithere
