You misunderstand me terribly, dear tacticalogic, if you think I am seeking "control" over anything. I'm not here to win arguments, but to point to ideas that I find interesting.
Here's an idea that I find interesting:
...[I]rrespective of whether something actually "happened" in an historical sense, the historical (or horizontal) perspective of any scripture is only useful insofar as it helps to illuminate a non-historical or "vertical" dimension operating outside chronological time. Both religious and scientific fundamentalists attempt to locate in historical time what can only be found in metaphysical space, and mistakenly regard conventional history as more "real" that the deeper or higher truth from which it is a declension. To cite just one example, one may well believe that Moses led the enslaved Israelites out of the death-cult of Egypt and into freedom. But what relevance does this have for us today, unless it is still possible, with divine assistance, to escape the spiritual death-cult of our own psychic Egypt and be led toward the higher Light and Life? Likewise, if we consider some of the words used by Jesus — bread, water, blood, vine, birth, father, son — each of these has a literal sense, an abstract sense, and a highly resonant spiritual/experiential sense. In fact, one could almost define scripture as a special kind of language that operates in a top–down fashion, containing material from every stage and dimension of reality, from the mystical, noetic, and spiritual, to the moral and psychological, to the mythic and allegorical, to the concrete, material and historical. And this is precisely why it is so easy for billions of people to get caught up in the most concrete and literal aspect of scripture, oblivious to the higher and more subtle meanings it contains, for "they have ears, but hear not." — Robert W. Godwin, One Cosmos Under God: The Unification of Matter, Life, Mind and Spirit, 2004; p. 200f.It just remains for me to say that I regard "scientism" as a strongly doctrinal and dogmatic secular religion. And its adherents are definitely "fundamentalists" in the manner and type of preaching they preach.... And it seems as if such folk regard Darwin's theory as the holiest, most sacred of scientism's scriptural texts.
Well, just some thoughts, my friend. May you have a blessed, Merry Christmas!
I didn't make any accusations, I just asked the question. Would the deck be any less stacked to allow one specific "divine foot" in the door and exclude all others?
It just remains for me to say that I regard “scientism” as a strongly doctrinal and dogmatic secular religion. And its adherents are definitely “fundamentalists” in the manner and type of preaching they preach.... And it seems as if such folk regard Darwin’s theory as the holiest, most sacred of scientism’s scriptural texts.
***Same here. Perhaps you recall the time I worked with the Religion Moderator to generate the scientism tag as a recognized caucus tag?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2038869/posts
It was a successful experiment just to hold evolutionists accountable to politeness and extend caucus protection to their belief system. It was difficult for them to adhere to politeness, and they also disliked the fact that we were calling them that it IS a religion when they didn’t want it to be. That’s because their claim to the Capital-T Truth is that science answers all questions and is the default TRuth in the universe.
Strangely, when I sought to use the scientism tag as a protected place where anti-LENR vigilante censorship activists would be held accountable in the same way, the Religion Moderator removed the tag altogether.
It has proven difficult to get FReepers to debate in a respectful manner on certain topics. To steal a paragraph from a previous FR topic:
One of the axioms utilized by H.L. Mencken in analyzing politics in the
United States stated that Americans were unable to grasp arguments on their
face and instead needed them recast in pure Manichean terms, with the most
repellent of devils on one side and the purest of angels on the other.
I’ve seen this axiom come into play on various debates including right
here. It is disheartening to see this logical fallacy lent credulity. But
it is human nature, and moderators are drawn from the cloth of human nature
as are we all.