Leaving religion behind...

[Seraphim]

Gotcha. That cleared it up.

Did a little extra reading, and it seems to me the code itself is changing - evolving. At least, the instructions stored in the DNA are changing. One article indicated there were many failed genes in a genome, all indicative of failed attempts of an evolutionary change. So when a change works, the new instructions get coded into the DNA. My phrasing, not the article's.

Tying this in a bit to the conversation of biblical translation: the first time I read a literal translation, it showed the opening line of Genesis to be: "In the beginning, God began to make the heaven and the earth..." A bit different from what we are commonly used to reading. It seemed indicative to me, that perhaps God hadn't necessary completed the creation process during those six days. Just a thought I've had for quite some time.

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.

 

[Seraphim]

everyone has faith but I am not sure that has anything to do with god

Depends on the individual. I've always had faith in God and never been disappointed. It's not something I can probably explain to another's satisfaction, nor do I feel it's necessary to try. Others may have faith in science or faith only in themselves. It's an individual thing...

... And it's not my position to declare anyone's faith right or wrong, or to try and denigrate it.

 

[Chancebond]

I'm afraid some virtual fists are going to be thrown if we continue this topic! Even though it has been intriguing!

 

[kyonu]

I'm afraid some virtual fists are going to be thrown if we continue this topic! Even though it has been intriguing!

We're all adults here, I don't see why we need to get uppity about anything really.  none of us are "attacking" anything in this thread, merely discussing our viewpoints. I must say, this is the only topic among any forums (or even real life) that hasn't erupted in the first few comments, which is awesome. It's been a long time since I've seen good, logical debate about our belief system.



As for the evolution of DNA... Lets look at it this way: Human's evolved from DNA, DNA evolved from proteins, proteins evolved from Carbon, and Carbon is a resource most abundant in the universe.

But, lets reverse this a moment. We know Carbon is a simple atom; the most abundant atom in the universe. This atom has 6 electron, protons and neutrons. So we understand where the place of this atom is and it's point in the universe--nearly everything we touch from plastic to diamonds is made of carbon. We're carbon based life, so that is our first building block.

Next we have Protein: Protein is where the complexity comes in. Proteins are made of pure Carbon with an attached element of multiple types, making up a lot of different proteins (list found here.) A DNA molecule will not contain ALL types of proteins, but the needed types for humans. Some animals have different ones, trees have vastly different ones. A protein has a set number of acids, such as "Structural" (creating the rigid end of DNA), containing Actin and Tubulin (sp?). This makes up the side-wall of the DNA, giving it the strength to not unweave itself within the blood. You then have "Enzymal", which is the biological compounds containing the carbon stores and allowing the next time of protein to travel within the DNA, called "Receptors" which allow the DNA to interact with other types of DNA and cell structures. This interaction allows it to "touch" and "feel" in order to not get destroyed. It triggers motion in case it needs to move, basically. Lastly, you have all the proteins that use the Enzymal routes that you would get from an egg, meat, beans etc that are excreted in to the cells when you consume it, giving our bodies the needed "consumption" needed by cells and DNA.

Now lets look at the DNA itself. It's "instructions" are merely tubes and stores proteins that are excreted or absorbed when it contacts them, and our cells react based on how the DNA is acting. So if the DNA consumes Protein, the protein is then excreted into the cell, and then the cell moves around to absorb the proteins, and begin to multiply as needed (which either helps us build muscle, fat or if our body is already expanded or tight, we excrete it when we use the bathroom). The DNA, which is considered a type of acid (dyoxyribnuleic acid), is very active. This activity makes it travel around your body (in the blood) more accessible, giving it the freedom to give us instructions as it needs. It's "instructions" are merely compounds that make up the body it is in, and the structure is created by the proteins that it contains. Then, each type of protein is modified slightly by the types of proteins it consumes or requires, then is replicated by other cells with DNA.

In short, the DNA is explainable, but not easily. It contains Proteins which make us up by the types of proteins available out of the billions of combinations possible. Which also leads to the fact there is a extremely tiny chance more "humans" could have evolved elsewhere in the galaxy! :O

Above is the information my professor gave me in advanced chemistry in High School (which I later reviewed to still be accurate), and he was a double-PHD, so I took his word for it. It does make sense to me, as DNA is only as complex as the elements it was created with.

 

[kyonu]

Edit to above (proofreading): " Then, each type of DNA is modified slightly by the types of proteins it consumes or requires, then is replicated by other cells with DNA."

 

[Seraphim]

I now know more about DNA than I ever wanted to know, and all from a van dweller forum lol.

I suppose my view of God has always been that of a scientist who started an experiment, and is sitting back watching it unfold. The fact He's let it go on so long suggests He has a different perception of time, or that the results of the experiment have been so engrossingly amusing...

 

[LeeRevell]

I now know more about DNA than I ever wanted to know, and all from a van dweller forum lol.

I suppose my view of God has always been that of a scientist who started an experiment, and is sitting back watching it unfold. The fact He's let it go on so long suggests He has a different perception of time, or that the results of the experiment have been so engrossingly amusing...

That's basically my idea too.  He set the natural rules, and occasionally "tweaks" the sample to see what happens.  Sometimes it fails, sometimes it works - which we see as evolution.

 

[Wabbit]

Why do people assign a sex to a God or Creator figure? Same question for depictions of appearance? How biased do you feel this is? Is it an innocent assumption or a bias stemming from a privileged sort of stance? Or is it something else? Finally, do these kind of assumptions help or hinder an intellectual conversation(for the most part lol)? Thnx!

 

[akrvbob]

Why do people assign a sex to a God or Creator figure? Same question for depictions of appearance? How biased do you feel this is? Is it an innocent assumption or a bias stemming from a privileged sort of stance? Or is it something else? Finally, do these kind of assumptions help or hinder an intellectual conversation(for the most part lol)? Thnx!

Good question! Personally I won't follow any system of belief that defines the detail of "deity". That doesn't make sense to me; how can my tiny brain comprehend it?

That's one reason I'm a fan of Taoism. It states right in it that "The Tao that can be named, is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you define it, you know for sure that is NOT what it is.

That's also a reason I'm a big fan of Lakota spirituality. They use the word "Wakan" for deity which simply means "mystery".

Every year I know less about "god" and every year I believe in it more.
Bob

 

[Seraphim]

Why do people assign a sex to a God or Creator figure? Same question for depictions of appearance? How biased do you feel this is? Is it an innocent assumption or a bias stemming from a privileged sort of stance? Or is it something else? Finally, do these kind of assumptions help or hinder an intellectual conversation(for the most part lol)? Thnx!

Probably because the people defining the religion were men. It might also interest you to know that the Holy Ghost has a feminine gender - refered to as 'she' in Hebrew. Not sure about Aramaic, Greek or Latin, offhand, but it should have carried over in translation. Men are the strong sex, God is strong, therefore God is male. God is the father,the Holy Ghost essentially the mother. Christianity added a son. Since the English language doesn't define gender in sentence construction, it's not noticeable reading the scriptures. 

Having trouble explaining it.  English uses one article 'the' for every noun, irregardless of the noun's gender. The mother, the father. German (since I'm familiar with it most) has three words for 'the': das (neutral) der (masculine) and die (feminine - pronounced dee). Der vater, die muter. Not a linguist, but I think English is unique in that it does not distinguish gender in the sentence.  Do they even still teach gender in grammar class anymore?

Personally I find irrelevant as the nature of any God would essentially be unknown.  Had women been the stronger sex, or been in charge, God would undoubtedly be female. In pagan religions, gods come in both sexes - every God needs a mate, no? And goddesses were in charge of feminine things, and gods in charge of masculine things. Eunuchs were out of luck lol.

I always chuckle, though, thinking of the immaculate conception which involved Mary and the Holy Ghost. Think about it...

 

[Seraphim]

Angels, I suspect, are male, because the Bible reports some of them found mortal women desirable and got them with child - the nephilm.

Go seraphim... (Note the lower case *grin*)

 

[cyndi]

Because we have a minor on the forum, who is now asking questions about religion and sex, I'm going to ask you to steer the conversation/discussion away from sex.

 

[kyonu]

Because we have a minor on the forum, who is now asking questions about religion and sex, I'm going to ask you to steer the conversation/discussion away from sex.

Did not know we had a minor! 

 

[cyndi]

Did not know we had a minor! 

I've edited your post. We and other members may understand the topic is not about sex, but the minor does not.

The subject of this thread is leaving religion behind

 

[Seraphim]

Good call.

 

[Seraphim]

But the issue of gender is a relative discussion point. I think most religious figures are mostly built around the traditional family values of the region at that particular time - intentionally or not. There is a comfortable sense of balance with the Trinity concept - a father, a mother and a child. God is never truly alone. He has family.

Old Testament refers to God's sons, often assumed to be angels. Sons were important to a man. They worked, helped provide income, provided food, carried on the fathers name - a form of immortality, if you will. So the Biblical reference mirrors the established values of the time.

 

[mconlonx]

The subject of this thread is leaving religion behind

I'm interested in the other side of this, but I don't know that it's worth another thread. 

Who has taken their religion on the road with them? Specifically, a traditional religion with regular church/temple/mosque services. I'm not religious, but I am fascinated by this. 

When you stop, do you make it a point to find the place of worship most local to you and attend services? Are there subsets of vandwellers and RVers who will do some form of group worship if gathered at the same place at the same time? As I asked before, is there benefit to belonging to a particular sect, like staying in a place of worship parking lot, or leaning on local members for a place to park, dinner, showers, wash, etc.?

Or do the majority of wanderers who have faith sport a more portable form of their religion, outside of any formal religious sect? Seems from some responses here that there's more eclectic and personal forms of belief on the road than in any stationary community.

 

[kyonu]

This child should certainly be kept from reading the Bible then, as it is full of it. HA!

Guy

Interesting point to make, and there are far worse things than "that" too. I am a bit disappointed my post was modified without prior notice, I was being fully serious and made a valid point relating to this topic...

 

[cyndi]

 I am a bit disappointed my post was modified without prior notice, I was being fully serious and made a valid point relating to this topic...

One more chance to stay on topic. then the thread gets closed.

 

[LeeRevell]

I'm interested in the other side of this, but I don't know that it's worth another thread. 

Who has taken their religion on the road with them? Specifically, a traditional religion with regular church/temple/mosque services. I'm not religious, but I am fascinated by this. 

When you stop, do you make it a point to find the place of worship most local to you and attend services? Are there subsets of vandwellers and RVers who will do some form of group worship if gathered at the same place at the same time? As I asked before, is there benefit to belonging to a particular sect, like staying in a place of worship parking lot, or leaning on local members for a place to park, dinner, showers, wash, etc.?

Or do the majority of wanderers who have faith sport a more portable form of their religion, outside of any formal religious sect? Seems from some responses here that there's more eclectic and personal forms of belief on the road than in any stationary community.

I'm not a churchgoer myself, but I would expect any mainstream church, no matter the denomination,  would welcome travelling members.  The idea of "portabililty" is moot.