thank you for sharing.

i used to have some degree of fascination with occult practices and folklore... witchery, vampires, sorcery..etc... nothing serious, just a matter of curiosity...ever played spirit of the glass just for the heck of it?lol... i don't recommend it not unless you are prepared for the possibilities...

mind you, we are a catholic nation (with several denominations and sects) but many practices and local traditions here are steeped in ideas on superstition (but still considered catholic...lol..).
My roots being Chinese, have traditions in Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism as well,

myself, being in the field of science... let's just say, it was all very mixed up...and the examination of my faith is based on so many things and considerations...

happy and thankful to say that God did touch my life in ways i cannot deny. i have set aside the many things that should be set aside, but still flawed in so many ways. in every situation, there is always a choice in between...it is never easy but it is always good once the right decision is made... just have to keep faithful.

regards.

--------------------

cheechako

"born again Christian" can mean a few things...depending on the person or group using it...

it can mean a denomination of Christianity
it can mean setting aside of your previous self in acceptance of Christ and living according to his teachings and example

but the term "born again" per se, i believe, originated from the concept that in order for one to be acceptable in God's kingdom, one must be born again (verb) as if starting fresh and learning anew about God and how to live life, not in the flesh but in the spirit. (John 3)

It has since been coined as an adjective to describe people who professed to have done so.

he was jewish...and as stated, he wrote that letter in reference to his Jewish roots and the opinion of Gutkind regarding God in reference to the Jewish people and belief.
but basing on the other stuff he said...he wasn't referring to Christianity either, as Jesus, altho mentioned, was not a big part of his discourse.
the way i read it, his search was for truth...neither denying nor accepting God completely, but continually reflecting on the truth of who or what God is, apart from any arbitrary religious dogma. and he was never careless in his opinions, or lack of opinions about God or religion. and he was actually somewhat able to differentiate God from people's idea of God as a "moral" being based on human idea of morality.

moe, i have looked into some websites regarding your above post on Einstein and the "God letter" he wrote. thank you for providing a prompt from which i can use for research.

i do not know if your intention for posting what you did is the same as Einstein's for writing it.

here are some links and excerpts...

1.http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/einsteins-god-letter-a-translation-a-fool-the-truth/

First of all, Einstein for decades had been clear and unequivocal about believing in "Spinoza'��s God," and that he did not believe in the "personal" God of the Bible, or that the Bible was divine in origin.

His views were consistent over many years and there no other evidence of any departure from such views. And sure Einstein’s beliefs like the "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" tells us all we need to know about how that great mind thought: surely not in "boxes" of "yes" and "no" as most people would like him to.

The context of the letter appears to be Gutkind's elevation of Jewish "Monotheism," that is a personal God. So it appears reasonable to conclude that in using the word "God" Einstein may have simply referred to the concept of a Monotheistic Personal God, which he had already repudiated.

Here is how the letter sounds if you restore the original meaning:

"The word God for me is nothing more than the product and expression of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection full of honorable but still primitive legends.

No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change it (for me). These refined interpretations are naturally highly diverse and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me, the unadulterated Jewish religion, like every other religion, is an incarnation of primitive superstitions.

And the Jewish people, to whom I gladly belong, and whose mentality I have deep affinity for, has for me however no different kind of dignity than any other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, while a lack of power saves them from the worst excesses. So I can not perceive anything "chosen" to them."

2. http://www.deism.com/einsteingodletter.htm

Albert Einstein's "God Letter" Taken in Context by Bob Johnson

This thought provoking quote from Albert Einstein makes clear that Einstein rejected Gutkind's Jewish/Bible god but did not reject Nature's God: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"

Einstein characterized himself as "devoutly religious" in one specific sense as in the following statement:

The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.
To know that what is inpenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and
the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—
this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.
In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Spinozism (also spelled Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent "organism." Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence. Although humans only experience thought and extension, what happens to one aspect of existence will still affect others. Thus, Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality.

---
i think he had an idea of God that is apart from the definition of organized religion...

very enlightening commentary via mock rhetoric ... laughing... As always, a bright shining star of humor for purely entertainment value ... giggling... What a wonderfully profound way of expressing meaning by muddying the water with intelligent thoughts put into writing ...laughing..."One world, One love" with such motivated acts Santa's clone would be pleased..milk and cookies are on the way... thank you for the continued contributions of this nature.

good for you.

i dont think we have the innate knowledge of God either, but what we do have is the innate desire to search for meaning.

some choose to find meaning in ourselves, some choose to find meaning outside ourselves. in this process we have the opportunity to gain knowledge about God. it then becomes a choice of acceptance or denial.

Agree

This ^^...

..will enlighten one, and drive another insane.

I dont think you are Christian, prashant...
but you have, in a nutshell, just defined the entire old and new testament of the bible....lol...

On a different note...i think there are two ways to look at it...
Using the bible as a basis for experiences, or using experiences as a basis for the bible.

Technically, it cant be stalemate since it is not a conflict...lol...

not sure where i should put this article in...but it certainly made me chuckle... kudos

Sexual Healing: Nursing Home Provides Strippers, Prostitutes

To provide complete care for its residents, Chaseley Trust — a venerable British nursing facility housed in an ornate seaside mansion — offers amenities such as a movie theater, a gymnasium and a pool table. It also, from time to time, invites prostitutes and strippers to provide their services to residents.

"People have needs," said manager Helena Barrow, as quoted in The Sun. "We are there to help. We respect our residents as individuals so that's why we help this to happen. If we refused, we would not be delivering a holistic level of care."

The revelation has ignited a nationwide debate over the rights of the disabled, and over the role of sex in assisted living facilities. The local East Sussex County Council has started an investigation into the home's use of strippers and prostitutes, according to The Inquisitr.

"This has the potential to place vulnerable East Sussex residents at risk of exploitation and abuse," a council spokesman told The Inquisitr.

Nonetheless, Barrow claims the practice has the support of Chaseley's staff, who said they might otherwise be sexually harassed by the residents — some of whom are as young as 18 years and have neurological conditions.

"If you have a resident who is groping staff, one way of resolving that problem is to get a sex worker in who is trained to deal with that situation," Barrow told The Sun. "Most of the time, these are people who feel frustrated by a primeval need they cannot fulfill."

Sex in assisted living facilities, especially those with older residents, has long been a taboo subject, though attitudes are becoming more enlightened. As more people are living longer, healthier lives, sexuality among seniors is now largely understood as an important part of a happy, complete life.

Privacy is a particular issue among sexually active nursing-home residents, and those at Chaseley were no exception. The staff managed those concerns by placing a bright red sock on the door handle of a resident's room as a kind of "Do Not Disturb" signal when that resident wanted some privacy, the Daily Mail reports.

One stripper who visited Chaseley — a performer who goes by the name Solitaire — has also performed before the U.K. Royal Society of Medicine at a conference on sex and disability, where she provided a lap dance to a deaf and blind man, according to the Daily Mail.

Barrow was put in touch with Solitaire through the services of the TLC Trust, an organization that campaigns for the sexual rights of disabled men and women, the Daily Mail reports.

mandatory birth control...

alternatively...we could always mess around with sperm instead...

Male Birth Control Treatment Could Focus on Sperm Proteins, Not Hormones
by Rachael Rettner, Senior Writer | October 02, 2015 01:00pm ET

A male form of "the pill" has stymied researchers for years, but now a new study finds that such male birth control may be possible by blocking a single protein in sperm cells.

In a mouse study, the researchers focused on a protein called calcineurin, which is found in the sperm-producing cells of the testes as well as other cells in the body.

The researchers genetically engineered mice so that they lacked a gene that makes part of the calcineurin protein but is activatedonly in sperm-producing cells. When these mice had sex, they were infertile, the researchers said. (This genetic engineering experiment was done as a proof of concept, to show that this gene affects sperm,)

In a separate experiment, the researchers treated the mice with two drugs that block calcineurin, called cyclosporine A and FK506. Both of these drugs are already used in patients who've had organ transplants to suppress the immune system and prevent the organ from being rejected by the body.

After about four to five days of treatment, the mice developed defects in their sperm and became infertile. But once the treatment was stopped, these defects went away, and the mice were fertile again within a week.

"Considering these results in mice, sperm calcineurin may be a target for reversible and rapidly acting human male contraceptives," the researchers, from Osaka University in Japan, wrote in the Oct. 1 issue of the journal Science Express. The researchers noted that human sperm also contain the calcineurin protein, and that part of the protein is specific to sperm. [Sexy Swimmers: 7 Facts About Sperm]

When the researchers tried to figure out why their genetically engineered mice were infertile, they found that the mice's sperm cells did not swim well and were not able to fertilize eggs. Further experiments found that themidpieces of these sperm didn't bend normally, which prevented the sperm from penetrating the membrane of an egg.

However, because the study was conducted in mice, it's not clear if the findings will translate to humans. In a small, previous study of nine men who took cyclosporine A after a kidney transplant, researchers found that three of the four men who attempted to have children were successful. But other studies in men have suggested that cyclosporine A does affect sperm movement.

Patricia Morris, director of biomedical research at the New York-based nonprofit research organization Population Council, said that calcineurin is an interesting target for a male contraceptive because it is not a hormone. Approaches to male contraception that target hormones can affect sex drive and thus are less desirable as contraceptives, said Morris, who was not involved in the new study in mice.

"We certainly need male contraceptives, and new designs that aren't hormone-based are really welcomed in terms of acceptability," Morris said.

In addition, targeting a protein that's found only in sperm would theoretically eliminate the possibility of side effects in other tissues, Morris told Live Science.

"The holy grail of any drug development is, you want it to be specific," Morris said. "And that's what makes [this] such an enticing, kind of exciting prospect."

GM babies could be "morally acceptable" in the future

http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/biology-medicine-blog.htm#.Vg9_2_mqqko

A group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts have released a report in which they state that research into GM human embryos is "essential" and should be permitted. While the birth of complete GM babies should not be allowed at present, they believe it may become morally acceptable in the future.

Research that involves editing of the human genome – including research with human embryos – is essential to gain basic understanding of biology and germ cells and should be permitted, according to one of the first global meetings to debate the controversial new techniques. This bold statement is published by the Hinxton Group, a global network of stem cell researchers, bioethicists, and experts on policy and scientific publishing, who met in Manchester, UK.

Earlier this year, scientists in China edited the genome of live human embryos using a revolutionary new technique known as CRISPR/Cas9, to prevent a fatal blood disorder. This type of research is currently banned in Europe and the United States. While firmly backing the need for gene editing research, the Hinxton Group makes a clear distinction between laboratory research and clinical applications: "We believe that while this technology has tremendous value to basic research and enormous potential for somatic clinical uses, it is not sufficiently developed to consider human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes at this time," the report states.

Nevertheless, the consensus statement adds, "when all safety, efficacy and governance needs are met, there may be morally acceptable uses of this technology in human reproduction, though further substantial discussion and debate will be required."

According to Debra Mathews, a member of the Hinxton Group steering committee, discussions at the meeting focused on the use of gene editing in research and the most contentious aspects of these new technologies – primarily the implications for any children born with engineered genetic modifications, and also successive generations who would inherit those genetic changes; that is, the inheritable, or germline, nature of modifications.

"While there is controversy and deep moral disagreement about human germline genetic modification," says Mathews, "what is needed is not to stop all discussion, debate and research – but rather to engage with the public, policymakers and the broader scientific community, and to weigh together the potential benefits and harms of human genome editing for research and human health."

In the future, parents could have the option of genetic treatments to prevent their children being born with cystic fibrosis, for example, or genes that increase the risk of cancer. Eventually, it might even be possible to create "designer babies" with height, skin, hair, eye colour and other characteristics programmed into the embryo prior to birth. However, in addition to concerns about the technical and safety aspects of these procedures, ethical issues would arise over people with built-in genetic advantages and the two-tier society this could lead to, reminiscent of the sci-fi movie Gattaca.

Such technology is likely decades away, but in the meantime, knowledge gained through basic science research is essential to human understanding of both ourselves and other life, the group concludes. While genetic modification has been used successfully for over 30 years to alter genes in animals, these methods have been inefficient, often lacking specificity or otherwise relying on a series of steps that made them both inappropriate and unsafe to use in humans. More recent advances in genome editing technology, however, make it possible to insert, delete, or modify DNA with greatly increased precision and efficiency.

"Much of our knowledge of early development comes from studies of mouse embryos, yet it is becoming clear that gene activity and even some cell types are very different in human embryos. Genome editing techniques could be used to ask how cell types are specified in the early embryo and the nature and importance of the genes involved," says Robin Lovell-Badge, another member of the Hinxton Group steering committee and head of the Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute.

The group statement emphasizes the importance of "meaningful and substantial public engagement" to decision-making about genome editing. Policymakers are specifically addressed, stating that policy restraints on science should have justification "that reaches beyond disagreements based solely on divergent moral convictions."

"The relevant regulatory distinction should be not between using genome editing in somatic cells and using it in embryos, but between research and reproduction: whether those embryos are ever destined to be implanted," says Sarah Chan, another steering committee member. "Restricting research because of concerns that reproductive application is premature and dangerous will ensure that it remains forever premature and dangerous, for want of better knowledge."

Alright, then. Non-contributory post. please refrain to avoid undue arguments.

Heya (((stormy)))

I thought so too.
The other pics in the series are equally as good, except they were too big to use on here without affecting the entire page.

Nice.

Thank you also for your posts.

Because i was wondering...lol.. Please answer the question.

Why?

Rug, i used the term "concept of God" because i see no better word to use to get my point across with out being intentionally misunderstood or misinterpreted. But it seems that you have done just that as well. No, I am not saying God is just a concept. God is God.
I was only likening God with love, justice, integrity and their antitheses of hate, injustice, cowardice, and etc....only because these things are not scientifically provable, and yet, the reality of such do exist. And just as love is love, and hate is hate, i would say, God is God. There is no one acceptable logical explanation that can prove or define evidentially and materially each for what it is.
Since you have replied so yourself that all these are only made up anyways, and it seems that you have taken a stance that science and logic is the be all and end all of everything, then i don't see much point in elaborating any further, as i am sure you have decided to maintain a completely negative or null stance with regard the matter. Thank you for your participation.

Ladywind and soufie, i wanted to know why people claim the non-existence of God or what it was that made people decide to reject God, wholly or partially.
Even a person living in solitude, without any knowledge of anything beyond himself, has the capacity to reflect on his very existence. Does he believe that he is all there is to his existence? Or does he search for reason of being?
I know what you are trying to say soufie, but i do think in the long run of self examination, it is a matter of choice.
Proof is not really the issue, because the way i see it, there is no such explicit evidence to prove beyond doubt the existence or non-existence of God either way. We are left with a choice that we are solely accountable for.

Like what yellowrose says...preach or teach...it is semantics. Both have the same active purpose with different intents and motivations. Saying that one preaches or teaches does not define how and why they do so, but only that the purpose of both is to impart knowledge of what one believes to be true or not. The reason and manner such knowledge is imparted is often debatable based on the person listening and the person talking.

The bible is wisdom to some and foolishness to others. Like i mentioned previously, it is a two way street. The material is there, it is a matter of recognition...and choice.

Moe, i appreciate your input and insight on what happened to the conversation between rug and yellowrose. Thank you.

Sitka, thank you for your comment as well.

What were they looking for and what did they find?

Or is it just propaganda and a perpetuated urban legend for the movies? Lol...if this is the case, i'd say Indiana Jones did it best