|
|
How Christians can Make the World a Better Place
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 14:22:39
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 14:24:25
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »And if that person chose to privately worship his spaghetti and found the cure for cancer, well by your standards, they are still stupid.
Yes, they are stupid for believing in the spaghetti--oh, how delightfully naughty that sounds-and perhaps deluded, but there is a difference between having a stupid belief and being a stupid person.
In the aspects of belief, believing the absurdities makes you stupid for holding that belief. Plenty of intelligent people can believe--though I do wonder, why--and I attribute the majority of that to childhood indoctrination. If what you say is true, then you should change all of your posts that read "well you're stupid for this belief" to "your belief in this I consider stupid". Almost all of the times you denounce religion, you come off that you are writing the person off, as opposed to their beliefs. That is why people are jumping all over you about it.
By zahrah 2012-01-19 14:25:43
I see the OT is just gloom and doom, and a collection of stories from Hebraic, Babylonian, and Phoenician myth, so I simply disregard the OT as a whole. Said it before. I equate it with 'Aesop's Fables'.
NT, is the only collaboration of stories we should take into account when talking about Christianity. NT, other than 'Revelations', seems like more of a biography. Then again, we don't know how much has been warped to suit Papal agenda, lost in translation, etc. I do think modern Christians could have a better understanding of their own faith if the early Christian church didn't disregard apocryphal texts.
[+]
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-01-19 14:26:00
I'm confused here, you think I believe in this stuff?
Religion is set up that way on purpose, it would be stupid to start a religion that could be fouled up so easily.
I'm simply responding to your statements, I've made no judgements of what you believe or disbelieve.
 Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 14:27:38
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
The Bible clearly states that all occupants of the planet had become wicked and that was why the flood took place. To put it in your terms, the people of the planet all looked like a bunch of Hitlers to God. I bet you wouldn't cry over people killing a society of Hitlers.
Terrible example and a Godwin's law at that. God is all-powerful and the origin of all morality - he should have the capability to have solved that problem without mass genocide. I guess I just have higher standards from a being that is all powerful.
A simple mindwipe (mass-amnesia) could have solved the entire problem without violently drowning everyone on the planet. Painless, solves the problem of wickedness and leaves a human race ready to start anew. Like a PC that's been reformatted.
Wickedness runs in the blood and in the heart. Once wicked, always wicked.
The only reason we get the story of a mass genocide is because that's all the Bronze age authors could come up with. It's really proof the whole thing could have referred to something that may have truly happened (like a regional flood caused by the rivers) that got embellished over time and repeated telling. The telephone game run wild.
Possible, but it also states that God will never again bring forth a great flood, so I really think atheists focus on it more than theists, since those words alone prove it is a teaching tool.
Quote: God doesn't speak directly with us anymore. Your example is moot at best.
Who says? Are you saying God couldn't speak to someone today if he wanted to? How could you prove he didn't tell that woman to kill her child in an Abraham-style test of faith? Why so quick to dismiss?
The Bible tells you God no longer talks directly with man. Let us not forget that God did not allow Abraham to kill his son.
Quote: The greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world he doesn't exist and then he disappeared.
The old devil excuse. God wipes out mankind in the flood out of frustration from our wicked ways but the lord of all evil apparently never frustrates God into doing anything about under the guise of "he has free will". Tell me, didn't those pre-flood inhabitants not have free will?
They did and they chose the path of wickedness with that free will. Also commenbts like "The old devil excuse," are pretty dumb, you either discuss our whole belief as prevalent to the discussion or none at all. We believe in God, therefore we believe in the devil and his transgressions as to why everything is the way it is.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-01-19 14:35:34
"Jesus is the God of the OT." Um...no.
Jesus is the son of God yet is God at the same time. A human avatar of God come to save his wayward flock through a grand sacrifice for the ages. God sacrifices his son (his earthly vessel) to forgive us for all sin.
Believe in Jesus, follow his teachings and you'll have everlasting life. This is like textbook Christianity here, what are you talking about?
Quote: The Bible never condemns or approves of slavery, it just lists guidelines on how they should be treated. It even references that one such slave would inherit it's masters estate. How do you know that the slavery in the Bible is the same slavery as in colonial US times.
Listing guidelines is basically being ok with slavery. God never lists any guidelines for homosexuality because he explicitly says its against the rules in a cut and dry fashion. The same goes for Leviticus' rules and regulations listed out clearly for the people of Israel to follow under the OT laws.
So why not the same treatment on the topic of slavery? Why the sudden compromises?
Quote: Don't ask me to tell you what God was thinking, I do not have the arrogance it would take to think I could understand what a being above you and me was doing.
Do you believe ownership of another human being is right? Because under OT law God did.
Quote: The Bible is pretty clear on how a man should treat his wife, and most people, atheist and theist alike are far below the standard he set.
Care to share because the text is pretty biased towards men being the head of families, women being in a supporting role and subservient to men.
Caitsith.Sai
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
Posts: 702
By Caitsith.Sai 2012-01-19 14:35:39
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
Why is it whimsical? Many creatures are fragile. Especially ones that are hyper developed in one specific area.
I think you can compare us to a stick bug for example. It is a very fragile creature that went down an evolutionary path focused entirely on camouflage.
We however, went down a path of cognitive enhancement, and as we developed we made tools that made our lives easier that allowed us to reach the point we are at today. We had no need to evolve giant claws as we learned to bash things with rocks or to poke them with sticks. We dont have thick fur b/c we learned to use other animals fur.
[+]
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6386
By Quetzalcoatl.Xueye 2012-01-19 14:38:14
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
The final part confuses me. Evolution by natural selection has no requirement for a helping hand. Oversimplified, those that are best adapted to survive will survive and reproduce more. They are, generally, the most wanted mates. They have the most children, and the ones that were not as good have proportionately fewer. Repeat over millions of years, and we've got us.
Quite an interesting, albeit somewhat cruel, process, but why add a hand to it? :|
Caitsith.Sai
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
Posts: 702
By Caitsith.Sai 2012-01-19 14:38:28
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »I'm confused here, you think I believe in this stuff?
Religion is set up that way on purpose, it would be stupid to start a religion that could be fouled up so easily.
I'm simply responding to your statements, I've made no judgements of what you believe or disbelieve.
Cool, cool. I still want your response to my post from earlier. The one about dinos or something.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-01-19 14:39:08
I seen the OT is just gloom and doom, and a collection of stories from Hebraic, Babylonian, and Phoenician myth, so I simply disregard the OT as a whole. Said it before. I equate it with 'Aesop's Fables'.
NT, is the only collaboration of stories we should take into account when talking about Christianity. NT, other than 'Revelations', seems like more of a biography. Then again, we don't know how much has been warped to suit Papal agenda, lost in translation, etc. I do think modern Christians could have a better understanding of their own faith if the early Christian church didn't disregard apocryphal texts.
My question still stands zahrah.
Is the God of the OT not the same God in the NT? How can we throw out half the Bible when effectively the God in both are the same?
I get the part of Jesus laying down new rules and being the son of God while being God at the same time but are you saying that half the text and crucial information on the last pact between God and a group of people isn't important?
It should be cause it gives us insight into the character of God. Well, that and the book is supposed to be infallible but most biblical scholars wouldn't say that and they're made up mostly of theists.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 14:44:00
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Care to share because the text is pretty biased towards men being the head of families, women being in a supporting role and subservient to men. A very good Christian based book on marriage is Love & Respect. It implies numerous times about the equality of both partners. It also specifically states how each partner should treat the other in order to help each partner become the best they can be for each other.
Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 14:44:07
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »"Jesus is the God of the OT." Um...no.
Jesus is the son of God yet is God at the same time. A human avatar of God come to save his wayward flock through a grand sacrifice for the ages. God sacrifices his son (his earthly vessel) to forgive us for all sin.
Believe in Jesus, follow his teachings and you'll have everlasting life. This is like textbook Christianity here, what are you talking about?
Jesus is not God. That is what I am saying no to. Jesus is not the God of the OT. God is God.
Quote: The Bible never condemns or approves of slavery, it just lists guidelines on how they should be treated. It even references that one such slave would inherit it's masters estate. How do you know that the slavery in the Bible is the same slavery as in colonial US times.
Listing guidelines is basically being ok with slavery. God never lists any guidelines for homosexuality because he explicitly says its against the rules in a cut and dry fashion. The same goes for Leviticus' rules and regulations listed out clearly for the people of Israel to follow under the OT laws.
So why not the same treatment on the topic of slavery? Why the sudden compromises?
I don't understand what you are asking here. You want to know why God doesn't offer the same treatment to slaves as homosexuals? Slave in the Bible is the same as servant, not plantation style slaves.
Quote: Don't ask me to tell you what God was thinking, I do not have the arrogance it would take to think I could understand what a being above you and me was doing.
Do you believe ownership of another human being is right? Because under OT law God did.
Once again, ask me when I am living under that time. Because the word slave in the Bible is the same as servant. So if you want to push it, yes I think it is is perfectly okay for someone to have a maid and provide them food and shelter in lieu of payment or including payment. Many people still do that today even, in this country.
Quote: The Bible is pretty clear on how a man should treat his wife, and most people, atheist and theist alike are far below the standard he set.
Care to share because the text is pretty biased towards men being the head of families, women being in a supporting role and subservient to men. Quote: Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
[+]
Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 14:47:16
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
The final part confuses me. Evolution by natural selection has no requirement for a helping hand. Oversimplified, those that are best adapted to survive will survive and reproduce more. They are, generally, the most wanted mates. They have the most children, and the ones that were not as good have proportionately fewer. Repeat over millions of years, and we've got us.
Quite an interesting, albeit somewhat cruel, process, but why add a hand to it? :|
The theory you just mentioned is flawed, because humans have things outside of their physical traits that they offer a mate that dictates the route our species takes.
If it was all about survival of the fittest then we would all be pretty dumb compared to our current state, because the alpha male would just murder the rich nerd to get the supermodel.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 14:47:57
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
The final part confuses me. Evolution by natural selection has no requirement for a helping hand. Oversimplified, those that are best adapted to survive will survive and reproduce more. They are, generally, the most wanted mates. They have the most children, and the ones that were not as good have proportionately fewer. Repeat over millions of years, and we've got us.
Quite an interesting, albeit somewhat cruel, process, but why add a hand to it? :| Because multi-cellular organisms would have never spawned from single-celled bacteria. Once you make that leap, evolution makes perfect sense. To make that leap, nothing about the premise of 'survival and reproduction of the fittest' explains it.
Then there's also the explanation of how we get life filled bacteria out of a cooling body with a basic element concoction known as the earth.
Caitsith.Sai
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
Posts: 702
By Caitsith.Sai 2012-01-19 14:48:03
Jesus is not God. That is what I am saying no to. Jesus is not the God of the OT. God is God.
O,o Either Im reading this wrong or someone just went all Jehovah Witness up in here.
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6386
By Quetzalcoatl.Xueye 2012-01-19 14:48:05
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
Why is it whimsical? Many creatures are fragile. Especially ones that are hyper developed in one specific area.
I think you can compare us to a stick bug for example. It is a very fragile creature that went down an evolutionary path focused entirely on camouflage.
We however, went down a path of cognitive enhancement, and as we developed we made tools that made our lives easier that allowed us to reach the point we are at today. We had no need to evolve giant claws as we learned to bash things with rocks or to poke them with sticks. We dont have thick fur b/c we learned to use other animals fur.
We should avoid phrasing it as though it was a path consciously chosen. Perhaps a better way to phrase it:
There was, at a time, a threat to the stick bug, as there often is. Because of that, while adult stick bugs were capable of fending themselves off from their adversary, the pubescent ones were not hardly as good. However, one particular stick bug had been born with a mutation that made him look a little bit more like a stick.
He lived to the ripe old age of 3 years old, which is quite remarkable for a stick bug! In that time, he was a randy old stick bug, as stick bugs sometimes are, and all the females wanted him because he had survived so long. Perhaps an adult stick bug had become a rare sight in those parts, and seeing the natural features of an adult stick bug simply excited them so. Like how, say, if males of our species died off generally at age 12, and one male survived till age 30, I bet in his 20's he'd get so many more babes than the 12 year olds.
And so, many of his numerous offspring were quirky, too. This time, about 1 in 7 born of him had that more-sticky quality, and so they survived 3 years, too, while their siblings died off just as well. In time, this cycle repeats itself so often that the majority of living stick bugs are just camouflaged enough that they are no longer a threat.
It doesn't always have to be a threat, either. Sometimes it's just stuff that's better for sex.
Now, mind you, sometimes it doesn't take anything at all and the mutation gets through. Maybe a particular stick bug had brown eyes, but she also had on an entirely unrelated account, a really, really high tendency to get pregnant and survive child birth. So she keeps pumping kids out for five years, and so there's an influx of brown eyes into the population.
Sometimes random, sometimes the environment dictates it. All branches, tons of them.
Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 14:48:25
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »I seen the OT is just gloom and doom, and a collection of stories from Hebraic, Babylonian, and Phoenician myth, so I simply disregard the OT as a whole. Said it before. I equate it with 'Aesop's Fables'.
NT, is the only collaboration of stories we should take into account when talking about Christianity. NT, other than 'Revelations', seems like more of a biography. Then again, we don't know how much has been warped to suit Papal agenda, lost in translation, etc. I do think modern Christians could have a better understanding of their own faith if the early Christian church didn't disregard apocryphal texts.
My question still stands zahrah.
Is the God of the OT not the same God in the NT? How can we throw out half the Bible when effectively the God in both are the same?
I get the part of Jesus laying down new rules and being the son of God while being God at the same time but are you saying that half the text and crucial information on the last pact between God and a group of people isn't important?
It should be cause it gives us insight into the character of God. Well, that and the book is supposed to be infallible but most biblical scholars wouldn't say that and they're made up mostly of theists.
It's the same God, but your question is irrelevant because no matter how many times someone says it is the God, it will never make the Old Testament or old covenant the new covenant.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 14:49:01
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »I seen the OT is just gloom and doom, and a collection of stories from Hebraic, Babylonian, and Phoenician myth, so I simply disregard the OT as a whole. Said it before. I equate it with 'Aesop's Fables'.
NT, is the only collaboration of stories we should take into account when talking about Christianity. NT, other than 'Revelations', seems like more of a biography. Then again, we don't know how much has been warped to suit Papal agenda, lost in translation, etc. I do think modern Christians could have a better understanding of their own faith if the early Christian church didn't disregard apocryphal texts.
My question still stands zahrah.
Is the God of the OT not the same God in the NT? How can we throw out half the Bible when effectively the God in both are the same?
I get the part of Jesus laying down new rules and being the son of God while being God at the same time but are you saying that half the text and crucial information on the last pact between God and a group of people isn't important?
It should be cause it gives us insight into the character of God. Well, that and the book is supposed to be infallible but most biblical scholars wouldn't say that and they're made up mostly of theists. It's not that God has changed from the OT to the NT. His guidelines for how we are to live and be judged change.
[+]
Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 14:49:30
Jesus is not God. That is what I am saying no to. Jesus is not the God of the OT. God is God.
O,o Either Im reading this wrong or someone just went all Jehovah Witness up in here.
The trinity is a primarily Catholic belief.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-01-19 14:50:02
Cool, cool. I still want your response to my post from earlier. The one about dinos or something.
You stated:
Sai said: Now, what happens if a catastrophic event occurs that wipes out all life on this planet. If there is no God, and no afterlife then all value that once existed for life is now gone, and IMO it could be argued that it never really existed in the first place.
My argument is that the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can not only prove they existed but also that they had value in their lives. Well, as far as cold-blooded reptiles with pea-sized brains could 'value' their lives.
We've got the evidence dinosaurs existed through fossils, we can piece together the life of these creatures and make discoveries that intrigue our species today. Is this not value? Though dinosaurs are long extinct the fact that we get value out of discoveries also places value on the lives of those creatures.
When a human dies in a world without God, the value of that life doesn't vanish. The body returns to the soil, providing life for invertebrates, plants, animals and many other creatures. It's a beautiful thing even if it isn't ideal for the human mind to accept and here's the kicker - we have evidence for it.
Even if the planet was completely annihilated and all life extinguished the remnants of this planet could become the building blocks of new life some time in the far future and thus we have value. Maybe some aliens billions of years from now might be made up of the same stuff that made you, me or even a sidewalk!
That amazes me and I get value from it.
[+]
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 14:50:25
Jesus is not God. That is what I am saying no to. Jesus is not the God of the OT. God is God.
O,o Either Im reading this wrong or someone just went all Jehovah Witness up in here. He has expressed many times he follows to an extent the JW concept of the Bible.
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6386
By Quetzalcoatl.Xueye 2012-01-19 14:51:51
Because multi-cellular organisms would have never spawned from single-celled bacteria. Once you make that leap, evolution makes perfect sense. To make that leap, nothing about the premise of 'survival and reproduction of the fittest' explains it.
Then there's also the explanation of how we get life filled bacteria out of a cooling body with a basic element concoction known as the earth.
I do like the turn to science this conversation has taken. Much easier to be civil when I get to pretend I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Evolution does not have to explain the start, for what it's worth. I think that is the field of abiogenesis, and we're working on that. Mutli-cellular from single-cellular is, so it seems, on a steady path to being figured out
[+]
Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 14:54:19
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »My argument is that the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can not only prove they existed but also that they had value in their lives. Well, as far as cold-blooded reptiles with pea-sized brains could 'value' their lives.
How can you prove that dinosaurs had value for their lives?
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6386
By Quetzalcoatl.Xueye 2012-01-19 14:55:50
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »My argument is that the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can not only prove they existed but also that they had value in their lives. Well, as far as cold-blooded reptiles with pea-sized brains could 'value' their lives.
How can you prove that dinosaurs had value for their lives?
There was this TV show once, and the mommy and daddy dinosaur loved their kid. /shrug
[+]
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-01-19 14:58:21
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Care to share because the text is pretty biased towards men being the head of families, women being in a supporting role and subservient to men. A very good Christian based book on marriage is Love & Respect. It implies numerous times about the equality of both partners. It also specifically states how each partner should treat the other in order to help each partner become the best they can be for each other.
I'm aware that many Christians have attempted to update the Biblical text but from the primary source we're given straight that women are not quite equal to men and have very different obligations to live by than men.
Don't get me wrong, Christians attempting to update the religious belief is a good thing but it's moving further away from what the Bible says and adopting modern-day views of women.
Islamic custom is an example of a faith that still sticks close to the original text and most people would call that cruel towards women. Guess what? That's just a sliver of how things were for women in the OT/NT days.
Some of you might be surprised but even a non-believer can enjoy some good religious music or text. The classical stuff is moving to me and I'm not even a believer.
Funny how that works.
Caitsith.Sai
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
Posts: 702
By Caitsith.Sai 2012-01-19 15:00:13
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »I'll be happy to read that, but keep in mind; what allows for our brains to produce higher thinking? We are more developed than other beings we can research, but it's still just a ball of nerves. What makes them 'create' value to things. Science is merely an avenue of biological understanding to theoretical issues. By one process, you can never fully answer the questions of the other.
I took a course on the higher thinking bit 3 years ago, but what it boils down to was something about slow and gradual change through millions of years and adaptations. Language was the big jump, because apparently with language the survivability of those that could grasp it further and further were drastically higher than those that could not.
Too bad I lost my plan for that course. Had all the topics. Romance Philology and evolution came together wonderfully. I agree with adaptation, but what explains the move to human kind from types of creatures much more suited for 'survival'. We, as a species, are fragile creatures and must utilize our intelligence to construct false barriers between us and nature in order to survive. The entire premise of us evolving without a guiding hand, or the fact that our idea of morals and higher level thinking was one that grew solely from natural selection is utterly whimsical to me.
Why is it whimsical? Many creatures are fragile. Especially ones that are hyper developed in one specific area.
I think you can compare us to a stick bug for example. It is a very fragile creature that went down an evolutionary path focused entirely on camouflage.
We however, went down a path of cognitive enhancement, and as we developed we made tools that made our lives easier that allowed us to reach the point we are at today. We had no need to evolve giant claws as we learned to bash things with rocks or to poke them with sticks. We dont have thick fur b/c we learned to use other animals fur.
We should avoid phrasing it as though it was a path consciously chosen. Perhaps a better way to phrase it:
There was, at a time, a threat to the stick bug, as there often is. Because of that, while adult stick bugs were capable of fending themselves off from their adversary, the pubescent ones were not hardly as good. However, one particular stick bug had been born with a mutation that made him look a little bit more like a stick.
He lived to the ripe old age of 3 years old, which is quite remarkable for a stick bug! In that time, he was a randy old stick bug, as stick bugs sometimes are, and all the females wanted him because he had survived so long. Perhaps an adult stick bug had become a rare sight in those parts, and seeing the natural features of an adult stick bug simply excited them so. Like how, say, if males of our species died off generally at age 12, and one male survived till age 30, I bet in his 20's he'd get so many more babes than the 12 year olds.
And so, many of his numerous offspring were quirky, too. This time, about 1 in 7 born of him had that more-sticky quality, and so they survived 3 years, too, while their siblings died off just as well. In time, this cycle repeats itself so often that the majority of living stick bugs are just camouflaged enough that they are no longer a threat.
It doesn't always have to be a threat, either. Sometimes it's just stuff that's better for sex.
Now, mind you, sometimes it doesn't take anything at all and the mutation gets through. Maybe a particular stick bug had brown eyes, but she also had on an entirely unrelated account, a really, really high tendency to get pregnant and survive child birth. So she keeps pumping kids out for five years, and so there's an influx of brown eyes into the population.
Sometimes random, sometimes the environment dictates it. All branches, tons of them.
Yes perhaps, but I think you can see the difference in the quantity of letters you typed compared to me.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-01-19 15:01:22
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »My argument is that the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can not only prove they existed but also that they had value in their lives. Well, as far as cold-blooded reptiles with pea-sized brains could 'value' their lives.
How can you prove that dinosaurs had value for their lives?
Because they existed for millions of years. The value dinosaurs had on life lay in propagation and preservation of their species. This boiled down to living, reproducing, guarding young (in some cases) rinse, repeat.
Don't believe me? Check any museum, the evidence is there. Any missing information could be undertaken by any young mind willing to tackle the problem.
Any species that doesn't value its life walks down the path to annihilation. Humans have gotten the closest and why is that? Largely religious bickering between men holding nuclear weapons.
[+]
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2027
By Odin.Daemun 2012-01-19 15:03:58
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »Because multi-cellular organisms would have never spawned from single-celled bacteria. Once you make that leap, evolution makes perfect sense. To make that leap, nothing about the premise of 'survival and reproduction of the fittest' explains it.
Then there's also the explanation of how we get life filled bacteria out of a cooling body with a basic element concoction known as the earth.
I do like the turn to science this conversation has taken. Much easier to be civil when I get to pretend I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Evolution does not have to explain the start, for what it's worth. I think that is the field of abiogenesis, and we're working on that. Mutli-cellular from single-cellular is, so it seems, on a steady path to being figured outYou accept the idea that our origin has no explanation, yet you feel that the theoretical explanation that it was a divine creator is silly? All of this while clasping to science (a method for which tries to explain everything)? Why do you not give other's ideas the same merit as your own, when neither have a sound foundation?
By Nevill 2012-01-19 15:05:14
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »My argument is that the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can not only prove they existed but also that they had value in their lives. Well, as far as cold-blooded reptiles with pea-sized brains could 'value' their lives.
How can you prove that dinosaurs had value for their lives?
There was this TV show once, and the mommy and daddy dinosaur loved their kid. /shrug
I think it was called Dinosaurs. And they had 3a kids.
[+]
Ragnarok.Evandis
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 463
By Ragnarok.Evandis 2012-01-19 15:05:21
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »My argument is that the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can not only prove they existed but also that they had value in their lives. Well, as far as cold-blooded reptiles with pea-sized brains could 'value' their lives.
How can you prove that dinosaurs had value for their lives?
Because they existed for millions of years. The value dinosaurs had on life lay in propagation and preservation of their species. This boiled down to living, reproducing, guarding young (in some cases) rinse, repeat.
Don't believe me? Check any museum, the evidence is there. Any missing information could be undertaken by any young mind willing to tackle the problem.
Any species that doesn't value its life walks down the path to annihilation. Humans have gotten the closest and why is that? Largely religious bickering between men holding nuclear weapons.
That doesn't prove value in life, it just proves survival instincts. Value in life is when you are walking down the street and you see a man has fallen off his bike and broken his leg and is bleeding. You do everything in your power to call an ambulance and get him to the hospital, or if you are a nurse or doctor, begin treatment on the spot.
Dinosaurs, and many other animals, only view life as worthwhile as your contribution and ability. Case and point, a female lion is with her cubs and one falls out of a tree and breaks it's leg, the mother doesn't drag the cub to safety in hopes that he will recover, she resigns to it's fate and leaves him to die.
These are commandments in the Bible for Christians to act in our world. They were part of a lesson at my church two Sundays ago. I am not a fan of the 'if God weren't real' hypothetical situation myself, but taking that stance, let's look at the following.
Quote: James 1:27-Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. Quote: Ephesians 4:32-Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Quote: Matthew 7:1-4-Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Quote: Acts 2:43-44-Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Quote: Galatians 5:22-23-But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Now, with those verses stated; I am no supporter of taking things out of context to obscure the truth of a passage, as you all know. I am not taking these things out of context to prove some hair brained, conjured truth. No, I am picking these verses as a challenge to all whom may read this that call themselves Christians. Do these things in your daily walk. If you do nothing else, do these things out of Love. Pure, unbiased, selfless love.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that theists and non theists alike can agree that if all proclaimed Christians did these simple tasks; cared for the orphaned and widowed, sold their possessions to take care of the needy, be kind and forgiving, be non-judgmental, and produce the fruits of the spirit: that each Christian would leave this world a better place than they came into it. Remove entirely the possibility of God's existence, or an eternal life. Simply look at those works, and the innate selflessness built into them. Would this world not be better?
With that said, here is my basis for the love message I have been so adamant about lately. It is also the basis in which I tie every facet of my belief and life unto.
Quote: 1 Corinthians 13-If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
This is the second covenant God created with man. It is no longer about following certain, strict rules for fear of hell. It is about a lifestyle that all thoughts and actions are derived from love. Doing things out of love for others makes those things not a sin. It is no longer the action, but the reason behind the action. 1 Corinthians goes on a few more verses to discuss love further. I think it would be good for theists and non alike to at least read up until 13:13.
I plead to you, community of FFXIAH, to hold me accountable to all things of these verses in what I do and say on here. If I am outside of the realm of these, please let me know and I will apologize and correct accordingly. I challenge all other Christians to stick to these tenants as well, and you can bet that I will (out of love) hold you accountable.
If you tl;dr, I'm sorry it wasn't worth your time. If you did read, I am open to your thoughts and criticisms.
|
|
