Forgiveness and repentance

dyslexia wrote:

Tolerance for ambiguity is not often a christian trait.

Thanks, dys! I'll consider that a compliment. Wink

0 Replies

http://home.nc.rr.com/rellis/fortunes/images/universe_guiding.jpg

0 Replies

truth
Oh my god, Dys, that's what I've been preaching for months now. And you have it on a fortune cookie! Embarrassed

Micah, children need external guidance, not mature humans.

0 Replies

children and sheep

0 Replies

so...you're just unable to graps the concept i presented?

ok.......just so you know....with that logic nothing is right or wrong, and you all think killing innocent babies and raping women is fine and dandy...even if you won't admit it...

0 Replies

truth
Micah, do you realize that you are confessing that if you were not externally restrained you would rape women and kill babies?
We are not externally restrained, but you don't see us killing babies or raping women. Doesn't this create some cognitive dissonance for you?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Micah, do you realize that you are confessing that if you were not externally restrained you would rape women and kill babies?
We are not externally restrained, but you don't see us killing babies or raping women. Doesn't this create some cognitive dissonance for you?

"i feel like i'm explaining that the sun is light" ----------portal star------

it's not a matter of restraint....

normal people would not do deplorable things....but, some poeple do deplorable things.....viewing this fact through the lense of 'nature' (with no external GUIDELINE) "right' and 'wrong' lose relevence and those deplorable acts bceome 'natural'.....

0 Replies

micah wrote:

"because we also are animals ANYTHING we do could be called nature/natural...."
you've missed the point again portal star....

......i'm trying to get you to see the sillyness of it all.....

if humans are to judge right and wrong subjectively, then you can't tell someone it's wrong to kill innocent babies (i showed this to be true above)

...and that is silly.....because we have external guidelines...and no they are not fortune cookies...

I said, what would hurt me would hurt others.

That is not subject to interpretation.

If I was a baby, I would not want to be killed.

There is no flaw in logic there. Treat others as you would like to be treated. That is not very subjective, as all humans have the same basic needs and wants.

----
There are some differences in what people belive is wrong and right - or who inforces which rules. That is part of the reason there need to be societal laws - like the code of hammurabi or the constitution, courts, etc. (Yes, the ten commandments of the old testament is another source of such common societal law - but not its basis.)

These concepts do not come from a g-d or g-ds, and there was certainly the concept of morality before the bible or judaism or zoroastrianism.

That is because humans are social animals and as such have a moral code.

0 Replies

Re: truth

micah wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Micah, do you realize that you are confessing that if you were not externally restrained you would rape women and kill babies?
We are not externally restrained, but you don't see us killing babies or raping women. Doesn't this create some cognitive dissonance for you?

"i feel like i'm explaining that the sun is light" ----------portal star------

it's not a matter of restraint....

normal people would not do deplorable things....but, some poeple do deplorable things.....viewing this fact through the lense of 'nature' (with no external GUIDELINE) "right' and 'wrong' lose relevence and those deplorable acts bceome 'natural'.....

You are right - to a certain extent.

Deplorable acts are natural - but this may be difficult for you to understand.

Are you familiar with the works of Charles Darwin? (Origin of Species, etc.) If not, I suggest you read the book, as it is the basis for much of modern science.

I will try to paraphrase this as best I can:
To allow for adaptation to different environments, nature is not heterogeneous. People have different traits, genes, values, etc. (So do animals - we are animals.) In order to be able to adapt, there is a flux of genes and patterns. -Most- humans in a society are moral, but some deviate from morality. This is because there are advantages to deviation.
For example, if you lived in a totalitarian society, or as a slave, acting against a prevailing system (acting with self-interest) might be to your benefit. Then you would reproduce and also teach others how to be deviant, etc. Immorality is a form of deviancy from society (morality codes are taylored to a society.)

So, in summary, deviancy can be good for humanity in certain situations. In others it is bad for society. But there have to always exist deviant/variants of a type to allow for adaptation (to change.)

I'm sorry, that was me trying to sum up a 300 page book and the work of sociologists/psychologists for decades afterwards. If you want the straight dope, read about Darwin's voyage on the Beagle and his observations, "Origin of Species."
You may also want to take a peek into a standard biology textbook - Biology is the study of life, and I have found many answers through it.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

humans are social animals and as such have a moral code.

i say again,

normal people would not do deplorable things....but, some poeple do deplorable things.....viewing this fact through the lense of 'nature' (with no external GUIDELINE) "right' and 'wrong' lose relevence and those deplorable acts become 'natural/natural'.....

0 Replies

Re: truth

Portal Star wrote:

Are you familiar with the works of Charles Darwin? (Origin of Species, etc.) If not, I suggest you read the book, as it is the basis for much of modern science.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

0 Replies

No, you're incorrect. That is an answer I have heard before, but it is not at all based in science (and I would know.) In fact, I can see absolutely no relation between complexity in molecular biology and disproving evolution at all. I have no idea what that man is talking about, he must have no idea.

You shouldn't make judgements without reading the book. There is no conflict with the theory of evolution and microbiology, chemistry, etc. And, just so you know, evolution doesn't necessarily conflict with creationism. evolution doesn't necessarily lead back to creation, it is a theory about the way things work in this world and adapt to their environments. I suggest you read the book.

Darwin's statement is that he is amazed so much change had taken place - not that it is impossible because of the complexity - but because there would have to be multitudes of genetic precedent in creating the structure that is the human eye. Again, this has no conflict with a belief in g-d, and it also has no conflict with a belief in evolution.

0 Replies

although he sparked a relatively new line of thinking, i really thought that evolutionists considered darwins stuff to be old these days...

i thought they had moved on to other stuff

0 Replies

His theories have been interpreted and applied to other fields, but nothing he concluded has been refuted. It is still the thing to go by (a theory is strengthened every time it is tested and holds true), and will continue to be a valid theory until/if somthing disproves it.

0 Replies

would you mind posting his theory here?

will it fit in 5 sentences or less?

0 Replies

Um.. Not really....

But basically, things adapt to change through natural selection.

For example, if some butterflies who are not poisonous happen to look like poisonous butterflies, birds do not eat them. This means that the ones that look poisonous live to reproduce, and the population begins to all look like poisonous butterflies. That is natural selection, and genetic drift (the genes drifted to favor a certain color pattern in that case.)

This is also why bacteria can form strains resistant to antibiotics. (This is called genetic drift, micro evolution)

Furthering that, Darwin hypothesises that if this natural selection continues on long enough, separate species can form from a common ancestor (the genes can change enough over time that two species who were once related can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring.) This theory and its extent is not validated as solidly, athough there is some fossil evidence.

So, these changes occur through the way our genes combine in a planned sort of halphnazard way allowing for variation and mutation. Essentially, species are stronger because they have the ability to adapt.

If you get the time, it's a difficult read but definately not indecipherable, I'd recommend the origin of species (or a basic college bio text which will paraphrase it and tell you its practical applications.)

0 Replies

Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature doesn't desire the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow."

the quotes are from Mein Kampf, by adolph hitler....as far as evolution is concerned, hitler is the current hero...

The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.

0 Replies

Yes, it is based upon imperical observation and logic. But that does not necessarily contradict with a creationist viewpoint.

No, not quite the way Hitler thought. It is not headed towards perfection, only constant adaptation. To be perfect would be homogenous and homogenous genes are bad! They wouldn't allow for adaptivity and are succeptable to disease and dying from simple changes in the environment. Ex: The bananna crop which have been so cultured by growers that one disease may wipe out the entire species.

Survival of the fittest is not about competing species, it is about the same species. A species needs a competitor in order to survive - for the food chain, and to keep population levels in check. That is not evolution, but a simpler biological principle - the food web.

Evolution is somthing arrived at by the scientific method. It started with observation, and then hypothesising, etc.
(Biblical) Creationism is somthing arrived at by the people who wrote the Old Testament. It is not based on observation (they were not alive then) but is based entirely on faith in a book.

The fact that theories may always be proven incorrect is part of their strength - they are based on observations about the natural world, and try to find consistencies within it.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

If you get the time, it's a difficult read but definately not indecipherable

i'll read it if you read Luther Sunderlands', "Darwin's Enigma", 1988.

0 Replies

ok...gotta go to bed now...i will return in approx. 9 hours..good chatting!

and tomorrow i shall dazzle you with revelations!

cheers!

0 Replies

Forgiveness and repentance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know