Doktor S wrote:Rex,
Such simplicity of mind must be serene.....
I almost envy you
almost
Thanks... I think
Maybe you are connecting with your spiritual side...
That is the beauty of the spiritual realm... it is simple... like, Christianity is like, "a Father with his children"... ...it is not all of this blown out of proportion distorted history of a God that resembles more the wicked than the holy... God from a human perspective rather than the true God's own perspective...
I would rather doubt the written word than doubt God's integrity...
I can believe in evolution and still glean what the Bible is really saying happened in the seven days of Genesis.
Science wants us to believe the universe came from nothing... It is more logical to believe that the universe came from God and then attempt to observe God (whatever that is) through creation...
Genesis obviously happened... but, I "believe" the book of Genesis speaks of two if not several creations... and not only one "creation" in the beginning. One of those creations happened six thousand years ago (Adam) and the other happened perhaps many billions of years ago (Lucifer).
This simplifies "the beginning" a bit and allows evolution that has "creation" within it...
Give that some thought...
Peace with God
Doktor S wrote:Doktor S wrote:
But who, rex, does jesus say 'your neighbor' is?
Hint: it isn't 'everybody'
Everybody is your neighbor...
Jesus' neighbor was the pagan Romans...
Hmm.
There is a little book called 'the bible' that may disagree.
Perhaps you've read it?
Here, I'll help you out
Luke 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Rex, Science doesn't want you to believe anything. Science doesn't give a rat's ass what you believe, and science will also not give you the time of day unless when you make your silly statements, you have a sound foundation for them--something rarely seen here.
Setanta wrote:Rex, Science doesn't want you to believe anything. Science doesn't give a rat's ass what you believe, and science will also not give you the time of day unless when you make your silly statements, you have a sound foundation for them--something rarely seen here.
Science is a corporation...
If Thomas Gray was right about
bliss, no leap of faith is required to understand the joy Christians proclaim.
With an agenda roughly similar to other business ventures.
Doktor S wrote:Hmm.
There is a little book called 'the bible' that may disagree.
Perhaps you've read it?
Here, I'll help you out
Luke 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
So only Samaritans who show charity are our /his neighbor? Or anyone who shows charity?
What are you saying?
The Romans (pilate washed his hands) resisted passing the punishment of death on Jesus yet the mob insisted upon Jesus being crucified...
Who was Jesus' "neighbor"?
It's not what 'I' am saying, it is what jesus is clearly saying in this passage I presented.
Only he that shows mercy to you is your 'neighbor'.
Don't argue with me...argue with jesus.
Oh ya..he doesn't exist.
My mistake!
Doktor S wrote:It's not what 'I' am saying, it is what jesus is clearly saying in this passage I presented.
Only he that shows mercy to you is your 'neighbor'.
Don't argue with me...argue with jesus.
Oh ya..he doesn't exist.
My mistake!
Jesus was ideally talking about everyone as our neighbor.. But his story did get specific... and name a Samaritan... Because Samaritans were considered Jews too...
Had he told them to love the Romans they would have killed him on the spot... This was why they called him a shepherd king... because he loving brought the lost sheep back into the flock...
In the end the Hebrews ultimately suffered at the hands of the Romans because of their inability to assimilate culturally with their Roman their "neighbor".
That's all well and good that you hold that opinion, but you must admit it takes an awful lot of 'interpreting' to twist jesus words to that conclusion.
What he said there was fairly cut and dried.
Doktor S wrote:That's all well and good that you hold that opinion, but you must admit it takes an awful lot of 'interpreting' to twist jesus words to that conclusion.
What he said there was fairly cut and dried.
It is just understanding Jesus' words in light of the historical times that he lived in...
Oh..I supose the concept of 'mercy' was different back then?
Doktor S wrote:Oh..I supose the concept of 'mercy' was different back then?
Many things culturally have changed since the time of Christ such that it is often hard for the western mind to understand through the orientalisms and customs of the ancient middle east...
Mercy has not changed much, yet the rigid Old Testament law made mercy difficult to obtain...
None of this changes the fact that you seem to disagree with jesus about what constitutes a 'neighbor'
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:
In the real world however, we find the evidence far more compelling that a Redwood Tree grew from a seed, rather than getting poofed into existence when we weren't looking.
You believe that life poofed itself into existence, don't you?
No. I believe that life originated as a function of natural processes, not magic.
The fact that I can not yet identify those exact natural processes does not change the fact that I assume they were natural. Because I do not believe in the supernatural, just as science can not assume the supernatural, it can be no other way.
And yes, I know that my choice not to believe in the supernatural is a belief. It's a particular philosophical perspective I choose to work from. It happens to be the same one that science works from.
Odd then, that when I asked to to reconcile your assumption of the naturalistic origin of life with the apparent problems that this assumption causes , you choose to ignore it.
real life wrote:Is it not accurate to say that you believe that hundreds of chemicals arranged themselves into various functioning sub-cellular structures, and that these structures (which we see need each other to operate properly) actually worked well on their own until they found each other (at least well enough to survive chemical annihalation), and in turn these independent structures arranged themselves into a tiny interdependent group and enclosed themselves with a membrane (another structure which formed itself)?
Isn't it true also that you believe this cell then had the ability to feed itself, dispose of waste, protect itself, reproduce itself?
You believe that it did this with no guidance, no pattern, no information?
You further believe that subsequently, a descendant of this organism encoded information (which none of his forebearers previously possessed or needed) in DNA and passed this information along to his progeny?
This useless compilation of information, (which probably would have taken more time than the organism had to live), benefited the organism's survival not one bit (contrary to the evolutionary demand that it must) since it simply recorded the status quo and the organism presumably had been able to eat and dispose of waste and protect itself and reproduce heretofore , but at least it would benefit the organism's descendants, should he have any.
Stop me if you really don't believe this..........
The logical contradictions in your assumption are quite glaring, but your response seems to be 'I know it MUST HAVE happened , I just don't understand how it could have.'
Your contention that belief in the supernatural somehow is not compatible with a scientific mind really separates you from the company of most of the great scientists who, over the course of several hundred years, built the scientific foundation of the modern technological world that we have inherited.
real life wrote:Odd then, that when I asked to to reconcile your assumption of the naturalistic origin of life with the apparent problems that this assumption causes , you choose to ignore it.
There are no "problems". Everything you have listed is a problem only to you. Why should I concern myself with your problems?
real life wrote:Your contention that belief in the supernatural somehow is not compatible with a scientific mind...
I don't contend that belief in the supernatural is in conflict with the scientific mind (The supernatural is contentious with the basic assumptions of science, but that's a different issue). Scientists can believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don't let that belief interfere with their ability to follow the scientific method.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Odd then, that when I asked to to reconcile your assumption of the naturalistic origin of life with the apparent problems that this assumption causes , you choose to ignore it.
There are no "problems". Everything you have listed is a problem only to you. Why should I concern myself with your problems?
real life wrote:Your contention that belief in the supernatural somehow is not compatible with a scientific mind...
I don't contend that belief in the supernatural is in conflict with the scientific mind (The supernatural is contentious with the basic assumptions of science, but that's a different issue). Scientists can believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don't let that belief interfere with their ability to follow the scientific method.
ros
BTW I have always enjoyed your posts...
I agree with you for the most part but, what if scientific method becomes a contradiction to "true" spirituality? Can what is seen become an illusion or "wall" and oppose or corrupt the true nature of that which is unseen?
Rex, I submit that the term "true spirituality" pretty much falls within the concept of oxymoron.
