Phoenix32890 wrote:
Are you asking me what I would tell a 4 year old about sex?
Yes. It was part of the scenario that you did not complete.
Quote:Are you asking me what I would tell a 4 year old about sex?
Reminds me of the child, lets say 5 or 6, who asks Grandpa "whats it called when in the bedroom, one person lies ontop of the other person?"
Grandpa....taking deep breath...well dear its called sex.
Two hours later child runs in "Gampy you were
wrong its called bunk beds"..
made me laugh anyway.
Phoenix
I understand what you mean. But it still remains the same. Faith is faith, and everyone has it. Some put their faith in science, others in fiction. I agree that it is foolish to believe in something that obviously is false, but it is equally foolish to say that you don't operate on faith just because you demand hard evidence in order to believe anything.
One afternoon, Little Johnny comes home from school, and, seemingly out of the blue, asks Mommy "Mommy, where did I come from?"
Mommy, being a good mommy, has long known the moment would come (though "so soon?", she thinks to herself), and is prepared. Rising to the moment, she steels herself and, despite her discomfort, confidently, with all sincerity and propriety, explains The Miracle of Life to Little Johnny, emphasising responsibility, respect and dignity. At last arriving at her conclusion, proud of herself for handling the situation maturely and forthrightly, she draws a cleansing breath and says "Isn't that wonderful?"
"Oh, I guess so", diffidently responds Little Johhny, clearly unsatisfied, "But I wanna know where I came from. Suzy is from Philadelphia, Davy is from Chicago, and Mike and Sally are from Atlanta - where am I from?"
I think that Steve and Timber got it right. Kids of 4 usually have little concept of sex. If I were a mother, and my 4 year old asked me how babies were made, I would say something like "the daddy and the mommy each have a part in making a baby. The daddy gives his part, and the mommy gives hers, and together they make what will eventually become a baby." Then I would change the subject! :wink:
Just kidding! I think that at age four, I might want to plant the seeds of the concept of two people who care about each other desiring to give a lot of love to a child. I might want to say something about two people who want to raise a family, (and make reference to the child's own parents).
In other words, I would not emphasize the biological "facts of life", but use the question to begin discussing the moral issues of love, caring and family.
Intrepid wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:In other words, I would not emphasize the biological "facts of life", but use the question to begin discussing the moral issues of love, caring and family.
Just like in the bible
Not
everything in the bible is bullshit; it derives from a long, multi-cultural tradition of societal development, structure, and regulation. It did not originate its moral code, it expropriated it.
neologist wrote:rockpie wrote:yes i would admit it. your explanation for speaking in tongues left me scratching my head and i have admitted it. hows that? i am a Christian yes, but i don't think i'm ignorant to the views of others.
Paul predicted that tongues will cease. (See 1Corinthians 13:8)
In context, he also stated that knowledge would vanish
the apostle Paul wrote:Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Are you proposing that it has also?
neologist wrote:Since the purpose of speaking in foreign languages was to give a witness in a time where the NT had yet to be written,
Actually the apostle says that
the apostle Paul wrote:he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God
neologist wrote: it is safe to say that speaking in tongues today is at the least unnecessary
That doesn't seem to have been the teaching of the apostles.
the apostle Paul wrote:He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself
the apostle Paul wrote:For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth
Jude, the apostle wrote:But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
neologist wrote:and at worst, spurious.
This seems not to be the case, according to the NT
the apostle Paul wrote:I would that ye all spake with tongues
in the book of Acts, while quoting the apostle Peter , Luke wrote:For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
the apostle Paul wrote:Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
cyberman wrote:Doktor S wrote:One question for the bornigen.
What is explained by a supernatural god that is not better explained through natural means?
I would say nothing. I'd like you to prove me wrong.
But I won't hold my breath.
Well, 'prove' is a bit of a tall order isn't it?
But here is an idea.
By 'supernatural' you mean 'outside of the physics', 'not part of the stuff of space, time, energy, matter, which is the physical universe'.
Now, take the first cause argument. (I'll assume you are well read enough to know it so I won't go through all the detail). In brief, the idea is that you either believe in an infinite regression of causes, or you believe that there was a first cause. This thing must be unlike all observed phenomena, in that it (a) exists without being caused and (b) confers existence upon other stuff.
It is not unreasonable to believe this. Neither is it unreasonable to disbelieve it.
If such a first cause exists, then it seems it would have to be outside of, or not part of, the physical universe. Observation suggests that it is reasonable to believe that the cause of the universe is not part of the universe itself - it is reasonable to believe that an effect cannot be it's own cause. It is also reasonanable to believe otherwise. Conflicting conclusions can both be reasonable.
That being the case, I would say that the existence of stuff is not "better explained" by natural rather than supernatural means. One could argue for a natural explanation - either an infinite regression of causes, or stuff causing itself - but I think at best these are as good as, not better than, the idea of a cause outside of the stuff - in other words 'supernatural'.
cheers
cyberman
Yeah, what cyberman said.
It is always fun when someone asks for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural'.
Like asking if you can smell a sound, isn't it?
Sound, as it is air in motion, can be and is sensed by the cillia in the nose, and, of course, by the epidermis and underlying structures of the nose. More honest, rl, would be simply to admit and come to grips with the fact no eveidence wharsoever supports the religionist proposition, while considerable evidence argues against it. The only "argument" the religionist CAN present is "FAITH" - OK, fine. Demononstrate, objectively, and in academically valid, forensically sound manner, that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.
real life wrote: . . . Actually the apostle says that
the apostle Paul wrote:he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God
interesting quote, real. Why did you forget to italicize the word 'unknown'? You wouldn't be trying to put something over on us would you?
Intrepid wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:In other words, I would not emphasize the biological "facts of life", but use the question to begin discussing the moral issues of love, caring and family.
Just like in the bible
Not THE Bible but only small parts of the Bible. There are many more parts in which God destroys families, slaughters them all. Not exactly what one would call love, caring and family.
Phoenix32890 wrote: I can only speak for myself, but IMO you do not have to be religious to be kind, compassionate, and moral.
Indeed. In fact, oftentimes religion is an impediment.
neologist wrote:real life wrote: . . . Actually the apostle says that
the apostle Paul wrote:he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God
interesting quote, real. Why did you forget to italicize the word 'unknown'? You wouldn't be trying to put something over on us would you?
hi Neo,
I simply cut and pasted. It was not italicized in the source I used.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=tongue&version1=9&searchtype=all&bookset=10
Not that it would make a difference whether it was italicized or not, the meaning is the same.
Good to hear from you. Hope all is well.
real life wrote:neologist wrote:real life wrote: . . . Actually the apostle says that
the apostle Paul wrote:he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God
interesting quote, real. Why did you forget to italicize the word 'unknown'? You wouldn't be trying to put something over on us would you?
hi Neo,
I simply cut and pasted. It was not italicized in the source I used.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=tongue&version1=9&searchtype=all&bookset=10
Not that it would make a difference whether it was italicized or not, the meaning is the same.
Good to hear from you. Hope all is well.
Good to chat with you as well. The only reason I asked about the italicization is because there is no corresponding Greek word in the scriptures. In other words, no
unknown tongue.
Right you are.
The word is implied but not stated.
Some translators insert it to clarify the meaning.
The tongue is 'unknown' to the one speaking, that is why it is miraculous.
But the meaning of the verse is unchanged with or without the word included.
heya guys. i've been away all weekend so i'm not quite sure where we are in the debate... could somebody please sum up what's happened or just give a title to the current area of discussion? thanks.
