Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 2021222324 92> |
| Author | ||||||
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
 Posted: September 18 2009 at 11:50 |
|||||
The book of Revelation talks about God giving his children "glorified bodies" (also called "incorruptible bodies" elsewhere). I believe these bodies are physical. I even believe God is a physical being, albeit existing in a much higher dimension (and therefore, for example, literally able to see my house and my body and my internal organs all at once). I extend that idea to the concept of the "glorified body," which I take to mean a body that exists in more than three dimensions. I think the Bible explains this pretty well, also. Before his death and resurrection, Jesus was physically "normal" (like you and me), but when he rose from the grave, the Bible says he was popping in and out of locked rooms, vanishing, appearing, etc. A being in the next highest dimension would be able to do that, even while remaining perfectly physical. That's why I do not believe physical and spiritual are strict antonyms; I believe "spiritual" is a word the Bible uses to refer to higher dimensional existences. I don't believe in a soul because I don't believe non-physical entities can interact in a physical world- it's impossible. Plus, tradition says if you die, your soul either goes to Heaven or Hell, and in the case of the former, the soul will see God and people who had gone on before. So how come if I gouged out my eyes, my soul wouldn't take over and allow me to see? Just a thought. |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Marty McFly
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2009 Location: Czech Republic Status: Offline Points: 3968 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 12:30 |
|||||
|
So I suppose this thread isn't about Christian Vander from Magma, is it ? by the way, I'm atheist, from country where almost no one believes and also I don't know anyone important in my life who believes. But I'm not troll, I'll not insult, or offend anyone. I'll not also convert you, even I like converting people's music tastes. I can talk (really, I'm able to) |
||||||
|
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"
-Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 12:32 |
|||||
You really crack me up dude!  By the way, I actually liked seeing the album art in your signature. I thought it was kind of cool.  |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 12:38 |
|||||
Me too - but in the 18 million years since we diverged from Monkeys, and the 8 million since we split from Apes, I've learnt that chucking poo around isn't as much fun as it first appears.
 I know I said I'd leave you alone, but you asked more questions, so...
As Linus said - micro and macro are the same thing - I cannot differentiate between the two - it's just a matter of scale and perspective to me.
Why 2 and not 12 is simple - it's the simplest solution so it is the one that would prevail. Mating would follow an inverse-square law so that for every additional mate required for successful breading the probability of failure would increase exponentially- we have enough problems finding one compatible mate - imagine trying to find 10 more.
 The other reason is to do with your later point about nurturing - with a 50% share in the offspring the parent is more inclined to share in responsibility of raising it - but with only an 8% share ...
Of course in pure symbiotic relationships then 4 sexes are required for both of the the two species to survive, even though only two are required for each species in the symbiosis to reproduce. The same is true for parasitical relationships - without the host the parasite could not reproduce. I'm not a marine biologist so I do not know how colonies reproduce - for example the Portuguese Man Of War (not a single Jelly Fish but a siphonophore of four separate animals) - but even if only 1 of each "sex" is required for reproduction, all four are needed to get the colony to a state where it can reproduce.
Well, no - like Adam and Eve, it only needed to happen once and not at a high level of development - the notion of male and female and sexual reproduction is common across several of the biological kingdoms, not just animals (in fact only 2 of the 5 Kingdoms reproduce wholly asexually) - so it would tend to suggest that it is a fairly primeval concept common in very primitive lifeforms that is the root of the divergence of not only species, but of Biological Genus, Biological Family, Biological Order, Biological Class, Biological Phylum and Biological Kingdom...
Well, erm... that's only true in mamals - other biological Classes of the Animal Kingdom do not lactate and other non-mamalian creatures also nurture their young.
On a sociological note - I believe biological drive to nurture (in both sexes) is the sole purpose of mating, not reproduction. What we look for in a mate is not someone we can reproduce with, but someone whose offspring we would be willing to look after.
When I was a christian I never had a problem with this, perhaps that was the mathematician/scientist in me seeing logic in both systems and was happy to reconcile any differences as being simply a question of knowledge and interpretation. At that time I was happy to accept that evolution was god's creation - a trick missed by proponents of intellegent design I feel - evolution can be the hand of the designer. To me it is more logical to create a system that will (over a relatively short space of time) result in the 50+ million different species on earth than to painstakingly design every single one individually. Edited by Dean - September 18 2009 at 12:42 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Marty McFly
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2009 Location: Czech Republic Status: Offline Points: 3968 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 13:24 |
|||||
When I see my sig without it, I lack something too. But when I consider that it can actually offend someone (and if not offend, then at least sober them up - not confirmed), but after all, it's my opinion. Yes, I'm presenting it on public forum, but that's my profile doing too. I should evaluate all dis/advantages and things for and against. There are voices who want me to have (amongst them yours) and those who suggested me that it would be better without it (in very polite way, exactly how I like it). I think I'll do what my girl decide. I like her random decisions. I don't crack you because I was trying to be polite, that's all. Still finding border between saying your own opinion and being polite. I mean, this can't offend anyone, right ? And after all, I would be foolish to insult you for your religious feeling, with you, I would insult 2/3 of people on Earth. And when comes to this, I always say that even I don't like Christianity, Islam would be much worse. But that's not purpose of this thread, post, or my effort. Nope, I don't want to go to these waters. Moon Safari, The Flower Kings, Neal Morse. I like their music and it's greatly influenced, or even targeted with/on Christianity/divine lyrics. So it can't be too bad :-) |
||||||
|
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"
-Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Marty McFly
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2009 Location: Czech Republic Status: Offline Points: 3968 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 13:28 |
|||||
|
By the way (to continue and respond to your post about Pomot's avatar - yes, it looks little bit like something falling from his nose, but that's disadvantage of contrast picture, advantages lies somewhere else), your avatar looks quite unfriendly, but seeing your posts with your signature font always makes me smile. >:- ) |
||||||
|
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"
-Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 13:29 |
|||||
You misunderstand. By "crack me up," it means "you make me laugh," and I mean that in a good way. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Marty McFly
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2009 Location: Czech Republic Status: Offline Points: 3968 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 14:11 |
|||||
I did. Normal things, but one thing makes me (amongst other things that pleases me) smile. Since now, I'll always know what this means. But this is normal thing in my life, I'm young and life will be full of learning. My desire is to use English language in my work & personal life (hobbies - writing reviews, reading book, movies in original voices...), so I need it. So, what can cause our country to lack atheism ? Because it's not because we're post-soviet. Take for example Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, or Romania. If you know answer, or do want to think about it, please let me know. |
||||||
|
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"
-Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 15:08 |
|||||
|
You can't use reason to argue for or against faith. A large proportion of the population now put their faith in a cosmology they call "evolution" of which they have an only basic understanding, and many incorrect beliefs. Yet they call it fact as emphatically as those in the middle ages believed the world was flat.
Just like healthcare, most of the people who engage in this debate has no friggin idea what they're talking about and it makes me mad.
Biodiversity is governed as much by genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium as by natural selection and the term "evolve" implies a directionality that is a gross overgeneralization. And none of that in any way proves or disproves the existence of a God. The main reason being, it's unbelievably difficult to define what "God" is even between two fundamentalists.
I'm neither an atheist nor a fundamentalist, BTW
|
||||||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 15:24 |
|||||
It depends on whose population you are referring to - and of course what you determine to be a large proportion - in the USA that figure is around 40% in the UK it's more like 70%. I could substitute "creation" into your paragraph and it would be equally valid and equally true.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 15:52 |
|||||
|
Dean, I think we're probably more alike than not. I find the 40% / 70% dichotomy doubtful, but who knows. I agree, that the lack of knowledge of the Bible and its foundations among those believing in creationist ideas is just as high as the lack of understanding of speciation in those believing in "evolution."
But if I asked 10 people on the street to explain evolution, it would resemble even current theory only superficially. They are running on faith just as much as fundamentalists. Faith in an authority that is just as fallible as the priesthood.
I say this as one of the priests of the new religion. And my kind are just as full of malarky as priests (keepers of knowledge / wisdom not accessible to the greater populace) from other eras.
Our conversation depends on a system that I don't understand at all. I don't understand the current standards in programming, and don't understand anything to do with electronics more complicated than a transistor. In my world, this is magic. If I tried to explain it to you, I would a very few things right, but in the end it's just belief.
Does this make any sense at all? I don't understand my own gibberish sometimes.
|
||||||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 17:16 |
|||||
|
Jay, you may not understand it but you know it works, and you are happy to use it knowing that it will work in a certain way if you do certain things in a certain order - that is not belief, that is trust. I know how it works, and I am also happy to use it knowing that it will work in a certain way if I do certain things in a certain order - that is not truth, sometimes I know it will not work (I can also explain why that happens too most of the time, but that is neither here nor there). In that regard our respective understanding-level has no effect on the operation - it will continue to enable conversation over the 4200 miles between us.
So, whether evolution, creation or design is somewhat irrelevant - the biological system will continue to do what it does regardless of how many people believe that it works by some scientific process, by faith or by magic. Their understanding of the science or faith behind it doesn't change anything. Life will continue to evolve or it won't - the scientific evidence to ascertain which it is will take some time to accumulate, (we have to catalogue the 50million extant species first), so there is plenty of time to argue among ourselves.
ps: 70%/40% data came from Public acceptance of Evolution by Country - source, National Geographica: (Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds) Edited by Dean - September 18 2009 at 17:17 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 17:23 |
|||||
Evolution at its core is pretty easy to understand, but it has tons of nuances. Indeed, genetic drift is a factor in evolution. The problem with America at large is anti-intellectualism. Evolution would not disprove God or even mess with Christianity too much. Just toss out the beginning of Genesis (which is out of this world anyway) and you're caught up. But it seems a lot of people thrive in living in opposition to reality. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: September 18 2009 at 17:29 |
|||||
I agree and disagree. Most people have faith in science, and if they do, I say it's generally justified, as most science is peer-reviewed, corroborated, and evidenced as can be possible. But concerning scientific revolutions, we must acknowledge that we cannot be positive that what we have good evidence to believe now is absolutely the way the universe is. So, we never have 100% solid ground, but I think science is something better to place faith in than religion or fundamentalism, for the reasons I said at the beginning. I suppose science is as fallible as anything, as we could get new data that throws our current theories away, but that's beside the point. The difference between science and religious faith is one is more justified in following science than religious faith. IMO.  |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: September 19 2009 at 01:10 |
|||||
That's interesting because you are kind of getting back to what I was taught before I moved on from Christianity. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. We don't have immortal souls we are living souls as are the animals. Also that we humans are all going to resurrected to judgment. Some will be condemned to eternal death and some given eternal life. Except for Jesus, everyone who has really died are still in the grave or wherever their remains went to. Edited by Slartibartfast - September 19 2009 at 01:13 |
||||||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: September 19 2009 at 07:35 |
|||||
You have practically quoted Scripture. Funerals are always funny to me (I have not been to many, praise God, but I fear I will be attending several this next decade). Preachers will in one breath say the deceased is "in a better place," and in the next talk about the joy of the resurrection when Christ returns. If you don't mind my asking, when denomination were you before you moved on? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: September 20 2009 at 20:15 |
|||||
|
I want to continue a discussion about evolution and such, but this isn't probably the place to do it. Out of respect for those who wish to discuss Christian ideas, I would like to move that discussion. I personally still base much of who I am on my Christian upbringing, and have not rejected it. However, I am an eclectic who has integrated a lot of things into my personal spirituality that really don't fit into a Christian community. I still try to honor those who follow that path, though I do not.
|
||||||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: October 09 2009 at 19:22 |
|||||
|
I'm coming here to continue the discussion in the Nobel thread.
I open the debate to those that say that the Sermon on the Mount allows for violence in certain situations. That in fact when it says to love your enemy it means that hunting him down and killing him is acceptable.
I am not for lying down and letting an aggressor destroy you completely, but neither am I for replying in kind.
|
||||||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: October 09 2009 at 20:10 |
|||||
|
Thanks for bringing this here so as not to derail the Nobel Prize thread. I appreciate that.
I won't respond tonight (it's late and I'm trying to play a video game ), but tomorrow I will be out all day, first to a birthing class (as though I've not been through this before  ) and then to a kid's birthday party, so I don't know if I'll respond then.I just wanted you to know that I'd like to participate in this discussion, but likely won't be able to do so until Sunday or Monday. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: October 09 2009 at 23:11 |
|||||
This is a very respectful position, I wish all people acted like you.  Iván
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 2021222324 92> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
The Christian Thread
Topic Options
GoldenSpiral wrote:
and so was my Dad