kallend 2,026
huh?
Dang! I knew cheating my way through HS chemistry 35 years ago was going to come back and haunt me! 
steveOrino
QuoteSo how do you know which parts are meant to be stories/metaphors, and which parts are "true"? If Genesis is a fable, how do you know that the life of Jesus isn't a fable?
More thoughts ...
The key is trying to determine the "purpose" of a letter/book. That is not always easy and it is certainly not unanimously agreed upon. Everyone has core beliefs and worldviews that influence their interpretations. That isn’t to say they cannot be changed.
I understand that Creationist believe Genesis is the foundation to their beliefs and while I do not agree I certainly understand why they think that way.
My core beliefs entail the OT writers were conveying what they either believed to be true or what they thought to be true. I have some serious reservations … okay flat out disbelief … in a dictation theory. I believe the writers of the first 5 books were writing in the light of the knowledge they had and with a designed purpose. Whether that be to lay down some laws that separated them from other cultures or institute priestly sacraments. (google JEPD for a better understanding)
When it comes to the NT, I see less evidence of putting 1000s of years of oral history into words, and more likely a purpose to tell the story of JC, a man they either knew intimately or the recent oral traditions of men/women who knew JC very well.
Again, the beliefs I have do not come from one single event, book or class, but after years of study -- both personally and at higher seats of learning
steveOrino
That makes sense. Thank you.
maadmax 0
Quote"I agree with you if you are talking about religions. I am referring to discovering the spiritual side of our nature and the relationship with God that follows. "
Sorry i really dont understand what this means, perhaps you could elaborate.[/reply
_______________________________________________
Religion is a set of man made rules and activities that are suppose to get the adherents noticed and rewarded by God. Spiritual wisdom on the other hand
teaches us how to keep our self deification impulses in check, hopefully preventing us from constructing a myopic, self centered view of reality. Spiritual Wisdom produces characteristics such as :Humility , Hope, Peace, Love, & Faith. The Bible is a reservoir of Spiritual Wisdom. Sadly to say there are many examples where people have taken the Bible and turned it into a religion. It was not meant for that purpose.
Life is too precious to spend time searching this immortal thread...has anyone posted this attachment yet?
do I hear 10,000 views?
...fo shizzle
(I crack myself up)
do I hear 10,000 views?
...fo shizzle
(I crack myself up)
- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA
BLiNC Magazine Team Member
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA
BLiNC Magazine Team Member
nigel99 471
Pirana
I am not parroting anyone on thermodynamics. I can appreciate that external forces can reduce local entropy (normally on a temporary timebase). Multiple species number millions/billions is not very local - but granted maybe if you accept a scale/relative point of view then accross the entire universe millions of species is "small" and localised. On a personal level (& I am not trying to be as you put it "artful at mangling meanings... etc). I see entropy at work - people age & die, machines & systems left alone decay and stop working. Pretty much everything that I know left to itself goes to its most stable state - stopped & flat on its back. Both you and Jakee has stated increases in order on a local scale - I wouldn't mind an example or 2?
Is not a very tenant of evolution that "very small" populations interbreed to create a "new" species. A very simple example lets say that the white "race" was born out of 2 albino children long ago procreating. In order for this to propagate/solidify into a race mixing of their offspring can't occur as it will dilute the genetic makeup. It is on this basis that I make the statement. What about the lion populations out of interest?
Finally I never said that there is evidence in Genesis - I was trying to separate my argument from the bible. What I said is that I am "open minded" about the problem - and do not put myself in either of the heavily defended "camps". Each of which has their thousands of "minds" at work.
5 pages added over a weekend I understand - what I don't is the working week
how do people get work done?
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
JackC 0
QuoteBoth you and Jakee has stated increases in order on a local scale - I wouldn't mind an example or 2?
An example.
A plant grows, decreasing the local entropy by turning disordered nutrients from the soil into ordered plant material using energy from the sun which is increasing its entropy by using up it's nuclear fuel. Total universal entropy goes up, local plant entropy goes down.
philh 0
How do you know what the bible authors intended?
philh 0
You are guilty of confirmation bias. You see life getting old and dying and so you see increased entropy. what about fully formed human beings originating from a bunch of cells? What about snow crystals forming? The laws of thermodynamics tell us complex life would be impossible on this planet if we didnt have an external energy source. But we do , its called the sun. The laws of entropy also state the sun will eventually succumb to entropy and fade and die but thats when it runs out of nuclear fuel and we have a few billion years to go before that happens. In the mean time theres no physcial reason why life cant evolve. did you seriously think all those eminent scientists havent got a clue about basic physics and only a few creationsist do?
On your argument on inbreeding , you are assuming a whole new population is created with a few individuals. That is not how it would work. What would happen is a new genetic mutation arises within an existing population. If that mutation leads to improve fitness it will spread through the population and eventually transform it. Animals will change colour by a mutation in the gene that contols pigmentation. this has been observed in pepper moths. the soot of industrial England lent an advantage to darker moths, as industrialisation increased the moth population changed into darker colours. This is very well doumented.
On your argument on inbreeding , you are assuming a whole new population is created with a few individuals. That is not how it would work. What would happen is a new genetic mutation arises within an existing population. If that mutation leads to improve fitness it will spread through the population and eventually transform it. Animals will change colour by a mutation in the gene that contols pigmentation. this has been observed in pepper moths. the soot of industrial England lent an advantage to darker moths, as industrialisation increased the moth population changed into darker colours. This is very well doumented.
jakee 1,489
QuoteI am not parroting anyone on thermodynamics.
Yes, you are.
QuoteMultiple species number millions/billions is not very local
Yes, it is.
Quotebut granted maybe if you accept a scale/relative point of view then accross the entire universe millions of species is "small" and localised.
Maybe small? MAYBE?? It's completely and utterly insignificant, and remember, all the evolution in the world will not prevent the eventual expansion of the sun, turning this planet into a scorched, dead lump of rock. Bingo, 2nd law fulfilled.
Now I'll ask you again - do you believe in stellar nurseries? They involve localised decreases in entropy for structures millions of times more vast and energetic than this entire planet - even the entire solar system. Do you believe in population growth? Increasing numbers of creatures walking and talking where before there was only dirt is surely also a violation of the 2nd law.
QuoteIs not a very tenant of evolution that "very small" populations interbreed to create a "new" species. A very simple example lets say that the white "race" was born out of 2 albino children long ago procreating.
Your example is completely unrealistic, therefore I believe your objection is founded on a lack of understanding.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
What im getting at is that maybe 1000 years ago most of the bible was taken literally by all who read it. Why? Because science hadnt made it seem ridiculous. The notion that the earth was created in 7 days had no countering argument so therefore people took it as fact. Now, just over 1000 years on human knowledge has increased to the point we all know Genesis is a pretty ridiculous thing to beleive in. isnt it possible that in another 1000 years that the NT will become just as ridiculous as our knowledge increases?
BTW I fifth it!
BTW I fifth it!
To know requires proof
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again
pirana 0
QuoteLater I earned a Masters from SNU where the Nazarene tradition teaches the purpose of the Bible is to point to JC, not to be a science or even a history book. To me it made more sense that way. No "one thing" told me this interpretation was THE way, but it was the way that the most sense to me.
Especially good on you. If I were a woman I'd date you.
But seriously, that is my interpretation exactly. So what is it with the fundies? What's your take on how things got so twisted? My perspective is that once organized religion got to be a political entity, as with anything political, common sense went out the window.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
kallend 2,026
QuoteI wouldn't mind an example or 2?
?
I guess you've never seen a snowflake. Or a star.
Your position is untenable.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteNow, just over 1000 years on human knowledge has increased to the point we all know Genesis is a pretty ridiculous thing to beleive in. isnt it possible that in another 1000 years that the NT will become just as ridiculous as our knowledge increases?
BTW I fifth it!
You are saying that because Genesis was thought to be a scientific explanation for the beginning of the world. Obviously science has debunked most of it. The NT is not thought of in that same way. So any ideas what that discovery would look like?
steveOrino
kallend 2,026
Quotehuh?
Dang! I knew cheating my way through HS chemistry 35 years ago was going to come back and haunt me!
It's "duality" - two different ways of looking at the same thing, each correct in its context.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteSo what is it with the fundies? What's your take on how things got so twisted? My perspective is that once organized religion got to be a political entity, as with anything political, common sense went out the window.
A fundamental view (AKA literal) made the most sense to the uneducated masses that were taught to not ask too many questions. Unfortunately it wasn't always that way. The Bereans were NT Christians who were commended for not taking someone's word, but used the resources they had available to give the Apostles words authority. Alas after a few hundred years papal authority made that a not so good quality.
Sadly today this still applies in many fundamental churches. They are so eager to divide over the slightest variation that they were taught in a sermon or Sunday School. I had a local pastor of a fundy church seething at me because I dare used rock n roll music in a service. Drums in a church!! Heaven forbid! Plus our staff wore black tee shirts and we threw a new bible from the platform to our guests who didn't own one. He had a list of grievances a mile long from his one visit to our Dead Men Walking Church (Romans 6:11) I guess it was easy to suffice he wasn't happy unless he was angry at some "sinner."
steveOrino
QuoteQuotehuh?
Dang! I knew cheating my way through HS chemistry 35 years ago was going to come back and haunt me!
It's "duality" - two different ways of looking at the same thing, each correct in its context.
Thanks for the clarity, prof.
steveOrino
Thank you all for the kind words. I only wish I "always" deserved them.
I was originally taught Genesis was literal (in Sunday School) Much of that was re-enforced when I attended a Creation Seminar. However, I was a young adult (30ish) and I still had more questions than answers. I went to some Christian Universities to get a degree in ministry & Bible. There I was taught that there were many interpretations to traditional views. Most, if not all of my professors, stated they believed differently about the Pentateuch and it's origins and purpose. This where I first learned about the JEDP principle and different interpretations besides fundamentalism.
Later I earned a Masters from SNU where the Nazarene tradition teaches the purpose of the Bible is to point to JC, not to be a science or even a history book. To me it made more sense that way. No "one thing" told me this interpretation was THE way, but it was the way that the most sense to me.
Is an electron a particle or a wave?
Is a photon a particle or a wave?
Sometimes apparently contradictory descriptions can be equally correct.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.