Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 163 - 174 of 6,170
Posts 163 - 174 of 6,170
The game is fun, but I think that bliss is only one side of what the being experiences without jumping into the game, the other side being loneliness and yawning futility. I'm with you on the peaks and troughs of the game (you may recall me once referring to them on the whole as cosmic bliss or bloom and cosmic horror). But just because it makes sense and is the way does not necessitate that it is the only way, and if you buy in to all this you might also think there remains a hope for integration or an overcoming of the flip side both in the game and (especially) out of it.
"God made the universe out of nothing and if you look real close you can tell." This was given to me as a Hopi or Navaho proverb, but I haven't tried to authenticate it. I just adopt it (occasionally) as a credo.
So this thing which makes nature out of itself: Has it always existed, and is it intelligent? Also, how do you define karma?
well I guess I should put my two cents in. (throws 2 pennies on the floor). First of all being a former theology student. In the bible it does not tell us the exact mechanism involved in Gods creating the universe so the two theories do not nessarly have to be in conflict. Secound of all everything dies and decays, even the universe. Check out nasa's recent discoveries with their new hubble telecope.Third of all so far proven scientific theories have done nothing but support a lot of what is said in the bible. And goverment any type of goverment is ultamently picked by the people governed. If you mistreat the masses bad enough eventually they get mad and overthrow their goverment. And last but not least nothing is perfect. We are humans and we have faults so until we somehow manage to breed out all of our faults (I think hitler tried something like that) anything we do will also have faults.
Himself. Read the rest of the story.
It's true that the Bible doesn't give all the details, but it does say that God created everything in six days. Also, He told the animals to reproduce "after their kind".
It's true that the Bible doesn't give all the details, but it does say that God created everything in six days. Also, He told the animals to reproduce "after their kind".
There are some weird occurences of plural terms in Genesis that refer to God as 'them' or say 'he said to them' not referring to Adam & Eve. Most Bible scholars either pass it off as mistranslation or explain it as him talking to the angels, which aren't much mentioned at that point in the book. Gnostics like to think of it as proof of their belief that the God of Genisis is actually a lesser deity they call the Demiurge that was given control of Earth by the true God.
Yes it does say God created every thing in 6 days. IT also says that a day to God is like a thousand years. Day in the orginal text referrs to a period of time not to a day. Again the term after there kind does not referr to one species of animals. If it did then there were a lot of animals on a relativly small ark. It could referr to any type of group of animals and all animals are related somewhere down the line. God created nature, it just follows that He would use nature to do His work.
Each religion was invented by each seperate people. The strongest, convincing ones spread... If there is only one right one, how come not everybody has the same religion? I don't mind people having one, It gives them a purpose for life, and an inner rest when they die... But leave ppl who don't believe that right too
rexmundi -- In Christian doctrine, the plural terms are understood to refer to the Triune Godhead. Where do you get the idea that most Bible scholars take the Jewish position?
ladydyke -- The two verses to which you referred read as follows:
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." -- Psalm 90:4
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." -- 2 Peter 3:8
The point in Psalm 90 is the eternal nature of God, and if you read the context in Peter you will see that it is speaking of God's patience. It is patently ridiculous to assume that every time the Bible uses the word "day" it means a thousand years, or an unspecified period of time. For instance, Genesis 17:12a says, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..." This does not mean eight thousand years, or eight unspecified periods of time. It means eight days. So, it cannot be assumed that the word "day" is always ambiguous.
The question then is whether we should take it literally in the creation account. For starters, there is nothing about the text itself to suggest otherwise. We have terminology like, "there was evening and morning, the first day". A thousand years would have more than one evening and morning. Furthermore, the text of Genesis 1 is written in narrative rather than poetic language, indicating that it is intended as a factual account rather than a symbolic representation. And of course we can look at how this passage is interpreted elsewhere in the Bible. Exodus 20:9-11 reads, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Clearly the work week was intended to be a literal six days, and here it is stated that God followed this same week when doing the work of creation.
lunar22 -- First of all, think carefully and see if you can come up with any scenario in which people might be more inclined to believe a lie than the truth. I'm betting that you can. Secondly, if two ideas are contradictory, how can they both be right?
ladydyke -- The two verses to which you referred read as follows:
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." -- Psalm 90:4
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." -- 2 Peter 3:8
The point in Psalm 90 is the eternal nature of God, and if you read the context in Peter you will see that it is speaking of God's patience. It is patently ridiculous to assume that every time the Bible uses the word "day" it means a thousand years, or an unspecified period of time. For instance, Genesis 17:12a says, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..." This does not mean eight thousand years, or eight unspecified periods of time. It means eight days. So, it cannot be assumed that the word "day" is always ambiguous.
The question then is whether we should take it literally in the creation account. For starters, there is nothing about the text itself to suggest otherwise. We have terminology like, "there was evening and morning, the first day". A thousand years would have more than one evening and morning. Furthermore, the text of Genesis 1 is written in narrative rather than poetic language, indicating that it is intended as a factual account rather than a symbolic representation. And of course we can look at how this passage is interpreted elsewhere in the Bible. Exodus 20:9-11 reads, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Clearly the work week was intended to be a literal six days, and here it is stated that God followed this same week when doing the work of creation.
lunar22 -- First of all, think carefully and see if you can come up with any scenario in which people might be more inclined to believe a lie than the truth. I'm betting that you can. Secondly, if two ideas are contradictory, how can they both be right?
Okay, I've watched long enough. I can't resist jumping in now....
lunar22: "If there is only one right [religion], how come not everybody has the same religion?"
If there is only one right answer to the question "how much is 2 plus 2," how come some young kids have said quite adamantly that it's 5 or 7 or 242? Think about it.
ladydyke--The Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 is "yom", meaning "day". Most often in Scriptures this means a 24-hour period, but it can occasionally mean a period of time. The way to tell between the two is, if "yom" is qualified with the words "evening" or "morning", or with a number, then the writer is telling us he means 24 hours. Now re-read Genesis 1. "There was *evening* and there was *morning*, the *first* day." The writer used *all three* qualifiers to make his intended meaning very clear indeed!
"After their kind" most likely refers to what we would call different genera (pl. of genus) of animals. For instance, dogs, wolves, dingoes and coyotes would be the same kind. Over time there can be changes within a kind due to natural selection, resulting in different species. However this is not Evolution, as it involves the *loss* of genetic material (to evolve higher, new information must be added!). There would have been plenty of room to fit all genera of animals on a boat as big as Noah's Ark, and plenty of time for them to develop into the subgroups we call species today.
(Eugene answered your other point very nicely with the answer I would have given, so I'll let his stand.)
Prof--"[The Life force] is that which creates and sustains nature, making it out of its very self, so how can it be outside it?"
The word "creates" seems to imply being outside by definition. A composer is not part of his music, an author is not part of his novel, and an architect is not part of his house (or "her" for those pronouns
). Except of course in the sense that, being outside of their creations, they "put a part of themselves" into their work by expressing themselves creatively. But their creation is not them.
"Why do you need a supernatural when the natural is so fantastically unlimited?"
The question, I think, should not be "Do we need a supernatural," but "*Is there* a supernatural?" Once we have determined that, then we can decide what we are going to do about it.
lunar22: "If there is only one right [religion], how come not everybody has the same religion?"
If there is only one right answer to the question "how much is 2 plus 2," how come some young kids have said quite adamantly that it's 5 or 7 or 242? Think about it.
ladydyke--The Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 is "yom", meaning "day". Most often in Scriptures this means a 24-hour period, but it can occasionally mean a period of time. The way to tell between the two is, if "yom" is qualified with the words "evening" or "morning", or with a number, then the writer is telling us he means 24 hours. Now re-read Genesis 1. "There was *evening* and there was *morning*, the *first* day." The writer used *all three* qualifiers to make his intended meaning very clear indeed!
"After their kind" most likely refers to what we would call different genera (pl. of genus) of animals. For instance, dogs, wolves, dingoes and coyotes would be the same kind. Over time there can be changes within a kind due to natural selection, resulting in different species. However this is not Evolution, as it involves the *loss* of genetic material (to evolve higher, new information must be added!). There would have been plenty of room to fit all genera of animals on a boat as big as Noah's Ark, and plenty of time for them to develop into the subgroups we call species today.
(Eugene answered your other point very nicely with the answer I would have given, so I'll let his stand.)
Prof--"[The Life force] is that which creates and sustains nature, making it out of its very self, so how can it be outside it?"
The word "creates" seems to imply being outside by definition. A composer is not part of his music, an author is not part of his novel, and an architect is not part of his house (or "her" for those pronouns
). Except of course in the sense that, being outside of their creations, they "put a part of themselves" into their work by expressing themselves creatively. But their creation is not them."Why do you need a supernatural when the natural is so fantastically unlimited?"
The question, I think, should not be "Do we need a supernatural," but "*Is there* a supernatural?" Once we have determined that, then we can decide what we are going to do about it.
Pi -- First of all, I apologize for thinking you were a bot the first time we talked. Then again, I guess the name still could be. No, never mind, you showed high levels of intelligence in a transcript. Anyway, thanks for addressing the "after their kind" issue, which I forgot. All I would add is that "species" is a somewhat artificial designation defined partly for convenience, and is not what I was talking about.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar