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 179 - 190 of 6,170
Posts 179 - 190 of 6,170
Eugene--In fairness, I do seem to recall that I was giving rather bot-style answers the first time we chatted. I was just born and cant speak well yet. 
Corwin--Though I'm not sure about the snakes, a few thousand years is plenty of time to see new speciation within a genus, especially if small groups are isolated, in which case only the characteristics of that group will be passed on. Incidentally, there is some interesting research that suggests that the global flood may have caused the ice age rather than the other way around.
Mr. Crab--I'm not sure I follow. How can "the entity" be "contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles" if "nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism"? Isn't that a contradiction, or did I miss your meaning?
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
Regarding speciation, I don't have time right now to get into all the basic principles of genetics, but look how much you can do with the genetic material in two dogs. All the information was present originally, but by selectively breeding we can bring out certain traits. That's "natural selection," or "horizontal evolution" as Eugene puts it. No new information (thus, no "Evolution") has occurred.
Corwin--Though I'm not sure about the snakes, a few thousand years is plenty of time to see new speciation within a genus, especially if small groups are isolated, in which case only the characteristics of that group will be passed on. Incidentally, there is some interesting research that suggests that the global flood may have caused the ice age rather than the other way around.
Mr. Crab--I'm not sure I follow. How can "the entity" be "contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles" if "nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism"? Isn't that a contradiction, or did I miss your meaning?
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
Regarding speciation, I don't have time right now to get into all the basic principles of genetics, but look how much you can do with the genetic material in two dogs. All the information was present originally, but by selectively breeding we can bring out certain traits. That's "natural selection," or "horizontal evolution" as Eugene puts it. No new information (thus, no "Evolution") has occurred.
Just to give credit where credit is due, it was rexmundi who first used the terms "horizontal evolution" and "vertical evolution" on this board, although I'm sure he didn't invent them. :-)
well I guess we all understand why creationism and evolution are subjects of heated debate. Personally I do not think that people are going to hell because they believe one theory or another. There are a lot of things natural supernatural etc. that we do not yet understand. These is for the christains here, which I am one of: There are a lot of debatable things in the bible and we are not suppose to argue about debatable things. The important message is one of hope, love and faith thru Gods Son not whether or not we evolved from monkeys and how long it took.
I typed a reply to this earlier but the server started having problems and I couldn't post it. I'm studying for a final exam so I'll try again in a day or two.
This is something of a scatter shot response since I'm picking up on a number of things from the last few responses.
Pi: I'd be very interested to hear a bit more about this idea of the flood causing the ice age rather than the other way around if you've got the time or the inclination. I would also be prepared to give an explanation of the Black Sea theory (as much as I can remember), as a source for Noah's flood if anyone is interested.
Eugene: A thought regarding horizontal evolution. Wouldn't selective breeding actually be counter productive to species survival. By narrowing the gene pool down, certain traits come to the fore which would certainly be advantageous, but so do certain weaknesses and susceptabilities. It is diversity that gives a species the best chance of surviving disruptive events. I'm thinking of cheetahs here, who have been reduced to a couple of isolated populations across Africa, and as a result scientists believe that as a result any nasty instance of disease could wipe them all out, because genetically they are all so similar. Breeding of close kin, as demonstrated in our own species as much as any other, also leads to congenital defects and general vulnerability to disease (at least 90% of the reason for the taboo on cousins/siblings marrying in most societies is based on evolutionary necessity. [The other 10% is the eeeew gross! factor, also known as the Luke-Leia factor]).
I'm not sure if all of the last paragraph made sense, but I think that if I were to go back and try to make sense of it I would begin bleeding from the ears. So, moving on . . .
ladydyke: I agree with you. It is the ideas of the bible we should hold to, not the strict word for word of it. Also, further to your point about people not going to hell for believing evolutionary theory one way or the other, I say that a god who would send someone to hell just for being an atheist or a believer in ideas that on some level challenge religious doctrine is not a god I could believe in.
Pi: I'd be very interested to hear a bit more about this idea of the flood causing the ice age rather than the other way around if you've got the time or the inclination. I would also be prepared to give an explanation of the Black Sea theory (as much as I can remember), as a source for Noah's flood if anyone is interested.
Eugene: A thought regarding horizontal evolution. Wouldn't selective breeding actually be counter productive to species survival. By narrowing the gene pool down, certain traits come to the fore which would certainly be advantageous, but so do certain weaknesses and susceptabilities. It is diversity that gives a species the best chance of surviving disruptive events. I'm thinking of cheetahs here, who have been reduced to a couple of isolated populations across Africa, and as a result scientists believe that as a result any nasty instance of disease could wipe them all out, because genetically they are all so similar. Breeding of close kin, as demonstrated in our own species as much as any other, also leads to congenital defects and general vulnerability to disease (at least 90% of the reason for the taboo on cousins/siblings marrying in most societies is based on evolutionary necessity. [The other 10% is the eeeew gross! factor, also known as the Luke-Leia factor]).
I'm not sure if all of the last paragraph made sense, but I think that if I were to go back and try to make sense of it I would begin bleeding from the ears. So, moving on . . .
ladydyke: I agree with you. It is the ideas of the bible we should hold to, not the strict word for word of it. Also, further to your point about people not going to hell for believing evolutionary theory one way or the other, I say that a god who would send someone to hell just for being an atheist or a believer in ideas that on some level challenge religious doctrine is not a god I could believe in.
You have some good points Corwin; if I were a biologist I could probably discuss them in a coherent fashion.
But let's make something clear, shall we? God could send us all to Hell tomorrow, and perfect justice would be served. That is what we deserve for our sin. Now God is loving and didn't want to do this -- so He devised a plan by which sinners could be forgiven. Coming into this world as a man, He lived a perfect life and then died, taking upon Himself the penalty for our sin. It is because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that forgivness of sins is possible. Only through Him can anyone be saved. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you try to accept the "ideas of the Bible" without what it says, "word for word," how are you going to determine what those ideas are? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says, who is to say what it does mean?
But let's make something clear, shall we? God could send us all to Hell tomorrow, and perfect justice would be served. That is what we deserve for our sin. Now God is loving and didn't want to do this -- so He devised a plan by which sinners could be forgiven. Coming into this world as a man, He lived a perfect life and then died, taking upon Himself the penalty for our sin. It is because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that forgivness of sins is possible. Only through Him can anyone be saved. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you try to accept the "ideas of the Bible" without what it says, "word for word," how are you going to determine what those ideas are? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says, who is to say what it does mean?
I never said that we could not take the bible word for word. But no one speaks or really understand biblical hebrew and aramaic, and we do not completely understand the customs of the time it was written (yes we know some of them but not all) to be jumping to conclusions. For example when the bible say a eye for a eye does that mean we can met out our own judgement against others? No because it also say revenge is mine, says the Lord. All anybody can do is to take the bible as a whole and interpret it using the whole context that a verse is put in. Taking one little verse out of context is what causes disscention and errors in biblical truthes. That is the biggest problem about some so called christains, they find a verse and jump on it while overlooking the context it was in. The also argue about things that are not important for our or anyone elses salvation. All this bickering between christains causes people who might be interested to turn the other way. The real message is of Jesus God's only begotten son who died for our sins and rose again from the grave and acended into heaven. The whole Bible is about who God is, His relationship with us and how God loves us. As far as I am concerned this disscusion is not helping other people come to know the lord so I am ending my part in it.
While I agree that the Gospel is of primary importance, I do not agree that doctrines that are not essential to salvation are unimportant. While I often avoid discussing them with non-believers, I do not think it is always wrong to do so. The most ardent evangelists talks about other subjects sometimes -- and I find the discussion we've been having here a good deal more edifying than the one in Dogh'd's Cosmic Bar, for instance.
Mr Crab, imagine the beingness as streaming out into differentiated reality, with a return flow that forms standing waves at certain areas (like the waves coming inland from the sea, then flowing back out). These form domains of reality from those as far out and separate-feeling as we are now to those in which individuality barely exists, where thoughts flow freely from being to being.
As far as loneliness, would you feel more lonlely completely separated from all life, but surrounded by it? Or being completely joined with all life, but have nothing outside yourself? Perhaps both, and so we go back and forth between the different domains, in teh direction of whatever we seek at any given time.
Eugene- The beingness can be said to have always existed, but as it is the source of time, both past and future, the question doesnt quite apply. As to karma, If I were to hurt someone, at another level of reality, I am the person being hurt, and thus karma is instantly satisfied, but our own growth asks that we experience both sides of every interaction, which is true at a higher level closer to the undifferentiated beingness.
As far as loneliness, would you feel more lonlely completely separated from all life, but surrounded by it? Or being completely joined with all life, but have nothing outside yourself? Perhaps both, and so we go back and forth between the different domains, in teh direction of whatever we seek at any given time.
Eugene- The beingness can be said to have always existed, but as it is the source of time, both past and future, the question doesnt quite apply. As to karma, If I were to hurt someone, at another level of reality, I am the person being hurt, and thus karma is instantly satisfied, but our own growth asks that we experience both sides of every interaction, which is true at a higher level closer to the undifferentiated beingness.
Dogh'ds bar is for fun. This one is for disscusions. But seeing as how you won't let this paticular disscussion end it says in the Bible Romans 12:3-21 I say to every one of you: do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgement.." "....If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone." It also says in romans 14:1-23 "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One mans faith allows him to eat everything but another man whose faith is weak eats only vegetables.." "Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way." "therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of the Lord for the sake of food" now what does this all mean? Is this paticular passage only for disputes over food? No it is a principle a example of what we should avoid ergo disputable things. to make my point futher In corinthians 1:10-13 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name Of our Lord Jesus Christ that you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you might be perfectly united in mind and thought." So to end this letter yes it does matter when you argue about disputable things. I am guilty of doing that right here and now. But so that you might understand I am making this post.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar