Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 05:10pm PT
|
Fatrad- Could happen but your gonna hafta git Mr. Braun on that ticket.
Prez-Fatrad
V.P.-Russ
???-Werner
A conference is in order (Largo-Chairmen)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 05:17pm PT
|
Dr. F
Your projections regarding the order and energy of the universe are simply limited and based on assumptions. You don't know if information is conveyed by gravity, what the nature of Dark Energy is, or what dimensions of energy have yet to be discovered by science.
Yes, Christianity and every belief system including science has plenty of poppycock as we are infants in the universal level of things. That's our reality of how are we have evolved and what we have to work with.
No need to prove anything to you. You're just fine as you are. If you are happy with yourself and your life, party on. If something is missing or you sense something sweeter to discover, then you might look within.
One thing is pretty clear to an honest person. Our happiness is experienced within and external blessings like money, beauty and fame are no guarantee of fulfillment. Yet if your heart is full of unconditional Love, that is a much more reliable source of happiness and satisfaction. Science has made us safer and healthier but also threatened us with advanced weapons dealing every form of death and pollution. Learning science has many benefits but making you truly happy is far from assured or even likely.
Therefore, as a practical person, I have pursued mysticism, as gleaned but not dictated from many traditions including Christianity, as a means of getting the most from Life. Intuitive knowledge of dimensions science has yet to address is simply a side effect of gravitating to Love and inner mental peace. I don't care who believes it or not and don't even believe it matters what you think.
It's who you are, your state of Being and your Heart that matters.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 05:28pm PT
|
Karl Baba,
Beautifully penned and much of what is in my heart and mind that I could not wrap my brain around.
Yes, if you are joyful, fulfilled, at peace despite the huge up and down swings that life sends.....Great. If you sense some incompleteness, lack, missing piece in the puzzle of your heart... even a slight dis ease somewhere then one must pursue and identify. If not, your life will never be lived to the fullest. Answers are out there. It's the pursuit that's so very important. And don't believe for a minute a better car, home, job, a more understanding spouse, more talent etc.. will give you the answers. It begins in the heart and soul and manifests itself outward. imho, Lynne
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 05:28pm PT
|
"But God does nothing, except in the minds of people, so we can't understand him, which brings up the obvious, he is just a figment of our imagination.
Karl, what does God do?"
God dreams us. We are figments of God's imagination just as the cats in your dream are actually you. You might say therefore, that God does everything including bitching about God.
Reality is ultimate consciousness' way of exploring itself. (maybe, but not really, but just a pale pointer to an ineffable mystery)
Peace
Karl
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 05:36pm PT
|
The child is perfect at every stage, but can't stay the same.
The "Age of Accountability"
The following article is adapted from John MacArthur's response during a Q&A session at Grace Church. Much of what John says here has been expanded in his book, Safe in the Arms of God .
What is the Scriptural basis for an "age of accountability" regarding a child's salvation?
I think the best way to answer that is to say this: There is no "age of accountability" identified in Scripture, as such. There is nothing in the Bible that says, "Here is the age and from here on you are responsible!" I think the reason for that is because children mature at different paces. That would be true from culture to culture, and from age to age in history.
So the Lord in His wisdom didn't identify a specific moment. God knows when each soul is accountable. God knows when real rejection has taken place; when the love of sin exists in the heart. When enmity with God is conscious and willful. God alone knows when that occurs.
The Jews had identified about the age of twelve, and that was when Jesus was taken by His parents to Jerusalem for the Passover and the Feast, and there He was in the temple questioning the doctors. You have a good illustration there, and Jesus was asking profound questions at that point. This then seems to be the age when those kinds of questions begin to be personal in the heart of a child.
So I have always felt that somewhere around age twelve, the transition from childhood to adulthood takes place. It's probably not totally disassociated from puberty, where there is a consciousness of one's own impulses, feelings, drives, desires, and therefore sinful attitudes and passions, and whatever else starts to emerge.
With this in mind, I believe that it is absolutely essential, all along the way with children, that every time they desire to make a commitment to Jesus Christ, at whatever age, you (as someone giving spiritual oversight to them) encourage them to do that. Because you don't know, we can't know, when their desire is indicative of genuine saving faith. When a young child says, "I want to invite Christ into my life," then you need to encourage them to do that. Every one of those, I see as a step towards God. At what point that becomes saving faith -- only God knows for certain.
But, I also believe, that up until that point of real saving faith, God in His mercy, would save that child, should that child die. I have been doing some study on that very issue, because when I was at a conference recently, and that question was asked of a panel of very astute theologians -- no one gave an adequate answer. And I thought, "How can we have theologians who don't know the answer to that question? What about the children before the age of accountability, when they die, do they go to heaven?" I think the answer is "yes," and I think it is a strong "YES," based upon the confidence of David who said, when his little baby died: "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." And David knew where he was going; David knew he was going to heaven -- he knew that. There wasn't any question in his mind about that.
So when he said, "I shall go to him," in those words was the anticipation and the joyful hope of reunion. Now, some people have said, "Well, all he meant was, 'I am going to be buried next to him.'" There wouldn't be any reason to say, "He can't come to me, but, oh I'm so glad I am going to be buried next to him!" There would be no joy in that; that wouldn't satisfy anything. So I think at that point, he was expressing the confidence that he was going to heaven; he knew that was where he would find his son, who had died before the age of accountability.
Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children (including those who die) are referred to as "innocent." The Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament to refer to "not being guilty" -- literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, the OT refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents," so I believe that God, prior to the "age of accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are not fallen; it doesn't mean that they are not sinful -- it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.
In summary, the "age of accountability" is not clearly identified in Scripture. I think it's up to parents; every time a child wants to respond and open the heart to Christ -- you need to encourage that, all the way along, until they come to that point where it is genuine, and the Lord knows that even if you don't.
When you say no to Christ, you have made a choice!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 05:43pm PT
|
Christianity and every belief system including science...
Ah, the old 'level the playing field' tactic of attempting to make religion and science just equivalent belief systems. Complete tripe, they are not.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 06:05pm PT
|
Dr.F.- "Science only provided knowledge to man and men made political decisions to use the bombs, and not care about the pollution we emit".
Excellent point.
We use oil in our rides to get from point A-B.
And then go and pour it down the nearest drain.
Or out at sea.
ETC.
Sad.
Very Sad.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 06:51pm PT
|
Dr.F.- "So God killed 4 million Jew's, told Bush to invade Iraq"
Hitler killed 6 million Jew's, not God.
Bush and his cabinet made the decision to invade Baghdad. With the support
of the majority of the USA (largely secondary to false info).
Not God.
Just because he claimed to be a Christian and....
Son of Sam (David Berkowitz) Said that Satan told him to kill...
So, let's say you are at a parole hearing for David B. are you going to say let him go, the devil said he could do it?
Or, if your daughter was one of his victims are you going to be angry with the devil because he told him to do it?
Just a thought- If that is the case, maybe Satan did have something to do with the Holocaust! Some say Hitler did seem to become possessed when he spoke.
And the Jews are still Gods chosen people. Perhaps Satan was attempting to derail Gods plan to return the Jews back to the Promised Land as prophesied in the Old Testament (which happened in 1948)'
Hitler is still guilty. He chose to follow through.
Why are you always blaming God for the action's/decisions of man?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 06:54pm PT
|
Because if God loved his children he would prevent bad things from happening to innocents, like the Jews dying during the holocaust. He is supposedly all powerful, he could intervene. But apparently he'd rather let them die.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:19pm PT
|
Dr.F.!
My humble apologies.
John.
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:28pm PT
|
Jan,
Thank you for your inquiry about Brian Thomas’ article entitled "Did humans evolve from Ardi?" I forwarded your comments and questions to him (in italics), and he has agreed to reply (between the "A" & "Q") below:
Your article, "Did humans evolve from Ardi?" based on "creation research" http://www.icr.org/ is a masterpiece of selective and out of context quotations about the data and its interpretation through the use of scientific method. Much could be said, but here's a list of the specific errors I spotted.
Was my article based on “creation research,” or based on the data? We would invite specific examples of ICR’s use of quotations out of context, as we generally take great pains to avoid this very flaw.
Errors:
Q1 Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features.
A The uniquely human characteristic that Ardi shows is upright walking dated at 4.4 million years. Brian Thomas mentions upright walking and then goes on to ignore it.
(Was this “upright walking” recorded on video? Did the scientists have a time machine to verify it, or its date? Was the “use of scientific method” employed to test Ardi walking? If so, I would need help identifying such items as empirical hypotheses and experimental results. All I noticed in the Ardi research was observation and speculation – which is actually appropriate, given the fact that historical (forensic), not empirical techniques are all that can be applied to fossils.
Of course, space limitations in that article precluded further discussion of Ardi walking. However, a November Acts & Facts article here did address this. [You may want to wait for this to become available before taking further action. It will be posted on our website and become searchable prob’ly next week.] Even other evolutionists doubt that Ardi walked. One reason she probably did not was that her anatomy was overall well suited for tree life. Another is that she did not have the human hip structure which orients our knees forward. Ardie’s “walk” was likely a monkey-like wobble, rarely used.)
Q2 In the eleven papers in Science, the word “probably” appeared about 78 times, and “suggest,” “suggesting,” “suggestive,” or “suggests” were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description.
A We are dealing with a 4.4 million year old fossil, not some dead cat that's just been dissected. Of course we don't know everything there is to know about Ardi yet and at least scientific method is honest enough to admit this.
(So, where is the error here? I never claimed that we know everything about Ardi. Rather, I implied that the authors indulged in speculation that went far beyond the data.)
Q3 If Ardi is presumed to be a human ancestor, then the century-long concept that has been taught as virtual fact—that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature (based most recently on the strength of a supposed 99 percent agreement between their genome sequences)—must be discarded!
A No scientific work on evolution has ever claimed that humans are descended from chimpanzees or even chimpanzee-like ancestors. We share a high similarity in our genes (98%) because we have a common ancestor. Modern chimps are different and more specialized than 4.4 million old chimps just as modern humans are more specialized for ground dwelling than was Ardi.
(Chimpanzee-like is ape-like, since chimps are a subset of apes. Thus, the first assertion is a red herring. Second, perhaps we share 98% of our genes because we have a common designer. Is there any scientific evidence that refutes this possibility? Doesn’t the fact that we have almost the same gene identity with kangaroos as we have with chimps argue against the common descent hypothesis? Other observations also lend support to the common designer hypothesis: We have many more differences in non-genic, regulatory sequences than we have among genes. Further, many of the regulatory sequences that are unique to man are irreducibly complex, thus indicating manufacture by intent.
I agree with the comment on specializations. However, I know no example of de novo structures required for these specializations having been built by nature alone.)
Q4 The Ardipithecus foot has its big toe “thumb” projecting strikingly sideways, which is hardly human-like. Nor are its other foot bones like those of chimps and gorillas, which have specially flexible feet that enable them to climb vertical tree trunks.
A This simply proves that the common ancestor of both Ardi and the apes was both less human like and less apelike than the modern varieties of either. What is surprising is that it is possible to have an opposable thumb and walk upright as this has not been seen before.The fact that the modern human foot is more functional for permanent ground walking is a good illustration of the fact that in 4 million years, evolution of the foot has occured.
(Also surprising is the failure to recognize that upright walking with an opposable thumb has still never before been seen. See question 1 response. The confident use of “proves” and “fact” in this context are entirely dependent on the assumption of evolution. Other than believing in evolutionary history, where is the actual data that supports the supposed facts, and what experiments or observations or argument prove common ancestry over common designer?)
Q5 if Ar. ramidus is presumed, a priori, to be an evolutionary antecedent of apes and humans.
A Nobody but Brian Thomas is assuming that A. ramidas was an evolutionary antecedent to apes. Both A. radius and apes had a common ancestor.
(This is another red herring which leapfrogs my original point – that broad-scale evolution must be presumed because it is not borne out by the Ardi data.)
Q6 Bipedality expert C. Owen Lovejoy wrote, “We can no longer rely on homologies with African apes for accounts of our origins and must turn instead to general evolutionary theory.”
A Lovejoy is merely emphasizing this point. From Darwin on, it has been a principle of evolution that older fossils are less specialized to specific environments than more modern ones.
(Where was the error? Was this quote taken out of context? If so, in what way? The context apparent to me was that Lovejoy was pointing out that the widespread failure of so many attempts at constructing human ancestry phylogenies using African apes indicated that a substitute ancestor ought to solve all those problems (Ardi). However, the failures of prior phylogenies, taken together with the widespread doubt among scientists (other than Ardi publishers) as to if or how Ardi fits in, may just indicate that the whole human evolution scheme is incorrect. If the data do not line up with the theory, then it’s time to change the theory.)
The real mystery here is why someone goes to such lengths to misinterpret scientific findings to try to force them into a particular creation account which was never meant to be a scientific explanation in the first place? True research proceeds with an open mind, "creation research" is only interested in distorting the data to try to force it into a preconceived conclusion. Far from helping, this kind of biased reasoning only drives more and more people away from religion every year.
(Perhaps I can offer this to resolve the “real mystery.” Science seems to have little to do with these discussions, since neither Ardi nor events in Genesis can be subjected to repeatable tests. They both involve history. And Ardi is interpreted according to an evolutionary history that is in direct conflict with certain earth and stellar processes, as well as with Genesis history. Either man-made evolutionary history with its deep time and nature-as-creator was true, or Genesis history with its short time and God-as-creator is true. Either require faith. Given all the data (popular opinion notwithstanding), it seems that the former requires a leap of faith into the dark, and the latter a step of faith into the light.
I agree totally that true research follows the evidence where it leads. I see in the Ardi research, however, several aspects of forcing data into evolution, some of which are highlighted in my Ardie articles. As such, wouldn’t these Science authors be just as guilty of forcing data as any other investigator?
And last, is it objectively true that I used biased reasoning, or did that description come from a particular bias?)
For more information about this and other topics of interest, visit www.icr.org. For books, DVDs, and other resources, visit www.icr.org/store.
If you haven’t done so already, sign up for ICR’s free monthly magazine Acts & Facts.
Thank you again for your interest.
Bruce Wood
Communications Liaison
Institute for Creation Research
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:34pm PT
|
"Science did not build nuclear bombs and drop them, science did not pollute this earth
Science only provided knowledge to man, and men made political discisions to use the bombs, and not care about the pollution we emit"
Men created science and all scientists are humans. You might say that men who labor day and night using all their genius on new and more extreme ways to kill large groups of people bear no responsibility for what is done with their weapons. You can say that those who invent chemicals that turn out to poison the world don't bear responsibility for what they create.
That's not much different than excusing the fundamentalist extremist religious folks for teaching that unbelievers must die but who don't command the armies or terrorists who act on those teachings.
If science wants a higher ground, perhaps they should take better control of the power of their knowledge rather than being the whores of dictators, fascists and power grabbing kings and presidents.
Like I said before, even under science, we are all made of the same thing and all connected. All the cells in your body are replaced every 7 years.
It's our human judgement that death is bad, suffering is bad, and whether God is to blame or not. If we saw a bigger picture, perhaps the question and judgement is moot.
Peace
Karl
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:35pm PT
|
Dr. F many people have limited capabilities to live withouth the guidance of God or religion. You and I have the capability to build our belief systems from the ground up and determine for ourselves why it's beneficial to act in a moral ways and to determine our purpose in life. There are billions of people on the planet who in the absense of the fear of god would probably act in evil ways. Sure many people abuse religion and use it to justify evil actions, but there are probably many many more people who follow the commandments and other religous doctrine and lead more moral lives because of it. It's just that the evil acts get the publicity and attention, so it seems more prevalant than the good acts of religous people.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:39pm PT
|
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:43pm PT
|
Creation research is only evolution debunking, and is a complete fraud
There is no science of creation, only trying to put holes in the theory of evolution, as propaganda
Worth repeating.
There is no intellectual growth with creationism. As I stated before, everything about creationism that there is to know was devised several thousand years ago. Nothing new can ever be learned or more importantly, nothing can ever be disproven by adherents. They either disregard or outirght lie about any new evidence about the origins of life.
It is an intellectually stagnant and dishonest discipline.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 07:56pm PT
|
dirtbag!
I have struggled with that one myself.
An extremely sad time in the history of modern made.
God did turn around, what Satan meant for bad for the good.
Israel, was birthed in 1948, as a gift to the Holocaust survivors.
I was reading some of the conversations in Auschwitz, that were documented. Questions they were asking God. Made me weep.
You say he doesn't care? Because He doesn't intervene.
When should He intervene and not. Where does he draw the line.
You say he should stop having bad things happen to innocents.
Say at 911 I would imagine all the of the 3,000 who died were innocent.
The only people that should have died that day would have been the 19 Arab hijackers.
I supposed He could have arranged that, people all walking away from the rubble and why even bother wearing seat belt or wear a bullet proof vest, only evil people die.
It doesn't mean He doesn't love them any less than you or me.
He loves them very much. Grieves like a motherless child, when she has lost her only child. At least that is what it tells us in the Good Book.
If they are below the age of accountability they go to be directly with Him.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 08:00pm PT
|
It doesn't mean He doesn't love them any less than you or me.
Bullpucky. If you saw your children dying and suffering you would do everything in your power to stop it. If you didn't, especially if it's in your power to do so, I would question your love. Vice versa too.
God is supposedly pretty powerful. Knocking a few Nazi heads to set them straight should be no big deal.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 08:15pm PT
|
But no one believes in fairy tales, by definition. Except maybe Celtic neo-pagans. But here we have a story that seems so incredibly convincing to so many people, who want to share it with everyone else, whether they're interested or not. It really is fascinating the extent to which disbelief can be suspended by otherwise perfectly normal, functioning members of society, when others who have their own more idiosyncratic delusions are called schizophrenic and either medicated or locked up.
Dr. F, ever read any R. D. Laing?
"They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game."
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 08:17pm PT
|
Yes. Given a (christian) god who is allegedly benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, it's very hard to explain a lot of stuff that happens.
Those religions that go in for grumpy gods don't have this problem. It's fascinating that the marketing departments of most religions come up with similar strategies in terms of how people are supposed to behave. Their beliefs are all over the place, though.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 08:37pm PT
|
dirtbag!
One of my favorite classes at SJSU (1992)was Kinesiology, the study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement in humans.
I recall a joke that was part of her repertoire of jokes each year. It was about an ape that was trained to do some basic functions.
And she would joke and say that all it needed was opposition, along with the evolutionary process and then our jobs would be in jeopardy.
Can't recall why our specific jobs would be in jeopardy.
Regardless.
Opposition of the thumb to the index, middle,ring and small finger is opposition.
And was what she felt, and according to her at that time most scientist agreed, was the missing link in regards to ape to man evolution.
Are familier with this function ands its applications in regards to biomechanics, and development?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!