Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 10:59pm PT
|
OK. We have no idea who is a christian and who is not because determining whether they both actually love Christ and also follow his commandments is largely a matter of dispute not open to factual determination.
Since there is no method for determining the fact then I personally shall consider there to be no actual Christians. Only claimants.
Thank you,
MH2:
When my mother was dying of colon cancer we were not able to control her pain. Until Curt's death I had assumed, had we gotten enough medication, that this would have been possible. It seems an open question to me now. My mother refused all food and water and was dead in two weeks. More recently I have read that this is not an uncommon occurrence. You may know more than do I.
In an end of life situation I think we have to go with the wishes of the dying person. I think this is their right.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 11:09pm PT
|
So most of those of you who are Christians say you are so because of your faith and because God/Jesus has spoken to you.
But most adherents to other religions would say the same thing. Can you tell me how to determine in a scientific manner which is right?
Thought not.
It's dependent on faith. That's fine. Faith up to a reasonable point is a good thing.
But let's not confuse it with something testable and scientific.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 11:20pm PT
|
God is love.
Post 1000!
He-he. I was waiting for it.
|
|
wildone
climber
GHOST TOWN
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 11:20pm PT
|
Those who know Tao don't talk about it.
Those who talk about Tao, don't know it.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 11:21pm PT
|
Actually Cragman, I spent several years in an Assemblies of God congregation, so I do have some idea of what I speak.
I just happen to be willing to admit that there is a difference between faith and proof.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 11:24pm PT
|
I don't think there is disagreement. Cragman says he is a christian so he is claiming to be a christian. I can live with that. Anyone else who claims they are a christian is on an entirely equal footing.
They both claim to be christian.
The fact is established by what the person says.
A done deal.
Really quite logical and equitable.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 12:34am PT
|
”I don't think there is disagreement. Cragman says he is a christian so he is claiming to be a christian. I can live with that. Anyone else who claims they are a christian is on an entirely equal footing. “
“They both claim to be christian. “
“The fact is established by what the person says. “
“A done deal.”
“Really quite logical and equitable.”
I don’t believe there’s significant disagreement about whether or not one can call oneself a Christian, Jstan.
My issue, three days ago, was giving credence to studies in which the relative numbers of Christians in prisons are used to estimate or represent the merit of Christian teachings in comparison to atheist values. If only a fraction of such incarcerated Christians have a familiarity with or understand the import and meaning of Christian ethics, how can we rely on those relative numbers to estimate the worth or desirability of those ethics ?
The same complaint could be expressed on behalf of the relative numbers of atheists incarcerated. Some “unbelievers” have carefully considered their atheism while others have not. Some have well thought out ethical beliefs, others have none.
For a study to indicate or reveal tangible trends we need concrete subject categories. If many Christians in prison have vague knowledge of Christian ethics or teachings, it’s improbable ascertaining the import or value of such ethics/teachings relative to those in the general population who may understand and follow such precepts and doctrines.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 01:05am PT
|
Yup, Wildone, the way that can be known is not the way.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 01:33am PT
|
Jennie:
After much discussion I have come away with the understanding we only know what the christian claims. So if someone claims they are christian for all intents and purposes - they are christian. Now if we all could agree to some other verifiable definition another approach might be possible. No such approach surfaced here.
You may have feelings as to who is and who isn't, but if how you have achieved this is not verifiable and agreed to by everyone who wishes to use the word "christian"
we don't have the ability to use the word. Its meaning is entirely unclear.
You are free to think as you please.
So am I.
Christians are people who claim to be christian.
Atheists are people who claim to be atheists.
|
|
wack-N-dangle
Gym climber
the ground up
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 02:17am PT
|
Getting back to creation. I could use a new sole or 6. Locker, are you back to the good work? I hope things are going well with you family and your eyes.
Also, glad to see that you are in good enough spirits to post a boating picture or two (even if it is a retread). Idle hands...
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 02:24am PT
|
"You are free to think as you please."
"So am I."
"Christians are people who claim to be christian."
"Atheists are people who claim to be atheists."
Jstan, I’m not vigorously disputing what you’re saying about claim to the word. It’s not my intent to exclude anyone from the rolls of Christendom or take their title, Christian.
My original issue, as I’ve written several times, is NOT with you, the title, or your definition of Christian. I objected to spurious STUDIES which suggests Christian precepts are invalid and cites numbers of Christians in prison as proof.
Again, using a group of individuals, apart from the general population, as a subject from which to conclude the value of Christian teachings will not engender objective conclusions. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that prison inmates tend to come from the reckless, despairing, deprived and demented portion of society; people who use religion for comfort but who ignore ethical dictates and responsibilities. Using such a group in axiom to appraise the consequence and value of Christian ethical tenets is nonsense.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 04:09am PT
|
Go-
It seems you and I might be the only people on this thread still interested in the fossil record.
I've had occasion to think about this a lot recently as I'm just finishing a course in physical anthro for freshman and I've never seen the field so complex or controversial as it is now due to the plethora of specimens.
My conclusion is that the only way for non-experts to make sense of it is to think in terms of large populations. If we do that, then there are clear groups of fossils about whom there is no doubt. I had my students list them vertically down a piece of paper and then list a set of characteristics (when lived, where, brain size, tool type etc.) horizontally. That way they had an easy-to-read chart where they could check out individual groups and more important, see the progression of dates, brain size and tool types. I had a separate question where they had to discuss controversies of which there are so many at the moment.
Given this criteria, the broad categories of homonins that are well known include Ardipithecus, Austrolopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthal and Homo sapiens. They succeed each other in time, the brain gets ever larger, and the tool tradition more sophisticated. The only exception is Neanderthal who had a larger brain on average than H. sapiens, and since it was stored in a horizontally elongated head, made it increasingly difficult to be born to an upright mother (perhaps one of the several reasons for their demise). The superior adaptation of H.sapiens was to stack the brain vertically above the forehead and to not need as much of it due to the invention of complex language.
The current controversies involve the odd specimens (sometimes only one in a category) which may or may not represent the transitional population from one of these major groups to the other. Hence the arguments over H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H. rhodensiensis, H. habilis, and H. heidelbergensis. The case of H. floresiensis is a little different as there has been debate as to whether it is a descendant of H. erectus or a dwarf H. sapiens. That argument seems to be coming down in favor of it being an H. erectus descendant, particularly given the new dating and fossils from Java.
That said, the last controversy involves what happened to H. erectus in China. Unfortunately none of the charts you posted or any that I have seen, account for this well. Hence the claim that H. erectus lasted in Asia until 40,000 years ago. My interpretation is that because of the Chinese insistence that H. sapiens evolved separately in China, the politically correct anthropologists of the West have simply ignored the post H.erectus fossils the Chinese have found. Hopefully they will become more open to the Chinese data if not its interpretation, given the increasing evidence from Indonesia.
It seems to me the interpretation can go one of two ways. Either we say that H. erectus existed until replaced by H. sapiens out of Africa, (hence the 40,000 B.P. interpretation) or we say that H. erectus evolved into several more modern varieties in Europe (heidelbergensis and neanderthal), Indonesia (floresiensis) and in China (whatever we finally call the more modern specimens once the West accepts they exist and the Chinese quit insisting that they are fully modern H. sapiens).
Which way this battle goes depends in part on whether paleontologists decide to go with a general philosophy of lumping or splitting. Splitting and emphasizing differences prevailed when we had few fossils to work with. Lumping and emphasizing the range of variation within populations occured once we had larger numbers. Now, as the number of specimens has increased almost astronomically, the field seems again to be divided as to what to emphasize. Consequently it will be really interesting to see what the next edition of my textbook makes of it all. One thing I'm certain of, is that the undergraduate audience and the undergraduate textbooks have pretty much maxed out on how much diversity of fossils can be absorbed and made sense of in a 3 credit course.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 10:00am PT
|
Lumping and splitting have pretty much gone hand in in hand in the study of microfossils, especially Foraminifera. Of which there is no lack of specimens. You can see speciation and other sorts of divergence, right before your eyes. repeatedly.
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 10:38am PT
|
"I objected to spurious STUDIES which suggests Christian precepts are invalid and cites numbers of Christians in prison as proof."
I agree, I have a friend who is in prison now and is closer to God and reads the Bible every day, for him being in prison has made him rethink what he is doing with his life and what matters. So you could say, see Christians are in prison. His words, "Prison is a real drag, very boring, very lonely, and often violent!"
He loves God and said he has read the Bible cover to cover in five different translations!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 10:45am PT
|
No doubt that something as intense as prison offers the possibility to hone one's focus. Good luck to your friend, Gobee!
Riley, when are we doing the wyde?
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 11:20am PT
|
Skipt, my friend is at Corcoran.
GoBee
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 11:25am PT
|
It seems you and I might be the only people on this thread still interested in the fossil record.
Not so. So please don't take silence for lack of interest. Very few can write about the fossil record, because very few know anything about it beyond the fact that it exists. On the other hand, anybody can post thoughts on religion, claiming their view is as valid as any other, so that discussion gains volume and goes on and on, often obscuring the good stuff you guys have been posting.
Keep it up.
D
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 11:28am PT
|
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 11:31am PT
|
Thanks Riley and Ghost !
I think I have about one more thing to add and then I'm done.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!