Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
The donkey metaphor makes the Donk merely a vehicle.. or an intelligent machine.. just the same.. A machine having a purpose masks "a will".. A will to accomplish a purpose.. A machine(vehicle) can have a purpose masking a will but the driver should set the course.. If the driver don't/won't set the course the vehicle careens wildly..
I believe this subject is a large question.. Is there a difference between a having a purpose and a will to do something.. Can humans operate as machines? when their purpose is/should be higher(more profound) than that?.. -OR- are they the same thing.. a purpose and a will..
Are humans born as MACHINES.. only to possibly be "re-born" as spirits?..To evolve from a mechanical existence to become something greater than that?.. I see this conversation as fundamental to understanding many things..
The metaphoric use of a word does not create properties in the object of the metaphor.
Obviously you don’t. Or, choose not to.
”. . . there are no doubt more scientists who believe in God than don't.”
There is very much doubt about that assertion. You are not the first I’ve queried on this subject. So far, when pressed, they have been unable to support their contention. The honest ones have admitted as much, and we’ve then been able to go on and have positive discussions. The dishonest ones have discovered pressing business elsewhere and took it on the lam, later reappearing on other threads (presumably having taken care of their pressing business). Should you choose to participate, perhaps you will have better fortune in your search for supporting evidence.
”What exactly is your problem with this?”
There are several.
You have started that you “pound sand” for a living and that you are not a scientist. Consequently, although you read a lot of science, you do not hold yourself as a science expert. Fair enough. I can relate. I’m a retired nozzle jockey and do not claim any expertise in science at all, but I do pay attention and think about what my limited background permits me understand. You go on to report that, for guidance in your thinking about science, you rely on the knowledge of experts. Apparently not, however, the knowledge of a whole host of highly respected, award-winning scientists whose scientific opinions do not precisely coincide with your own. So your deference to scientific authority is apparently highly selective.
Now it appears that a sizable number of Christians on this site have opted to accept the judgment of preeminent scientists who believe that their expertise in science gives them carte blanche to make value judgments and philosophical verdicts on religion, cultural trends, and various other non-scientific matters. For this judgment you chose to slander them with invective. I presume then, that you reserve the same harsh judgment (liars!) for those scientists too, no matter how peer-acclaimed they may be?
We have a large number of Christians who frequent this website. They conduct devotional threads where argument is not permitted because controversy is not the point of the thread. They conduct other threads where differing religious viewpoints are exchanged and discussed (and then there are the ‘open’ threads where debate tactics are even less reserved). In these threads, almost all the Christian participants (almost, not all) are able to exchange their religious views (many of them very deeply held convictions) without resorting to calling each other liars. Almost all the science advocates (almost, not all) who haunt these threads not only resort to calling their opponents liars, they use the appellation as a common debating tactic. You should understand that when you come on this site hurling “liar!’ right and left like a drunken cowboy shooting up the town on a Saturday night, you immediately mark yourself as a rhetorical gunslinger. You’re as easy to spot as one of the seminar callers on Rush’s talkshow.
What BroJoe realizes or doesn't realize remains to be seen. Perhaps we will find out. Perhaps not.
Maybe that's why it has become so fashionable to try to "kill" God lately: Bump off God, and then man is the measure.
But that would be to "kill" the measure on which the order of the universe, not to mention human rationality utterly, completely depends.
I gather that many of our most fashionable contemporary thinkers have come to the conclusion that life under God is but a form of slavery. They do not understand that life under God is the ground and guarantee of human liberty itself.
To God be the glory!
No js1138, not "word games," but relentless logic. Do the work.
I asked if you were a Christian, and you asked what difference it makes.
Well, if you are a Christian and you scoff at the idea of Adam and Eve, that means the following:
1. You believe that at least some of the Bible is not only untrue, but wildly so.
2. You believe in a God who refers to a fictional character as a real person when he punishes a nation for despicable behavior. See Hosea 6:6-7.
3. You trust in a Lord who is descened from a fictional character—See Luke 3:38.
4. You trust in a Lord who believed the Adam and Eve fairy tale—see Matthew 19:4.
5. You believe in a religion whose entire core doctrine (the redemption of the sinner through Jesus) depends on a fictional character. See Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15.
6. Most of your faith’s doctrine was first put into print by a guy who believed in the reality of this fictional character, and believed it so firmly that he based instruction on how to run a church on this fictional character’s experience. See not only the Romans and Corinthians verses referenced above, but the reference to Adam in 1 Timothy 2.
Let me make it clear that I am a Christian and I believe Adam and Eve were real, but I also believe that if they weren’t Christianity is a farce. I don’t know if you’re a Christian, but if you are you’ve been (according to your own standards) engaging in farcical behavior and lecturing the rest of us on how stupid we are to NOT engage in a farce.
Are you directing that question to me, dearest hosepipe?
If so, my answer would be: Human beings are not born "machines" seeking to "acquire" a spirit. They are born body and spirit — that is to say, as biological beings possessing soul and reason. They are spiritual beings from the get-go, expressing as a "tension" between body and soul. To be "born again" means (among other things) that soul has taken priority over the governance of bodily existence, with all its often unreasonable demands.
Well, that's just how I think this problem through, FWIW.
I’m still waiting for a response to
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2158462/posts?page=1475#1475
Be patient.
Claiming that the answer of *Goddidit* will squelch scientific pursuit is another evo lie. It just simply is not true and history bears it out. All those scientists from Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, etc on, believed that God was the ultimate cause and even actively played a role in creation even now and it never stopped them from scientific research.
"Recall that one of the hallmarks of science is the ability to hold some variables constant in order to be able to test the role of others. If indeed there is an omnipotent force that intervenes in the material world, by definition it is not possible to control for -- to hold constant -- such actions.
If indeed there is an omnipotent force that intervenes in the material world, then it's going to happen whether the scientist acknowledges it or not. Excluding God isn't going to keep Him from intervening, it's merely going to render the scientist incapable of recognizing it when it happens.
Thanks for the website ref.
So how do you think God planted Adam and Eve here? Did they come BC or AD? How old were they when God plopped them here? Were they causasion? What religion were they? Were they always naked? Straight answers please.
First, tell me if you’re a question who believes in a farce, or a non-Christian.
I’m not reluctant to answer your questions, silly though they are, but I asked you a question first which has still not been answered.
Thanks in advance for your courtesy.
Wow...that’s what I get for typing too fast. Let’s try that again:
First, tell me if you’re a Christian or a non-Christian.
I’m not reluctant to answer your questions, silly though they are, but I asked you a question first which has still not been answered.
Thanks in advance for your courtesy.
So you’ve opted for another bite at the apple?
”. . . if I've said anything you believe untruthful, by all means challenge me support it.”
Now don’t be putting words in my mouth. I intimated that, by your own standard of judgment, you were not being truthful. Apparently you do not apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others, so now you want to wiggle out.
”I think I've been careful to distinguish between facts and my opinions. Facts I can reference, opinions I can explain why.”
You’ve been careful to identify as factual those scientist’s understandings of science that agree with your opinion and to dismiss as mere opinion the concepts of science as applied by Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al. Remarkably, you (a self-proclaimed rank scientific amateur) seem to regard your grasp of science to be superior to many of the most accomplished and distinguished scientists in the world. Explain that glaring discrepancy if you can.
”Our Creationists / IDer's core argument is that science itself is lying to us about evolution.”
Given the chasm existing between what scientists say and what they do and their inability to agree even among themselves exactly how their discipline should be described and defined, is it any wonder that they leave confusion in their wake? You certainly haven’t exercised any great care in familiarizing yourself with how scientists characterize their own discipline.
”Not just that science is mistaken, but that it's actively suppressing "alternate views," in the defense of false evolutionary theories.”
Well, is it (suppressing “alternate views”)? Have you discussed the data and the logic? Or, have you merely cried “liar!” and galloped on down the pike?
”. . . if anti-evolutionists start off calling someone else a liar, then why would they NOT expect to be called liars in return?”
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. There’s plenty of that going around. But who started it is a complicated matter that I don’t think either you or I are ever going to adequately explain or resolve.
”Finally, please note that almost every post I've made here was in response to someone else's post addressed to me.”
Sure. You were minding your own business when all those messages came flying over the transom from people you had never heard of. But, you enjoyed them anyway.
”Obviously, I enjoy these exchanges, or I'd not continue with them. And, I have to assume that people sending posts to me feel the same way about it. Do you disagree?”
I can’t explain people’s motivations. I can’t say I always enjoy these exchanges. I’ve learned a lot.
Exactly.. Born again is a metaphor.. identifing identity..
Meaning do you identify with the flesh or the spirit..
The metamorphosis(evolution) from flesh to spirit.. is metaphorical I think..
Could be "the TEST" of being a human..
Could be we are spirits before we are ever born as humans.. and continue as spirits in the future realm.. The mental test of identity could be important.. How do we "service" this body and the other bodies we are charged with serveing as well.. Because human flesh requires much service.. The test of how we service those in "our kingdoms".. puts our spirits to extreme tests.. How do we husband our service?...
Identity with the flesh or spirit determines worldview..
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
To God be the glory!
Another gem of a comment, but your metaphor is turned around backwards. Here, let's see if I can straighten it out for you... Read the posts on this thread, what do you see?
What I see is a lawless town with a whole bunch of drunken cowboys carousing in saloons and shooting out windows!
Those few brave citizens willing to defend "the law" (of science) have already been shot down, with just a couple of wounded law defenders left standing.
And now, just like the movies, what are the good Christian citizens of our "town" doing? That's right, they are quaking in their boots, hiding behind locked doors, afraid to say anything which might upset the terrorists shooting up their town.
Remember this YHAOS, the vast majority of Christians belong to churches which teach something called "theistic evolutionism," and which I've been trying to defend here. Our outlaws don't hesitate even a second to call this and everything else about science a Big Lie, but you don't want me to ruffle THEIR feathers, do you?
As to just who is the "rhetorical gunslinger," I'd say you pack a good piece yourself, but you are not defending the side of law and order, are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.