What we must accept if we accept evolution

Not to be picky I hope, but strictly speaking, the spiritual is no less natural than the physical. It's another part of nature, part of the created order. Strictly speaking, although informally we refer to the spiritual realms, angels and demons and so on, as "supernatural," the only thing that is truly supernatural (above nature, above Creation) is God Himself. Your point is still valid though, as far as I can see. Nobody has yet made a believable case for sentient spirit's derivation from matter.

It's not a thought? How can that be? Aren't we using the term in its most general sense to refer to what the mind does? It thinks. That includes deductions. We're also using "mind" in the very broad sense of including all the incorporeal parts of our selves. The *I* or the self or the soul. It also includes imaginations and daydreams and whimsies. All these things are "thoughts" in the general sense it's been used in this thread. Or so I thought. Anyway, how does it make sense to talk of an "action" that has no physicality, no impact on physicality, no substance, no body, no extension in space, no identifiable existence in itself except through recognition by other sentient beings? What does it act upon? It seems to me this idea does violence to language and to sanity. What is the source of this idea? Parasomnium said something similar, but it just makes no sense.Never mind. I just blurted this out, but I'm going to bow out of this thread as it's getting close to the end -- except eventually to answer some posts that were addressed to me earlier.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-27-2006 07:06 PM

Thinking is not synonymous with the activity of neurons no matter how consistently that activity can be found accompanying thinking. This is nonsense, nwr. The term "thought" is necessary to describe the experience we all have of thinking thoughts, not an invention to meet the needs of language. Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need. Nobody gives a rap about the "needs of language" for pete's sake. If it doesn't serve our practical needs, begone with it.But I said I wouldn't answer. I've got to stop making promises.

I haven't claimed it occurs without neuronal activity. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Why don't you read the thread for a change, Schraf?

"What is involved with thinking other than neuronal activity" would be a rabbit trail at this point in the thread, which you ought to know if you really have read it. It didn't appear you had the slightest idea what is on the thread. However I apologize if I am wrong about that. Nevertheless I don't want to go down this trail.

I understand. I just felt obligated to make the academic point from a Christian point of view.

Thank you. It IS blasphemy. A major tenet of the faith is that it is GIVEN to us for NO merit of our own. There's nothing better about any of us than any unbeliever. In fact Jesus called us the "offscouring of the world." The dregs.We just want you saved WITH us. Actually both Moses and Paul said they wished they could give up their salvation for the sake of the unbelieving people, if it meant they could be saved in their place.

Many of us have doubts about our salvation. Falling into sin certainly produces doubts. But there's nothing humble about such doubts. John in particular writes that he is giving us the foundations for knowing we are saved. We are exhorted to test ourselves to be sure we are saved. The term "cocksure" doesn't apply in any case, but "assurance of salvation" is definitely biblical and highly desirable.

You think right.

Probably but I have to be careful about that. She had no cause for doubt, as one in sin has. I'd have to think about it more.

'Course there is this little problem with sin that it has a way of dulling you spiritually so you start rationalizing it away

Not getting anything Ian. But I'm trying to learn how to be in Chat and on the board at the same time and keep booting myself off the internet and driving jar and Asgara nuts. Na, they're patient. But that may be why I can't get it.

THAT is on topic?abe:Sorry, I'll be good. No more post wasting.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 01:55 PM

Amazing what can be said with a straight face.This OUGHT to be lines for a comic routine.I guess we can learn to accept anything if we work at it.Reminds me of a little comedy routine a friend would do -- Variations on behavioristic desensitization routines, for instance as applied to Fear of Driving -- or fear of having an accident while driving.

quote:

---

...now imagine you are getting your speed up to fifty, good, good, breathe deeply, relax .. now sixty... fine, you're doing very well, just remember to relax and breathe deeply... Now I want you to imagine the brake giving out... that's just a little hard, isn't it, but you got this far last time, so just relax, relax, good, good. Try it again. Picture the car, hear the hum of the engine, see the tractor trailer jackknife across your lane. Doing MUCH better with that. Feel the brake pedal giving way under your foot ... just let it go, breathe deeply. Steering to avoid the pile-up... Now the car is leaving the highway... good good ...and now you can see the concrete wall coming up fast ... good good, you're doing very well... and now that is the engine hurtling toward you through the dash board...

---

I'm sure it was funnier the way he did it. But all this insistence that the principles of evolution don't diminish us as human beings, how we just have to learn to take comfort and pride in our place in "an extensive and ancient gene pool" reminds me of the same kind of thinking.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 04:44 PM