Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 8:04 AM
36 online now:
caffeine, Heathen, Hyroglyphx, Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD, Stile, Theodoric (8 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,795 Year: 9,831/19,786 Month: 2,253/2,119 Week: 289/724 Day: 14/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   What isn't natural?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 46 of 58 (419175)
09-01-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Fosdick
09-01-2007 11:49 AM


Re: Absolutely relative
Hoot Mon:
You're probably right. One summer long ago at a YMCA camp in Michigan we did an experiment. One cabin of ten boys sat outside in a circle without their shirts on and prayed to God that the mosquitos would not bite them.

That's fascinating (regardless of the results)...

Why would the camp leaders do that? Or was it the kids Idea?

Either way, consider:

Matthew 5:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 11:49 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 7:21 PM Rob has responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4087 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 47 of 58 (419178)
09-01-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Fosdick
09-01-2007 11:49 AM


Re: Absolutely relative
Hoot Man writes:

You're probably right. One summer long ago at a YMCA camp in Michigan we did an experiment. One cabin of ten boys sat outside in a circle without their shirts on and prayed to God that the mosquitos would not bite them. Another cabin of ten boys sat outside in a circle without their shirts on and didn't pray for anything, they just sang "A Hundred Bottles of Beer On The Wall."

After one hour of this we all went inside and counted our mosuito bites. What were the results? Mosquito bites all around—those little dipterans cared neither for God nor for statistics, and drinking songs made no difference either.

This is absolutely hilarious! Thanks for sharing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 11:49 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 1:56 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 48 of 58 (419200)
09-01-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by iceage
09-01-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Absolutely relative
Iceage:
This is absolutely hilarious! Thanks for sharing it.

This is funnier IMHO: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=461&m=45#44 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=461&m=45#44">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=461&m=45#44

Just think how annoyed we are already when around people who are healthier than we. Their innocence and childishness is revolting because we are corrupt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by iceage, posted 09-01-2007 12:40 PM iceage has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 49 of 58 (419241)
09-01-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
09-01-2007 12:32 PM


Re: Absolutely relative
Rob's Scripture lesson:

Matthew 5:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

But did't Jesus test God when he said in Mathew 10:34-35:

quote:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father...
What does this mean? Is it relative or absolute? If it is absolutely true that Jesus said this, then why do they call him the Prince of Peace? Or is that just a relative term, according to the absolute spin you put on it?

Mother Nature seems more consistent to me than the Son of God.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 12:32 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 7:33 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 7:40 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 11:47 AM Fosdick has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 50 of 58 (419245)
09-01-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
09-01-2007 7:21 PM


Re: Absolutely relative
Hoot Mon:
But did't Jesus test God when he said in Mathew 10:34-35:

quote:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father...

What does this mean? Is it relative or absolute? If it is absolutely true that Jesus said this, then why do they call him the Prince of Peace? Or is that just a relative term, according to the absolute spin you put on it?

You tell me Hoot Mon... He also said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me'.

He spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1+1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 etc. To attempt such is to eat the fruit of ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Jesus said, ‘Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division’ (Luke 12:51). The truth always divides and separates truth from fiction. The honest from the dishonest...

John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.

Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.

Matthew 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 7:21 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 51 of 58 (419247)
09-01-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
09-01-2007 7:21 PM


Re: Absolutely relative
delete

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 7:21 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 52 of 58 (419514)
09-03-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
09-01-2007 7:21 PM


Re: Absolutely relative
Hoot Mon:
What does this mean? Is it relative or absolute? If it is absolutely true that Jesus said this, then why do they call him the Prince of Peace? Or is that just a relative term, according to the absolute spin you put on it?

I doubt I answered your question to your satisfaction, so I wanted another stab at sharing my... spin.

Why do they call Him the prince of peace?

Well, because He boldly proclained the truth of how peace with God can be achieved. And His was a one-way street. That's why they crucified Him. But the irony is that that is exactly how He brought peace. He said Himself that He had come to die for our sins, and had come for judgement (not to judge, but for judgement).

He forced Himself into our lives and we have to judge Him. He didn't leave us the option of being undecided. Before we die, we must judge Him one way or the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 7:21 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Fosdick, posted 09-03-2007 12:01 PM Rob has responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 53 of 58 (419521)
09-03-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rob
09-03-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Absolutely relative
Rob, you wrote:

Why do they call Him the prince of peace?

Well, because He boldly proclained the truth of how peace with God can be achieved. And His was a one-way street. That's why they crucified Him. But the irony is that that is exactly how He brought peace. He said Himself that He had come to die for our sins, and had come for judgement (not to judge, but for judgement).

He forced Himself into our lives and we have to judge Him. He didn't leave us the option of being undecided. Before we die, we must judge Him one way or the other.


Try to comprehend this, Rob, please. What you are saying is a matter of faith & belief. OK? Why must you continue to insist that your beliefs are the ONLY true ones?

This is the zenith of arrogance!

Look, you are violating a simple principle that is relevant to this thread. You insist that you know what is absolutely true. But most of us here know that you don't. I insist that neither of us knows what is absolutely true, and that both of us dabble only in what is relative to something else.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 11:47 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 12:13 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 54 of 58 (419528)
09-03-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fosdick
09-03-2007 12:01 PM


Re: Absolutely relative
I take it that my answer was not satisfactory... perhaps I should move on...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fosdick, posted 09-03-2007 12:01 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 58 (419718)
09-04-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
09-01-2007 10:50 AM


Re: Nature is unconscious...Wha?
What do you mean when you say that something does not exist ontologically?

Santa Claus, Tinker Bell, and the Easter Bunny do exist ontologically—they have no empirical being-ness. God fits in there, too.

What is empirical being-ness?

But genes, populations, species, and biospheres are all naturally ontological, like rocks, stars, and gravity.

What is the empirical being-ness of a rock?

Sounds like worthless mumbo-jumbo to me.

And I suppose "transubstantiation of the Eucharist" is worthwhile mumbo-jumbo?

No, that is magic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 09-01-2007 10:50 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 09-04-2007 1:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 56 of 58 (419724)
09-04-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Nature is unconscious...Wha?
CS, you wrote:

What is the empirical being-ness of a rock?

You'd have to ask a rock. But I know this much: if I picked up a rock and threw it through your window you would provide all the empirical evidence needed to prove its being-ness. But if I threw a prayer or a hex through your window your would probably not even notice.

Sounds like worthless mumbo-jumbo to me.

And I suppose "transubstantiation of the Eucharist" is worthwhile mumbo-jumbo?

No, that is magic.


Well, I suppose one person's worthless mumbo-jumbo is another's holy sacrament. To some people the Second Law is worthless mumbo-jumbo and entropy has no empirical being-ness. Who's to say what is ontological and what is not?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2007 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2007 1:34 PM Fosdick has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 58 (419728)
09-04-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
09-04-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Nature is unconscious...Wha?
What is the empirical being-ness of a rock?

You'd have to ask a rock.

Rocks can't talk. So basically you're saying that you don't know. I guess that means that ontology is, in fact, bullshit.

But I know this much: if I picked up a rock and threw it through your window you would provide all the empirical evidence needed to prove its being-ness.

Are you equating being-ness with physical properties? Why not just say "physical properties"?

But if I threw a prayer or a hex through your window your would probably not even notice.

Prayers and hexes don't have physical properties, so..... what?

Sounds like worthless mumbo-jumbo to me.

And I suppose "transubstantiation of the Eucharist" is worthwhile mumbo-jumbo?

No, that is magic.


Well, I suppose one person's worthless mumbo-jumbo is another's holy sacrament. To some people the Second Law is worthless mumbo-jumbo and entropy has no empirical being-ness.

Now what the hell are you getting on about?

This:

quote:
that the evolutionary domain he calls “Bios” is seamless and continuous with its corollary “Technos,” both of which are characterized by a kind of emergent property he calls “hive mind.”

is certainly mumbo-jumbo.

Who's to say what is ontological and what is not?

I have no idea. But I think its bologna so I don't really care. What do YOU think is so special about it?

From Message 32

Hoot Mon writes:

OK, I’ll agree that religions exist. But what they stand for does not exist, at least not ontologically.

Do you think that the only things that can exist are those that exist ontologically?

But wait.... you don't even know what ontological means. Oh well, try to answer anyways please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 09-04-2007 1:24 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Fosdick, posted 09-04-2007 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 58 of 58 (419731)
09-04-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Nature is unconscious...Wha?
Do you think that the only things that can exist are those that exist ontologically?

No. I'll admit that my use of the term ontology may be be off the mark for a generalization to rocks. I would do better just to differentiate between what "exists" on principles of faith alone and what "exists" on evidentiary principles.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2007 1:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019