Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#13796 01/18/06 02:07 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
"An overwhelming majority of the public supports laws that give patients the right to decide whether they want to be kept alive through medical treatment. And fully 70% say there are circumstances when patients should be allowed to die, while just 22% believe that doctors and nurses should always do everything possible to save a patient. "

Note: Survey is from USA

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=266

This is a fairly long article showing survey results over three decades of polls in the US.

Do we have a right to "die with dignity"?

.
#13797 01/18/06 07:02 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
We say as if there is only one death and only one life.
If suicide is the most likely answer then why do doctors recommend drugs.
Suffering the pain may not be answer always and it is a personal choice.
Having said that ,a forced verdict always brings more its liablity on the owner.
Btw if there is an option why are we recommending it to so many.
May be its the failure of Science to find a way out and may be it lacks some basic fundamental understaning of the human nature itself.

#13798 01/18/06 05:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Every situation is different and we should always keep quality of life in mind. Plus, keep in mind the people who are being left behind. Are they ready to let go?
I bet many families and doctors follow their gut feeling...what "feels right" for the individual.
I'm surprised the survey was 70% to 22%.....I wish it were more like 90% to 2%.


~Justine~
#13799 01/19/06 04:46 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Ok .. thats fine as a quick fix.But let me tell you there are situations where mass murder is voluntarily accepted.As an adult one has every right to decide about his or her fate but as a King I refuse to let my Audience die:-)) Learn to put yourself in the God's Shoes. He has a definite purpose for our existence and those who follow it are the real carriers of his next dream.

#13800 01/19/06 07:04 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
So we are all expendable. What a warm cuddly thought from the all-loving, all-knowing, paternalistic father figure who invented AIDS.

And what precisely is that dream.

To enjoy the suffering of innocent new-born children? To create imperfect beings and torment them? Or just to be the most vile, ugly, genocidal maniac imaginable?


DA Morgan
#13801 01/19/06 07:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Well the people that came up with the idea of ruling the world with fear obviously couldn't make god a nice-guy now could they.

#13802 01/20/06 07:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Not much difference between the fear-mongers of old and the present: Whether bush or Bush.


DA Morgan
#13803 01/21/06 03:53 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Weapons of mass destruction may soon become our new god.

#13804 01/21/06 05:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Think of all the time spent praying that they won't land on your head versus actually doing something about them.

And when they are used the following will be their hypocritical reactions:
1. X% will praise god that they were spared.
2. X% will fault god for not stopping their use.
3. X% will claim god is on their side seeking revenge.
4. X% will claim god has forsaken them in their hour of need.

When in truth humans will have once again behaved badly and suffered the consequences of their own inability to face up to reality. Remember the old Pogo cartoon? "We have met the enemy and it is us." It is about time we, as a species faced reality. There was more truth, more wisdom, and more integrity in a Pogo cartoon than in all the books, verses, prayers, and inanity of all of the world's religions combined.


DA Morgan
#13805 01/21/06 07:36 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Can we have a seperate board for bashing the evil religious scum-people?

We could call it:

'Not Quite Scum' (but as near as a human can get). - This is the place where a little tolerance is far too much.

Blacknad.

#13806 01/22/06 06:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad ... if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen ... or perhaps pray that god will smite me ... he seems to love killing those that disagree with him.

Anyway here's the definition of this forum:
Where did the Universe come from? Are we all simply software running on a giant computer? Is there a supreme being?

Note the final sentence. I'm on topic if if the invisible purple rhinoceros doesn't like it he can come down here and look me in the eye if he's the courage to crawl out from behind his stage props.


DA Morgan
#13807 01/22/06 04:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Point taken. And I concede that you are pointing out problems and asking questions that, it seems to me, almost all Christians have never considered in detail, and I have come to a position where I respect your straight forward thinking and your no nonsense approach to life.

I sadly rated you low because of your harshness when I first came here and have regretted it - I think it's a travesty that you and Uncle Al can be rated so low, and I am at four stars on a science forum. It would be best to do away with it and just have a crackpot rating instead so people could easily recognise those who don't think or those like HarriusChristus who think they are Christ reborn.


(Dan, I have just finished this and it?s long ? if you don?t have the time to give it I can?t blame you ? but these things are beyond a yes/no answer).

You have shot through all the tosh and grasped the heart of the matter - "Would a God create people who he foreknew would perpetrate such great evil , knowing also that the majority of them would end up in Hell?"

Most Christians I know are unable to answer this question effectively, and I think many would have their faith rocked or possibly destroyed if they were forced to confront it head on.

It is a question that has certain assumptions (like the nature & permanence of Hell) and relies heavily on not including the possibility that God has something he is achieving on an eternal scale that somehow has the ability to mitigate all suffering by eventually restoring all to him and bringing all to a position of restoration (the teachings of universalism). A question there, is ? ?is it is necessary to allow people to exercise their free will (with all of the crap that entails), so they can freely choose and work through the question of whether they want to be in relationship with their creator or not??

The question of whether it is possible to create people with free-will who will only do good may be a logical nonsense. As in the question, ?can God create a rock he cannot lift?? The Christian faith believes that all things are possible with God ? but this is just a statement of faith and not a philosophical imperative. Some things are obviously not possible with God because they are simply not possible per se, like the rock, or the unstoppable force that meets an immoveable object. Maybe creating sentient free willed creatures that do not commit evil acts is also of this order. Maybe there is something essentially inherent in created sentient beings that makes them protectionist and self serving. ? just a thought.

On any level your question is problematic and I can understand the issue you would have with anyone abandoning their reason and simply saying that 'we don't know but trust that God is good and He will make sense of it all eventually'. I also find this response to be an abdication of responsibility.

I am spending much time thinking through the question and that entails gathering all of the relevant factors and working through any assumptions it may contain.

For example: it seems to me that the most insidious outcome of evil is suffering. As I was thinking this through I came to the conclusion that suffering is a temporal issue. I am taking the liberty of thinking about this in an abstract nature ? separate from the issue that if suffering is downgraded, then religion may be pernicious and dangerous because it has the potential not to lift a finger to help those who suffer ?because God will make it better and after all, it isn?t as bad as you think it is? ? and besides, this is countered in Christianity by our clear understanding that we should do all we can for those in any kind of need.

But the fact remains, (and Aramanth if you read this, I hope you understand what I am really trying to say, because I know your suffering almost knows no bounds, and I am not making light of it ?here and now?, and realise that for you and many people, it may not be over while you are alive), that when pain is over, it is over. I have suffered from back pain from time to time and have experienced excruciating, thought stopping pain, where the only option was to collapse on the floor in public and try not to breathe because every breath was more than I could endure. But now I sit here and I?m completely unaffected by it. I don?t even have a clear memory of it, in the sense that I could not relive it or come close to experiencing the feeling of it.

So from an eternal perspective, (and I hesitate to say it, and will ready myself for your wrath), suffering is temporary and if seen from anything other than a time-bound perspective, becomes a completely different animal, and the growth of character, experience, even appreciation of a pain free state of existence, becomes more understandable in context.

I am not making an argument that this is indeed the case, but I am trying to show that the argument that the idea of a god who allows evil, is in fact a tyrant and in no sense could be considered good ? is not a value free proposition and comes dependent on certain assumptions. It fails to take into account that God?s interaction with us is relational and is headed somewhere, and is not just a simply defined ?if then? argument. It also cannot, by definition, accept the eternal into the debate, and therefore cannot see how the eternal nature of things could effect the sense of the argument.

The same can be said of your comparison of Christ? suffering with that of someone dying of cancer. If we accept that Christ?s only suffering was physical and psychological then you are spot on ? a couple of hours is an insult to those that suffer with real protracted suffering. But whilst ?The Passion of the Christ? may be solely about Christ?s physical and emotional suffering, it says nothing about what it means for a creator to put himself in the hands of his creation and encounter such a merciless end by being cursed and nailed to a cross. It says nothing about what goes on behind the scenes and whether a God pays a price that we know nothing of to take all sin on himself.
If a triune God cuts off a part of itself, (the cry from the cross, why have you forsaken me?), then can we even pretend to begin to understand the ramifications? There may even be a price that has to be exacted at some level beyond our fathoming for allowing evil to enter into existence. I know I am truly extending myself beyond all reason here, and I am trying to talk about things when I don?t even have a hook to hang them on. Heck, if I can?t understand Uncle Al or you sometimes, I have no problem believing that there may be concepts here that could be true, but beyond the grasp of my simple head.

Regarding the tyrannical, bloodthirsty nature of God in his dealings with us ? this also needs examining. One of my questions here is an extension of your, ?Why the hell did he create us then?? and it?s, ?Why doesn?t he destroy us all as a job gone wrong and either start again or give it all up?? Why would he show mercy to anyone when we are essentially self serving, and like Agent Smith says in the Matrix, - ?humanity is a disease organism that would replicate uncontrollably to destroy their environment?.

So I am still looking into your question and I can?t say it doesn?t make me feel uncomfortable. I will continue until it resolves itself one way or another.

Regards,

Blacknad.

#13808 01/22/06 08:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Read every sentence of it ... and here are my thoughts. Oh and don't worry about the ratings. I have many faults. Not one of them relates to insecurity.

======================================
"Most Christians I know are unable to answer this question effectively, and I think many would have their faith rocked or possibly destroyed if they were forced to confront it head on.

It is a question that has certain assumptions (like the nature & permanence of Hell) and relies heavily on not including the possibility that God has something he is achieving on an eternal scale that somehow has the ability to mitigate all suffering by eventually restoring all to him and bringing all to a position of restoration"

Rep: Lets assume there is some grand design ... some grand plan ... some wonderful fantasy life where I get all of my dreams fulfilled in the end.

What does this have to do with the suffering of newborn innocent children? Is the creator of the universe so totally lacking in creativity he couldn't have kept the snake out of the garden?

The answer is clearly that (A) he put the snake there, (B) he put the apple there, (C) he knew in advance that failure was inevitable, and (D) he did nothing to alter the outcome.

Quotation from Gen 3:3: "But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Thus you have an acknowledgement that the set up was divinely inspired with both malice and aforethought."

We need a heavy dose of reality here so here it is: It was not Adam and Eve that introduced evil into the garden. They were not responsible by any stretch of anyone's imagination for the situation in which they found themselves. There were in the truest sense of the word victims.

So restoration at a later date is a dodge for the commission of the original crime. No snake ... no evil ... no need for the mindless suffering of newborn innocent children.

"The question of whether it is possible to create people with free-will who will only do good may be a logical nonsense. As in the question, ?can God create a rock he cannot lift??"

Rep: I disagree. The second question is certainly mental gymnastics but the first is not. Creating people with free will was a choice. It was not the only choice. And the choice had to come with a full knowledge of the consequences and still that decision was made. Well fine ... we have a free-will. Does that mean our brains have to be brains capable of vengence and hate? I don't know ... has a Gorilla or an Orang. But step-away from the free-will argument and how do you explain the creation of malaria? Want to tackle leukemia? Want to take a shot at smallpox? They are not the result of any human's free-will.

"it seems to me that the most insidious outcome of evil is suffering."

Rep: Have you ever had a kidney stone? Suffering without evil wouldn't you say? Who put those nerve endings there and to what end? A conscious decision by an intelligent designer?

My point here is that you need to look at the entire universe of issues not just a single one. This is not just about human behavior and free-will. It is not just about disease. It is not just about an authorless intentionally mistranslated inconsistent book. You need to take all of the issues and have a consisten view that covers them all.

All of the heaven and hell, if they exist, are irrelevant to the one year old child that dies from malaria: And to its parents. What reward does the child reap in some theoretical paradise after-the-fact for a meaningless life filled with pain and suffering? And yet if you want to posit a sentient deity you MUST posit that malaria was created with purpose and I would presume malice.

Look at the reality of life on this planet in the year 2006. We have eradicated smallpox. We have removed one facet of creation from any and all existance. We have eliminated suffering and pain imposed by a god. Is the universe shaken from its foundation by the elimination of smallpox? Has the sky fallen? No! So the truth is that the universe could have been created without smallpox. Smallpox never needed to exist. And yet it did. How can you reconcile immense human suffering caused by smallpox, eliminated by human scientists and physicians, that had been created by a loving, caring god? It just doesn't work.

"I am not making an argument that this is indeed the case, but I am trying to show that the argument that the idea of a god who allows evil, is in fact a tyrant and in no sense could be considered good ? is not a value free proposition and comes dependent on certain assumptions."

Rep: I will grant this. But again you are focusing on a single facet of the problem: Human induced evil. Expand your thinking. What would happen to this planet if humans were wiped out and all other life forms left to do as they please? Give it some serious 21st century thought removed from the thinking of our primitive stone-aged ancestors. We are not necessary. The moon would not fall from the sky. The galaxy would not stop spinning.

"But whilst ?The Passion of the Christ? may be solely about Christ?s physical and emotional suffering, it says nothing about what it means for a creator to put himself in the hands of his creation and encounter such a merciless end by being cursed and nailed to a cross."

Rep: But this isn't true. Is is quite obviously not true. Consider for a minute that we are talking about the very same god that created the entire universe. The very same god that brought the flood of Noah and the plagues upon Egypt. Put himself at their mercy? Hardly. He could have, at any instant, turned Jerusalem, the Roman empire, the entire planet into a glowing cinder. To deny this to him is to deny the rest of the story. You can't have it both ways.

And lets also tackle the remaining hypocrisy in this story while we are at it. It is not just inconceivable ... it is logically impossible based on the story's moral ... that he didn't know the outcome before impregnating Mary. So what we have here is the intentional impregnation of a woman with the known and required outcome being a crucifixion. I wonder whether there was a sign hung up in heaven saying "Mission Accomplished."

Assume the above is true and god had a choice ... sacrifice for a few hours of suffering a single half-man-half-god or cure smallpox.
Choices ... choices. Just the gift of penicillin would have done more to help mankind were that the aim.

But when all is said and done here's what we have. We have a god who is so incapable of love, so incapable of compassion, so incapable of behaving in a civilized and humanitarian way that he chooses, from an infinite number of possibilities, to create suffering (Jesus's in this case) rather than aleviate it. Chooses to create pain rather than end it. Chooses an act that launches the Crusades, the war of the Roses, the Inquisition, and Anti-semitism rather than an act that would demonstrate how human's should behave toward each other.

If that god wanted my respect ... he should have gotten off his lazy ass and saved the innocent people he drowned as his Christmas present to Indonesia in 2004. Maybe not the evil ones ... just the innocent children. Then I too would believe: Even apologize. But we both know that it will never happen. Tidal waves will kill the innocent, earthquakes will crush the helpless, and malaria will continue to destroy lives that could have had meaning.

Yes tyranical and bloodthirsty: The shoe fits! But lets also add vengeful, insecure, and with the behaviour of a spoiled child throwing a tantrum.


DA Morgan
#13809 01/24/06 02:06 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Dan,

Thanks for the response - You raise some exceptionally difficult issues and I appreciate being challenged to think through the implications of what I believe. I made the mistake in my early contact with you of allowing myself to react defensively and just blather out the pat defences without really closely examining them.

I am no longer content to do this, but need to approach your objections systematically. These issues are not about theology really, but are the philosophy of theology - in effect, 'where does theology lead me?'

I made the mistake of posting a hefty response and then you had to follow suite. I am a little worried about exhausting the goodness of the moderators with all of these long posts on a site about science. Like you, I deeply appreciate SAGG and I don't want to abuse it.

However, I feel the need to continue debating with you - there are things I need to work out and see where they take me. I can't just abandon my faith, just like that, because you raise some seemingly fundamental problems with it. My whole life experience has brought me to this point and there is so much that makes sense for me, and this is tied in with my experience of Christ's interaction with my life and of those around me. And this is of a completely different order to those who suffer Schizophrenia - I know the difference.

So I cannot jettison what I believe without very good cause, but believe me, if there is in fact no divine purpose to my life, I don't want to be under the impression that there is one.

But some of the things you raise don't seem to be definitive. For example you said:

"We need a heavy dose of reality here so here it is: It was not Adam and Eve that introduced evil into the garden. They were not responsible by any stretch of anyone's imagination for the situation in which they found themselves. There were in the truest sense of the word victims."

I cannot help but think here that in one sense you are right, (about who introduced evil - after all, it is clear that God allowed the 'serpent' (symbology, I think) into the garden. But I think this is really only about the issue of choice.
Effectively we have an entity that creates people, (through natural processes) that in some way he wants to be in relationship with, and needs to give them a choice as to whether they want that or not. So instead of just asking them, which wouldn't get to the point, he gives them a clear choice and intends afterwards to show them the ramifications of that choice. So it becomes - "as you can see, I have your good at heart - you can see what I have provided for you here, but there is something I am asking you not to do. You must now decide whether you will trust what I say or whether you will rely upon your own reasoning (and limited understanding) and choose something contrary."

The serpent's part in this - to facilitate a real choice - it represented the other side of the argument. It seems that God was only being fair here. Could a real choice have been made without the serpent? It seems to me that with only one view, a choice could not be freely made.

So God will have known the outcome and it might seem to have been stacked against humanity, but at the moment the choice was made, it was an informed decision freely made. And it was not complicated by the results being known - they were not forced to choose God's way through fear of what their choice would mean. The question was simply - will you trust me or not? Or will you reject me or not?

They were fully responsible for their choice, they could have chosen either way, God knew they would make the choice they did - but this does not mean the choice wasn't theirs. They were not victims if it was a freely made choice.

So from what I can make out:

?It was not Adam and Eve that introduced evil into the garden.?

- Maybe not ? but they chose to reject God.

?They were not responsible by any stretch of anyone's imagination for the situation in which they found themselves.?

- True. They did not ask to be placed in this situation. But they were responsible for the choice they made.

?They were in the truest sense of the word victims.?

- Only if we assume that God made it impossible for them to choose other than they did.


Whether Christians believe this was a literal happening or a myth designed to teach us something about what humanity has chosen in relationship to God, it seems clear to me that it can be viewed from very different perspectives.


I would appreciate your feedback and would like to continue debating.

I would like to set up a web log and take the debate there if you had time ? that way I could stop polluting SAGG with non-science and avoid the appearance of trying to preach.

Blacknad.

#13810 01/24/06 03:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
"I made the mistake in my early contact with you of allowing myself to react defensively and just blather out the pat defences without really closely examining them."

I know and I reacted accordingly. Now you are engaged in an intellectual pursuit and my responses change accordingly.

"So I cannot jettison what I believe without very good cause, but believe me, if there is in fact no divine purpose to my life, I don't want to be under the impression that there is one."

One of the best statements so far. What is critical is to apply effort to thinking through your prejudices and beliefs and the willingness to be objective.

"I cannot help but think here that in one sense you are right, (about who introduced evil - after all, it is clear that God allowed the 'serpent' (symbology, I think) into the garden. But I think this is really only about the issue of choice.
...
So instead of just asking them, which wouldn't get to the point, he gives them a clear choice and intends afterwards to show them the ramifications of that choice."

But this is not what happened. He gave them a choice knowing for a fact the choice they would make: How could he not? But lets assume he didn't for sake of argument. They make a choice. But he too is freedom of choice as to how to deal with their choice. What choice does he make? Is it a choice that is visited not just upon Adam and Eve but also upon every generation thereafter? Is that fair? Is that just? What would you say today if you were in a situation where, should you make a mistake, your daughter would be made to pay the ultimate price? And her children? And their chidlren? Not a happy thought.

You seem to assume in your serpent arguments that a choice was required? Why? Weren't Adam and Eve living a perfect life before the apple, the serpent, and the tree were introduced, consciously, into their environment? Who introduced them? Why were they introduced? Couldn't Adam and Eve have been given a choice between Coke and Pepsi? Light beer or dark? Single malt or blended? Motzart or Bach? Why couldn't/didn't the creator leave well enough alone? He'd already looked at his creation and said he was happy with it (day 6) why did he feel compelled to screw it up? I know why I might but then I don't claim to be god. And if god is as flawed as I am I've no use for him.

"?It was not Adam and Eve that introduced evil into the garden.?

- Maybe not ? but they chose to reject God."

Ooh this is a touchy one. This is where the spoiled-child ego thing is introduced. Did you stop loving your daughter when she made a single big mistake? Did you throw her out of the house? Visit upon her and her offspring diseases and hardship? So why is a story in which god does this excusable when any human doing it would be locked up for child abuse? What the story really says is ... speaking from god's point-of-view ... you do something I don't approve of, you don't show me respect, you don't worship me, and I'm going to kick your sorry bottom for generations yet to be born. Why do you think I refer to the biblical god as acting like a spoiled child? This is the behaviour of a schoolyard bully.

"They were in the truest sense of the word victims.?

- Only if we assume that God made it impossible for them to choose other than they did."

But isn't that the case? The choice was to do nothing or do something. And they had all of eternity in which to make the mistake based upon their nature. A nature defined by their creator. Would you expect a cat not to try to catch a mouse? Of course not? Because you are smart enough to know that this is the way it is wired. If I design something I know how it will behave. I can not shirk reponsibility. I can't say gee I didn't know the 2 kilos of plutonium would go boom.

"Whether Christians believe this was a literal happening or a myth"

Lets assume it is literal fact. What is the consequence? Lets assume it is allegorical story. What is the consequence?

If any part of allegory then who determines what is fact and what is allegory? The priest? The rabbi? The Imam? And who among them is without fault? And if it is allegory then who is to interpret the meaning? And who appoints the interpreter?

I, for example, interpret the story of Genesis to mean "I, god, am the biggest baddest .... in the universe and what angers me more than anything else is people that don't worship me even while I ignore them and their needs." Who's to say I am wrong.

I vote against the weblog unless Kate, Rose, or Rusty wants us to move elsewhere as this is possibly the first meaningful discussion of this subject ever in SAGG and I've no doubt there are a lot of lurkers out there hanging on this to see where it ends.

If they do decide we should move elsewhere then just email me directly.


DA Morgan
#13811 01/24/06 04:29 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I can't answer for Kate or Rusty, but I have no problem with it as long as it remains polite and respectful. I'm enjoying the show.

#13812 01/24/06 05:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
That's as I expected and as it will remain if no third party tries to jump in and can't abide by the nature of the discussion. Please do as you can to keep any third parties from committing acts of intellectual terrorism. Thanks.


DA Morgan
#13813 01/24/06 02:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
What if the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical for the time when evolution produced the thinking creature? We seperated (or were seperated) in a sense from the whole. That would be when we started "perceiving" Evil and God. Before that we were in the garden because we didn't "think" about our individuality.


~Justine~
#13814 01/24/06 08:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk wrote: "Intellectual terrorism - Wow ; As if the rest are idiots."

Not the rest ... just a few ... please seek professional help.

Justine wrote: "What if the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical for the time when evolution produced the thinking creature?"

Please take the time to read Genesis before commenting upon it. Where is there even a single reference to new age nonsense? There is nothing in Genesis that supports any of your suppositions. You might as well have written "What if it is about making lemonade when you are dealt lemons."

My apology Blacknad ... I should have never given voice to my concern about this thread staying clean. It was an open invitation to those who are hard of thinking. But please continue and lets hope they will go back to being lurkers or learn to apply some effort to staying on-topic. Thanks.


DA Morgan
#13815 01/24/06 10:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Cheers DA,

It's no problem, there are things I need to do before I post again on this.

I'm reading the book of Jasher and looking at its history - also trying to understand the whole issue of the Islamic scholars because it seems to me that they had as much of an axe to grind as anyone else, - and researching the relationship between the Epic of Gigamesh and the Torah.

Every single issue you bring up seems to require a disproportionate amount of time to research/understand.

Thank goodness for Google - I can't help but wonder what it now means for humanity to be able to reference all collected knowledge. And the internet - the way Kartoun can reach out from Israel and just ask people if they have ideas to contribute to his work on robotics - how very small the world is becoming. It's incredible.

It seems to me that the rate of progress increases exponentially from here on in.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5