Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:49:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5313 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> The nature of Jesus: God or man? Man or God? The early church struggled with
> this question and came up with a seemingly impossible conclusion: fully man AND
> fully God. The meaning or understanding of this is impossible and has led to
> many different ideas on the perception of Jesus' nature. And then throw the
> Holy Spirit into the fray, and you get a triune God, a concept for some to be
> heresy as polytheistic. Theology, for the most part, bores me and I don't
> dwell on it too much. I try not to get too bogged down in belief systems-- too
> often they cause more harm than good.
>
> To me, a Christian is one who acknowledges that Jesus is the Messiah of the
> Jews from the God of the Jews and is Lord of their life. This means that that
> person dedicates their life to living in accordance with Jesus' teachings, and
> proclaims the Good News which Jesus taught.
Ahhhh. Interesting. Then it is irrelevant whether you accept Christ as God
(avatar of God?) in relation to whether you are a Christian or not? That's
my own opinion, but I suspect the majority of those that describe themselves
as Christians would not agree with that.
>
> > Even if you
> > don't care to articulate it that way, it would be entirely consistent with
> > your belief in Creationism, which likewise sticks to its dogmatic guns
> > despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
>
> Come on, Dave. The evidence *for* evolution is so circumspect yet you believe
> it because it is the *only* explanation you can scientifically come up with!
> And since the existence of a God is *by definition* unacceptable because of its
> inability to pass the scientic method, you cling to that theory like stink on
> poop.
An unnecessarily perjorative comparison.
>
> For instance, which is more plausible logically-- honey bees learning somehow
> to build a hive through natural selection, or that that innate ability was
> somehow given to them?
Given that there is DNA, which can be altered, and given that the only
purpose of sexual reproduction is to mix DNA (provide variation) then the
answer is easy: honey bees learned to build a hive through natural
selection. If it was an innate ability given to them, then there would be
no need for a recording system that provides for alteration and adaptation.
But see the front page of today's LA Times regarding Stephen Wolfram's work
and it's implications on predestination.
You may find a belief in God unscientific, but you
> sacrifice logic in the process (I am not arguing that belief in God is logical,
> but that believing in evolution is illogical). A disbelief in God forces one
> to make faith leaps WRT to science that are as least as big as a believer in
> God.
You are attempting the classic unscientific "disproof" of evolution: Your
theory is not based on science, so the only recourse you can offer is that
the other method you find inconvenient must be dragged down as
non-scientific. Look at the example you provide: it is entirely dependant
on emotion, not science.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
