Page 83 of 89 FirstFirst ... 33737879808182838485868788 ... LastLast
Results 1,641 to 1,660 of 1780
  1. #1641  
    Ah... see I was mostly incorrect... it is hard. English is my second language and I dont know your religion well enough to argue its finer points beyond a certain level.

    I will say one thing to refute... you say miracles are something that cannot be explained by science... so the recombinant DNA would not be compatible with the bible... that said... how do you know that the vehicle for which your God chose to perform his miracle was not through recombinant dna?

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I made no claim about what you said other than I believed your use of the term "immaculate birth" seemed strange. My point was that the term "immaculate" was used to refer to the conception of Mary, not Jesus. (Mary was conceived by two humans just like the rest of us except that she was saved from original sin before she was conceived.

    It looks like I need to comment on the rest of your post in order to avoid confusion. I pretty much agreed with the concepts you were otherwise trying to convey. You were referring to Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. The angel Gabriel only made the announcement of what you happen. Miracles are things that cannot be explained by science. If the Bible is to be true, then the recombinant DNA explanation is likely false. My point is that Jesus' DNA needs to be from more than just Mary.
  2.    #1642  
    Interesting philosophy:
    (I wonder what great philosophers throughout history have to say on this matter.)
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Ah... see I could never agree that truth is not relative to perception.
    Case #1 is a disability, case #2 is invincible ignorance, and case #3 is a lie (not a truth).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  3.    #1643  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Ah... see I was mostly incorrect... it is hard. English is my second language and I dont know your religion well enough to argue its finer points beyond a certain level.
    Good to know, I'll be more lenient in interpreting what you say as we proceed.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    I will say one thing to refute... you say miracles are something that cannot be explained by science... so the recombinant DNA would not be compatible with the bible... that said... how do you know that the vehicle for which your God chose to perform his miracle was not through recombinant dna?
    I was thinking the same thing as I was writing my answer. I believe what you say is possible as long as it conforms with theology. I suspect that recombinant DNA would not have the biological characteristics of two unique parents. I was simply using logic as best as I know it. What I think really does not matter. Back to your "relative truth", I guess! If the Church dogmatically says something on the matter, I will accept that as truth.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. #1644  
    The word "miracle" is a religious term. If something cannot be explained by science, that doesn't have to mean that there's a religious aspect to it until it can be explained when science progresses enough to explain it.

    That doesn't make any sense AT ALL.

    At one time, gravity couldn't be explained. The Earth's rotation couldn't be explained. The moon's phases couldn't be explained, rain couldn't be explained, fire couldn't be explained, bleeding-heart liberals couldn't be explained.

    Were these all examples of "miracles" before; but not NOW, because science can currently explain these phenomena?

    Hmm?
    Last edited by dbdoinit; 09/30/2010 at 06:16 AM.
  5.    #1645  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbdoinit View Post
    The word "miracle" is a religious term. If something cannot be explained by science, that doesn't have to mean that there's a religious aspect to it until it can be explained when science progresses enough to explain it.
    Simply put, miracles are supernatural phenomena. Things that can be explained by natural phenomena (now or in the future) are not miracles.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #1646  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Simply put, miracles are supernatural phenomena. Things that can be explained by natural phenomena (now or in the future) are not miracles.
    What if things considered miracles are simply misunderstood natural phenomena? What do you consider miracles? Have there been any within the last decade?

    Praying for lost keys and find them? I'd argue that's coincidence.
    Mary in the knot of a tree or piece of french toast? I'd argue that it's just a knot in a tree and a piece of french toast.

    But I doubt those are things you'd call miracles. Any examples?
  7.    #1647  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    What if things considered miracles are simply misunderstood natural phenomena? What do you consider miracles? Have there been any within the last decade?

    Praying for lost keys and find them? I'd argue that's coincidence.
    Mary in the knot of a tree or piece of french toast? I'd argue that it's just a knot in a tree and a piece of french toast.

    But I doubt those are things you'd call miracles. Any examples?
    I pretty much agree with what you say. I don't follow miracles very closely. Many faiths claim miracles. Wikipedia may be a good place to start your reading.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  8. #1648  
    I know what a miracle is by a religious definition, I was trying to make the point (in a roundabout way) that I don't believe in miracles, Miracles or any of the outrageous claims contained within the bible (or other texts).
  9. #1649  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post


    When "immaculate" is mentioned in the context of Mary, it usually means she was "without sin". I think you may have been thinking of the "immaculate conception". Mary was saved by the grace of God before she was conceived. The vessel in which Jesus came to Earth needed to be immaculate.
    Did Mary grow old and die? If she had no 'original sin', physically she would of been perfect, and her flesh wouldn't have grown old.
  10.    #1650  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Did Mary grow old and die? If she had no 'original sin', physically she would of been perfect, and her flesh wouldn't have grown old.
    My understanding is that the Eastern Tradition maintains that Mary did not die. (They say that she was in a deep sleep when she was assumed into Heaven.)

    I'm not sure that I've noticed myself aging and slower (or faster) when I sin less (or more). I'm not sure I understand the context behind the position you are taking here.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  11. #1651  
    I wasn't talking about aging. I would think you understood that from my post.
    I was talking about the body dying from original sin. If Mary had no sin whatsoever, her body would of remained perfect.
    So you're saying she didn't die?
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1652  
    Why did we evolve to this apparent advanced state yet gorillas and monkeys haven't? Shouldn't all of the older species be at an advanced state?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #1653  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Why did we evolve to this apparent advanced state yet gorillas and monkeys haven't? Shouldn't all of the older species be at an advanced state?
    You would think eventually, yes.
    Especially since they never sinned.
  14. #1654  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Why did we evolve to this apparent advanced state yet gorillas and monkeys haven't? Shouldn't all of the older species be at an advanced state?
    You misunderstand evolution. Evolution explains the differences between species. It doesn't imply a state of advancement. Around 5-7 million years ago, humans had a common ancestor with chimpanzees. It wasn't human, and it wasn't chimpanzee, but there was some reason that the population of this animal got separated from the other. This separation doesn't necessarily have to be physical location, but there was some genetic difference between these populations. After enough time passes, those two populations can no longer inter-breed. This is what is meant by a different species. Keep along that path, and we are where we are today. Chimpanzees are not "less evolved" than us, they just didn't evolve along a path that caused genetic mutations that caused bigger brains, vocal chords that allow for complex speech, etc.

    Again, evolution is reproducible in a lab. Natural Selection is what Darwin proposed to explain it. I'd recommend reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, or "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. They do a very good job of explaining Darwin's theory, in addition to adding more evidence brought on my modern science.
  15.    #1655  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    For an example of oral tradition splitting off from the "documents" think for a moment on the various and extreme interpretations of the Quran... a single document that has spawned quite a few extremist factions, whose oral teachings pass down a greatly changed view than how it was originally interpreted.
    My understanding of the Q'uran is very limited so I'd prefer not to discuss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post

    The same can be said to a lesser extent in Christanity... the oral tradition is where the main difference lies in the interpretation of the bible among the catholics (who have more books of the bible than other Judeo-Christian branches) and the lutherans, baptists, methodists, and so on.
    Oral tradition is what Jesus taught the apostles during their lifetimes. The Church determined the books of the Bible and maintains that there is congruence between written and oral tradition. Those who have split from the position that the Church claims are now dependent on their individual interpretation of the Bible (which is fallible). Clearly they are doing the best they can with their beliefs as they understand them and God won't hold anyone accountable for the failings of others. Christ (in His life) wished for one unified Church. I hope that someday we can get back to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    The document, in this case the bible, has (mostly) one iteration, though as you stated language translations show variability) but the oral tradition that goes hand in hand with it changes the interpretation by leaps and bounds in some places.
    Can you give some examples?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    It is interesting to note that the Christians also have their extremist factions, although there is some argument in both religions I have mentioned as to the validity of grouping the extremists with the more mainstream factions.
    Hopefully I've covered this above. (I'm not dismissing further discussion here if you or others want to do that.)

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Yeah, I can agree that the quest to question would be a congruence, but my argument is that belief and non-belief are both valid by virtue of man being his own god... and god being present in the act of being man.
    We each have a certain amount of understanding of good and evil (or right and wrong) "written onto our hearts). In this respect, I can agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Rather than god as an external entity, or god being non-existent.
    I guess you sort of have a "middle of the road" mentality then. I think this makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #1656  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    What if things considered miracles are simply misunderstood natural phenomena? What do you consider miracles? Have there been any within the last decade?

    Any examples?
    If you are so inclined, the Miracle Hunter.com is a decent respository of info:

    http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/recent_claims/index.html
  17.    #1657  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I wasn't talking about aging. I would think you understood that from my post.
    I was talking about the body dying from original sin. If Mary had no sin whatsoever, her body would of remained perfect.
    So you're saying she didn't die?
    Traditions differ on this point and the Church has not clarified this one way or the other. I agree that Mary would not have needed to die before entering Heaven. "Dying" from original sin might also be more of a metaphorical/spiritual thing than a physical one.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1658  
    Thanks for the response, but I wasn't attacking evolution. I simply asked what I feel was a fairly obvious question.

    Again, it's the evolutionary leap with humans that I find interesting. Can we point to any other species that has made even nearly as drastic a leap?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #1659  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Again, it's the evolutionary leap with humans that I find interesting. Can we point to any other species that has made even nearly as drastic a leap?
    I'm not sure what's so drastic about our leap. Isn't it possible that in another 5 million years, some other species could evolve to have similar intelligence? There really isn't that much that separates us from the other apes.
  20. #1660  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    I'm not sure what's so drastic about our leap. Isn't it possible that in another 5 million years, some other species could evolve to have similar intelligence? There really isn't that much that separates us from the other apes.
    Especially considering that only an _extremely_ small minority of people really understand how so many of our technological advances work.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions