Thoughts on society.....

[imported_Mystery_Man]

"... their environment in this situation is determined by their genes.

No,this situation is determined by the environment that they are born into. There is nothing in their genes that makes them inherently royal. You virtually said it yourself -

"Simply, Prince William could've just as easily been born into a family of 20 in Bombay and lived in an environment much different to the royal experience."

While being of a particular lineage may result in a person being deemed royal (though the nihilist within me would argue that there is no such thing as royalty), that situation only comes about because of the environment within society that deems a certain family as being royal.

 

[imported_Mystery_Man]

Earlier in this thread I mentioned how the question of how the universe was created drives me nuts.

I usually think along these lines - When did the universe start? What did it come from? Where did that thing come from? Or was there nothing at the beginning? If there was nothing, how could something come from nothing?

It's a question that I can't answer, and have given up trying to do so.

However, Christians will say that the answer is that God created the universe. So, I ask the Christians - where did God come from?

He must have come from somewhere? There must have been a beginning. How can something exist if it didn't have a beginning? What was there before God existed? Who created God?

 

[Willow]

MM, thats the paradox. Youtalk of the contradiction.. but this is always answered by pointing out the solid foundation of the church... ie 'faith'.

I'm sure your question will be answered by the usual blindfolded views of the faithful.

I'll put ten bucksdown that my queries in posts # 379 and 380 will be side stepped as well.

 

[imported_Mystery_Man]

Yeah, you're right, but all this does for me is confirm that we don't have too much to fear about an eternal existence of burning in the fiery pits of hell.

Still, if we're wrong, be sure to keep me company. I'll be the one laughing it up with Lucifer.

 

[imported_Mystery_Man]

By the way, why would we want to go to heaven? Apparently, they only play rugby union there.

 

[Willow]

"Still, if we're wrong, be sure to keep me company. I'll be the one laughing it up with Lucifer."
LOL... I'm sure between the two of us we can break out and take Alfie Langer with us.

 

[CanadianSteve]

The human body is not perfect. We can not breathe under water, we can not run as fast as a cheetah, swim as fast as a mako or have the strength of an ant.

The point Leisotto was making, I think, was not that the body is superhuman, but that its systems work amazingly well together - this shows the body was designed by a higher intelligence, not thrown together by chance evolution. We have had this debate in another thread; I forget which one.

However, Christians will say that the answer is that God created the universe. So, I ask the Christians - where did God come from?

He must have come from somewhere? There must have been a beginning. How can something exist if it didn't have a beginning? What was there before God existed? Who created God?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
My understanding is that God was there before the beginning of the universe. He is eternal - no beginning or end. I know that answer isn't satisfying to some. I think that comes from trying to understand an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal God with our small, finite, human minds.

Moreover,the Christian God is not the only God on planet Earth. We have had thousands of gods and the even now in the 21st Century, there are hundreds of different faiths with different icons to worship. It's true thatthe Human species still haven't managed to agree even on the most simplest of questions: 'who is God?' Willow #379

People have created those other gods. My take on it is that as man moved away from God in early times (in the book of Genesis), they made up their own gods. Your take is probably that they are all made up by man, mine is that there is one actual God, and the rest are made up by people.

On the Mormons: I have already given my view on this in an earlier post (#314), partly reprinted here: On Mormons: conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist Christians would say that what matters is what do you believe about Jesus himself. Mormons, I understand, don't believe Jesus was God Himself, come to earth. They have added another "sacred" book on top of the bible, where the bible itself says it is complete and is not to be added to or taken away from (see the last few verses of Revelation). I think if you looked at the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith claimed to have found on inscribed plates in the US in the 1800s, it reads like someone tried to make up a new bible, using English that tries to sound like the King James version of the Bible.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are similarly a sect (or cult) that came out of Christianity in the US in the 1800s, but don't believe in Jesus as God. Also, a key principle of Christianity, at least to Protestants is "by grace you have been saved, through faith: and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast..."(Ephesians 2:8,9). That is, you can't work your way to Heaven, it is a gift from God that comes from having faith in Him. Mormons, JW's and others try to work their way to heaven.

So Mormons and JW's and some other sects are not considered Christian because they differ on some fundamental things. Whereas different Protestant Christian denominations - Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. differ on forms of worship and finer points of Bible interpretation, but not on fundamental beliefs.

"I'll put ten bucksdown that my queries in posts # 379 and 380 will be side stepped as well."- Willow

Do you still have my address? I guess that's not much in Canadian dollars, is it?

the usual blindfolded views of the faithful. As opposed to the blindfolded views of those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God, right?

 

[imported_Mystery_Man]

Maybe we can get John Ribot to come along as well.

 

[Tabernacleye]

Believing in some think is better than nothing

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

"the usual blindfolded views of the faithful. As opposed to the blindfolded views of those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God, right?"

With all due respect, i think this highlights the attitude that you have to this debate willow mate. If you read something that you don't want to hear (or don't believe in), you will be quick off the mark to call it blindfolded or short-sighted, but what makes your views on the history of humanity so brilliant and superior? No offense of course, im just wondering where you found such superior views on the history of humanity. Your not Satin are you? lol jk

Kiwi - The human body has faults, definitely. But humans were designed to have fault. But compare it to other species. Most animals don't have our life-span, some insects in particular have a life that doesn't extend beyond a couple of weeks. I think the point Leisotto is making is that humans (or 99% of them at least) were created in a way that gave us the chance to enjoy life to the fullest. Could you imagine living without fingers or a mouth to talk? I know, these things happen to an unfortunate few, but en masse, its a genetic problem. Do u think that chance could've created what we have today? Think of all the millions of things that we could have become. I think we could be a lot worse than a lot better (if that makes sense)

Why does God not come in and fix genetic problems such as poor eyesight? Personally, i think its because we were all born with problems that we are challenged to carry through life. Some of us are born without body parts, some of us are poor at social interaction, some of us are born without parents, some of us are born ugly. Whichever way you want to look at it, we all have different challenges to take through life, and this is what i think is intended for us

Id love to sit here and answer all those questions Willow mate, but it looks like CS beat me to it But if you want any follow up answers, be sure to ask, and ill take them out and answer them seperately again

"The only evidence you guys haveis a book written by man ( probably the church ), and a catch phase in "you gotta have faith", come on you wanna talk holes in any non-religion theories be prepared to have your faith picked apart"

Mate, the last 300 posts have been about our faith being 'picked apart' as such. It would be just as easy to blow holes into the evolution theory. Ive even heard evolutionists try to argue that there was no beginning. IMO, thats a cop-out for people who can't explain it. Whether you believe it or not, the religious groups do have an explanation for the beginning of the world, a fundamental question for most people.

But Kiwi, seeing that Leisotto doesn't post a lot, ill take up his part for a brief second and have a follow up question to what you said. (Actually, its because i want to know as well hehehehehe). 2 Questions. Did life on Earth begin under water? If so, how did these 'life forms' move onto land? I can't help but think of the Fatboy Slim filmclip, 'right here right now', where it shows the development of the species from being an underwater life form to sitting on a park bench stuffing themselves with cake. One of my favourite film clips

"While being of a particular lineage may result in a person being deemed royal"

I dont think that point is arguable, even if you are nihilist! If you got royal blood (genes), than you are going to be a royal! Its just common sense. I dont agree with the concept of royalty as well, but you have to call a spade a spade, and if you are born down the royal lines, you will be a royal.

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[imported_Rasputin]

LOL, faith is blind and has no logic, you either have it or you don't. Good to see your's hasn't waveredMoff, hope you had a very merry and joyous Christmas celebration my friend.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

lol, thanks mate, same to you

"Faith is blind and has no logic"

Faith is something (IMO anyways), that cannot be backed up by fact. Does this make it blind? I don't think so. It would only be blind if there was definite proof out there that i was wrong, and this doesn't exist. No logic? Once again, you could well argue that, as there is no proof. But its up to the individual. You can question the logic in anything, so i think its a bit of a pointless point

Good to see you back mate

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[imported_Brook]

if you are born down the royal lines, you will be a royal.

yes but that doesn't make it genetic. There is no 'royalty gene' if there was a revolution in the UK tommorow and the royalty was overthrownthe royal family would cease to be royal...their 'royalty' is created by circumstances and only exists as long as those circumstances stay the same.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

Faith is something (IMO anyways), that cannot be backed up by fact. Does this make it blind?
You misunderstood my point Moff. I was sayingfaith is blind simply because it really needs no proof,faith in anythingis a personal belief and is not based on logic or science, by it's nature it doesn't need to be.

You can question the logic in anything, so i think its a bit of a pointless point
LOL, this time I wasn't questioning anything, my point, even if pointless,was that faith itself needs no proof,in fact if proof was available it would no longer be faith would it

I must still have some of the lingering effects of the seasons joy as on this occasionI wasn'tdebating it with you Moff but simply commending you on it and pointing outthat faith doesn't have to beproven.

Cheers

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

Ahhh, fair enough, i do believe the effects of new years eve are still playing havoc with my thought process. Reading it again, I do see what you meant, and i agree on the faith issue (in regards to faith not needing to be proven)

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Kiwi]

But Kiwi, seeing that Leisotto doesn't post a lot, ill take up his part for a brief second and have a follow up question to what you said. (Actually, its because i want to know as well hehehehehe). 2 Questions. Did life on Earth begin under water? If so, how did these 'life forms' move onto land?

In answer to the first question, I don't know. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I commented on something Leisotto said about life not being able to begin under water. I find the idea that life began underwater alot more realistic and logical than we were made out of clay by some heavenly potter dude. So if I had to choose one or the other, the answer to the question is yes.

In answer to the second question, it's not as far fetched as some dude making us out of clay. Like i said in my origonal post about this, many marine animals already spend as much time on land as they do under water, the evolutional step wouldn't have been as darstic or as impossible as you may wish to think. Like I said before as well there are marine animals that spend all their time in the ocean yet breathe the same air that you and I do, animals like whales, dolphins, and turtles. Animals adapt to their enviroments over time, and as animals moved from water to land they evolved to adapt, and like or not we are little more than animals who have evolved.

 

[Willow]

Willow: "the usual blindfolded views of the faithful. CS: As opposed to the blindfolded views of those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God, right?"

Moffo: With all due respect, i think this highlights the attitude that you have to this debate willow mate. If you read something that you don't want to hear (or don't believe in), you will be quick off the mark to call it blindfolded or short-sighted, but what makes your views on the history of humanity so brilliant and superior?

Moffo: lol... Is that the best you can do? You didn't even try to look under the veneer.
Justice is blindfolded to any corruption. And failth is blindfolded as well. Imo, faith has to wear a blindfold so as to avoid the temptation of having that faith rocked. Read anything you like into that. But faith is blind by the mere notion that it doesnt require evidence... or so I thought.

I can assure that my views are not brilliant or superior and I don't think I have all the answers.

Canadian Steve:
"People have created those other gods. My take on it is that as man moved away from God in early times (in the book of Genesis), they made up their own gods. Your take is probably that they are all made up by man, mine is that there is one actual God, and the rest are made up by people."

Sorry, can't agree. The bible is just a book like any other.
To determine that you have the only true god and all other gods are 'made up' is an unfortunate view that has has been the catalyst forimmeasurable conflict and sufferingin the world.

While you believe the bible to be the only true interpretation of God. Others are equally rigid in their beliefs... which you oppose... and so it goes on.

One can but imagine how offensive the 'one and only true God' belief must have beento some indigenous cultures as Christianity spreads itself around the world on the coat tails of imperialism.

Re the Mormons, I do not accept that they are not true Christians just because they don't fall into line with conventional beliefs of other Christians.
The question still exists. Who has the 'true faith' and isn't faith enough?
They have faith in Jesus Christ and isn't faith the basic tenet of Christianity?

 

[CanadianSteve]

To determine that you have the only true god and all other gods are 'made up' is an unfortunate view that has has been the catalyst forimmeasurable conflict and sufferingin the world.

Well, I'm not advocating bombing anyone for their beliefs.

Willow, you said earlier that your 2 questions would be "sidestepped". I tried to answer them, though not with answers to your liking, of course. I don't expect the 10 bucks, but you might acknowledge that they were answered.

 

[Willow]

"I'm not advocating bombing anyone for their beliefs."
Did I say that? I thought I was talking in broader terms.

"you might acknowledge that they were answered."
Yes, well done, you gave a response. For he's a jolly good fellow and so say all of us.

But the question still remains unanswered.

 

[imported_kier]

"I dont wish to rabble on for ages. But let me offer one example. The human body. The human body is one of the most amazing phenomenons that i can think of. The way it operates, how it is created and used, is more or less, an amazing feat, and far more complex than any scientist could dream up. The smooth functioning of our body is the perfect example. We have noses to breathe, fingers to perform practical tasks, eyes to see, ears to hear. I firmly don't believe in the suggestion that science, or natural evolution, could throw together such a perfect thing as the human body. The amazing ability of the body to create new life, it goes on and on. And for me, i think there had to be some form of 'higher' being that creates all this.

Evolution is one thing, and i agree to an extent that it co-exists with religion, but i think the human body (continuing on the previous example) came from something a bit more sophisticated than chance
There are just a lot of holes in the non-religion theory. Whilst not knowing the complete history of 'evolution', i think it is widely agreed that the first signs of life occured in the water. Given that, how did these signs of life ever make it out of the water and onto land? How did the body evolve? I dont understand how the body could just 'change' to suit the environment. And how did the body adapt to accept the air that we breathe in today?
To many holes. And its a complex argument, im probably already getting people into tangles with my previous 2 paragraphs lol"

I



think you may have misinterpreted evolutionary theory a bit here.

Species did not change in terms of mutataing - eg. growing new appendages, organs etc because their addition to an animal would be useful - rather existing aspects of biological design would be adapted over time due to external pressures on the species.

Perhaps a simplified example may help;

Imagine an island where shellfish live on the beach. These are non-descript, with stubby, "blunt" shells.

At low tide the shellfish bury themselves in the sand. Traditionally these shellfish have no predators at low tide, the burying in the sand is a protection against the sun.

Now, an example of an external evolutionary pressure would be birds appearing on the beach for the first time. These birds dig with their bills and eat the shellfish that they find.

Now - I described the shellfish as "non-descript" but within the population some of the shells would be perhaps narrower or sharper than the average. These shells would allow them to dig deeper into the sand - avoiding being eaten.

Thus in the short term the shellfish population design has been skewed - the stumpier shellfish get eaten, and the more narrow shellfish survive.

In the long term it will have major effects as the narrower shellfish are more likely to breed, thus passing on their genetic code - which over time moves from a minority design to a majority.

Take the example further and maybe the bird population will change as some "freaks" in the bird population have bills longer than average - until arriving on the beach this was of no value, but now they are perfect for foraging for shells. As the shells bury deeper, long billed birds survive and mate - short billed birds die.

As I said - a simple example - but a process that has happened over hundreds of millions of years over and over again - and humans are no exception (except maybe in slightly different ways in the past few thousand years).

As for animals coming out of the water, look at the lung-fish as an example of exactly that.