Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What's wrong with church

No animal contemplates it's own contemplation.

So, you agree that life being created in the lab is difficult .....but ....that a method must exist and there are many theories regarding abiogenesis. So, it seems you are indeed agreeing with the long odds.

Also, are these same scientists trying to seek answers by plugging in their theories because they cannot conceive that God did it?

Plugging the holes of understanding with the latest and most popular "scientific theory" is the same error as a theologist would make if he attributed everything unexplained or even hard to understand, to God.

TF

No, you are the one selling non-believers short. Just because non-believers do not believe in an invisible spirit that will punish bad behavior (or just a lack of faith, depending on the mythos) for all eternity, that in no way justifies bad behavior. If anything, they serve to an opposite belief. After all, there is not preordained plan, supervised by a supernatural being to make sure everything is going to work out. If, because of your actions, things go poorly, there is no one to pray to to make things better. Further more, this is your one and only life. If you screw it up, you don't get another one in the "after life". One shot, with no reset button. Consequently this means we have more, not less responsibility then the believer to make the most of this life and not screw things up for everyone else.

You are the one who doesn't believe in forgiveness and that you are no more than a dog.

TF, lets not confuse speculation with Scientific Theories. Speculation, so long as it is testable, is part of the scientific process. But until that speculation is turned into a large body of confirmed hypothesis that construct a large, explanatory body of knowledge that can be used to make predictions, it not a theory. The current body of knowledge on abiogenesis does not meet this definition, which is why there is no "Theory of Abiogenesis". Still, we've made some progress on the subject such as developing an understanding of the development of long proteins, and the development of complex molecules in various atmospheres, oceans, and even in space. Sure will still don't know, but that doesn't not justify the insertion of God, or any other mechanism for which we have no evidence.

A few thousand years ago some winos sat around with chisel, hammer and stone and pecked out that Israel would be surrounded by enemies dedicated to driving them into the sea and then sat around laughing about confounding suckers like me.

I said we are animals. I never said all animals are equal.

As for forgiveness, I don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin either. So I don't need God to forgive me for a catch 22 he created. A forgiveness that involves vicarious redemption through the human sacrifice of a scapegoat loaded with all the original sins inflicted upon all of mankind.

Yes, you are right. I find that idea untenable.

Well, we are maybe close to being in agreement here. However, the scientific community is rife with pure old speculation masquerading as what may be called a disciplined theory.

And, as I have said before, I am all for scientific endeavor and discovery. Great benefits for mankind as a result.



Gotta check out...

TF

Just want to point out that just because one part (or several parts) of "Christian" society is dominated by self-serving impostors and/or misinformed followers, doesn't mean the whole of Christianity is wrong.

Carry on...

Well, as much as life is a mystery, the quantum physicists seem to be getting a handle on what may be happening. I must couch my comments as an accidental mystic, one who has experienced many existential visions that defy explanation in linear sequential though or language, so forgive me if I seem incoherent. What these scientists are talking about is the theory that matter does not produce consciousness, but that consciousness produces matter and all life. Not just any consciousness, but a conscious awareness of self that is transcendent, existing outside of time and space. Even more startling is the proposition that this consciousness is all that there is - the entire universe, and whatever it arises from, is aware of itself. It is the observations of this consciousness that collapses the field of probability to create matter, and is the basis of choice or free will we believe to be our own. Our brain/mind interfaces with this consciousness indirectly creating our individual sense of self.

Now that pretty much comports with my experiences wherein everything cascades from the first cause, the primal realization, awareness of self-existence. This realization takes place beyond time, space, dimension and conditions. everything exists at once, as potentia (from the Latin potens, the present active participle of possum (I am able), so that with the realization of self existence, all things become possible because I AM able to create them from myself (here we refer to God, not Wrangler John). So that what we have is God looking back at the universe through our eyes at itself. Hence it is God contemplating it's own contemplations in the guise of humanity. That is why Man can comprehend that that God exists and yet at the same time also deny that God exists. What compound of elemental matter can be said to be alive or conscious of itself? While at the transcendent level all matter is the conscious manifestation of mind necessary to create a material world of exploratory forms and express the psychological implications of conscious deliberate actions that affect itself or others.

Because thought must proceed action, the archetype, Jesus Christ, preexisted Man as the design motif. We are the process of becoming matter transfigured as the ideal consciously aware potent being in both material and transcendent realms. We can no more separate ourselves from God's intent than the turtle can castoff his shell. As we are, warts and all, we are God becoming something beyond our understanding through our judgement of moral and ethical principles of behavior. The realization of the fact that we can, through concerted action, change the course of human development and attainment is the actual purpose of religion. Yet we find that religion went astray as best described in Matthew 23, and again in the Gospel of Thomas:

39 Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.

102 Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

Getting back on track towards enlightenment and our potential will require setting aside the the things worshiped in this world, can we do it?

Yes indeed.

nothing wrong with a Church until you let people inside it.

Absolutely the opposite. True Christian faith is based on overwhelming evidence; it is a full persuasion of the mind and heart based upon examining credible evidence. John Locke explains this in "The Reasonableness of Christianity"

Can anybody point me to a Hindu who was a wise as John Locke? Ghandi was no John Locke...
John Locke is the brains and thinking behind the American Revolution; he is the inspiration, some word for word, for the Declaration of Independence. There was no greater political science writer, understanding of course he was building on those gone before.

As has been pointed out it is important to remember that Christianity is no more monolithic than is Atheism. If you view things that way, as it appears you may, you ignore the history that George mentions above.

Similarly you ignore the historical devotion to education that Christians have had. Our ivy league universities on the East coast all have Christian roots.



As is usually the case it seems to me you over simplify and mischaracterize the situation here. Clearly there are groups within the Christian community who conform to some degree but for the vast majority the question of faith related in acceptance of the accuracy of God's word is not at all mutually exclusive to a academic excellence in math or free exploration in science. As a matter of fact in my tradition both have been highly encouraged. I don't believe in a new earth and don't believe it a necessary point toward belief in the reliability of Scritpure.

One could easily make the identical claim about Atheism, for it claims to be capable of proving a negative, which is altogether contrary to reason.



Again, ignorance of history. In this country Christianity has done the opposite of what you posit. While this does not prove whether or not it is true, it does prove that it has been on the whole positive.

Given that the spectrum of those anti-Science Christians is so narrow, it would seem to me logical to ask you what good Atheism has done historically?

Communism is ideologically atheistic, and while many Totalitarians have used the Church in an attempt to further their evil ends they themselves have been atheistic. They posit themselves as the supreme power, setting aside the restraints that submission to a transcendent power create for power of their own.

Based upon the exchange above it appears to me that you have many of the same blind spots that Christians have. Your "concerns" are overly broad and overlook evidence that doesn't suit your pre-determined conclusion.

I for one am a hard core supporter of the separation of Church & State. I believe that concept to be as good for the Church & her congregants as it is for the State & her citizens. I have no more problem with teaching the theory of evolution in school than I do of the Gospel being preached in Churches. I don't want prayer in public schools at all, for whatever we could come up with to please everyone would bear no resemblance to the prayer I want for my children that it'd be senseless. I don't send my kids to Christian school because they need the educational experience of being forced to deal with others who think differently than them in a civil manner.

I have no interest in forcing my beliefs on anyone. I do get concerned when speech is censored whether that censorship serves me or not. Your accusation of proselysing is one I've found serves the same purpose in the lexicon of the Atheist as you suggested my question does Christians. It shuts down free interaction and begs the question... Do you believe as I do, that everyone has equal rights to speak freely in public of what they believe whether they agree with me or not? The assertion & use of that word suggest to me that perhaps you have different standards for religious speech than other forms, but based upon your overall attitude in this conversation I'd be surprised if that we so. You seem like a free speech advocate.

Good conversation/exchange. I'd gladly sit around a campfire and snipe antelope with you, and share Scott's general lack of enjoyment of many Christians. I came to the Church from your position, so I can appreciate it.

Take care,

Efw

Like being a libertarian and being a Libertarian.

True religious faith is always based on overwhelming evidence of the believer. Christians don't hold the patent on this.

The arguement is still valid even if it is 100 years old. There are more toxic chemcals than desired chemicals. The desired bond with the toxic just as quickly as they bond with other desired. Since there are more toxic the chance of getting even pre-biotic substances is still zero.




You are either intentially or unintentially leaving out the fact experiments like this use a trap to get the "evolving" biohemicals away from the energy source. Otherwise evolution will not take place; even this controled inviroment.

Mr Sniper. Good morning to you.

Upon awakening this morning I remembered the opening to a story I am writing, maybe it is a book, but either way it expresses my view on the beginning of the earth and life.

Interesting view. Sounds like a mix of Taoism, Descarte, Berkeley, and particle physics.

They wouldn't have time. Too busy teaching islam and witchcraft.