- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Stu,
Let me answer it for you.
No.
Your fruit betrays you.Paul was very religious but initially opposed the work of God because he was led then by the yeast of the pharisees.
Herod was irreligious and sought knowledge about God's plans only to attempt to frustrate them and that sounds more like your approach.
We are warned about these false leavens.
Mark 8:15
And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.Repent.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 09 2008,06:12) . Stuart
Stuart,
Many alchemists (discounting of course the various con men attempting to liberate funds from the gullible aristocracy) were in actuality occultists who believed that the soul, spirit and ultimately the physical body could through various means evolve into a higher form of being. In great fear of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition they coded their work into the language of chemistry and metalurgy as a blind to their true work. If they openly discussed their true thoughts they would have been given to the tender mercies of the rack and the stake as heretics. They were in interesting lot from Dr. Dees to the almost mythic Count St. Germain. The lead to gold business was both blind and metaphor though there were some claims made that St. Germain for one could actually do so.[/quote]
What you describe sounds a little like the chemical version of Social Darwinism.Stuart[/quote]
Well they didn't have a competitive take on it. It was more along the lines of we are spiritual beings with bodies and through meditations, exercise, study and other undefined measures we could evolve into a higher form of man. This was the supposed potential of all mankind but alchemy could speed it up so to speak for select individuals. There was as far as I know, no survival of the fittest or one group is better then another aspect. The take was beings advanced like grades in school, some are fast and others slow but the tendency was a forward progression. Many of them were some of the foremost thinkers of their age. Just look at a brief bio of John Dees for example. For them science and spirituality were just different aspects of the same thing.hi Nick
Quote Do you have the Spirit of God?
How is that defined?Quote You will need such a blessing to understand our insights. What gain is there for you in opposing the teachings of our God revealed in Scripture?
I’m not convinced. It looks more and more like christianity is 93% hot air and 14% smoke and mirrors. And that is the state of its mathematics too. If what you are claiming about special insight is a lie or a delusion, shouldn’t that information be available for people considering converting to christianity? You don’t seem to be able to defend your egocentric claims.I care about the truth. Perhaps truth is not as important for a fundamentalist. If it fits scripture then it’s fine, no matter how wrong it actually is. You have to look no further than creationism to see that. You say you seek truth but actually you seek your myth.
Stuart
Hi again, Nick
Quote Your fruit betrays you. 
Would that be the bananas that t8 is obsessed with?
Quote Paul was very religious but initially opposed the work of God because he was led then by the yeast of the pharisees. The yeast of the pharisees?!
Paul became a deluded zealot. The original arch-fundie. His self-imposed blindness may have caused the most misery for humans of any figure in the last 2000 years, including the desperate dictators of the 20th century.
Quote Herod was irreligious and sought knowledge about God's plans only to attempt to frustrate them and that sounds more like your approach. I want to know god's plans so I can cut him off at the pass? How paranoid and delusional could a person get? There is no god, and there is no plan. It’s all in your head!
Quote We are warned about these false leavens.
Mark 8:15
And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.Quote Repent. Touche!
Probably a quiet sit down and a nice cup of tea after this post, Nick. If it were me, my GP would be worried about my blood pressure.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
Charles Darwin was a measurer of nature.
Why did he become the most influential religious leader of his time?
His religion still bewitches mankind desperate to allay their fears that the God of the bible is real.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2008,17:06) Hi Stu,
Charles Darwin was a measurer of nature.
Why did he become the most influential religious leader of his time?
His religion still bewitches mankind desperate to allay their fears that the God of the bible is real.
Do you think the pope is a great secular prophet because he causes people to leave the Roman church?I think you are as good as anyone at convincing people that god is not real.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2008,18:46) Hi Stu,
I thought you did not believe in God?
Well done, Nick.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2008,17:06) Hi Stu,
Charles Darwin was a measurer of nature.
Why did he become the most influential religious leader of his time?
His religion still bewitches mankind desperate to allay their fears that the God of the bible is real.
This is news to me, as stated before evolution is a theory attempting to describe how species change and adapt to stress. Why do you attempt to elevate it into something it is not. It is not religious or spiritual nor is it oppossed to same. Those who constantly try and set God and evolution apart as some sort of an opposing dichotemy do not understand either. I believe in God and evolution is an interesting theory with some logic and evidence behind it. Whether it is in fact truth or just an interesting hypothesis doesn't change or threaten my beliefs in the supreme creator. Christainity survived the fact that the sun did not revolve around the earth I think it can survive evolution if found to be true.Hi cato,
As Darwin first presented it his theory was of adaptive changes observed according to circumstances.
He theorised that it was due to competition that species altered as better adaptations survived best.
He failed to prove it so it remains a theory.
Others used it as their new bible that obviated for them the need for any apparent need for an original first cause. Thence the new religion of trust in the minds of men, really an old religion refashioned.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 10 2008,08:40) Hi cato,
As Darwin first presented it his theory was of adaptive changes observed according to circumstances.
He theorised that it was due to competition that species altered as better adaptations survived best.
He failed to prove it so it remains a theory.
Others used it as their new bible that obviated for them the need for any apparent need for an original first cause. Thence the new religion of trust in the minds of men, really an old religion refashioned.
I can't find a single correct statement in this post. Maybe you could point one if I've missed it.Stuart
Just to take up one point there, I think it is useful to consider the means by which evolution happens in the plant kingdom. There is certainly competition for resources (soil nutrients, water, light, perhaps opportunities for pollination) but the simple view that the neanderthals went extinct because homo sapiens bashed them over the heads with rocks does not have a corresponding mechanism in plants. There are parasitic plants but only rarely is their 'intention' to kill the host. Mutation with selection of traits beneficial for survival and reproduction is the only way to explain the record of changes in plants. The same descriptions apply to animals too.
The description of competition as a selection pressure is relevant but it is only one of a number of factors discussed by Darwin.
Stuart
I heard someone on talkback radio, the other day, say “I believe in the big bang theory, and God had His finger on the trigger”.
Good one.
That is what no man can prove, that God wasn't the cause of all.
But that doesn't stop some from trying, but any true thinking person would question any statement that says there is no God.Such a statement is just blind faith and usually results from bias.
Quote (Heavens @ Feb. 12 2008,20:54) I heard someone on talkback radio, the other day, say “I believe in the big bang theory, and God had His finger on the trigger”.
Really sorry, but I am a bit oversensitive on this point now: please can you consider posting on this topic in the appropriate thread. The idea has been discussed at length elsewhere and has nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his ideas.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 11 2008,06:07) Hi Stu,
That explains why I only got a C in Zoology.
Or was that a Z in Coology?Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2008,18:06) Good one. That is what no man can prove, that God wasn't the cause of all.
But that doesn't stop some from trying, but any true thinking person would question any statement that says there is no God.Such a statement is just blind faith and usually results from bias.
This is very dishonest. No non-believer has ever attempted to disprove god. It cannot be done. That is not a good argument for the existence of such a thing. We have discussed this and you do not back up the point you are attempting to make with any acknowledgement that there might not be a god, hence you have no credibility on the point whatever.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2008,18:10) No non-believer has ever attempted to disprove god.
Good. But many non-believers say there is no God. Yet they have no proof.Theories that become fact because men want to believe it so.
Same with Evolution. A theory becomes a fact to those who want it to be true. A belief system with no proof. Charlie thought he had the proof but his observations do not necessarily lead to his conclusions.
Men can observe the same thing and have different reasons as to why.
But to deny God is foolish. It is like denying that there was no builder of a house. That a house came about by processes with no intelligence involved in the building of the house or even no intelligence in the processes that may have constructed it.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 12 2008,17:10) Just to take up one point there, I think it is useful to consider the means by which evolution happens in the plant kingdom. There is certainly competition for resources (soil nutrients, water, light, perhaps opportunities for pollination) but the simple view that the neanderthals went extinct because homo sapiens bashed them over the heads with rocks does not have a corresponding mechanism in plants. There are parasitic plants but only rarely is their 'intention' to kill the host. Mutation with selection of traits beneficial for survival and reproduction is the only way to explain the record of changes in plants. The same descriptions apply to animals too. The description of competition as a selection pressure is relevant but it is only one of a number of factors discussed by Darwin.
Stuart
Vines strangle their host. Perhaps Neanderthals strangled homo sapiens and piltdowns died out when men realised it was a lie.Anyway, the righteous will inherit the earth, so that is a selection process that needs to be mentioned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
