geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Apr 27, 2005 12:14:31 GMT -5
For Geo: 1Cor15 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven. 50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed� 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[g] 55"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"[h] 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. I've given you a clue for the (supposed) natural body - spiritual body collation above. Read it again if you must: "If you look at the original greek text of the corinthians, the antithesis is not between the ordinary body and a spiritual one, but between a PSYCHIC body and a spiritual one. Paul wanted to confront the Platonian conceptions of Psyche's immortality that were largery spread at the time and furthermore in the times that followed. So dont go on speaking of 'spiritual things' that 'cannot change' anymore, cause I'll say your christianity stole Platonian philosophy."The God of the Bible predates Plato just by a little bit.  Oh come on molika.... Corinthians are written by paul in the middle of the first century ad. Platon predates him almost five centuries! The concept of psyche immortality itshelf goes back to the Pythagoreans and the orphic traditions which vanish in the mist of aeons! |
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 27, 2005 13:17:30 GMT -5
Vela: We have different views of the Bible. You seem to see it as a fable- to be taken completely on faith. I see it as a collection of many books- including history, philosophy, ethics, and poetry. I illustrated my belief with two examples. I wrote "Religion", not "Bible". It is clear from your statements that, although you may see the Bible as a collection of history, philosophy, etc., books, the Bible is fundamentally the base of your belief system. Am I wrong in my assumption? You don't need to say it (or write it); I can read it between the lines. I wasn't born yesterday! And there’s no need to apologize for a fault you haven't committed, unless it enhances your feeling of self-righteousness. Let’s take another look at your initial post: What were you sincerely expecting when you formulated that question to the readers of Dodona? Were you really looking forward to learn anything or was that simply a ploy to engage others in a clashing and fruitless discussion? You will find that almost everyone here tries to be tolerant of each others’ religious beliefs if you are open and forthcoming about them, but the act of simulating a genuine interest in a scientific matter simply to patronize everyone with your religious intransigence is not well received. You would do much better if you declared yourself a devout creationist and you’d get more respect from me, than exposing your lukewarm, ego-inflating arguments! |
|
|
|
Post by molika on Apr 27, 2005 17:00:49 GMT -5
Geo, Paul never questions our immortality. What exists in all of us is a body/mind/spirit or body/soul/spirit if you prefer. The spirit is 'dead' within us until such a time when we believe in Christ. This spirit and the soul are eternal. The only thing we leave behind is the flesh.
We could be 'dead' in spirit, dead in the flesh (body) and our soul remains, but then ask yourself where does the soul go in this case?
The description Paul gives the Corinthians addresses the believers concern as to what happens during the rapture.
The question is not if whether or not we are immortal but rather where/how would we like to spend eternity.
|
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Apr 27, 2005 19:04:45 GMT -5
Thanks to everybody for your responses. I'm a little surprised at the insults and name calling hurled at me, but so be it.
Senso Unico:
I'm no expert in archaeology, but I know enough to have an opinion. Why connect my religious belief (from another thread) to whether I'm a nice or intelligent person? What does that have to do with archaeology?
I hope my posts to everybody were politely phrased and respectful. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. Why are you calling me names? I respect your right to express your opinion. Why can't you respect mine?
Can't we be a little courteous here?
Vela:
We have different views of the Bible. You seem to take it as a fable, to be accepted on faith. I see it as a collection of books, including history, philosophy, ethics, poetry, and theology, which I illustrated with two examples. You ignored this and simply told me (if I understand you correctly) that I was saying if anyone disagreed with me they were wrong. I never said you were wrong in your post, simply that my view of the Bible was more expansive.
It seems to me you are telling me if I don't agree with you, I'm wrong. Why does either of us have to be right or wrong?
I thought this board was for the purpose of debate.
Murphree: Your post is interesting and thought-provoking.
Geo:
Your first paragraph is funny. Are you by any chance a Scorpio?
As for the Second Coming, I see it as the omnipotent God's expression of his infinite will (that takes care of reassembling the bodies of believers), the fruition of his plan for heaven and earth, the downfall of Satan's reign, the establishment of justice for all, life everlasting for believers, and the end of time as we know it.
Good luck to all and have a pleasant evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Apr 27, 2005 19:30:58 GMT -5
Vela:
We have different views of the Bible. You seem to see it as a fable- to be taken completely on faith. I see it as a collection of many books- including history, philosophy, ethics, and poetry. I illustrated my belief with two examples.
I wrote "Religion", not "Bible".
It is clear from your statements that, although you may see the Bible as a collection of history, philosophy, etc., books, the Bible is fundamentally the base of your belief system. Am I wrong in my assumption?
No, you are right. If you remember, my original post was on the science board where I was hoping to find an evolutionist to explain how they reconciled a single Eve with the theory of evolution. Senso Unico's discussion was interesting but it only went back to Eve, I'm wondering how the forces of evolution could focus down to produce one individual and only one individual who was so perfect she could mother the whole human race.
I didn't bring my religious beliefs into it at all. I didn't think they were germane.
Quote:
I don't see where I said your view was wrong. You are obviously right. I do believe my view of the Bible is more expansive and Iwas trying to share this belief with you.
I'm sorry if I seemed to attack you. I apologise.
You don't need to say it (or write it); I can read it between the lines. I wasn't born yesterday!
And there’s no need to apologize for a fault you haven't committed, unless it enhances your feeling of self-righteousness.
Who's being self-righteous here?
(I have repeated myself on these posts because my machine loaded this funny. I didn't read this post from you until I posted my second reply)
. More name calling. Why are you taking my posts so personally? If you don't like my personality and thoughts, why are you even bothering to respond?
Quote:
Do you not see that I could say the same thing about you that you said about me-" If you don't believe exactly as I do, you're wrong." Could we not both be more open-minded?
Let’s take another look at your initial post: Quote:
Hi! I'm a newbie here and glad to find such a high-level discussion board. I look forward to learning and exchanging ideas. Here's my question. It seems the current genetic theory about humans is that everyone is descended from one woman-Eve. Doesn't this prove the Biblical theory of creation and throw the theory of evolution out the window? It seems to me that believing that all of evolution devolved to one perfect woman is more mystical than believing in a Creator God. What do you think?
What were you sincerely expecting when you formulated that question to the readers of Dodona? Were you really looking forward to learn anything or was that simply a ploy to engage others in a clashing and fruitless discussion?
Yes, I'll ask it again. How do evolutionists reconcile their beliefs with the genetic facts of a single Eve?
You will find that almost everyone here tries to be tolerant of each others’ religious beliefs if you are open and forthcoming about them, but the act of simulating a genuine interest in a scientific matter simply to patronize everyone with your religious intransigence is not well received. You would do much better if you declared yourself a devout creationist and you’d get more respect from me, than exposing your lukewarm, ego-inflating arguments!
I must say I have not found much tolerance from some posters on this board, but interesting thoughts and debate from others. Why would I declare my own religious beliefs in a discussion of evolution and genetics? Seems to me that would be ego inflating.
Meanwhile, could someplease explain to me how the forces of evolution produced one and only one perfect woman to mother the human race.?
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Apr 27, 2005 20:51:20 GMT -5
It is impossible for all to agree on spiritual and religious matters, and even on seemingly clear-cut scientific ones. It is a matter of people having differing world-views. Long ago, I have accepted the fact that there will always be people who disagree with me, hence the necessity to be cordial with all. I believe that this is God's will...and: 1. I believe that the world is a battleground between good and evil as well as being a sphere of teeming biological stew. 2. I believe that there is an afterlife, that the spirit is eternal. Atheists will disagree; various types of Christians and adherents of other religions will always disagree on the form and content and means of how this works. |
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 27, 2005 21:27:07 GMT -5
merlin,
Nobody, here or anywhere else, will be able to answer your question to your full satisfaction. Correction! No one will be able to provide an explanation that is even partially satisfying to you.
If somebody does scientifically explain “how the forces of evolution produced one and only one perfect woman to mother the human race” to your full satisfaction, I promise that I will come back here and admit in so many words that I was wrong.
And finally, it is I who wants to apologize to you and all readers if I came in too strong with the wording of my previous post. You see, I can't avoid thinking that your mind is already made up.
Yes, I know, I know. You will reply that its is I who has his mind made up. This is not constructive! Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 27, 2005 22:33:34 GMT -5
Religion is intolerant and totalitarian in nature. Just like Communism or Fascism. Eve is a fictional character in some Jewish book like Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes are fictional characters in literature. mtDNA points to one woman out of many but she was not Eve, just a woman who managed to pass on her mtDNA. Other woman may have been unlucky to produce only sons or to lose their daughters. Infant mortality is not new. To equate the woman whose mtDNA you carry with Eve is unscientific, misinterpretation, not understanding and sophistry. That is what religious bigotry does. It alters thinking processes to ignore evidence or bastardise it to suit the prejudice. Carbon14 is an old form of dating but reliable within its limitations and provides provable evidence. Ignoring it, is rather silly. Everything religious people claim is totally unprovable, untestable and unassailable with any evidence. Science on the other hand is self correcting and eventually open to changes induced by evidence. If evolution proves to be wrong then it will be thrown out and replaced by better answers that have greater provability. Religion does not do that. It just digs its heals in and gets offensive and starts vicious campaigns or wars. Savonarola was not a scientist. Martin Luther was not a lovable tolerant man. Calvin was an irascible tyrant. John Knox was as close to Satan an any man can be. Jonestown ring any bells? On the track record of religions, humanity would be better off without them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on Apr 28, 2005 3:14:30 GMT -5
Skeletons are only preserved for extended periods in certain, relatively rare, conditions. The bodies buried in the Sutton Hoo grave mounds (SE England) around 600 AD have totally disappeared. The only remaining evidence for bodies are slight discolourations in the sandy soil and the occasional tooth. Metal has survived better as shown in the survival of some, heavily corroded, iron within the Sutton Hoo artifacts.
The "skeleton argument" is without any real validity.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Apr 28, 2005 3:35:26 GMT -5
Geo, Paul never questions our immortality. What exists in all of us is a body/mind/spirit or body/soul/spirit if you prefer. The spirit is 'dead' within us until such a time when we believe in Christ. Whether if paul questions, if he's capable of questioning and what are the things in question is a whole other conversation. Ok, i say to you one thing more. In your triptych of body/mind/spirit you have 1) The body, which obviously it exists 2) The mind, which also exists, at least in most people. 3) The spirit, which you tell me it doesn't exist, or its dead, until I believe 'in god'. If we want to prove the truth in the last sentence, we have to look upon 3 things: 'spirit', 'belief' and 'god'. Let's examine the first one only, the spirit. The original word in greek is 'pneuma'. Etymologicaly the meaning of the word is 'a blow of wind'. Nothing to do with monotheistic religions and second comings, just a breeze of air, pleasant under the Sun of summer, unpleasant during the freeze of winter. Remember, the word 'pneuma'/'spirit' isnt used by the writer of the corinthians in collation to a 'natural' body but a 'psychical' one. The question is not if whether or not we are immortal but rather where/how would we like to spend eternity. Hmm 'eternity', 'immortality', such big words. What makes you think eternity wants to be spent with you? Because god's apostle says so I suppose? Geo: Your first paragraph is funny. Are you by any chance a Scorpio? No, I'm a leo. I cant understand the 'funny part' you keep talking about, what is that part exactly and whats funny in it? Also I didnt call you names so dont get wronged on me! |
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on Apr 28, 2005 3:50:00 GMT -5
Quoting Merlin:
"Meanwhile, could someone please explain to me how the forces of evolution produced one and only one perfect woman to mother the human race?"
Certainly. Perhaps I should mention that I'm a molecular biologist - a genetic engineer - if only to lend a little weight to my arguments.
Your question presumes something that is not part of the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, that Mitochondrial Eve was in some way "perfect." All the hypothesis claims is that the mitochondrial lineage she represents has had the blind luck to survive when other contemporary lineages did not.
Like cheetahs, whose genome has very little variation, humans are generally believed to have suffered a bottleneck at some point in their history. At one period there were relatively few humans in the world. All modern humans are probably descended from a small survivor population. This is almost certainly the reason for the small levels of genetic diversity amongst modern humans (chimpanzees, who don't seem to have suffered from a similar bottleneck are much more diverse, genetically, than humans). The mitochondrial lineages which existed before the bottleneck would have been greatly diminished and others that survived this event will have become extinct in the period following.
It has been estimated that if Neanderthals interbred with Early Modern Humans in Europe to the degree that 25% of subsequent European genetic legacy was Neanderthal in origin there would only be a 50-50 chance of any Neanderthal mitochondrial genomes surviving to the present day.
Mitochondria are the remnants of micro-organisms which were ingested, and became commensal, within our very distant ancestors when they were one-celled organisms. Our mitochondrial genomes are therefore thousands of millions of years old.
The idea that modern humans have a common female ancestor dating back a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years is due to selective pressures. If the bottleneck had been a little more severe we would not be having this conversation as humans would not exist as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by molika on Apr 28, 2005 10:27:39 GMT -5
Dear Geo, I believe your hypothesis is wrong. To prove that the spirit exists does not balance on the Koine translation of the words, spirit, belief and god. Not to discount the importance of the exact translation of the words, however. (Nice website by the way.) To prove the spirit exists comes only from direct experience with having it awakened within you. Faith, spirit and love cannot be rationalized or proved by human scientific theories and hypotheses and correlated to things we can physically see. With that said, spirit meaning ‘blow of wind’ makes absolute sense. Most ‘scientific’ minds, yes I am generalizing, take biblical teachings, splice them up into nice, neat, small, slivers of time and space as if they have no bearing on what was before and what is to come, to examine them as you have shown. Paul may have lived in the time after Christ, but his words, especially because they are coming from God, and not from him, are eternal. The concepts he speaks of do not apply only to the residents of Corinth at the time Paul wrote his letter. His concepts of spirit/mind/body are not something he invented at that time, they are consistent and everlasting themes presented in a book that is timeless. When we dissect a topic from the bible and try to fit in into a simplified and discrete time/place we often lose the point. What Paul is speaking of is that once you have the Holy Spirit within you, you are resurrected as Christ was. You were ‘dead’, but now you are alive. You were ‘blind’, but now you can see. Then he switches topics and tells us what happens to our physical bodies once the rapture occurs and we are taken to spend eternity with our Creator. He is speaking of three different types of bodies. The kind we have here on earth before the spirit is awakened, body & mind (the walking dead), the kind we have after the spirit is awakened, body, mind & spirit (resurrected or ‘born again’) and the kind of glorified ‘body’ we will have for eternity, mind or soul & spirit. I know I am an eternal being and I know where I want to spend eternity. By the grace of my Savior Yeshua, I have no doubts. In my original point, if we are looking at the magnitude of scale of trillions X trillions X trillions X trillions of skeletons, even if we lost a few trillion here or there, you’d think we’d find at least an enormous pile of teeth… |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Apr 29, 2005 9:22:23 GMT -5
I agree, Murphee. It's sometimes impossible for people of different faiths to agree, but it's always interesting to debate and compare beliefs. As a Christian I hope I demonstrate my faith, but it's not up to me to "convert" anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job.
Vela-
You are a class act. Let's agree to disagree and perhaps become friendly.
SensoUnica-
There you go calling me a bigot again. Does everybody who professes a belief in religion qualify as a bigot in your opinion?
It's true that science is self-correcting. Think of all the accepted scientific "facts" that have been disproven. That's why I wouldn't stake the fate of my everlasting soul on a scientific belief. I want something to believe in that's eternal in its truth. Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?"
Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." That's good enough for me.
(No offense to anyone of different faith. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose and would fight for your right to voice your opinion).
You take the steadfastness of religion (any religion, not just mine) as wrong. I take it as a rock to cling to. When you say the world would be better off without religion, I remember my mother dying in her faith, with candles burning, scripture being read, prayers said. She went out as easily as a candle being snuffed with no fear, no anxiety. The majestic power of my religion comes into it's own at the prospect of death. Oh Death, where is thy sting? I look forward to God's promise of seeing her again on the other shore. I remember my own conversion experience (actually, I had two, but I won't bore you with details). So I say, that for me and my house and billions of other believers, the world would not be a better place without religion.
Will your beliefs support and sustain you at the moment of your extinction?
Molika:
You are awesome in your faith and your ease of expressing yourself. I want to be like you when I grow up (mentally, that is). LOL!
Cerdic:
Thank you for your rational, kind, and sensible answer to my question about mitocondrial Eve.
I can understand how it may have been possible that only one "contemporary lineage" survived in the dawn of time of the human race. I've read the rest of your post many times ( and looked up a few words, too). I'd like to discuss your post more with you after I've had time to think about it and order my thoughts.
I'm particularly fascinated by your explanation of what mitochondrial genones are. I didn't realize they went back to our (alleged) one-cell ancestors.
This brings up two other pressing questions I have about evolution- If we all go back to one cell ancestors, then evolution must be crossing species. That is, it absolutely HAD to cross species at some point for there to be the variety of life forms that exist. If so, is there any fossil record which supports this?
Also, has evolution slowed or stopped? If it crossed species at some time in the past, why isn't it still doing it? Where are the centaurs, the Medusas, the insect man in contemporary life?
These may seem like ridiculous questions to a man of science, but they are not frivolous to me. I really appreciate your taking time to help me. I'll be off line until Tuesday, but I look forward to more conversation then. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by molika on Apr 29, 2005 17:33:30 GMT -5
Thanks Merlin. Nice post.
I can't even take credit for my faith, it comes from Christ...
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 12:1-3
|
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Apr 29, 2005 20:37:36 GMT -5
Melika:
Amen. "The heavens declare the glory of God."
|
|
