Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Bubbles on August 03, 2016, 10:00:42 AM
-
I saw this and thought it interesting
How many of them can you match up with a familiar religious tradition? (The answers are at the bottom.)
1. The foreskin of [a holy one] may lie safeguarded in reliquaries made of gold and crystal and inlayed with gems--or it may have ascended into the heavens all by itself. (2)
2. A race of giants once roamed the earth, the result of women and demi-gods interbreeding. (1, 6). They lived at the same time as fire breathing dragons. (1)
3. Evil spirits can take control of pigs. (1)
4. A talking donkey scolded a prophet. (1, 3)
5. A righteous man can control his wife’s access to eternal paradise. (6)
6. Brown skin is a punishment for disobeying God. (6)
7. A prophet once traveled between two cities on a miniature flying horse with the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock. (4)
8. [The Holy One] forbids a cat or dog receiving a blood transfusion and forbids blood meal being used as garden fertilizer. (7)
9. Sacred underwear protects believers from spiritual contamination and, according to some adherents, from fire and speeding bullets (6)
10. When certain rites are performed beforehand, bread turns into human flesh after it is swallowed. (2)
11. Invisible supernatural beings reveal themselves in mundane objects like oozing paint or cooking food. (2)
12. In the end times, [the Holy One’s] chosen people will be gathered together in Jackson County, Missouri. (6)
13. Believers can drink poison or get bit by snakes without being harmed. (1)
14. Sprinkling water on a newborn, if done correctly, can keep the baby from eons of suffering should he or she die prematurely. (2)
15. Waving a chicken over your head can take away your sins. (3)
16. [A holy one] climbed a mountain and could see the whole earth from the mountain peak. (1, 2)
17. Putting a dirty milk glass and a plate from a roast beef sandwich in the same dishwasher can contaminate your soul. (3)
18. There will be an afterlife in which exactly 144,000 people get to live eternally in Paradise. (8)
19. Each human being contains many alien spirits that were trapped in volcanos by hydrogen bombs. (5)
20. [A supernatural being] cares tremendously what you do with your penis. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.
Key: 1-Evangelical or “Bible Believing” Christianity, 2-Catholic Christianity, 3-Judaism, 4-Islam, 5-Scientology, 6-Mormonism 7-Christian Science 8-Jehovah’s Witness
http://www.alternet.org/belief/20-weirdest-religious-beliefs
It's amazing what people can believe sometimes, but I suppose perhaps we all have our own " odd beliefs" , ones that others would find odd.
-
I recognise them Rose but not all the descriptions are completely accurate.
Other people's beliefs seem strange. Ours don't, to us.
-
I recognise them Rose but not all the descriptions are completely accurate.
Other people's beliefs seem strange. Ours don't, to us.
True :)
-
Here are some more strange groups
http://www.indiatimes.com/news/weird/13-religions-from-around-the-world-that-are-just-too-weird-to-be-mainstream-230890.html
It is interesting what people do believe though.
It shows how varied people's thoughts are.
-
My beliefs are not strange!
I believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
I believe water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.
etc
-
BeRational .. please post your location and we can dispatch a team to rescue you from that weird cult!
Atoms :o
-
BeRational .. please post your location and we can dispatch a team to rescue you from that weird cult!
Atoms :o
My location is the real world. No strange beliefs.
-
I think the 'born again' dogma is very strange indeed. The idea that anyone who converts will go to heaven, however bad they have been in this life, yet unbelievers will go to hell, however good and decent they are, is CRAZY!
-
My location is the real world...
hmm .. doesn't seem to be on Google maps ... is it near Bournemouth?
Atoms may not seem strange to you, but could anything be stranger? Even the bits they are made up of may be up to something else when you are not looking?
Whizzing around, at over 30km/sec, a ball of hydrogen in the process of changing itself to something else - not strange at all?
It's all relative.
-
hmm .. doesn't seem to be on Google maps ... is it near Bournemouth?
Atoms may not seem strange to you, but could anything be stranger? Even the bits they are made up of may be up to something else when you are not looking?
Whizzing around, at over 30km/sec, a ball of hydrogen in the process of changing itself to something else - not strange at all?
It's all relative.
Atoms themselves are strange, but belief in them is not.
This is because the belief is supported by vast amounts of testable evidence.
-
My beliefs are not strange!
I believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
I believe water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.
etc
Both of those beliefs are false, of course:
The Earth orbits the centre of mass of the solar system (as does the Sun).
Even a small drop of water has vastly more than two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in it.
-
Both of those beliefs are false, of course:
The Earth orbits the centre of mass of the solar system (as does the Sun).
Even a small drop of water has vastly more than two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in it.
Agreed.
But telling people that the Earth and Sun are both in orbit of the mass of the solar system just confuses most people.
Indeed this is how we detect stars with planets by detecting the 'wobble'.
But the fact remains that belief in orbits is not strange, even if what is being believed seems strange. The reason is that the beliefs are supported by evidence.
Contrast this with a belief in say aliens abduction. We know abduction happens, we understand that life could exist elsewhere, but belief that they are coming here to abduct people is still strange as the evidence to support it, is just anecdotal.
-
My beliefs are not strange!
I believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
I believe water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.
etc
Perhaps you have a few other beliefs that would rate as strange ;).
Not relating to what is thought of as scientific facts :D
People think about lots of other things :)
I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't all have a couple of ways of seeing the world that could rate as odd
;D
-
Perhaps you have a few other beliefs that would rate as strange ;).
Not relating to what is thought of as scientific facts :D
People think about lots of other things :)
I do not think so.
I do not have strange beliefs.
-
I do not think so.
I do not have strange beliefs.
( then maybe you are a bit strange, by default) ;)
'All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer'.
-
( then maybe you are a bit strange, by default) ;)
But I would still not have a strange belief.
Also, by assuming that everyone believes strange things is I would say odd.
Why would you assume that everyone believes some nonsense?
-
But I would still not have a strange belief.
Also, by assuming that everyone believes strange things is I would say odd.
Why would you assume that everyone believes some nonsense?
Because I have found most people, even the most rational have their Idiosyncrasies
Even geniuses like Einstein did.
-
Because I have found most people, even the most rational have their Idiosyncrasies
Even geniuses like Einstein did.
What nonsense did he believe?
-
Because I have found most people, even the most rational have their Idiosyncrasies
Even geniuses like Einstein did.
I do not have any strange beliefs. I can imagine an infinite number of strange things, but know how to checke whether they are true or false - and that is much more interesting and exciting than believing things for which there is zeero evidence.
-
I enjoy escapist fantasy and on the odd occasion when I can achieve it, it is bliss. Not often I'm afraid. I don't kid myself it's real but wish it was.
None of that is 'belief' though, that's a different kettle of fish.
-
What nonsense did he believe?
I didn't use the word 'Nonsense' I said strange, or odd.
There is a world of difference.
His beliefs about relationships and how they functioned seems very strange as does how he reacted to his oldest sons choice of wife.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/03/26/10-strange-facts-about-einstein/
His sometimes weird behaviour indicates some ' strange ' perceptions/beliefs around relationships.
Plus for some reason he apparently never combed his hair.
There must have been a reason, underlying it.
Also the contract he drew up with his wife shows some very peculiar beliefs about relationships.
The relationship progressed. Einstein became estranged from his wife. The biography reprints a chilling letter from Einstein to his wife, a proposed "contract" in which they could continue to live together under certain conditions. Indeed that was the heading: "Conditions."
A. You will make sure
1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.
B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons...
There's more, including "you will stop talking to me if I request it." She accepted the conditions. He later wrote to her again to make sure she grasped that this was going to be all-business in the future, and that the "personal aspects must be reduced to a tiny remnant." And he vowed, "In return, I assure you of proper comportment on my part, such as I would exercise to any woman as a stranger." (Source)
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/03/26/10-strange-facts-about-einstein/
:o
-
I didn't use the word 'Nonsense' I said strange, or odd.
There is a world of difference.
His beliefs about relationships and how they functioned seems very strange as does how he reacted to his oldest sons choice of wife.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/03/26/10-strange-facts-about-einstein/
His sometimes weird behaviour indicates some ' strange ' perceptions/beliefs around relationships.
Plus for some reason he apparently never combed his hair.
There must have been a reason, underlying it.
These do not represent strange beliefs.
He had his opinion on relationships but so what.
His fashion was not to your taste, but then again so what.
-
These do not represent strange beliefs.
He had his opinion on relationships but so what.
His fashion was not to your taste, but then again so what.
An opinion is an expression of belief, it's how someone sees the order of things.
Odd habits often have their root in odd beliefs or perceptions.
-
An opinion is an expression of belief, it's how someone sees the order of things.
Odd habits often have their root in odd beliefs or perceptions.
How people dress is not a belief, it is a personal taste.
People have odd strange tastes perhaps.
But I say again, I do not have any strange beliefs as far as I am aware.
If I am made aware of one, guess what, I will stop believing it.
-
How people dress is not a belief, it is a personal taste.
People have odd strange tastes perhaps.
But I say again, I do not have any strange beliefs as far as I am aware.
If I am made aware of one, guess what, I will stop believing it.
Be Rational, please don't take offence but you are too hung up about being "normal"
The occasional strange belief won't kill you :D
Some of the greatest minds were eccentrics, which involves being a bit odd.
It's ok to be yourself and an individual. It's ok not to be 100% rational as long as you don't hurt someone else.
Let it all hang out, now and again ;)
🌹
-
Quite right.
It's good to be lighthearted.
-
Be Rational, please don't take offence but you are too hung up about being "normal"
How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?
strange belief won't kill you :D
Like me, it appears he has no 'strange' beliefs!
It's ok to be yourself and an individual. It's ok not to be 100% rational as long as you don't hurt someone else.
that sounds a tad patronising!!
-
How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?
Like me, it appears he has no 'strange' beliefs!that sounds a tad patronising!!
It wasn't intended to be.
Strange beliefs can be a bit subjective, depending on who is looking at them.
-
Here are some well known scientists who contributed greatly to their field of study but still harboured some strange beliefs.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19777_5-great-scientists-who-believed-wildly-unscientific-things.html
-
Like Brownie, I recognise the majority of them, but I'm not sure that the categorisations are necessarily correct. For instance, Balaam's ass has no relationship to Christianity - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
By the way, 'Bible-believing' can be applied to all Christians, whichever of the 3 groupings mentioned above they might be. Similarly, the term can be disapplied to some of each of them.
I suspect that the same criticisms can be applied to the Jewish & Muslim categorisations, and to the fact that some of these ideas are also common in other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.
-
Like Brownie, I recognise the majority of them, but I'm not sure that the categorisations are necessarily correct. For instance, Balaam's ass has no relationship to Christianity - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
By the way, 'Bible-believing' can be applied to all Christians, whichever of the 3 groupings mentioned above they might be. Similarly, the term can be disapplied to some of each of them.
I suspect that the same criticisms can be applied to the Jewish & Muslim categorisations, and to the fact that some of these ideas are also common in other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.
If Balaam's ass has no relationship to Christianity then you have just effectively declared those Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible to not be Christians in your view. And arguably any Christian who reads that passage as having any relevance as not Christian.
-
It's difficult to explain NS. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers is part of the Torah; our faith grew out of the Jewish faith so there is a connection. We read the Old Testament because it tells us, in a pictorial fashion, about God and his relationship with his people but the Christian view, generally, is that the Old Testament can only be understood in the light of the New, ie when Jesus arrived, and his ministry. So our main focus is on the New Testament and our relationship with Jesus. The Torah is read with reverence but only as a forerunner to the coming of Jesus.
However, there are Christians who see it differently, they believe our faith and the Jewish faith cannot be separated, so they would say that there is a relationship between the story in Numbers and Christianity.
So there you have it, different schools of thought. I'm sure it is as clear as mud but I tried.
-
It's difficult to explain NS. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers is part of the Torah; our faith grew out of the Jewish faith so there is a connection. We read the Old Testament because it tells us, in a pictorial fashion, about God and his relationship with his people but the Christian view, generally, is that the Old Testament can only be understood in the light of the New, ie when Jesus arrived, and his ministry. So our main focus is on the New Testament and our relationship with Jesus. The Torah is read with reverence but only as a forerunner to the coming of Jesus.
However, there are Christians who see it differently, they believe our faith and the Jewish faith cannot be separated, so they would say that there is a relationship between the story in Numbers and Christianity.
So there you have it, different schools of thought. I'm sure it is as clear as mud but I tried.
So given that you find relevance in it, and Hope thinks it has no relevance for Christians, according to Hope you are not a Christian.
-
Here are some well known scientists who contributed greatly to their field of study but still harboured some strange beliefs.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19777_5-great-scientists-who-believed-wildly-unscientific-things.html
I have never said that some people do not have strange beliefs, just that I do not.
Why is this a problem for you?
-
So given that you find relevance in it, and Hope thinks it has no relevance for Christians, according to Hope you are not a Christian.
I don't think it is as black and white as that NS :). Hope, I am pretty sure, recognises that Christians differ in their interpretations of scripture and doctrine. I too recognise that but it has to be said that I have been accused of being too liberal and even 'wishy washy', 'universalist' is another label I've been given which I don't mind - but it isn't about me and on this particular issue I think many mainstream Christians vary.
It doesn't really matter, though. if another Christian thinks I am not one, does it? He certainly hasn't said that and without asking him, I don't know, and I am not going to ask him. I'd rather the discussion was general rather than personal. What Hope actually said was specifically that Balaam's ass has no relationship to Christianity.
The thread is about 20 'strange' beliefs and I think it might be a good idea if I went back to the op and commented on some of them.
-
I don't think it is as black and white as that NS :). Hope, I am pretty sure, recognises that Christians differ in their interpretations of scripture and doctrine. I too recognise that but it has to be said that I have been accused of being too liberal and even 'wishy washy', 'universalist' is another label I've been given which I don't mind - but it isn't about me and on this particular issue I think many mainstream Christians vary.
It doesn't really matter, though. if another Christian thinks I am not one, does it? He certainly hasn't said that and without asking him, I don't know, and I am not going to ask him. I'd rather the discussion was general rather than personal. What Hope actually said was specifically that Balaam's ass has no relationship to Christianity.
The thread is about 20 'strange' beliefs and I think it might be a good idea if I went back to the op and commented on some of them.
And for Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible then content must have a relationship. There are more than enough Christians (and some time atheists) who go down the No True Christian route and the context of Hope's post effectively does that.
In terms of should it matter to you how other Christians think you are Christian or not, I agree, not important. But the classification issue can be important externally. When peaceful Muslims, say IS Isn't Muslim., I think we are entitled to question whether that has any weight.
-
It seems to me that the question of what makes a belief strange seems to rely on it not being based on the current usual societal method for justifying beliefs, which is itself a belief.
-
Also the idea that someone might declare that they have no strange beliefs seems odd. Surely no one actually thinks their own belief are 'strange' because they believe .
-
Reading that sort of Ronnie Rollocks makes me think that perhaps, when I abandoned Christainity in 1992 and became a humanist, I should have stuck to my guns instead of going back to Christianity a year later. I read 'The New Humanist' regularly, and agree with it far more than I ever agreed with any Evangelical Christian magazines I've read.
-
I'm posting about some of the questions, thought I'd leave the Nephilim, Balaam's Amazing Talking Donkey (which we've spoken about), and 144,000 Elect to others.
10. When certain rites are performed beforehand, bread turns into human flesh after it is swallowed. (2)
I presume the above question refers to Transubstantiation which is a Catholic dogma. However the question is inaccurate, the bread does not become human flesh.
Catholics believe that, after consecratation, bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Christ but not that they become, demonstrably, the body and blood of Christ. The belief is that the true presence of Christ's blood and body are under the appearance of wine and blood. (There are others besides Catholics who believe this, there is also 'Consubstantiation' which is something different.)
13. Believers can drink poison or get bit by snakes without being harmed. (1)
There is a Biblical reference to handling snakes and indeed there are some churches whose members handle poisonous snakes during worship meetings.
Mark 16:17–18 is used by some as a basis for handling snakes: “These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will . . . pick up snakes with their hands.”
Sometimes the snake handlers are bitten so it's not something to be done at home!
Sprinkling water on a newborn, if done correctly, can keep the baby from eons of suffering should he or she dierematurely. (2)
Largely defunct and unkind church teaching, not in keeping with the compassion of Christ. It used to be believed that the soul of an unbaptised baby would not enter the Kingdom of God. If that is still taught in some quarters, it is thankfully very rare.
15. Waving a chicken over your head can take away your sins. (3)
If you stick a deckchair up your nose at the same time you certainly deserve a medal if not absolution.
17. Putting a dirty milk glass and a plate from a roast beef sandwich in the same dishwasher can contaminate your soul. (3)
In the teachings of Orthodox Judaism, milk products and meat should not be cooked and eaten together nor the utensils used be washed together. Orthodox households have separate bowls for washing up (or two dishwashers, depending on their affluence), two sets of cutlery, etc. There are procedures for ritually cleansing anything that has been contaminated by milk/meat, one of which is burying cutlery in the earth.
http://thetorah.com/meat-and-milk-origins-in-the-text/
-
Also the idea that someone might declare that they have no strange beliefs seems odd. Surely no one actually thinks their own belief are 'strange' because they believe .
I care if my beliefs are true, and only want true beliefs. I hold no beliefs that do not have a weight of evidence for them. Of course my beliefs are on a scale where nothing reaches 100%.
-
I care if my beliefs are true, and only want true beliefs. I hold no beliefs that do not have a weight of evidence for them. Of course my beliefs are on a scale where nothing reaches 100%.
Do you have beliefs about things that are not facts? E.g. Morality?
-
I care if my beliefs are true, and only want true beliefs.
What is a 'true belief'?
I hold no beliefs that do not have a weight of evidence for them. Of course my beliefs are on a scale where nothing reaches 100%.
So, do you have any beliefs at all? ;)
-
That's NS's business, really. I have a sense that it is not our place to pry here.
-
That's NS's business, really. I have a sense that it is not our place to pry here.
Not sure you are talking about the right poster here as this seems a non sequitur
-
Hope,
What is a 'true belief'?
Depends whether you mean "true for me", subjective belief or "true for everyone", objective belief. For the former, pretty much anything - pixies, your god, whatever. Doesn't matter much. For the latter though, a good place to start is to eliminate those whose premises rest on fallacious reasoning (ie, your downfall), and then to find a method - testing and inter-subjective experience for example - so as to establish provisionally objective truths while not overreaching into claims of absolute truth.
So, do you have any beliefs at all?
Of course he has. There's no rule that a belief has to be 100% certainly held for it to be a belief nonetheless. Indeed, claiming 100% certainty undermines the validity of the belief in the first place
-
Not sure you are talking about the right poster here as this seems a non sequitur
Alright, sorry it was just a hunch, won't say it again.
-
Alright, sorry it was just a hunch, won't say it again.
You aren't making any sense. Nothing about my 'business' has been raised on the thread.
-
"Twenty strange religious beliefs"
Only twenty?
ippy
-
NS, sorry, you were right about me getting the wrong poster, it was BeR who was asked, not you!
Ippy, you could add a few more questions if you want - please.
-
Brownie,
Ippy, you could add a few more questions if you want - please.
Well, I hear that there's a religious faith that thinks a man (who was partly a god, but not as kosher a god as his dad) was clinically dead for a bit and then alive again, only this chap is also part of a "trinity" or some such. There's a talking snake involved somehow too by the way.
How much more "out there" bonkers do you want?
-
Do you have beliefs about things that are not facts? E.g. Morality?
I have my own views on morality informed from my upbringing and from interacting with other people.
-
What is a 'true belief'?
So, do you have any beliefs at all? ;)
I care whether my beliefs are true so the evidence has to be appropriate and compelling for me.
I have lots of beliefs but no cherished beliefs and no beliefs that cannot be changed if new evidence comes to my attention.
None of my beliefs are 100% certain. All my beliefs could be wrong.
-
I have my own views on morality informed from my upbringing and from interacting with other people.
And these 'views' are surely beliefs in any sense of the word, and are not about facts.
-
I care whether my beliefs are true so the evidence has to be appropriate and compelling for me.
So, not necessarily 'true', but merely true for you.
I have lots of beliefs but no cherished beliefs and no beliefs that cannot be changed if new evidence comes to my attention.
What's a 'cherished belief'?
None of my beliefs are 100% certain. All my beliefs could be wrong.
I think all of us understand that our beliefs could be wrong, but can we carry on with life constantly doubting things? Surely beliefs have to be taken as correct until such time as evidence indicates that they might not be? In other words, we have to be positive, as opposed to negative.
-
Questioning is good, faith or no faith. More extreme Christians, like one on this forum, think they are always right, but anyone with a different POV is wrong.
-
Questioning is good, faith or no faith.
Quite agree - and its interesting that both Jesus and that great feminist, Paul, advise that questioning is important.
-
And these 'views' are surely beliefs in any sense of the word, and are not about facts.
They are based on assumptions like I would rather not be in pain and assume everyone feels that way.
I would rather be alive than dead etc
-
So, not necessarily 'true', but merely true for you.
What's a 'cherished belief'?
I think all of us understand that our beliefs could be wrong, but can we carry on with life constantly doubting things? Surely beliefs have to be taken as correct until such time as evidence indicates that they might not be? In other words, we have to be positive, as opposed to negative.
True for everyone. Things that are true for me are things like my favourite colour which is just a matter of taste.
I want my beliefs as far as I can manage to be true for everyone.
A cherished believe is one you will not change because it makes you feel good. I doubt you would change your belief in a god, but I will.
-
Quite agree - and its interesting that both Jesus and that great feminist, Paul, advise that questioning is important.
Feminist, Paul? TAKE MORE WATER WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was the idiot who suggested women were silent in church, and should be subservient to their husbands!
-
Quite agree - and its interesting that both Jesus and that great feminist, Paul, advise that questioning is important.
What evidence do you have that would substantiate/confirm that this the said Paul and the other bloke did in fact say exactly what you think they have said, Hope?
I would imagine any evidence you think you have is on the tenuous side, like most of the religious stuff you've been taken in by; you know, similar to the other religious stuff you never have provided credible evidence for.
ippy
-
Brownie,
Well, I hear that there's a religious faith that thinks a man (who was partly a god, but not as kosher a god as his dad) was clinically dead for a bit and then alive again, only this chap is also part of a "trinity" or some such. There's a talking snake involved somehow too by the way.
How much more "out there" bonkers do you want?
I'm taking it that you are not talking about mainstream Christianity here because that thinks a bloke was wholly God. If you are altering mainstream Christianity to make cheap fun while hoping to maintain a patina of being reasonably informed then that would be Bonkers.
Apologies for my micturations on your conflagration.
-
I'm taking it that you are not talking about mainstream Christianity here because that thinks a bloke was wholly God.
Would that make Sassy, not a mainstream Christian?
-
It depends on the definition of mainstream Christianity. I don't think Biblical literalists/ fundies, and the born again brigade are mainstream Christians.
-
It depends on the definition of mainstream Christianity. I don't think Biblical literalists/ fundies, and the born again brigade are mainstream Christians.
Noy quite sure what you mean by "Biblical fundies, and the born again brigade", Floo. By definition, a Christian is born-again. I assume, by 'Biblical fundies' you are referring those people who regard the Bible as the means by which we get to read and hear about God's plan for humanity, about Jesus' teaching and about how to live a God-fearing life. In other words, that huge body of Christians who would regard themselves as mainstream.
-
Noy quite sure what you mean by "Biblical fundies, and the born again brigade", Floo. By definition, a Christian is born-again. I assume, by 'Biblical fundies' you are referring those people who regard the Bible as the means by which we get to read and hear about God's plan for humanity, about Jesus' teaching and about how to live a God-fearing life. In other words, that huge body of Christians who would regard themselves as mainstream.
By your definition a Christian is a 'born again' but that unpleasant dogma is NOT mainstream.
-
By your definition a Christian is a 'born again' but that unpleasant dogma is NOT mainstream.
Sorry, Floo, but it is one of the most mainstream understandings that there is. If you are unsure of this, look at the story of Jesus and Nicodemus - John 3 - or look at 1 Peter 1.
-
By your definition a Christian is a 'born again' but that unpleasant dogma is NOT mainstream.
I think it is mainstream, but what the interpretation of what it means to be born again , varies.
Some churches just see it as meaning you attend a church and become and live life as a Christian others think it means something more.
So Christians I have known sometimes don't see the C of E members as having been "born again" because they have a different angle on it.
Born again, can then become exclusive, with people saying things like the c of e is dead etc.
But even the c of e has a concept of being born again, they just don't expect members to start speaking in tongues to prove they have it.
That's what I have found.
being born again is in the bible it's just the interpretations of what that means that changes.
The c of e doesn't expect its members to speak in tongues and doesn't see it as separate to living a church life, other even mainstream Christians ( Pentecostal) sometimes don't seem to see the members of c of e as very spiritual or born again.
It's a bit snobby, thinking other Christians arn't " born again' because they don't worship or speak in tongues in the same way.
But the idea of being born again is mainstream it's just the c of e version is more " sensible" imo
-
Sorry, Floo, but it is one of the most mainstream understandings that there is. If you are unsure of this, look at the story of Jesus and Nicodemus - John 3 - or look at 1 Peter 1.
I don't agree because the understanding isn't the same.
There are different ideas of what born again means.
What it means in the c of e isn't what it means in your Pentecostal church.
Baptists have different ideas to the c of e for example.
-
There are churches within the CofE whose members speak in tongues, Holy Trinity Brompton is the most well known but there are plenty of others. I haven't been to HTB but have experienced that in a CofE church and amongst Anglicans, including clergy. Alpha was born out of it.
The Catholic Church also has the 'Charismatic' wing and some churches run a course called : "Life in the Spirit".
Within the above congregations there are many who consider that someone who does not have 'the gift of tongues' "isn't quite there yet". (I had it said to me, with a smile, many years ago.)
-
Sorry, Floo, but it is one of the most mainstream understandings that there is. If you are unsure of this, look at the story of Jesus and Nicodemus - John 3 - or look at 1 Peter 1.
According to you. Fortunately the majority of Christians aren't Biblical literalists or evangelicals.
-
There are churches within the CofE whose members speak in tongues, Holy Trinity Brompton is the most well known but there are plenty of others. I haven't been to HTB but have experienced that in a CofE church and amongst Anglicans, including clergy. Alpha was born out of it.
The Catholic Church also has the 'Charismatic' wing and some churches run a course called : "Life in the Spirit".
Within the above congregations there are many who consider that someone who does not have 'the gift of tongues' "isn't quite there yet". (I had it said to me, with a smile, many years ago.)
See what you mean.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/archbishop-of-canterbury-on-speaking-in-tongues-it-just-comes-100848/
Most c of e I have come across hasn't had speaking in tongues
-
You will find it in the more evangelical Anglican churches, Rose. Not your average parish church. However there is one (amongst three or four Anglican churches) near me, I've not been there but have encountered two people who go.
Near to the Catholic church which I used to attend is another Catholic church which has quite a strong charismatic group (the rest of the church congregation carry on as usual). I've been there twice but only to funerals. Again I've known several people who are involved in the charismatic wing of the church and there is an annual five day conference in Norfolk.
-
According to you. Fortunately the majority of Christians aren't Biblical literalists or evangelicals.
When you get baptised in the Church of England being born again is part of it.
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1190836/holy%20baptism.pdf
It's under introduction.
I haven't come across speaking in tongues in the c of e only from my ordained friend who was originally a Pentecostal.
She doesn't do it because it's not really expected in the c of e.
I think it depends how evangelical the branch of c of e is.
I would be a bit shocked if a c of e vicar started talking in tongues, I don't think it's accepted really.
I know I was sat between a Catholic father and an evangelical fundamentalist ( American)once and it was amusing because the catholic priest wasn't used to people talking about God like he was someone you routinely nattered to.
I think you are supposed to be pious in Catholicism and I think the other guy telling him what God had personally told him that particular morning was making him cringe.
The Catholics in the group knew it was just a different way of putting things and exchanged amused glances, but it wasn't their way.
Different groups have different ways, in fact as Brownie points out their are sub groups within the groups, so it's hard to define exactly.
Baptists, c of E, and other groups all follow mainstream teachings but they can be very different in how they realise them.
Born again has many interpretations, just like baptism ( whether you need total immersion or a little sprinkle.)
;)
-
There was a poster on the old BBC R&E called Luther Wesley Baxter (or something very similar) who used to say that Christians needed to be born again - but 'from above', where the 'from above' element was important.
I can't remember what this 'from above' involved, but perhaps someone else might.
-
The Elim Pentecostal church I attended as a kid had three members who used to favour us with gobbledegook, aka speaking in tongues, most weeks. They would interrupt whatever else was going on with their daft squawking. A lot of the other members of the congregation found it embarrassing, but the kids thought it hilarious and had to stifle giggles.
-
There was a poster on the old BBC R&E called Luther Wesley Baxter (or something very similar) who used to say that Christians needed to be born again - but 'from above', where the 'from above' element was important.
I can't remember what this 'from above' involved, but perhaps someone else might.
I remember him, I suspect he also posted on this forum too under another name. Half the time people didn't know what he was on about.
-
There was a poster on the old BBC R&E called Luther Wesley Baxter (or something very similar) who used to say that Christians needed to be born again - but 'from above', where the 'from above' element was important.
I can't remember what this 'from above' involved, but perhaps someone else might.
Yes I remember him too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/MP13668671
Being "born from above" usually seems to mean that the person has to receive one of the recognised gifts of the spirit "from above".
Basically it's saying that just becoming a Christian and getting baptised isn't enough it needs a response of some sort ( usually gift of the spirit) and the receiver is aware of a response from the Holy Ghost.
I think that's how he meant it.
-
"Except a man be born again," He said, "he cannot see the Kingdom of God." In other words, the Kingdom is not made up of mortal, flesh-and-blood human beings (see I Cor. 15:42-50). Therefore, to see the Kingdom--to enter into it and become a part of it--a person must become something other than a mortal, flesh-and-blood human being. He must be changed from mortal to immortal, from corruptible flesh to incorruptible spirit.
He must be born again!!
"Again" or "From Above"?
The Greek word translated "again" (John 3:3, "born again"), is rendered "from above" in many modern English translations. The word is anothen, and can mean "from above," "anew," "from the top," and "from the first." In John's gospel, the term usually means "from above" (see John 3:31; 19:11), but that doesn't mean that "from above" is always the preferred translation. Many commentators claim that anothen should be translated "from above" in John 3:3.
But should it? Rather than go to Greek scholars and assume they speak the language Jesus and the Apostles spoke, let's go to someone who definitely spoke the language of Jesus. His name is Nicodemus!
In response to Jesus' startling statement, Nicodemus asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
Clearly, Nicodemus understood Jesus to say that a man must be born anew--a "second time"--to see the Kingdom of God. The idea of receiving the Holy Spirit "from above" was well known to the Jews, as was the concept of being "made new" through healing of infirmities. Had Jesus used a word that meant "from above," Nicodemus would have thought Jesus was speaking of a spiritual "birth," or "renewal," through reception of the Holy Spirit.
It seems that virtually every commentator assumes that the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus took place in Greek. They then proceed to explore the various nuances of meanings of the Greek words used in the text.
But keep in mind that both Jesus and Nicodemus spoke Aramaic fluently, and that this conversation probably--almost certainly--took place in Aramaic, not Greek. So regardless the nuances of meaning of a single Greek term, it is clear that Nicodemus did not hear Jesus say anything that remotely resembled "spiritual renewal from above"! Rather, he understood Him to say that a man must come forth from the womb a second time!
http://7times.org/newsletter/bornagain.shtml
-
This catholic site puts it better
How and when this rebirth occurs is something that various Christian traditions understand differently. For instance, an Evangelical Christian might say he is born again when he "accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." A member of a Pentecostal or Charismatic church might say she is born again when she is "baptized in the Spirit" and receives the gift of tongues as a confirmation. The words may be different, and the expectations may vary, but each person is reflecting on his or her own experience of God bringing someone from darkness to light.
http://catholicexchange.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-born-from-above
I think Wesley was saying he believed you had to get a response from the HG to be " born from above"
It's a bit like an acceptance of your being saved.
-
The Elim Pentecostal church I attended as a kid had three members who used to favour us with gobbledegook, aka speaking in tongues, most weeks. They would interrupt whatever else was going on with their daft squawking. A lot of the other members of the congregation found it embarrassing, but the kids thought it hilarious and had to stifle giggles.
I can imagine.
:)
-
Just out of interest you can look up the archived BBC messageboards here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/
-
I remember him, I suspect he also posted on this forum too under another name. Half the time people didn't know what he was on about.
Yes, you were flower weren't you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=8245407
You seemed to get on with him
-
Yes, you were flower weren't you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=8245407
You seemed to get on with him
Really well, LOL! Did you read the rest of my posts directed at the guy?
-
Really well, LOL! Did you read the rest of my posts directed at the guy?
No, but you seemed to think he was treated unfairly there.
It was just the one I came across :)
There were lots of posters that didn't make much sense, persecuted was one.
TW used to post and another that has been here before, Atruster.
-
No, but you seemed to think he was treated unfairly there.
It was just the one I came across :)
There were lots of posters that didn't make much sense, persecuted was one.
TW used to post and another that has been here before, Atruster.
Read the rest of those posts, and you will see that I didn't exactly rate the guy.
I wonder what has happened to Nicholas Marks?
-
The Elim Pentecostal church I attended as a kid had three members who used to favour us with gobbledegook, aka speaking in tongues, most weeks. They would interrupt whatever else was going on with their daft squawking. A lot of the other members of the congregation found it embarrassing, but the kids thought it hilarious and had to stifle giggles.
At first I thought you said, interpret, and was hopeful, but then I saw you wrote interrupt.
Tongues were always meant to be interpreted so people can understand.
-
I think it is mainstream, but what the interpretation of what it means to be born again , varies.
Couldn't agree more, Rose. It is why I always challenge Floo when she makes her blanket categorisations.
-
I don't agree because the understanding isn't the same.
There are different ideas of what born again means.
What it means in the c of e isn't what it means in your Pentecostal church.
Baptists have different ideas to the c of e for example.
Whilst the various denominations have different interpretations, the concept of being born again is one that was introduced by Jesus Christ himself. As such, it is a core/mainstream concept in Christianity. It isn't the wayout idea that Floo likes to suggest it is. She has a habit of taking the most extreme of forms of the faith and trying to make out that they are 'mainstream', and therefore that the whole faith is not to be trusted.
-
Couldn't agree more, Rose. It is why I always challenge Floo when she makes her blanket categorisations.
Oh what a hoot, you don't make blanket categorisations of course! :D
-
Oh what a hoot, you don't make blanket categorisations of course! :D
I have been known to, and I have generally apologised for doing so, as I try hard not to make such generalisations. Sometimes, one makes them when trying to start a conversation/debate, or when trying to make a point.
-
I have been known to, and I have generally apologised for doing so, as I try hard not to make such generalisations. Sometimes, one makes them when trying to start a conversation/debate, or when trying to make a point.
Where the 'born again' dogma is concerned I make no apology for my POV on that topic having been a victim of that extreme nastiness.
-
Where the 'born again' dogma is concerned I make no apology for my POV on that topic having been a victim of that extreme nastiness.
No, you weren't a victim of 'that extreme nastiness', Floo. You were victim of a particularly extreme interpretation of the concept. Tere ios a huge difference which, even you, will appreciate if you think about the two concepts.
-
No, you weren't a victim of 'that extreme nastiness', Floo. You were victim of a particularly extreme interpretation of the concept. Tere ios a huge difference which, even you, will appreciate if you think about the two concepts.
That's all they are, they're only ideas/concepts so why let yourselves get upset by any of it?
ippy
-
That's all they are, they're only ideas/concepts so why let yourselves get upset by any of it?
ippy
You're entitled to your opinion; whether there is any evidence for it is open to debate.
-
No, you weren't a victim of 'that extreme nastiness', Floo. You were victim of a particularly extreme interpretation of the concept. Tere ios a huge difference which, even you, will appreciate if you think about the two concepts.
Don't ALL 'born agains' believe that if you don't get 'saved' you will go to hell, however good and decent you are? It is madness to believe someone who has been evil all their life could make a deathbed conversion and go straight to heaven.
-
Floo,
Not being given the punishment they deserve: isn't that how the principle of sending criminals to prison instead of eye-for-eye punishment operates? For example, someone deserves to be executed if they've committed murder. But sending them to prison gives them the chance to reform, even if they stay in prison for life.
-
You're entitled to your opinion; whether there is any evidence for it is open to debate.
Not again Hope? When will it ever sink in? You're still nibbling around the edges with your beloved and obvious to almost anyone else, nonsensical N P F silliness.
ippy
-
Not again Hope? When will it ever sink in? You're still nibbling around the edges with your beloved and obvious to almost anyone else, nonsensical N P F silliness.
ippy
Again, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you have no right to impose it on others, especially when you have no evidence for its correctness.
-
Floo,
Not being given the punishment they deserve: isn't that how the principle of sending criminals to prison instead of eye-for-eye punishment operates? For example, someone deserves to be executed if they've committed murder. But sending them to prison gives them the chance to reform, even if they stay in prison for life.
That isn't the point! I am saying it is a crazy scenario that someone who has been really bad could make a deathbed conversion and go to heaven, but a good person who hasn't converted will go to hell.
-
Again, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you have no right to impose it on others, especially when you have no evidence for its correctness.
Surely you are imposing your less than credible opinions on us without verifiable evidence to back them up.
-
That's why it's all BOLLOX, Floo.
(But sending them to prison gives them the chance to reform, even if they stay in prison for life.
Now THAT'S sadistic, no ????
Nick
-
Again, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you have no right to impose it on others, especially when you have no evidence for its correctness.
Ah I see, it still hasn't sunk in yet, not to worry Hope.
ippy
-
That isn't the point! I am saying it is a crazy scenario that someone who has been really bad could make a deathbed conversion and go to heaven, but a good person who hasn't converted will go to hell.
How do we know if someone is good? Not wanting to make myself look better than anyone else or anything, but to illustrate: I found an elderly chap sitting on the pavement near the station at 6.00am in the winter a few years ago. He'd gone out thinking he might be in time to get to the chemist before it shut (disorientated obviously) and had slipped over and couldn't get up. While I was talking to him finding out what was going on, probably a dozen or so commuters walked past without saying a word. I was quite surprised that people wbo look like good people would ignore someone in trouble. I think the point is that people are only good when it suits them. This means that we all fall short, whether or not we think we are good. Any amount of shortfall is enough to keep us out of heaven. So if nobody is good enough for heaven, how can anyone get in? They need to be humble first, to the point where they confess they are unable to be good.
Does that explain it?
-
How do we know if someone is good? Not wanting to make myself look better than anyone else or anything, but to illustrate: I found an elderly chap sitting on the pavement near the station at 6.00am in the winter a few years ago. He'd gone out thinking he might be in time to get to the chemist before it shut (disorientated obviously) and had slipped over and couldn't get up. While I was talking to him finding out what was going on, probably a dozen or so commuters walked past without saying a word. I was quite surprised that people wbo look like good people would ignore someone in trouble. I think the point is that people are only good when it suits them. This means that we all fall short, whether or not we think we are good. Any amount of shortfall is enough to keep us out of heaven. So if nobody is good enough for heaven, how can anyone get in? They need to be humble first, to the point where they confess they are unable to be good.
Does that explain it?
Of course that doesn't explain it, DUH!
Let's use the example of Hitler, who had millions of Jews, as well as the disabled and homosexuals exterminated. If the 'born again' position is true, that evil guy could have converted on his deathbed and gone to heaven, whereas someone who has done their best to help others throughout their life, but not a convert, would go to hell. Where is the justice in that?
Besides which, as I have pointed out boringly often, even Hitler is not as bad as the god of the Bible if the deeds attributed to it were true.
-
I think the idea is that we are in no position to judge the state of someone else's salvation, floo, because we do not walk in their shoes. We can only look at ourselves and when we do, we generally think, "Could do better".
-
I think the idea is that we are in no position to judge the state of someone else's salvation, floo, because we do not walk in their shoes. We can only look at ourselves and when we do, we generally think, "Could do better".
There is no salvation to judge, imo!
-
I think the idea is that we are in no position to judge the state of someone else's salvation, floo, because we do not walk in their shoes. We can only look at ourselves and when we do, we generally think, "Could do better".
You first have to establish that there is any salvation at all.
You must not just presuppose and assert it, as that is wrong thinking.
-
I was merely outlining the Christian position BeR, in response to what floo said about bad people supposedly going to Heaven, I wasno' saying anyone else has to believe it.
-
Call yerself a Christian ?!!?? TUT TUT !!! ;) ::)
-
That isn't the point! I am saying it is a crazy scenario that someone who has been really bad could make a deathbed conversion and go to heaven, but a good person who hasn't converted will go to hell.
Floo, anyone could have a deathbed conversion, but neither you nor I (nor anyone here, for that matter) will know exactly what that conversion means to them. In other words, was it something done 'just to be on the safe side', or was it truly meant. God, on the other hand, will know exactly the purpose and will deal accordingly. Similarly, a good person might choose not to go down that route on the grounds that they don't want to compromise their atheistic or other belief. Out of interest, why would a good person, who ius also an atheist want to be in the presence of the God they have - in the case of some here - vigorously denounced and/or whose very existence they have denied?
-
These do not represent strange beliefs.
I think problem is the definition of the word "strange". Your idea of what is strange is probably a little different to Rose's. Your idea of what is strange is almost certainly very different to most people who lived before Kepler. It would have seemed quite bizarre and stupid to believe the Earth goes around the Sun.
-
Couldn't help noticing again you don't seem to be able to get your head around atheism, admittedly I've taken this part of your post out of context, where you have said,
" their atheistic or other belief",
I like most atheists don't believe that gods do or don't exist, there's no belief involved it's a fact that there is no evidence that would support the idea of anything you might like to describe as a god, does in fact exist.
It often makes me wonder why you can't get your head around some of the most basic of facts like this one?
ippy
-
Do atheists ever wonder how & why we came into existence?
-
Do atheists ever wonder how & why we came into existence?
Currently the best explanation for 'how' would be the TofE: 'why' doesn't sound like a valid question.
-
Currently the best explanation for 'how' would be the TofE: 'why' doesn't sound like a valid question.
Why doesn't 'why' sound a valid question, Gordon? Surely, it should be amongst the first tranch of questions being asked - in the same way that it is amongst the first tranch of questions asked at just about every other aspect of human life.
-
Why doesn't 'why' sound a valid question, Gordon? Surely, it should be amongst the first tranch of questions being asked - in the same way that it is amongst the first tranch of questions asked at just about every other aspect of human life.
Then tell me 'why' are there rattlesnakes?
-
Then tell me 'why' are there rattlesnakes?
Rattlesnakes are predators that live in a wide array of habitats, hunting small animals such as birds and rodents
wikipedia
-
Do atheists ever wonder how & why we came into existence?
Yep.
-
wikipedia
Nope - that tells me 'what' they are along with some of their characteristics but it doesn't tell me 'why' there are rattlesnakes in the first place.
-
Rattlesnakes are predators that live in a wide array of habitats, hunting small animals such as birds and rodents
wikipedia
That's the answer to "what are rattlesnakes?" not "why are there rattlesnakes?"
-
Of course that doesn't explain it, DUH!
Let's use the example of Hitler, who had millions of Jews, as well as the disabled and homosexuals exterminated. If the 'born again' position is true, that evil guy could have converted on his deathbed and gone to heaven, whereas someone who has done their best to help others throughout their life, but not a convert, would go to hell. Where is the justice in that?
Besides which, as I have pointed out boringly often, even Hitler is not as bad as the god of the Bible if the deeds attributed to it were true.
We've already mentioned the warlord of the Mau Maus in the USA who is born again, and has undoubtedly hurt a lot of people and probably worse So we have a real example to help with your hypothetical scenario. It may be that in general, people who have committed murder are so far away from God that they cannot repent; cases like Nicky Cruz are unique, and their purpose is to enable large numbers of criminals to be dealt with, through the conversion of a prominent member.
-
Then tell me 'why' are there rattlesnakes?
To keep Lyme disease in check ;)
https://cmns.umd.edu/news-events/features/1162
-
To keep Lyme disease in check ;)
https://cmns.umd.edu/news-events/features/1162
Then 'why' are there the ticks that cause this disease?
-
Then 'why' are there the ticks that cause this disease?
Personally, I believe that's how ecology works.
Something fills a niche, and something else tends to keep it in check.
That's one of the reasons some scientists are concerned, human beings have often been culled by disease when there are a lot of us.
Some scientists say it's just a matter of time, given how well viruses etc evolve, that one day something will dramatically reduce our numbers.
It's happened before, but now there are many more of us.
Lyme disease is just a bacteria that has evolved to survive with ticks.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Lyme-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx#diagnosis
The reason it exists is it has evolved into a ecological niche, just like the rattlesnake.
Some people see an order in ecology, how the system works, how animals adapt etc. Some call the order God or proof of God.
Some find it too ordered to have happened randomly
Others don't.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
-
Lyme disease is just a bacteria that has evolved to survive with ticks.
"Both the treponema that cause syphilis and the borrelia that cause Lyme disease contain only a fifth of the genes they need to live on their own. Related spirochetes that can live outside by themselves need 5,000 genes, whereas the spirochetes of those two diseases have only 1,000 genes in their bodies. The 4,000 missing gene products needed for bacterial growth can be supplied by wet, warm human tissue. This is why both the Lyme disease borrelia and syphilis treponema are symbionts—they require another body to survive" - Lynn Margulis (1938–2011)
Progressive genomic degradation and loss of function [since the Fall]. E.g. we have previously highlighted that parasites are noteworthy for being genetically depleted compared to free-living equivalents... http://creation.com/pandoraviruses
-
Personally, I believe that's how ecology works.
Something fills a niche, and something else tends to keep it in check.
That's one of the reasons some scientists are concerned, human beings have often been culled by disease when there are a lot of us.
Some scientists say it's just a matter of time, given how well viruses etc evolve, that one day something will dramatically reduce our numbers.
It's happened before, but now there are many more of us.
Lyme disease is just a bacteria that has evolved to survive with ticks.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Lyme-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx#diagnosis
The reason it exists is it has evolved into a ecological niche, just like the rattlesnake.
Some people see an order in ecology, how the system works, how animals adapt etc. Some call the order God or proof of God.
Some find it too ordered to have happened randomly
Others don't.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
And some can't or don't want to see the evidence.
ippy
-
Then 'why' are there the ticks that cause this disease?
To give a purpose to rattlesnakes.
-
"Both the treponema that cause syphilis and the borrelia that cause Lyme disease contain only a fifth of the genes they need to live on their own. Related spirochetes that can live outside by themselves need 5,000 genes, whereas the spirochetes of those two diseases have only 1,000 genes in their bodies. The 4,000 missing gene products needed for bacterial growth can be supplied by wet, warm human tissue. This is why both the Lyme disease borrelia and syphilis treponema are symbionts—they require another body to survive" - Lynn Margulis (1938–2011)
Progressive genomic degradation and loss of function [since the Fall]. E.g. we have previously highlighted that parasites are noteworthy for being genetically depleted compared to free-living equivalents... http://creation.com/pandoraviruses
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information
-
And some can't or don't want to see the evidence.
ippy
Like you for example!
:)
-
Like you for example!
:)
What evidence would that be Rose?
ippy
-
What evidence would that be Rose?
ippy
The evidence you reckon they don't or won't see :D
People see the evidence Ippy, they just draw different conclusions.
Which is why it's in the eye of the beholder.
:)
-
"Both the treponema that cause syphilis and the borrelia that cause Lyme disease contain only a fifth of the genes they need to live on their own. Related spirochetes that can live outside by themselves need 5,000 genes, whereas the spirochetes of those two diseases have only 1,000 genes in their bodies. The 4,000 missing gene products needed for bacterial growth can be supplied by wet, warm human tissue. This is why both the Lyme disease borrelia and syphilis treponema are symbionts—they require another body to survive" - Lynn Margulis (1938–2011)
Progressive genomic degradation and loss of function [since the Fall]. E.g. we have previously highlighted that parasites are noteworthy for being genetically depleted compared to free-living equivalents... http://creation.com/pandoraviruses
What fall?
-
What fall?
The article spud quotes seems to be claiming that viruses are devolved and that rather than evolving genetically things are actually degrading. ( which is opposite to what scientists claim)
It seems to blame that on the biblical fall.
It probably ties in with the idea that man used to live a lot longer back in the time of Noah and before. ( I've read this elsewhere)
Methuselah and all that.
So presumably it's claiming that due to the biblical fall ( Adam and Eve, garden of Eden) our progression is backwards and genetics is degrading. That our lifespan has shortened since the early days of the bible.
Viruses and some diseases no longer being able to survive on their own because they have reached a point where they are no viable as a set of stand alone genetics.
It's another way of looking at the universe I suppose :)
-
The evidence you reckon they don't or won't see :D
People see the evidence Ippy, they just draw different conclusions.
Which is why it's in the eye of the beholder.
:)
You appear to be nibbling around the periphery of the T of E, of which nobody has managed to overturn yet, other than the most minor of adjustments.
I think you will find all forms of life here on Earth started off as various forms of virus to which we are all related, if you go back far enough of course.
It's no great shakes to have a read about and understand how evolution works, it might help if you were to have a look at some of it, the evidence that is.
ippy
-
You appear to be nibbling around the periphery of the T of E, of which nobody has managed to overturn yet, other than the most minor of adjustments.
I think you will find all forms of life here on Earth started off as various forms of virus to which we are all related, if you go back far enough of course.
It's no great shakes to have a read about and understand how evolution works, it might help if you were to have a look at some of it, the evidence that is.
ippy
I already have Ippy, perhaps you could do with another look.
-
The article spud quotes seems to be claiming that viruses are devolved and that rather than evolving genetically things are actually degrading. ( which is opposite to what scientists claim)
It seems to blame that on the biblical fall.
It probably ties in with the idea that man used to live a lot longer back in the time of Noah and before. ( I've read this elsewhere)
Methuselah and all that.
So presumably it's claiming that due to the biblical fall ( Adam and Eve, garden of Eden) our progression is backwards and genetics is degrading. That our lifespan has shortened since the early days of the bible.
Viruses and some diseases no longer being able to survive on their own because they have reached a point where they are no viable as a set of stand alone genetics.
It's another way of looking at the universe I suppose :)
The A&E story doesn't have any credibility on any level.
-
Since so many people have and do take the story at face value, it must have credibility at some level.
-
Since so many people have and do take the story at face value, it must have credibility at some level.
Why must it?
-
I see the story of A & E as the story of the first people to feel a sense of self responsibility and awareness of themselves and what we think of as " being human"
The ability to reflect on our death and awareness of our mortality. Our ability to control our environment, farming, etc.
This assumes other animals don't reflect on these things. They might, but they don't do, as we do.
There probably was never a literal Adam and Eve, but there might have been a growing awareness among a small group of families.
The story of Adam and Eve to me symbolises mans evolvement from the other animals, to become self aware and capable of enormous change to his environment.
The ability to interfere with the natural order to benefit humans, our creativity and desire to explore.
In that sense the story is credible to me.
I'm prepared to accept other primates may exhibit some of these qualities.
-
I already have Ippy, perhaps you could do with another look.
I do keep up to date but there hasn't been anything significant where the T of E needs any adjustment lately, so I stick with it as it is.
ippy
-
I do keep up to date but there hasn't been anything significant where the T of E needs any adjustment lately, so I stick with it as it is.
ippy
I just look at it with interest Ippy.
I have no issue with having evolved from something else, perhaps considered not so grand, like alge.
-
Why must it?
Quite.
ippy
-
I just look at it with interest Ippy.
I have no issue with having evolved from something else, perhaps considered not so grand, like alge.
That's fine and dandy but what has the two mythical figures the A & E you're referring to got to do with, well anything?
ippy
-
......I'm prepared to accept other primates may exhibit some of these qualities.
Like this one, Rose?
https://d.europe.newsweek.com/en/full/9993/justin-welby-interview.jpg?w=704
-
Like this one, Rose?
https://d.europe.newsweek.com/en/full/9993/justin-welby-interview.jpg?w=704
I just had a picture of Justin Welby, Brownie.
Have you a link to the article? :)
-
That's fine and dandy but what has the two mythical figures the A & E you're referring to got to do with, well anything?
ippy
If you read my post above Ippy, 139 #you will find an answer to your question :)
-
Er...what I was trying to say was - Justin Welby is a primate.
Oh dear, lead balloon, I'll get me coat :-[ :'(.
-
Er...what I was trying to say was - Justin Welby is a primate.
Oh dear, lead balloon, I'll get me coat :-[ :'(.
Oh!
I didn't get it, me just being a bit thick Brownie ;D
;)
No need to get your coat :D
-
Why must it?
credible = "able to be believed; convincing"
So it must be credible to some. It doesn't mean that it is true, just that some people may think it is true, correctly or incorrectly.
Also: "at some level" - ie. allowing for some non-literal sense. eg. at a mythological "level".
-
That's fine and dandy but what has the two mythical figures the A & E you're referring to got to do with, well anything?
ippy
The first 11 chapters of Genesis aren't an attempt at historical record, ippy et al. They were written long after the rest of Genesis and are a theological explanation - for the Jewish people - of how their God differs from and is more involved in their lives than the gods of neighbouring cultures - especially those of the Babylonian Empire - in the lives of those who worship them.
-
If you read my post above Ippy, 139 #you will find an answer to your question :)
Had a read of 139, don't let it worry you Rose.
ippy
-
Had a read of 139, don't let it worry you Rose.
ippy
I'm not at all worried, Ippy
;)
-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information
Thanks for the link, food for thought.
-
I'm not at all worried, Ippy
;)
I can't say I'm the least bit surprised.
ippy
-
I can't say I'm the least bit surprised.
ippy
Good :)
-
Er...what I was trying to say was - Justin Welby is a primate.
Oh dear, lead balloon, I'll get me coat :-[ :'(.
The dual meaning caused quite a problem for Sir Solly Zuckerman when he wrote a tome about the sexual life of the creatures in question.
-
You're not telling me Archbishops have sex lives, are you? :o
That explains the dressing up, I often wondered.
Gaiters .....
-
The first 11 chapters of Genesis aren't an attempt at historical record, ippy et al. They were written long after the rest of Genesis and are a theological explanation - for the Jewish people - of how their God differs from and is more involved in their lives than the gods of neighbouring cultures - especially those of the Babylonian Empire - in the lives of those who worship them.
So in other words?
ippy
-
The first 11 chapters of Genesis aren't an attempt at historical record, ippy et al.
You are not a true Christian and you are likely due for a burny end! :o
pp
TW.
;)
-
He thinks you said a Berni Inn, Seb. Enjoys a good grilled rump does our Hope.