Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on July 29, 2017, 12:23:02 PM
-
deleted
-
I don't think killing animals now is acceptable, never mind back then - whatever the supposed justification.
-
Do you think it was acceptable to sacrifice animals as an atonement for 'sin' as they did in the days of the OT? God then decided it would be better to sacrifice its son as a once and for all sacrifice, how kind of it! >:(
Human or animal sacrifice is ghastly, and if god really ordered people to do this, it is a psycho, imo.
This is rightly a Jewish topic. Just saying.
-
This is rightly a Jewish topic. Just saying.
is it? Given the mention of sacrifice of JC surely it's a Christian topic too? I get your point but not really sure how we divide up comments on the OT. I see this as discussing a divide between the OT and the NT and that makes no sense in the Jewish sense.
-
This is rightly a Jewish topic. Just saying.
I am talking about it from a Christian perspective as Jesus was supposedly the ultimate sacrifice.
-
Actually, since animal sacrifice was a norm in the ancient world, it's not only a Jewish topic.
-
The need for 'sacrifice' is present in Hinduism too. It is however about individuals sacrificing their personal desires and needs.
Every time a person went on a pilgrimage (taking several weeks or months those days)...he or she was expected to give up something, it could be his favorite dish, special piece of clothing or anything that required will power. Some people would give up sleeping on a mattress, footwear, sex or something else.
Sacrifice was a way of self discipline and personal self control. By and by people started making it easier on themselves by sacrificing (killing) some animal or bird (and eating it later).
How the idea of God sacrificing his son came about in Christianity, is a different matter, I guess.
-
I played a small part in setting up the "Gifts for the gods" exhibition in Glasgow's Kelvingrove museum last year, containing the museum's own collection, plus a travelling exhibition from the museums of Liverpool and Manchester, of animal mummies and their containers from theninth century BC into Roman era Egypt. The subject of animal sacrifice as a substitute for the dwindling royal authority and changes in theological thought as the Egyptian state imploded over several centuries has always fascinated me.
-
Actually, since animal sacrifice was a norm in the ancient world, it's not only a Jewish topic.
Floo specifically mentioned the OT.
-
is it? Given the mention of sacrifice of JC surely it's a Christian topic too? I get your point but not really sure how we divide up comments on the OT. I see this as discussing a divide between the OT and the NT and that makes no sense in the Jewish sense.
This was one of my 'things' when studying and you can't understand the animal sacrifice in the OT without looking at it from a specifically Jewish perspective. I studied with a Jewish elder in order to understand - only briefly, it's a deep subject.
-
This was one of my 'things' when studying and you can't understand the animal sacrifice in the OT without looking at it from a specifically Jewish perspective. I studied with a Jewish elder in order to understand - only briefly, it's a deep subject.
Again I can see the point that there is a specific Jewish perspective on this but if it is being linked to the NT, it's obviously not that perspective that is being focussed on.
-
Floo specifically mentioned the OT.
As I have said in a previous post I am relating sacrifice to Christianity in this instance. If you want to start a topic on sacrifice on the Jewish board, please do.
-
As I have said in a previous post I am relating sacrifice to Christianity in this instance. If you want to start a topic on sacrifice on the Jewish board, please do.
So what do you understand about the progression of thought in the OT with regards to animal sacrifice? How do you think that 'evolved' into the human sacrifice' of Jesus? Do you think that accurately reflects Jewish ideas about sacrifice or can you see a different influence in there?
-
As I have said in a previous post I am relating sacrifice to Christianity in this instance. If you want to start a topic on sacrifice on the Jewish board, please do.
Since sacrifice - human or animal - is no longer necessary as a means of grace, why are you relating it to Christianity?
Shouldn't you widen the topic to 'self-sacrifice'?
-
Since sacrifice - human or animal - is no longer necessary as a means of grace, why are you relating it to Christianity?
Shouldn't you widen the topic to 'self-sacrifice'?
So you reject the notion of Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb?
-
Do you think it was acceptable to sacrifice animals as an atonement for 'sin' as they did in the days of the OT? God then decided it would be better to sacrifice its son as a once and for all sacrifice, how kind of it! >:(
Human or animal sacrifice is ghastly, and if god really ordered people to do this, it is a psycho, imo.
Have you thought of putting this on the Jewish message board?
Jesus has made any necessary sacrifice AFA atonement is concerned.
-
So you reject the notion of Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb?
"self sacrifice".
Christ being the self who is the one and only sacrifice.
-
Seeing as ALL is within & IS God, how can one give back what is already God's ?!?!!?!?
-
This is rightly a Jewish topic. Just saying.
Only problem is we don't seem to have any Jewish posters.
-
Do you think it was acceptable to sacrifice animals as an atonement for 'sin' as they did in the days of the OT? God then decided it would be better to sacrifice its son as a once and for all sacrifice, how kind of it! >:(
Human or animal sacrifice is ghastly, and if god really ordered people to do this, it is a psycho, imo.
The priests ate the meat of many of the prescribed animal sacrifices. The passover lamb was eaten by the people.
-
The priests ate the meat of many of the prescribed animal sacrifices. The passover lamb was eaten by the people.
I dare say, but that doesn't actually answer Floo's question.
-
"self sacrifice".
Christ being the self who is the one and only sacrifice.
How is that? I thought Jesus Christ (as the son of God) was symbolic of the Higher Self (that is eternal)...not the Lower Self that must be eradicated.
-
I dare say, but that doesn't actually answer Floo's question.
If a person eats an animal it is sacrificed so he/she can live. If an old testament sacrifice was eaten by a priest then the offerer was indeed giving his best unblemished animal so someone else could live, making it a sacrifice in the true sense. So yes is my answer to the op.
-
If a person eats an animal it is sacrificed so he/she can live. If an old testament sacrifice was eaten by a priest then the offerer was indeed giving his best unblemished animal so someone else could live, making it a sacrifice in the true sense. So yes is my answer to the op.
What about Abraham being prepared to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice, would he have eaten his remains?
-
How is that? I thought Jesus Christ (as the son of God) was symbolic of the Higher Self (that is eternal)...not the Lower Self that must be eradicated.
What about Abraham being prepared to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice, would he have eaten his remains?
What 'higher self'?
We're gonna get into yet another Trinity thread here - I feel it in my bones.
-
What about Abraham being prepared to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice, would he have eaten his remains?
Don't think God asked Abraham to make Isaac into a kebab.
-
"self sacrifice".
Christ being the self who is the one and only sacrifice.
How is that different to what Floo asked you? And for whom is the sacrifice a necessity?
-
So what do you understand about the progression of thought in the OT with regards to animal sacrifice? How do you think that 'evolved' into the human sacrifice' of Jesus? Do you think that accurately reflects Jewish ideas about sacrifice or can you see a different influence in there?
Rhiannon
Can't say I'm likely to be as well informed as your Jewish elder, but the OT itself does present different strands of thought on the matter of sacrifice, and though Leviticus and Ezekiel seem to think it is a sine qua non of all Jewish life, there are a number of texts which directly oppose this, and suggest that the whole rigmarole is just window dressing, and a diversion from what humans should really be directing their attention to.
The first relevant text is from Jeremiah:
[21] Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh.
[22] For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
[23] But this command I gave them, `Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'
Jeremiah 7
The translation is not too clear, but to me it seems to be saying "perform your sacrifices if that sort of thing makes you happy, but I never commanded any such thing in the first place. I asked you to act righteously".
The second is from Isaiah, which is quite clear:
[11] "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the LORD;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of he-goats.
[12] "When you come to appear before me,
who requires of you
this trampling of my courts?
[13] Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
Isaiah 1
And the third from Micah even clearer:
[6] "With what shall I come before the LORD,
and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
[7] Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6
All these, as far as I can see regard the notion of sacrifice as total irrelevance, especially if the Hebrews continued to commit evil (okay, there's another discussion about "what's evil"?")
Then along comes Christianity, with the particular influence of St Paul and St John, who then decide to reinstate the notion of sacrifice, with Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, (though St Paul seems rather more taken with the idea of the story of the potential human sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, which could be seen as re-instituting an even more primitive and obnoxious idea). Traditional Christianity seems to have been stuck with notion of Christ's 'sacrifice' in one form or another down the ages, the most appalling and ultimately ludicrous being the 'penal substitution atonement' - God sacrificing a bit of himself to himself. In whatever form I've seen this notion presented, it seems a great nonsense to me, even in the idea of Jesus' death somehow allowing humanity to become reconciled to God.
Jesus died for various reasons, largely to do with his being seen as a social nuisance, no doubt. He was heroic to put his money where his mouth was, but I can't see any meaning in the rest of this turgid theologising.
-
MMM
Doesn't it all sound like so many childish threats from a weak, feeble & needy creature, eh ???
-
What about Abraham being prepared to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice, would he have eaten his remains?
The animal sacrifices were symbolic. I mean, why would God say to sprinkle the blood on the North side of the altar? They must have been pointing ahead to something - Isaac included. One view is that Isaac was spared because he was not "without blemish", as the animals chosen had to be. Isaac was a sinner. Only Jesus was without sin, so only he could take the punishment for someone else's sin.
-
The animal sacrifices were symbolic.
The animals thought otherwise.
-
The animal sacrifices were symbolic. I mean, why would God say to sprinkle the blood on the North side of the altar? They must have been pointing ahead to something - Isaac included. One view is that Isaac was spared because he was not "without blemish", as the animals chosen had to be. Isaac was a sinner. Only Jesus was without sin, so only he could take the punishment for someone else's sin.
How can sacrificing (killing) any thing remove our sins? If Jesus is still alive somewhere, how was he 'sacrificed'?
Sacrificing animals probably arose (ignorantly) from the need to sacrifice our animal nature, which is the foundation of the concept of sacrifice. The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities.
-
Sriram,
Genesis says it arose from the need to cover our nakedness. Leaves being insufficient, an animal had to shed blood so it's skin could be used.
Re Jesus: imagine someone is in debt and can't pay. Another person who is in debt to the same lender cannot help the first person. But someone who has no debt of his own is able to bail the first person out.
-
How can sacrificing (killing) any thing remove our sins? If Jesus is still alive somewhere, how was he 'sacrificed'?
Sacrificing animals probably arose (ignorantly) from the need to sacrifice our animal nature, which is the foundation of the concept of sacrifice. The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities.
In my degree course, we talked about how we would define spirituality. The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.
-
Sriram,
Genesis says it arose from the need to cover our nakedness. Leaves being insufficient, an animal had to shed blood so it's skin could be used.
Re Jesus: imagine someone is in debt and can't pay. Another person who is in debt to the same lender cannot help the first person. But someone who has no debt of his own is able to bail the first person out.
None of that makes any sense at all!
-
Rhiannon
Can't say I'm likely to be as well informed as your Jewish elder, but the OT itself does present different strands of thought on the matter of sacrifice, and though Leviticus and Ezekiel seem to think it is a sine qua non of all Jewish life, there are a number of texts which directly oppose this, and suggest that the whole rigmarole is just window dressing, and a diversion from what humans should really be directing their attention to.
The first relevant text is from Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 7
The translation is not too clear, but to me it seems to be saying "perform your sacrifices if that sort of thing makes you happy, but I never commanded any such thing in the first place. I asked you to act righteously".
The second is from Isaiah, which is quite clear:
Isaiah 1
And the third from Micah even clearer:
Micah 6
All these, as far as I can see regard the notion of sacrifice as total irrelevance, especially if the Hebrews continued to commit evil (okay, there's another discussion about "what's evil"?")
Then along comes Christianity, with the particular influence of St Paul and St John, who then decide to reinstate the notion of sacrifice, with Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, (though St Paul seems rather more taken with the idea of the story of the potential human sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, which could be seen as re-instituting an even more primitive and obnoxious idea). Traditional Christianity seems to have been stuck with notion of Christ's 'sacrifice' in one form or another down the ages, the most appalling and ultimately ludicrous being the 'penal substitution atonement' - God sacrificing a bit of himself to himself. In whatever form I've seen this notion presented, it seems a great nonsense to me, even in the idea of Jesus' death somehow allowing humanity to become reconciled to God.
Jesus died for various reasons, largely to do with his being seen as a social nuisance, no doubt. He was heroic to put his money where his mouth was, but I can't see any meaning in the rest of this turgid theologising.
Excellent post, Dicky, and very much what I was thinking of. My friend was very keen to point out how Jewish thought (whether youvtake that to mean their understanding of God's wishes or something else) had moved on beyond sacrifice to living an obedient and God-filled life.
-
In my degree course, we talked about how we would define spirituality. The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.
That's just one (slightly odd) definition, Spud. Others are available.
-
That's just one (slightly odd) definition, Spud. Others are available.
It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."
-
It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature
Good luck with that.
-
It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."
Hmmmmm!
-
It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."
And you equate that with a form of selflessness, of forgetting your own needs. Sriram would probably say it means self-mastery - not the same thing. You've projected your understanding onto his words.
-
In my degree course, we talked about how we would define spirituality. The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.
I didn't know they offered degree course in mince.
-
It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."
Agreeing that selflessness is an important part of spiritual development....how does sacrificing animals to rid ourselves of sin amount to selflessness??!! It is actually selfishness.
-
Agreeing that selflessness is an important part of spiritual development....how does sacrificing animals to rid ourselves of sin amount to selflessness??!! It is actually selfishness.
At some point livestock was currency. People still put money into the collection. That's true of religion and I would imagine the BHA and NSS. I'm sure many atheists parted with their £5.99's for a copy of 'The God Delusion' hoping for a 'blessing' from it in whatever sense.
-
I'm sure many atheists parted with their £5.99's for a copy of 'The God Delusion' hoping for a 'blessing' from it in whatever sense.
Goodness knows I enjoy a drink as much as the next Freddie Flintoff but don't you think it's a bit early, Vlad?
-
In societies where human, animal or personal sacrifices are undertaken these are essentially ritual ceremonies performed intentionally for the supposed spiritual benefit of the people taking part or their tribal group.
Even if the events played out as given in the NT, I fail to see how execution for blasphemy or sedition following a trial can possibly be deemed as anything equivalent.
-
Goodness knows I enjoy a drink as much as the next Freddie Flintoff but don't you think it's a bit early, Vlad?
Oh come on, don't tell me you didn't expect at least a little trill when you had a copy of ''The Master'' in your hand.
-
Oh come on, don't tell me you didn't expect at least a little trill when you had a copy of ''The Master'' in your hand.
Only because I got my copy a little cheep.
-
Only because I got my copy a little cheep.
BOGOF?
-
No, Waterstones.
-
No, Waterstones.
Ah, the fount of grate nollidge.
-
Ah, the fount of grate nollidge.
Is book burning more your thing then?
-
Is book burning more your thing then?
Eh?
-
Eh?
You seem abnormally alarmed by places that sell books. Would you prefer it if they didn't exist?
-
You seem abnormally alarmed by places that sell books. Would you prefer it if they didn't exist?
Sorry, I think you've got the wrong number.
-
I can't believe we've reached over 50 posts and no one has mentioned Elton John yet.
-
Agreeing that selflessness is an important part of spiritual development....how does sacrificing animals to rid ourselves of sin amount to selflessness??!! It is actually selfishness.
I was talking about this: "eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities" but I wasn't referring to sacrificing animals to achieve it. It was just a definition of spirituality I'd come across that sounded similar to the above.
-
I was talking about this: "eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities" but I wasn't referring to sacrificing animals to achieve it. It was just a definition of spirituality I'd come across that sounded similar to the above.
Humans are animals, even if more intelligent than other species.
-
Humans are animals, even if more intelligent than other species.
What you sometimes find with people of a theistic bent who know little and care less about science is either that they deny the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom at all (i.e. the most extreme of creationist reality-deniers) or, amongst the marginally less insane, the acknowledgement that humans are animals but the viewing of this with shame, reluctance and embarrassment, as something they think should be distanced from (e.g. Sriram), as though the animality of the human species is some source of familial shame, like the embarrassing old uncle who drinks and farts and swears that everybody knows exists but nobody talks about in polite company, since our animality isn't polite to these delicate little cupcakes with their pious little eyes on the lofty and the divine.
This attitude was incredibly common in the Darwin era of the second half of the nineteenth century (Queen Victoria on seeing her first orang utan in a zoo is the prime example) and such people - the few who still exist - have mentally and emotionally never left it.
-
I can't believe we've reached over 50 posts and no one has mentioned Elton John yet.
You really shouldn't have.
-
What you sometimes find with people of a theistic bent who know little and care less about science is either that they deny the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom at all (i.e. the most extreme of creationist reality-deniers) or, amongst the marginally less insane, the acknowledgement that humans are animals but the viewing of this with shame, reluctance and embarrassment, as something they think should be distanced from (e.g. Sriram), as though the animality of the human species is some source of familial shame, like the embarrassing old uncle who drinks and farts and swears that everybody knows exists but nobody talks about in polite company, since our animality isn't polite to these delicate little cupcakes with their pious little eyes on the lofty and the divine.
This attitude was incredibly common in the Darwin era of the second half of the nineteenth century (Queen Victoria on seeing her first orang utan in a zoo is the prime example) and such people - the few who still exist - have mentally and emotionally never left it.
Yes it is sad, but I suspect there are more than a few who think that way, especially across the pond where extreme Christian fundamentalism is rife! :o
-
That's just one (slightly odd) definition, Spud. Others are available.
Can you tell us any which are different from the one I gave - had a google and found definitions mostly quite similar to the one I heard.
-
Can you tell us any which are different from the one I gave - had a google and found definitions mostly quite similar to the one I heard.
Spirituality is the nurturing of the spirit - the part of us that needs taking care of once our basic physical needs are met. No religion or deity necessary but you can have one if you like.
Incidentally, the thing I found odd about your description is that your lecturer encouraged you not to attend to your own needs. At its heart spirituality has always been about listening to the promptings of the inner voice - and this may very well result in selflessness and altruism - but to suggest starting there and not attending to your own house as it were is not something I've come across in all my years of studying and living the subject.
-
What you sometimes find with people of a theistic bent who know little and care less about science is either that they deny the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom at all (i.e. the most extreme of creationist reality-deniers) or, amongst the marginally less insane, the acknowledgement that humans are animals ....
I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.
-
Can you tell us any which are different from the one I gave - had a google and found definitions mostly quite similar to the one I heard.
Rhi's question not mine - but those conceptions of spirituality without a creator God or indeed without the supernatural in toto i.e. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville; Religion Without God by Ray Billington; Spirituality for the Skeptic by Robert C. Solomon; Buddhism; Jainism; a large chunk of Hinduism, etc.
-
I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.
Just like I said, laughably ignorant of science.
Good of you to fess up to it, though.
-
Spirituality is the nurturing of the spirit - the part of us that needs taking care of once our basic physical needs are met. No religion or deity necessary but you can have one if you like.
Incidentally, the thing I found odd about your description is that your lecturer encouraged you not to attend to your own needs. At its heart spirituality has always been about listening to the promptings of the inner voice - and this may very well result in selflessness and altruism - but to suggest starting there and not attending to your own house as it were is not something I've come across in all my years of studying and living the subject.
I agree, and I don't recall suggesting he said that we don't attend to our own needs, but sorry if it came across that I did..
-
I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.
What about apes?
-
Rhi's question not mine - but those conceptions of spirituality without a creator God or indeed without the supernatural in toto i.e. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville; Religion Without God by Ray Billington; Spirituality for the Skeptic by Robert C. Solomon; Buddhism; Jainism; a large chunk of Hinduism, etc.
I've remembered now- my thoughts at the time were that I hadn't thought of 'spirituality' as anything to do with relationships with other people - only with the Creator and anything to do with the non-physical realm.
-
I've remembered now- my thoughts at the time were that I hadn't thought of 'spirituality' as anything to do with relationships with other people - only with the Creator and anything to do with the non-physical realm.
Well that's your ridiculous error then.
-
What about apes?
Apes included...
-
Apes included...
In what?
-
I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.
What a daft idea.
-
What a daft idea.
Not only daft, but innacurate.
We also share some genetic markers with plants as well.
-
I see that it's time for me to be 'that guy' yet again but at bargain basement level we have a genetic connection with every living thing - all life on earth is as one; the only thing is difference of genetic closeness, so to speak.
If you intuitively understand the concept of being closer to your mum than your second cousin, you've got the basics already.
From a human p.o.v. it's about 50% similarity with a banana, for example. Otherwise it's a larger or a smaller number, that's all.
-
I'm tempted to suggest that the fossil record does not support the idea that DNA similarities indicate common ancestry.
-
I'm tempted to suggest that the fossils do not support the idea that DNA similarities indicate common ancestry.
You'd be howlingly wrong of course - and in any case we have abundant evidence from molecular biology - but go right ahead.
-
I'm tempted to suggest that the fossils do not support the idea that DNA similarities indicate common ancestry.
Can I suggest that before you go off on a whole new rabbit hole of spectacular wrongosity, you either accept the previous points made or reply?
-
Can I suggest that before you go off on a whole new rabbit hole of spectacular wrongosity, you either accept the previous points made or reply?
Which points please?
-
Which points please?
See Shaker's reply 68 re genetics . Also note that your reply 68 to his reply 64 seems to ignore the content of his post covering sources on non theist spirituality. Do you accept that theist based definitions of spirituality are not the default!?
-
...
Also note that your reply 68 to his reply 64 seems to ignore the content of his post covering sources on non theist spirituality. Do you accept that theist based definitions of spirituality are not the default!?
That's what I learned in the lecture!
-
That's what I learned in the lecture!
on, well that's only the second part of the post but the point is given Shaker's point, and having gone away and dine the research, I assume you accept the lecture was incorrect?
-
See Shaker's reply 68 re genetics .
If you mean his post #74, my reply is that similarities between banana genes and human genes don't prove common ancestry. The fossil record demonstrates minute amounts of change over millions of years, but not evolution of all life from microbes. Thus it does not support his "bananaman" (if I may) idea.
-
on, well that's only the second part of the post but the point is given Shaker's point, and having gone away and dine the research, I assume you accept the lecture was incorrect?
I learned in the lecture that theistic definitions of spirituality are not the default, in that not everyone thinks of spirituality as being to do with God, but some think of it as being about relating to other people. I'd however put that in the sociological section of the pie.
(The context of the lecture was holistic approach to health. Spiritual and social were two out of a number of parts of the whole person)
-
If you mean his post #74, my reply is that similarities between banana genes and human genes don't prove common ancestry. The fossil record demonstrates minute amounts of change over millions of years, but not evolution of all life from microbes. Thus it does not support his "bananaman" (if I may) idea.
Evidence for, not proof of (using the word proof here is indicative if a lack of understanding) . The point is you claimed there was no relationship genetically. The evidence is against you. You haven't dealt with that and are now moving onto a different subject, making a mistake in that too (the fossil record does support ToE) and making a point irrelevant to your original statement
-
I learned in the lecture that theistic definitions of spirituality are not the default, in that not everyone thinks of spirituality as being to do with God, but some think of it as being about relating to other people. I'd however put that in the sociological section of the pie.
(The context of the lecture was holistic approach to health. Spiritual and social were two out of a number of parts of the whole person)
To quote you
'The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.'
The 'and of a Creator' seems to make that integral to the definition/ That's what Shaker's post addressed. So I take it you expressed yourself unclearly?
-
Evidence for, not proof of (using the word proof here is indicative if a lack of understanding) . The point is you claimed there was no relationship genetically.
A "genetic relationship" implies common ancestry; I didn't deny there are genetic similarities.
-
To quote you
'The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.'
The 'and of a Creator' seems to make that integral to the definition/ That's what Shaker's post addressed. So I take it you expressed yourself unclearly?
I did, sorry. He meant: for some, a creator
-
A "genetic relationship" implies common ancestry; I didn't deny there are genetic similarities.
And the genetic evidence is for common ancestry
Amongst many other things, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
-
And the genetic evidence is for common ancestry
Assertion, please explain how that is the case
-
Assertion, please explain how that is the case
See edited post. BTW can I just check that the various Christians who are genetic scientists such as Francis Collins are mistaken when they argue that genetics is indicative of common ancestry, and why you think that is?
Note here's an interview with Collins by a source that is biased to your side. So tell me what is he getting wrong?
http://www.beliefnet.com/news/science-religion/2006/08/god-is-not-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx
Oh, and if you get a chance, could you, my petit chou-chou, across to the Charlie Gard and God thread and explain your post to dear Wol? He finds it somewhat gnomic, and he is not alone.
-
See edited post. BTW can I just check that the various Christians who are genetic scientists such as Francis Collins are mistaken when they argue that genetics is indicative of common ancestry, and why you think that is?
Note here's an interview with Collins by a source that is biased to your side. So tell me what is he getting wrong?
http://www.beliefnet.com/news/science-religion/2006/08/god-is-not-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx
Oh, and if you get a chance, could you, my petit chou-chou, across to the Charlie Gard and God thread and explain your post to dear Wol? He finds it somewhat gnomic, and he is not alone.
Maybe some other time
-
Maybe some other time
is that to all the points/questions? Covering both threads? Sad face.
-
And the genetic evidence is for common ancestry
Amongst many other things, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
The chromosome 2 fusion model was put forward before the human genome was sequenced. See articles below (I seem to recall reading the second one ages ago)
http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-1
http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-2
-
The chromosome 2 fusion model was put forward before the human genome was sequenced. See articles below (I seem to recall reading the second one ages ago)
http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-1
http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-2
And see
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/
-
And see
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/
"The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence."
most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q
Doesn't prove anything. Still, if Myers uses words like evisceration I suppose he deserves some respect :)
-
"The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence."
most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q
Doesn't prove anything. Still, if Myers uses words like evisceration I suppose he deserves some respect :)
Prove? Of course not. Evidence for. Yes.
-
Do you think it was acceptable to sacrifice animals as an atonement for 'sin' as they did in the days of the OT? God then decided it would be better to sacrifice its son as a once and for all sacrifice, how kind of it! >:(
Human or animal sacrifice is ghastly, and if god really ordered people to do this, it is a psycho, imo.
Be Quiet Floo.
Is it any different from firemen who rush into blazing buildings risking their lives to save others?
The police officers killed when defending others?
Your opinion doesn't count because it is not a rational and well thought out one. It is an expression of your own dislike.
It is like someone saying the fireman should not have done as their commander told them.
There is something more important about selfless act like giving your life for another. It is called LOVE.
One has to pay respect and acknowledge such courageous acts of love.
So do not compare sacrificing of animals with the sacrificing of ones life to save others.
-
YER WOT ?!?!!?!?
Did a person get born into a blazing building in the first place ?!?!!?!? ??? ???
-
Be Quiet Floo.
Is it any different from firemen who rush into blazing buildings risking their lives to save others?
The police officers killed when defending others?
Your opinion doesn't count because it is not a rational and well thought out one. It is an expression of your own dislike.
It is like someone saying the fireman should not have done as their commander told them.
There is something more important about selfless act like giving your life for another. It is called LOVE.
One has to pay respect and acknowledge such courageous acts of love.
So do not compare sacrificing of animals with the sacrificing of ones life to save others.
I won't be quiet.
Jesus was killed because he was a pain is the butt where the religious authorities of the day were concerned, and no other reason, imo. His so called 'dad' was a psycho if it had to sacrifice its spawn because it had screwed up so badly when it created human nature. >:(
However if Jesus died to 'save' humanity only to resurrect three days late, his 'sacrifice' cannot be compared with those who have died trying to save others, but have stayed dead.
-
Floo
EXCELLENT reply & justly deserved.
Well Done !!!
-
I won't be quiet.
Jesus was killed because he was a pain is the butt where the religious authorities of the day were concerned, and no other reason, imo. His so called 'dad' was a psycho if it had to sacrifice its spawn because it had screwed up so badly when it created human nature. >:(
However if Jesus died to 'save' humanity only to resurrect three days late, his 'sacrifice' cannot be compared with those who have died trying to save others, but have stayed dead.
You are so sad.
Ignorance is bliss and anyone who agrees with you must be ignorant too.
-
You are so sad.
Ignorance is bliss and anyone who agrees with you must be ignorant too.
Talking about yourself again? ;D
-
You are so sad.
Ignorance is bliss and anyone who agrees with you must be ignorant too.
Notice you don't do anything to counter Floo's post, only throw insults.
-
You are so sad.
Ignorance is bliss and anyone who agrees with you must be ignorant too.
Bit extreme to think Floo's words are ignorant Sass, when you can't seem to get your head around understanding the meaning of verifiable evidence; an assertion isn't the same as verifiable evidence, yes, assertions, that's where you're going wrong, you seem to think an assertion is the same thing as verifiable evidence.
ippy