Religion II

[boxcar]

Hey, Actor, you still haven't answered my question (asked a second time to boot) in 5418.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Actor, you still haven't answered my question (asked a second time to boot) in 5418.

I answered it in #5420.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Fair enough.

I assume that by "the only way" you are referring to my words " immersed in (or in contact with) nutrients". As far as I know that is the only way in which organisms can reproduce. Single cell organisms grow until he reaches certain size at which time they divide into two daughter cells. The daughter cells also grow until they too reproduce. From a single cell we get two new sales the same size as the parent cell. The extra mass has to come from somewhere. It comes from nutrients. Single celled organisms in a culture are immersed in nutrients. Large organisms consume nutrients. They are in contact with the nutrients rather than being surrounded by them.

I am trying to establish a definition of what life is. Reproduction is key. If something reproduces then it is alive. If it does not reproduce then it may or may not be alive. E.g., worker bees do not reproduce but they are definitely alive.

Obviously yes. That's how I got here. But that does not rule out abiogenesis. The ability to reproduce defines life, but life need not have been generated solely by reproduction.

You appear to be contradicting yourself in paragraph one and three. How does life through the biogenesis process square with what you said in the first paragraph about the abiogenesis process?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You appear to be contradicting yourself in paragraph one and three. How does life through the biogenesis process square with what you said in the first paragraph about the abiogenesis process?

Paragraph one says "Fair enough". How can that possibly contradict anything?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Paragraph one says "Fair enough". How can that possibly contradict anything?

Fair enough. Try the 2nd paragraph.

Also, while you're at it, you have never provided examples of what I asked for in my 5406, which was:

Can you give us concrete, unambiguous examples of specific organic life that is not subject to the law and specific organic life that is subject to the law?

"The law" is alluding to the law of biogenesis.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sorry...you're totally ignorant of biblical Christianity. The few superficial agreements between Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths pale by comparison to the numerous profound differences between the two sets of faiths.

The Messiah of the bible is unique because no other religion portrays their version of the messiah as being the savior of the world. No one has their Messiah going to the Cross to satisfy his Father's justice. No one has their Messiah raising from the dead three days after his death.

For your info, the vast majority of Muslims loathe the concept of the Cross of Christ and his sacrificial death, even though many of them might even pay lip service to Jesus as being a "great prophet".

From your point of view, it's clear why you think Christianity (and especially your flavor) is so unique. But since you're clearly uneducated in other faiths, it's all relative. For those of us who do know basic tenants of the many other common faiths, it's rather trivial to lump Christianity, Judaism and Islam into the mechanical Western blob of "control religions".

Being the Savior of the World implies the World needs saving - open for debate.

Going to the cross - how tough can that be if you're God in human form? The fix is in.

Raised from the Dead? - old hat. Look up Odin, Persephone, Ganesha, etc. You should get out more.

Bonus coverage - check out Horus:

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-c...re-date-jesus/

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

And it's hardly news that Muslims don't like Christians. Often, their zealots don't like anyone - lots of deaths prove that the "religion of peace" is anything but, or rather any organized religion is bad news.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by hcap

...The "inner Circle" have left behind clues in all of humanities works. Be it great literature, art and music. Religious works and scriptures get passed down to us mostly thru an enormous historical game of "telephone". Religious masters, Christ, Buddha and Lao Tsu and their immediate students and disciples did the best they could to leave behind "alarm" clocks to wake humanity from their waking sleep.

Events from 2,000 years ago reach us as ripples in time produced by heavy stones of truth dropped in the river of time by these masters among the inner circle of humanity. Unfortunately we stand on the distant shoreline of this river and the original major waves reach us as hugely diminished hard to observe ripples.

As I keep telling boxcar the diminishing of truth is primarily due to taking extremely impotent concepts in the lowest literal sense.

Idol worship

I'll certainly agree that history is a game of telephone. Unfortunately, there have been numerous operators on the line with motivations far different than the original intent of thought.

"Diminishing of truth" is an interesting way to put it. I'd use the words "pollute" or "corrupt" though.

It makes me wonder how much accurate history is really available.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, it is a pack of lies. But that is not the same thing as saying that "Origin of the Species" proves nothing. I, for one, would never say something that stupid because let's say one day I actually read it and discover statements therein that violate one or more Laws of Logic. How would I be able to appeal to those statements to prove they do violate logic, and keep my credibility?

Actor is very prone to biting off his nose to spite his face, whereas I am not.

When it comes to faith, it seems it's rather shallow to consider one's "credibility". Since it's a personal belief, why should you care what others think?

Are you surrounded by like-minded others who think "Origin of the Species" is akin to the Satanic Bible?

I would be amused at any attempt you would make, with your tool set of logic, in taking apart Darwin's work, or any scientific text explaining concepts around the age of the Earth, and how life has evolved. The Bible is somewhat lacking in its ability to explain the fossil record.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Top Vatican Official Proposes Communist China as ‘Best’ Model of Catholic Social Teaching Today

With forced abortions, slave labor, the rampant persecution of Christians, severely limited freedoms, and a church demolition campaign under China’s one-party system, it is hard to imagine how anyone—let alone a high ranking Catholic prelate—could put forward China as an example of Catholic social teaching done right, and social media has predictably lit up with commenters excoriating the apparently delusional bishop for descending into “self-parody.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...paign=20180207

What is also very revealing about this socialist (if not outright communist) prelate is his silence on the ever-burgeoning Christian Church in spite of its intense persecution at the hands of the state. Instead he praises communism as being the best model for Catholic social teaching. But there is plus side to this guy's lunacy: Since he didn't say a word about one of the largest Christian churches on the planet, we can be certain Jesus was no socialist.

This guy's corrupted. Hardly news. The question you should be asking is whether or not there are any religions that aren't filled to the brim with corrupted "officials", out to manipulate others for their own gain.

Won't argue that the state is running anti-Christian propaganda at full throttle, but I would dispute the description of "ever-burgeoning Christian Church". Unless the surveys are propaganda as well, Christianity is on the decline - at least in terms of membership and attendance.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hopefully, Jesus is even more proud of me. And that's what really counts.

Please, spare us the martyr complex. Your posts reflect poorly enough on Christianity as it is, without you claiming hollow victory.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...Did you believe in Superman when you grew up? Did you ever act on that belief? Did ever you try leaping over a tall building in a single bound? Of course not! You know why? Because you knew Superman had no basis in fact. He was fictional. Everything he did was fictional.

And this is relevant, how?

As a side note, some of us feel in our heart that spiritual matters are very well fictional.

Originally Posted by boxcar

..So, you see, Mr. 'cap, it's you and other skeptics who truly want to gut scripture and pour out all its precious, eternal, life-saving and life-giving truths on the ground so that you can trample on them to feel good about yourself, while simultaneously mocking believers such as myself. You want to feel smart, wise, superior, above it all and enlightened. You want to buffet the wind while speaking with such authority and so dogmatically about the Unknown or Unknowable because....well, it sounds so spiritual!

But know this: I'm underwhelmed by your worldly wisdom.

Isn't there an old proverb about pointing fingers, and remembering that three fingers are pointed back at you?

Your posts indicate your intense desire to feel smart, wise, superior (somewhat redundant) an above it all and enlightened. It's your posts that indicate some illogical assumption that arguments of faith are winnable.

It's your posts that continuously insult others, in a most un-Christian-like way, and make absurd claims about others' motivations.

In short, I mock your actions, not your faith. And I'm quite justified in doing so, since you're such a poor example of a follower of Christ.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Fair enough. Try the 2nd paragraph.

I see no contradictions at all.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, while you're at it, you have never provided examples of what I asked for in my 5406, which was:

Can you give us concrete, unambiguous examples of specific organic life that is not subject to the law and specific organic life that is subject to the law?

"The law" is alluding to the law of biogenesis.

Answered in #5407.

If that's not enough for you then I suggest you study the works of Louis Pasteur.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm not a biologist but I'll try.

• Subject to the law:. The appearance of maggots in unrefrigerated meat left exposed to the elements. This is the case which the experiments of Louis Pasteur verified. Note that Paster's experiment involved small, closed systems.
• Not subject to the law:. The appearance of RNA molecules in a primordial sea of organic materials. This involves a large, open system.

I'm not a biologist either, but stay tuned. Also, I'm Shirely glad you brought up Louie.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

And this is relevant, how?

As a side note, some of us feel in our heart that spiritual matters are very well fictional.



Isn't there an old proverb about pointing fingers, and remembering that three fingers are pointed back at you?

Your posts indicate your intense desire to feel smart, wise, superior (somewhat redundant) an above it all and enlightened. It's your posts that indicate some illogical assumption that arguments of faith are winnable.

It's your posts that continuously insult others, in a most un-Christian-like way, and make absurd claims about others' motivations.

In short, I mock your actions, not your faith. And I'm quite justified in doing so, since you're such a poor example of a follower of Christ.

Go back and read the context of my "Superman" analogy.

And which "heart" would that be: The muscle that pumps blood? Or do you believe in an immaterial, invisible heart?

Finally, you see what you want to see in my posts.

[boxcar]

Two more things for clarification, Mr. Actor:

You have, on or about 2/10, defined the Law of Biogenesis as taking place in a "small closed" system. And you described just a little while ago Louie's experiment as also taking place in "small, closed systems". So...both biogenesis and abiogenesis take place in "small, closed systems"?

Also, today when describing Louie's abiogenesis experiment, you preceded your remarks with this: "Subject to the Law:". Were you saying the abiogenesis is scientific law?