Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian/Creation PB followers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by June68 View Post
    Thinking that we were once apes shows a misunderstanding of how evolution works. We did not descend from apes. We shared a common ancestor. That's all.
    NONE of MY ancestors were common. How rude!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
      .snip.
      I always love it when you step up to the plate and make SENSE of the nonsense Unceph.

      Originally posted by DarthFriendly
      You, dear Darth, are the awesomest of awesomesauces!

      “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
      ~Friedrich Nietzsche
      And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

      Comment


      • I too am mostly a lurker at this point.

        To answer the OP, I am a Christian who takes the Bible at face value (i.e, a literal Adam and Eve) and I follow the PB lifestyle.

        To continue the off-topic side discussion:

        It seems to me that science is really good at answering the question of what and how; but at some point all scientific inquiry eventually must lead to "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is its nature."

        For me, this is where faith answers the question of why, where science can no longer explain the how and what: "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is the nature God has placed in it."

        As an intellectual, I have often wondered about the orgin of God, where did he come from, what kind of being is he? I am pretty sure that I cannot truly grasp the answer, but I still wonder. What I do know is who God is (through his son Jesus), his love and his justice. And I find that pretty cool.

        Comment


        • I once said this in a Bible Study: "Whether you believe we evolved into what we are, or God made us, we were all born naked and without any of the crap which is destroying our lives." Until those bulky casts people call shoes fuse to our feel and become a living, feeling part of our bodies, they are a hindrance to our health. I hate shoes. The end.

          I stand along side you, Peach.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RitaRose View Post
            Oh, no, I didn't think you were picking on me at all.

            I think the human mind, whether focusing on theology or science, will always interpret data in a way that fits our belief system and makes sense to us. It's just what we do, finding patterns and links where there are none. A perfect example of that is the monkey face on the moon or, more recently, Mickey Mouse on Mercury.

            I think it happens in many religions (coincidence or unknown natural cause interpreted as a miracle) but also in science. Think how high cholesterol levels were tied in to heart attacks, even though the relationship just isn't there.

            In other words, I think we all make leaps of faith when it comes to dealing with our lives. Some of them are reasonable and some are pretty ridiculous. But I don't think it's exclusive to the religious community.
            Originally posted by Hoss2626 View Post

            It seems to me that science is really good at answering the question of what and how; but at some point all scientific inquiry eventually must lead to "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is its nature."

            For me, this is where faith answers the question of why, where science can no longer explain the how and what: "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is the nature God has placed in it."

            As an intellectual, I have often wondered about the orgin of God, where did he come from, what kind of being is he? I am pretty sure that I cannot truly grasp the answer, but I still wonder. What I do know is who God is (through his son Jesus), his love and his justice. And I find that pretty cool.
            So, we don't know everything..............therefore god?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Grok View Post
              There are vast expanses of deep interstellar empty space in our knowledge and they grow larger every day.
              This is true, however we are just apemen. We aren't gods. Why should we know everything? Is that the destiny of all sentient beings in the universe?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                So, we don't know everything..............therefore god?
                That's better than the "We don't know everything..............therefore Aliens!" Crowd.
                Some people just have BELIEFS.
                It has nothing to do with what is real and can be proven.
                “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  Doctors, psychatrists, cops, and teachers were all roles that were taken up by members of the tribe in exchange for being part of the tribe. There was no payment, and they never thought that they would need "more" to be happier.
                  Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                  Way to miss the forest for the trees, Grok. He's saying that the very important social roles of teacher, healer, leader, conflict resolver, etc. we're taken up as needed on a voluntary basis
                  Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                  Wilton also never even implied that anyone was a "full-time" social worker or teacher or anything (nor did I).
                  It sure looks that way to me. He is claiming that people performed the roles instead of hunting, and the hunters had to redistribute the wealth to these social workers. They did these things because they were in the tribe where other people hunted and provided food for them, so they had to provide a social need for their food. That was the implication.

                  All I'm saying is that is totally nonsense. There were no cops in paleolithic times.

                  So we go from an assertion that there were "psychiatrists" and "cops" and "teachers" and "craftsmen" who played an important role in the "tribe" and the "tribes" survival depended upon these people. And nobody forced people to become these things, they all voluntarily decided to do this instead of hunting on their own, because hunting was hazardous to their health. To a complete back-track on your claims and you are now saying that people did these roles in addition to hunting.

                  So now you have a hunter-carpenter, and a hunter-doctor, and a hunter-cop, and a hunter-psychiatrist, and a hunter-teacher? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

                  Comment


                  • Uncephalized, thank you for answering Grok for me.

                    Grok, I'm not going to quote that huge paper you wrote about how anarcho-socialism supposedly pops up in the history of man. I think answering some of what you said has already been taken care of, but I will add a little more. You are putting your own values onto societies with totally different values. You're not understanding how/why they worked. As Ceph said, most roles in the tribe were filled in addition to their daily tasks. These daily tasks are as basic as it comes...gather food. You understand the gist that men would hunt and women would gather, but you forget that women could hunt and men could gather too. People did not hunt everyday either. You see in the Kung tribe in Africa that men will stop hunting for up to a month at a time to be gatherers and dancers (and likely, having sex). When this was over, they went back to hunting.

                    You think there's all this structure to a tribe. In some ways, there is structure. As Ceph mentioned, evolutionarily-proven memes have been developed that work. Shaming, rituals, roles for the best of a particular activity (best leader, best medicine man, best conflict resolver), etc. There was also tons of variety between different tribes. We are not talking about a single society. We are talking about thousands. It is only in today's world that we think of everyone being similar because our single society has dominated the world and lives everywhere.

                    Comment


                    • BTW, do you guys get your idea of a paleolithic tribe from The Flintstones?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hoss2626 View Post
                        It seems to me that science is really good at answering the question of what and how; but at some point all scientific inquiry eventually must lead to "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is its nature."

                        For me, this is where faith answers the question of why, where science can no longer explain the how and what: "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is the nature God has placed in it."
                        What frustrates atheists about this argument is that it is special pleading for the thing you want to believe. Do you not see that "because God" suffers from the same weakness as the God-free explanation? It's exactly the same argument, in fact--with the word "God" substituted for "nature". However, it suffers from the additional weakness of requiring a fantastically complex being whose existence and intelligence can't be explained, which the naturalistic explanations do not. It is actually much more of a logical leap to posit "a timeless, all-powerful and all-knowing mind exists and intentionally created the entire Universe" than it is to posit "a mindless substrate with a given set of simple physical properties exists and gave rise to the universe mechanistically through an increasingly well-understood physical process of random fluctuation coupled with spontaneous organization". One leads to an infinite regress that requires ever more elaborate underlying rationalizations, whereas the other also leads to what might be an infinite regress, but at least the underlying constructs get simpler and more elegant as you go, and therefore easier and easier to accept as existing ex nihilo, rather than as the intentional product of intelligence.

                        So: Whence God, how and why?

                        Originally posted by Hoss2626 View Post
                        As an intellectual, I have often wondered about the orgin of God, where did he come from, what kind of being is he? I am pretty sure that I cannot truly grasp the answer, but I still wonder. What I do know is who God is (through his son Jesus), his love and his justice. And I find that pretty cool.
                        I'm glad that your belief comforts you, but I do find your claim to knowledge on the subject problematic.
                        Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                        My Primal Journal

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Grok View Post
                          It sure looks that way to me. He is claiming that people performed the roles instead of hunting, and the hunters had to redistribute the wealth to these social workers. They did these things because they were in the tribe where other people hunted and provided food for them, so they had to provide a social need for their food. That was the implication.

                          All I'm saying is that is totally nonsense. There were no cops in paleolithic times.

                          So we go from an assertion that there were "psychiatrists" and "cops" and "teachers" and "craftsmen" who played an important role in the "tribe" and the "tribes" survival depended upon these people. And nobody forced people to become these things, they all voluntarily decided to do this instead of hunting on their own, because hunting was hazardous to their health. To a complete back-track on your claims and you are now saying that people did these roles in addition to hunting.

                          So now you have a hunter-carpenter, and a hunter-doctor, and a hunter-cop, and a hunter-psychiatrist, and a hunter-teacher? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
                          More like hunter-carpenter-cop-psychiatrist-teacher for one guy, gatherer-doctor-psychiatrist-teacher for another, chief-hunter-gatherer-teacher-psychiatrist-cop for another, hunter-leatherworker-cop-teacher for another.

                          You have such a narrow way of thinking about this.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Uncephalized, thank you for answering Grok for me.

                            Grok, I'm not going to quote that huge paper you wrote about how anarcho-socialism supposedly pops up in the history of man. I think answering some of what you said has already been taken care of, but I will add a little more. You are putting your own values onto societies with totally different values. You're not understanding how/why they worked. As Ceph said, most roles in the tribe were filled in addition to their daily tasks. These daily tasks are as basic as it comes...gather food. You understand the gist that men would hunt and women would gather, but you forget that women could hunt and men could gather too. People did not hunt everyday either. You see in the Kung tribe in Africa that men will stop hunting for up to a month at a time to be gatherers and dancers (and likely, having sex). When this was over, they went back to hunting.

                            You think there's all this structure to a tribe. In some ways, there is structure. As Ceph mentioned, evolutionarily-proven memes have been developed that work. Shaming, rituals, roles for the best of a particular activity (best leader, best medicine man, best conflict resolver), etc. There was also tons of variety between different tribes. We are not talking about a single society. We are talking about thousands. It is only in today's world that we think of everyone being similar because our single society has dominated the world and lives everywhere.
                            I'm not claiming any structure at all. All I did was give an example of two different tribes. One that was successful and another that tested the idea of having social workers like carpenters and doctors and lawyers and teachers which was unsuccessful. Illustrating just how absurd your original description of how tribes worked actually was.

                            I imagine every tribe was probably a little different as to how they survived depending upon where they lived and how many people they needed to support. Some tribes were more successful and some less so. There was no "best medicine man" or "best conflict resolver". Give me a break.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Grok View Post
                              BTW, do you guys get your idea of a paleolithic tribe from The Flintstones?
                              The only person in this thread who is portraying tribal life as a cartoonish caricature is you, buddy.
                              Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                              My Primal Journal

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Grok View Post
                                BTW, do you guys get your idea of a paleolithic tribe from The Flintstones?
                                Duh.

                                Which Primal Blue Print have YOU been reading?



                                Also, I just loves me some bible and christians... honestly not sure our work here would be possible without you guys

                                Truth Wins Out - BREAKING: LGBT People Should Be Put to Death, Says Aussie Salvation Army Major

                                tee hee. it's just a "belief system".

                                Suicide Commando - Die Motherfucker Die (official video) - YouTube

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X