Christian/Creation PB followers page 43

[pdjesson]

Maybe, I should do a re-edit and add the 'thought that you felt?' Or do you think that may be somewhat trite? ;-)

[Grok]

Uh... you never did well in lit courses, did you? /facepalm

What the hell are you talking about?

[cori93437]

Again, how's this at all relevent to anything I've said? You're assuming my position, or even the relevence of it, on the origins of this "spark" in humanity. What matters is that sapience itself provides us with something different from mere non-sapient life, the fact you choose to ignore the prospect of divinity or even the seperateness of this numen from anima doesn't really concern me.

No I do not believe that any particular 'spark' is necessary for sapience.
It is simply a form of neural processing and connection that has evolved differently than some other animals.
And are you applying this sapience and 'spark' to modern day gorillas, chimps, bonobos?
They posses many of the same characteristics that are said to make humans so 'different' but not in as pronounced ways. They have self awareness... they can appreciate beauty and art and express their own opinions about what is good or bad art to them, given access to tools some of them can even create art...
Wait... elephants are self aware too, and can create art given tools... and they store memories over long perods, morn the dead even years after passing.
Dolphins are also self aware...
How are humans the sole bearer of some supposed 'spark' again?

Wow! That's what it's all about! 'We could have some fun with this.' For example, beginning with number 1:something that actually exists; reality; truth... What is the reality of your existence? What is the reality of your reality? What is the reality of truth?

In all seriousness, I could take all of the above five points to show that Muslims have a reasonable basis for stating that what they believe are facts. This is not meant as a boast or a challenge but an indication that Muslims have nothing to 'fear' from an open and reasoned discussion of the facts. Of course, from a rational basis for belief to belief is a relatively large step.

No sir. Beliefs that cannot be verified are not facts.
Reality is things as they actually exist... as is verifiable through some means.
For instance there is a chair in a room. I open the door and look into the room and see the chair. I go inside and examine the chair. I then describe the chair to other people outside of the room. They may or may not believe that A) there is a chair in the room, or B) that my description of the chair is accurate.
But, the chair is a verifiable fact because other people can then go into the room and see/examine the chair for themselves.
The reality of that chair is the materials that it is constructed of, it's size, shape, weight, etc... measurable and quantifiable variables.

A story in a book that has no other sources of with which to verify it cannot be considered a fact, it is simply a story that one may choose to believe.
There are other stories in books that can be reasonably verified... because the information can be tested in some way. Either tested as in reference to other texts (no, not more texts of the same religion), or by some scientific means.
Religious texts don't meet this criteria because you can't prove one thing from a book that is unverifiable as being true simply by quoting something else from the same book/set of beliefs.

Also if you take faith out of religion aren't you harming the fundamental basis of religious belief?

Of course, from a rational basis for belief to belief is a relatively large step.

Hehehe... or just plain enormous!
But I do appreciate the conversation on the matter. It's stimulating.

[pdjesson]

No sir. Beliefs that cannot be verified are not facts.
Reality is things as they actually exist... as is verifiable through some means.
For instance there is a chair in a room. I open the door and look into the room and see the chair. I go inside and examine the chair. I then describe the chair to other people outside of the room. They may or may not believe that A) there is a chair in the room, or B) that my description of the chair is accurate.
But, the chair is a verifiable fact because other people can then go into the room and see/examine the chair for themselves.
The reality of that chair is the materials that it is constructed of, it's size, shape, weight, etc... measurable and quantifiable variables.

A story in a book that has no other sources of with which to verify it cannot be considered a fact, it is simply a story that one may choose to believe.
There are other stories in books that can be reasonably verified... because the information can be tested in some way. Either tested as in reference to other texts (no, not more texts of the same religion), or by some scientific means.
Religious texts don't meet this criteria because you can't prove one thing from a book that is unverifiable as being true simply by quoting something else from the same book/set of beliefs.

Also if you take faith out of religion aren't you harming the fundamental basis of religious belief?

It appears that I have made my point in such a convoluted manner that I lost you or in your haste to counter you have missed the point. I said: I could take all of the above five points to show that Muslims have a reasonable basis for stating that what they believe are facts. By which, I meant that I could show through utilising the aforementioned 5 means of obtaining facts that the bases of Islam could be verified through some means. For example, at a very basic level, point 1 stated: a fact may be something that actually exists; reality; truth... I would proceed to state that the Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah (God's peace and blessing be upon him) is an actual, existent historical figure. Of course, this does not prove anything but to help elucidate the point I was trying to make, that there is a rational, factual basis underpinning our beliefs.

As for taking faith out of religion, I don't believe that is possible, at least for the commonality. There are many sound philosophical arguments for belief but there are also reasonable counter arguments...

[Paleobird]

Dear MDA posters,
It's me, God. Um, I haven't butted-in like this in a long time, but, well, why are you bothering posting on this thread? I designed you to have sex. SEX! I, God, I am getting bored. Log-off and go have sex. My guests are getting restless, I'm beginning to think my whole God-cam was a waste. Thanks, mates.
Cheers,
God

Needs to be requoted multiple times. Best post on this whole thread.

[wiltondeportes]

Some of that I agree with, but do you not see any bit of the divine in humanity, seperating us from the rest of life on earth? To say we're no different than animals, despite being the sole known sapient and creative beings in the world, shouldn't hold up to normal observation, let alone spiritual inclination.

Is that your only disagreement from the entire post?

I could slightly change words and totally agree with you. Life itself is the thing to be treasured. I said to be thankful for the Earth, the elements, the trees, grasses, the cattle, the birds, etc. If I said worship, would that make you realize there is 'divinity' in all of these things?

(I'm not exactly sure what you mean by divinity, so please define it)

[Rusty]

Do you? It's not clear, perhaps you are just being provocative. Having been proselytized 3 times in the last 24 hours I'm curious, am I allowed to be a Christian w/o a belief in creationism or am I condemned to hell as these other 3 folks seem to think?

As a young Earth Christian, I say, welcome to the faith, brother! It's the faith in Jesus that is truly important, and as you mature in your faith, you might think differently about things. If not, you will get your answers from The Word Himself!

[fiercehunter]

We don't know that they interbred. There is evidence to suggest they did, but it's not conclusive evidence as far as I understand.

All I'm saying is that it would be premature to assume that we are here today because of some plan by some almighty being up in the heavens who created modern man in his own image.

Once you assume that, then people start thinking that God is a certain race, and then you have wars over race and wars over religion.

I don't take a science explains all approach either. I don't rule out the possibility of a God, or something that has physical properties entirely different than anything in this universe which created the universe. Perhaps there is no concept of time outside of our universe and entities can create themselves in a timeless environment because without time there is no concept of before and after and you don't have a paradox of what created the creator. But I would never assume that such a being created me or my race or my species or my genus in their image. I would never be so arrogant to make that assumption.

Actually, we are anu-padaka-- self created, parentless. We are not the race of some special being, but our own creation, from the image of God, the Great I AM:
I AM Presence - God Self - Great I AM