- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
Second, it identifies the same people group as “agreeing a woman’s body is her own and a person’s social choices are their own.”
Christ taught, and through the Bible teaches, that a person’s body is not his own but the temple of the Holy Spirit. It also teaches that there are absolute social rights and wrongs we are to follow.
In this question one sibling says, “I’m a Christian, I follow Christ’s teachings – the other sibling says, “I’m a Christian, I don’t follow Christ’s teachings.”
That’s me! (technically: That is I) I say I’m a Christian and then go and fail to follow all His teachings no matter how hard I try. Fortunately this same Christ offers us His grace and mercy through death on the Cross. That inspires me to follow Him all the more because He willingly paid for my innumerable faults: A is A – Jesus is Love.
both mine and a temple, and it's up to me to make it so, by my choices?
wouldn't it be possible that a person could explore alternate
social interactions while professing Christianity? . we have free will,
and its use could well involve loving others regardless. -- j
.
an alternate view is simply this::: God is reality. . we are
trying to know reality, making strides daily. -- j
.
"Relabeling" does not make the reasons for rejecting religion go away and package dealing religion with the valid concept of the unknown does not justify religion for anyone who recognizes the concept "unknown".
I have faith that I will learn more, and I have faith that it is there.
Blarman's afterlife comments are interesting, as I get ready to go on
vacation and dodge thousands of other cars on the road. . I might not
do this if I were deathly afraid of the unknown, like a possible death
on the road. . but I go on vacation anyway, with the long-term view
that we're likely to be OK, my wife and I, on the road. . as an atheist,
years ago, I went on vacation differently. . I was a tad more anxious. -- j
.
Christianity claims its origin with Adam and Eve - the progenitors of all who have lived on this planet. It is not a derivation of any other religion. If you are referring to the Christianity organized by the Emperor Constantine, it is interesting to note that he himself was not a Christian, but a sun worshipper. He saw the popular influence of Christianity and made it into a political tool for his personal aim for power. That Christianity is not the Christianity I am talking about or defending, as it is a product of man.
"reason based on the physical senses"
If you choose to limit yourself to those five senses, you will reject matters of the sixth sense - the spiritual sense. I choose to use all the tools of inquiry at my disposal. And the reason you choose to downplay the matters of the spirit as unintelligible, etc., is because the five senses to which you restrict yourself are insufficient in dealing with spiritual phenomena. It's like getting frustrated when the round peg doesn't go in the square hole. I understand the frustration, but I can only tell you that a square peg exists - I can't make you pick it up or put it in the hole. That is something only you can do.
I have a paid membership to this site. So my belief and participation in it is demonstrated by the most revered tool of Ayn Rand - the dollar. If you wish to challenge my commitment to it and its principles, I would invite you to demonstrate the same level of commitment.
Who can possibly create such a thing and not be GOD?
Then you ask “Who can possibly create such a thing and not be GOD?”
The word “who” presupposes you have an answer. A more proper question would be phrased as “How was such a thing created?”
The essence of what I hear you saying is you do not know how the animal evolved, therefore it must be God. This question is known as the Argument from Ignorance. The fallacy is the absence of evidence is proof of nothing. At best, it means we don't now know enough to make a judgment. Such ignorance cannot be transmuted into knowledge of a god or anything else. However, in fact, how animals evolved is now known.
You might want to watch Dawkins (I think it was about 1991 before scientists used DNA as much as they do now) BBC program “Growing Up In The Universe.” This series of programs was designed for children to explain the very question you ask. https://richarddawkins.net/ or read Lecture Four of the Basic Principles of Objectivism (now in print as the “Legacy of Ayn Rand”) or a simple Google search.
Even granting you do not understand how the animal evolved to what it is today, as I mentioned above, before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). Your pointing to a video of a life form does not address the question. Before your god can create life, you must establish there is a god. So far, you have not attempted (1). Maybe you can figure out what you believe in and explain it to me. Nobody else has and I look forward to it.
How life began and evolved is now beyond scientific debate. Science has conclusively explained the process. Your question here can be answered in any book written after the 1950s dealing with the subject.
Even if we did not know the answer, to posit a god as the answer does not solve the ultimate question of who created the god?
To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who, then, created god? Was there an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress, the very dilemma the positing of a god was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally, then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
In other words, once one grasps that the concept and necessity that of something that always existed but was not brought into existence, one has overthrown the need for the concept of god and can recognize that the universe has existed eternally.
All of this is rather silly when you have not yet even provided an intelligible definition of your god.
It's GOD, not god. That said I don't have to. GOD is perfectly able to provide his own definition, so talk to him.
Let us do this experiment. Everyone do it, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Zoroastrians and whatever: Talk to your god and tell him if he can do anything — such as create the world in six days, kill his own son for the sins of the world, set the galaxies in motion — then surely he can appear in your living room for five minutes so that you can chat.
What a small thing for the God of the universe. Nothing is too hard for him (Jeremiah 32:27); with God all things are possible (Matt. 19:16). And we’re not even asking him for a miracle, like water to wine so we can party. We just want him to spend five minutes with us in person. If he really loves us so much (John 3:16), he should be willing to spend some time to remove our doubts.
Please try this in your own home. Let me know the results. I’m particularly interested in what he looks like — if he has an elephant's head, for instance, there are going to be lots of disillusioned Muslims.
http://www.emophilips.com/video/video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88DQ...
.
.
Right Allosaur?
Just tryin' to lighten the mood ...
.
But whether or not something is laughed at depends on whether it is a serious question from someone genuinely interested in Ayn Rand's ideas or Bible thumping by someone who doesn't know or care the difference and with disregard for the purpose of this forum.