Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 76
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.Page 4 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

I think the story of Abraham willing to sacrifice his son is probably one of the worst stories in the bible. Think how much better it would have been if Abraham had refused and God had rewarded him for making the moral choice. Abraham should have reasoned that no moral god would give such a horrible command and refused point blank, and God should have then congratulated Abraham for seeing through the bluff. The story, as it stands, makes obedience to God the greatest possible virtue (in other words, blind obedience trumps morality).


He did it because of the basic concept of unquestioning faith right. Well, don't eat from the tree or you will die. They did not die. They challenged faith and were punished but still didn't die. So, change that one to “good job, you challenged an obviously false rule (which now covers the knowledge of good and evil) and that’s your job.” That then makes your conclusion of challenging an immoral order correct. How many wars would have look different?

Someone interpreted incorrectly or misunderstood getting sent out into the world as getting kicked out of the parents’ house.

The whole scene is backwards from what should have happened. God lied; the serpent told the truth, the lie challenged and the truth found and then punishment. If it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil someone left out the lesson for good.

Should of, would of, could of….
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 77
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 2:38:38 AM
They disobeyed God... then denied that they did... then even blamed God for it.

They became separated from God... spiritual death.... and physical death.

So rather than enjoy life in communion with God, they were kicked out to find their own way.

I suppose, Aires, that your mom may have said "Don't touch the hot stove." Did you listen, or learn your own way?
 PROTON67
Joined: 4/26/2012
Msg: 78
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 7:19:53 AM
Who was God talking to in Genesis when he said US ??? ... We should let the WORD of God explain itself. There is one other place in scripture where He said US, (Job 1) and it is clear He was talking to His created angels. Angels are referred to in scripture as ministering spirits. The US in Genesis was God speaking to his ministering spirits, the angels. There are no other Gods but one. Over 100 verses in scripture tell us there is only one God. Indeed, a God that is not God OF all, is not God AT all. The only verse with 3 in it with reference to deity is I John 5:7, and that verse does not appear in any translations of the Bible before the 12th century. It can be found in the notes of a 12th century theologian who scribbled it into notes along side of I John 5:8 which says, "there are three that bare record on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood". Trinitarians desperate for a verse supporting their trinity doctrine then inserted into I John 5:7 at the same time they modified the original text of Matt 28:19 which said to baptize in Jesus name to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The bottom line is, there is only one God, there is no such thing as a trinity, and baptism was commanded to be done in Jesus name. For AT the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and thous shalt call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 79
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 7:54:33 AM

They became separated from God... spiritual death.... and physical death.
So rather than enjoy life in communion with God, they were kicked out to find their own way
I suppose, Aires, that your mom may have said "Don't touch the hot stove." Did you listen, or learn your own way


All the point of view of a child. Who told the original story? If oral tradition was followed as would be required for historical purposes it could only have been either Adam or Eve.

Kicked or sent. Grow up and get a job. Go make your own way in the world. And like a spoiled child... "I don't wannnnnaaaa" would see it as getting kicked out. They also would have lied about it. Like a child getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar… “What jar?” How about, "The serpent made me!"

And yes... My mom told me not to touch the hot stove and also the electrical outlets. But my Evil Dad didn't sit over my shoulder telling me it would be really funny to grab the flame while sticking a fork in the socket because I wouldn’t get hurt or die.

The problem with metaphor is it can mean almost anything. The story may be meant to to have metaphorical purposes and to be used in that sense but it must still have an origin that was physical. It was either made up or was passed on. There are no other options.

I think it is interesting how world view colors the metaphors. I know your world view is a collective with a higher purpose. Mine is more independence and individual achievement. You read separation from the heart of the collective and loss of love. I read independence, responsibility and curiosity.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 80
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 4:04:17 PM
There is mounting scholarly evidence that the books of Moses, including Genesis were essentially assembled ... from oral tradition, traditional lore, and in the context of the ancient creation myths general to the now mid-east ... sometime after the Jews returned from exile in Babylon.. about 500-600 BCE. Peter Enns is a leading scholar in this area.

As stated in another post, the Genesis is not necessarily a scientific or historical treatise, but speaks to spiritual truths from the Jewish perspective.

And one comment or story in the Bible ought not to be the basis of doctrine, but rather in the overall context.

Were Adam and Eve actual persons? Stay tuned. Perhaps the truth of the story becomes more real if it is freed from having to be literal. To me.. much of it makes more sense.

>

As for myself, Aires.. I do prefer a more individualistic world view.. a product of my culture perhaps. Having studied the concept, I can understand how individualism is not necessarily superior. At least two thirds of the world continues more or less as a collectivist culture. And civilization emerged from collectivist societies. Generally, when living is harsher, the default is collectivism as people have to depend on each other more. Much about on the net if one cares to explore further.

As you have proven yourself capable... an enlightened person ought to be able to hold several opposing ideas in his/her head without ex/imploding.

N'est pas?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 81
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 6:35:15 PM

As you have proven yourself capable... an enlightened person ought to be able to hold several opposing ideas in his/her head without ex/imploding.

N'est pas?


It is. Oral tradition would make a lot more sense for why it’s so poorly structured. That is one of the supports for the New Testament. The Gospels were written within a time period where some people would have still been alive to have challenged the validity. Creating a church based on the testimony of people that never occurred when there were still witnesses would have been easily challenged and broken apart.. As happened to all those other saviors of that time. The old stuff... maybe someday someone will dig up something... stashed in the Vatican archives.
 purfectmeow
Joined: 4/17/2012
Msg: 82
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 7:27:53 PM
The beauty of spirituality is that something will always be discovered some where even if its within ourselves.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 83
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 9:15:40 PM
It is. Oral tradition would make a lot more sense for why it’s so poorly structured. That is one of the supports for the New Testament. The Gospels were written within a time period where some people would have still been alive to have challenged the validity. Creating a church based on the testimony of people that never occurred when there were still witnesses would have been easily challenged and broken apart..

I'm not so sure about that. The first of the canonical gospels (Gospel of Mark) was first written some 30 - 40 years after the events supposedly happened. Even modern societies have their myths, formed in far less time than the gospels and still widely popular (e.g., George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Elvis sightings, Einstein prodigy stories). Furthermore, the murky history of the gospels indicate that there were widely differing views of who Jesus was, told from all points of view. In other words, people DID try to disprove the gospels, often times in favor of their own. From what we can tell, the canonical gospels survived because their backers had the support of Rome, not because they were more credible (and Rome was more interested in using the new religion to hold the empire together, not it's historical truth).

My personal view is that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the Romans for insurrection (there were many savior figures back then so this isn't unusual). However, for whatever reason some of Jesus' followers began to think that he had been raised again from the dead and began to spread this message, eventually reaching the likes of Paul (note that the Pauline epistles do not contain any of the details of the gospels - only Jesus' death and resurrection). Eventually, educated Greek-speaking Jews decided to compile a story of the life of Jesus, borrowing heavily from other mythic figures (being born a virgin, working miracles, and dying on a hill on a tree/cross are all common themes of the mythic hero archetype). Other writers then used these gospels to create their own gospels, each with their own twist (e.g., Matthew is a very Jewish gospel while Luke is heavily favored towards gentiles), thus forming the gospels that we have today. The proto-orthodox version of Christianity then won out and the rest is history.

There was also some philosophical/theological bias used in deciding which gospels were authentic and which were not. The Gospel of Peter is a good example. It was supposedly written by Peter himself and is very similar to the canonical gospels, except at the end when Jesus is crucified. The gospel says that Jesus was silent throughout, as if he felt no pain. To proto-orthodox Christian leaders this suggested that Jesus was not really human (it seemed to support the idea his body wasn't real - that it was only an illusion). This conflicted with the image of Jesus that they had in mind (Chalcedonian christology) so they rejected the authenticity of the gospel and it went into the dustbin of history. The Gospel of Thomas is another example. The beginning of the gospel indicates that whoever understands the words of the gospel will attain everlasting life. To proto-orthodox leaders this conflicted with their idea that it was through the death and resurrection of Jesus that everlasting life was attained (the Gospel of Thomas seemed to be pushing a gnostic idea - that one can attain salvation through knowledge, not sacrifice). This gospel was also rejected on theological grounds.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 84
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/6/2012 9:54:32 PM

Even modern societies have their myths, formed in far less time than the gospels and still widely popular (e.g., George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Elvis sightings, Einstein prodigy stories).


Yeah I get it. There are anecdotal urban legends throughout history. But none of them became the basis of going against the authority of the time and turning against the established religion. The established Churches of the time were not exactly all cool with that. It's not evidence. It's just a place for a point.

And again, once things get into the hands of others and origins are confused, concepts twisted and political issues of the day whatever... That's where the entire thing becomes metaphorical and nearly impossible to separate one thing from another. However, that doesn't discount its existence and that it was a collection of what was claimed to be testimony and not fables and that’s where it’s still at. I have heard several of the complaints that it’s filled with terrible and brutal things. That the narrative is all over the place and as a work of fiction it gets very low marks on compared with the quality of other writings the predate it. And that is also part of the point that it wasn't a sequenced fictionalized story. It wasn’t a happy telling of a great world. The world kind of sucked. It was brutal. Many parts of the world show that it really was brutal. The interpretation that it is the world that should remain forever… um, where did that come from?

http://www.newmediaministries.org/Bible/OralTradition_S.html

This means the books of the NT were written between only 30 to 70 years after Jesus' death. This is important because historians have determined this is not enough time for myths and legends to develop. It means the books of the NT were written either by eyewitnesses or by people like Luke who carefully reported eyewitness testimonies. Furthermore, this was done in the presence of other eyewitnesses who could correct them on the accuracy of their accounts. Second, we must understand the true nature of the oral tradition. This was far from the unreliable telephone game. In fact, as you know, the purpose of the game is to have fun so you have a lot of incentive to distort the message you received and pass that distortion on to the next person.

In the ancient world, however, passing information on by word of mouth was far from a game. Memorization was a major means of education. It had to be. An education that included reading and writing was only available to the wealthy minority. But that doesn't mean those without formal educations were not intelligent and informed. The Jews would memorize whole books of the OT just by listening to it being read to them. They were taught to memorize everything they heard from their teachers. They were taught to memorize it word for word and then check it for accuracy. In a world where few people could be taught to read or write, accurate memorization was important and strictly enforced.


Memory was important. They were far from stupid backwoods ignorant hicks. It isn't evidence. It is a place for a point.

I had always hoped that Penn and Teller would have done a BullShit episode on the miracles of the Bible (except for casting out demons because that is still occurring today and easily shown how that can exist as a belief). The only rules would that they could only use materials available at that time or the nearest equivalency.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 85
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/7/2012 5:20:10 AM

Yeah I get it. There are anecdotal urban legends throughout history. But none of them became the basis of going against the authority of the time and turning against the established religion. The established Churches of the time were not exactly all cool with that. It's not evidence. It's just a place for a point.

Really? Then explain how the Mormon religion got started. In fact, explain how any new religion after the time of Jesus got established (Carco cults, Islam, Raelians, Scientology, Mormonism...). Such things can easily be disproved, especially in modern times, right?


Memory was important. They were far from stupid backwoods ignorant hicks. It isn't evidence. It is a place for a point.

No it is not. Frankly, I find that the quoted explanation completely unconvincing since it flies in the face of everything we know about the early church (as well as how rumors, hearsay, and religions are established even today). The gospels are not eyewitness accounts - they don't read anything like eyewitness accounts in the ancient world (we have examples of such accounts during that time and the gospels are nothing like them) and they were written in Greek, by educated Greek-speaking Jews, not aramaic-speaking (and for the most part, illiterate) farmers and fishermen from Galilee. Furthermore, if the deeds and saying of Jesus were so widely remembered then how could there have been so many different gospels saying such vastly different things? How could it be a matter of such contention if it was a recent event that everyone remembered? Furthermore, why doesn't the apostle Paul mention any of the things that Jesus taught and did? If you were to tell strangers about Jesus today wouldn't you at least mention some of the things he said? (the idea that Paul knew about them but didn't say anything is proposterous on its face) Paul's silence, as it is called, is powerful testimony that such details weren't known (that is, they didn't exist) during that time.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 86
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/7/2012 7:49:23 AM

However, that doesn't discount its existence and that it was a collection of what was claimed to be testimony and not fables and that’s where it’s still at.

It's all just a plagiarised re-telling of older stories, with appropriate names inserted and re-played in a new location.
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/green_economics/MythsandReligion.pdf
http://newageofreason.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/the-pagan-roots-of-christianity-2/
http://pocm.info/
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
http://www.answering-islam.org/Pagan/index.html
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 87
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/7/2012 7:57:57 AM
Interesting,

I know you have lived and studied this. I just gave you the best sounding support I had heard. I am not going to try to take the opposing side. There is no way I could keep up. Not sure how to take your position. I just don't know enough. I lean more towards your position just because I've always had the opinion that the whole thing passed through so many hands and was always used for political purposes.

Oh... however, your point about Mormons, scientology and all the modern ones... they also came from a more tolerant place and were not challenging the current ruling government. So, it’s a bit difficult to compare.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 88
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/7/2012 4:45:10 PM

Oh... however, your point about Mormons, scientology and all the modern ones... they also came from a more tolerant place and were not challenging the current ruling government. So, it’s a bit difficult to compare.

I used those examples to show how religions get established, that they don't just get killed off because someone can come along and disprove them. Religion is not like science and is not subject to the same kinds of test and procedures - when is that last time that someone told you they came to believe in a religion because of its scientific truth?

The late Alan Dundes said that folklore can sometimes be more important than actual history. What he meant was that the stories that get passed down do so because they resonate with people on a fundamental level. People believe it because they WANT to believe it. It's important for Americans to believe that George Washington cut down that cherry tree and didn't lie about it, since it tells them something about the father of their nation. Many glurge stories get passed on in this way (glurge is a word used to describe stories that start off as fiction but are now considered by many to be true stories). I believe religion fits in this category as well since many people believe in religion because it makes them feel good in some way, fills a void in their life. A pastor never trots out physical evidence of biblical events - he doesn't need to, that's not what people come to church for.
 purfectmeow
Joined: 4/17/2012
Msg: 89
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/7/2012 5:22:47 PM
^ I hear ya but I dont go to church because I believe in some story. I dont go to church very often because organized religion turns me off. I am a spiritual person because of my personal faith through something I feel within myself. Its a connection to a greater force of energy I like to call God. I would still have that connection without the bible. My personal intuitions are strong through this connection and I have experienced unexplainable (by science) phenomena because of it. Does it fill a void in my life? Its more like it fills a void in my soul.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 90
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/7/2012 6:00:35 PM

That feeling inside.....may be gas!
Once again, the feelings of a greater presence have been replicated by stimulating parts of the brain electrically and also through drugs. It also happens with mental health disorders.
So it really is explainable, any other ways you "know" that cant be replicated with science/nature?


That is a bad example. Explaining how something functions doesn't explain what it is for. Tires are for the purpose of rubber. Tires are for cars and they are made of rubber.

Electricity is in a socket but that is not why it is there.

Your brain doesn't exist for you to tie your shoes.

Engines are not cars

So, feelings are for not the purpose of chemicals to exist.
 purfectmeow
Joined: 4/17/2012
Msg: 91
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 4:52:03 AM
^ Awe~ ...just y'all let me have a moment. I feel the presence of something greater than Aries posting just to post in response. Its a collective connection I dont expect most people to get. So thank you~ from the gift we have received that we can share, and cyber hugs...
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 92
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 5:13:28 AM

That is a bad example. Explaining how something functions doesn't explain what it is for. Tires are for the purpose of rubber. Tires are for cars and they are made of rubber.

Electricity is in a socket but that is not why it is there.

Your brain doesn't exist for you to tie your shoes.

Engines are not cars

So, feelings are for not the purpose of chemicals to exist.

I think asking things like "what it is for" makes too big an assumption (it assumes that there is some kind of purpose external to the thing being described). Why can't the brain be a self-contained unit? Why can't our feelings be synonymous with chemical and electrical interactions? Oh sure we'd like to think our thoughts and feelings are more than just physical stuff, but IMO that's just human ego (it reminds me of this one philosophy class, when a student said she believed in evolution -- except for human beings). As Daniel Dennett said, the continuity of nature is not going to permit one species to have miracle stuff in their brain. Does the idea that we are ultimately mechanical make you feel less valued?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 93
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 5:43:50 AM

I think asking things like "what it is for" makes too big an assumption (it assumes that there is some kind of purpose external to the thing being described). Why can't the brain be a self-contained unit? Why can't our feelings be synonymous with chemical and electrical interactions? Oh sure we'd like to think our thoughts and feelings are more than just physical stuff, but IMO that's just human ego (it reminds me of this one philosophy class, when a student said she believed in evolution -- except for human beings). As Daniel Dennett said, the continuity of nature is not going to permit one species to have miracle stuff in their brain. Does the idea that we are ultimately mechanical make you feel less valued?


It is too big of an assumption. Each assumption made is only a piece of information. Reality always makes things more complicated. A car is made with an engine. A cars general purpose is transportation. A car can also represent ego. A car can represent technology. a car can represent modernity. Defining a car’s engine doesn't devalue any of those things. Describing the human meat bag as a meat bag does devalue us. We, unlike the car, have conscience. We, unlike the car, feel. Ego is a big part of it. Not getting into the 'importance' of humans over other living things here. Just that life is described by mechanics but that doesn't mean it is just mechanical. Even fire has a purpose.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 94
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 10:09:41 AM

It is too big of an assumption. Each assumption made is only a piece of information. Reality always makes things more complicated. A car is made with an engine. A cars general purpose is transportation. A car can also represent ego. A car can represent technology. a car can represent modernity. Defining a car’s engine doesn't devalue any of those things. Describing the human meat bag as a meat bag does devalue us. We, unlike the car, have conscience. We, unlike the car, feel. Ego is a big part of it. Not getting into the 'importance' of humans over other living things here. Just that life is described by mechanics but that doesn't mean it is just mechanical. Even fire has a purpose.

Fire may have a purpose, but it's not the one we ascribe to it. That is our purpose.

Cars are not humans, they are machines designed with a purpose in mind.
Purpose implies an aim or an intention, so to hold the idea that humans to have 'a purpose', other than the obvious natural one, implies that there is some goal that humans were 'designed' to fulfill. There is no evidence for this, in fact there is much evidence to the contrary considering that we are distantly related to sea squirts.

Sea squirts feed by taking in water through the oral siphon. The water enters the mouth and pharynx, flows through mucus-covered gill slits (also called pharyngeal stigmata) into a water chamber called the atrium, then exits through the atrial siphon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascidiacea
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 95
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 12:07:16 PM

Purpose implies an aim or an intention, so to hold the idea that humans to have 'a purpose', other than the obvious natural one, implies that there is some goal that humans were 'designed' to fulfill.


Sorry, but there would be a much stronger argument to make that the purpose of humans is to transform the environment to suit our development and growth. We don't sit on the see floor and suck in what we can. We don't hide in the grass and wait for a sick animal to pass by. We actively engage and modify the world around us and are actively moving in the direction of expanding that outside of our world. That is purpose. It may not be 'the purpose' but you can't say that we are an ant leaving the nest and returning with food for the colony.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 96
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 4:23:34 PM
It is too big of an assumption. Each assumption made is only a piece of information. Reality always makes things more complicated. A car is made with an engine. A cars general purpose is transportation. A car can also represent ego. A car can represent technology. a car can represent modernity. Defining a car’s engine doesn't devalue any of those things. Describing the human meat bag as a meat bag does devalue us. We, unlike the car, have conscience. We, unlike the car, feel. Ego is a big part of it. Not getting into the 'importance' of humans over other living things here. Just that life is described by mechanics but that doesn't mean it is just mechanical. Even fire has a purpose.

I think you misunderstood me when I said "ego". What I meant was that it is human vanity and pride makes us think that we're somehow different from ordinary things. You also mentioned something about consciousness, which Daniel Dennett has written eloquently about. To paraphrase Dennett, what the Theory of Evolution has taught us is that we are a part of nature, like monkeys, like trees, like sea squirts, like any other living organism and that it is vainglorious and foolish to wish ourselves special. We have a soul -- but it's made up of little robots and it's all mechanical at the bottom of it. This isn't to deny the value of human life - to paraphrase Dennett once again, it touches everything and leaves everything the same, except we're just a little bit disillusioned about the nature of it. Frankly, figuring out the way a rose blooms (at the genetic/chemical level or whatnot) doesn't make the flower any less attractive. Likewise, we don't have to pretend that our thoughts and feelings are some magical stuff for us to feel important.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 97
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/8/2012 5:13:46 PM

Purpose implies an aim or an intention, so to hold the idea that humans to have 'a purpose', other than the obvious natural one, implies that there is some goal that humans were 'designed' to fulfill.


Sorry, but there would be a much stronger argument to make that the purpose of humans is to transform the environment to suit our development and growth.

There's no argument to make in that regard. The circumstances that drove 7 or 8 ape species out of the trees and led to upright walking hominids had no aim or goal in regard to the eventual appearance of homo sapiens.
To imagine the activities we engage in today are fulfilment of some 'purpose' is to imagine that the chain of events that led to it was directed with intent. There's no evidence for that at all.

The effects we have on the world are by-products of what we have become, and result from our somewhat accidental capabilities.


We don't sit on the see floor and suck in what we can. We don't hide in the grass and wait for a sick animal to pass by. We actively engage and modify the world around us and are actively moving in the direction of expanding that outside of our world. That is purpose. It may not be 'the purpose' but you can't say that we are an ant leaving the nest and returning with food for the colony.

A sea squirt is a mouth and an anus that exploits its environment long enough to reproduce. We share that same basic design and life cycle yet we, unlike them, are 'special' somehow? Someone, or some 'thing', has a 'purpose' in mind for us? Homo sapiens, unique amongst the hominids (and all animals), had a higher 'purpose' built in? pfft.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose
http://www.answers.com/topic/purpose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_(disambiguation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 98
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/9/2012 10:46:07 AM


Sorry, but there would be a much stronger argument to make that the purpose of humans is to transform the environment to suit our development and growth.



There's no argument to make in that regard. The circumstances that drove 7 or 8 ape species out of the trees and led to upright walking hominids had no aim or goal in regard to the eventual appearance of homo sapiens.
To imagine the activities we engage in today are fulfillment of some 'purpose' is to imagine that the chain of events that led to it was directed with intent. There's no evidence for that at all.

The effects we have on the world are by-products of what we have become, and result from our somewhat accidental capabilities.


What do you mean there is no argument in that regard? So, I have to look outside and pretend it doesn't exist? I have to look outside and see all of the manmade recreation of the environment to suit our purposes and pretend it means nothing but ... but what? Human behavior is not as random as it appears right. It is predictable. We have rational predictions of what has happened and will happen with societies. That can't happen in total randomness. The basic assumption of natural selection and the argument against unguided evolution is the order from chaos and all of society follows that same line. Natural selection and the complexity of the human brain does not need an intelligent creator to get there right. Society is moving and has always been moving in the direction of controlling the entire planet and most likely pulling into a single world government. It has been self-organizing for centuries. That is more of a sense of purpose then you are willing to grant it. Where is the drive at? I personally don't like the one world government path as I don't trust the people who will be in charge. So, the need of an opposition exists. There are a lot of people that feel that way. The end result will be a more powerful single government that is able to overcome its opposition.

How do you not see purpose in this? I didn't mention religion or theology or anything spiritual. Without any of that do you still not see purpose?
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 99
view profile
History
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/9/2012 1:26:40 PM

What do you mean there is no argument in that regard? So, I have to look outside and pretend it doesn't exist? I have to look outside and see all of the manmade recreation of the environment to suit our purposes and pretend it means nothing but ... but what? Human behavior is not as random as it appears right. It is predictable. We have rational predictions of what has happened and will happen with societies. That can't happen in total randomness. The basic assumption of natural selection and the argument against unguided evolution is the order from chaos and all of society follows that same line. Natural selection and the complexity of the human brain does not need an intelligent creator to get there right. Society is moving and has always been moving in the direction of controlling the entire planet and most likely pulling into a single world government. It has been self-organizing for centuries. That is more of a sense of purpose then you are willing to grant it. Where is the drive at? I personally don't like the one world government path as I don't trust the people who will be in charge. So, the need of an opposition exists. There are a lot of people that feel that way. The end result will be a more powerful single government that is able to overcome its opposition.

How do you not see purpose in this? I didn't mention religion or theology or anything spiritual. Without any of that do you still not see purpose?

I don't think purpose is what you're talking about here; instead you seem to be talking about ability. All living organisms have a purpose (which is almost universally to exist and reproduce). Humans are nothing special in this regard. The only thing different is that we are more capable of modifying our environment. Of course this could all change - the next meteor strike could wipe out humanity in a stroke.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 100
My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.
Posted: 6/9/2012 3:31:39 PM
Purpose denotes an intent....and thereby an intelligence in directing the creation of such an advantage.

Compare with an effect.

Is the purpose of a tree falling across a river to give animals a dry crossing.. or is that the effect?

Is the purpose of having long arms to scratch one's ankles without bending over, or is that the effect? Of course long arms also has the effect of reaching a few more pieces of tasty and nutritious fruit than a short armed runt.

And I can still scratch my ankles.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > My Theological Questions. Contemplation Welcome.