Jump to content

Plants and Animals?


rigney
 Share

Recommended Posts

So much energy has been expended on explaining space time, gravitational lensing, general and special relativity, entropy, what our universe actually looks like, where it came from, etc? I'm exhausted just trying to understand even a little of it. Some answers are acceptable and some I simply can't grasp no matter how much I read or listen. My question is, with all of the above data mandated as scientific fact or models of probable fact, how do we deal with flesh, blood, tissue and elemental stone; without bringing God into the mix? That is unless one of you can point me in the right direction real quick. Someone out there has an answer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, with all of the above data mandated as scientific fact or models of probable fact, how do we deal with flesh, blood, tissue and elemental stone; without bringing God into the mix? That is unless one of you can point me in the right direction real quick. Someone out there has an answer! [/Quote]

 

rigney; Without getting into an argument, which happens when I state my opinions on this, I feel organic matter is a natural (evolution) event from inorganic matter. That is, as any object in the Universe forms materials (elements) required for both are there. What organic matter does once formed (started on planet Earth 3.7BYA), was and is totally dependent on the thousands of environmental variables, allowing any organic material to survive, thrive and evolve.

 

Since we know micro forms of life existed 3.7BYA, in my mind there is no reasons others formed much earlier, back even to the time the Earth was cooling, possibly dying off, simply unknown or maybe simply melding back into organic material. Fusing certain elements, under unknown conditions into organic material seems to me a natural process, life on Earth being from Carbon and the explained potential of life fusing from Silicon seems little different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rigney; Without getting into an argument, which happens when I state my opinions on this, I feel organic matter is a natural (evolution) event from inorganic matter. That is, as any object in the Universe forms materials (elements) required for both are there. What organic matter does once formed (started on planet Earth 3.7BYA), was and is totally dependent on the thousands of environmental variables, allowing any organic material to survive, thrive and evolve.

 

Since we know micro forms of life existed 3.7BYA, in my mind there is no reasons others formed much earlier, back even to the time the Earth was cooling, possibly dying off, simply unknown or maybe simply melding back into organic material. Fusing certain elements, under unknown conditions into organic material seems to me a natural process, life on Earth being from Carbon and the explained potential of life fusing from Silicon seems little different.

 

I don't plan being argumentative on Christmas Eve, the holiday is just too enjoyable for me. No, my question was simply, how can flesh, blood (animal), and fiber (as in) plants and trees exist as they do, when everything else is either solid rock or at least inanimate? A universal understanding, we don't have a clue? We can barely see what's in front of us here on earth. Vague is not what I'm looking for. At times I even envy religious folks for having the faith to believe in a higher power as they do. "Merry Christmas"

But someone out there will give me an answer I can relate to. Thanks 33.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't plan being argumentative on Christmas Eve, the holiday is just too enjoyable to me. No, my question was simply, how can flesh, blood (animal), and fiber (as in) plants and trees exist as they do, when everything else is solid rock at least inanimate? At times I envy religious folks for having the faith to believe in a higher power. "Merry Christmas" [/Quote]

 

rigney, I didn't mean from you (argument), rather than those that feel organic matter (life) is a defined process unique to certain conditions. I simply feel organic matter is as simply explained as inorganic matter or as you prefer inanimate. Flesh, blood and fiber would be more advanced, however as explained for environmental reasons that permitted evolvement. This issue/subject usually come up under "life in the Universe" and it's my opinion life, micro to intelligent or fused from carbon, silicon or other elements are as common as the "solid rock" (crust of cooling matter). Here is a short explanation to carbon based life, linking to silicon based life and surely we have no idea what elements might have existed in the first 3-4BY of Earths existence.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbon-based_life.html

 

Having been in business, all of which were 24/7/365 types, Christmas has been kind of just another day for me. Then most those I had associated with are long gone, but I do have fond memories and I do understand the importance of the season to my culture and Country. Merry Christmas, to you, yours and any of those that find this thread. I'll add best wishes for the New Year and will look forward to a repeat performance, one year from tonight....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of physical theories for how life first came into existence from inorganic matter, so I'm sure there is no need to rehearse them all here. Your question seems like asking why apple seeds have so much cyanide when for almost everything else in the universe cyanide is toxic and inconsistent with life. It is just that when you focus on any particular thing in isolation and note its distinctness, the fact that everything else is different from it seems somehow incongruous. It is like asking why there are so few Earth-like planets, or so few planets with eccentric orbits, or so few planets with planetary rings, etc. There is really nothing troubling in the fact that a division of the objects of the universe into certain categories by various criteria produces subsets with vastly different numbers of objects in them. A google search shows that no one else recorded in cyberspace has exactly the same name as I do, but why should that cry out for explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is anything to ponder on Christmas eve that emerges at the intersection of physics and religion/spirituality, imo, it is why don't people appreciate all matter, living and non-living, as well as all the subjective and objective forms that are manifest in and through matter and energy? Instead of recognizing every atom and photon as a gift, along with every configuration, formation, and transformation of/through energy; they narrow their view to the tiny fraction that appeals to their cultured tastes. Why does there have to be special food instead of just appreciation of the blessing of nourishment generally? Why do there have to be special gifts instead of appreciation of the blessing of material prosperity generally? Why focus on the birth of baby Jesus instead of the rebirth of humanity that he is believed to have brought (by at least some people anyway)?

 

Animals and plants ("flesh and fiber" or "fauna and flora") are living materials that somehow emerged from the creative energy of the universe for whatever reason. They are intricate and complex machinery that re-produce themselves using their own factory equipment. You don't have to believe that they are given by God to recognize that their life is a gift to humans and to each other and themselves, just as humans themselves are, along with all that gets created, (re)produced, and transformed by them. Rather than be humbled and overwhelmed by the complexity of living tissues and systems, why not embrace their immanence and the direct access you have to them as a fellow configuration of living matter? If you believe in God, why not accept the universe along with Jesus (and whichever other prophets speak to you in your search for meaning) together with everything else as a constant eternal gift in every imaginable sense, including the challenges and contradictions that come with it?

Edited by lemur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of physical theories for how life first came into existence from inorganic matter, so I'm sure there is no need to rehearse them all here. Your question seems like asking why apple seeds have so much cyanide when for almost everything else in the universe cyanide is toxic and inconsistent with life. It is just that when you focus on any particular thing in isolation and note its distinctness, the fact that everything else is different from it seems somehow incongruous. It is like asking why there are so few Earth-like planets, or so few planets with eccentric orbits, or so few planets with planetary rings, etc. There is really nothing troubling in the fact that a division of the objects of the universe into certain categories by various criteria produces subsets with vastly different numbers of objects in them. A google search shows that no one else recorded in cyberspace has exactly the same name as I do, but why should that cry out for explanation?

 

Incongruous? I hope not!

Your quote: There is really nothing troubling in the fact that a division of the objects of the universe into certain categories by various criteria produces subsets with vastly different numbers of objects in them.

What are you trying to say? I asked a simple question about life, nothing more. Yet, you use the word universe as if we know all about that vastness. Just give me a fact, that's all I ask. Merry Christmas.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rigney, flesh and fiber evolved because these things allowed organisms to exploit food and or energy sources that either microbes couldn't or allowed them some advantage over microbes. to be honest it could be argued that microbes are still superior to flesh and fiber creatures. Microbes by far not only out number complex life forms they out mass complex life forms many times over but the complex life forms still persist. Complex life forms can only live in very limited environments, microbes can live under conditions that would instantly kill complex organisms so what is really about is competition for resources, complex animals are at the top of a food chain that is supported by an enormous amount of microbes, complex life feeds on the same stuff (energy) that microbes do, they just exploit limited resources microbes cannot do as well. Of course microbes consistently use us as a resource too...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rigney, flesh and fiber evolved because these things allowed organisms to exploit food and or energy sources that either microbes couldn't or allowed them some advantage over microbes. to be honest it could be argued that microbes are still superior to flesh and fiber creatures. Microbes by far not only out number complex life forms they out mass complex life forms many times over but the complex life forms still persist. Complex life forms can only live in very limited environments, microbes can live under conditions that would instantly kill complex organisms so what is really about is competition for resources, complex animals are at the top of a food chain that is supported by an enormous amount of microbes, complex life feeds on the same stuff (energy) that microbes do, they just exploit limited resources microbes cannot do as well. Of course microbes consistently use us as a resource too...

 

Question, Why do living organism exist at all? I know my question doesn't impress or make sense to many of you. But why should life exist in any form, if gravity is dominent and demands everything be drawn into an entity? Sorry, I just haven't been able to read anything factual into a theory that gives me a comforting feeling. "Merry Christmas"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, Why do living organism exist at all? I know my question doesn't impress or make sense to many of you. But why should life exist in any form, if gravity is dominent and demands everything be drawn into an entity? Sorry, I just haven't been able to read anything factual into a theory that gives me a comforting feeling. "Merry Christmas"

 

 

Why does matter exist at all? It just does, and be happy that it does. There's no real 'point' to anything existing to an extent. And, not to sound insulting, science isn't around to make people comfortable; it's here to explain what things are and what they do. People's feelings have no relevance to scientific explanations, at least they shouldn't in my opinion

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a way to grasp things:

 

The universe is an immense laboratory where anything can happen. Anything? Not exactly. What will happen must be possible, what is impossible will not happen. I know, it seems tautology, but it is not. Impossible means conflict with possible, and possible means non-exclusive. The Universe is to me the sum of events that produce no conflict, or in other words the sum of possible events.

One can improve this very vague definition by focusing on the word "sum", because the Universe is not only a sum of bananas and galaxies, the Universe is a structure in which you find bananas existing in some galaxies.

So that you can say that the Universe is a structure into which all non-exclusive possible events will happen.

Matter, radiation, life are such events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is anything to ponder on Christmas eve that emerges at the intersection of physics and religion/spirituality, imo, it is why don't people appreciate all matter, living and non-living, as well as all the subjective and objective forms that are manifest in and through matter and energy? Instead of recognizing every atom and photon as a gift, along with every configuration, formation, and transformation of/through energy; they narrow their view to the tiny fraction that appeals to their cultured tastes. Why does there have to be special food instead of just appreciation of the blessing of nourishment generally? Why do there have to be special gifts instead of appreciation of the blessing of material prosperity generally? Why focus on the birth of baby Jesus instead of the rebirth of humanity that he is believed to have brought (by at least some people anyway)?

 

Animals and plants ("flesh and fiber" or "fauna and flora") are living materials that somehow emerged from the creative energy of the universe for whatever reason. They are intricate and complex machinery that re-produce themselves using their own factory equipment. You don't have to believe that they are given by God to recognize that their life is a gift to humans and to each other and themselves, just as humans themselves are, along with all that gets created, (re)produced, and transformed by them. Rather than be humbled and overwhelmed by the complexity of living tissues and systems, why not embrace their immanence and the direct access you have to them as a fellow configuration of living matter? If you believe in God, why not accept the universe along with Jesus (and whichever other prophets speak to you in your search for meaning) together with everything else as a constant eternal gift in every imaginable sense, including the challenges and contradictions that come with it?

 

Guess I messed up by saying that some folks believe in a higher power. I retract the statement completely. I'm agnostic in the best sense. No, my entire thought was; how can living things exist when there is no need for them to start with? Rocks can lie around for billions of years without changing shape unless an earthquake crushes or a volcanic process converts them into another composition and shape. Some trees can live for thousands of years. Why? As flesh and blood, turtles have an extreme longivity. Many over a hundred years. The same can be said of elephants and some whales. Each defy what is known as gravity. Specifically the elephant. Animals of all description are functional despite the effects of gravity. If gravity can form, suns, planets and galaxies, etc. from cosmic dust by drawing that dust into the confluence at a random center of nothingness to create things, it amazes me when we try applying it to life forms. And the stutter steps? They remind me of homophobia and (Theophobia)(morphism). My question is/was, how do we remain intact, flexible and breathe? Anything from a giant sequoia to a microbe, fits this catagory. It may be a question from someone perhaps not too well wrapped, but it is only a question. And the Merry Christmas thing? I love this pagan holiday best of all. "Merry Christmas" Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also focus on it at Christmas. Without it the Incarnation (Jesus' birth) would be no more worthy of worldwide celebration than my birthday or yours.

Well, as much as I like the message of Christ, I've had trouble understanding what the significance of his carnal birth within the logic of Christian beliefs, which are so focussed on the transcendence of the flesh by the spirit, etc. I think the more significant "birth" that Christ produced, according to the mythology, is the rebirth of humanity in the grace of God's forgiveness. Of course, this is more what is celebrated at Easter, I think. But I thought maybe the birth of baby Jesus could just be meaningful in terms of miracles that surrounded it, like the fact he was born in a manger sort of implies that human life and animal life (flesh) are part of the same general gift of embodiment in flesh. Plus, Jesus is the fleshy part of the holy trinity.

 

 

 

This is a way to grasp things:

 

The universe is an immense laboratory where anything can happen. Anything? Not exactly. What will happen must be possible, what is impossible will not happen. I know, it seems tautology, but it is not. Impossible means conflict with possible, and possible means non-exclusive. The Universe is to me the sum of events that produce no conflict, or in other words the sum of possible events.

I like the analogy of a laboratory, but I think you underestimate the significance of the fact that the universe can and does generate contradiction and conflicts. Amazingly, it can also utilize these conflicts by re-converting them into functional contributions to other processes.

 

Guess I messed up by saying that some folks believe in a higher power. I retract the statement completely. I'm agnostic in the best sense. No, my entire thought was; how can living things exist when there is no need for them to start with? Rocks can lie around for billions of years without changing shape unless an earthquake crushes them or a volcanic process reconverts them to another composition and shape. Some trees can live for thousands of years. As flesh and blood, turtles have an extreme longivity. Both defy what is known as gravity. Animals of all description are functional despite the effect of gravity. If gravity can form, suns, planets and galaxies, etc. from cosmic dust by drawing it into the confluence of a random center of nothingness, it amazes me in trying to apply it to life forms. My question is/was, how do we remain intact, flexible and breathe? Anything from a tree to a microbe fits this catagory. It's just a question from someone perhaps not too well wrapped, but it is only a question. And the Merry Christmas thing? I love this pagan holiday best of all. "Merry Christmas"

Read George Bataille's "Accursed Share." In the beginning, he explains the basis for his theory of a general energy-economy where the basic driving force in all natural systems is to expand as much as possible. Thus, he says, trees evolve from smaller plants as a means of expanding the surface area for absorbing solar energy. He then says that animal life, and especially predators, evolve to have the function of clearing away (sacrificing) other life to make room for even more life. So the flexibility and active-mobility of animals might have evolved as a more efficient means of clearing away plants and other animals. If what you're wondering about is how life evolved from the earliest microbes, I believe there is plenty written on the natural evolution of various types of tissues and structures.

 

If you're into paganism, btw, you should like Bataille and the philosophy/economics of sacrifice. Bataille was also interested in the significance of sacrifice in the story of Christ. Generally, it is interesting to analyze how the sacrificial logic of Christ's death creates a metaphysical transition between pagan sacrificialism and Christian redemptionism; but that is a whole other topic.

 

 

Edited by lemur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as much as I like the message of Christ, I've had trouble understanding what the significance of his carnal birth within the logic of Christian beliefs, which are so focussed on the transcendence of the flesh by the spirit, etc. I think the more significant "birth" that Christ produced, according to the mythology, is the rebirth of humanity in the grace of God's forgiveness. Of course, this is more what is celebrated at Easter, I think. But I thought maybe the birth of baby Jesus could just be meaningful in terms of miracles that surrounded it, like the fact he was born in a manger sort of implies that human life and animal life (flesh) are part of the same general gift of embodiment in flesh. Plus, Jesus is the fleshy part of the holy trinity.

 

 

 

 

I like the analogy of a laboratory, but I think you underestimate the significance of the fact that the universe can and does generate contradiction and conflicts. Amazingly, it can also utilize these conflicts by re-converting them into functional contributions to other processes.

 

 

Read George Bataille's "Accursed Share." In the beginning, he explains the basis for his theory of a general energy-economy where the basic driving force in all natural systems is to expand as much as possible. Thus, he says, trees evolve from smaller plants as a means of expanding the surface area for absorbing solar energy. He then says that animal life, and especially predators, evolve to have the function of clearing away (sacrificing) other life to make room for even more life. So the flexibility and active-mobility of animals might have evolved as a more efficient means of clearing away plants and other animals. If what you're wondering about is how life evolved from the earliest microbes, I believe there is plenty written on the natural evolution of various types of tissues and structures.

 

If you're into paganism, btw, you should like Bataille and the philosophy/economics of sacrifice. Bataille was also interested in the significance of sacrifice in the story of Christ. Generally, it is interesting to analyze how the sacrificial logic of Christ's death creates a metaphysical transition between pagan sacrificialism and Christian redemptionism; but that is a whole other topic.

 

If it took a great mind to discern logic, I'd be "out of here" in a heart beat. I hear and see many things too complicated for me to preceive, so I read and read and read. Sometimes it isn't to my benefit and I feel dumber than when I started. Sort of like the link below. After reading it, I knew there must be at least another ten thousand pages I would have to look at and try to soak up, even to have a clue. And no! Paganism isn't my "cuppa tea", although I have succumbed to many of their rituals.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

 

Why does matter exist at all? It just does, and be happy that it does. There's no real 'point' to anything existing to an extent. And, not to sound insulting, science isn't around to make people comfortable; it's here to explain what things are and what they do. People's feelings have no relevance to scientific explanations, at least they shouldn't in my opinion

 

What you have said is not insulting to me at all and I'll not disagree with you in the least. The fact that matter exists is why we are here in the first place and I for one am very thankful. While I will never blaze a trail, I still keep looking for sincere and honest answers to my questions? Nothing more. Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this your personal view or are you relating something fundamental about Christian philosophy?

Both. It feels good to pray to lord at every meal for the almighty having shown the love upon us and providing us with the food, but a rich plum cake is always more nice on Christmas than any other day.

We all appreciate all matters, but just attach a special day for special gifts, special foods, and greeting people on that special day of their birth every year.

By the way, when is your birthday (2011) ... I wish to send you my special and warm Greetings. :D

 

It's also a fundamental of Christian philosophy. He became man to show us the way, and dying just like the rest of us. But He also rose from the dead, because He is the Son of God.

 

As for the significance of it, it's really not the "birth" we focus on (per your reference to the manger and the miracles), but on the Incarnation, although most people will talk about the "birth" in reference to Christmas. That Incarnation did not commence with His birth, it began with His conception in the womb of a human woman. It is the fact that the Creator of the Universe loved us so much that He took on human flesh and fully became a human being ( while fully remaining God) in order that He personally could redeem us and offer us eternal life with Him by sacrificing His own human flesh for our redemption. The spiritual "rebirth" of humanity, as you put it, began with that Incarnation. The two events fit together and should be seen as a whole. Animals, while having flesh, do not have immortal souls. Humans do.

 

And in order to begin to understand the significance of this, you have to begin with the Old Testament.

Edited by needimprovement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rigney, I didn't mean from you (argument), rather than those that feel organic matter (life) is a defined process unique to certain conditions. I simply feel organic matter is as simply explained as inorganic matter or as you prefer inanimate. Flesh, blood and fiber would be more advanced, however as explained for environmental reasons that permitted evolvement. This issue/subject usually come up under "life in the Universe" and it's my opinion life, micro to intelligent or fused from carbon, silicon or other elements are as common as the "solid rock" (crust of cooling matter). Here is a short explanation to carbon based life, linking to silicon based life and surely we have no idea what elements might have existed in the first 3-4BY of Earths existence.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbon-based_life.html

 

Having been in business, all of which were 24/7/365 types, Christmas has been kind of just another day for me. Then most those I had associated with are long gone, but I do have fond memories and I do understand the importance of the season to my culture and Country. Merry Christmas, to you, yours and any of those that find this thread. I'll add best wishes for the New Year and will look forward to a repeat performance, one year from tonight....

 

The link you gave was very informative. As I stated earlier, I'm not the sharpest nail in the keg. Until last May, my entire skein of understanding the universe was shorter than a sheepshank folded back on itself a half dozen times. Haven't progressed much, but the entire meaning of my questioning on the subject was innocent as hell!, and dead serious. And that was, with gravity being so strong at the earths surface, how do animal and plant matter manage to go against the grain, so to speak? Stand upright, walk, breathe, among many things. On top of that, our brains and eyes are such delicate insturments, yet a marvel at being able to oppose this thing we call gravity. Moontanman posted a fine article earlier this past summer "Abiogenesis". I believe that's right?, and I'm making a bit of progress. Gravity had nothing to do with that subject then, but it does now. There's one thing you have to be very careful of when using a euphemism of any sort though. This post may have suddently turned into a bible study? But as the link was rather vague, I would still like to find some solid answers other than the wouda, coulda and shouldas: or the if, dog, rabbit thing.

Well, I had a big part of the clan in yesterday. Nineteen to be exact. (locals) The others in Tenn. Geo. and Va., told them to stay home with gas prices what they are. Happy New Year to you.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it took a great mind to discern logic, I'd be "out of here" in a heart beat. I hear and see many things too complicated for me to preceive, so I read and read and read. Sometimes it isn't to my benefit and I feel dumber than when I started. Sort of like the link below. After reading it, I knew there must be at least another ten thousand pages I would have to look at and try to soak up, even to have a clue.

I can't tell if you're into humility or if you have an inferiority complex. Either way, I'd say lighten up. People feel dumb because they are intelligent enough to see and feel that there is a lot more to things than is assumed in a state of ignorance. This is why gaining knowledge has the paradoxical effect of making people feel more ignorant. In practice, all intellectualism is is the rigorous pursuit of knowledge and ultimately wisdom. You challenge each other by sharing what little knowledge and understanding you have gained and hope to stimulate others in their pursuit of enlightenment and draw on them for stimulation of your own.

 

And no! Paganism isn't my "cuppa tea", although I have succumbed to many of their rituals.

I mentioned Bataille's study of the meaning of sacrifice and its relationship to pagan sacrificism because it is interesting to study the cultural bridge that is made between the logic of sacrifice and that of redemption. Pre-Christian paganism believes in making sacrifices to appease god(s) whose mercy comes in exchange for the sacrifice. The story of Christ complexifies the sacrificial logic by allowing fallible humans to sacrifice the incarnation of God (the perfect lamb) thereby bringing them to the realization of their own sin against God in the act of sacrifice itself. In this way, they learn that they must follow Christ's example to redeem themselves and others instead of sacrificing themselves and others to God. In other words, they have to become God by becoming part of the "body of Christ." It is very interesting logic.

 

Both. It feels good to pray to lord at every meal for the almighty having shown the love upon us and providing us with the food, but a rich plum cake is always more nice on Christmas than any other day.

We all appreciate all matters, but just attach a special day for special gifts, special foods, and greeting people on that special day of their birth every year.

By the way, when is your birthday (2011) ... I wish to send you my special and warm Greetings. :D

Thanks, but I just think that it's important to recognize that making some things special and exceptional can have the effect of making other things seem less appreciable than they otherwise might be. This isn't to say that it's automatically terrible to celebrate special days; just to be mindful when ignoring all the other "everyday miracles" of life.

 

It's also a fundamental of Christian philosophy. He became man to show us the way, and dying just like the rest of us. But He also rose from the dead, because He is the Son of God.

To me the resurrection has a symbolic meaning that connects with the idea of spiritual rebirth, but that's more a topic for Easter, no?

 

As for the significance of it, it's really not the "birth" we focus on (per your reference to the manger and the miracles), but on the Incarnation, although most people will talk about the "birth" in reference to Christmas. That Incarnation did not commence with His birth, it began with His conception in the womb of a human woman.

I think you're making a good point about the importance of incarnation, but I think the point is that it is supposed to have begun before conception in the womb, i.e. via inception by God/Holy Spirit. There's a reason the whole creationist theology begins with "God the creator." It is a philosophy that makes materiality an expression of spirituality instead of the reverse.

 

It is the fact that the Creator of the Universe loved us so much that He took on human flesh and fully became a human being ( while fully remaining God) in order that He personally could redeem us and offer us eternal life with Him by sacrificing His own human flesh for our redemption. The spiritual "rebirth" of humanity, as you put it, began with that Incarnation. The two events fit together and should be seen as a whole. Animals, while having flesh, do not have immortal souls. Humans do.

Well, I think you could say it began before the incarnation of Jesus, maybe during Adam and Eve's fall from grace and banishment from paradise. The incarnation and persecution/crucifixion is significant, imo, in that it transforms the relationship of sinners to God and sin. They are no longer banished but forgiven - a big difference in practice.

 

I would have to disagree with you that the belief that jesus was god incarnate is fundamental Christian philosophy. Some sects of Christianity believe that Jesus was the son of god but not himself god incarnated.

I agree with you that people who swear up and down that Muslims and anyone else who regards Jesus as a prophet but not the messiah or the son of God are lost to Christianity don't fully understand their own theology. The thing is that even if you don't BELIEVE that Jesus was God-incarnated, you still should understand the logic of what that means and what its philosophical significance is. Basically, you have to meditate on what it means for imperfect human sinners to kill God. What's more, you have to understand why on Earth God would forgive humans for killing Him. This helps you to understand God's attitude toward His creation in general and its imperfections/sin. The story of Noah and the flood has a similar meaning, imo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote] I can't tell if you're into humility or if you have an inferiority complex. Either way, I'd say lighten up. People feel dumb because they are intelligent enough to see and feel that there is a lot more to things than is assumed in a state of ignorance.

 

I'm into neither Lemur. Merely congenial. Like I said earlier to Jackson, I haven't been in this program long enough to think straight, let alone constructively. I can respect anyones ignorance! But stupidity, it's hard to buy on any level.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm into neither Lemur. Merely congenial. Like I said earlier to Jackson, I haven't been in this program long enough to think straight, let alone constructively. I can respect anyones ignorance! But stupidity, it's hard to buy on any level.

Can you respect ignorance even when it is either willful, loved/enjoyed, or both? Some people are in love with their own ignorance because of the benefits it brings. "I can't understand" is like a magic mantra for some people to avoid trying and still expect to be respected for what they think. Ignorance is bliss, but it can be bliss at others' expense which makes it wrong to cling to it stubbornly, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you respect ignorance even when it is either willful, loved/enjoyed, or both? Some people are in love with their own ignorance because of the benefits it brings. "I can't understand" is like a magic mantra for some people to avoid trying and still expect to be respected for what they think. Ignorance is bliss, but it can be bliss at others' expense which makes it wrong to cling to it stubbornly, imo.

 

Since I'm not overly impressed with Psychology 101, I suggest you read some of what I have asked, and how I replied. And no, pampered ignorance sucks. I have spent a lifetime working at jobs, not sitting on my duff, reading books and trying to be smarter than the rest of the world. While I've never begrudged anyone an education, I sense the malaise of stupidity only in those overcome with their own holier than thou success.

 

My replyto jackson33. The link you gave was very informative. As I stated earlier, I'm not the sharpest nail in the keg. Until last May, my entire skein of understanding the universe was shorter than a sheepshank folded back on itself a half dozen times. Haven't progressed much, but the entire meaning of my questioning on the subject was innocent as hell!, and dead serious. And that was, with gravity being so strong at the earths surface, how do animal and plant matter manage to go against the grain, so to speak? Stand upright, walk, breathe, among many things. On top of that, our brains and eyes are such delicate insturments, yet a marvel at being able to oppose this thing we call gravity. Moontanman posted a fine article earlier this past summer "Abiogenesis". I believe that's right?, and I'm making a bit of progress. Gravity had nothing to do with that subject then, but it does now. There's one thing you have to be very careful of when using a euphemism of any sort though. This post may have suddently turned into a bible study? But as the link was rather vague, I would still like to find some solid answers other than the wouda, coulda and shouldas: or the if, dog, rabbit thing.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.