My annual Memorial Day thread (1 Viewer)

I do like the Serenity Prayer, not necessarily praying for serenity from an outside source, but as a reminder myself to "accept the things you can not change, (have) courage to change the things you can, and wisdom to know the difference." It helps when faced with disappointments (such as the NFCCG), that if there's nothing that I can do about something that's eating me up that I shouldn't let it dominate my thoughts and should turn my attention and energy elsewhere.

And yes, I have lots of family in AA.
 
I simply don't see it as being reasonable that all the parts needed to make a house would know where to fit without help in order to turn into a house. That is unless each part had it's own intelligence to do so.

But there's no doubt that some in the scientific community not only see it as plausible, but factual.
so forever we've had the spiritual answer to the physical phenomenon
fire is bc god
lightning is bc god
the sun orbits the earth bc god
even einstein fudged his own discovery b/c he felt it questioned the existence of god
at every juncture there was a physical explanation
in 50 years we'll have scientific answers to just about every question we have now (of course we'll have way more unanswered questions by then - and those questions will eventually be answered

and what i don't understand in these discussions is why cell division or the big bang or quantum entanglement are 'hard' to understand but the fantastical events of the OT and even the NT are like, 'yeah, that happened - and his the single source evidence of it
 
I simply don't see it as being reasonable that all the parts needed to make a house would know where to fit without help in order to turn into a house. That is unless each part had it's own intelligence to do so.
Sure, it is reasonable to say that the parts needed to make a house would not be able to put themselves together and form a house. Factual, even. And at face value, the idea that "complexity necessitates a design, design necessitates a designer" seems logical from the standpoint of building a house.

But we are not talking about building a house, or assembling a watch; the analogy ignores key elements of what you are trying to draw an analogy from, such as who the alleged designer is and what he allegedly designed.

To accept intelligent design, you have to accept that Yahweh is not perfect, that he is not all powerful, and that he is not all-knowing, because the design of the universe is flawed. It all may seem to fit, like the not-so-proverbial water in the hole in the ground, but that apparent fit is the result of millions of years of adaptation. So you can imagine how flawed the original design was.

Just look at the human body - and according to the Bible, we are the center of the physical universe and were created in God's image - and see how flawed it is, from a design standpoint. We have useless extra organs, multiple single points of failure, some questionable structure/layout, we can't even see straight. And no one unit comes exactly the same way out the production line, some with extra parts, some with missing parts...

It seems like a house designed by a blind architect.

And yes, that is a segue to recommending Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". I believe it is on youtube as a documentary.

But there's no doubt that some in the scientific community not only see it as plausible, but factual.

No scientist worth his salt would consider something factual without evidence. There surely are scientists who believe it on faith, though.


.
 
Just look at the human body - and according to the Bible, we are the center of the physical universe and were created in God's image - and see how flawed it is, from a design standpoint. We have useless extra organs, multiple single points of failure, some questionable structure/layout, we can't even see straight. And no one unit comes exactly the same way out the production line, some with extra parts, some with missing parts...

This is getting silly.

1.) We aren’t designed in the image of God physically. That isn’t even logical. You like logic right? How can a God who is spirit design us in His image physically? He means that, as He is a 3 part being, body (Jesus), mind (God) and soul (Holy Spirit), so are we. Where is my proof? Where is yours?

2.) A couple of issues here. Firstly, useless organs are produced as humans evolve. Secondly, genetic mutation through mass reproduction can and will lead to failures within the design of our bodies.

3.) We are not all the same from the eyes of someone who doesn’t know what to look for. But for the person that realizes our entire body follows the Golden Mean/Ratio, we are all identical.

Please don’t write a 14 inch post. Thanks.
 
This is getting silly.

1.) We aren’t designed in the image of God physically. That isn’t even logical. You like logic right? How can a God who is spirit design us in His image physically? He means that, as He is a 3 part being, body (Jesus), mind (God) and soul (Holy Spirit), so are we. Where is my proof? Where is yours?

2.) A couple of issues here. Firstly, useless organs are produced as humans evolve. Secondly, genetic mutation through mass reproduction can and will lead to failures within the design of our bodies.

3.) We are not all the same from the eyes of someone who doesn’t know what to look for. But for the person that realizes our entire body follows the Golden Mean/Ratio, we are all identical.

Please don’t write a 14 inch post. Thanks.

I thought you have given up on me.

As long as I observe the TOS, or the site owner tells me differently, the length of my post is no concern to you. If you don't want to read them, that's fine with me.

1) It is not my logic. It says so in Genesis 1:27. Are you making a distinction between physical and body? Seems your statements are a bit contradictory.

Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile your Christian belief with Jews not believing in the Holy Trinity? After all, the Book of Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and according to the Torah, the Israelite had a direct line to Yahweh himself, yet he never mentioned the Holy Trinity to Moses, or Abraham, etc, even though he laid rules about not eating shellfish or what to wear. Do you think he held out on his people?

2) Oh, absolutely. But I didn't draw an analogy to building houses or assembling watches. At least you believe in evolution. Although, if you believe in evolution... what do you believe we humans started as? Do you go further back from the origin of species into the origin of life theories? There are a few theories about the beginning of life, but those theories start with mere molecules. Is a molecule a body?

3) Again, I am not the one drawing analogies to building houses or assembling watches. But out of curiosity, what do you think the 2 extremes are?
 
Last edited:
... and say you will pray for someone, do you actually DO it? I do but not always and feel like a fraud because I don't know what to say to God. I don't know why I always feel disingenuous though I feel like a genuine person.

I've been wanting to respond to this for a while but I just haven't gotten to it. In short, I do think it's important to follow up on your intentions. But I also understand the struggle of not knowing what to say to God. That's a completely reasonable experience because prayer is a participation in something that is ultimately of God and thus transcends our human understanding and scope. Giving some thought to what prayer is in the first place can give us some insight into how to pray.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1.htm

Prayer, first and foremost, is a gift from God. It is only possible because He first seeks us and desires us to participate in his life and love. With that in mind, we can see that the first necessary disposition of prayer is humility. If we understand that prayer is a participation in God's will, that it is not of our own creation, then we are off to a good start. Prayer is a way of aligning ourselves and our intentions with that of God.

There's a lot more to say regarding form and function, but I'll keep it short. Prayer can be personal petition. It can be communal participation in the celebration of God's sacrifice and covenant with man (liturgy). It can be praise and thanksgiving and glorification. It can be repentance and forgiveness. It takes many forms and all are integral in our relation to God and participation in His life.

A perfect summary that participates in all, at least in some way, and definitely offers explanatory function is the Our Father.

Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Over time we can become better at expressing ourselves with our own language. But there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. When I'm asked to pray for someone, especially someone with whom I am only distantly familiar, taking a moment to say the Our Father can go a long way. It's more than acceptable and is a way to purposefully align yourself with God's will on their behalf.

One last thought is that you can also offer your own struggles and suffering, in union with Christ's, for particular intentions. God wants us to participate in his redemptive work. This is an integral part of the Christian life of participation in the mystery of God's life and relation to his creation. It's worth reading more. Look into the notion of 'redemptive suffering'.
 
Last edited:
I thought you have given up on me.

As long as I observe the TOS, or the site owner tells me differently, the length of my post is no concern to you. If you don't want to read them, that's fine with me.

1) It is not my logic. It says so in Genesis 1:27. Are you making a distinction between physical and body? Seems your statements are a bit contradictory.

Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile your Christian belief with Jews not believing in the Holy Trinity? After all, the Book of Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and according to the Torah, the Israelite had a direct line to Yahweh himself, yet he never mentioned the Holy Trinity to Moses, or Abraham, etc, even though he laid rules about not eating shellfish or what to wear. Do you think he held out on his people?

2) Oh, absolutely. But I didn't draw an analogy to building houses or assembling watches. At least you believe in evolution. Although, if you believe in evolution... what do you believe we humans started as? Do you go further back from the origin of species into the origin of life theories? There are a few theories about the beginning of life, but those theories start with mere molecules. Is a molecule a body?

3) Again, I am not the one drawing analogies to building houses or assembling watches. But out of curiosity, what do you think the 2 extremes are?

I’ve answered enough questions about what I believe. So I’m curious now about what you believe. You’re obviously an incredibly intelligent person, so what do you believe?
 
I’ve answered enough questions about what I believe. So I’m curious now about what you believe. You’re obviously an incredibly intelligent person, so what do you believe?

As far as deities go? I don't.

And, believe it or not, I wish I could. I don't know how it was for others, but for me it was rather unsettling to come to the realization that there is no meta-physical force listening to me, protecting me, performing miracles for me, granting me favors; that there is nothing beyond death...

But as much as I wish I could believe in any deity who will guard my every step and grant me eternal life if I follow the ancient book (being Bible, Vedas, Popol Vuh, etc), I can't force myself or fool myself into believing something just because it brings me comfort.
 
I
A very logical & reasoning man once said, "Of course every house is constructed by someone". That eloquent line is the basis for the logic that I use for my own personal conclusion to our existence. Were any of us to happen upon a beautiful, full featured house in the middle of a vast wasteland, it would be hard to imagine that anyone here would exclaim, "Look what just sprang up right here all on it's own!"
.

That's a problematic argument and example. First, we're taking into account something we're familiar with (the innately human intelligence, perfected over many, many years, needed to build a home) and comparing it to something we can't possibly understand firsthand because it is a process of typically millions of years, a timescale of which our brains can barely comprehend.
 
That's a problematic argument and example. First, we're taking into account something we're familiar with (the innately human intelligence, perfected over many, many years, needed to build a home) and comparing it to something we can't possibly understand firsthand because it is a process of typically millions of years, a timescale of which our brains can barely comprehend.
Please understand that to me it will never seem reasonable or logical that any discussion about the origin of life or matter can be answered by simply throwing enough time at it. I personally will never conclude that even if all the elements of that house were always in existence somewhere in the vast universe around us that given enough time it's inevitable that a house was going to spring up somewhere.

I completely understand why some people chose to accept that teaching. But it's not one that I will ever conclude as even being possible. And the most beautiful thing of all is that I'm not obligated in any way to do so.
 
Please understand that to me it will never seem reasonable or logical that any discussion about the origin of life or matter can be answered by simply throwing enough time at it.

So you're insinuating here that evolution, because it involves a large time scale, is not reasonable/logical and/or cannot be inferred with great confidence?

I personally will never conclude that even if all the elements of that house were always in existence somewhere in the vast universe around us that given enough time it's inevitable that a house was going to spring up somewhere.

You keep going back to the house example -- again, you're comparing statues to coyotes here. Or quite literally nonliving to a living thing -- so you're essentially skipping out on so many wonderful natural processes involved in biological life in making this analogy,. Homes aren't complex biological organisms of whose relatives we have fossils of, DNA with whom we share, and a breadth of genetic information linking them via phylogenetic trees upon, to meander very shallow into that topic.

I completely understand why some people chose to accept that teaching. But it's not one that I will ever conclude as even being possible. And the most beautiful thing of all is that I'm not obligated in any way to do so.

And it's sad to me that you seem to have firmly closed off your mind in this area. I think that not knowing, realizing you're so, so insignificant in relation to the universe but share a common responsibility to be a steward to all of your living counterparts on this Earth is a humbling and beautifully transcendent experience. But you're right -- you can believe whatever you want to.
 
So you're insinuating here that evolution, because it involves a large time scale, is not reasonable/logical and/or cannot be inferred with great confidence?
I'm insinuating that evolution wasn't necessary to have what existed or what currently exists.

You keep going back to the house example -- again, you're comparing statues to coyotes here. Or quite literally nonliving to a living thing -- so you're essentially skipping out on so many wonderful natural processes involved in biological life in making this analogy,. Homes aren't complex biological organisms of whose relatives we have fossils of, DNA with whom we share, and a breadth of genetic information linking them via phylogenetic trees upon, to meander very shallow into that topic.
Biological life is still here for me to study and enjoy. Why insist that those things happened by accident rather than were created? You are correct to say that biological organisms are much more complex than house... which is all the more reason to conclude intelligent design was involved. What possible reason would I have for denying the existence of the fossils, the shared DNA, or any other ancient organism in order to hold to the conclusion of intelligent design? I see no conflict at all.

And it's sad to me that you seem to have firmly closed off your mind in this area. I think that not knowing, realizing you're so, so insignificant in relation to the universe but share a common responsibility to be a steward to all of your living counterparts on this Earth is a humbling and beautifully transcendent experience. But you're right -- you can believe whatever you want to.
I recognize my insignificance and realize that there is so much to learn both about the natural world as well as the divine. But our stewardship of the Earth becomes a greater responsibility to humans by reason of having been deliberately created here. But if we are only here by chance, then we have no obligation to accept that responsibility except through an individual's personal conviction. On the contrary, I recognize that this is our given assignment.
 
I'm insinuating that evolution wasn't necessary to have what existed or what currently exists.


Biological life is still here for me to study and enjoy. Why insist that those things happened by accident rather than were created? You are correct to say that biological organisms are much more complex than house... which is all the more reason to conclude intelligent design was involved. What possible reason would I have for denying the existence of the fossils, the shared DNA, or any other ancient organism in order to hold to the conclusion of intelligent design? I see no conflict at all.

I recognize my insignificance and realize that there is so much to learn both about the natural world as well as the divine. But our stewardship of the Earth becomes a greater responsibility to humans by reason of having been deliberately created here. But if we are only here by chance, then we have no obligation to accept that responsibility except through an individual's personal conviction. On the contrary, I recognize that this is our given assignment.
Just to quibble, you should not “conclude” any such thing about an intelligent designer since there is zero evidence for it
Yo can ‘infer’ it which is perfectly fine
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom