|
Post by rational on Mar 24, 2015 22:14:17 GMT -5
At some point I have to ask when its time I shut up! My husband says that often anyway ;) You too?!? I don't even have to ask - someone tells me!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 24, 2015 22:20:44 GMT -5
Those days have deeper meanings also. I think I've said enough! At some point you have to ask how deep a hole you want to dig!Oh I could still ask god and get as valid an answer as anyone else. It is amazing how the answer(s) god gives to people reflects their own beliefs! Here's my take on it: We are not 100% Spiritual and in touch with God. We are spiritual and human so our human understanding, experiences, past conditioning also come into play. Just like you said Rational. Another one partly for you. I say partly because I believe we are body, soul and spirit but we see through a glass darkly - clouded with our human thoughts too. Spiritual and human responses / beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2015 1:22:16 GMT -5
Which part of the bible? 1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.It says the above in Genesis 1, Adam is in Genesis 2 What you have written from Corinthians means first Adam was a living soul then Adam was a quickening spirit. Otherwise what is the last man Adam? Do you understand what that means? This would all sort itself out if we realized that the Genesis creation narrative is made up of two parts as I said before.
" In the first part, Genesis 1:1-2:3, Elohim, the Hebrew generic word for God, creates the heaven and the earth in six days, starting with darkness and light on the first day, and ending with the creation of mankind on the sixth day. God then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh day." " In the second part, Genesis 2:4-2:24 God, now referred to by the personal name "Yahweh", creates the first man from dust and breathes life into him. God then places him in the Garden of Eden and creates the first woman from his rib as a companion." from wiki
The Genesis creation narrative was composed during the Babylonian captivity of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. The two different versions were combined at that time, resulting in some dissonance.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 25, 2015 2:04:19 GMT -5
At some point you have to ask how deep a hole you want to dig!Oh I could still ask god and get as valid an answer as anyone else. It is amazing how the answer(s) god gives to people reflects their own beliefs! Here's my take on it: We are not 100% Spiritual and in touch with God. We are spiritual and human so our human understanding, experiences, past conditioning also come into play. Just like you said Rational. Another one partly for you. I say partly because I believe we are body, soul and spirit but we see through a glass darkly - clouded with our human thoughts too. Spiritual and human responses / beliefs. And then face to face
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 25, 2015 5:53:03 GMT -5
Now we see through a glass darkly then we shall see face to face. We will see him face to face when he returns but until then (now) we see through a glass darkly. It's like seeing through a window on a moon lit night, then seeing out of it in broad daylight! It's like reading the Bible at face value then in comes Christ with the light and you have understanding. It's like a light switch switching on in the darkness. Then you put away childish things and your old life and God guides you where you wouldn't go. You see need in people, you care about everyone, your selfishness is gone, you have love instead of hate and hardness. Without love nothing it's possible! Without the love of God in our hearts we put ourselves first. With him you care for all. Whether they be Jew's Muslim's Christians atheists everyone! With God all things are possible. Jesus sent his people to go into the world and preach the gospel so he loved everyone. And when God guides is we will do this too. I don't see any as unsaved. I see everyone as able to be saved! God loves all of us! And when Jesus comes into our hearts and we see him face to face we will too!
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 25, 2015 5:55:47 GMT -5
Snow I also relished listening to this. Didnt get through it all tho. Thx
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2015 8:07:14 GMT -5
Now we see through a glass darkly then we shall see face to face. We will see him face to face when he returns but until then (now) we see through a glass darkly. It's like seeing through a window on a moon lit night, then seeing out of it in broad daylight! It's like reading the Bible at face value then in comes Christ with the light and you have understanding. It's like a light switch switching on in the darkness. Did he? Matthew 10:3These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:and then later Jesus said: Matthew 15:24I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'everyone' seemed to have a different meaning.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 25, 2015 8:41:45 GMT -5
It's like seeing through a window on a moon lit night, then seeing out of it in broad daylight! It's like reading the Bible at face value then in comes Christ with the light and you have understanding. It's like a light switch switching on in the darkness. Did he? Matthew 10:3These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:and then later Jesus said: Matthew 15:24I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'everyone' seemed to have a different meaning. But after he was risen it was different, because you are stronger with Christ in the heart Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Mar 25, 2015 8:47:49 GMT -5
Snow I also relished listening to this. Didnt get through it all tho. Thx Good morning bubbles. Hope you get the opportunity to listen to the balance of the video sometime soon. I think you will find it well worth the time. I actually thought the last several speakers were the most interesting and exciting. Svante Paabo's presentation on Neanderthal DNA of course was very interesting though controversial. I like his manner; quiet confidence, very appealing. Diane Ackerman is the best! I luv Diane Ackerman. Really enjoyed her presentation. I would recommend any of her books, they are wonderfully written. The fellow from MIT, Noel Gershenfeld was a fellow from MIT, what more needs be said? Actually, I really enjoyed his presentation. If you ever want to see what a person looks like when they are passionate about their vocation/avocation, this is the segment to watch. I am not a big fan of futurists but I think this fellow may be on to something BIG. My fav, however, is the presentation by Michael Crow, the last speaker. I have never heard a better or more erudite description of "creative destruction". If I were to recommend one segment to be sure to catch, it would be his presentation, I found it very thought provoking. The earlier speakers, I was disappointed with. My veneer of tolerance for cute polar bears clinging tenaciously to little ice cubes is rubbing awfully thin. Like snow, I would really have enjoyed learning more about the Siberian flood basalts and the Permian extinction. This strikes me as a fascinating topic particularly as it relates to the evolution of our species from a very narrow base. Unfortunately, instead of enlightenment, I had be be lectured about my cowardly cynicism and denial . . . . Ggggrrrrrrrrr . . . . I guess those who control the messenger, control the message. Can't we all just get back to the science and leave emoting to real actors? My least favorite presentation was the lecture by Ian Tattersall, the paleoanthropologist. "Looking at the hominid family tree . . . ., find Homo sapiens totally intolerant of competition . . . " Give me a break! Again, I am growing weary of the mantra "Nature - good, Homo sapiens - bad". I guess in its own right it is an interesting phenomena, once one has reduced all existence to quantum mechanical waveforms there is little left to lend meaning to the life of a nihilist than for them to wander around looking for victims and villains. Yes, Homo sapiens may indeed have wiped all of their ancestral brothers and sisters off the face of the earth. Let's mark that down as Hypothesis 1. But then think of Svante Paabo's presentation just prior to Ian's. Notice that little piece of DNA linked to the immune system. Then think of the Bubonic plague, one third of the Homo sapien population of Europe was wiped out in 2 years. Then think of the transmission of the plague-resistant mutation that conferred limited immunity in a few individuals at that time and how that mutant now reappears as a possible source of AIDS resistance in modern populations. Might it not be possible that Homo sapiens survived a devastating plague due to a mutation not carried by our poor brethren? Perhaps, then too, Neanderthals and the others might have been erased from the fossil record over a geologically short period of time. Would it be "unscientific" to mark that possibility as Hypothesis 2 and at least discuss the implications? Anyway all of my negativity is getting in the way of what was in fact a delightfully interesting and informative conference. Once again, thanks snow for the link. Hope you get to watch the balance bubbles.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2015 9:24:22 GMT -5
But after he was risen it was different, because you are stronger with Christ in the heart Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature Do you think Jesus changed his mind or did the writer of Mark decide the original message was too narrow? Did the exclusivity of christianity need to be reinforced?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 25, 2015 9:53:47 GMT -5
Some questions for me from this thread: If God had created man in Genesis 1 why does he say there was no man to till the ground in chapter 2 so he created Adam. If man was created in chapter 1 then there would have been a man to till the ground prior to Adam. Who was this man he created in chapter one if he had to create Adam in chapter 2 or was he referring to Adam in chapter one? Young's Literal Translation might be helpful. The actual Hebrew seems to use only the term "the man" and "a man". It's clear that God making a single man is meant in Genesis 2. www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=YLT The figure with the name Adam must have emerged in one of the translations but I'm not sure when. I tried to Googling to find out, but unfortunately most Bible dictionaries are heavy on explication and lacking in clarity. Did Adam as a name emerge in the Septuagint or Vulgate? If any one knows please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2015 11:32:15 GMT -5
It says the above in Genesis 1, Adam is in Genesis 2 What you have written from Corinthians means first Adam was a living soul then Adam was a quickening spirit. Otherwise what is the last man Adam? Do you understand what that means? This would all sort itself out if we realized that the Genesis creation narrative is made up of two parts as I said before.
" In the first part, Genesis 1:1-2:3, Elohim, the Hebrew generic word for God, creates the heaven and the earth in six days, starting with darkness and light on the first day, and ending with the creation of mankind on the sixth day. God then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh day." " In the second part, Genesis 2:4-2:24 God, now referred to by the personal name "Yahweh", creates the first man from dust and breathes life into him. God then places him in the Garden of Eden and creates the first woman from his rib as a companion." from wiki
The Genesis creation narrative was composed during the Babylonian captivity of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. The two different versions were combined at that time, resulting in some dissonance.
To make it even more confusing, the Hebrews are not even the authors of Genesis, but they borrowed the story, added a few personal touches to it, and viola. The Sumerians are the originators of many of the stories in the bible. When the Hebrews were captives in Babylon they learned these stories and added them to their version of history. No wonder they make no logical sense really.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2015 12:56:44 GMT -5
Abraham and Sarah were Sumerians who came from the country Babylon/Iraq today. They must have known and heard about the Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Enoch, Methusala, Noah and the flood story from their ancestors. They must have passed these stories to their descendants. We have these events such as Adam, Eve, Noah and the flood written and recorded in Sumerians/Babylon history also. Abraham and Sarah journey to the promised land, Moses, king David history was kept and passed on to the children of Israel/Hebrews. I think the point is that it was Sumerian history that they took and made a few changes to and passed it on to their children (Israel) as the history of the Hebrews. Another major point was that these stories by the Sumerians were not considered to be a factual history of how the world was created but only myths. When the Hebrews took them and changed them a bit they became the supposed history of the creation of the world instead of what they had always been recognized as, myths.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2015 13:28:30 GMT -5
I think the point is that it was Sumerian history that they took and made a few changes to and passed it on to their children (Israel) as the history of the Hebrews. Another major point was that these stories by the Sumerians were not considered to be a factual history of how the world was created but only myths. When the Hebrews took them and changed them a bit they became the supposed history of the creation of the world instead of what they had always been recognized as, myths. Well, with new findings, technology we have today (Hubble telescope) we have a better understanding about the Universe, galaxies, stars, the earth... How long it has existed... than the people back then.Yes we are learning more and more aren't we. We know there had to be life on earth long before the story of Adam and Eve. Did you watch the Extinctions debate I posted? It was very interesting I thought.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 25, 2015 14:41:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2015 17:43:56 GMT -5
Wow, must have been really really cold and really really hot!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2015 18:23:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 25, 2015 18:28:23 GMT -5
The Cone heads or Coneheads were extra-terrestial of course. They landed on Earth around 1980 from their home planet Remulak. Check it out. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Coneheads have much in common. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkvIlrLiy9o
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2015 18:33:13 GMT -5
The Cone heads or Coneheads were extra-terrestial of course. They landed on Earth around 1980 from their home planet Remulak. Check it out. But they said they were from France... I have been tricked.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 25, 2015 19:06:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 19:16:53 GMT -5
Hmmmm. Somehow I wonder if given time long enough, then mankind might find a way to develope shields enabling them to even travel to, in and through the sun? Nope, don't have any idea how, just wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 25, 2015 19:31:19 GMT -5
Hmmmm. Somehow I wonder if given time long enough, then mankind might find a way to develope shields enabling them to even travel to, in and through the sun? Nope, don't have any idea how, just wouldn't surprise me. Neutrinos pass through heavenly bodies with ease. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2015 20:13:44 GMT -5
I have a bowl of plasma every morning for breakfast. Cleans the arteries. I am sure if I went to the doctor I would learn that my arteries are squeaky clean. In fact the squeaking is so bad that once a week I throw some scrapple into the mix just to keep things running smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 25, 2015 20:21:53 GMT -5
I have a bowl of plasma every morning for breakfast. Cleans the arteries. I am sure if I went to the doctor I would learn that my arteries are squeaky clean. In fact the squeaking is so bad that once a week I throw some scrapple into the mix just to keep things running smoothly. Remember to never mix your plasma's and you will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 25, 2015 21:57:32 GMT -5
I have a bowl of plasma every morning for breakfast. Cleans the arteries. I am sure if I went to the doctor I would learn that my arteries are squeaky clean. In fact the squeaking is so bad that once a week I throw some scrapple into the mix just to keep things running smoothly. Ewww thats gross!!
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 25, 2015 22:07:26 GMT -5
Snow I also relished listening to this. Didnt get through it all tho. Thx Good morning bubbles. Hope you get the opportunity to listen to the balance of the video sometime soon. I think you will find it well worth the time. I actually thought the last several speakers were the most interesting and exciting. Svante Paabo's presentation on Neanderthal DNA of course was very interesting though controversial. I like his manner; quiet confidence, very appealing. Diane Ackerman is the best! I luv Diane Ackerman. Really enjoyed her presentation. I would recommend any of her books, they are wonderfully written. The fellow from MIT, Noel Gershenfeld was a fellow from MIT, what more needs be said? Actually, I really enjoyed his presentation. If you ever want to see what a person looks like when they are passionate about their vocation/avocation, this is the segment to watch. I am not a big fan of futurists but I think this fellow may be on to something BIG. My fav, however, is the presentation by Michael Crow, the last speaker. I have never heard a better or more erudite description of "creative destruction". If I were to recommend one segment to be sure to catch, it would be his presentation, I found it very thought provoking. The earlier speakers, I was disappointed with. My veneer of tolerance for cute polar bears clinging tenaciously to little ice cubes is rubbing awfully thin. Like snow, I would really have enjoyed learning more about the Siberian flood basalts and the Permian extinction. This strikes me as a fascinating topic particularly as it relates to the evolution of our species from a very narrow base. Unfortunately, instead of enlightenment, I had be be lectured about my cowardly cynicism and denial . . . . Ggggrrrrrrrrr . . . . I guess those who control the messenger, control the message. Can't we all just get back to the science and leave emoting to real actors? My least favorite presentation was the lecture by Ian Tattersall, the paleoanthropologist. "Looking at the hominid family tree . . . ., find Homo sapiens totally intolerant of competition . . . " Give me a break! Again, I am growing weary of the mantra "Nature - good, Homo sapiens - bad". I guess in its own right it is an interesting phenomena, once one has reduced all existence to quantum mechanical waveforms there is little left to lend meaning to the life of a nihilist than for them to wander around looking for victims and villains. Yes, Homo sapiens may indeed have wiped all of their ancestral brothers and sisters off the face of the earth. Let's mark that down as Hypothesis 1. But then think of Svante Paabo's presentation just prior to Ian's. Notice that little piece of DNA linked to the immune system. Then think of the Bubonic plague, one third of the Homo sapien population of Europe was wiped out in 2 years. Then think of the transmission of the plague-resistant mutation that conferred limited immunity in a few individuals at that time and how that mutant now reappears as a possible source of AIDS resistance in modern populations. Might it not be possible that Homo sapiens survived a devastating plague due to a mutation not carried by our poor brethren? Perhaps, then too, Neanderthals and the others might have been erased from the fossil record over a geologically short period of time. Would it be "unscientific" to mark that possibility as Hypothesis 2 and at least discuss the implications? Anyway all of my negativity is getting in the way of what was in fact a delightfully interesting and informative conference. Once again, thanks snow for the link. Hope you get to watch the balance bubbles. Yknot Thank you for your post i will try to watch it again.i will take notes. The speakers are all new to me. I was in neanderthal country last yr. I loved being there. I dont spook easily. Usually. Weather was glorious. Scenery incredible. Castles and ancient streets buildings and then the caved walls cliffs where they had lived. We parked nr a river. My bed was under the little window that opened in the roof of the camper. One and only time of the trip I kept looking up to the moonlite nite waiting for the face of a neanderthal to peep in. I couldnt sleep so shut the shutter..lol its very rare for me to spook myself. Reminded me of being child. Il get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2015 22:23:10 GMT -5
No it's a spiritual thing Hmmm, you can't work it out with a rational mind because it is a spiritual thing. What does that make a spiritual thing? I'm only guessing of course, -but would that make it an irrational thing?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 26, 2015 8:43:57 GMT -5
Let the readers decide... Or in this case, the listeners. Maybe they are born more often than once a minute.
|
|