-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I wasn't making it an issue. I merely mentioned it in response to Nl's critique of the poster campaign.
Do you have a issue with people being well informed when it comes to matters of faith?
I think these people are being silly. Christians have formed their own traditions around this time of year and Santa Claus is one of them. He's originally a Catholic Saint don't you know.
Do you know the story? At an orphanage in France during the middle ages a group of nuns, feeling sorry for the children in their care and wanting to make their day a little brighter, made gifts for the children for Christmas morning but concocted the story that Saint Nicholas, the patron saint of children, had brought them the presents. This, apparently, is how the tradition of Santa Claus began, and from there the practice spread to other orphanages and eventually to the whole population. You see? Santa is a Christian tradition. Gift giving might have been part of the Saturnalia experience practised by the Romans, but Christians have made it their own.
I grant you that the commercialism distracts some from the religious tradition, but for others, such as myself and my immediate family, the religious connection is not what Christmas is about.
Without the Christmas tree, gift giving and turkey dinner, December 25th would be like any other day in mid winter. What you don’t like is, for me, what makes the day special.
I second that motion.
Do you have a issue with people being well informed when it comes to matters of faith?
I think these people are being silly. Christians have formed their own traditions around this time of year and Santa Claus is one of them. He's originally a Catholic Saint don't you know.
Do you know the story? At an orphanage in France during the middle ages a group of nuns, feeling sorry for the children in their care and wanting to make their day a little brighter, made gifts for the children for Christmas morning but concocted the story that Saint Nicholas, the patron saint of children, had brought them the presents. This, apparently, is how the tradition of Santa Claus began, and from there the practice spread to other orphanages and eventually to the whole population. You see? Santa is a Christian tradition. Gift giving might have been part of the Saturnalia experience practised by the Romans, but Christians have made it their own.
I grant you that the commercialism distracts some from the religious tradition, but for others, such as myself and my immediate family, the religious connection is not what Christmas is about.
Without the Christmas tree, gift giving and turkey dinner, December 25th would be like any other day in mid winter. What you don’t like is, for me, what makes the day special.
I second that motion.
I disagree. If the outcome is known, which it would be in the case of foreknowledge, how is it possible that the known outcome would not be the outcome that occured. If there is no other outcome possible, there is no free will involved. Even if the outcome is not decided (preordained), and it is still known, there is still no other possible outcome. If the outcome were different, the different outcome would be known instead. Whatever future even has already been foreseen cannot possibly turn out any different, or else it would not have been seen that way.
This is a silly view of evolution. You are making the presupposition that there is some goal or hierarchy in evolution. There is no matter of being higher evolved, therefore being correct, just as there is no correct brain. In the case of subjective morality, which is the only morality I think exists, there is no objective standard to call "correct" and you are talking about two different issues. You seem to keep veering farther and farther away from pragmatism, which is what I have already told you is how I look at things. We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong. It is not a matter of getting the right or wrong answer. If you think it is okay to hurt people, you are still going to have to answer to the rest of society who agrees that it is not okay to hurt people.
That is not at all what my pragmatic mind understands. Pragmatically, I understand that I deal with things as they are and as I observe them. I think it is obvious that people do have a choice in what they do, so your example isn't an issue in the first place. But, even if it happened to be the case that free will does not exist, that won't change the fact that people are held responsible for their actions. Because, pragmatically, we know that the way people behave influences the way other people behave. Past decisions influence future decisions, etc. If you rape a 2 year old, I am not going to sit around and ponder on whether you had free will, or if it was just an illusion. Seeing as it is a question that great minds in science and philosophy have pondered for years, I doubt either of us is going to come to some valid, game-changing conclusion. What I will do is what I know needs to be done to produce effective results. You will be tried, and if found guilty, imprisoned, to prevent you from doing the same thing again, and hopefully discourage others from doing the same.
It actually isn't, and great minds like Sam Harris have explained why. But niether of us have any reason to think free will doesn't exist, so it doesn't really matter.
That is not at all what my pragmatic mind understands. Pragmatically, I understand that I deal with things as they are and as I observe them. I think it is obvious that people do have a choice in what they do, so your example isn't an issue in the first place. But, even if it happened to be the case that free will does not exist, that won't change the fact that people are held responsible for their actions. Because, pragmatically, we know that the way people behave influences the way other people behave. Past decisions influence future decisions, etc. If you rape a 2 year old, I am not going to sit around and ponder on whether you had free will, or if it was just an illusion. Seeing as it is a question that great minds in science and philosophy have pondered for years, I doubt either of us is going to come to some valid, game-changing conclusion. What I will do is what I know needs to be done to produce effective results. You will be tried, and if found guilty, imprisoned, to prevent you from doing the same thing again, and hopefully discourage others from doing the same.
It actually isn't, and great minds like Sam Harris have explained why. But niether of us have any reason to think free will doesn't exist, so it doesn't really matter.
Life is improbable at best in this finely-tuned universe.
Earlier this morning, I observed acknowledgment of the finely-tuned universe and anthropic principle from a secular source while watching Unit #1 from Cosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe by Professor Mark Whittle Ph.D. of the University of Virginia and TheGreatCourses.com. I plan to watch it all. One other person is watching it with me from a different household. Anyone else? - FYI, price for this 36-unit course is greatly reduced on their web site right now in comparison to last week.
Life as small as a single-cell amoeba is highly complex with a huge, well-programmed genetic code.
As far as we know, origination of life is impossible without a god.
Life is a miracle here and it would be a miracle if it existed anywhere else.
At this of year, even Christmas carols remind us of the Incarnation.
Jesus did become Incarnate God-Man as a human and not as an angel or member of any other race.
Human beings are not programmed robots. We have free will and are capable of sinning. All we like sheep have gone astray. Each of has sinned.
Extra-terrestrial aliens elsewhere in the universe with free will would also sin. An alien, like E.T. would have no Savior. God had only one Begotten Son (Emmanuel-Jesus) to send as the atonement for the free-will sins of the human race.
For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18)
Earlier this morning, I observed acknowledgment of the finely-tuned universe and anthropic principle from a secular source while watching Unit #1 from Cosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe by Professor Mark Whittle Ph.D. of the University of Virginia and TheGreatCourses.com. I plan to watch it all. One other person is watching it with me from a different household. Anyone else? - FYI, price for this 36-unit course is greatly reduced on their web site right now in comparison to last week.
Life as small as a single-cell amoeba is highly complex with a huge, well-programmed genetic code.
As far as we know, origination of life is impossible without a god.
Life is a miracle here and it would be a miracle if it existed anywhere else.
At this of year, even Christmas carols remind us of the Incarnation.
Jesus did become Incarnate God-Man as a human and not as an angel or member of any other race.
Human beings are not programmed robots. We have free will and are capable of sinning. All we like sheep have gone astray. Each of has sinned.
Extra-terrestrial aliens elsewhere in the universe with free will would also sin. An alien, like E.T. would have no Savior. God had only one Begotten Son (Emmanuel-Jesus) to send as the atonement for the free-will sins of the human race.
For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18)
Personally I think this political correctness has gone too far. I refuse to say 'Happy holidays.' I always say 'Merry Christmas!' It is not necessarily atheists who back away from traditional Christmas greetings. It is often liberal Christians. Richard Dawkins himself says 'Happy Christmas' (apparently in England they don't say 'merry', or so I have observed).
Even as an atheist I am not sure what the explanation is. I wasn't privy to the discussion surrounding its design, but my guess is that it may be an effort to reach children. Just a thought.
Even as an atheist I am not sure what the explanation is. I wasn't privy to the discussion surrounding its design, but my guess is that it may be an effort to reach children. Just a thought.
Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
I am sorry but you have not shown that you are pragmatic, I made bold some lines that contradict your claim.
Okay now we have the definition of pragmatic, might you explain HOW you know these things... For instance earlier you said "We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong." This is begging the question and a logical fallacy... Just like "I think therefore I am" You assume there is an I and you assume that thinking defines the I. This is a logical fallacy. In your defense, you use either appeal to majority, or appeal to self. You assume that your brain is the most correct or that your type of brain is the most correct, and therefor anything you observe is correct. THIS IS NOT PRAGMATIC! This is PATHOS this is forming an opinion based solely upon your feelings.
A pragmatic answer would be, you are wrong because x,y,z and here are the evidences for x,y,z and here are my sources for x,y,z...
The way you have answered is, you are wrong because my brain tells me you are wrong, and therefor I am right because: my brain.
This is not a very compelling argument. I hope you can correct this please
I am sorry but you have not shown that you are pragmatic, I made bold some lines that contradict your claim.
Okay now we have the definition of pragmatic, might you explain HOW you know these things... For instance earlier you said "We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong." This is begging the question and a logical fallacy... Just like "I think therefore I am" You assume there is an I and you assume that thinking defines the I. This is a logical fallacy. In your defense, you use either appeal to majority, or appeal to self. You assume that your brain is the most correct or that your type of brain is the most correct, and therefor anything you observe is correct. THIS IS NOT PRAGMATIC! This is PATHOS this is forming an opinion based solely upon your feelings.
A pragmatic answer would be, you are wrong because x,y,z and here are the evidences for x,y,z and here are my sources for x,y,z...
The way you have answered is, you are wrong because my brain tells me you are wrong, and therefor I am right because: my brain.
This is not a very compelling argument. I hope you can correct this please
Last edited:
S
Hi Leannaix.
Even a person can have foreknowledge in some capacity. We all know when Christmas is coming; does that mean anyone that purchases a gift for the occasion should be presumed to be a slave to conventional holiday presuppositions, and not acting on their own desire to give, rather?
When you say, "Even if the outcome is not decided (preordained), and it is still known, there is still no other possible outcome," I think you are blurring foreknowledge and predestination/foreordaining again. Perhaps we have different standards or perceptions on what free will is. I find that foreknowledge does not interfere with anyone's capacity to make a choice, as free will is exercised in the present, not in the future.
Thanks for the response! For the record, I like the thought you put into your posts.
Even a person can have foreknowledge in some capacity. We all know when Christmas is coming; does that mean anyone that purchases a gift for the occasion should be presumed to be a slave to conventional holiday presuppositions, and not acting on their own desire to give, rather?
When you say, "Even if the outcome is not decided (preordained), and it is still known, there is still no other possible outcome," I think you are blurring foreknowledge and predestination/foreordaining again. Perhaps we have different standards or perceptions on what free will is. I find that foreknowledge does not interfere with anyone's capacity to make a choice, as free will is exercised in the present, not in the future.
Thanks for the response! For the record, I like the thought you put into your posts.
Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
I am sorry but you have not shown that you are pragmatic, I made bold some lines that contradict your claim.
Okay now we have the definition of pragmatic, might you explain HOW you know these things... For instance earlier you said "We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong." This is begging the question and a logical fallacy... Just like "I think therefore I am" You assume there is an I and you assume that thinking defines the I. This is a logical fallacy. In your defense, you use either appeal to majority, or appeal to self. You assume that your brain is the most correct or that your type of brain is the most correct, and therefor anything you observe is correct. THIS IS NOT PRAGMATIC! This is PATHOS this is forming an opinion based solely upon your feelings.
A pragmatic answer would be, you are wrong because x,y,z and here are the evidences for x,y,z and here are my sources for x,y,z...
The way you have answered is, you are wrong because my brain tells me you are wrong, and therefor I am right because: my brain.
This is not a very compelling argument. I hope you can correct this please
I am sorry but you have not shown that you are pragmatic, I made bold some lines that contradict your claim.
Okay now we have the definition of pragmatic, might you explain HOW you know these things... For instance earlier you said "We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong." This is begging the question and a logical fallacy... Just like "I think therefore I am" You assume there is an I and you assume that thinking defines the I. This is a logical fallacy. In your defense, you use either appeal to majority, or appeal to self. You assume that your brain is the most correct or that your type of brain is the most correct, and therefor anything you observe is correct. THIS IS NOT PRAGMATIC! This is PATHOS this is forming an opinion based solely upon your feelings.
A pragmatic answer would be, you are wrong because x,y,z and here are the evidences for x,y,z and here are my sources for x,y,z...
The way you have answered is, you are wrong because my brain tells me you are wrong, and therefor I am right because: my brain.
This is not a very compelling argument. I hope you can correct this please
Exactly, it looks like an ape and yet it walks upright. Below is a forensic facial reconstruction.
"Compared to the modern and extinct great ape, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans" (Wikipedia: A. afarensis). The point is this species has a mix of ape and human features throughout its skeleton, though its skull is about the size of a chimp.
Darwin and other early evolutionists expected our hominid ancestors would develop more human-like brain capacity first and upright gait later, but the reverse has proven true. Lucy and her kin looked essentially ape-like in the skull but appear adapted for walking on two legs. A number of features point to this in the skeleton but in addition to these the feet have lost their adaption for life in the trees. The big toe of apes and other primates (except humans) is described as abductable, that is it is adapted for grasping. A. afarensis had lost that ability, though its toes and finger bones remained curved.
Creationists continue to argue that Lucy and her kin were only another kind of ape and not bipedal. Accepting that they were bipedal would mean that these are transitional fossils, which creationists continue to insist don't exist.
Oh, wait for a major announcement coming out early in 2015. A large number of complete, or nearly so, hominid remains were found by cavers last year in South Africa. A team of 60 researchers was put together to recover them, and what they found is said to have stunned everyone. The excavation is on going, but a big announcement is expected in just a few months. Should be exciting, whatever it is.
"Compared to the modern and extinct great ape, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans" (Wikipedia: A. afarensis). The point is this species has a mix of ape and human features throughout its skeleton, though its skull is about the size of a chimp.
Darwin and other early evolutionists expected our hominid ancestors would develop more human-like brain capacity first and upright gait later, but the reverse has proven true. Lucy and her kin looked essentially ape-like in the skull but appear adapted for walking on two legs. A number of features point to this in the skeleton but in addition to these the feet have lost their adaption for life in the trees. The big toe of apes and other primates (except humans) is described as abductable, that is it is adapted for grasping. A. afarensis had lost that ability, though its toes and finger bones remained curved.
Creationists continue to argue that Lucy and her kin were only another kind of ape and not bipedal. Accepting that they were bipedal would mean that these are transitional fossils, which creationists continue to insist don't exist.
Oh, wait for a major announcement coming out early in 2015. A large number of complete, or nearly so, hominid remains were found by cavers last year in South Africa. A team of 60 researchers was put together to recover them, and what they found is said to have stunned everyone. The excavation is on going, but a big announcement is expected in just a few months. Should be exciting, whatever it is.
H
Exactly, it looks like an ape and yet it walks upright. Below is a forensic facial reconstruction.
"Compared to the modern and extinct great ape, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans" (Wikipedia: A. afarensis). The point is this species has a mix of ape and human features throughout its skeleton, though its skull is about the size of a chimp.
Darwin and other early evolutionists expected our hominid ancestors would develop more human-like brain capacity first and upright gait later, but the reverse has proven true. Lucy and her kin looked essentially ape-like in the skull but appear adapted for walking on two legs. A number of features point to this in the skeleton but in addition to these the feet have lost their adaption for life in the trees. The big toe of apes and other primates (except humans) is described as abductable, that is it is adapted for grasping. A. afarensis had lost that ability, though its toes and finger bones remained curved.
Creationists continue to argue that Lucy and her kin were only another kind of ape and not bipedal. Accepting that they were bipedal would mean that these are transitional fossils, which creationists continue to insist don't exist.
Oh, wait for a major announcement coming out early in 2015. A large number of complete, or nearly so, hominid remains were found by cavers last year in South Africa. A team of 60 researchers was put together to recover them, and what they found is said to have stunned everyone. The excavation is on going, but a big announcement is expected in just a few months. Should be exciting, whatever it is.
"Compared to the modern and extinct great ape, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans" (Wikipedia: A. afarensis). The point is this species has a mix of ape and human features throughout its skeleton, though its skull is about the size of a chimp.
Darwin and other early evolutionists expected our hominid ancestors would develop more human-like brain capacity first and upright gait later, but the reverse has proven true. Lucy and her kin looked essentially ape-like in the skull but appear adapted for walking on two legs. A number of features point to this in the skeleton but in addition to these the feet have lost their adaption for life in the trees. The big toe of apes and other primates (except humans) is described as abductable, that is it is adapted for grasping. A. afarensis had lost that ability, though its toes and finger bones remained curved.
Creationists continue to argue that Lucy and her kin were only another kind of ape and not bipedal. Accepting that they were bipedal would mean that these are transitional fossils, which creationists continue to insist don't exist.
Oh, wait for a major announcement coming out early in 2015. A large number of complete, or nearly so, hominid remains were found by cavers last year in South Africa. A team of 60 researchers was put together to recover them, and what they found is said to have stunned everyone. The excavation is on going, but a big announcement is expected in just a few months. Should be exciting, whatever it is.
Can u cite your source for the last paragraph of your post? I'd like to have a look at it....
I was reading this the other day
Tourists to view excavations for hominid bones in South Africa - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
I think its the same as what Cycel was referring to
Tourists to view excavations for hominid bones in South Africa - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
I think its the same as what Cycel was referring to
Others, astrophysicists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss, would disagree. They suspect life is probably common place. Until we have investigated a number of other worlds up close for signs of past or present life we simply will not know how probable life truly is.
Yes it is, but no one is proposing life on earth started with something as complex as amoebas.
Or, there may be no gods and life began by natural processes.
Evidence would suggest that life got its start soon after Earth formed. For all we know life always occurs given certain conditions.
I would say these are religious perceptions, not facts.
Perhaps the reason it is taking so long for Christ to return is that he must first bring salvation to other worlds as he once did on Earth? One could speculate endlessly.
Other planetary systems do exists, in fact they probably exist in the billions. Such things were beyond the knowledge and the imagination of biblical writers.
PS. Enjoy your course Nl.
Yes it is, but no one is proposing life on earth started with something as complex as amoebas.
Or, there may be no gods and life began by natural processes.
Evidence would suggest that life got its start soon after Earth formed. For all we know life always occurs given certain conditions.
I would say these are religious perceptions, not facts.
Perhaps the reason it is taking so long for Christ to return is that he must first bring salvation to other worlds as he once did on Earth? One could speculate endlessly.
Other planetary systems do exists, in fact they probably exist in the billions. Such things were beyond the knowledge and the imagination of biblical writers.
PS. Enjoy your course Nl.
Hi Leannaix.
Even a person can have foreknowledge in some capacity. We all know when Christmas is coming; does that mean anyone that purchases a gift for the occasion should be presumed to be a slave to conventional holiday presuppositions, and not acting on their own desire to give, rather?
When you say, "Even if the outcome is not decided (preordained), and it is still known, there is still no other possible outcome," I think you are blurring foreknowledge and predestination/foreordaining again. Perhaps we have different standards or perceptions on what free will is. I find that foreknowledge does not interfere with anyone's capacity to make a choice, as free will is exercised in the present, not in the future.
Thanks for the response! For the record, I like the thought you put into your posts.
Even a person can have foreknowledge in some capacity. We all know when Christmas is coming; does that mean anyone that purchases a gift for the occasion should be presumed to be a slave to conventional holiday presuppositions, and not acting on their own desire to give, rather?
When you say, "Even if the outcome is not decided (preordained), and it is still known, there is still no other possible outcome," I think you are blurring foreknowledge and predestination/foreordaining again. Perhaps we have different standards or perceptions on what free will is. I find that foreknowledge does not interfere with anyone's capacity to make a choice, as free will is exercised in the present, not in the future.
Thanks for the response! For the record, I like the thought you put into your posts.
Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
I am sorry but you have not shown that you are pragmatic, I made bold some lines that contradict your claim.
Okay now we have the definition of pragmatic, might you explain HOW you know these things... For instance earlier you said "We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong." This is begging the question and a logical fallacy... Just like "I think therefore I am" You assume there is an I and you assume that thinking defines the I. This is a logical fallacy. In your defense, you use either appeal to majority, or appeal to self. You assume that your brain is the most correct or that your type of brain is the most correct, and therefor anything you observe is correct. THIS IS NOT PRAGMATIC! This is PATHOS this is forming an opinion based solely upon your feelings.
A pragmatic answer would be, you are wrong because x,y,z and here are the evidences for x,y,z and here are my sources for x,y,z...
The way you have answered is, you are wrong because my brain tells me you are wrong, and therefor I am right because: my brain.
This is not a very compelling argument. I hope you can correct this please
I am sorry but you have not shown that you are pragmatic, I made bold some lines that contradict your claim.
Okay now we have the definition of pragmatic, might you explain HOW you know these things... For instance earlier you said "We know that hurting people is wrong because we can reason that hurting people is wrong." This is begging the question and a logical fallacy... Just like "I think therefore I am" You assume there is an I and you assume that thinking defines the I. This is a logical fallacy. In your defense, you use either appeal to majority, or appeal to self. You assume that your brain is the most correct or that your type of brain is the most correct, and therefor anything you observe is correct. THIS IS NOT PRAGMATIC! This is PATHOS this is forming an opinion based solely upon your feelings.
A pragmatic answer would be, you are wrong because x,y,z and here are the evidences for x,y,z and here are my sources for x,y,z...
The way you have answered is, you are wrong because my brain tells me you are wrong, and therefor I am right because: my brain.
This is not a very compelling argument. I hope you can correct this please
By the way, when I say pragmatic, I am refering to the philosophy of pragmatism defined as: "an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application." This has nothing to do with logical axioms. When I said we know, I mean that we know this is what our society and I have deemed subjectively immoral. Not that we know these things are objectively immoral. As I said, this is pretty clear when I specifically state that I don't believe in objective morality. As a side note, "I think, therefore I am," is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical truth, and it must be true because of the impossibility of the contrary. It doesn't beg the question because for the opposite to be true ("I do not exist") there must be a thinking entity which is thinking that statement. Whoever is doing the thinking (we would refer to ourselves as "I") must necessarily exist, or they couldn't have any thoughts. In order for the statement "I do not exist" to be true, it must necessarily be false. Not really related to free-will, but since you brought it up...
The hominids they've found haven't yet been made public, but it sounds as if these remains are complete. We will just have to wait and see I suppose, but the old charge put forward here by creationists that the fossil evidence is incomplete and can't be trusted might lose all of its bite. Depends, I guess, on how old these remains are.