christians

[Guest A/D]

Website is Related:

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

glasse makes an interesting point. however, i think the results of prayer are more visible:

 

1. as an organism, humans have found many ways to create prosthetic limbs.

2. i believe that we are given something much more incredible than a replacement: we are given the chance to find out that we didn't need that limb in the first place. this is a most beautiful and powerful thing to know.

 

 

 

err what?

1. Humans developed (and are developing) prosthetic limbs through the use of science.

2. If you really believe that, go cut an arm off and find out how much you don't need it.

 

Of course you could be engaging in some subtle sarcasm, in which case, well done.

 

sadly i am not, and thus do not deserve your praise! i know just how you feel, for i would have said the same not long ago. i don't want to try and 'convince' you since i don't think it's possible, but here is how i respond to your points!

 

1. our use of science describes our methods. it does not cover causality beyond basic mechanics. in other words, "science" is the process of describing the known world, not a wellspring of creation. combining two elements in order to create a new substance is an extension of those elements' nature. thus i believe prosthetic limbs were implicit in the formation of the earth.

2. i do believe that. i don't care about this difference of opinion enough to lose my arm over it. however, if i could trade my arm for the life of someone i love, i would certainly learn to live without it. were i to lose my arm doing something i truly believed in, it would only open up new pathways and create in me a new chance for learning and improvement. i can't think of anything more beautiful than that.

[SR4]

GODSAUCE IS LIMBS

 

GODSAUCE

 

 

FROM GODSAUCE>

[chenGOD]

Website is Related:

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

glasse makes an interesting point. however, i think the results of prayer are more visible:

 

1. as an organism, humans have found many ways to create prosthetic limbs.

2. i believe that we are given something much more incredible than a replacement: we are given the chance to find out that we didn't need that limb in the first place. this is a most beautiful and powerful thing to know.

 

 

 

err what?

1. Humans developed (and are developing) prosthetic limbs through the use of science.

2. If you really believe that, go cut an arm off and find out how much you don't need it.

 

Of course you could be engaging in some subtle sarcasm, in which case, well done.

 

sadly i am not, and thus do not deserve your praise! i know just how you feel, for i would have said the same not long ago. i don't want to try and 'convince' you since i don't think it's possible, but here is how i respond to your points!

 

1. our use of science describes our methods. it does not cover causality beyond basic mechanics. in other words, "science" is the process of describing the known world, not a wellspring of creation. combining two elements in order to create a new substance is an extension of those elements' nature. thus i believe prosthetic limbs were implicit in the formation of the earth.

2. i do believe that. i don't care about this difference of opinion enough to lose my arm over it. however, if i could trade my arm for the life of someone i love, i would certainly learn to live without it. were i to lose my arm doing something i truly believed in, it would only open up new pathways and create in me a new chance for learning and improvement. i can't think of anything more beautiful than that.

 

1. Science does much more than describing methods or knowledge it sounds to me like you're confusing "scientific discovery" with "organizing knowledge". If you think that somehow elements would randomly combine to form prosthetic limbs, then really I just dunno how to answer you.

2. How about, you losing an arm and scientists being able to regenerate that arm so that you are able to retain all your faculties?

[Guest ezkerraldean]

Here is the point. If God allowed Himself to be obviously known, and did not hide His face from us, people would feel forced to obey whatever He expected. They wouldn't do so out of love, but out of a sense of coercion. They would realize how powerless they were against this omnipotent creator and basically act as one does who has a gun pointed at their head. Additionally faith would be rendered meaningless, and we are saved by grace through faith so it is very important that faith be preserved. Therefore God must remain hidden and mysterious, and work through subtlety. I am sure He would want nothing more than to be able to grow an amputee a new limb, and of course it is in His power, but it would be very difficult for the world at large to deny His existence if He went around doing obvious things like this. Just as He gave the angels beforehand, He now gives people the right to choose.

if god wanted to worship him out of love and the goodness of our hearts instead of fearmongering, promises of eternal pleasure, and adherence to religious doctrine he probably shouldnt have created the ten commandments or the bible or heaven. People just stretch god to be whatever shape they want him to be, either based on what others tell them or what they want to believe, none of it is based on anything but words written, edited, and revised over and over for 2000 years by MAN

yeah hang on, god does make himself known shitloads (assuming you take the bible as true).

[thehauntingsoul]

Morality is what people do, but ethics describe what people ought to do.

 

wtf? The two words are virtually synonyms.

[Guest A/D]

Website is Related:

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

glasse makes an interesting point. however, i think the results of prayer are more visible:

 

1. as an organism, humans have found many ways to create prosthetic limbs.

2. i believe that we are given something much more incredible than a replacement: we are given the chance to find out that we didn't need that limb in the first place. this is a most beautiful and powerful thing to know.

 

 

 

err what?

1. Humans developed (and are developing) prosthetic limbs through the use of science.

2. If you really believe that, go cut an arm off and find out how much you don't need it.

 

Of course you could be engaging in some subtle sarcasm, in which case, well done.

 

sadly i am not, and thus do not deserve your praise! i know just how you feel, for i would have said the same not long ago. i don't want to try and 'convince' you since i don't think it's possible, but here is how i respond to your points!

 

1. our use of science describes our methods. it does not cover causality beyond basic mechanics. in other words, "science" is the process of describing the known world, not a wellspring of creation. combining two elements in order to create a new substance is an extension of those elements' nature. thus i believe prosthetic limbs were implicit in the formation of the earth.

2. i do believe that. i don't care about this difference of opinion enough to lose my arm over it. however, if i could trade my arm for the life of someone i love, i would certainly learn to live without it. were i to lose my arm doing something i truly believed in, it would only open up new pathways and create in me a new chance for learning and improvement. i can't think of anything more beautiful than that.

 

1. Science does much more than describing methods or knowledge it sounds to me like you're confusing "scientific discovery" with "organizing knowledge". If you think that somehow elements would randomly combine to form prosthetic limbs, then really I just dunno how to answer you.

2. How about, you losing an arm and scientists being able to regenerate that arm so that you are able to retain all your faculties?

 

1. we could probably get caught up on this point. i think science is exploration, not creation. we find new options, new methods of change, and new ways of describing the world around us. nothing we do goes against the laws that are already in place - in fact, i think a lot of science is simply an attempt to describe those laws. this point is a semantic extension of our beliefs - the words represent what each of us already knows to be true. i don't expect you to agree with me here.

 

edit: on the subject of the arm - i agree, humans have worked wonders to create prostheses! we have found amazing things to do in our playground. i am of the mind to give a lot of credit to the playground.

 

2. i'm afraid i don't understand the significance of this extension. could you reiterate it somehow? sorry, i don't mean to be dense!

[essines]

Website is Related:

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

glasse makes an interesting point. however, i think the results of prayer are more visible:

 

1. as an organism, humans have found many ways to create prosthetic limbs.

2. i believe that we are given something much more incredible than a replacement: we are given the chance to find out that we didn't need that limb in the first place. this is a most beautiful and powerful thing to know.

 

 

 

err what?

1. Humans developed (and are developing) prosthetic limbs through the use of science.

2. If you really believe that, go cut an arm off and find out how much you don't need it.

 

Of course you could be engaging in some subtle sarcasm, in which case, well done.

 

sadly i am not, and thus do not deserve your praise! i know just how you feel, for i would have said the same not long ago. i don't want to try and 'convince' you since i don't think it's possible, but here is how i respond to your points!

 

1. our use of science describes our methods. it does not cover causality beyond basic mechanics. in other words, "science" is the process of describing the known world, not a wellspring of creation. combining two elements in order to create a new substance is an extension of those elements' nature. thus i believe prosthetic limbs were implicit in the formation of the earth.

2. i do believe that. i don't care about this difference of opinion enough to lose my arm over it. however, if i could trade my arm for the life of someone i love, i would certainly learn to live without it. were i to lose my arm doing something i truly believed in, it would only open up new pathways and create in me a new chance for learning and improvement. i can't think of anything more beautiful than that.

 

1. Science does much more than describing methods or knowledge it sounds to me like you're confusing "scientific discovery" with "organizing knowledge". If you think that somehow elements would randomly combine to form prosthetic limbs, then really I just dunno how to answer you.

2. How about, you losing an arm and scientists being able to regenerate that arm so that you are able to retain all your faculties?

 

1. we could probably get caught up on this point. i think science is exploration, not creation. we find new options, new methods of change, and new ways of describing the world around us. nothing we do goes against the laws that are already in place - in fact, i think a lot of science is simply an attempt to describe those laws. this point is a semantic extension of our beliefs - the words represent what each of us already knows to be true. i don't expect you to agree with me here.

 

edit: on the subject of the arm - i agree, humans have worked wonders to create prostheses! we have found amazing things to do in our playground. i am of the mind to give a lot of credit to the playground.

 

2. i'm afraid i don't understand the significance of this extension. could you reiterate it somehow? sorry, i don't mean to be dense!

so everything possible is already created, we merely discover it?

[Guest abusivegeorge]

churchy christians disappoint me because they misrepresent

something that is so sacred and true using only their shallow

grasp of the outer, infantile aspects. what the language

(Biblical Language) in this lineage of ancient spiritual

teachings truly represents is far deeper then their

often materialistic, cozy and hypocritical

self-indulgent rhetoric will ever allow.

 

...and it fucks up the whole works.

 

the church is inside us....it is all around us.

the last will be first and the first will be last.

 

 

Christ troon, that was fucking beautiful.

 

Fucking LOL, it truly was epically beautiful

[chenGOD]

 

 

1. we could probably get caught up on this point. i think science is exploration, not creation. we find new options, new methods of change, and new ways of describing the world around us. nothing we do goes against the laws that are already in place - in fact, i think a lot of science is simply an attempt to describe those laws. this point is a semantic extension of our beliefs - the words represent what each of us already knows to be true. i don't expect you to agree with me here.

 

edit: on the subject of the arm - i agree, humans have worked wonders to create prostheses! we have found amazing things to do in our playground. i am of the mind to give a lot of credit to the playground.

 

2. i'm afraid i don't understand the significance of this extension. could you reiterate it somehow? sorry, i don't mean to be dense!

 

1. which one is it?

 

2.I mean wouldn't it be more wonderful or beautiful for you to have the ability to get your arm back instead of not having it?

[Guest A/D]

 

 

1. we could probably get caught up on this point. i think science is exploration, not creation. we find new options, new methods of change, and new ways of describing the world around us. nothing we do goes against the laws that are already in place - in fact, i think a lot of science is simply an attempt to describe those laws. this point is a semantic extension of our beliefs - the words represent what each of us already knows to be true. i don't expect you to agree with me here.

 

edit: on the subject of the arm - i agree, humans have worked wonders to create prostheses! we have found amazing things to do in our playground. i am of the mind to give a lot of credit to the playground.

 

2. i'm afraid i don't understand the significance of this extension. could you reiterate it somehow? sorry, i don't mean to be dense!

 

1. which one is it?

 

2.I mean wouldn't it be more wonderful or beautiful for you to have the ability to get your arm back instead of not having it?

1. i think it's both i really don't belong in a god thread, and i apologize for derailing it. but i think, through "prayer" (a combination of will and action), we have found the tools in our environment to answer our needs. the earth is full of tools, and we are full of will. (i believe the converse to be true, as well.) this is neither good or evil: it just is. the earth yields its gifts to us to use however we see fit. i don't see a conflict there. maybe i don't understand your question?

 

edit: sorry, just noticed your bolding. i think the possibility is there in the elements prostheses are made of, and we have worked very hard to synthesize those elements together. does that parse better?

 

2. not to me! i am happy to serve my purpose however i must. my means are temporary, and i will use whatever i have to the best of my ability. i love my body, and i will protect it and care for it the best i can. i am not opposed to prosthetics! i might well use one if the need arose. here i am, using a wonderful prosthetic to talk to you!

 

i'm sorry i'm not making this point more clearly. what i am trying to say is: if i must face life without an arm - what a blessing, to find new ways to serve those i love! if i retain my limbs all my life . . what a blessing! all my life, i must do what i can with what i have. everything that is given to me, and everything that is taken away, is a blessing.

[chenGOD]

Synthesis means to combine to make something new. In terms of physical engineering this might be true that it's "all" we've done. But then the same could be said of art of all kinds. Rembrandt, Picasso, Klimt, Michelangelo, Aphex, Autechre, william S. burroughs, etc all they've done is perform various kinds of synthesis. If you want to be all semantic over what it means to create then fine.

 

And if there were a way for you to get your arm back you'd turn it down? Man that's dedication, even Jesus wanted to be born again. You're not using a prosthetic to talk with me, we are communicating via an electronic medium.

[Guest A/D]

Synthesis means to combine to make something new. In terms of physical engineering this might be true that it's "all" we've done. But then the same could be said of art of all kinds. Rembrandt, Picasso, Klimt, Michelangelo, Aphex, Autechre, william S. burroughs, etc all they've done is perform various kinds of synthesis. If you want to be all semantic over what it means to create then fine.

 

And if there were a way for you to get your arm back you'd turn it down? Man that's dedication, even Jesus wanted to be born again. You're not using a prosthetic to talk with me, we are communicating via an electronic medium.

 

indeed it does. we're just debating the nature of newness. i know where you're coming from, i just enjoy thinking in terms of inherent possibility, rather than calling combination or repurposing 'new'. it's not a big deal.

 

re: the arm, i've been trying to say (not very well it would seem) that i wouldn't always turn it down or always want it back. the arm isn't the issue to me - it's my love for my immediate possibilities. they change whether i have an arm or not, but neither set of possibilities (arm/no arm) is inherently better than the other. having an arm puts me no closer to happiness. in fact, there is a zen koan that addresses this same issue:

 

Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A boy attendant began to imitate him in this way. When anyone asked the boy what his master had preached about, the boy would raise his finger.

 

Gutei heard about the boy's mischief. He seized him and cut off his finger. The boy cried and ran away. Gutei called and stopped him. When the boy turned his head to Gutei, Gutei raised up his own finger. In that instant the boy was enlightened.

 

and an interpretation: "Enlightenment, which Gutei and the boy attained, has nothing to do with a finger. If anyone clings to a finger, Tenyru will be so disappointed that he will annihilate Gutei, the boy and the clinger all together."

[Guest A/D]

sorry to be so effusive, but i get excited talking about this stuff!

 

i believe very much we are talking using a prosthesis! humans in general have a strong love of and desire for communication. to my mind, we have made this prosthetic mouth-with-no-mouth to transcend our bodies' ability to communicate even further. it's a prosthesis for a limb we don't have - for a form we have made in our minds, and thus is powerful.

 

i know, it's next-to-worthless in our discussion! but i love thinking of all of us as a single organism, a colonial entity, changing/modifying our own cells to function better. like a tree leaning towards the sun, we will ourselves to a new form, seen and unseen, symbiotic with our own tools, hardly describable in today's language.

[OneToThirtySix]

.

that's because he prayed for you

 

duh.

Oh, see, I thought that since I was on a wi-fi channel, I was out of range.

[Guest glasse]

ChenGod and A/D

 

are we talking at all about the concept of providence?

 

lp

[Hautlle]

Ezkerreldean: more on Gerald Schroeder.

 

[youtubehd]sicqKbFhcq8[/youtubehd]

[chenGOD]

A/D: depends on your definition of happiness i suppose. With two arms you could hug two people you love dearly at the same time.

 

Since i think words have meaning for a reason (ie they are the symbols we use to communicate, and vagueness decreases our ability to communicate) I cannot agree with your definition of an internet forum as a prosthesis.

 

However on you last point, you might think of us all as connected in one sense. Since there are a finite number of atoms in the universe, they are recycled. Which means that some atoms that have been in one person, have also been shared by others. So you might be walking around with Cleopatra's atoms in you. Or John Wayne Gacy's.

[Guest A/D]

chenGOD!

 

re:happiness - that is precisely true. i might not be able to hug them, but my ability to love them would be unchanged.

 

i think we agree on the definition of prosthesis (here's one for reference: "a device, either external or implanted, that substitutes for or supplements a missing or defective part of the body"). i place a great deal of stock in words as well, so i hope i can make myself clearer. the point we disagree on is the shape of the human organism. i think the internet is a tool for communication. we use it because we are missing a mass communication function in our body. we feel strongly about needing mass communication - so i count it among our human functions.

 

re:atoms, it is widely held that the amount of mass in the universe does not change, so our atoms must have been around since the beginning. since our cells die off every few years, i think it's more likely that i'm made of the broccoli i ate a few weeks ago than cleopatra (though i'm honored by your suggestion of two such successful people)

 

ChenGod and A/D

 

are we talking at all about the concept of providence?

 

lp

hi glasse! we very well could be, but i cannot draw the parallel on my own. could you help me see what you mean?

[chenGOD]

But did we feel strongly about needing mass communication before the advent of mass media possibilities? It's a social construct, not an inherent human need.

[Guest A/D]

to me, the path towards mass communication is long and clear - as soon as we have a more efficient way to communicate long-distance, we use it and expand on it. smoke signals, Morse code, telegraph . . we've been working towards this for a long time. i think our desire created the infrastructure, not the other way around.

 

there was a link posted earlier to a philosophy forum where two well-endowed members debated the existence of God. they tried to debate using common constructs, but their precepts were different, and they didn't accomplish anything. i feel a bit as though i'm prolonging such a debate by arguing with you over definitions. i'm happy to continue, but i don't want you to feel like you're beating your head against a wall!

 

mr. chen . . what do you believe?

[Guest Rook]

watmm + discussions about God/religion = lol!

[Guest A/D]

indeed! and you know how down we are for lols!

 

watmm + beliefs of any sort = fael;

[chenGOD]

A/D..I believe there is spirituality inherent in all of us. I don't believe that spirituality can be defined by any system of laws or rules. I don't believe that prayer achieves anything, except perhaps as a placebo. I believe that science will be the means through which the human race will be able to evolve. I don't believe there's some dude in the sky with a long beard watching all of us run around like chickens with our heads cut off.

[AJW]

A/D..I believe there is spirituality inherent in all of us. I don't believe that spirituality can be defined by any system of laws or rules. I don't believe that prayer achieves anything, except perhaps as a placebo. I believe that science will be the means through which the human race will be able to evolve. I don't believe there's some dude in the sky with a long beard watching all of us run around like chickens with our heads cut off.

 

[lumpenprol]

watmm + discussions about God/religion = lol!

 

finally! 7 pages of a christianity thread with no rook is like 7 pages of a boob thread with no squee. Though i think pbn poked his nose in, he didn't post...