Does God Still speak to us?
Joker
the Book, but He spoke regularly to them and directed them. So does God
still speak to us? If so, how so?
--
Joker
"...God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me."
Gen. 21:6
RetroProphet
>In the Bible, God seems very interactive. It might just
>be the editing of the Book, but He spoke regularly to
>them and directed them. So does God still speak to us?
>If so, how so?
It's more than the "editing of the book".
It's demonstrative of primitive religion.
Middle East religions have evolved along an arc that
has taken them from reality-based religious assertion
tempered by mysticism (God interacts with people in a
publically tangible manner and how great He is beyond
all understanding) to mystical-based religious assertion
tempered by reality claims (God interacts with people in a
manner that is objectively unprovable, but He REALLY does,
this is by design and because of how great He is is).
This is predictable when one notes that during the
course of this shift humans developed a markedly greater
objective understanding of the world -- religious dogma
has needed to constantly adapt to the higher bars
of plausibility of less-gullible populaces.
Of course, apologists find mystical explanation for the
shift within their own dogmas, but that the shift coincides
with the fading and ultimate destruction of its foundational
religion's political power and that, more broadly speaking,
each and every evolving implementation of Bible-based religion
emerges in alignment with political development, suggests
the far more plausible explanation that religion is solely
driven by political expediency and that its assertions,
now safely but suspiciously placed beyond objectivity,
have absolutely no basis in reality.
It is the great irony of history that people keep falling
for worldviews and morality grounded in childish fables
primarily because of stress caused by the failure of
political systems to provide universally satisfying
support -- political systems that developed religion
as a tool of power, invariably use it as it serves,
and in fact have no use for it otherwise.
Joker
>>In the Bible, God seems very interactive. It might just
>>be the editing of the Book, but He spoke regularly to
>>them and directed them. So does God still speak to us?
>>If so, how so?
R> It's more than the "editing of the book".
R> It's demonstrative of primitive religion.
R> Middle East religions have evolved along an arc that
R> has taken them from reality-based religious assertion
R> tempered by mysticism (God interacts with people in a
R> publically tangible manner and how great He is beyond
R> all understanding) to mystical-based religious assertion
R> tempered by reality claims (God interacts with people in a
R> manner that is objectively unprovable, but He REALLY does,
R> this is by design and because of how great He is is).
R> This is predictable when one notes that during the
R> course of this shift humans developed a markedly greater
R> objective understanding of the world -- religious dogma
R> has needed to constantly adapt to the higher bars
R> of plausibility of less-gullible populaces.
R> Of course, apologists find mystical explanation for the
R> shift within their own dogmas, but that the shift coincides
R> with the fading and ultimate destruction of its foundational
R> religion's political power and that, more broadly speaking,
R> each and every evolving implementation of Bible-based religion
R> emerges in alignment with political development, suggests
R> the far more plausible explanation that religion is solely
R> driven by political expediency and that its assertions,
R> now safely but suspiciously placed beyond objectivity,
R> have absolutely no basis in reality.
R> It is the great irony of history that people keep falling
R> for worldviews and morality grounded in childish fables
R> primarily because of stress caused by the failure of
R> political systems to provide universally satisfying
R> support -- political systems that developed religion
R> as a tool of power, invariably use it as it serves,
R> and in fact have no use for it otherwise.
So Retro, I can only presume you do not believe in the Bible or any other
organized religion. Do you believe there is a higher being? or do you take
the atheist approach? I often thought it would almost be more difficult to
prove atheism. Why, I have never read of a single instance where a
scientist created life whether by mistake or on purpose. If *something* did
not create life, how do you explain it?
Jeff Shirton
news:7DMFf.30435$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> In the Bible, God seems very interactive. It might just be the editing of
> the Book, but He spoke regularly to them and directed them. So does God
> still speak to us? If so, how so?
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds;
In the OT, we needed the prophets, since that was man's only way to
communicate with God. But in the Messianic age, all Christians have
been given the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to speak to us directly, which
is why we no longer need individual "prophets" to lead us.
> Joker
--
Jeff Shirton (PP-ASEL) jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Holiness is not the way to Christ;
Christ is the way to holiness. -- Adrian Rogers
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
John Manning
> Does God Still speak to us?
Only with magic rocks.
John Manning
[snip]
Why, I have never read of a single instance where a
> scientist created life whether by mistake or on purpose. If *something* did
> not create life, how do you explain it?
Actually, life HAS been created from scratch in a lab:
"A team of scientists announced yesterday it
has found a fast and
accurate way to build genes from scratch, a
technique that could give
scientists the practical tools to create
life in a lab.
The researchers, at a Maryland lab led by
geneticist J. Craig Venter,
created a functional virus from basic
chemical building blocks in just
two weeks -- a feat that had previously
taken three years to
accomplish."
Full Boston Globe article here:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2003/11/14/fast_method_to_build_genes_found/
ALSO,
Scientists Create Artificial Form of Life
David McAlary
Voice of America, 14 Nov 2003
http://www1.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=7654E5C9-5F63-4E16-91C398D5F16AC0DE
Washington- U.S. scientists have created an
artificial form of life from
synthetic genes. The form they made is a
virus, in this case, a man-made
version of a real virus that eats bacteria.
Although it isn't the first
synthetic virus, it was constructed more
quickly and is more accurate
than any made in previous attempts.
The virus known as Phi-X is a simple,
well-studied organism that is
harmless to humans. In 1978, it became the
first form of life whose
genetic code scientists deciphered. That is,
they documented the
sequence of chemicals that make up its DNA,
the material that determines
the physical characteristics of every living
thing.
Researcher Craig Venter and colleagues from
the Institute for Biological
Energy Alternatives have now stitched
together pieces of commercially
available DNA to build an entire functional
Phi-X virus in their
laboratory near Washington.
"The team was actually more successful than
any of us imagined, and we
got viruses with 100 percent of the
activity, showing that the synthesis
method was very robust," he said.
Researchers had previously created an
artificial poliovirus by stringing
together DNA fragments and then letting a
naturally occurring enzyme
transform the string into proteins that
ultimately formed an infectious
microbe. But that process took three years
and produced organisms with
defective genes.
In contrast, the Phi-X virus took only 14
days to make and it was
without defects. In a paper to be published
in a U.S. National Academy
of Sciences journal, Mr. Venter's group says
their synthetic microbe was
able to infect and kill bacterial cells as
efficiently as the natural one.
"It's not just an accuracy issue," he said.
"It's the ability to
actually make much larger molecules than
were possible before in a
single step. This is a robust new step that
allows us to make much
larger pieces."
The researchers call this a demonstration of
a principle that can serve
as a stepping stone to manipulating more
complex organisms hundreds or
thousands of times larger than Phi-X.
The project was funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy, which is
seeking to develop biological methods of
energy production and create
organisms that can help clean the environment.
"So just imagine in the no-too-distant
future a colony of specially
designed microbes living with the
emission-control systems of a
coal-fired plant," said Spencer Abraham head
of the agency, "consuming
its pollution and its carbon dioxide, which
will make fossil fuels as
clean an energy source as hydro [water]
power. Or consider the
possibility of employing microbes to
radically reduce polluted waters or
to reduce the toxic effects of radioactive
waste."
Secretary Abraham calls the research a key
step in efforts to understand
how biological systems work. He says future
applications of this
technology might bring about better
vaccines, improve yields of farm
crops that are more resistant to disease,
and enhance the ability to
detect biological threat agents.
Bret Ripley
> -- political systems that developed religion
> as a tool of power, invariably use it as it serves,
> and in fact have no use for it otherwise.
You wouldn't happen to have an example in mind, would you, RP?
(For those unaccustomed to cheap rhetorical devices, please note that the
preceding naivete is an affectation. Thank you.)
I recently heard a piece on NPR that is related to this issue: just before
elections in the US, Republicans tend to court conservative evangelicals
and Democrats make appearances in black churches. After the elections --
not so much. It's a more-or-less accepted form of institutionalized
hypocrisy.
Along these same lines, some political types suggest that the Republican
Party (as a whole) has been unable to mount any kind of concerted effort
aimed at several "hot-button" issues (eg, the overturn of Rowe v. Wade)
partially because of reluctance to nullify some of its most effective
election-year rallying cries. Perhaps the same can be said of the
Democrats with regard to health-care reform or environmental issues.
Bret
Joker
JM> [snip]
JM> Why, I have never read of a single instance where a
>> scientist created life whether by mistake or on purpose. If
>> *something* did not create life, how do you explain it?
JM> Actually, life HAS been created from scratch in a lab:
<snip various sources>
Ah, well I would conted they build a little organic machine. In that case,
we would need a working definition of life! Eh, how about, I just re-phrase
my question and say sentient life. Ha! Argue that one! =)
John Manning
> JM> Joker wrote:
>
> JM> [snip]
>
> JM> Why, I have never read of a single instance where a
>
>>>scientist created life whether by mistake or on purpose. If
>>>*something* did not create life, how do you explain it?
>
>
> JM> Actually, life HAS been created from scratch in a lab:
>
>
> <snip various sources>
>
> Ah, well I would conted they build a little organic machine. In that case,
> we would need a working definition of life! Eh, how about, I just re-phrase
> my question and say sentient life. Ha! Argue that one! =)
First steps first. I don`t believe it's impossible. Perhaps your
'denomination' does. Heavens to Betsy!
RetroProphet
>>> Why, I have never read of a single instance where a
>>> scientist created life whether by mistake or on purpose.
>>> If *something* did not create life, how do you explain it?
>
>JM> Actually, life HAS been created from scratch in a lab:
>
><snip various sources>
>
>In that case, we would need a working definition of life!
>Eh, how about, I just re-phrase my question and say
>sentient life. Ha! Argue that one! =)
Gladly.
Religious superstition thrives on postulating
differences that do not really exist -- Science suggests
that life functions can develop naturally as energy and
matter interact. Sentience is only one trait of life.
In truth, it is only religion that needs to
"re-phrase" the question, because it thought
it already knew the answer: "Only God Can Create Life".
Religionists would prefer it if a "spark of life"
needed to come from God. For ages, they believed it.
It is now certainly true that virii need no such
spark and can be built at will by the hand of man,
ready to do everything natural virii do.
Say what you wish, a line has been crossed that no
Religionist would have believed possible to cross.
And, it will get worse, because this science is
advancing at lightning speed. In a mere century and
a half we've gone from the first scientific exposition
of genetic theory to possessing the actual technology
to build simple replicants from inert matter.
It now seems a bad bet that humans will not develop the
ability to create novel living things from non-living
material. The computers that are essential to this effort
of understanding have only been around a few decades.
We're just getting started.
Eventually some clever chap will come along and figure
out a way of building lifeforms of a type that has
nothing to do with any lifeform that exists.
One of the hallmarks of human ingenuity is
"Imitate, then innovate". We build all sorts
of things that don't exist naturally.
We've just now developed the basic tools
and understanding for life creation, and most
importantly we now know that IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
It's just very hard. Hard like going to the Moon
when you've just watched Wilbur Wright fly a hundred feet.
But, not impossible.
One day you will wake up to find that the origin of life
has been reversed engineered, that a plausible sequence
of incremental developmental events leading to lifeforms
has been fully described.
You will then (as you already did above) recast your deity
and religion around what science says.
Science possesses an objectivity that religion can
merely subjectively react to in the interest of
self-preservation. Science and religion are not
rival dogs, but rather, religion is just a tail
comically trying to wag the dog of science.
A primer for deprogramming neo-primitives:
Self-organization
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/selforg.html
===
"There is no philosophically intermediate
position between science and religion."
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci
===
RetroProphet
>So Retro, I can only presume you do not believe
>in the Bible or any other organized religion.
>Do you believe there is a higher being? or do
>you take the atheist approach? I often thought
>it would almost be more difficult to prove atheism.
I am an atheist and believe that there is a
scientifically sound basis for the Theory of Atheism
because the reality of gods is not beyond testablity.
The history of religion may be seen as an ongoing
experimental test of the reality of gods, one that
has yielded a great deal of evidence that bears upon
this hypothesis: when a "god" loses its last believer,
it does nothing, demonstrating that is a fictional;
we hear nothing more of that deity, nothing more of
the benefits of believing in it, nothing more of the
perils of not believing, and not a peep of protest
or anything else from the deity in question.
There are no counter-examples at all;
this theory is holding up flawlessly.
There is also a scientifically sound basis for
explaining the reason religion persists.
It's useful. Throughout history, men of power have
found it useful to perpetuate the notion of deities
in order to inspire their people, through the creation
of fantasy-histories and philosophies based upon these.
History makes sense when one assumes no deities,
and makes no sense when one takes them seriously.
It doesn't even matter where you look in history,
this principle holds true. There is not one bit
of physical historical evidence that requires a
deity in order to be explainable.
This is the logical and scientific atheist hypothesis.
Yes, such an animal exists, and eventually it will
eat your deity for breakfast.
Atheism is not the knee-jerk antithesis of theism,
it is its superior successor. It does not represent
the abrogation of responsibility to uphold fairness
and morality, but is merely a more realistic base
upon which to build future morality systems.
>Why, I have never read of a single instance where
>a scientist created life whether by mistake or
>on purpose. If *something* did not create life,
>how do you explain it?
See my other post to this thread today.
Mike W
> One day you will wake up to find that the origin of life
> has been reversed engineered, that a plausible sequence
> of incremental developmental events leading to lifeforms
> has been fully described.
>
> You will then (as you already did above) recast your deity
> and religion around what science says.
>
> Science possesses an objectivity that religion can
> merely subjectively react to in the interest of
> self-preservation. Science and religion are not
> rival dogs, but rather, religion is just a tail
> comically trying to wag the dog of science.
Some religions can probably be cast in that light but you seem to studiously
ignore any religious thought that might act as the carrot, leading the
donkey of science along.
See "Double Slit Experiment from Down The Rabbit Hole" at
http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/
"The electron decided to act differently, as though it was aware it was
being watched."
Now... I'm not supposed to presume that's religion... it's really just the
delightful language of science, leading us toward logic. A carrot for the
donkey.
RetroProphet
>> One day you will wake up to find that the origin of life
>> has been reversed engineered, that a plausible sequence
>> of incremental developmental events leading to lifeforms
>> has been fully described.
>>
>> You will then (as you already did above) recast your deity
>> and religion around what science says.
>>
>> Science possesses an objectivity that religion can
>> merely subjectively react to in the interest of
>> self-preservation. Science and religion are not
>> rival dogs, but rather, religion is just a tail
>> comically trying to wag the dog of science.
>Some religions can probably be cast in that light but
>you seem to studiously ignore any religious thought
>that might act as the carrot, leading the donkey of
>science along.
>
>See "Double Slit Experiment from Down The Rabbit Hole" at
>http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/
>
>"The electron decided to act differently, as though it
>was aware it was being watched."
>
>Now... I'm not supposed to presume that's religion...
>it's really just the delightful language of science,
>leading us toward logic. A carrot for the donkey.
>
It would be a mistake to take this cartoon's
simplified interpretation of the questions surrounding
the Double Slit Experiment as being indicative of
there being in science "dogma" no more grounded
in reality as some claim religion is.
Religionists often mischaracterize scientific understanding
in the attempt to demonstrate that science is "just another
religion".
"The electron decided to act differently, as though it
was aware it was being watched." is NOT "the delightful
language of science". Mathematics is, at least as bears
upon the Double-Slit Experiment and Quantum Mechanics.
The problem with your notion is that religious thought
does not participate in the hard sciences except to
stand at the ready to insert theories of mysticism wherever
science does not currently possess fully-explained results.
The cutting edge of Physics refines understanding only
through mathematics and modelling based upon it and while
it is a great place for the religionist to stand and
proclaim "Aha! explain this!" the cutting edge tends to
move on and NOT due to anything the religionist is
proposing -- and the religionist cannot stand his
ground but can only follow. It's comical, as I said.
As for the Double Slit Experiment sans mysticism,
I see the Bohm Interpretation as being the most
likely pathway for future refinement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
EXCERPT
======
For supporters, Bohm's interpretation is the better
formulation of Quantum Mechanics, because it is
defined more precisely than the Copenhagen
interpretation which is based on theorems which
are not expressed in precise mathematical terms
but in natural words, like "when measuring".
The minimum benefit of Bohm's interpretation
- independently from the debate whether it is
the preferable formulation - is a disproof of
the claim that quantum mechanics implies that
particles cannot exist before being measured.
Bohm's interpretation gives non-mystical
explanations of famous experiments of
Quantum Mechanics. For example, in the Double-slit
experiment for electrons, each electron just
travels through only one slit, but the wave
function causes the interference pattern.
Not only the wave function, but also the
trajectory of each electron can be calculated
back when knowing the position where the
electron hit the screen.
Bohm's interpretation gives natural answers
to such philosophical questions. For example,
every particle exists all the time and has
an unique position, also when not being
measured at the moment.
====
Mike W
> "The electron decided to act differently, as though it
> was aware it was being watched." is NOT "the delightful
> language of science". Mathematics is, at least as bears
> upon the Double-Slit Experiment and Quantum Mechanics.
What then are these expressions? It's certainly more
scientific than religious in tangible content. At least as
far as I can tell.
> The problem with your notion is that religious thought
> does not participate in the hard sciences
No, it doesn't.
> except to stand at the ready to insert theories of mysticism
> wherever science does not currently possess fully-explained
> results.
Stand at the ready to humble the scientific? It's just that
the contempt in the approach you're proposing is astounding.
Of course that question posed has it's own brand of contempt.
Neither approach ought to be acceptable.
> The cutting edge of Physics refines understanding only
> through mathematics and modelling based upon it and while
> it is a great place for the religionist to stand and
> proclaim "Aha! explain this!" the cutting edge tends to
> move on and NOT due to anything the religionist is
> proposing -- and the religionist cannot stand his
> ground but can only follow. It's comical, as I said.
To think outside the box is comical? Dogmatism can be comical
but that doesn't really describe all religious thought.
There's room for focus on the hard sciences but when one is
forced to look outside because all the facts seem
satisfactorily in place, what's to be done? Should we fear
being laughed right out of the conferences?
Still there's little comment on our current methods of
measurement. Am I to infer that the particles will never be
measurable without there being significant impact on said
particle's position? This again reads like religion. Of
course the current problem is far from simple, how do we find
something fine enough to do the measuring when it's that very
fine something we're searching for in the first place?
There's a path I'd say,
step 1 - primitive religion,
step 2 - hard science,
step 3 - enlightened religion,
step 4 - enlightened science.
And on and on it goes... into eternity.
Stormin Mormon
Instruction through the prophets
Instruction through local leaders
Revelation and inspiration while reading scriptures
First presidency messages such as
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,2043-1-3333-1,00.html
--
Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
.
"Joker" <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7DMFf.30435$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Lunatic Fringe
scientists have never been close to creating anything even remotely
resembling a living cell.