Dr Mundo wrote:What did go wrong in the lives of Adam and Eve? What was so bad that Jesus had to come down to earth to correct?
It is my belief that it is through communication with God that these two became what we call human. But along with these human ways of thinking that came from God, Adam and Eve adopted other habits of thought and behavior (bad habits that adversely affect our free will, potential and ability to love each other) that thus became a part of that inheritance that we have from them. Among these bad habits were things that made a relationship with God Himself more harmful than helpful because they played into their refusal to be responsible for their own actions and lives. But it was never God's intention that we should navigate the "moral"/spiritual landscape of our lives without His help and the result was a no-win scenario. Jesus came down to earth to heal the breach by making a way for people to pursue a relationship with God that would be more helpful to them rather than harmful.
Dr Mundo wrote:The problem you are going to have with taking a liberal approach to Christianity is that you are going to be going off of things that are not in scripture or recorded history. So in essence you will just be making stuff up.
Yes I have already confronted before this problem you have with people thinking for themselves that seems to necessitate you calling this "making stuff up". You seem to think that they should either confine themselves to the truths you were raised in or to what you now dictate is the proper way of thinking. But I do not accept your dictates in this matter and I laugh at your attempts to ridicule people who dare to think for themselves.
Dr Mundo wrote: I don't have a problem with Christians getting rid of the Supernatural aspects of their religion, but then how much of a Christian are you?
LOL I do not define Christianity by your absurd categories of "supernatural" versus "natural" or blind "faith" versus reason. I accept the largest consensus of believers that defines Chrisitanity according the Nicene creed. If you are asking how much do I fit the cookie cutter mold that you have designed your rhetoric to handle then I say not very much at all. Nevertheless I believe in a God who created this universe in which to raise up life for the purpose of a relationship of parent to children, and who for the love He bears us set aside all His knowledge and power to become a helpless human infant, Jesus of Nazareth, in order to grow up among us and heal the breach with God that we may have eternal life.
Dr Mundo wrote:Why not adopt an other label?
We use labels in order to communicate approximate information quickly. I have used a number of such labels: scientist, existentialist, pragmatist, Christian and pluralist. It may not serve the seek and destroy aspect of the rhetoric you have developed but it does serve the purpose of communication to make a beginning from which to seek a greater understanding.
Dr Mundo wrote:If you have a good method for distinguishing from Fables/fairy-tales in the bible and actual historical events, I suggest you share them with everyone. Seems kind of important if you are privy to this information.
It is no secret. All one does is read the Bible in context. Not only each part in context of the whole but the whole Bible in the context of the world and all the information available in it. I was a student of science, philosophy and world religion BEFORE I considered whether there might be anything of value in Christianity and therefore that was always a part of the context in which I read the Bible.
Dr Mundo wrote:
Justice at its root is really about understanding that what we do has consequences and indeed this is why Jesus gave His life on the cross, so that our restoration to God comes through a realization that what we do can have terrible consequences.
Wait...... what? I am totally with you on the first part, as for the second part. Couldn't God have found a more humane, dignified way of helping us realize that what we do could have negative consequences? I mean I understand that, and I don't need to look upon the tortured body of an innocent to know that.
Apparently what is required for such an understanding is different for different people. This is something I know first hand as a teacher. It can be quite difficult at times to get certain things across to people and what works is often not what one may think is the most straightforward way -- let alone something that does not require a bit of pain, suffering or shock even to the point of death. On the contrary this all to often proves to be quite necessary before people will change their habits.
Dr Mundo wrote:
By Adam and Eve, I mean two homo sapiens who actually existed at the dawn of human civilization that had a relationship with God.
And you know this very specific detail how?
I don't know what "detail" you are talking about. This is what I gather to be the truth in the book of Genesis that is consistent with my perception of reality. The Bible is the source but I don't read it as a collection of literal absolutes but as a story told with a purpose in a context of all that we can discover about the world.
Dr Mundo wrote: Right and one is made for pure entertainment, the other comes from a Book that makes direct refrences to the events as if they actualy happend? You don't see the difference between "The Sword in the Stone" and the Bible?
I believe we have already covered this. Modern specializations do not apply to ancient times. Myths come from a period of history where there was no distinction between science, philosophy, law, religion and entertainment. And THAT is the distinction which I see between the two.
Dr Mundo wrote: We are how we are because of our Genes.
Incorrect or imprecise rather. You could say with equal verasity that we are how we are because of the structure of space time and the big bang, but these are no more determinative of what we are than our genes. These are but various facts that played a role in the chain of causality that lead to our existence as we are, but they are not all the facts or causes involved. In fact we can say that there is a series of pre-conditions. The physical structure of the universe was a neccessary but not sufficient condition for the developments of our biology and our biology was a neccessary but not sufficient condition for the development of our humanity.
Dr Mundo wrote:That is what I know.
LOL sounds a bit like Rick Perry there LOL
Dr Mundo wrote:Why don't you call Dolphins human?
Because they certainly do not satisfy my definition of the term "human" -- not by the virtue of being dolphins alone.
Dr Mundo wrote: Unless you are using Humanity to mean something like person-hood.
Nope. I thought we already dealt with this under the term "cognitive beings", and I repeat that non-human persons or cognitive beings may have value and be worthy of respect but they need not share in any of our thinking in any way and thus not be recognizable as human at all.
Dr Mundo wrote: Are you using Humanity and Human, as two distinct words? Using Humanity in a more poetic sense? its like calling an Chimp A Gorilla. They are both Great apes but A Gorilla isn't a Chimp because of what our definitions of those two species are, and what it takes for them to be classified as such.
Nope. I have absolutely no problem with the specification of our species as "homo sapiens" as refering entirely to our biology and genetics. I simply do not identify our species with our humanity, and thus like the examples I have given, one can share in our humanity without our biology and share in our biology without our humanity.
Dr Mundo wrote:
A person's body may be sick, ugly or deformed but that does not mean that the person is sick, ugly or deformed because the body is NOT the person. Likewise a person's body may be healthy, beautiful and perfect but that does not mean that the person is healthy, beautiful or perfect because the body is not the person.
If you are trying to be more poetic than technical my response is not really any significance
No I do not see this as having anything to do with poetry whatsoever, but I do not have the slightest doubt that we differ regarding what we see as significant.
Dr Mundo wrote:I gotcha now. Yeah I can see that, we may be able to separate our minds from our bodies, but our bodies are a necessity for our minds to develop. So I can see how you could say that you see them as "life" in their own right.
Well yes our bodies certainly play a crucial role in our development but I would not make that a part of the definition of humanity because I do not think that we can rule out the possibility of the same development using a different medium. Our bodies do indeed perform that task admirably but I am not entirely sure that we might not in the future develop a technology that can do the same task.
Dr Mundo wrote:
Nope. You were not correct. The non biological beings at the end of the film are clearly decended from life on earth. They are very much our inheritors. They simply have not inherited our biology.
But I still don't see them as being Human. And I see the non earth based life forms on the same situation as them, If they came to live on earth and showed similar traits to us, they would still not be humans.
That's right. You don't, but I do, because unlike you I do not see our humanity as a matter of biology and genetics.
Dr Mundo wrote:
Now in my case, I do not equate our humanity with ether genetic criterion or functionality. It is simply a matter of inheritance via human communication, and so I would even say that pets do in fact become to some very small degree (according their abilities) human, because they do inherit some of our ways.
Well as I said, a person probably. But a Human? Defeats the purpose of the whole species classification...
Incorrect. I do not equate "humanity" with "homo sapiens", and our species classification is the latter NOT the former.
Dr Mundo wrote:
Another interesting application is the abortion question. I do not think that a fertized zygote is a human being at all because the genetics is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
It is somewhat tricky, I would incline to say that it is human, but just not a person.
Well yes you can use the adjective "human" to refer to the species "homo sapiens" and according to the that usage the zygote is "human". But I was talking about a different usage of the word addressing the question of what what is a human being and thus how to define our humanity. Now suppose that one could take human bio matter and by some technical arts make something quite different out of it, such as means to produce human enzymes needed in medicine. The species of the cells of this thing that is made may be "human" by your definition but that does not make it a human being and thus I certainly would not consider it to partake of anything that I call humanity.
Dr Mundo wrote:Would a severely retarded person not be a human to you? Or how about a person in a vegetative state?
I already said that my definiton is not by functionality, although some functinality is a pre-requisite. A severely retarded person may be more limited in what they can learn but they nevertheless do learn a great deal -- far more so than the Benobos or other animals have shown themselves capable. But no, I would not consider a lump of flesh with no capabilities whatsoever to be a human being just because it is composed of biomatter with a "homo sapiens" genetic code. Whereas you would see no humanity in a Benobo merely by virtue of its different genetic makeup alone, that would not be my criterion. I might indeed see more humanity in some of these Benobos than I do in some members of the homo-sapien species.
As for vegetative states, that appears to be a very broad classification that may include people who could be classified as deceased and others who are apparently capable of some degree of communication or offer some hope that they can recover. And in any case this is moving into a slightly different topic regarding the status of human remains and gray areas between. Again your use of the adjective "human" for the species of a material may apply but I certainly would not consider my remains or any other persons remains to be a human being. There can be no inheritance of the mind where there is no mind present.