Christians who don't take Genesis literally

[Dr Mundo]

Doc,
What don't you get? Is it:
(1) Being generated by Jesus from above and on earth by supernatural "explanations" as in the history book of Acts?
(2) Living without Jesus' supernatural "explanations" but living by a written living [generated] word under the grace period of God's nations today (after the Acts period in/of history?)
(3) Or (as N.H. sort of mentions) being generated religiously, by supernatural "explanations" - into the fine robes that religion has designed and stitched for you?
Or maybe I don't understand your were usage of the term "supernatural 'explanations'"; if that's the case, why don't you fill me in?
Anyway, it sounds to me as if:
The natural man is looking for the light. He looks in a mirror (remember, he sees dimly at first). Does he see what he sees? What does he see?

I am really sorry, but I am not following you, could you explain it in a simpler form for me.

[Keep The Reason]

Dr. M

First, you're doing awesome in replying to these topics, just in case you're wondering. I too was going to challenge Mitch on his "Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to have a relationship with god," especially when we already know pre humans had various religious rituals that completely predate biblical history, bu hundreds of thousands of years (I'm in Wash DC and yesterday I went to the National Museum of Natural History where recently was discovered a Neanderthal grave site that clearly indicated an afterlife belief... A remarkable find).

As to what to call fetal tissues,I think "protohuman" suffices as a simple, definitive label for an early human embryo.

There's noting in AI that suggests the beings at the end aren't partly mechanical and partly biological, so there's only speculation that they have not inherited our biology... Though it's been a long time so I may be misremembering the film, but as I recall it's not explained at all, which is very Kubrickian (he died before he could make it and Spielberg took on the job, but he tried to emulate Kubrick in doing so). Anyway, I don't think it's defined.

If I may assist on Cleve, he's talking about regeneration, which is simply god gracing a person with special knowledge. See, we have free will but we don't because you can't actually know this is true unless god wants you to know, so he grants you special insight the rest of us are purposely denied. How do you buy a ticket of regeneration? Well, that tricky because you must utterly believe in this redemption, and even then the loving god may choose not to grace you with special knowledge, and so you remain unregenerate. Oh, and that's alway your fault because it means you aren't believing in the right way, or deeply enough.

It's a very strange religion.

[cleve]

If I may assist on Cleve, he's talking about regeneration, which is simply god gracing a person with special knowledge. See, we have free will but we don't because you can't actually know this is true unless god wants you to know, so he grants you special insight the rest of us are purposely denied. How do you buy a ticket of regeneration? Well, that tricky because you must utterly believe in this redemption, and even then the loving god may choose not to grace you with special knowledge, and so you remain unregenerate. Oh, and that's alway your fault because it means you aren't believing in the right way, or deeply enough.

It's a very strange religion.

Keep The Reason,
Yes, whatever you are referring to sounds like a very strange religion, especially for this age. It sounds like you're familiar with what you describe, but it certainly is not something that I have had any experience with. I have never read or heard of the term "regeneration" being used/spoken of in the same manner as what you describe.
This "different" teaching concerns me because:
(1) It doesn't show grace in a consistent manner because it shows/expresses partiality/favoritism. Since grace is a primary emphasis during this age of history, why should God be a respector of persons? Why would He opt to give more grace to one person than another?
(2) The grace that God has provided/designed for this age needs to follow consistent patterns ; the way in which He exercises grace shows no partiality/favoritism to individuals. In this particular age (of grace), He prefers to remain silent instead of exercising His judgments. God's future judgments will return to the earth again after this age of grace - "When thy [God's] judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the earth will learn [again] righteousness." (Isaiah 26:9) (His prior judgments from the past were repealed through Jesus Christ, our source of grace.)
Instead of choosing teachings that are likely to show partiality/favoritism toward individuals, I am more inclined to prefer to start from the premise that: Knowledge begets knowledge, which God gives freely.
I don't think we have free will either - but the free will He gives freely.

[Keep The Reason]

A god who decides to remain silent is indistinguishable from no god at all. And people who make claims about a god that is silently indistinguishable from no god at all only prove they are elaborating on the essence of nothingness.

Grace, no grace, favoritism, no favoritism, endless jawing over that which remains resolutely mute and invisible. Again-- a very strange religion.

[Dr Mundo]

Dr. M

First, you're doing awesome in replying to these topics, just in case you're wondering.

Thank you positive feed back is always welcome. As is negative, its a great tool to help you chisel out your thoughts and can help them become more refined.

I too was going to challenge Mitch on his "Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to have a relationship with god," especially when we already know pre humans had various religious rituals that completely predate biblical history, bu hundreds of thousands of years (I'm in Wash DC and yesterday I went to the National Museum of Natural History where recently was discovered a Neanderthal grave site that clearly indicated an afterlife belief... A remarkable find).

Is that the burial site that was found with tools and what appeared to be charms, I saw that too and I thought that was pretty interesting. I often wondered how our world would be if Neanderthals survived.

There's noting in AI that suggests the beings at the end aren't partly mechanical and partly biological, so there's only speculation that they have not inherited our biology...

Well I never say the movie, but what I can say is that they would not be human no matter how close they resembled us. Our biology does Define us, because it is out of our biology that our personalities are formed. I'm sure you agree that if androids became sapient it would still be wrong to classify them as human, right?

It's a very strange religion.

I was never a fundamentalist, But I had a strong belief. I sometimes think to myself how its possible that such a "strange" religion can have such strong sway in peoples lives, especially with Science to fill in our understanding of nature, and Philosophy our understanding of self. I hope we can escape this part of Human history soon.

[cleve]

Doc,
What don't you get? Is it:
(1) Being generated by Jesus from above and on earth by supernatural "explanations" as in the history book of Acts?
(2) Living without Jesus' supernatural "explanations" but living by a written living [generated] word under the grace period of God's nations today (after the Acts period in/of history?)
(3) Or (as N.H. sort of mentions) being generated religiously, by supernatural "explanations" - into the fine robes that religion has designed and stitched for you?
Or maybe I don't understand your were usage of the term "supernatural 'explanations'"; if that's the case, why don't you fill me in?
Anyway, it sounds to me as if:
The natural man is looking for the light. He looks in a mirror (remember, he sees dimly at first). Does he see what he sees? What does he see? .

I am really sorry, but I am not following you, could you explain it in a simpler form for me.

Doc,
I really don't know of a way to simplify what I have already tried to explain/describe to you. The main reason is that I'm not sure about what you already know and don't know.

It's a very strange religion.

I was never a fundamentalist, But I had a strong belief. I sometimes think to myself how its possible that such a "strange" religion can have such strong sway in peoples lives, especially with Science to fill in our understanding of nature, and Philosophy our understanding of self. I hope we can escape this part of Human history soon.

That might be quite a challenge, especially when Ecclesiastes 3:1 says: There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.

[cleve]

A god who decides to remain silent is indistinguishable from no god at all.

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't run parallel with this God's history in other ages of the bible.

[Keep The Reason]

A god who decides to remain silent is indistinguishable from no god at all.

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't run parallel with this God's history in other ages of the bible.

And you know these conversations with god happened as written... how? Because they were written, is that your standard?

You know, Zeus and Odin talked to mortals too. Do you deny they interacted with humans too, but now have simply decided to remain silent?

[mitchellmckain]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is what I know.

LOL sounds a bit like Rick Perry there LOL

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cleve]

A god who decides to remain silent is indistinguishable from no god at all.

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't run parallel with this God's history in other ages of the bible.

And you know these conversations with god happened as written... how? Because they were written, is that your standard?

You know, Zeus and Odin talked to mortals too. Do you deny they interacted with humans too, but now have simply decided to remain silent?

How do you define standard?

[Dr Mundo]

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.

Well I understand that this is what you believe the only question I have is, how are you coming to such specific details on this subject?

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.

No I don't, I just would like to understand How these beliefs are originating in your head. If I follow your line of thinking assuming you have made no errors I should come to the same or similar conclusion. If I don't we can investigate why I didn't? Seems fair doesn't it?

LOL I do not define Christianity by your absurd categories of "supernatural" versus "natural" or blind "faith" versus reason.

No you probably don't. But that is what sets it apart from lets just say A philosophical way of life.

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.

How much more likely is it that you are right about God and that the Cookie cutter Christian is wrong about the same God? Can you test either of your hypothesis about God?

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.

And I don't. What more can we say, other than Show me demonstration of this God you believe in. Because from the book that this God you believe in has left for us. I got the impression that its not a Parent to Child relationship. As a parent you typically want a better life for your child than the one you Had. In other words you don't want them to be your equal you want them to be a better version of you. God on the other hand punishes you for even attempting to be its equal. Also with our kids they have the potential to have our perspective, many Christians if not all would claim that God's perspective is unattainable by humans. So what good does it do us?

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

Well If I can not continue to Seek and destroy just using labels adopted by individuals to describe themselves. Then I should probably just give up on my ultimate Goal of ruler of the universe, based purely on how well I can attack someone on the basis of their self adopted labels.

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.

And doing so is the quickest way to de-convert from Christianity.

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.

Oh well its right there in the quotes, The detail of Adam and Eve being the very first Homo sapiens who existed. That is very specific information, that No other scientists have access too.

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.

Like when the bible was being made.

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.

There is direct research you can access about Human Genes and their purpose with surprising detail. Your space and big bang explanation of the origins of our personality sounds like astrology. If you want to believe in that cool.

LOL sounds a bit like Rick Perry there LOL

except that I have evidence to back it up. This was about Knowing that our DNA makes us human wasn't it? But I think now I understand you are using Human in a different way then I am, I was wrongfully equating it to Homo Sapiens.

Nope. I have absolutely no problem with the specification of our species as "homo sapiens" as refering entirely to our biology and genetics.

OK well this is what I was doing, So that is why I said "I know" and then you accused me of being like Rick Perry.

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.

OK I call that person-hood. So I think My dogs Have the attributes to be considered there, So it seems that we agree. We were just using different words.

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.

I can see a future in which Robots become self aware. I wouldn't rule that possibility out.

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.

Now I understand we see them in the same way. I thought You meant that it was Ok to classify them as Human but by Human I was thinking of Homo Sapiens.

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.

Classic example of how we meant the same thing but used different words and we each thought we disagreed with each other. Notice how I said they would be persons. I thought you would have know what I was talking about.

[mitchellmckain]

If I follow your line of thinking assuming you have made no errors I should come to the same or similar conclusion.

That is a scientific proceedure and no I do not believe that such a proceedure can possibly exist for spiritual things. In other words, you can say that for me the very question of whether there is a spiritual aspect to reality is closely allied to the question of whether there are things about reality that cannot be discovered as a result of such a scientific proceedure. You may have concluded that the answer to this is no but I have concluded that the answer is yes.

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.

How much more likely is it that you are right about God and that the Cookie cutter Christian is wrong about the same God? Can you test either of your hypothesis about God?

There is no rational basis for computing any such probabilities.

Can you test either of your hypothesis about God?

I reject the idea that God could ever be a valid scientific hypothesis of any kind.

Because from the book that this God you believe in has left for us. I got the impression that its not a Parent to Child relationship. As a parent you typically want a better life for your child than the one you Had. In other words you don't want them to be your equal you want them to be a better version of you. God on the other hand punishes you for even attempting to be its equal. Also with our kids they have the potential to have our perspective, many Christians if not all would claim that God's perspective is unattainable by humans. So what good does it do us?

Absolutely false! We do punish our children fro seeking to be like us when it is not safe for them to do so. We drive a car and if our two year old attempts to drive our car then we will most definitely take punative action to discourage them from doing anything like that again and this is just one example of a million ways in which we do exactly what you absurdly claim here that parents do not do.

But it is true that there is that one respect in which the relationship which we have with our children is very different from the relationship which God seeks to have with us. We are finite parents with finite children but in the case of God we are talking about an infinite parent with finite children and thus this is parent child relationship that has no ending. God does not represent the type of goal that we can complete and then look for another goal, rather God is the eternal goal that encompasses the whole neverending process of finding completing goals and then finding a new one.

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.

And doing so is the quickest way to de-convert from Christianity.

Incorrect, that may indeed have been the result of your application of this methodology but you are wrong to presume that this method can only have one result. It has led me precisely in the opposite direction to find value in Christianity in spite of all the absurdities I was raised to see in it.

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.

Oh well its right there in the quotes, The detail of Adam and Eve being the very first Homo sapiens who existed. That is very specific information, that No other scientists have access too.

I don't see what is so specific about that. It is quite true that in general science determines the truth about generalities rather than the lives of specific people, with the exception of rare cases when there is evidence that they can examine. All that demonstrates is that there are huge limitations to what science can discover.

But I think now I understand you are using Human in a different way then I am, I was wrongfully equating it to Homo Sapiens.

Yes and I explained that from the beginning. I explained that our humanity has to do with the inheritance of ideas or "memes" via human communication rather than biology or "genes".

Nope. I have absolutely no problem with the specification of our species as "homo sapiens" as refering entirely to our biology and genetics.

OK well this is what I was doing, So that is why I said "I know" and then you accused me of being like Rick Perry.

Yes there is a parallel. Unlike KTR I don't accuse Perry of arrogance because I understand the scope of understanding and context in which he speaks, just as I have shown that I do understand the context in which you speak. Now if Perry had gone beyond that context to denounce the knowledge and understanding of others in the same way that KTR did then I would have denounced him as I have denounced other Christians here in this forum who say such things.

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.

OK I call that person-hood. So I think My dogs Have the attributes to be considered there, So it seems that we agree. We were just using different words.

Not exactly. I think I am being a little bit more precise and would consider non-human persons to be a possibility that makes humanity (as I was using the word) and personhood two different categories, which is why I was saying that I would consider the non-biological beings at the end of "AI" to be human but that I would not consider alien sentients to be human. Though perhaps you were suggesting the possibility that alien sentients might be able to communicate with us and thus master or inherit our way of thinking in which case they might become human to some degree in the same way I suggested was possible with animals.

[Dr Mundo]

That is a scientific proceedure and no I do not believe that such a proceedure can possibly exist for spiritual things. In other words, you can say that for me the very question of whether there is a spiritual aspect to reality is closely allied to the question of whether there are things about reality that cannot be discovered as a result of such a scientific proceedure. You may have concluded that the answer to this is no but I have concluded that the answer is yes.

Well I wouldn't be content with just accepting something because It makes me feel like its right. I would have to demonstrate that it is more than likely the case. Evidence is of the utmost importance when dealing with these issues for me. I know its not for you, and I don't know of a way to continue on talking about it if we keep the same line of thinking.

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.

How much more likely is it that you are right about God and that the Cookie cutter Christian is wrong about the same God? Can you test either of your hypothesis about God?

There is no rational basis for computing any such probabilities.

I agree, it was more or less a rhetorical question. If you had the answer for that I would have loved to hear it, But I was under the strong impression that you were not going to be able to provide such a method.

Can you test either of your hypothesis about God?

I reject the idea that God could ever be a valid scientific hypothesis of any kind.

Why do you reject that Idea? prehaps we just have not found a way to do so.. Someone could have easily rejected the fact that we could ever see microscopic organism.

We do punish our children fro seeking to be like us when it is not safe for them to do so.

We don't punish them for seeking to be like us, We punish them for actions they take that can cause direct harm to themselves or others. God Forbids having other Gods before him and punishes you for it. As a parent you don't punish your child for admiring someone else.....

We drive a car and if our two year old attempts to drive our car then we will most definitely take punative action to discourage them from doing anything like that again and this is just one example of a million ways in which we do exactly what you absurdly claim here that parents do not do.

I have never had my words twisted so much as I have by Christians in this forum... Just look at what you are saying. We don't punish them for trying to be like us. We want them to be like us. But we want them to be a better version of us.

But it is true that there is that one respect in which the relationship which we have with our children is very different from the relationship which God seeks to have with us. We are finite parents with finite children but in the case of God we are talking about an infinite parent with finite children and thus this is parent child relationship that has no ending. God does not represent the type of goal that we can complete and then look for another goal, rather God is the eternal goal that encompasses the whole neverending process of finding completing goals and then finding a new one.

You could do that without the need for God.

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.

And doing so is the quickest way to de-convert from Christianity.

Incorrect, that may indeed have been the result of your application of this methodology but you are wrong to presume that this method can only have one result. It has led me precisely in the opposite direction to find value in Christianity in spite of all the absurdities I was raised to see in it.

I didn't say it was the only way you would come out of it. But I don't know a faster way of deconverting from Christianity than by reading its holy book. Some may get deeper into their Religion, I know that.

I don't see what is so specific about that. It is quite true that in general science determines the truth about generalities rather than the lives of specific people, with the exception of rare cases when there is evidence that they can examine. All that demonstrates is that there are huge limitations to what science can discover.

So again How do you Know this is what happened with Adam and Eve? or How do you know anything about Adam and Eve?

Yes and I explained that from the beginning. I explained that our humanity has to do with the inheritance of ideas or "memes" via human communication rather than biology or "genes".

Well then the word you should use is culture. for the sake of clarity.

Yes there is a parallel. Unlike KTR I don't accuse Perry of arrogance because I understand the scope of understanding and context in which he speaks

Do you mean Ignorance? Because I will agree that Rick Perry is more than likely ignorant of the facts, to accept creationism over evolution.

Not exactly. I think I am being a little bit more precise

No, your not. we are in agreement here.

Though perhaps you were suggesting the possibility that alien sentients might be able to communicate with us and thus master or inherit our way of thinking in which case they might become human to some degree in the same way I suggested was possible with animals.

Yeah.

[Keep The Reason]

How do you define standard?

I'm asking you to define your standard. What is your standard-- turning it around and asking me what mine is avoids the question. What is your standard -- define it.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes there is a parallel. Unlike KTR I don't accuse Perry of arrogance because I understand the scope of understanding and context in which he speaks

Do you mean Ignorance? Because I will agree that Rick Perry is more than likely ignorant of the facts, to accept creationism over evolution.

He's a governor of Texas and running for president. Do either of you think he's actually ignorant of the facts of evolution vs creationism in this unbelievably religious country what with his advisers and involvement in schools and the high profile of cases like Dover vs Kitzmiller in Pennsylvania? Maybe I'm cynical, but not more so than you guys must be incredibly, astonishingly naive.

If you think Perry is really that ignorant of this important subject, then you default to him being incompetent as a political leader. anyone that blind to the facts of this important scientific reality is too uneducated to run for janitor, let alone President of the USA wherein scientific research hangs in the balance. Either way, he should remain unelectable to every thinking person.

I think he's a politician, who has run a very large state, and he's definitely aware of the facts, he is simply and ARROGANTLY pandering to his base.