Sex! Woohoo!

[ScottBarger]

Tony,

Answer to your question is posted above.

Also, I am not sure that Universalism is a "tenet" of the so-called Emergent Church, since the movement, even in it's more processed, marketed, and packaged form is so multifaceted that it would be hard to distinguish anything close to "tenets." Closer to the truth would be that many within the movement lean this way (which, as you have stated, is the same throughout most segments of Christianity) and that some of the more famous writers from within the movement may lean this way. There are many self described "emergents" who believe in Jesus as the only way to God.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony,

Answer to your question is posted above.

Also, I am not sure that Universalism is a "tenet" of the so-called Emergent Church, since the movement, even in it's more processed, marketed, and packaged form is so multifaceted that it would be hard to distinguish anything close to "tenets." Closer to the truth would be that many within the movement lean this way (which, as you have stated, is the same throughout most segments of Christianity) and that some of the more famous writers from within the movement may lean this way. There are many self described "emergents" who believe in Jesus as the only way to God.

Thanks, I agree that it is not clear what the "emergent church" believes because one of the most important things (tenets) to them is not being dogmatic and opinionated. If you are, they have a strong dogmatic opinion about you... (:-) again, self refuting...

[NH Baritone]

So, Scott & Tony:

How are you defining the word "Dogmatic"? It is used with the suggestion that it is universally negative, and an attribute of those who do NOT agree with you, but not an attribute you perceive in yourselves.

So what does the word mean? Is being dogmatic negative, positive, or 3-dimensional? Should a Christian be proud of being dogmatic, try to avoid it, or some other approach?

[tonyenglish7]

So, Scott & Tony:

How are you defining the word "Dogmatic"? It is used with the suggestion that it is universally negative, and an attribute of those who do NOT agree with you, but not an attribute you perceive in yourselves.

So what does the word mean? Is being dogmatic negative, positive, or 3-dimensional? Should a Christian be proud of being dogmatic, try to avoid it, or some other approach?

Good point, I would call myself dogmatic, not in a negative way.

[Atheist37]

What is life like when you have no hope? No hope to see your loved ones again? No hope for justice? No hope for purpose? No hope of anything? Eternal sleep is the best you can hope for? And not even knowing if you are right about that?

Life is a joy every single day.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to hope for. I live in Oregon, probably the most incredible place in the world to live. My wife of 25 years and I have three sons, strong intelligent men we love and are proud of. We both have rewarding and productive careers, and also live on a small farm where we raise our own beef, pork, free-range laying hens, and organic vegetables in the summer. Maybe it's not paradise but I'm not complaining.

When my nephew died in a car accident several years ago, friends and relatives gathered at the restaurant where he worked to share our grief. Sitting there that day, I could feel his presence, and I said so aloud. Somebody sitting next to me asked if I was becoming religious. No... but my nephew's unique personality and his way of relating to people was alive in that room, in the way he changed each of us. As we all came together I couldn't help but feel the presence of that energy, in each of us, resonating in the room. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about that.

Outside of my own comfort and mortality, I do have high hopes for humanity and for life in general. For one thing, humanity has within it's grasp the ability and the power to bring life to other planets, and some day to other stars. We are conscious, self-aware organizations of matter. We are the universe, looking back at itself, and we have no higher purpose than to spread that awareness as far as we can take it.

And one final thought. The wise man knows that he is a fool. I am a fool. If you can quote Matthew, then I can quote Shakespeare.

[NH Baritone]

So, Scott & Tony:

How are you defining the word "Dogmatic"? It is used with the suggestion that it is universally negative, and an attribute of those who do NOT agree with you, but not an attribute you perceive in yourselves.

So what does the word mean? Is being dogmatic negative, positive, or 3-dimensional? Should a Christian be proud of being dogmatic, try to avoid it, or some other approach?

Good point, I would call myself dogmatic, not in a negative way.

I still ask, what does the word mean when you use it?

[ScottBarger]

Well the term dogmatic means "pertaining to dogma or doctrine" it can carry the negative connotation of arrogance and a lot of people use the word in that sense. I have certain "dogma" in which I believe firmly, though I try hard not to be arrogant when I talk about them. I think it is possible to hold certain things as true, and be unwavering in your convictions without being arrogant.

[NH Baritone]

Well the term dogmatic means "pertaining to dogma or doctrine" it can carry the negative connotation of arrogance and a lot of people use the word in that sense. I have certain "dogma" in which I believe firmly, though I try hard not to be arrogant when I talk about them. I think it is possible to hold certain things as true, and be unwavering in your convictions without being arrogant.

Hmmm... So in order to be dogmatic, does one have to have a stated dogma that overlays other opinions?

I am fairly unwavering on several tenets (e.g., against capital punishment, polygamy, and restrictions on free speech; for women's right to choose, equal civil rights for gay people, and universal right to health care). However, these are based on years of reflection on rationally considered arguments and my own personal values. I don't hold to any particular dogma or doctrine, and my atheistic agnosticism probably has little to do with them. In other words, I'm willing to have conversations about them, so long as we can agree that we're trying to remain rational and open to evidence.

Since I adhere to no discernible dogma, could I still be characterized as dogmatic? Why or why not?

[ScottBarger]

NH,

No offense, but you seem to be steering the conversation towards semantics or epistemology. Perhaps we should start a different thread to discuss the nature/value of dogmatism?


Scott

[tonyenglish7]

What is life like when you have no hope? No hope to see your loved ones again? No hope for justice? No hope for purpose? No hope of anything? Eternal sleep is the best you can hope for? And not even knowing if you are right about that?

Life is a joy every single day.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to hope for. I live in Oregon, probably the most incredible place in the world to live. My wife of 25 years and I have three sons, strong intelligent men we love and are proud of. We both have rewarding and productive careers, and also live on a small farm where we raise our own beef, pork, free-range laying hens, and organic vegetables in the summer. Maybe it's not paradise but I'm not complaining.

When my nephew died in a car accident several years ago, friends and relatives gathered at the restaurant where he worked to share our grief. Sitting there that day, I could feel his presence, and I said so aloud. Somebody sitting next to me asked if I was becoming religious. No... but my nephew's unique personality and his way of relating to people was alive in that room, in the way he changed each of us. As we all came together I couldn't help but feel the presence of that energy, in each of us, resonating in the room. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about that.

Outside of my own comfort and mortality, I do have high hopes for humanity and for life in general. For one thing, humanity has within it's grasp the ability and the power to bring life to other planets, and some day to other stars. We are conscious, self-aware organizations of matter. We are the universe, looking back at itself, and we have no higher purpose than to spread that awareness as far as we can take it.

And one final thought. The wise man knows that he is a fool. I am a fool. If you can quote Matthew, then I can quote Shakespeare.

Why?

[Atheist37]

What is life like when you have no hope?

Life is a joy every single day.

Why?

Why Not?

[tonyenglish7]

Why?[/quote]
Why Not?[/quote]

You said We are the universe, looking back at itself, and we have no higher purpose than to spread that awareness as far as we can take it.

I asked, Why? This is not sarcastic, it is a real question. Why do you want to spread life to other places? What do you get out of it? How is that the greatest purpose. What do you mean, "we are the universe?" sounds pretty metaphysical for an naturalist! Can you explain this more?

[Atheist37]

I asked, Why? This is not sarcastic, it is a real question. Why do you want to spread life to other places? What do you get out of it? How is that the greatest purpose. What do you mean, "we are the universe?" sounds pretty metaphysical for an naturalist! Can you explain this more?

When I hear something, it is my ear that detects the sound. But "I" hear the sound, not just my ear.

The physical universe is entirely composed of matter and energy. Human beings are composed of matter and energy, and we have the remarkable ability to reflect on the nature of the universe. So while we are merely human, our ability is also the ability of the universe. That's not metaphysics, it's just a poetic way to describe our existence.

Most of the physical processes that we observe in nature, such as chemical reactions or gravitational attraction, exist everywhere in exactly the same way. But the life process is something that only very rarely will start spontaneously. The probability for the spontaneous assemblage of RNA is very small.

But once life gets started, it spreads and mutates and diversifies. Our planet is covered with a multitude of complex self-replicating chemical structures that we call life. From our early observations of other planets and the universe at large, the earth is unique in this way. This is purely subjective on my part, but I see great value in spreading life beyond earth. It's my personal opinion that a universe filled with life would be a better universe than the mostly dead place we observe today.

I am a living thing, so of course I am biased on the side of life. I'm not saying I am right, I am talking about how I feel.

[tonyenglish7]

I asked, Why? This is not sarcastic, it is a real question. Why do you want to spread life to other places? What do you get out of it? How is that the greatest purpose. What do you mean, "we are the universe?" sounds pretty metaphysical for an naturalist! Can you explain this more?

When I hear something, it is my ear that detects the sound. But "I" hear the sound, not just my ear.

The physical universe is entirely composed of matter and energy. Human beings are composed of matter and energy, and we have the remarkable ability to reflect on the nature of the universe. So while we are merely human, our ability is also the ability of the universe. That's not metaphysics, it's just a poetic way to describe our existence.

Most of the physical processes that we observe in nature, such as chemical reactions or gravitational attraction, exist everywhere in exactly the same way. But the life process is something that only very rarely will start spontaneously. The probability for the spontaneous assemblage of RNA is very small.

But once life gets started, it spreads and mutates and diversifies. Our planet is covered with a multitude of complex self-replicating chemical structures that we call life. From our early observations of other planets and the universe at large, the earth is unique in this way. This is purely subjective on my part, but I see great value in spreading life beyond earth. It's my personal opinion that a universe filled with life would be a better universe than the mostly dead place we observe today.

I am a living thing, so of course I am biased on the side of life. I'm not saying I am right, I am talking about how I feel.

Wow, thanks for the response, it is a good description of the modern creation myth that is believed in faith by many. Nothing wrong with that, I only point out that it takes faith to believe the description of reality that you just outlined. I am happy that you said it was subjective and that you may be wrong and that it is how you feel as opposed to hoe you "think". Feeling good about the universe having random non-purposeful life which exists by chance is great, but thinking about it logically is absurd from within your world view. It just fails...

Next, you said that life is matter and energy. But isn't life a bit more then matter and energy? A lightening bolt is matter and energy but is not life. I agree the universe is matter and energy but there is something more, or rather someone more. Actually many someone's. You rightly describe your experience of the ear detecting the sound but an individual "I" has to experience the sound. Matter and energy cannot "experience" the sound, especially when you add meaning, the sound of music or truth. It takes a person to experience the sound. That person cannot be simply physical.(Matter and energy). All the matter and energy in the universe cannot experience the sound of a baby crying or John Lennon's song "Imagine" (I thought I would use the atheist national anthem as an example).

You said the chances of RNA getting started on its own is very small. Boy is that an understatement. It is so small it is as close as you can get to impossible and for rationality sake, it is impossible. The more they learn about RNA and DNA and the simplest life, it becomes more unimaginable. This is not hyperbole, it is science. There is no accepted theory that even comes close to figuring out how such a clear quad-based program would come about. If you think you know you should write a book because nobody has done it yet and the more they learn the more unlikely it is becoming. It is like saying a computer program popped into existence by chance and then with natural selection getting more and more complicated while being bombarded with astroids, radiation, heat and cold. What we see is a design that can adapt, the software of life is intelligently designed. If you take the moritorium off of considering that scientific view, it is the most likely.

And finally, the effect cannot be greater then the cause. Life, meaning, morals, persons, relationships, numbers, music, beauty, and even science, cannot be the effect of random, chance, non-life, molecules. And if they are, any view you have is not even subjective, it is determined by simple prior events. Rationality is a feature of God that has been given to you as a person, or, it is an illusion. There is no in-between possible.

Yet, it has to have happened because there is no other explanation, right? That is Naturalism... (Come on, everybody,...sing,,,, imagine there's no heaven..... it's easy if you try...) I can see the lighters now... (:-0)

[Atheist37]

This is purely subjective on my part, but I see great value in spreading life beyond earth. It's my personal opinion that a universe filled with life would be a better universe than the mostly dead place we observe today.

I am happy that you said it was subjective and that you may be wrong and that it is how you feel as opposed to hoe you "think". Feeling good about the universe having random non-purposeful life which exists by chance is great, but thinking about it logically is absurd from within your world view. It just fails...

Tony,

I'm not sure if you deliberately twisted my words or simply didn't read closely enough. It is not subjective that the RNA molecule can spontaneously emerge by random chance. What is subjective is the value I personally place on that rare occurrence. Instead of simply standing by and waiting for nature to take its course, we have the option of taking life from Earth and propagating it out into the universe. The question is, do we have the will? (Back to free will...)