mitchellmckain wrote:Dr Mundo wrote:So Jesus had to come because Adam and Eve sinned, but Adam and Eve may not be a literal story? Still leaves me with the same question Mitch.
Good!
okay then.
No, one does not have to believe in talking snakes, magical fruit and golems of dust and flesh in order to believe that Jesus came to correct what went wrong in the lives of Adam and Eve and how this affected all mankind.
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? 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. 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? Why not adopt an other label? 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.
But no I do not believe in payment for sin, by Jesus or anyone else,
Glad to hear, CH and other christians would claim this to be the most loving, Giving, Just action anyone has ever taken. Its really disheartening to know that so many people (Christians) feel this way.
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.
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?
Yes the literal story says Adam is a golem of dust and Eve is a golem of flesh, and "The Sword in the Stone" says that Merlin transformed Arthur into different animals to teach him things.
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?
By humanity, I mean what makes us human. I believe that is information in the mind communicated by human communication rather than in our biological make up transmitted by genetic material. I believe that our humanity is found in our nature as meme creatures rather than our biological nature as gene creatures.
Well I don't see the point in disasociating the two, We are that way because of our genetic make up. Were our Genetic makeup be any different and those things may not exists. We could still be in Africa, Hiding from fearing predictors and all sort of other preoccupations, And have no philosophical mannerisms. We are how we are because of our Genes.
No. Cognitive beings with no relationship to us would be just that. They may have value and be worthy of respect but they need not share any of our thinking in any way. They may not be anything that we can recognize as human at all.
No but I am saying If they came to earth and interacted with us and asymilated into the population. With all of our emotional and mental capabilities. I wouldn't call them Human. Because they are not Human.
Dr Mundo wrote: I certanly don't disasociate our humanity with our genetic or biological species because that is what we are.
Yes that is what you believe.
?? That is what I know. Why don't you call Dolphins human? Unless you are using Humanity to mean something like person-hood. 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.
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, However I can break down what you typed and get more technical with it (this may or may not be what you are referring to so either ignore or read for pure entertainment). If a persons Body is Sick and or Deformed They are sick and deformed, I understand that doesn't define them as a person but the truth is they are sick, or they are deformed. And if a person is healthy then that person is healthy I will assume you mean strictly Physically healthy, because we have defined what mental and emotional health is now to a certain degree. But just saying with the Physical for now. Saying a Body is healthy, just means that the body is healthy. The person is the body, so If i was healthy physically than it would be appropriate to say Dr. Mundo is healthy.
I did NOT say independent of the human body. They are conceptually distinguishable to the point where we make up numerous stories about the transference of one persons mind to some other thing or body. That probably will never be possible (who knows), but that doesn't change the conceptual distinctiveness between body and mind.
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.
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.
And suppose we create a artificial form of life that is just like us in external form and function but underneath the skin is a completely different biotechnology like in the book "The Adoration of Jenna Fox". You seem to be saying that they are not human simply because they don't have our biology.
Yes I am
It is in fact you that seem to be drawing the line according to some standard regarding the genetic code.
Yes.
Just how different can that genetic code be and yet be human, I wonder?
The differences are not much, In fact we are pretty similar to chimps as far as genetics goes.
In my mind, this seems somewhat allied with racism, racial purity and eugenics.
My stance seems allied with Racism? You worded it cautiously as to not directly call my position racist, but still you have that word in there, so I will address this as if you had called it racist. To me Racism if you are using it in a negative way, would be the unfair discrimination of someone for their race, ethnicity or Color of skin. I am absolutely apposed to any such actions. I do however understand that we are different. Nothing wrong in pointing out the differences, so long as no one gets an unfair advantage or disadvantage based on race, color, or ethnicity. If the non earth people came and asymilated into our life on earth, I would try to help them get equal rights if they didn't get them. I don't see the point in racism, in fact I see it as a strong negative that should be avoided.
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...
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.
There is potential humanity there and that potential grows as time progresses. But until there is at least some brain function around the 20th week, it is not possible that this feotus is learning anything via human communication at all and therefore is not a human being.
We see things differently on every aspect of life, I'm starting to think... I see it as a Human from the beginning, with the potential for Person-hood.
After that point the feotus can hear our voices and our music and as the brain processes these things the learning begins.
yeah learning begins, but learning isn't a defenition of what makes us human. Would a severely retarded person not be a human to you? Or how about a person in a vegetative state?
Creative/Created Evolution?
