Protestantism

» redback - of animals and babies

In response to understanding posted by redback:

Animals communicate and some are playful and resourceful. Some have pride in their 'pride'. I'm not so certain animals aren't less selective with how they share than many humans.

Babies are born with all the brain cells they will ever have.

"What has been discovered is that new neural pathways are being forged in the brain throughout our whole lives, depending on how we use our mind. Wherever we focus our attention is where new neural connections will be made."

I hope I created a few by researching efferent pathways.

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - Think About It

In response to Think About It posted by pink101:

.
Phil wrote:
However a person views the Bible makes little difference. The fact of the matter is that it is a major force in the development of our Western Culture..
.
In terms of the Bible's effect on the development of Western Culture, one's individual (or collective) view of the Bible **probably** doesn't matter, although I would tend to think the Protestant view of the Bible shared by the Founding Fathers might have differed from that of those who chose to stay rather than venture to a new country.
.
But in a broadly general sense, how one views the Bible **can** make a great deal of difference. We have seen this demonstrated many times in these discussions.
.
I don't completely agree with your premise, Phil. Redemption is one major theme of the Bible, but I do not agree that OT theology is all about how worthless humankind is, individually or collectively. I don't see massive self-loathing in the Psalms, to cite one major example. I don't see Esther or Deborah or Daniel wallowing in the sense of their own worthlessness. Such debased views of oneself are not conducive to the kind of bold faith these people demonstrated.
.
OT theology is based on external holiness--a relationship with God which must be maintained through adherence to law, and ritual. BUT obviously Elijah, David, and the prophets had a deeper and more personal relationship with God.
.
NT theology is based in internal holiness--a relationship with God which comes from heart and spirit. We can approach God with a clean conscience and a clean slate--over and over again.
.
Both Old and New Testaments contain the theme of the suffering servant, and how suffering leads to redemption. In the Old Testament the suffering servant is the Jewish people themselves. In the New Testament the suffering servant is Jesus. We are no longer strangers in a strange land. We are no longer worms. The Word is in our hearts, and we can boldly enter the sanctuary.
.
I prefer to think in terms of the restoration of right relationship rather than redemption. In a way they mean the same thing, but restoration of right relationship removes the temptation for self-loathing. There is, I believe, a huge difference between honestly and dispassionately owning one's own lostness and brokenness--and considering oneself a piece of dirt.
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend--Phil)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by pink101:

Thanks, Phil.

I refer to your excellent post in my response in my response to Migisi.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by Migisi:

.
I wrote:
... Isn't it possible that there is some kind of sentience within (perhaps) DNA which responds to the need to change?
.
Migisi responded:
Sure, it's possible. But, as yet, there's no evidence for it. Tomorrow may bring new discovery and understanding. Free will implies ~conscious~ choice. If DNA is sentient, and plays a role in growth/change, then God did not bestow free will upon humans alone, but on all living creatures.
.
Phil's post, below, answers part of your response. As for God bestowing free choice on animals, I have no problem whatsoever with that idea.
.
.
I wrote:
BUT human growth and change is much different than in animals. We have the capacity to imagine and create and evolve intellectually and spiritually. Although I believe there is much we don't know about animal intellect, humankinds have potentials for development much beyond animals.
.
Migisi responded:
Certainly, intellect may play a role in altering growth and change in humans. And we use our intellect to alter growth/change in other things - food animals, vegetables, fruit trees, etc. Man ~appears~ to have evolved/developed far faster than other living creatures. However, perhaps extinct species (without intellect) progressed at an even faster pace than humans, and came to their natural end quicker? Like a hotter fire burns out quicker.
.
As above, Phil's response confirms what I said. Ants can build cities, but they can't write a poem or use a computer or drive a car or heal with medicine. Eagles can fly, and their call is stirring, but they can't compose an opera, or build a spaceship.
.
I have all kinds of reverence and respect for animals, and I believe they have much to teach us (I am, after all, a turtle ), but humankind is capable of much more than any animal.
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - understanding

In response to understanding posted by redback:

But it seems to me the Bible wants us to accept underlying events as facts.
.
No, this is what modern, conservative theologians want. The focus on literalism only goes back to the late 1800's, or perhaps a bit earlier. If literal truth was considered at all by earlier theologians, it came in third, behind allegorical/symbolic truth, and moral message.
.

You might enjoy reading this:
.
The World's Most Dangerous Book
by Alan Watts (1915-1973)
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/al...
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - The Founding Fathers

In response to Think About It posted by paper_turtle:
.
Religion had a similar effect on the Founding Fathers as it does on our leaders today. They had BETTER pay homage to the religion of the people--or else they don't get elected. Religionists have figured out that they can swing elections in one direction or the other. And, don't forget, when it comes to words (not his actions), George W. Bush sounds like he is a devout Christian who only wants to do the work of the Lord.
.
Gimmee-a-break! The man has an evil heart.
.
Pretty much, the founding of our society was based more on the ancient Greeks and some Enlightenment philosophers than it was on biblical text. Our society was formed as an experiment in self government which, a case can be made, stands against the ideas presented in Romans, Chapter 13. In fact, a case can be made that the United States represents a sort of a Tower of Babel in the sense that we are experimenting with self governance.
.
Don't base your arguments on the religiosity of the Founding Fathers too much.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - The Founding Fathers

In response to The Founding Fathers posted by pink101:

Pretty much, the founding of our society was based more on the ancient Greeks and some Enlightenment philosophers than it was on biblical text.

Yes--and that represents a particular view. My perception is that their view of the Bible is not that of those in politicak power at this time.

Don't base your arguments on the religiosity of the Founding Fathers too much.

I wasn't, and wouldn't. I said:

I would tend to think the Protestant view of the Bible shared by the Founding Fathers might have differed from that of those who chose to stay rather than venture to a new country.

and my point was that one's view of the Bible may be a decisive factor--especially to those seeking to formulate public policy or courses of action which impact society as a whole.

You wrote:
In fact, a case can be made that the United States represents a sort of a Tower of Babel in the sense that we are experimenting with self governance.

Well, I have an altogether different view of the significance of the tower of Babel (not saying yours is wrong, though). I see the story of the tower of Babel as a lesson in hubris. When people become too filled with their own importance, they lose the ability to communicate with others. I tend to look for personal, rather than universal messages in reading the Bible--since I can't change the world, but I can change myself, and that change **will** help change the world.

If I were to draw a parallel between modern political life and the tower of Babel, I would place Gee Dubya in the role of the one who ordered the tower built, and Dubya's henchmen as the architects. They aren't listening to the people--we might as well be speaking another language. And the politicians are all talking double-speak. Talk about babble!

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by pink101:

.
I understand what you've posted. But my reply had to do with Paper's suggestion of a possibility for sentience within DNA - relating to free will. That is, DNA, as a ~separate~ organism, having
- the ability to perceive the relationship between itself and its environment, developing a separate identity (self-consciousness)
- the ability of an organism to act with judgment (sapience)
- being capable of accessing and processing information (cognition)
- and DNA making a ~conscious~ decision to grow/change.
.
I'm not aware of any scientific evidence for this.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - PT & Migisi

.
It looks like we all tend to have a particular stand regarding the issues involved in this biblical story of the People of Babble.
.
And, it looks like we go in three different directions.
.
THAT does seem to represent what the story is all about, i.e., human beings leaning toward our own understandings instead of obedience to a line being handed down by some person of recognized authority.
.
The message seems to be, get in line or be cut off from God's good graces.
.
Are you scared yet?
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - PT & Migisi

In response to PT & Migisi posted by pink101:

THAT does seem to represent what the story is all about, i.e., human beings leaning toward our own understandings instead of obedience to a line being handed down by some person of recognized authority.
.
The message seems to be, get in line or be cut off from God's good graces.
.
Are you scared yet?

I just don't see that in the story.

The narrative begins with the people of Babel wanting "to make a name for ourselves; or we shall be dispersed over all the earth." (vs 4)

God sees what they are doing and sees that the people are "reacing" for the heavens. (vs 5). What I see God objecting to is not their ambition but their presumption. They want to be SOMEBODY, so that they can "lord it over" others. They aren't building something which will help all of humankind--or even their own people.

But suddenly the people are all speaking different languages. in vs 8 the story reports the people being dispersed--which means they have lost their sense of community and their group power.

But God didn't swoop down and crush them. he didn't rain fire and brimstone on them. As I read it, the people brought on their own negative consequences because of their puffed up attitude. I don' see it as being about questioning authority--that aspect isn't specifically mentioned at all, but fame is, and the desire for fame is what brings them down.

No, I'm not scared. I don't see this story as scary, at all.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle