What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?

[William]

Here is a poor version of the theory.  I haven't found the good one again.
http://lewismicropublishing.com/Microblogishing/index.php?/archives/38-The-Earth-as-a-Macro-Biotic-Organism.html

Thanks for the link. I think the author is mostly on solid ground - maybe sailing a little to close to the wind of a metaphysical explanation - or at least giving the reader a gap to go that way.

The article doesn't deal with the deeper implications of over 3.5 billions of years of evolution. During that time new species have emerged and existing species have become extinct. New species have not only adapted to what was there and developed inter-dependencies, but have also many times destroyed some of what was there before, even their own food sources.  The history of life on earth is riddled with overkill, pathogens, displacement, invasive plants stealing habitat from other plants, etc.

Sometimes extinction matters, sometimes it doesn't.  When the last thylacine died nothing dramatic happened to the rest of the planet. But if bees get wiped out by a disease we'll be in big shit.

The web of connectedness is incomplete, precarious, and messy (just as we'd expect if there is no designer).  It's compelling evidence that life on earth is not one single complex organism - rather its a battlefield of competition between many organisms, fighting each other to the maximum extent of their own current limitations, parasiting each other wherever they can.

The "harmony" we see in ecosystems is not a sign of goodwill and peace on earth - it's just equilibrium in long-standing ongoing battles for survival.
 

I like the theory because it fits with the laws of nature found here:
http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

Yes it does fit - if you leave out an interfering deity 

[SkyWriting]

Here is a poor version of the theory.  I haven't found the good one again.
http://lewismicropublishing.com/Microblogishing/index.php?/archives/38-The-Earth-as-a-Macro-Biotic-Organism.html

Thanks for the link. I think the author is mostly on solid ground - maybe sailing a little to close to the wind of a metaphysical explanation - or at least giving the reader a gap to go that way.

The article doesn't deal with the deeper implications of over 3.5 billions of years of evolution. During that time new species have emerged and existing species have become extinct. New species have not only adapted to what was there and developed inter-dependencies, but have also many times destroyed some of what was there before, even their own food sources.  The history of life on earth is riddled with overkill, pathogens, displacement, invasive plants stealing habitat from other plants, etc.

Sometimes extinction matters, sometimes it doesn't.  When the last thylacine died nothing dramatic happened to the rest of the planet. But if bees get wiped out by a disease we'll be in big shit.

The web of connectedness is incomplete, precarious, and messy (just as we'd expect if there is no designer).  It's compelling evidence that life on earth is not one single complex organism - rather its a battlefield of competition between many organisms, fighting each other to the maximum extent of their own current limitations, parasiting each other wherever they can.

The "harmony" we see in ecosystems is not a sign of goodwill and peace on earth - it's just equilibrium in long-standing ongoing battles for survival.
 

I like the theory because it fits with the laws of nature found here:
http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

Yes it does fit - if you leave out an interfering deity 

He does fit.  He stopped Creating.  Everything is going downhill now until cold death.

[nogodsforme]

^^^That sounds like a Deist god. He made everything, and then left. We are on our own, just like if there had never been a god.

[SkyWriting]

^^^That sounds like a Deist god. He made everything, and then left. We are on our own, just like if there had never been a god.

According to the scriptures, we had an ego problem and abandoned God.
You might even know people with ego problems and can  imagine them
not wanting to have anything to do with Heaven, eternal life, and all that.

[Astreja]

According to the scriptures, we had an ego problem and abandoned God.

Funny thing, that -- In every version of the book of Genesis I've ever read, it was your god that tossed Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden.  It doesn't sound like A&E abandoned your god; it sounds more like they got disowned for not passing a test that they didn't have sufficient knowledge to pass until they had already failed it.

You might even know people with ego problems and can  imagine them not wanting to have anything to do with Heaven, eternal life, and all that.

I don't see the connection between an "ego problem" and lack of interest in eternal life.  Wouldn't the desire to live forever, wanting one's ego to live on and on and on, be more indicative of egotism?

[ParkingPlaces]

I don't see the connection between an "ego problem" and lack of interest in eternal life.  Wouldn't the desire to live forever, wanting one's ego to live on and on and on, be more indicative of egotism?

Right on, Astreja!  My desire to die without wistfully hoping that I get to continue existing on some other plane, for, like, you know, all of eternity, does not an egotistical maniac make.

Let me go +1 you, post haste!

[The Gawd]

I don't see the connection between an "ego problem" and lack of interest in eternal life.  Wouldn't the desire to live forever, wanting one's ego to live on and on and on, be more indicative of egotism?

Not to mention the whole, "the universe in its entirety was made for us fur-less apes..." shtick.

The notion is laughable.

[screwtape]

According to the scriptures, we had an ego problem and abandoned God.

?  Oh really?  What was that ego problem exactly?  Enough the with cryptic answers.  Say exactly and fully what you mean. 

I assume you are talking about the fall in Eden.  If so, there are at least three other problems with your assertion here.  First, it wasn't we.  I am not mentioned anywhere in "the scriptures".  Nor the gospels.  Nor any book in the bible.  Neither was anyone else here.

Second, if they had an ego problem, it was built in.  Why did yhwh build them with an ego problem. 

Third, They didn't abandon yhwh.  They may have disobeyed yhwh, but that is not the same as abandonment.  It is possible to disobey an authority figure without abandoning the relationship. 

You know, a lot of xians like to say the relationship between yhwh and Eve and her slow witted mate is a father- child relationship.  Except I don't know any fathers who kick their kids out of the house for the first thing they do wrong.  I don't understand why yhwh, if he is all powerful[1], didn't just undo the effects of the fruit and have a teaching moment. 

"Look, Eve, I asked you two to not eat this fruit.  It is bad for you because...being able to tell good from evil is something you are not ready for yet.  This was kind of my fault for leaving you alone with the serpent and leaving the Tree within your reach.  So, I'm giving the serpent a 50 year time out and I'm putting the Tree under a glass container you two cannot get through.  When you are ready for it, I'll remove the glass and you have have the fruit.  Until then please listen to me and please stop talking Adam into doing things he shouldn't be doing.  He's not as bright as you and it's not fair to get him in trouble with you.  Now, you two rascals go play."

Unfortunately, that's not yhwh.  yhwh has a zero-tolerance policy with death as the punishment.  Which makes no sense unless yhwh is not a just or particularly good deity.

1.	obviously yhwh as described in the OT is not all powerful

[jaimehlers]

He does fit.  He stopped Creating.  Everything is going downhill now until cold death.

Which fails to explain the instances of where things spontaneously come into existence (such as Hawking radiation, where 'virtual' particles become real).

The problem with your beliefs is that you're pointing to things that actually exist (like entropy) and trying to claim that they prove that things you believe are true, when in fact they don't.  The Genesis story is not the only attempt to explain how the universe came to be, or why we don't see new things spontaneously pop into existence, or whatever.  What makes your own creation story believable when these other creation stories aren't?

[nogodsforme]

^^^That sounds like a Deist god. He made everything, and then left. We are on our own, just like if there had never been a god.

According to the scriptures, we had an ego problem and abandoned God.
You might even know people with ego problems and can  imagine them
not wanting to have anything to do with Heaven, eternal life, and all that.

Yeah, that's what loving parents do when their kids act up. Abandon them and completely disappear, or kick them out of the house and never let them return, or let them run away from home and never look for them, and then send no messages or child support. And of course when everything goes to hell, take no responsibility whatsoever-- blame all subsequent crises on the "ego problems" of the kids.

Whether we left god or god left us, same end result. Either way, the universe operates as if there is no god. Leaving no clear evidence that there ever was a supreme being. God must really be in one holy snit!

[SkyWriting]

^^^That sounds like a Deist god. He made everything, and then left. We are on our own, just like if there had never been a god.

According to the scriptures, we had an ego problem and abandoned God.
You might even know people with ego problems and can  imagine them
not wanting to have anything to do with Heaven, eternal life, and all that.

Yeah, that's what loving parents do when their kids act up. Abandon them and completely disappear, or kick them out of the house and never let them return, or let them run away from home and never look for them, and then send no messages or child support. And of course when everything goes to hell, take no responsibility whatsoever-- blame all subsequent crises on the "ego problems" of the kids.

Whether we left god or god left us, same end result. Either way, the universe operates as if there is no god. Leaving no clear evidence that there ever was a supreme being. God must really be in one holy snit!

I have let my kid come back home many times.  When he starts smoking weed on the front porch, off he goes.  We even bought him an RV to sleep in the driveway.  He has left again with a car we bought him.  His boss called here the day before yesterday asking if he was going to show up and finish his work shift. We can't answer because he's 300 miles away.

While he is away, he hear's nothing from us, and gets no support. As it should be.
Loving and enabling are two different things.  Enabling is not love.

[nogodsforme]

^^^What? You let him return and live with you, buy him things, continue to help him out, once he began smoking weed on the porch?  The first time you caught your son disobeying you, say, at age 2, why didn't you kick him out and never let him return? That's what your god did--one strike, one sin, you're out! Or better yet, just drown the toddler in the bathtub. Clearly, he was a loser, evil, full of sin, even back then, right?   Why are you better than god?

And I am assuming that your kid is over 18, and has disobeyed you many times in his life. You are behaving like a responsible parent. You are a far better parent than the god you say you believe in, even if you yell at him and throw things at him all the time. At least you never killed him, along with all of his friends. 

You know that a human parent who acted anything like the god described in the bible would be locked up for abuse. Nobody would excuse their behavior the way you keep doing for your god. And we are just talking about the Eden story, not even the horror of drowning the entire world's population. Would you excuse a parent who drowned their kids for misbehaving-- would you say it was okay because the babies and toddlers didn't feel anything when they died? Isn't that how you let your god off the hook?

[jaimehlers]

A lot of Old Testament laws actually were along the lines of "one strike and you're out" (as in, you were in for being ritually executed).  Adultery, (girls) lying about virginity, (female) victims of rape, incest, (male) homosexuality), blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, apostasy, false prophecy, striking or cursing your parents, or even being excessively rebellious or stubborn, and a number of others.  No surprise considering Genesis 2-3.

[nogodsforme]

^^^ If SW followed the instructions in the bible, his stepson would be pushing up daisies. And he would be in jail. Nice religion. Thank goodness nobody really pays it much more than lip service. 

[SkyWriting]

A lot of Old Testament laws actually were along the lines of "one strike and you're out" (as in, you were in for being ritually executed).  Adultery, (girls) lying about virginity, (female) victims of rape, incest, (male) homosexuality), blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, apostasy, false prophecy, striking or cursing your parents, or even being excessively rebellious or stubborn, and a number of others.  No surprise considering Genesis 2-3.

Jesus came to fulfill the laws so we don't have to follow the OT punishments. 
We follow Gods laws out of Gratitude now.

[nogodsforme]

So is the stuff that the OT says is wrong still wrong today or not?  In the Middle Ages they were burning witches. What has changed? Not the bible.

Seems pretty convenient that nowadays (when most people think slavery is barbaric and stoning people for having sex is crazy) that the OT punishments suddenly don't have to be done. And where have all the witches gone?

[jaimehlers]

Jesus came to fulfill the laws so we don't have to follow the OT punishments. 
We follow Gods laws out of Gratitude now.

You'll have to excuse me if I find that to be extremely doubtful, given the historical behavior of Christians.  Even today, there are still Christians arguing that Old Testament punishments should be put into effect.

[SkyWriting]

Jesus came to fulfill the laws so we don't have to follow the OT punishments. 
We follow Gods laws out of Gratitude now.

You'll have to excuse me if I find that to be extremely doubtful, given the historical behavior of Christians.  Even today, there are still Christians arguing that Old Testament punishments should be put into effect.

I don't know the statistics on who follows what beliefs.  Every denomination has different traditions and I've not formally been in any of them.

[jdawg70]

Jesus came to fulfill the laws so we don't have to follow the OT punishments. 
We follow Gods laws out of Gratitude now.

I've asked this of other people and in other threads here, but I'm still really unclear on what it means to 'fulfill a law'.

SkyWriting, do you perhaps have a non-Jesus/non-god example of how a law can be 'fulfilled'?

I can obey a law.
I can disobey a law.
I can enact a law.
I can repeal a law.
How do I 'fulfill' a law?  I mean, I can 'fulfill' a contract, 'fulfill' a promise...but a law?  How does one 'fulfill' Don't cook lamb in milk?

Was this answered somewhere else and I just missed it?

[SkyWriting]

Jesus came to fulfill the laws so we don't have to follow the OT punishments. 
We follow Gods laws out of Gratitude now.

I've asked this of other people and in other threads here, but I'm still really unclear on what it means to 'fulfill a law'.

SkyWriting, do you perhaps have a non-Jesus/non-god example of how a law can be 'fulfilled'?

I can obey a law.
I can disobey a law.
I can enact a law.
I can repeal a law.
How do I 'fulfill' a law?  I mean, I can 'fulfill' a contract, 'fulfill' a promise...but a law?  How does one 'fulfill' Don't cook lamb in milk?

Was this answered somewhere else and I just missed it?

No, you hit the nail on the head.   Certain results are promised to us if we sin.  Not like laws that can be skirted, interpreted, or not well enforced.
God promised Adam that if he turned away and made his own choices, it was promised that he would die.  No doubt about it.   Jesus filled all those promises made in the old testament.  The "speeding tickets" that we all deserve for going one mile per hour over the speed limit...are all paid.

[Azdgari]

So he really fulfilled promise(s) about the law, rather than fulfilling the law itself.

That makes sense.

Why is it written in such a way that it doesn't make sense, though?  Jesus' words there should really be fixed to say what he really meant.

[SkyWriting]

So he really fulfilled promise(s) about the law, rather than fulfilling the law itself.

That makes sense.

Why is it written in such a way that it doesn't make sense, though?  Jesus' words there should really be fixed to say what he really meant.

Likely he spoke Armenian which has a particular cadence to it that makes it very difficult
to alter or forget.  It's very good for passing by word of mouth without error.  Part song and part rap. As I've read. 

AND that's not the language we read so not every word carries it's complete meaning.
Otherwise the Bible would just be one paragraph long.    Thanks Be we have a lot to work with.

[jdawg70]

So he really fulfilled promise(s) about the law, rather than fulfilling the law itself.

That makes sense.

Why is it written in such a way that it doesn't make sense, though?  Jesus' words there should really be fixed to say what he really meant.

The real question is why didn't SkyWriting just say it in a way that made sense.

Jesus filled all those promises made in the old testament.

Could you list some (ideally all) of those promises?

AND that's not the language we read so not every word carries it's complete meaning.
Otherwise the Bible would just be one paragraph long.    Thanks Be we have a lot to work with.

And the last thing we want is a lack of ambiguity and actual clarity on what the master of the universe wants.  Better to dress it all up in vague language, contradictory statements, and non-understandable, unverifiable claims wrapped around a long-winded, mythological-sounding narrative.

[jaimehlers]

God promised Adam that if he turned away and made his own choices, it was promised that he would die.

No, according to the Bible, he told Adam not to eat of the fruit of a specific tree and said that he would surely die if he did eat it.  Nothing about turning away, nothing about making his own choices.  Simply "don't eat this fruit, or you'll die".  Also, what about that suggests to you that Adam wouldn't have eventually died anyway, even if he didn't eat from the fruit?

It seems far more likely to me that it was simply an attempt by God to scare Adam into not eating the fruit.  Which, you may note, worked, since Adam didn't eat the fruit until he saw that Eve had eaten it and not died.  For that, God kicked them out of the garden and made them have to work to eat.  But nothing in there states that they would not have died if they had not eaten the fruit.

[SkyWriting]

So he really fulfilled promise(s) about the law, rather than fulfilling the law itself.

That makes sense.

Why is it written in such a way that it doesn't make sense, though?  Jesus' words there should really be fixed to say what he really meant.

The real question is why didn't SkyWriting just say it in a way that made sense.

Jesus filled all those promises made in the old testament.

Could you list some (ideally all) of those promises?

AND that's not the language we read so not every word carries it's complete meaning.
Otherwise the Bible would just be one paragraph long.    Thanks Be we have a lot to work with.

And the last thing we want is a lack of ambiguity and actual clarity on what the master of the universe wants.  Better to dress it all up in vague language, contradictory statements, and non-understandable, unverifiable claims wrapped around a long-winded, mythological-sounding narrative.

Once you stop doubting the message, everything clears right up.
In my experience.

[jaimehlers]

Once you stop doubting the message, everything clears right up.
In my experience.

And in my experience, doubt and questioning is the only way to avoid getting taken in by lies that are passed off as true.

[SkyWriting]

Once you stop doubting the message, everything clears right up.
In my experience.

And in my experience, doubt and questioning is the only way to avoid getting taken in by lies that are passed off as true.

I have no trouble spotting liars.  My wife has pictures of kids at school.
My record is 5 out of 7 for spotting the good kids and the bad from the
look on their faces.....in a photo.

[nogodsforme]

But you have a very bad track record of spotting lies in ancient written texts. Wonder why that is.

[caveat_imperator]

But you have a very bad track record of spotting lies in ancient written texts. Wonder why that is.

Maybe SW is lying. If doing that is good enough for jesus, it's good enough for us.