Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Elixir]

Huh?

Poking at Learner. We are the result of 'inanimate' chemical reactions.

Sorry - I should have known. Where there is nonsense there are usually godders.

I have certainly derided your god sufficiently to show that either it doesn't intend to smite anyone, or it doesn't dare smite me.

There's another possibility: maybe his aim just really sucks.

 

[Learner]

Inanimate and animate are subjective terms at best when it comes to debate.

Clarification during a discussion is best, when using either word.

Natural 'inanimate' chemical reactions occur all the time.

So to clarify, do you mean:

Life comes from non-life material 'all the time' through chemical processes?

or

Do you mean life / living organisms produces new life/living organisms all the time, through chemical reactions?

( If life was like the flame of a candle for example, and in order to keep the flame alive. The candle has to light another candle before it burns out, which is continuously repeated in succession keeping the flame ever burning)

 

[Learner]

Huh?

Poking at Learner. We are the result of 'inanimate' chemical reactions.

Sorry - I should have known. Where there is nonsense there are usually godders.

But don't ignore the nonsense from the non-godders. We are all human after all.

I have certainly derided your god sufficiently to show that either it doesn't intend to smite anyone, or it doesn't dare smite me.

There's another possibility: maybe his aim just really sucks.

I think you maybe referring to Judgement day?
Patience fellas. Who knows it may just suddenly pop up.

 

[steve_bank]

Creationism, 2 steps forward 10 steps backwards.

 

[Learner]

Creationism, 2 steps forward 10 steps backwards.

Theist translation:

Creationist looks back taking two steps towards the scriptures of the past, ten steps back in awe while the future rapidly sneaks up behind him. Surprise I've returned sayeth the Lord!

 

[steve_bank]

The older I get the more Christianity sounds like a delusional illness.

 

[steve_bank]

Wasn't my intention, did I put the kibosh on Lerner et al?

 

[Janice Rael]

The older I get the more Christianity sounds like a delusional illness.

Forgiveness is no delusion. Kindness is no delusion. Perhaps you have yet to find the kind of Christianity you seek, @steve_bank . I recommend the album "Bible Belt Baby" by the effervescent, Grammy-nominated Flamy Grant.

The song "Esther, Ruth, and Rahab" is particularly important.

 

[steve_bank]

I am seeking no form of Christianity or religion.

I also pit no stock in pop music pseudo philosophy and mambo jumbo lyrics any more the Holy Babel.

Forgiveness as practiced by Christians, surely you must be joking.

One of the biggest problems with Christianity is the belief that their alleged basic principles like lke charity and forgiveness are exclusive to Christians, which they are not. Historically Christian forgiveness love, and charity are selective.

I contrast Buddhism at its core is universal empathy for all life. It has a set of clear moral and ethical conduct.Christianity has a bible of disjointed at ties contrfictory pasages that can be interpreted most any way, situtional ethics.

 

[Janice Rael]

It's no joke, steve.

 

[pood]

It's no joke, steve.

I was under the impression that you were an atheist.

In any event, Steve is right. Kindness and forgiveness can be practiced by anyone, with or without religion. Christianity, at least the evangelical flavor, makes kindness and forgiveness much harder to practice.

 

[Janice Rael]

What difference does it make what I "am" or what I believe? I'm a week away from homeless, who gives a shit.

Steve did not say that forgiveness was able to be practiced by anyone. He said "Forgiveness as practiced by Christians, surely you must be joking."

I said it was no joke.

It is slightly horriific that you can't speak to me unless I am "an atheist."

Forgiveness and kindness are taught by Christians to Christians, and practiced by Christians.

Just because some forum posters do not use the word "some" does not mean that some people do not do this, or that I am mistaken, incorrect, misleading, or wrong.

I am not the one who sees groups as monoliths. If I make a blanket assertion and you do not understand sarcasm, that's not my fault. I'd be delighted to explain.

Hi, I'm Janice, and you're wrong.

Hi, I'm Janice, and we are both wrong.

Prove me wrong. You can't. I'm right.

I learned logic and reason here on IIDB and I carry things out to their logical conclusions. Why don't you guys do that?

 

[pood]

It is slightly horriific that you can't speak to me unless I am "an atheist."

Um … did I say that I can’t speak to you unless you are an atheist? No, I did not.

Yes, some Christians practice kindness and forgiveness, some don’t. Just like everyone else.

I am sorry about the homeless bit. I’m hoping that is sarcasm or a joke of some kind.

 

[steve_bank]

It's no joke, steve.

It is important to know who I am speaking to. When I say atheist I mean atheist without equivocation.

Gay, straight, religious, atheist, man,woman, black, white or brown I do not care. What I want to know is who somebody is.

I think most of op culture is a joke. , so when you say I should listen to a song I laugh.

Life is a carnival... 'we are all in the same boat ready to float off the end of the world'. An important life changing philosophy.