The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[MG 2.0]

Fixed it.

Have scientists explained the jump from inorganic matter to living cells? Organelles, cell wall, etc.?

Do you think it was random or not?

Regards,
MG

From a designer perspective how did life on earth start? Was it the result of the operation of natural laws and the right starting conditions (in the Big Bang)? Or was there an intelligent designer intervened to set the universe in motion, and then intervened again to begin life? If so, what exactly did that intelligent intervention produce and at what point? Did the intelligent designer start with self-replicating molecules and make them progressively more complex over the eons? Or did he/she/it instantly create algae, weeds, and trees, followed by fish and birds and dogs and bears and dinosaurs and insects and humans? In the past there was no barn owl and the next day, the intelligent designer introduced barn owls? The same question applies to every other species.

Not to get temple-y but this process, in it’s basic template-ic form is laid out pretty well in the LDS endowment ceremony. Need I say more? Hope not, because I won’t.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Oh, I know what you're saying. I'm asking you to justify it in any other way than that you extracted it from your nether regions. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Where do people come up with anything that they put to paper? And no, it’s not from where you insinuated.

They generally back it up with logic or citations. While you claimed to be doing both, you did neither.

You say, "God is purposefully inscrutable unless we seek His face. It’s all in the design. Bottom up."

This isn't backed up by anything but your bold assertion. You're pretending it's a basic law of creation and basing many of your arguments off it. it's nonsense. Even in Mormonism.

Morley, you are just one more person that I’ve talked to along the way that causes me a bit of consternation. I don’t understand how critics can be so close minded to those things they SAY they are open minded to. It comes back to my gut feeling that many critics are black and white thinkers, fundamentalist in their approach to the world, and are unwilling to think new thoughts or express their own views.

The same thing THEY accuse religionists of doing.

I'm not accusing any religionist of doing anything. I'm only talking to you. Asking you to justify your claims isn't black and white thinking. Calling you out when you misuse scripture isn't fundamentalist.

If you want to admit you pulled an idea out of the ether, I'm fine with that. But please don't BS everyone that it's logic or scripture--and then, when challenged, get huffy and self righteous.

[huckelberry]

From a designer perspective how did life on earth start? Was it the result of the operation of natural laws and the right starting conditions (in the Big Bang)? Or was there an intelligent designer intervened to set the universe in motion, and then intervened again to begin life? If so, what exactly did that intelligent intervention produce and at what point? Did the intelligent designer start with self-replicating molecules and make them progressively more complex over the eons? Or did he/she/it instantly create algae, weeds, and trees, followed by fish and birds and dogs and bears and dinosaurs and insects and humans? In the past there was no barn owl and the next day, the intelligent designer introduced barn owls? The same question applies to every other species.

Not to get temple-y but this process, in it’s basic template-ic form is laid out pretty well in the LDS endowment ceremony. Need I say more? Hope not, because I won’t.

Regards,
MG

MG,
This is the first time that I have encountered the suggestion that the puzzles about creation singular to Mormon teaching are clarified in the endowment. I have not become endowed so cannot say for sure but I really find it a stretch to think there is some secret explanation about creation that is not presented outside of the temple. I understand that various details of ritual and covenants are to be kept within the temple. I do not wish to find out such details.

My understanding , I think resting pretty close to center in traditional christian understanding is that the order of atomic structure and thus the possibilities of organic molecular formation are part of the foundational structure of Gods creation. Creation is the whole thing not adjustments to parts that would not work. As such evolution is a good description of how the variety of species develop. I do not know if a special intervention, a gardening type start, was necessary to get life going. The fundamental potential for life was built into the beginning.

Believers are naturally attracted to the puzzle of how life started. It might suggest miracle (a gardening type jump start) but it is clear to me that such is not possible to demonstrate. All the parts of organic life consist of natural combinations of atoms. It is possible that God set up the relationships in the beginning which came together for life by following the naturally occurring combinations.

Naturally the same block preventing us from seeing whether there was a miracle with the start of life prevents us from being sure that the whole picture of fine tuning is a miracle. It could be just the way things are and that is the final why ( perhaps without a creator God)

Myself I think the wonder of life in this universe is evidence of god because life growing out of nonlife is a sort of harmony with the idea that the ultimate order is life. I know full well that that is not proof. I find myself seeing this through the realization that I cannot know if God exists. My idea of God rests on the holiness of our obligation to the world we live in. I find that of real value and would still be even if that reality turns out to be ultimately less personally concerned as traditional understanding of God. I do not live with any certainty of life after death. I do want to be responsible and responsive in the life I have.

[Rivendale]

From a designer perspective how did life on earth start? Was it the result of the operation of natural laws and the right starting conditions (in the Big Bang)? Or was there an intelligent designer intervened to set the universe in motion, and then intervened again to begin life? If so, what exactly did that intelligent intervention produce and at what point? Did the intelligent designer start with self-replicating molecules and make them progressively more complex over the eons? Or did he/she/it instantly create algae, weeds, and trees, followed by fish and birds and dogs and bears and dinosaurs and insects and humans? In the past there was no barn owl and the next day, the intelligent designer introduced barn owls? The same question applies to every other species.

Not to get temple-y but this process, in it’s basic template-ic form is laid out pretty well in the LDS endowment ceremony. Need I say more? Hope not, because I won’t.

Regards,
MG

So that is a hard pass by you? So the temple clarifies all those questions I have?

[Lem]

...Myself I think the wonder of life in this universe is evidence of god because life growing out of nonlife is a sort of harmony with the idea that the ultimate order is life. I know full well that that is not proof. I find myself seeing this through the realization that I cannot know if God exists. My idea of God rests on the holiness of our obligation to the world we live in. I find that of real value and would still be even if that reality turns out to be ultimately less personally concerned as traditional understanding of God. I do not live with any certainty of life after death. I do want to be responsible and responsive in the life I have.

Thank you for this, huckleberry, that was inspiring to read. I don't believe in a god, but I DO agree with you on "the holiness of our obligation to the world we live in," and that we have an obligation "to be responsible and responsive in the life [we] have."

Beliefs may differ, but I absolutely think all of us can come together regarding our obligation to care for our world and to respect the lives with which we have been gifted.

[MG 2.0]

You say, "God is purposefully inscrutable unless we seek His face. It’s all in the design. Bottom up."

Would you argue otherwise? Do you think God is fully accessible or partially accessible? This may help you understand where I’m coming from. I’m not preaching anything here that is not in harmony with the teachings of the church…to the best of my knowledge. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Oh, third choice. Do you believe God is accessible at all?

I’m operating under the assumption that you believe in the possibility of a creator God. If I have that wrong then I guess you can come up with a number four.

accessible = scrutable

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You say, "God is purposefully inscrutable unless we seek His face. It’s all in the design. Bottom up."

Would you argue otherwise? Do you think God is fully accessible or partially accessible? This may help you understand where I’m coming from. I’m not preaching anything here that is not in harmony with the teachings of the church…to the best of my knowledge. Correct me if I’m wrong.

i'm sure Morley can answer this better, but I thought what he was asking you was, where you get this?

You say, "God is purposefully inscrutable unless we seek His face. It’s all in the design. Bottom up."

This isn't backed up by anything but your bold assertion. You're pretending it's a basic law of creation and basing many of your arguments off it. it's nonsense. Even in Mormonism.

...I'm not accusing any religionist of doing anything. I'm only talking to you. Asking you to justify your claims isn't black and white thinking. Calling you out when you misuse scripture isn't fundamentalist.

If you want to admit you pulled an idea out of the ether, I'm fine with that. But please don't BS everyone that it's logic or scripture--and then, when challenged, get huffy and self righteous.

I don't see anything in your response that answers that.

[¥akaSteelhead]

MG 2.0

You're saying the reason God doesn't talk to us is that he is a hidden God and will only appear to those who fervently and sincerely seek him.

I'm saying that according to God's own Holy Books this is not true. That he seems to randomly talk to some individuals, who are, for instance, herding their father-in-law's sheep or participating in the stoning of saints.

Which is more likely, god plays hide and seek only appearing to one in a billion people or so, or those that claim to have seen god or either, lying, or delusional?

[¥akaSteelhead]

They have certainly explained far more aspects, and developed models through laboratory testing, and computer modeling than "on the third day..."

Ah come on..... on the 3rd day god created terrestrial plants. And on the 4th day the sun.


Wait
.
.
.
.

wut?

[¥akaSteelhead]

And lets not forget on the first day god's spirit moved upon the face of the waters, before the very stars whose fusion produced the oxygen needed to form water molecules were created.


I must admit I am confused.