The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[huckelberry]

sorry, accidental duplicate,,,

[MG 2.0]

Not necessarily. It’s possible, sure. I have family, friends, and associates who have either left the church or gone inactive. I would not say that they have “lost their morals”.

They may have a different moral compass, however.

Marcus, you sure seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder. And you come across as being young and angry.

Regards,
MG

Might I suggest that we all drop any references to each others' putative mental states, and discuss ideas rather than people or personalities, or supposed emotions.

Sure, that can be suggested. I don’t think I went off the rails with my comment and question to Marcus, however. So no retraction.

It’s been an interesting thread. I’ve enjoyed sharing and receiving different perspectives in regards to the topic. This post of mine you are referencing to was a ‘one off’. The poster’s posting style seems a bit juvenile as though we might be hearing from a young person who seems to have an ax to grind against members of the LDS faith.

But I could be wrong. But it does SOUND that way.

By the way, malkie, there have been a whole bunch of threads where I’ve been psychoanalyzed and had my emotional status judged and confirmed by so called experts. Didn’t see you step in there.

Why is that?

Anyway, have a good day sir.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Might I suggest that we all drop any references to each others' putative mental states, and discuss ideas rather than people or personalities, or supposed emotions.

Sure, that can be suggested. I don’t think I went off the rails with my comment and question to Marcus, however. So no retraction.

It’s been an interesting thread. I’ve enjoyed sharing and receiving different perspectives in regards to the topic. This post of mine you are referencing to was a ‘one off’. The poster’s posting style seems a bit juvenile as though we might be hearing from a young person who seems to have an ax to grind against members of the LDS faith.

But I could be wrong. But it does SOUND that way.

By the way, malkie, there have been a whole bunch of threads where I’ve been psychoanalyzed and had my emotional status judged and confirmed by so called experts. Didn’t see you step in there.

Why is that?

Anyway, have a good day sir.

Regards,
MG

What Malkie suggests is always a good idea.

The primary source of derails is playing the person instead of the ball.

But it is not a derail under the rules because, by policy, a poster’s motives are on topic.

My alcohol consumption has increased 62% since I became a moderator.

Carry on!

[malkie]

Might I suggest that we all drop any references to each others' putative mental states, and discuss ideas rather than people or personalities, or supposed emotions.

Sure, that can be suggested. I don’t think I went off the rails with my comment and question to Marcus, however. So no retraction.

It’s been an interesting thread. I’ve enjoyed sharing and receiving different perspectives in regards to the topic. This post of mine you are referencing to was a ‘one off’. The poster’s posting style seems a bit juvenile as though we might be hearing from a young person who seems to have an ax to grind against members of the LDS faith.

But I could be wrong. But it does SOUND that way.

By the way, malkie, there have been a whole bunch of threads where I’ve been psychoanalyzed and had my emotional status judged and confirmed by so called experts. Didn’t see you step in there.

Why is that?

Anyway, have a good day sir.

Regards,
MG

I may or may not have noticed the threads you are referring to.

If I have not defended you against similar attacks, I may or may not have felt I had a good reason - I really don't remember - and I apologise if I have been remiss in this respect. You seem to do a fair bit of self-justification in any case, as you have here.

Although I quoted you in my comment, you'll see that I didn't suggest that you alone take any action.

Anyway, enough of the nannying on my part.

[Jersey Girl]

I’m puzzled by why you think evidence is important on the question of the existence of God.

In a society/world that has increasingly become more secular, evidence that gives a scientific opening for God will appeal to a certain segment of those who have been swayed/raised towards/in a strictly secular humanist philosophical view in regards to life’s meaning and purpose. Merely pushing a Bible into their hands may not do it.

Since when has pushing a Bible into someone's hands ever opened the door to faith in God?

[honorentheos]

I have my own style of posting.

Vacuous is a posting style now?

No lunch with Honor. That’s a disappointment.

Regards,
MG

There's certainly a way to remedy that, and I believe it's a more excellent way to borrow a phrase. Just take some time to actually internalize knowledge about a subject before posting, including knowledge of direct challenges to the source you found, and avoid the appeal-to-authority postings. Fortunately for you, style is cosmetic. Form is fundamental.

[Rivendale]

If that was truly the case we wouldn’t be having this conversation, right?

Faith will ALWAYS be necessary if God has purposed this world as such.

I don’t see scientific exploration as being the know all end all.

But it’s kind’a cool.

Regards,
MG

Sorry, The Good was supposed to be God. Damn, I must have purchased an atheist phone.

You kinda lost me there. If I had looked at the professors argument and concluded “yep, by golly it is impossible for life to occur without God,” I’d absolutely change my position. I’d be an idiot not to.

But that fellow wasn’t even close. And I don’t know what you’ve read and what you haven’t, but the “not enough time” argument was also used with evolution. The main problem with the argument is that it assumes we have complete knowledge about how the process works. The discovery of horizontal gene transfer completely changed our understanding of the rate of genetic change.

Speaking of which, I read a great book called The Tangled Tree. It’s about three discoveries that modified our understanding of how evolution works: the recognition of Archea as a separate domain, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer, and the role of symbiosis in evolution. But the most interesting part to me is the authors description of the family tree. As one goes down the trunk, it changes into a chaotic patch of brambles. It’s almost a if there was all kinds of different life appearing and disappearing if multiple fits and starts, with one of the contenders finally winning out and becoming the lowest part of the trunk. So, s as of now, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the first live organism from which we all descended. It also raises the possibility that the transition from not life to life over many different times. Interesting stuff.

We agree on science being kinda cool. I’m not sure I think of it as a be all out and all, just an imperfect but pretty darn good tool for figuring out life, the universe, and everything.

Dawkins describes evolution as a tangled bush rather than a tree. Interestingly enough 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. That is some really fine tuned processes.

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, evolution isn’t tuned to anything. It’s random change and non random selection. Re run the earth’s history, and its unlikely that we’d observe the same species we do today. Or that Homo sapiens would be here to observe anything.

[Rivendale]

Yeah, evolution isn’t tuned to anything. It’s random change and non random selection. Re run the earth’s history, and its unlikely that we’d observe the same species we do today. Or that Homo sapiens would be here to observe anything.

Rewind history and we would still discover the laws of physics but what do you think the chances that Mormonism surfaces?

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, evolution isn’t tuned to anything. It’s random change and non random selection. Re run the earth’s history, and its unlikely that we’d observe the same species we do today. Or that Homo sapiens would be here to observe anything.

Rewind history and we would still discover the laws of physics but what do you think the chances that Mormonism surfaces?

Oh Man. So many contingent events. Maybe The year without a summer never happens and the Smith family never leaves Vermont. Joseph becomes a maple syrup magnate, and instead of a log cabin, his smiling face is on bottles of Maple Syrup. The possibilities are endless.