Amos

The "nakedness with shame" is to be juxtaposed with "naked without shame" in Gen.2. The difference between shame and no shame is the creation of the ego (here called Adam) upon the Tree of Knowledge. So from this time forward we have two identities, first man and second our ego. Because of this dual identity we are banned from the TOL and must be redeemed before we can return to Eden and eat from the TOL. When we do Revelation will have come to pass and we will be eternal and therefore live forever. To be eternal means to take up residence in our eternal mind (which is the TOL) and reside there until the second death do us part.

So nakedness itself is not evil but the shame it brings is evidence of our dual identity behind which we can hide and that is the evil part.

happyboy

amos...wow! so the bible is all symbolism? so other religions that preach much the same message are ALSO from your God? wow!

happyboy

Amos

Ours is the greatest because we created him that way.

By this I mean to employ the parable of the talents but this is not the place to do it (God forbid I would make believers out of you heathens).

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Duvenoy

Uh-huh.

doov

Amos

Show me a greater one. Just look at the beautiful inspirations he left behind or are they just freaks of nature.

excreationist

Maybe... but just remember that it is not called the "Tree of Knowledge" in Genesis - it is called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

WWSD

What? LOL Amos, what sort of nefarious purpose would those stones have, if they were to have a purpose, that we should be thanking god they do not have?

Classic, Amos, classic. You, my friend, are now my personal favorite theist of all time, if we can actually call you a theist.

E_muse

Well, the burden is upon you to demonstrate that this position is rationally tenable.

Ahh, gnosticism yes?

When I look in on myself I discover... me! I've no reason to accept that it is anything more or anything less.

Oh, I don't count myself as an intellectual.

Well, in science, nature is the term applied to all that exists, including all organisms, which include, of course, human beings. The totality of all that can be examined via the scientific method. Of course it has other more colloquial meanings too.

I agree that the term 'selection' seems synominous with conscious choice or informed decision. However, this doesn't make the term, 'natural selection' an oxymoron but rather an example of an anthropomorphism. Where a human characterisitc is being placed on something non-human.

If it is any easier we can replace the term 'selection' with 'sieving'. Natural sieving. This is essentially what Dawkins means by 'natural selection' and goes on to give examples of unconscious sieving in The Blind Watchmaker.

Here you are separating 'life forms' from 'nature'. Are you suggesting that life forms are unnatural? Surely they are a part of nature?

Well firstly, that's a big if!

According to Dawkins living organisms are driven by their genes to survive and nothing more. They have no ultimate purpose and merely impress us with the 'illusion' of design and planning.

No, I don't agree. Once again you are separating 'life forms' from 'nature'. If life forms are not a part of nature then they are not natural and are therefore unnatural.

Are you asking us to believe that life is unnatural?

Yes, but to you life forms are not a part of nature (which is negative) and are therefore unnatural which doesn't give me a great deal of confidence about anything you are saying.

Yes, I know. This is the point I was making. You're simply repeating it back to me. BTW, aren't things produced as a result of intelligence also the result of natural forces at work?

So now you're agreeing that unconscious sorting of stones is natural selection. Earlier you described it as an oxymoron. I'm saying that it is an anthropomorphism that can be replaced with 'natural sieving'.

Well, I won't call it that. I'll call it an anthropomorphism, the definition of which is, "Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena."

Firstly, this is a fallacious arguement because when a chameleon changes its colours it is not changing its genetic make-up. It's genetic make-up allows it to change colour on demand.

Secondly, you can only say this on the basis of observing organisms whose 'design' is favourable under a given set of conditions. What about those whose 'design' is not favourable? Why have large numbers of species become extinct if changes are always to favour adaption to suit circumstances?

If there is an (intelligent) creator within the species then why are large numbers of species simply wiped out?

How do you explain cancer for example? The sign of the intelligent creator at work within the species? What does this say about the creator?

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Duvenoy

There is no such thing as a 'freak of nature.' Two headed animals don't last long and have no impact upon the species as a whole. On the other hand, some genetic varitions are beneficial to the species. Our large brains are an example (although it has yet to be proven that big thinking has any long-term, evolutionary value).

Methinks that man created God in his owm image, not t'other way 'round. Of course, some gods were given images that were much more interesting. Quetzacoatl, the Aztec Feathered Serpent comes to mind. But, for the most part, they were just like us. Indeed, they is us. Bummer.

doov

Amos

Sure either way. TOL and TOK. Bcause we are conscious in the TOK we know that we will die. This does not mean that without the TOK we would not die but only suggests that because of the TOK we will be consciously aware of death. The implied message here is that without the TOK we are eternal and so eternal life is when we place the TOK subservient to the TOL.