Chickenpox Lollipops

[Kidlicious]

Calling someone stupid isn't false witness dummy.

[Kidlicious]

Supernatural means it can't be explained by the laws of nature; free will.

You continue to show how stupid you are and call people false witnesses for saying so.

[molly bloom]

Calling someone stupid isn't false witness dummy.

When you know they aren't, it is. A 'moron', by the way, is/was medically speaking:

A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

What medical training do you possess in order to be able to classify me as a 'moron' ? Just curious.

[molly bloom]

Supernatural means it can't be explained by the laws of nature; free will.

I believe I am fully cognizant of the meaning of supernatural. You have not explained how free will is not a natural phenomenon. Simply repeating your illogical assertions is not an explanation, it's just ill-thought out repetition.

You continue to show how stupid you are and call people false witnesses for saying so.

Please see previous reply. Or not...

[Kidlicious]

Read the definition again moron. I don't have to do the explaining, you do.

[molly bloom]

Read the definition again moron.

Could you try to expand your lexicon ? This is getting stale, very quickly. If you're hoping to provoke me, it's not working.

I don't have to do the explaining, you do.

When you make an utterly nonsensical link between what you call 'materialism', the 'supernatural' and 'free will', then simply asserting and repeating illogical phrases is not explication, but perhaps a sign of a reduction in cerebral processing skills.

Consider seeing a doctor- you might have suffered a cerebral insult, or have a lesion on part of your brain.

[Kidlicious]

Incredible. I mean as defined in a dictionary. Incredible.

[Lorizael]

As much as it pains me to do so, I am forced to agree with Kidicious here. Without a supernatural component, the concept of free will is meaningless. You can say that we are free to act within the sandbox of the laws of physics, except that we are not some child who has jumped into the sandbox; we're the sand.

If we make decisions with our brains, and our brains are made up of neurons, then what part of us is it that is making a decision? Neurons don't make decisions about whether they should fire or not. If the electric potential across their surface reaches a certain level, they will fire, and no amount of free will will stop them from doing so.

[Elok]

We probably don't, but if people can avoid feeling insulted at least theres potential for interesting debate.

Potentially, but generally nothing comes of it.

That one usually makes my heckles go up, but its primarily because it is regularly used as a shallow attack rather than as a real discussion point. When its an honest question or view, its actually quite fascinating, when it's just a jab thats usually followed by 'Stalin and Hitler were athiests' (which isn't even true in Hitlers case) then it just gets insulting.

Well, at least you can relate.

They had their battles, but for centuries the church was the natural home of the intelligensia.

Yes, because in the old days theology was the "queen of sciences," or some such, and most of the smart people beelined straight for seminary. In this age, Thomas Aquinas would probably have learned astrophysics or something. Also, education (and literacy) is now available for basically everyone, and the Protestant Reformation has nearly abolished the idea of theological expertise, at least in some circles. Result: a mixed bag of actual theologians, albeit of varying abilities, and a bunch of self-appointed know-nothing preachers.

Which brings me to a reason I didn't address clearly--though there was a lot of overlap between my reasons. The battle is invariably fought on your turf, with us on the defensive. The dominant...oh, what do you call, it, the dominant means for talking about the world in our age is the scientific one, which I have no quarrel with (I imagine you can get hostile very quickly if you argue with those who do, if only out of frustration). To the extent that I think about it at all, I accept evolution, the big bang, etc. I simply believe that those are not the whole picture. I imagine you don't either, that you ground your conception of ethics in humanism or some sort of philosophical construct--but that doesn't even come into play. The argument's always about God and how He doesn't fit into a scientific, naturalistic worldview which deliberately excludes Him from consideration. If we're always defending, can you blame us for getting defensive?

[Elok]

Lori, I already brought this up with Ken. See his post 280:

I'm struggling with that one myself to be honest. When you break it down like that, you could actually argue that everything was predetermined. Without knowing how the universe came into being though, where do you go from there?

[Lorizael]

Ah. Well then. The answer to that, of course, is to join my cult!

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the Old and New Testaments we have a supernatural being who can supposedly part the Red Sea, cause the sun to stand still (with no discernible side effects for the Earth) cause a world-wide flood, raise the dead, transmute water into alcohol, cause genocide by germ warfare, et cetera.

In the modern era we have people claiming that their illnesses have been 'cured'.

What is your point here? Obviously in Scripture there is some exaggeration, but they are based on actual events (at least IMO). Maybe it isn't the "Ten Commandments" style, but I do believe in some divine intervention in the crossing of the Sea for the Isrealities, and a Deity that exists outside of time can control it. I believe in a localized flood rather than a worldwide one, but not necessarily for wickedness of humanity. I believe that Jesus raised Lazuras from the dead and was Himself raised. I believe he transmuted water into alcohol at Cana.

And I believe that some people have had illnesses cured. It doesn't happen all the often, but it does occur. You may call it whatever you wish.

Currently. We are always learning and re-learning.

Praise God! He has created such wonders in the human brain that we can discover things and go back and find things that we have already discovered, sometimes through what is called serendipity, though I doubt it is merely some accident.

I credit the human mind and the human brain and evolution.

All created by the Almighty God.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which brings me to a reason I didn't address clearly--though there was a lot of overlap between my reasons. The battle is invariably fought on your turf, with us on the defensive. The dominant...oh, what do you call, it, the dominant means for talking about the world in our age is the scientific one

A product of modernist thinking, which everything can be reduced to reason and reason can provide an answer to everything. It is why I welcome postmodernism, which rallies against the idea that everything can be answered and has a place for mystery. You can also where it may be used in our faith (it is why the Orthodox Church is very highly looked upon by Postmodern Christians), and also the conflict points (ie, philosophers who aren't into meta-narratives or don't believe in any objective truth don't fit all that well into Christian faith - but one doesn't have to agree with people on EVERYTHING).

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ah. Well then. The answer to that, of course, is to join my cult!

ahhh... no... the answer is to join MY cult!

[Kidlicious]

Ah. Well then. The answer to that, of course, is to join my cult!

Do you even have a beard?