Chickenpox Lollipops

[molly bloom]

:sigh:

Intelligence wouldn't mean anything even if you had it.

Coming from you, that's truly humbling. I'm sorry, I was kidding.

I meant ironic.

I recall that you belief in the theory of evolution.

Well done. Is that your long term or short term memory you're relying upon ?

According to that theory the human brain evolved just as the rest of the body, in a way that helped the species to survive.

A bit short on details.

No doubt the human brain is intelligent you simpleton.

Oooh, Mr. Potty Mouth is off the leash again! I think that people may be intelligent, and that intelligence is something that can be measured and is certainly related to the normal functioning of certain areas of human brains.

Try again

Could you be more specific ?

Can you think how you want

How I want 'what' ? Or 'how' I want ?

or is your thinking determined bysomething like nature?

You mean, if I'm lacking food, then the sensation of want or lack in my stomach triggers a sensation in my brain/mind that I should feed myself ?

Or did you have something more abstract in mind ? (Hard for me to write that and keep a straight face)

Feel free to expand upon this and any other topic that keeps you occupied and out of harm's way.

A votre sante!

[Kidlicious]

Mkay

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not lost, just not terribly interesting or relevant to me.

Well it is kind of important when talking about how the Old Testament relates to the New. Unless you find that not interesting - in which case bringing up anything in the Old Testament is fairly useless and, yes, ignorant on your part.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone, least of all 'believers'. I'm not a missionary for atheism and don't go about proseltyzing or invoking Darwin, Dawkins or Huxley.

It doesn't seem like you aren't trying to persuade anyone...

I prefer to shed a little light upon the shadows of unreason and ignorance. Better to light a candle than complain of the darkness... ;

I don't see many here complaining about the "darkness". Besides there is only so much light which can be shed upon the greatest mysteries & reason is not the be all and end all. I'd argue that our total dependance on reason to answer all of our questions has left us seriously deficient or ignorant of the greater questions (and something dear to your own heart, I'd imagine, it's led a lot of people to question the worth and value of the humanities - since they have little to do with reason).

[molly bloom]

Mkay

Possibly the most sensible thing you've written in weeks.

[molly bloom]

Well it is kind of important when talking about how the Old Testament relates to the New. Unless you find that not interesting - in which case bringing up anything in the Old Testament is fairly useless and, yes, ignorant on your part.

The Old Testament was used as a source for 'confirmation' of later occurrences- so all that silliness about supposed Roman censuses, so that Jesus could be born in a particular place to make sure an earlier prophecy came true. Having a lineage supposedly coming from King David might be dandy, but if God is meant to be the child's father isn't it irrelevant ?

It doesn't seem like you aren't trying to persuade anyone...

I'm not. Believe what you like- you seem to. It's not as if faith is open to logic or reason.

I don't see many here complaining about the "darkness".

Here I was thinking your new motto was 'Let the mystery be.' Thank goodness for humankind that doctors and physicists and chemists and biologists didn't take that oparticularly unenlightening option.

Besides there is only so much light which can be shed upon the greatest mysteries & reason is not the be all and end all

If you're investigating or questioning the unthinking acceptance of supposed miracles its a pretty good tool. The Hebrews didn't understand microbes, bacteria or viruses, skin diseases were mostly undifferentiated, and mental illness was all much of a muchness. Even in the 20th Century, well meaning Catholic exorcists were responsible for the death of a woman with epilepsy and paranoid schizophrenia. So now we're meant to be believe the Hebrews could tell the difference between catalepsy or catatonic shock and death.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This leaves out too the propagandistic nature of the Old and New Testaments- let's not pretend they're unbiased documents taking down historical events like some kind of disinterested video camera.

I'd imagine, it's led a lot of people to question the worth and value of the humanities - since they have little to do with reason

If people cannot see beyond immediate results or profits that's their failing. Someone who can seriously utter nonsense like there's no such thing as society, only people, is the kind of person who can wander into the Sahara and say- 'there's no such thing as a desert, only sand'.

Then die of thirst and exposure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Old Testament was used as a source for 'confirmation' of later occurrences- so all that silliness about supposed Roman censuses, so that Jesus could be born in a particular place to make sure an earlier prophecy came true. Having a lineage supposedly coming from King David might be dandy, but if God is meant to be the child's father isn't it irrelevant?

Considering how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy and the conclusion of Isreal's story and the beginning of a Kingdom of God, it is highly relevant.

Here I was thinking your new motto was 'Let the mystery be.' Thank goodness for humankind that doctors and physicists and chemists and biologists didn't take that oparticularly unenlightening option.

I am glad that most Christians thoughout history didn't take the silly dualistic view that atheists seem to have that you can only be for science or for religion and that God's mystery (the why) precludes research into the how.

If people cannot see beyond immediate results or profits that's their failing.

My point exactly.

[The Mad Monk]

He's forgetting that Mary's lineage is through David, as well.

[Kidlicious]

Possibly the most sensible thing you've written in weeks.

You really are a very good troll, and persistant too.

[molly bloom]

Considering how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy and the conclusion of Isreal's story and the beginning of a Kingdom of God, it is highly relevant.

Only if you're a Christian of the Pauline persuasion.

I am glad that most Christians thoughout history didn't take the silly dualistic view that atheists seem to have that you can only be for science or for religion and that God's mystery (the why) precludes research into the how.

You yourself prefer to believe that a friend's ailment was cured 'miraculously'. That's what I call silly.

I could discourse on the way that illness has been seen since the days of the Old Testament and throughout Christianity's evolution, but what would be the point ?

My point exactly.

It was ?

He's forgetting that Mary's lineage is through David, as well.

No, I'm not. It's all quite unhistorical, in any case. And yes, we do know the dates of Roman censuses and where they took place and why.

You really are a very good troll, and persistant too.

I kan spel rele gudd twu.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only if you're a Christian of the Pauline persuasion.

Christians of Gospel persuasion tend to be very much into Jesus being the fulfillment of Scripture.

You yourself prefer to believe that a friend's ailment was cured 'miraculously'. That's what I call silly.

That is fine. I believe your hyper-rationality is silly. So, impasse.

It was ?

Indeed, if people cannot see beyond immediate results or profits that's their failing. If you can't see how that couldn't be said by a believer than you aren't thinking hard enough.

[molly bloom]

That is fine. I believe your hyper-rationality is silly. So, impasse.

It's not 'hyper-' anything. Just a preference for science and reason over mumbo jumbo, superstition and 'miracles'.

If you can't see how that couldn't be said by a believer than you aren't thinking hard enough.

Oh my. Tender in your old age, aren't you?

'Twas but a jest.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how it is rational to preclude other possibilities when something does not look to be explained by the default hypothesis.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Only if you're a Christian of the Pauline persuasion.

Which is 99.9+ % of all Christians.

I could discourse on the way that illness has been seen since the days of the Old Testament and throughout Christianity's evolution, but what would be the point ?

Why should the Bible focus on physical illness (other than some suggestions to uninformed people to bless them), when it is about spiritual things (spiritual illness)?

Why should we be surprised that peoples understanding of such things has changed through out history. Does God ever claim to give 'every little detail about physical illness in every way'?

As far as that goes, even in spiritual things, Paul and Christ say that we don't have all the little details. That most of what is in the New Testament is milk... not the meat but what is appropriate for babies.

I can't see how you can maintain that you have approached religion in a rational manner at all.

JM

[Dr Strangelove]

Lollipop anyone?

[molly bloom]

Why should the Bible focus on physical illness (other than some suggestions to uninformed people to bless them), when it is about spiritual things (spiritual illness)?

Erm, because illness was frequently depicted as being a punishment from God. Remember the plagues in Egypt ? The dead Assyrians ?

I can't see how you can maintain that you have approached religion in a rational manner at all.

Your hard cheese.