Why does science always upstage God?

[Haipule]

Atheists and theists: there is no verb in the autographed languages of Scripture that can possibly be translated as "create, creation, Creator". That comes from the Latin creatura and does not belong. All the verbs associated as such are all verbs of "make(life), form(Adam), build(Eve). The Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a false one.

Arguments between anti-theistic(I did not include atheists here) magic evolution and magic creation are then pointless. I'm sorry that the rest of the theists don't see it this way.

As a theist, I don't believe in creationism as the text does not support such an idea. I also don't believe in allegory as then it becomes an opinion. I am a literalist outside of the prison of theology which is purely man-made. And as a theist, I definitely want to know how God did it. I'm here and I all ears.

May I suggest that the mechanism of life is a simple matter(that's all I can do) matter of vacuum mechanics where God very naturally commanded the energy transference according to the principle of energy transference established by Einstein? If Jesus commanded and energy transference when He turned water into wine then...

[The Grand Nudger]

[polymath257]

Are they mixed with lipids in an environment that is, at best weakly oxidizing? Is there a significant amount of UV radiation impinging with alternating cycles of wetness and dryness? Are there claylike materials around to act like catalysts? Is the environment clear of other competing life? Are there iron sulfur materials around to help local oxidation?

I didn't think so.

Has creating such an environment resulted in life?

I didn't think so.  

No, but it does produce microspheres that encompass materials the catalyze basic reactions of life (like glucolysis). These microsphere will bud and split.

So while not life (yet), they are much closer than most people are aware.

[Abaddon_ire]

Atheists and theists: there is no verb in the autographed languages of Scripture that can possibly be translated as "create, creation, Creator". That comes from the Latin creatura and does not belong. All the verbs associated as such are all verbs of "make(life), form(Adam), build(Eve). The Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a false one.

Arguments between anti-theistic(I did not include atheists here) magic evolution and magic creation are then pointless. I'm sorry that the rest of the theists don't see it this way.

As a theist, I don't believe in creationism as the text does not support such an idea. I also don't believe in allegory as then it becomes an opinion. I am a literalist outside of the prison of theology which is purely man-made. And as a theist, I definitely want to know how God did it. I'm here and I all ears.

May I suggest that the mechanism of life is a simple matter(that's all I can do) matter of vacuum mechanics where God very naturally commanded the energy transference according to the principle of energy transference established by Einstein? If Jesus commanded and energy transference when He turned water into wine then...

No, you may not so suggest because then "god" is simply commanding something which would have happened anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except for the bit about how water doesn't automagically transmogrify into wine.  That's not a natural process that can be commanded to happen, least of which by "commanding energy transference" whatever the hell Hai thinks that means.

 

[Amarok]

So far we've seen that scientists can synthesize amino acids. That's it.

As far as you have seen . Because your ignorant and incurious .And no you fuck off with demands for papers . You have already shown it's lost on you. Go do your own homework.

[Whateverist]

That's surprising... to hear it told, it's as if the whole of that pesky OT was made allegory

That was actually done by the jews.  Two schools existed, alexandrian and palestinian, and both where what we now call allegorists.  They advanced, and importantly drew from the earliest preserved writings of the prophets, and we call the subtlely different systems mystical and typological respectively. 

Catholicism was made to re-assert the literal presumption of the narrative.  They have, over the centuries, negotiated with their constituency over that article, but as a matter of dogma catholocism insists that genesis is not allegory, particularly that a man and a woman were created, the first human beings rtom which we all descend (somehow), and through adam inherit our sin or sinful nature(somehow) - as well as the fallen state of this world(somehow).

Without this, literal, interpretation.  There is no need for christ, or for the rituals, cantrips, and magic spells of the catholic church then or now.

I have no reason to doubt you have the history right (nor am I possessed of enough fucks one way or another to check for myself).  But I still think there is room for self-identified Catholics and even the institution as a whole to make their way to an allegorical understanding of the resurrection and everything else.  In the end, those who remain religious as well as well educated, open and reflective will realize that all of it is allegorical.  I'm sure there are Catholic clergy now who hold their faith in that way.  They just have no scruples about talking down to those who need to hear them in literal fairy tales .

---

In short, they allow and provide support for catholics to -be- bad catholics, but they don't hesitate to re-assert their orthodoxy in official documentation.  Genesis is real history insomuch as the central mystery of catholicism is a fact even if they're not going to set anybody on a pile of twigs about it (anymore).  They don;t give a shit about the rest of the nutty christians literalist beliefs..those may not be true, under the bus they go........ but theirs infallibly are.

Cross their hearts, scouts honor, and no science can or will ever say anything to the contrary no matter the fact that all science says everything to the contrary.  Catholicism is batshit crazy biblical literalism...even if catholics aren't.

There you go, common ground.

---

Atheists and theists: there is no verb in the autographed languages of Scripture that can possibly be translated as "create, creation, Creator". That comes from the Latin creatura and does not belong. All the verbs associated as such are all verbs of "make(life), form(Adam), build(Eve). The Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a false one.

Arguments between anti-theistic(I did not include atheists here) magic evolution and magic creation are then pointless. I'm sorry that the rest of the theists don't see it this way.

As a theist, I don't believe in creationism as the text does not support such an idea. I also don't believe in allegory as then it becomes an opinion. I am a literalist outside of the prison of theology which is purely man-made. And as a theist, I definitely want to know how God did it. I'm here and I all ears.

May I suggest that the mechanism of life is a simple matter(that's all I can do) matter of vacuum mechanics where God very naturally commanded the energy transference according to the principle of energy transference established by Einstein? If Jesus commanded and energy transference when He turned water into wine then...

Or maybe the whole idea of creating/making any part of the natural world is simply a wrong turn.  Why does that matter?  Can't the idea of a god as an earlier, intrinsic, coexistent form of consciousness which sometimes has the capacity to enhance insight and make connections (or sometimes obstruct the same) be of enough significance to justify your interest?  Or maybe, like me, you just eventually realize there all the old forms of ritual just don't seem worth it.

Still, seen as a more primal/primitive form of consciousness you could feel gratitude for its willingness to stand aside and both make possible and allow the implementation of our conscious minds.  It's a stretch, granted, but it has to be better than being a literalist.

[Haipule]

That was actually done by the jews.  Two schools existed, alexandrian and palestinian, and both where what we now call allegorists.  They advanced, and importantly drew from the earliest preserved writings of the prophets, and we call the subtlely different systems mystical and typological respectively. 

Catholicism was made to re-assert the literal presumption of the narrative.  They have, over the centuries, negotiated with their constituency over that article, but as a matter of dogma catholocism insists that genesis is not allegory, particularly that a man and a woman were created, the first human beings rtom which we all descend (somehow), and through adam inherit our sin or sinful nature(somehow) - as well as the fallen state of this world(somehow).

Without this, literal, interpretation.  There is no need for christ, or for the rituals, cantrips, and magic spells of the catholic church then or now.

I have no reason to doubt you have the history right (nor am I possessed of enough fucks one way or another to check for myself).  But I still think there is room for self-identified Catholics and even the institution as a whole to make their way to an allegorical understanding of the resurrection and everything else.  In the end, those who remain religious as well as well educated, open and reflective will realize that all of it is allegorical.  I'm sure there are Catholic clergy now who hold their faith in that way.  They just have no scruples about talking down to those who need to hear them in literal fairy tales .

---

In short, they allow and provide support for catholics to -be- bad catholics, but they don't hesitate to re-assert their orthodoxy in official documentation.  Genesis is real history insomuch as the central mystery of catholicism is a fact even if they're not going to set anybody on a pile of twigs about it (anymore).  They don;t give a shit about the rest of the nutty christians literalist beliefs..those may not be true, under the bus they go........ but theirs infallibly are.

Cross their hearts, scouts honor, and no science can or will ever say anything to the contrary no matter the fact that all science says everything to the contrary.  Catholicism is batshit crazy biblical literalism...even if catholics aren't.

There you go, common ground.

---

Atheists and theists: there is no verb in the autographed languages of Scripture that can possibly be translated as "create, creation, Creator". That comes from the Latin creatura and does not belong. All the verbs associated as such are all verbs of "make(life), form(Adam), build(Eve). The Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a false one.

Arguments between anti-theistic(I did not include atheists here) magic evolution and magic creation are then pointless. I'm sorry that the rest of the theists don't see it this way.

As a theist, I don't believe in creationism as the text does not support such an idea. I also don't believe in allegory as then it becomes an opinion. I am a literalist outside of the prison of theology which is purely man-made. And as a theist, I definitely want to know how God did it. I'm here and I all ears.

May I suggest that the mechanism of life is a simple matter(that's all I can do) matter of vacuum mechanics where God very naturally commanded the energy transference according to the principle of energy transference established by Einstein? If Jesus commanded and energy transference when He turned water into wine then...

Or maybe the whole idea of creating/making any part of the natural world is simply a wrong turn.  Why does that matter?  Can't the idea of a god as an earlier, intrinsic, coexistent form of consciousness which sometimes has the capacity to enhance insight and make connections (or sometimes obstruct the same) be of enough significance to justify your interest?  Or maybe, like me, you just eventually realize there all the old forms of ritual just don't seem worth it.

Still, seen as a more primal/primitive form of consciousness you could feel gratitude for its willingness to stand aside and both make possible and allow the implementation of our conscious minds.  It's a stretch, granted, but it has to be better than being a literalist.

---

That was actually done by the jews.  Two schools existed, alexandrian and palestinian, and both where what we now call allegorists.  They advanced, and importantly drew from the earliest preserved writings of the prophets, and we call the subtlely different systems mystical and typological respectively. 

Catholicism was made to re-assert the literal presumption of the narrative.  They have, over the centuries, negotiated with their constituency over that article, but as a matter of dogma catholocism insists that genesis is not allegory, particularly that a man and a woman were created, the first human beings rtom which we all descend (somehow), and through adam inherit our sin or sinful nature(somehow) - as well as the fallen state of this world(somehow).

Without this, literal, interpretation.  There is no need for christ, or for the rituals, cantrips, and magic spells of the catholic church then or now.

I have no reason to doubt you have the history right (nor am I possessed of enough fucks one way or another to check for myself).  But I still think there is room for self-identified Catholics and even the institution as a whole to make their way to an allegorical understanding of the resurrection and everything else.  In the end, those who remain religious as well as well educated, open and reflective will realize that all of it is allegorical.  I'm sure there are Catholic clergy now who hold their faith in that way.  They just have no scruples about talking down to those who need to hear them in literal fairy tales .

---

In short, they allow and provide support for catholics to -be- bad catholics, but they don't hesitate to re-assert their orthodoxy in official documentation.  Genesis is real history insomuch as the central mystery of catholicism is a fact even if they're not going to set anybody on a pile of twigs about it (anymore).  They don;t give a shit about the rest of the nutty christians literalist beliefs..those may not be true, under the bus they go........ but theirs infallibly are.

Cross their hearts, scouts honor, and no science can or will ever say anything to the contrary no matter the fact that all science says everything to the contrary.  Catholicism is batshit crazy biblical literalism...even if catholics aren't.

There you go, common ground.

---

Atheists and theists: there is no verb in the autographed languages of Scripture that can possibly be translated as "create, creation, Creator". That comes from the Latin creatura and does not belong. All the verbs associated as such are all verbs of "make(life), form(Adam), build(Eve). The Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a false one.

Arguments between anti-theistic(I did not include atheists here) magic evolution and magic creation are then pointless. I'm sorry that the rest of the theists don't see it this way.

As a theist, I don't believe in creationism as the text does not support such an idea. I also don't believe in allegory as then it becomes an opinion. I am a literalist outside of the prison of theology which is purely man-made. And as a theist, I definitely want to know how God did it. I'm here and I all ears.

May I suggest that the mechanism of life is a simple matter(that's all I can do) matter of vacuum mechanics where God very naturally commanded the energy transference according to the principle of energy transference established by Einstein? If Jesus commanded and energy transference when He turned water into wine then...

Or maybe the whole idea of creating/making any part of the natural world is simply a wrong turn.  Why does that matter?  Can't the idea of a god as an earlier, intrinsic, coexistent form of consciousness which sometimes has the capacity to enhance insight and make connections (or sometimes obstruct the same) be of enough significance to justify your interest?  Or maybe, like me, you just eventually realize there all the old forms of ritual just don't seem worth it.

Still, seen as a more primal/primitive form of consciousness you could feel gratitude for its willingness to stand aside and both make possible and allow the implementation of our conscious minds.  It's a stretch, granted, but it has to be better than being a literalist.

If anything Whateverist, I'm glad your willing to at least talk to me. I know that I am a stupid surfer from HB with very little education in these areas of debate. My life long interest was learning biblical language and then translating. That was my science. I'm really fucking good at it and there are some serious problems with the translations there which are confusing all these areas of debate but, no one here seems to care whether atheist or theist. So atheists accept what theology is, as stupidly as a theist. Then atheists argue against the completely stupid!

Thank you for being pleasant. Although sometime I feel you're leading me to the sharks. But, you haven't done that yet.

As far as the rest of your post: what's wrong with being literary? [sorry]

I am a literalist because allegory is asinine! That started in the church by a clown named Origen. It leads to opinions and never ending more opinions and not understanding.

I am forced to learn what God did from science, which is not always allegorical opinion or, non-biblical theology pretending to be biblical or science.

Funny thing about Origen is he was an allegorist that attempted to turn the events of Genesis into allegory but, he reads the apostle Paul, concerning circumcision, that Paul, allegorically speaking, "wished they would just cut the whole thing off!" Well, that's just what MR. Allegory did! And for that was excommunicated!

[The Grand Nudger]

I have no reason to doubt you have the history right (nor am I possessed of enough fucks one way or another to check for myself).  But I still think there is room for self-identified Catholics and even the institution as a whole to make their way to an allegorical understanding of the resurrection and everything else.  In the end, those who remain religious as well as well educated, open and reflective will realize that all of it is allegorical.  I'm sure there are Catholic clergy now who hold their faith in that way.  They just have no scruples about talking down to those who need to hear them in literal fairy tales .

Of course some catholics -do- make their way to such an understanding, but not on account of any room for it in catholicism's own official doctrine.  They insist that the cracker and wine are really transformed by muttered verse.  

They could always schism...again, I suppose.

---

I am a literalist because allegory is asinine! That started in the church by a clown named Origen. It leads to opinions and never ending more opinions and not understanding.

No, it didn't.  Origen is part of the later second century ruckus, not the originator of allegorical interpretations within or without any christian "church".  The rabbinic tradition had already established two seperate allegorical schools of thought which predated any silly christianism (by centuries) - and it was one of the schools, particularly, that influenced that later "christian jews" and earlier jewy jews who believed in jesus as an archangel.  

The alexandrian school is strongly represented in early christianity (the tradition from which Origen would ultimately arise, no less..as well as Clement, Eusebius, and Augustine of Hippo.   It even brought us the ontological argument).

The palestinian is more well represented in islam (amusingly enough).

Both persist in current rabbinic traditions to this very day in their own right. Ask a rabbi how much allegory there is in the OT, it is their book, after all. Meanwhile, the same was certainly true of the earliest forms of christianity and the NT, by the continuing presence of alexandrian scholarship and Origens training therein (the whole reason he was ever anybody)...from which he drew his own personal theology even as he converted others to an emerging and increasingly literal orthodoxy.

He detested literal interpretations because they were as ignorant then as they are now, something which had been known for a long time already. -and yet here we are, 2018..literal nutters talking about how allegory is assanine leading only to opinion and no understanding. Well, if that's the case, it's time to give up jesus and christ and christianity altogether. It was not intended to be and it has never been anything more than allegory in the first place.

[Whateverist]

As far as the rest of your post: what's wrong with being literary? [sorry]

I am a literalist because allegory is asinine! That started in the church by a clown named Origen. It leads to opinions and never ending more opinions and not understanding.

As with a movie, only a young kid will bore you with a litany of the plot. Adults discuss what it means. The same goes for the bible. Regardless of your skill at translation, the decision to stick to literalism takes you out of the game where what it means is concerned. Like any other fundy, regardless of their ability at translation, you feel no need to defend your reason for reading it literally. Allegory leads to opinions? Is that the official opinion of literalists? Then you're already into opinions too - except you feel no responsibility to defend your interpretation. That's part of the problem.