Mr. Fosi's drilled 20H

[Mr. Fosi]

I don't see why there need be a "war".

 

A major basis of my thinking is that objective truths exist and can actually be grasped by the human mind. As such, I don't see why any person should fear them or be unwilling to discuss what they think they are.

 

As such, the knee-jerk reaction of people, theistic and atheistic alike, are inappropriate. The apostle Paul reasoned with people and he counseled Timothy to do the same. As such, I like to approach these issues with reason. Of course, it may be shown that my reason is faulty and someone else's isn't and I don't see why that should be something to be feared or something that should provoke anger.

 

So then, people are free to make whatever assertions they like, but if any assertion is to be taken seriously, supporting reasoning needs to be provided.

[BumbleBeeJBG]

You'll need to outline how you think that these are issues that are "cans of worms".

 

 

 

Again, you really need to outline your thinking here.

 

 

I'm sorry, I thought most of the questions were self evident by my statements. I have a problem where I think people automatically understand where I'm coming from.

 

1) What is the "image of God."?

2) If the characteristics of man were achieved through evolution, why do we poses this image and other animals don't?

3) At what point was this distinction made? Where was the line drawn?

4) At what point during the evolutionary process did man obtain a soul?

5) What is man's original sin if there wasn't an Adam & an Eve?

6) We're given the life-spans of people in the Bible and we're given genealogies that transcend the generations to Jesus. How is the time line that we're given then reconciled when throwing out the window literal interpretations?

 

Those are but a few of many questions that arise.

 

So you do agree that the problems you see are all in Genesis?

 

I would agree that Genesis is the source of much of my disbelieving of Judao-Chrstianity.

[Mr. Fosi]

Disclaimer: The following is largely speculation on my part.

 

1) What is the "image of God."?

 

Well, I'm no Hebrew scholar but the transliterated Hebrew word for "image" is "tselem". The Strong's Hebrew Lexicon defines that as: image, likeness (of resemblance) or mere/empty semblence.

 

"Likeness of resemblance"? So is that a purely physical resemblance or something more? Your guess is as good as mine. However, it seems to me that if biological evolution is the tool by which life was fashioned, that this resemblance could be: 1) a physical resemblance, which would require direction since (from our perspective) evolution is an indeterminate process with unpredictable results or 2) a metaphysical resemblance such as reasoning, consciousness or some other non-quantifiable (but real) quality.

 

This, I think, is similar to what C.S. Lewis speculated regarding the creation story. Perhaps that speculation was in Abolition of Man? I'll have to look it up.

 

2) If the characteristics of man were achieved through evolution, why do we poses this image and other animals don't?

 

Dunno. I do know that God has said that he will demand an accounting for all animals as well as men (Genesis 9:5). So animal and man are different, but not so different that one remains unaccountable.

 

3) At what point was this distinction made? Where was the line drawn?

 

See above.

 

4) At what point during the evolutionary process did man obtain a soul?

 

Isn't this the same as #s 2 & 3?

 

5) What is man's original sin if there wasn't an Adam & an Eve?

 

Disobedience, specifically the desire to be equal with (and perhaps to supplant) God. Idolatry of self. It is manifested again rather quickly in the recounting of the Tower of Babel.

 

6) We're given the life-spans of people in the Bible and we're given genealogies that transcend the generations to Jesus. How is the time line that we're given then reconciled when throwing out the window literal interpretations?

 

Dunno. That's a good one. I do notice that the accounting of years has a gap after sons of Noah but it picks up quickly after that. This is an aspect that I haven't thought about before, probably because I admittedly have often skipped the genealogies because they were boring. I'll have to think about this one and do some reading.

 

Thanks for providing points for thought! Feel free to add more if you like.

[BumbleBeeJBG]

My original question was never answered, largely due to the fact that I'm not articulate. Would you consider yourself an old-earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist? If you don't feel either applies to you fully, which would you consider yourself closest to and how do your beliefs differ?

[nikeSB]

can i get a diagram of your sump? i want to make my current tank a sump when i upgrade to a 20g from a 10g

[Mr. Fosi]

can i get a diagram of your sump? i want to make my current tank a sump when i upgrade to a 20g from a 10g

 

Sure thing. There's a good approximate diagram of my setup. The only thing that's a little off is that my de-bubble periscopes stick out of the water a little more. I get no bubbles being cycled back into my display from this setup... I'm not sure how well it would work with a higher flow-rate because I haven't tested it all together, but it seems as though it should work quite well for anything less than 400 gph.

 

 

 

Would you consider yourself an old-earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist? If you don't feel either applies to you fully, which would you consider yourself closest to and how do your beliefs differ?

 

I'm not sure and I agree that neither of those labels applies. I think I'm still in transition. Transition from what to what? I'm not sure of that either. I just know that I'm not in either of those camps at the moment.

 

Another thing I know is that currently, I don't see any convincing evidence for the idea of a young-earth. Tectonic theory, isotope dating and geological theory regarding the placement of rock strata all fit very tightly together, cross-check very well and do a good job of explaining what we observe in the natural world. I know that some people argue against the validity of these methods, but I have yet to see such that is a reasonably convincing argument. Same goes for biogeography and genomics.

 

Conversely, biology still has no clue regarding how life may have actually arisen. There are currently tiny bits and pieces (like artificial self-replicating RNA) that may eventually be put together with as-yet undiscovered principles to explain how a cell capable of reproduction can spontaneously come into being. However, right now, for all the progress that has been made in molecular biology there is nothing that comes even onto the same continent as an explanation of this key issue. There is also currently no good explanation for why there should be any area of physical reality that we can't, at least theoretically, be able to know. Uncertainties regarding the behavior of subatomic particles is one such area. I know that these questions may ultimately be answered but they aren't right now and they are key questions in my mind.

 

Evolutionary physiology does not well explain why our consciousness is the way it is. The only explanations that I have seen thus far are the ones that essentially claim that the finer points of our consciousness (sense of and belief in the numinous, appreciation of beauty in art or expression, valuation of relationships, concepts and behavior that do not positively impact survival or reproduction, personal reflection, etc...) are essentially emergent properties of a very complex system. As such, their basis is survival and reproduction, so the concepts that these perceptions are apparently based on are fiction.

 

If this this the case, then all human perception and thought is suspect. Our perception of light, gravity, logical truth/falsehood (and more!) are all actually based on survival and reproduction. Again, since the basis of these perceptions is not actually the thing they relate to, they are essentially an a peripheral illusion created by millions of years of selection. "Selection" then can be the only truth but since selection is merely a concept of the human intellect, it also has no inherent "truth" or connection to reality. Follow it to the end and this sort of reasoning leads to a conclusion that all thought is meaningless.

 

This leads to a major disconnect with reality since while a person may intellectually claim to believe these things, they can't actually live their life this way. In fact, to claim belief in them is a meaningless as not to, since any claim of belief is by definition disconnected from the reality of biological selection. This is a crippling concept, is it not? And this is interesting since during his recent lecture (and also in his latest published work), Dawkins claims that "there is a grandeur in this way of thought" and that "meaning is what you make it". But these things cannot be true if you apply the reductionist logic that he has made millions of dollars with.

 

As a scientist, it seems to me that the reality that I and others perceive does, in fact, exist. If that is the case, then my perceptions strongly imply that their objects exist, including that of the numinous. This is not strict deductionary logic and therefore might be derided by those who worship deduction. However, it is impossible to reasonably deny that inductive logic is one of the things that allows us to be human; to be what we are.

 

It is also hard to explain why it is that I have experienced the change in my inner-nature that Jesus Christ and his apostles promised. How is it that I have been transformed by powers outside of myself? Not based on my effort or intellect but based on some external power than in an instant, changed my very basest priorities and imbued me with the power of certainty; the very essence of salvation by grace, through faith. Wherefore, then comes the knowledge that all the misdeeds I know I have committed (even against my own conscience and Bible be damned!) have been transferred from me to Christ's? Is it all simply illusion as all of my life and consciousness must be?

 

If this is illusion, what is real? If I cannot trust my own perceptions of reality, then what? How does one live life if there is not only no answer to the questions of "why" or "how" but if there are in fact no questions? Why then does it matter what I or anyone else believes? Why then should I love why wife or child? I could just as easily murder them.

 

Since all is meaningless, I should then become a hedonist and do all of the things that give me pleasure. That includes causing pain and humiliation in others. I should give full wind to all the basest parts of my nature, since they are the ones most obviously connected with the reality of selection, the ones most consistently a part of me; the ones that vy the hardest and most persistently for action. I should do all of these things in the knowledge that none of it is necessarily connected to any reality anyway. To "be good for goodness sake" or to "be good for one's own sake" is a vapid fiction; an empty form of make-believe. A game of make-believe that only a person who denies the reality of biological selection and how it formed all the parts of their nature, not only the ones that they have been told (or tell themselves) are the "good", the "worthy" ones.

 

In light of this how does one live? This is where I am right now. I am working to discover how these things fit together or don't. It doesn't seem to me that these can be investigated from a purely naturalistic direction. Conversely, they can't be investigated by simply discarding those parts of observable nature that don't fit within a given model. It seems reasonable that the answer must be some mix of the two but the real question is "how do you mix them"? I wonder if this is part of what Paul meant when he encouraged those in the church in Philippi to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

 

Sorry for the book but this stuff has been rolling around in my head for weeks and Dawkins's talk sort of broke the logjam... Funny how it's now been posted on a forum dedicated to keeping small saltwater aquaria.

 

EDIT: Image fix.

[BumbleBeeJBG]

Providence maybe? Who knows, I'm in roughly the same boat you are in regards to camps of thinking. I entertained the idea of old earth creationism for awhile but if there's one thing I've learned it's that anyone who claims to have all the answers usually has next to none of them and OE creationists on the whole think they have it all figured out.

 

To be honest I don't fit in any easily categorized group either. What I'm looking for these days isn't as much validation of Genesis through knowledge/discovery but an experiential encounter to affirm what I want to be true, Jesus as the Messiah. That's right, what I want to be true, not what I know or believe.

 

I'll still be interested in all things geological (a small personal passion of mine) and origins but I would be free to learn and go forward knowing that scientific discovery can not contradict my beliefs because no matter what happened and why, it had a specific catalyst in God.

 

I've been waiting in the wings for a long, long time now and feel I'm slipping away from ever being able to know such a truth.

 

That's right, all this on a thread about a drilled 20H.

[Mr. Fosi]

What I'm looking for these days isn't as much validation of Genesis through knowledge/discovery but an experiential encounter to affirm what I want to be true, Jesus as the Messiah. That's right, what I want to be true, not what I know or believe.

 

That's a tough place to be in and I should know, because I was in a similar holding pattern for the better part of the last decade... And that decade of holding pattern was just the latter part of a 22 year sojourn.

 

The thing that is at the same time good and bad news is that any transformation brought on by faith is one that is not and cannot be done by anyone. It is a gift and a work that God does. That's right, faith is a part of that work; a gift that you can't get or generate for yourself. That's why it's a fallacy (Biblically-speaking) to preach or believe that a person can make a "decision for Christ" or pray some little prescribed prayer and get "saved". This is good news because you don't have to do anything, God does it all through Christ. The bad news is that you can't do anything. No amount of going through ritualistic motions or obeying any sort of moral code will do anything.

 

All I can tell you is what I have found and that is this: people really are dead in sin until they are regenerated by God (via the Holy Spirit). Until that regeneration occurs, the person's will, their very decision-making apparatus, is a slave to sin and thus they are incapable of making any decision regarding Christ or any other spiritual matter.

 

When people are regenerated they do what Jesus commanded, "Repent and believe!" When the Spirit does this work, it is an instantaneous change but not one in which people suddenly become perfect people capable of always doing the "right" thing. They also don't suddenly become a personally offensive ideologue. It is one where they become aware of their ongoing sin, they are able and willing to repent of it and are assured of their salvation. This is what happened to me, and this is why I can't just forget it or chalk it up to some self-delusion.

 

It wasn't the result of some prayer I prayed during some Billy Graham crusade or something that I intellectually came to believe as true. As Paul wrote in Romans, "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God." When I finally heard what the so-called "Gospel" really was, God moved in me in a transformative way. If you had asked me beforehand I would have told you that I was a Christian and that I had been "born again" because I once prayed a prayer when I was seven years old.

 

Of course, my whole life since then has indicated that while I have had an intellectual interest in the idea of God, I didn't really believe and that I hadn't actually been given faith. That was the case until recently and after hearing a real presentation of the Gospel, I was finally transformed. Gee, it only took 22 years! All of which I would have sworn that I was a "Christian".

 

It's a crazy situation when I look back at it but I can't deny the experience.

 

A concise presentation of what I'm jabbering about can be found here beginning at 48:17 in the podcast and here beginning at 51:45. I've been passing these two lecture-reviews around to all the people I know who would call themselves Christian. You'll be the first person I've passed them to who isn't a self-described "Christian".

 

I don't agree with every single thing these guys say (like the alarmism in the second lecture), but these are clear presentations of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is and what it is not. Some people might argue that these aren't good places to start, but I don't care what they say. There is some jargon in there, but it doesn't obscure the important points. When you have the time, check them out and see if you come away with anything useful (or transformative!).

 

In other news: I've apparently lost a zoa frag. It was one of the frags I liked the most (came from Weet and Sue), but it has somehow disappeared into the rockwork of the tank. I can't even find the bit of rubble that it was attached to. The frag I'm talking about is this one:

 

 

 

 

I'll be spending some time these next couple nights looking for it.

[Mr. Fosi]

I've looked these last couple days for that frag and I can't find it. I've looked for all angles I just don't see it... I can't even recall if it was one of the ones that I bagged up for the move.

 

I think they came from Weet and I think she called them "Candy Apples" or something like that. I wonder if she has any more that I can buy from her.

[Deleted User 6]

bah, too much to read at work. i'll get back to it later. did you ever check out that book recommendation, Fosi?

[Mr. Fosi]

Which one?

[Deleted User 6]

In The Beginning - Henri Bloche

 

Argues for a literary interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 (and maybe more...I haven't finished it). Basically says that Moses could have cared less about the cosmology of the beginning. His goal was to set forth the doctrine of the Sabbath and of the character of God and God's relationship to the creation.

[Mr. Fosi]

Nope totally forgot. I've got it's Amazon description up in another tab though. I may buy it.

[Deleted User 6]

It's solid so far. I need to hurry up and finish it. So busy lately. I'm waiting to see how he handles the reality of death existing before the Fall if indeed evolution was the rule.

[mkregs]

Heard there were cricket sounds coming out of this thread...

 

Good luck looking for your missing frag...

Mark

[Weetabix7]

I think they came from Weet and I think she called them "Candy Apples" or something like that. I wonder if she has any more that I can buy from her.

 

Candy Apple Pinks.

I don't have any more, none at all.

However, both BibleSue and SPerry do and they're exactly the same since they both got them from me.

 

Sorry for not commenting on the whole discussion here.

I've been very, very tired lately- physically, emotionally, spiritually, and I just haven't had the energy to wade in.

Sorry.

Interesting discussion though.

[Deleted User 6]

it's cause you're going to that Baptist church.

[Weetabix7]

it's cause you're going to that Baptist church.

 

Actually, I haven't gone in a couple of months.

[Deleted User 6]

Sorry to hear about that. Let me know if there's anything I can pray about for you.

 

And look at that Fosi. Your thread is turning into a Lounge

[yardboy]

Yeah, and if you want to tie it in to Weetie's, you can always go with my personal favorite quote from Ben Franklin:

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!

[Weetabix7]

Yeah, and if you want to tie it in to Weetie's, you can always go with my personal favorite quote from Ben Franklin:

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!

 

:wub:

[Needreefunds]

I hear this is where all the cool kids went for the week.

 

Sorry about the MIA frag of Candy Apples.

 

Always interesting reading here " I " man.

 

[Mr. Fosi]

And look at that Fosi. Your thread is turning into a Lounge

 

So many replies that I can't actually respond to them all in a coherent way.

 

I've been very, very tired lately- physically, emotionally, spiritually, and I just haven't had the energy to wade in.

 

That sux. Maybe you need some ice cream? Or perhaps a couple fingers of brandy?

 

I actually like talking through the sorts of things that I've expounded here but it is really hard, impossible in fact, to find anyone IRL who is willing to participate. All my peers, people who claim to be interested in "truth" and whatnot, are all profoundly uncomfortable with topics like these. Why is that? Is it because their own conscience convicts them?

 

I heard a quote some time ago, "The Bible makes no room for atheists; only liars and God-haters." I've been mulling it over since I heard it, pondering whether that is true or not. Certainly the Bible makes no mention of atheists but it also makes no mention of the assassination of JFK. If that beginning statement is true, it would explain why these wisefools are afraid.

[RyanR1212]

Yeah, and if you want to tie it in to Weetie's, you can always go with my personal favorite quote from Ben Franklin:

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!

 

my mommy doesnt give me beer does that mean she doesnt want me to be happy??

[BumbleBeeJBG]

I actually like talking through the sorts of things that I've expounded here but it is really hard, impossible in fact, to find anyone IRL who is willing to participate. All my peers, people who claim to be interested in "truth" and whatnot, are all profoundly uncomfortable with topics like these. Why is that? Is it because their own conscience convicts them?

 

I heard a quote some time ago, "The Bible makes no room for atheists; only liars and God-haters." I've been mulling it over since I heard it, pondering whether that is true or not. Certainly the Bible makes no mention of atheists but it also makes no mention of the assassination of JFK. If that beginning statement is true, it would explain why these wisefools are afraid.

 

I was a pastoral ministry major for a few semesters, left Geology to pursue a career in ministry. Point being that I studied the bible pretty hard. I am neither an atheist nor a God-hater. Where is the room for me?