New Mars Forums

Interesting article.  I was unaware that there was a natural aversion to rocketry.

Is that anything like the impulse that makes children stop sucking their thumbs if you put quinine on their fingernails?

How is that different from the system of legal trials we have now?   :;):

PS: The christian doctrine of "We're all sinners" could have legal ramifications!   

The devil, you say...

According to the biblical and traditional accounts, Lucifer/Satan existed as a servant of God before his fall from Heaven.  His appearance in the book of Job, for example (which archaeology tells us is possibly the oldest book of the Bible, predating the oldest known copies of Genesis), is as a foil to God but not as God's enemy.  That means that God created Satan and was keeping him around for some function.  Actual animosity between the two came later, and was mostly on Satan's part.

As for the location of Hell, I believe that there is no location you could hang a gate on.  Hell is a state of existence, not a locale, and all the denisons of Hell are simply those who chose to exist in that state.  Thus, Earth isn't that much worse than Heaven if God is with you in both places.

BTW, is there a scientific basis for the concept of sin?

Many of the mechanical voting devices used in the 2000 Florida presidential elections were used machines, purchased from Louisiana. 

Knowing this, I was mildly surprised that former Louisiana governor Edwards didn't make a stronger showing in that election...

I expect electronic voting systems to be about as reliable as the old mechanical systems.

Ok.  Watch NASA.

Hello Cobra and Cindy.

As a theist, I do have a desire not to see you writhing in the fires of Hell.  And I do have an excuse in that I have a mandate from my religion to proselytize.  However, I have to admit that my usual reason for talking about my religious convictions is more selfish.

I enjoy it.  Any opportunity to re-examine (and sometimes revise) my spiritual opinions is a pleasure for me.  Atheists usually don't chase me around with Bibles afterward or pray for God to "get me" if I happen to say something about the similarities between Man's relationship with God and the biological evolution of parasites, so I usually try the really weird stuff out on them first.  However, they're not the only victims of my constant quest to refine my spirituality.  I go after the other theists, too.

IMHO, you should always be a little wary of people who talk at you rather than to you about spiritual matters.  They tend to prefer working with your spirituality instead of their own.  I don't trust that.

The analogy was facetious.  The blow to dignity was not.  Deciding the future evolution of humanity is no place for false pride.

That depends.  Are you still stuck in it?   ???

As for the human ability to detect, understand, and perhaps even rival the creator of the universe, that may be exactly what some of the more vehement opposition to science by religious reactionaries is all about.  The attempt to do so could -- no, would -- be a prideful blasphemy the likes of which no human has attempted since the Tower of Babel. 

What a great discussion topic for the New Mars forum!   

Detecting, understanding, and rivaling God's abilities is actually three or more tasks, any one of which may be impossible according to Godel's Theorem or some fundamental natural law.  Take the example of a ten-dimensional being.  Omnipresence in a four-dimensional finite space is entirely conceivable for such a creature.  (After all, we're omnipresent in many two-dimensional cross-sections of ourselves.  Make the cut along the proper plane and we're even multi-local.)  It's just a matter of chosing the space for consideration.  Likewise, effective omniscience of events within a four-dimensional space is possible for a ten-dimensional being.  (On certain scales determined by our nervous system, we can sense what happens in two-dimensional cross-sections of ourselves.)  If God had the same sort of dimensional relationship to our universe as a cross-section across our gut has to us, certain aspects of God local to our universe could be understood.  But what about the aspects not local to our universe?  Conceivably, they could be probed and detected.  But simple detection does not imply complete understanding.  How much could a thin flat, sentient section of your liver really hope to find out about your brain using the hormones and other rather unfocussed methods at its disposal?  Or even your diaphram?  And what would that data tell it about your whole body?  Maybe enough to be a better liver, or the knowledge of how to turn cancerous and set off on its own.  It could conceivably learn enough to look after itself without your help as a sort of symbiont or parasite, but probably not enough to either fully understand or rival your own full capabilities as a human being. 

Not that you'd ever want for conversation on the intricasies of hepatic existence.   :;):

We might have an analogous relationship to God.  If so, He could probably get along without us, but likes having us around for some reason (or at least hasn't opted for elective surgery to have the ugly growth removed yet).  Since we'd be living off of him, we might as well try to make the relationship symbiotic, and do our best to be a cute little slice of liver instead of a mean old tumor.   

Except for the size limits and the part about no fist-fights in city hall, very little has been discussed in the way of details  internal rules and regulations.  I see no reason why the rules can't vary with scale.  In fact, I like the idea that a settlement of this type would have clearly defined scales at which the rules MUST vary.

You said it, Gryp.

Cindy, IMHO, God didn't murder those innocent people, other people did.  As people, that makes it at least partly our responsibility.  In the event God saw fit to allow it arbitrarily and without reason, the lack of a protector makes it all the more our responsibility.

Ah, biblical literalism.  It’s a pox on all religious interpretation of science.

Oh, but now you’ve tempted me off on a tangent.  I promise to get back on topic sometime this year....

To your aunts’ credit, they can claim their position is supported by the New Testament.  Jesus said, “I am the life, the truth, and the way.  No man shall come before the father save through me.”  (That’s John 14:6 for you bibliophiles.)  It’s a statement that I agree with. 

Unfortunately, through the blind application of biblical literalism, this quote of Jesus is often mis-translated as “Worship Jesus or go to Hell.”  If you compare the two translations, you’ll see that they don’t quite have the same semantics.  (Or meaning.  Or definition.  Or truth.)  Taken literally, this mis-translation implies that people who have never had the chance to learn about Jesus, or even heard of him, are to be damned if they never do learn about Jesus, or never even hear about him.  And that doesn’t even touch on the subject of informed agnosticism.  It implies that God makes disposable souls. 

No less a philosopher and religious authority than pope John Paul II has said (without invoking papal infallibility :;): ) that he personally believes that if someone is a good enough person, they will go to Heaven whether they are a Christian or not.  Of all the accounts of people so saintly that God assumed them directly into heaven without the indignity of death (Enoch, Elijah, etc.), only one is of a Christian woman, and that account is considered apocryphal (even by theologians ).  Clearly one can know God, serve Him and please Him quite well without ever even knowing the name “Jesus”.   

Make no mistake: the correct translation can imply the incorrect one, conditionally.  However, it can’t be taken literally when out of context because, linguistically, it’s a metaphor.  Jesus is referencing other things - including traditional teachings and his own position in creation - that are not directly addressed in those two sentences.  It’s still true.  Just because something is technically a metaphor doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the clearest injunctions conceivable.  However, you have to actually know the background before you can make an informed decision about it.   This makes it unpopular with bliblical literalists; hence the popularity of the other, simpler, wrong translation. 

The actual statement of Jesus is an instruction, not a threat.  Yes, it’s terse.  But if you’re trying to leave instructions for someone you’ve never met, to enable them to do something they’ve never done before, you don’t start with the appendix and then move on to the whole manual.  You just tell them how to do it.  That’s what Jesus is doing in that statement.  He’s not passing judgement or casting aspersions.  They’re as unnecessary to that bible verse as they would be to a car repair manual.  (There are plenty of examples of Jesus passing judgement if you want one for comparison.  This isn’t one.)

I'm not discounting John 14:6.  Anyone can say “Play around with it and see what you can do.”  I’m a christian.  And I don’t believe anyone’s going to Hell on the word of Cindy’s aunt.  Her interpretation is just wrong.

Thanks for your time.

CME

Well yeah, Spacenut.  Odds are, that ceramic cloth heat shield is going to be his death shroud.  The good citizens of Saskatoon can sleep easy in October, though.