Man is god in embryo

fatboys · Oct 7, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
The Teilhardian "Omega Point" is an intriguing concept, but it seems to me that it's based on a common misunderstanding about evolution.
Biological life adapts to the circumstances it finds itself in, since probability makes it less likely for ill-suited populations to survive and reproduce. But this process is not an upwards-movement, no linear progression. We like to think of homo sapiens as the crowning achievement of this planet's biosphere, yet we've only been around for about a million years, and already messed everything up so much that we're in the middle of a man-made mass extinction event. (Look it up: species are dying at a rate last seen when a fracking meteor whacked the planet, and we are the cause.) That large brain of ours that allowed us to colonize virtually every ecological niche? It didn't prevent us from wasting resources, polluting our basis of existence, and reproducing so indiscriminately that we've basically EXPLODED all across the globe, with disastrous consequences for everyone and everything involved.
Now, compare that to some species that have been around for millions of years: lacking our capacity for abstract thought, symbol usage, and self-awareness - and yet avoiding this kind of self-destructive impulse. Who's the bigger success?

Here is the problem I see with some of science. They know so little. As you know I farm. Even with all the technology we have today they can't even predict the weather for five days in advance. If science cannot predict the weather how on earth can you think they can predict global warming or the causes of global warming? Now I believe that as science gains more knowledge that there will be advanced in foretelling the weather but they are not even close. Also long before man left a foot print on the earth species were going extinct. even though man can make an impression on the earth it also heals itself very quickly. Man should be in harmony with his environment. To be good stewards over ther earth he gas been given but we don't know enough to say man has cause all the bad things on earth. It has been proven and has been quite a Scandle how scientist have lied and cheated in th results they produced to prove man made global warming. Now they are blaming cattle for the methan they put into the atmosphere. Think people. There were millions of buffalo that roamed the plains. Did they produce methan? Was there global warming then? I don't disagree with some of what you said but the earth itself has caused more damage and distraction to itself than man ever could.

fatboys · Oct 7, 2015

Messy said:
Jesus was God in embryo when He was conceived by Mary.
We are meant to become like Him. That's the goal. It wasn't bad that Adam and Eve wanted to be like God. But you get like that by getting to know Him and eating from the tree of life.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

After they had partaken of the fruit God said they had become as one of them?

Job8 · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
If man were able to reach perfection over eons of time wouldn't that add to the glory of God as this person continues to worship God through the eternities?

LDS theology is not Bible Christianity. The saints will indeed be perfected "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" and resemble Christ. They will even be glorified. But they will remain saints, not become little gods.

LoAmmi · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
After they had partaken of the fruit God said they had become as one of them?

Possessing knowledge of good and evil, yes. The text says exactly what it means. Why do people always take "like" to mean identical?

Messy · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
After they had partaken of the fruit God said they had become as one of them?

Only in knowing good and evil. But God knew it without sinning and getting to know evil by sinning is not becoming like God in character.

Jane_the_Bane · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
Here is the problem I see with some of science. They know so little.

More than you, apparently.

As you know I farm. Even with all the technology we have today they can't even predict the weather for five days in advance. If science cannot predict the weather how on earth can you think they can predict global warming or the causes of global warming?

Weather conditions depend on too many factors to be predictable beyond the short range. The same does not apply to the climate.
If you throw a stone, it'd be very hard to predict *exactly* where it will land, as there are too many factors to be taken into account (your aim, the wind changing direction, the amount of strength and skill you invest). However, if you throw a hundred stones in the same direction, it'd be easy to determine the area where all of these stones will land.
Global warming is not a controversy. The verdict is clear, all across the board. The only groups of nay-sayers are a) not scientists, and b) heavily invested with upholding the status quo (oil industry, etc.).

I wasn't talking about global warming, though. I was talking about overconsumption, overpopulation, and the extinction event currently underway.

Also long before man left a foot print on the earth species were going extinct.

The normal extinction rate is about 10,000 times LOWER than what we are currently experiencing. And that's a relatively conservative estimate. The Holocene Extinction event is not speculation.

fatboys · Oct 7, 2015

Job8 said:
LDS theology is not Bible Christianity. The saints will indeed be perfected "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" and resemble Christ. They will even be glorified. But they will remain saints, not become little gods.

Why

fatboys · Oct 7, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
More than you, apparently.

Weather conditions depend on too many factors to be predictable beyond the short range. The same does not apply to the climate.
If you throw a stone, it'd be very hard to predict *exactly* where it will land, as there are too many factors to be taken into account (your aim, the wind changing direction, the amount of strength and skill you invest). However, if you throw a hundred stones in the same direction, it'd be easy to determine the area where all of these stones will land.
Global warming is not a controversy. The verdict is clear, all across the board. The only groups of nay-sayers are a) not scientists, and b) heavily invested with upholding the status quo (oil industry, etc.).

I wasn't talking about global warming, though. I was talking about overconsumption, overpopulation, and the extinction event currently underway.

The normal extinction rate is about 10,000 times LOWER than what we are currently experiencing. And that's a relatively conservative estimate. The Holocene Extinction event is not speculation.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/climate-change-hoax-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html

ViaCrucis · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
Why

Basically: God is uncreated; humans are created.

Human beings will never not be creatures. God, being uncreated, is never created.

-CryptoLutheran

fatboys · Oct 7, 2015

ViaCrucis said:
Basically: God is uncreated; humans are created.

Human beings will never not be creatures. God, being uncreated, is never created.

-CryptoLutheran

God was not created. We were not created

LoAmmi · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
God was not created. We were not created

Basically, there is no way for your faith and mainline Christianity or Judaism for that matter to be reconciled. Humans, even human souls, are created in our understanding.

St_Worm2 · Oct 7, 2015

fatboys said:
God was not created. We were not created

Hi Fatboys, Genesis 1:27 tells us that:

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

You guys (the LDS) claim the Bible as one of your holy books, right, but as we've already seen in this thread alone, you stand diametrically opposed to a number of the central truths it so clearly teaches. Why bother using it at all?

Yours and His,
David

fatboys · Oct 7, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
The Teilhardian "Omega Point" is an intriguing concept, but it seems to me that it's based on a common misunderstanding about evolution.
Biological life adapts to the circumstances it finds itself in, since probability makes it less likely for ill-suited populations to survive and reproduce. But this process is not an upwards-movement, no linear progression. We like to think of homo sapiens as the crowning achievement of this planet's biosphere, yet we've only been around for about a million years, and already messed everything up so much that we're in the middle of a man-made mass extinction event. (Look it up: species are dying at a rate last seen when a fracking meteor whacked the planet, and we are the cause.) That large brain of ours that allowed us to colonize virtually every ecological niche? It didn't prevent us from wasting resources, polluting our basis of existence, and reproducing so indiscriminately that we've basically EXPLODED all across the globe, with disastrous consequences for everyone and everything involved.
Now, compare that to some species that have been around for millions of years: lacking our capacity for abstract thought, symbol usage, and self-awareness - and yet avoiding this kind of self-destructive impulse. Who's the bigger success?

Most of the time you have thoughtful responses that gets me to thinking. But I believe you have been caught hook line and sinker on this. Science is always making big far fetched statements which they could never prove and given time are proven wrong. Extremism at its best. Henny Penny the sky is falling. They have been around sine the dawn of man.

Jane_the_Bane · Oct 8, 2015

fatboys said:
Most of the time you have thoughtful responses that gets me to thinking. But I believe you have been caught hook line and sinker on this.

Given that you believe in "seer stones", golden breastplates with magical spectacles, and many, MANY other tall tales that smack of obvious fraud, I find this statement of yours rather ironic.
Scientists have NOTHING to gain by observing global warming and detecting its sources. *I* have nothing to gain by examining their results and trusting their professional judgment.
Joseph Smith, on the other hand, had much to gain by spinning tales about golden plates and mystical revelations. And his followers have something (illusory) to gain, too.

Science is always making big far fetched statements which they could never prove and given time are proven wrong.

Excuse me, but my irony meter just folded in upon itself and ceased to exist.

The scientific method is our best shot at miniminzing confirmation bias and subjectivity, and our best chance at gaining a somewhat accurate picture of the natural world and the principles that govern it.
Now, contrast that with religions, which are LITERALLY "always making big far fetched statements which they could never prove".
Science is self-correcting - religion isn't. The fact that you cannot falsify religious myths isn't an argument in their favour.

Also, given your strong sentiments regarding "them scientists", I demand that you instantly cease using your computer, electronic devices, car, medical services, bridges, etc.
Maybe you can reconstruct all of these by the power of prayer and "seer stones"?

fatboys · Oct 8, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
Given that you believe in "seer stones", golden breastplates with magical spectacles, and many, MANY other tall tales that smack of obvious fraud, I find this statement of yours rather ironic.
Scientists have NOTHING to gain by observing global warming and detecting its sources. *I* have nothing to gain by examining their results and trusting their professional judgment.
Joseph Smith, on the other hand, had much to gain by spinning tales about golden plates and mystical revelations. And his followers have something (illusory) to gain, too.

Excuse me, but my irony meter just folded in upon itself and ceased to exist.

The scientific method is our best shot at miniminzing confirmation bias and subjectivity, and our best chance at gaining a somewhat accurate picture of the natural world and the principles that govern it.
Now, contrast that with religions, which are LITERALLY "always making big far fetched statements which they could never prove".
Science is self-correcting - religion isn't. The fact that you cannot falsify religious myths isn't an argument in their favour.

Also, given your strong sentiments regarding "them scientists", I demand that you instantly cease using your computer, electronic devices, car, medical services, bridges, etc.
Maybe you can reconstruct all of these by the power of prayer and "seer stones"?

There is no difference between pure science and religion. There is no difference between how science interprets its findings and religionists interpreting their findings. If both inputs are flawed the result is a false truth which both have believed in until proven false. Example is the famous earth is flat theory. Science is based on trial and error. They don't put 2+2=4 to get an answer. They don't know what 2 is until the add a 1+1. To find that answer they have already added a whole bunch of numbers that didn't work. Sometimes they think they have the right number but it might be 1.00001 and science will believe that answer until someone proves it wrong. Science can be absolute but our finite brains will not reach that in this life. Jane I know that you really believe in global warming. Many people do. I believe that there is global warming but it is just a natural cycle the earth and climate is going through. In do find it interesting to learn that northern ice is melting and the southern ice is increasing. Funny thing instead in Greenland ice has melted quite a bit. Guess what they are finding? Villages that existed thousands of years ago. Makes you wonder if in our day we were in a ice age. I bet those villagers did

fatboys · Oct 8, 2015

Science has everything to gain by interpreting their findings wrong. It is called pride and money. Years ago two scientist went public with their findings of cold fusion. The whole world was a buzz. Cheap energy. My brother who is was a professor at the Colorado school of mines told me one day that their work was flawed. I asked him how on earth he could know. He said that he went through their research and would not do what they were claiming. My brother was right and it was proven wrong. On the other hand there is science that has believed in what is the smallest particle. Years ago they thought one thing and when scientist had other new theories the old established scientist literally persecuted them for it until knowledge caught up and proved the old way false. Sort of like religion

LoAmmi · Oct 8, 2015

fatboys said:
Science has everything to gain by interpreting their findings wrong. It is called pride and money. Years ago two scientist went public with their findings of cold fusion. The whole world was a buzz. Cheap energy. My brother who is was a professor at the Colorado school of mines told me one day that their work was flawed. I asked him how on earth he could know. He said that he went through their research and would not do what they were claiming. My brother was right and it was proven wrong. On the other hand there is science that has believed in what is the smallest particle. Years ago they thought one thing and when scientist had other new theories the old established scientist literally persecuted them for it until knowledge caught up and proved the old way false. Sort of like religion

Was this cold fusion thing published in a journal and peer reviewed or was it some guy that said something and the media caught on? See, the second thing isn't science. The first is.

fatboys · Oct 8, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Hi Fatboys, Genesis 1:27 tells us that:

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

You guys (the LDS) claim the Bible as one of your holy books, right, but as we've already seen in this thread alone, you stand diametrically opposed to a number of the central truths it so clearly teaches. Why bother using it at all?

Yours and His,
David

Yes he did. But it does not say that he created the very essence that makes us who we are. That has always existed. Back at the time of the bible do you think that if God explained to them what atoms or electrons were hat it would mean much to them? If God had told them he created all things do you think that they would have understood the details of the creation. God would have been correct in saying he created everything out of matter that already existed. They wouldn't have understood. God kept it simple. You cannot place the same meaning of what they thought as we have today. Today we know that matter was not created but has always been neither can it be destroyed

fatboys · Oct 8, 2015

Job8 said:
LDS theology is not Bible Christianity. The saints will indeed be perfected "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" and resemble Christ. They will even be glorified. But they will remain saints, not become little gods.

I will say that your interpretation of the bible is flawed or misunderstood

Job8 · Oct 8, 2015

fatboys said:
I will say that your interpretation of the bible is flawed or misunderstood

I don't even have to interpret it. I can simply quote Scripture and that will establish what was stated above. And those words of the Bible are quite plain and easily understood.

Man is god in embryo

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Dispassionate

Well-Known Member

Gaia's godchild

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Confessional Lutheran

Senior Veteran

Dispassionate

Simul Justus et Peccator

Senior Veteran

Gaia's godchild

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Dispassionate

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Similar threads