Transhumanism

[just a believing guy]

Which would be no sweat when you've got angels waiting on you hand and foot. Get it?



Were they now? Because the Bible says so, or because you do?



No, I'm merely dismissing metaphors in favor of discussing realities.



Their proximity to water is a good sign.



And of course, when people talk about deserts, their first thoughts are "this here's a good place to build a monastery..."

You know that without the Father you cannot face your demons, don't you?

Both I and the Bible.

Ideas are realities, not metaphores. So are the angels, both the Bible and I say so.

Name a city in the desert that hasn't been built because of the proximity to water, I'm sure you can, because there are such examples.

Back then it was easier to find water in the desert, there were no wars over water.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You know that without the Father you cannot face your demons, don't you?

No, I don't "know" that -- it being Christian dogma and not fact, why would I?

Both I and the Bible.

So you say... but not the Bible.

Ideas are realities, not metaphores. So are the angels, both the Bible and I say so.

That makes the both of you mistaken.

Name a city in the desert that hasn't been built because of the proximity to water, I'm sure you can, because there are such examples.

You first.

Back then it was easier to find water in the desert, there were no wars over water.

And there were places that were not deserts which were far easier to find water... and found cities.

 

[just a believing guy]

No, I don't "know" that -- it being Christian dogma and not fact, why would I?



So you say... but not the Bible.



That makes the both of you mistaken.



You first.



And there were places that were not deserts which were far easier to find water... and found cities.

Because you are agnostic.

The Bible does say so... if you read between the lines, as any sound reader would.

Again, such an approach to religion does not suit agnostic persons.

I wouldn't like to take this to absurdity, but...I asked you first... didn't I?

If it was easier to find water does not mean that the first cities were founded there where it was far easier to find water.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because you are agnostic.

Yes, I know.

The Bible does say so... if you read between the lines, as any sound reader would.

Fine then -- show me the lines and explain your thought process.

Again, such an approach to religion does not suit agnostic persons.

Again, according to the Bible, or you?

I wouldn't like to take this to absurdity, but...I asked you first... didn't I?

You asked me to prove your point for you... do your own legwork.

If it was easier to find water does not mean that the first cities were founded there where it was far easier to find water.

Actually, it kind of does mean that -- no water = no city.

And in the cases of the first cities, it was far easier to stay by the water than to make the water come to you.

I eagerly await a counter example.

 

[just a believing guy]

Yes, I know.



Fine then -- show me the lines and explain your thought process.



Again, according to the Bible, or you?



You asked me to prove your point for you... do your own legwork.



Actually, it kind of does mean that -- no water = no city.

And in the cases of the first cities, it was far easier to stay by the water than to make the water come to you.

I eagerly await a counter example.

You are agnostic yet you reject any dogma? Strange...

I'll leave that to agnostics who accept some kind of dogmatic thought processes...

Both subjectively and objectively...

I won't do my legwork...

No water = no cities = a dogma. Await some new archaelogical evidence, and not my counter example.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are agnostic yet you reject any dogma? Strange...

I'll leave that to agnostics who accept some kind of dogmatic thought processes...

Both subjectively and objectively...

I won't do my legwork...

No water = no cities = a dogma. Await some new archaelogical evidence, and not my counter example.

I take it then that you won't be supporting your ideas, and will continue to expect me to do it for you?

 

[just a believing guy]

I take it then that you won't be supporting your ideas, and will continue to expect me to do it for you?

Yes; let's leave it to the readers... And I could have asked you the same question concerning (several of) your previous post(s)...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes; let's leave it to the readers...

Fair enough -- let's get back on topic: transhumanism.

Does the technology to physically improve humans pose a moral or spiritual risk? Of course.
Is this risk any different from previous technological advances? No.

Society is built around technology, and has always adapted in response to new inventions. Whatever you choose to define as "transhumanism," what would make it any different from technologies of the past?

 

[bhsmte]

You know that without the Father you cannot face your demons, don't you?

Both I and the Bible.

Ideas are realities, not metaphores. So are the angels, both the Bible and I say so.

Name a city in the desert that hasn't been built because of the proximity to water, I'm sure you can, because there are such examples.

Back then it was easier to find water in the desert, there were no wars over water.

What demons?

 

[Radrook]

Actually, from a strictly biblical standpoint mankind has long ago already gone transhuman but in the entirely wrong direction.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually, from a strictly biblical standpoint mankind has long ago already gone transhuman but in the entirely wrong direction.

How so? And what would be the "right" direction?

 

[Radrook]

How so? And what would be the "right" direction?

From a biblical standpoint mankind Adam suffered mental an physical degradation when its he sinned and passed on that condition to all his descendants.

Romans 5:12
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

This is how the Apostle Paul describes it:

(Romans 7:14-8:4 NKJV) For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. {15} For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. {16} If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. {17} But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

{18} For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. {19} For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.

Which means that the original human lacked the persistently strong tendencies to sin that we presently do.

The right direction would have been for mankind to have remained as created-blameless and to have reinforced that perfect condition by respectfully avoiding sin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

From a biblical standpoint mankind Adam suffered mental an physical degradation when its he sinned and passed on that condition to all his descendants.





This is how the Apostle Paul describes it:



Which means that the original human lacked the persistently strong tendencies to sin that we presently do.

The right direction would have been for mankind to have remained as created-blameless and to have reinforced that perfect condition by respectfully avoiding sin.

Right -- and what does that have to do with transhumanism?

 

[Radrook]

o

Right -- and what does that have to do with transhumanism?

Just pointing out that we haven't been enhanced as humans simply by adding technologies onto a damaged version of what humans were never supposed to be. We have gone backwards. In shorts, we are claiming the "human" appellation when we really don't deserve it. Maybe trans defective humanism is more accurate?

BTW
I don't expect agnostics or atheists to acknowledge anything biblically based. So my comment was for fellow believers and not an affront or debate challenge.

 

[TLK Valentine]

o
Just pointing out that we haven't been enhanced as humans simply by adding technologies onto a damaged version of what humans were never supposed to be.

Perhaps -- but utterly irrelevant.

The reality is that we have to approach the human condition based on where we are, not some pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about what we were allegedly "supposed" to be.

We have gone backwards.

Equally irrelevant. This is where we are. We have no control over how we got here, but we can control where we go from here.

This is what you've got to work with: Humanity, warts and all. You can whine about it, or do something about it. The choice is yours.

In shorts, we are claiming the "human" appellation when we really don't deserve it. Maybe trans defective humanism is more accurate?

If you want to call yourself defective, that's your right, and you're welcome to it. But I'm certainly not going to put the breaks in this discussion based on what you think we "deserve."

BTW
I don't expect agnostics or atheists to acknowledge anything biblically based. So my comment was for fellow believers and not an affront or debate challenge.

Just so long as you realize that not everyone you preach to is in the choir.

 

[Radrook]

Perhaps -- but utterly irrelevant.

The reality is that we have to approach the human condition based on where we are, not some pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about what we were allegedly "supposed" to be.



Equally irrelevant. This is where we are. We have no control over how we got here, but we can control where we go from here.

This is what you've got to work with: Humanity, warts and all. You can whine about it, or do something about it. The choice is yours.



If you want to call yourself defective, that's your right, and you're welcome to it. But I'm certainly not going to put the breaks in this discussion based on what you think we "deserve."



Just so long as you realize that not everyone you preach to is in the choir.

As I said, it wasn't meant for you to accept. As for discussion, that is up to individual choice. If one posts a thread one has to expect differences of opinions.
Also, please keep in mind that this is a religious website and religious views will be expressed.

 

[just a believing guy]

Perhaps -- but utterly irrelevant.

The reality is that we have to approach the human condition based on where we are, not some pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about what we were allegedly "supposed" to be.



Equally irrelevant. This is where we are. We have no control over how we got here, but we can control where we go from here.

This is what you've got to work with: Humanity, warts and all. You can whine about it, or do something about it. The choice is yours.



If you want to call yourself defective, that's your right, and you're welcome to it. But I'm certainly not going to put the breaks in this discussion based on what you think we "deserve."



Just so long as you realize that not everyone you preach to is in the choir.

Explain the absence of evidence for microevolution, than talk about pies in the skies, if you would.

 

[just a believing guy]

Just so long as you realize that not everyone you preach to is in the choir.

You seem like quite a smart person, so what made you say this

 

[TLK Valentine]

As I said, it wasn't meant for you to accept.

Then you're speaking into the Aether... that's your right, of course, but I don't see a whole lot of Christians buying into your words, either.

As for discussion, that is up to individual choice. If one posts a thread one has to expect differences of opinions.

But of course. As should you.

Also, please keep in mind that this is a religious website and religious views will be expressed.

Most certainly -- but I would expect religious opinions other than "don't bother; we're doomed." It doesn't really contribute much to the discussion at hand.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Explain the absence of evidence for microevolution, than talk about pies in the skies, if you would.

Absence of evidence? I'm going to assume that you meant "macroevolution," but I'll give you the opportunity to correct yourself before dismissing this rabbit trail.