I Believe (to address the complaints of last week)

JuanV.Soler

thanks for clarifying me the concept,Cornel.

Teezer

@mike lucey said:

.... coming up to 58, I'm doing a lot of thinking lately
about 'What's it all about?'.

I was talking to my accountant yesterday and getting advice
on planning for retirement. He was a bit shocked when I did
a quick calc 'I'm 58 this year, 7 years to full retirement age,
plus a further 20 if lucky. That leaves 27 years in total, all
going well!'

Since you're 58 this year, that means that your full retirement age is 66. Just FYI.

I'm 66 this year, and I've been getting SS checks since January. If I live as long as my father did, I've got 18 years left. I expect to see great advances in health care technology, so I may live as long as my mother did (94).

In any case, one of the most important things you can do for yourself is to exercise regularly. If you don't have a regular exercise program, start one. Most of the physical deterioration that we consider "normal aging" is actually caused by inactivity.

As far as death itself, I'll quote Woody Allen:

@unknownuser said:

Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon.

You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.

On the plus side, death is one of the few things that can be done just as easily lying down.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman?

It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens.

Alan Fraser

I believe in Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Charles Darwin.

andyc

@alan fraser said:

I believe in Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Charles Darwin.

Amen to that (irony intended)

Can I just add the wonderful, and much missed Douglas Adams to that list.

My favourite quote of his:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Andy.

cornel

A) Modelhead,
Re. your question: “Does a mouse have a spirit or a soul?”

Animal kingdom is without spirits…

A spirit can imitate an animal (incl. a bird or an insect) - see a "dove"case:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)

A spirit can use an animal as a ‘support’. Perceive, for example, 2 cases, w/ an "ass" or some "locusts":

“And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam: “What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”” (Numbers 22:28)
“And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.” (Revelation 9:3-4)

Even if a mouse is announced as ‘a member of a family’, it has no spirit!
Re. Mickey Mouse, there is another ‘story’: virtual reality.

P.S.: I cannot consider a supposition like Reincarnation theory – that’s a childish story…

B) P.P.S: Alan,
Finally, Charles Darwin dismissed his ‘famous’ theory… Awake!

Cornel

Stinkie

@unknownuser said:

Finally, Charles Darwin dismissed his ‘famous’ theory… Awake!:o

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

As far as my beliefs go: scientia vincere tenebras.

david_h

I myself subscribe to the wisdom of the great sage Twitney Houston
I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way

everybody join hands and sing along!!! You know the words. . .

*Chorus:

Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all*

Alan Fraser

Charles Darwin did not recant his theory. That's just fantasy. As for the other fantasy about Darwinism having been superceded; nothing of the kind. The only difference between V1 and V2 is that Darwin more or less suggested that evolution progresses at a relatively steady rate, whereas modern science is more inclined to believe that sometimes, at any rate, it can make quite surprisingly large mutational jumps.
In the UK we have just been treated to an excellent 3 part mini series.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458

Dismissed his theory? I don't think so.

Stinkie

Thanks for the link. Looks cool.

cornel

*“Charles Darwin did not recant his theory”,*publicaly…!
He converted to Christianity before he died.

Cornel

andyc

Cornel:

Sorry, fella - you are wrong. This is an unsubstantiated story that has been perpetuated by the Christian far-right. And repeated ad-nauseum by people like you I urge you to read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins for a more balanced version of the story.

cornel

Andy,
I know that 'blind watchmaker' named Richard Dawkins…
He didn’t ‘impress’ me!

Cornel

david_h

@unknownuser said:

Andy,
I know that 'blind watchmaker' named Richard Dawkins…
He didn’t ‘impress’ me!

Cornel

Didn't he host Family Feud?

tomsdesk

Backing up a bit: Cornel...please provide your definition of "soul" that precludes the mouse having one, thanks. (And please, PLEASE, in your own words and feelings...rather than the chapter and verse.)

Also, everyone: isn't it a very narrow view of Christianity that disallows the acceptance of Evolution? (Is the "Darwin was or wasn't" really a matter of signicance to one or the other?) Surely it's not either/or?

Alan Fraser

Cornel,
Even if that were true (which it isn't), he converted to Christianity from what? He was bound for the clergy before he ever set foot aboard the Beagle.
There's nothing inconsistent in believing in both God and evolution. All that is required is not to believe that everything in the Bible is the literal truth.
The Bible is not the word of God, it's a collection of human writings. The Songs of Solomon are just that...Solomon's....not God's. The Bible wasn't sanctified until the Council of Nicea in the fourth century. It's present contents owe far more to the politics of the early Christian church than to religion.

cornel

Yes, Modelhead,
I’m “more important than a mouse”…, and Jesus died tu save our (human) pretious souls, …not mice, not animals!

Alan,
Darwin converted to Christianity because:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
(Mark 8:36)
THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL!

P.S.: Books of The Bible were inspired, (or dictated) by God.

Cornel

Alan Fraser

Cornel,
You miss the point. Mostly because you are yet again simply quoting Bible verses instead of using reasoned argument.

a) Darwin did not "convert" to Christianity.
b) The immortality or otherwise of a soul is totally irrelevant to a belief in Evolution. As Tom says, it's not an either/or. Only fundamentalists with closed minds claim that it is. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the two things are not mutually exclusive...confirmed atheist that he is.

The story of Darwin's deathbed conversion is a fiction of Creationists, based upon the testimony of a certain Lady Hope. According to the story, Lady Hope said her visit was ""during that glorious autumn afternoon…"

Darwin died in APRIL 1882. Darwin's daughter Henrietta was at his deathbed. She said that her father did not become a Christian before he died. This was reported in the Humanist magazine. Henrietta went on to state that she could not remember her father ever being visited by such a lady and that the entire story seemed to have been fabricated in the USA.
Darwin's son Francis wrote a book about his father in which no mention was made that his father was ever converted. Quite the contrary, he confirmed that he was an agnostic, an unbeliever until his dying day.

It seems to me that those who pride themselves on following The Truth aren't above stooping to a little falsehood. For shame.

P.S. The Nicene Creed established some fundamental precepts (such as the nature of the Trinity...Christ's relationship to the Father) by a VOTE, for goodness sake. How can that possibly be interpreted as a dictate of God?

baz

@juanv.soler said:

I have got to the point of understanding that I believe,(I am certain of), what I feel.
So I am what I feel and that makes unnecesary the need to believe.
Further more I am able to avoid the feels I dont like.
So, pretty good for now.

As I did a lot of mental_rational_thinking about what was worth to believe in and got to the conclusion that if *** existed I obviously had to know about *** I sort of make a submission to life itself, in the sense of not unnecesary_strugglings, and keep watching whats happens inside myself.

and i think i am getting sure to have what i always wanted to have
the certainty that *** lives in me as i like He to live in me.
have to see yet if that is a sin or .the inevitable way of my living

Juan, I am so into that. You express it to the max. thanks.
ps: is it just me, or is cornel really boring?

Stinkie

@unknownuser said:

Yes, Modelhead,
I’m “more important than a mouse”…,

Now, now. Don't forget the good Lord's immanence. That mouse is a pars pro toto.

JuanV.Soler

thankyou Baz