It depends on your biological age. Once you can say "old at heart" you are old and should look for older partners. If you are young both in body AND heart despite your calendar age you should look for younger partner because you will not be happy with older ones. You will not look good together as a couple either.
I always had younger partners. Sometimes 8 years younger. Once a 22 years old girl wanted to go out with me, I thought that was way too young and I declined :-)
The Christian Church adopted the idea of souls going to heaven or hell upon death from Platonism. The ancient Hebrews had a different view. Body, soul and spirit are different aspects of the person. Soul (ie life) means you are alive. Spirit (ie breath or wind) means you breathe.
I don't meant to put down those in the RCC, or elevate myself, but I take a very different approach from theirs and I think I come up with much better results. They interpret the bible on the foundation of orthodoxy and church tenets, I do it by employing Hebraic thought.
No surprise that they could not answer your questions in the RCC. If you wish, put your questions forward and see what I can do. You might be surprised.
I read somewhere that the shortest man on earth died not long ago. He was about 50cm "tall". Thousands of years from now, after this civilisation disappeared and new one appeared, archeologists will find his remains and conclude that the humanoids that lived in our time were on average 50cm tall, and due to their small heads had limited intelligence.
Is it not what science does? They find a few bones and generalise about the findings. They draw a hairy primeval man out of a piece of bone or two, sometimes from a tooth (that eventually turned out to have belonged to a pig) and say, this is how those primeval creatures looked like. If you look around in today's world you find people who look pretty much like those hairy drawings.
Regarding the development of languages I don't share your opinion for obvious reason. To me this is pure speculation.
Reading it and studying it are two very different things. If you want to understand it you need to study it. If you only read some of it you know nothing about it really.
So, how were those people "good" who were involved in those crimes? And what about those "good" soldiers who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, including women and children, in the recent wars against "terror"? Were they also religious?
If you want to see cruelty there is no need to go to religion. During the sanction against Iraq during the last decade 2 million children under the age of 6 starved to death or died due to lack of medication. If I remember correctly, this was the very reason that Bin Laden, who witnessed all this and who was up to that point an US ally, turned against the West.
Was this crime committed in the name of religion also? You seem to be ignorant about all the murderous crime that is going on around the world even today that are much more destructive than the crusades or inquisitions were.
If I take your statement at face value it means that man created man.
Whether man created God and religion we do not know. You cannot go back in time to the beginning of religion and grab the guy who invented it. If I remember correctly, scientists discovered that there is an area so-called "God part" in the brain:
So by the looks of it people are hard wired to be religious. Now we can argue if humans were specially created with this ability or some evolutionary process produced it. Whichever way, you will never be able to prove if God was created by man. But the best you can state is that spirituality is as old as mankind and will never cease unless somehow you manage to selectively kill or switch off this part of the brain.
Do you use the "God part" of your brain, or is it fast asleep? :-)
Now you need to specify that you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church. It is not in my interest to defend them, nor any other that committed such horrible crimes. Sure, religions are not the sole preserve and domain of the good, I quite agree. Maybe there is a standard of good that is being revealed through our conscience - unless it is suppressed.
Hmmm... No, you don't really. You put all religions into the same basket and treat them as one. Then you bring the example of the jesuits. You need to decide if we talk about Christianity or other religions. I believe in God and follow the teaching of the bible, but I don't believe in original sin and when my daughter asked me what we believe I told her she had to work out what she believed when she grew up. I did help a number of Christians to understand that there is no trinity, not original sin and alike, but never tried to control them. I always encouraged them that they should do their own studies and come to their own conclusions. Having said that, I know that there are many churches where the leaders rob the congregation and control them. "Put a hundred dollar note into the collection box and there is a thousand dollars in the mail sent to you by God". I need to tell you, I really hate all these things.
My religion tells me to live my life by honouring God. It means treating my neighbour well, help the needy, not tell lies, not to go to bed with another man's wife, honour my parents, etc. Do you think these are wrong values? By what values do YOU live?
And I do have a hope that my religion gives me, but even if it turns out to be untrue, what did I loose? I lived an honourable life, caused no harm and did good deeds.
But what do you have to loose if in the end it turns out that there is a God?
I think you don't quite understand how religion works and what it depends on. Ancient languages, archeology, history, the knowledge of ancient culture and customs as well as the way ancient people thought are all needed if you want to understand the ancient scriptures correctly. For example, I am reading a series of articles that deal with archeological, linguistic and historical evidence that Hebrew was a living language in the first century. Most probably the subject is uninteresting to you guys, but I only wanted to show you that religion does use scientific tools/methods.
When I studied at bible college I was required to address various issue, verify the different arguments and argue for or against them - or even develop a my own. In the process I had to use all available resources. This process in a sense was quite similar to what I used when I was involved in scientific research (long time ago) and was sitting in the library digging scientific journals, then once my laboratory experiments were complete I had to write an article to present my case quoting those scientific journals and arguing for or against a point.
Where religion generally falls down is at its fundamental tenets that are treated as taboos. And, of course, it has to make assumptions - that there is a God and decides what it accepts as holy scriptures, without which it would not be a religion.
You seem to be very smart. If you had dyslexia I understand you would find it hard to learn. I have trouble remembering numbers and names, but not with things I can grasp with logic. Am I dyslexic also? :-)
I registered first on another site and suddenly didn't know what nickname to choose, so I picked revealer24. I did not pick this because I had an intention to express anything with it. I could have even picked garlic or tomato or whatever, but this was the first word that suddenly came to my mind.
1. I am not a biologist, so I am not sure about all these definitions - I need to give you my own. 2. I call evolution when one kind develops into another, for example, a simple life form (single cell) develops into complex life form (ie fish, etc). 2. I call adaptation when a kind changes to adapt to the environment, but it remains the same kind. 3. I believe adaptation takes place, but I don't believe in evolution. However, I am going to check that website - which sadly has no pictures and it makes it much harder for me because I am not into biology.
I understand that according to the definition you quoted any change is evolution.
I think it comes down to definition. I called evolution when complex life forms develop from simple life forms. So from the starting with the first primeval cell over time you get to fish, than it grows legs and develops lungs and eventually from it you get to the man.
I do accept that a kind can change as it adapts, but I debate that one kind can become another kind.
I don't know why you think that I don't want to look at the evidence for evolution. I have been reading the site posted just before I noticed your post. A bit of a hard reading, but trying to make sense of it.
As I noted earlier I accept that living creatures change and adapt. They might change colour, appetite or even grow longer horns. What I haven't seen is that one kind actually changes into another.
So far what I have seen on that site may also be explained that there were a variety of animals that shared similar mosaic features. I am not saying this as fact because this is not my area of expertise, but I'd like to see a site where this is debated and argument is presented for and against in a scientific manner.
One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, only accept it. Because of this it makes no sense to ask to explain creation. If you accept the bible, you only go with what it says there. You cannot go beyond it. You might accept other sacred texts or nothing - either way one cannot speculate about how creation happened. I only say that I believe it happened. How? I don't know and I don't care. It cannot be scientifically tested and verified. If you like, it is a leap of faith, but no different from believing that God exists. These things fall into the area of supernatural.
However, when it comes to science I want to see evidence because contrary to the supernatural scientific theories should be testable and verifiable.
I thought I made it clear that I believe in creation. God created the kinds of living with their ability to change and adapt to their changing environment. I wasn't present at creation, so I cannot tell you the details and don't want to speculate about it :-)
However, the majority of species became extinct over time. So it looks like they tend to disappear rather than appear.
I only used cross breeding to define what I mean a kind is. I did not mean that this is how evolution work.
But I dispute that these single cells that are locked into different developmental paths will eventually change into any other kinds that they originally were. I do not agree that they can develop into more complex life forms (other kinds). This is the area I need proof.
revealer24 Forum Posts (985)
RE: Age difference?
It depends on your biological age. Once you can say "old at heart" you are old and should look for older partners. If you are young both in body AND heart despite your calendar age you should look for younger partner because you will not be happy with older ones. You will not look good together as a couple either.I always had younger partners. Sometimes 8 years younger. Once a 22 years old girl wanted to go out with me, I thought that was way too young and I declined :-)