i cant figure anything out. how can you be serious. i think you are, but you cant be! the world confuses me.
1. I have not called you a kook or whackjob. This is a red herring. 2. I have been far from unreasonable. I have been relentless logical. Irrelevant conclusion. This is absurd and you know it. Or you should. At last, you deliver a total rejection of science based on steadfast faith in the supernatural. I suspected this. I give up on you.
Red: Ok, maybe not you specifically....how about the assertion that I believe in "magic"? Did the Founding Fathers believe in "magic" or did they believe in a Supreme Being? Either you misunderstand what I was saying or you are being disingenuous.... I do not reject science or the scientific method whatsoever. It is very helpful to tell us about natural process, events, in the natural world. I reject the idea that the natural world is the only thing that makes up reality. I submit there is a natural world and a supernatural world. I also submit the natural world is sometimes acted upon by the supernatural. You should be able to understand the difference. I do not reject science, only its claimed monopoly on truth regarding all of existence.
Magic is one of martin's fondest pejoratives on here. I don't know if I've ever seen red utilize this one.
yes i realize that in many ways he is opposite from yours but i consider them far from crazy and most of them laudable. love, charity, forgiveness... he talked about god so i understand how you would say his stuff is loony, but im wouldnt consider just belief in a god loony, especially 2000 yrs ago. well he got a little bit more than that i think.
not trying to point fingers but the magic comments are irritating.... -2010, 04:16 PM #231 red55 curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Baton Rouge Posts: 21,310 Re: Should we reopen the book on Evolution? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by flabengal I am not interested in the imaginary. I am only interested in the supernatural if it in fact, exists. Imaginary things do not exist, by definition. Conceptual things don't exist either. We can conceive of a supernatural process, but it is not reality until we can observe one under scientific conditions and test it. Quote: Originally Posted by flabengal I've gotten tripped up on a few definitions myself in this forum which lead to some cloudy thinking and misunderstandings. Definitions are important....and that is where I think the disparaging use of the term magic in reference to the supernatural causes some confusion on this board. Red55:
I understand. I understand and suggest this caveat: That the natural world is the only thing that we know to make up reality and for which no faith is necessary. Correspondingly, that a supernatural reality is a faith concept for which no knowledge is necessary. It is difficult to understand how you can be so confused between the belief in what could be truth and the verification of what we can observe to be truth.
Magic and miracle are too synonymous to be perjorative. Jesus turned water into wine and this certainly sounds magical to me. I can turn water into tea, but it is just a series of natural processes. I can turn water into wine by watering seeds, growing grapes, fermenting them, and crushing them with my feet but that seems hardly miraculous. Could it be that this miracle is actually a parable with turning water into wine as a metaphor for making the most of what God/nature provides? Do I think that Jesus performed a magical act of physical transmuation. Nope, impossible, my science rejects this. But . . . do I think that Jesus performed an enlightenment by the use of a "magically" memorable metaphor that has allowed his ethical message to pass through centuries of verbal tradition and translation to survive and enlighten still? Absolutely. That's the friggin' miracle, my faith accepts this and it contradicts no science.
You and I both know it's pejorative in that the implied comparison is being made between Jesus and Vegas show charlatans.
Well, I think that my implied comparison is between Jesus and the Wizard of Oz. Not that he was a charlatan, but that the impressive magic attributed to him hid the down-to-earth reality that his true miracle was in convincing others to believe that they were brave, smart, loved, and could go home again. "They have one thing you haven't got: a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitartus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of ThD. That's... Doctor of Thinkology."
