jamesfrankmcgrath

Here's the detailed calculation of what proportional time would look like, if we give each a relative amount of class time based on how long each view says that it took for life to reach its present form: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/20...

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/05/no-...

In the Bible's depiction of God, seas are parted, fire is sent from heaven, and bears are sent to maul those who offend his prophet. If you think that's all Old Testament, then in the New Testament the apostles' opponents are struck with blindness, people walk on water and are cured at command.

My point is not that God does not exist. My point is that those who claim to "believe the whole Bible" and "take it all literally" are being dishonest. Has anyone today every really achieved living according to a first-century worldview in the present day? Is it not preferable to recognize that we think about God differently, with a Christian concept of God today being one that takes seriously earlier Christian thought, but also our modern knowledge of science, history, astronomy and other subjects?

I currently have a Culligan Iron Cleer unit, and it has been effective in removing iron, but also is very noisy and becomes clogged with the 'mud' that comes out of our well.

Any experiences that anyone can share with different models of iron filter would be appreciated. Especially if you have >5ppm of iron in your well water.

I recently solved the infamous black screen after login problem, and am hoping this one can be sorted out too. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. The errors are connected with rundll and newdev.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/12/vis...

Recently I have had some interaction with a number of people (particularly through my blog at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com)/ and it was suggested that I was "painting with too broad a brush." It does seem to me that this terminology of "intelligent design" is being used by different people and different groups in very significantly different ways.

Is it a view you subscribe to? How would you define it?

The only one I've seen readily available is the one by EuroTalk which got very bad reviews and doesn't sound very useful. Any recommendations about ones you've used and your experience with them would be most welcome!

How many of the questions here do you think are genuinely by people who are willing to admit they do not know something and want to find out more? How many are by fundamentalists (whether atheists, Christians, or anything else) who are already convinced they "know" the answer and are simply using this forum as a soapbox or a tool for proselytizing?

It is not like the Bible appeared at a single point in history, wrapped in a nice package with a note that said "From God, with love". If one wishes to treat the Bible in a "leap of faith" sort of way, one must also take a leap of faith that those who chose what to include and what to exclude were infallibly inspired.

Then, one has to take another leap of faith that the manuscripts on which the English translations have been based are the most reliable ones. When I discussed John 7:53-8:11 in my Sunday school class last weekend, some didn't know what to do with this familiar story not being an original part of John's Gospel. Can one take it on faith that something should or should not be included? Or does one take a leap of faith in trusting the disclaimer and leaving such passages out?

Then one has to take another leap of faith that the translators did a good job.

Instead of all these leaps of faith, isn't it better to inform oneself?

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/

Locating petroleum in the earth is based entirely on the assumption of a very old earth, and that these pockets were formed from decaying organic matter over millions of years (hence the term 'fossil fuels'). If the idea of an ancient earth is unbiblical and anathema to you, presumably you will want to boycott products that depend entirely on such ungodly assumptions, won't you?

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/

I recently saw someone give an answer on Yahoo! Answers that simply said "I have a right to my beliefs". I am afraid I could not understand how that was an answer to the question - or indeed any question.

Do we have an inalienable right to believe nonsense? Do we have the right not only to believe whatever we choose, but to not have anyone ask us questions about the logic of or evidence for our beliefs?

I know it is popular nowadays to define faith as "belief without evidence" or even "belief in spite of evidence to the contrary". But SHOULD we define faith in that way? Would most Christians (for example) really be willing to accept that there is no evidence for their faith? If there is evidence, or at least if evidence is relevant, then it would seem that there is no avoiding questions about history, archaeology, apparent contradictions in Scripture, and so on.

So what do you think? Is it appropriate for those of different viewpoints to ask questions about your beliefs?

Matthew 16:27-28 says:

"For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

The context has an explicit reference to the coming of the Son of Man as involving the final judgment. This is thus quite clearly a prediction that the end would come within the lifetime of some who heard Jesus.

If one takes a historical approach to the Bible then one will probably look to Mark's version as earlier and perhaps closer to what Jesus may have said. One may also find the arguments of John P. Meier about the possibility that these predictions do not go back to Jesus himself persuasive. But for those who simply read the Bible and claim to take it all at face value, what do you do with a prediction like this? How far are you willing to go in order to force the Bible to seem to be right?

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1980/5/...

Do you simply accept it as a mistake? Do you blame it on the Gospel authors rather than Jesus? Do you find some creative way to interpret it so as to avoid its plain meaning? I'm interested to hear how different people approach this text.

I am writing a conference paper that will eventually be published as a chapter in a book about religion and A.I. I'd appreciate any speculations anyone would like to offer. What would an android make of our various human traditions? Might a desktop A.I. decide to take up Buddhist meditation? What would Cmd. Data make of the experience if you invited him to church? Would all A.I.s be atheists? Let me know your thoughts. Thank you!

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/sci-fi/

Ever since before the time of Jesus, there was a tradition in Judaism that God worked even on the Sabbath (if he didn't, the whole universe would unravel without him upholding it).

If you do not take this literally, then why take the rest of the "divine working week" literally? I am not disputing that the story talks of literal days with morning and evening. But what if it does so as part of a metaphorical or symbolic depiction of a "divine working week"? Why would that be any more literal than God's throne, or outstreched arm, or anything else that depicts God in human terms?

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/bible/ot/genesis1...

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/science/

A personal, life-changing "mystical" experience of God, or believing certain doctrines to be literally true?

Please provide reasons for your answer. Thanks!

Yet if someone finds an apparent inconsistency in young-earth creationism, they consider it acceptable to say "The Lord moves in mysterious ways. God has his reasons"?

Aren't young-earth creationists inconsistent about this? I got these sorts of answers when I asked how intelligent design would account for moles having eyes that are non-functional (and in many cases are covered with fur). How can you say that evidence of design points to a designer, and yet not be willing to accept the evidential value of evidence to the contrary?

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

If not, please be honest enough to acknowledge that you do not take Genesis 2:7 literally. Thank you!

Why would they be extinct as a result of the flood if Noah obeyed and took them on the ark? If they died out soon after, does that mean God's plan to save the animals was flawed? Most importantly, can you not see that taking the flood story as a factual historical account creates more problems than it solves?

If they had no eyes I could see how one might argue they were made this way to live underground. But having an organ that no longer functions seems more readily explicable in evolutionary terms, is it not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(animal)