you don't understand the most basic things about what i believe...on purpose . . . . there is absolutely nothing magical or mystical about what i believe . . . . my beliefs don't come from what anyone tells me. they come from what i experience . . . . i don't believe in magic.
Lori: I believe that the question of whether your statements above are correct, or instead that Q's criticisms are on the mark, hinges on the meaning of your statements in this post:
to me, christ means the perfection of the human existence. yes, salvation from what is in err. restored communion with god and each other. redemption. i'm very much looking forward to it.
thanks, jesus.
I think most of us would agree that here you appear to be expressing Christian faith. If this is true, then the essence of Q's remarks are correct, although as usual I would counsel him to dial back the snide hostility.
You appear to be expressing faith in the existence of a supernatural creature called "god" who communicates with people in the natural universe. You also appear to be expressing faith in the supernatural nature of Jesus and his power to violate the laws of the natural universe such as entropy and conservation of energy, as well as to violate several principles of biology.
Bear in mind that this is a science website and this particular subforum is an integral part of it, unlike the "Religion" subforum where the rules are relaxed. The scientific method is to be observed at all times, or at least not flouted except in jest. The claims you appear to make contradict the fundamental premise that underlies all science and is the basis of the scientific method: That the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. Therefore your claims qualify as extraordinary assertions, and by the Rule of Laplace they must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.
If my interpretation of your remarks is mistaken and you are merely being metaphorical or literary, then I apologize. Nonetheless since I'm not the only one who jumped to the wrong conclusion (a professional communicator at that) you will have learned something about how to communicate effectively on this website.
If, however, our interpretations are correct, then in accordance with the scientific method and the rules of SciForums, Q is welcome (although not required) to disrespect what you say. My only request is that he do so civilly and in such a way as to keep this discussion moving forward, rather than stalling it on personalities, or even worse, goading someone into a flame war.
You are invited to answer this question, or else be satisfied with the interpretations of the readers.
