romansh

But why would God create such a weak creature?

Indeed why would God create such a weak creation to experience "things". Beggars belief.

It sounds like you are in the Kettle Falls-Colville area. I know a couple of Rotarians there.

While I personally find speculation around the personal habits of a person bordering on myth not very interesting and generally irrelevant. But it would be more interesting speculating what the scribes of the gospels were trying to say rather than waving our bona fides around.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

If you mean by prayer getting off our butt's and doing something then I would agree. But I would argue we need the teaching a person to fish homily here rather than just aid. If by sin you mean ignorance I agree. Pray tell us, how do you pray Burl. Lead by example.

I would agree with the above statement. The two year old might be a proximate or immediate cause of a spilt glass of milk say: at what age might we hold a child blameworthy of the spilt milk? The short answer for most of us would be it depends. But if I were to (unintentionally) spill the milk why would I be more blameworthy than say a two year old; other than expectations of those around me. Now if I or a two year old had a temper tantrum and spilt the milk in a fit. Are we blameworthy? Children have not had these tantrums trained (conditioned, programmed, educated, habituated) out of them. Some of us still have tantrums. We might expect an adult not to have tantrums but at some point we transfer the blame from the circumstance to the person. I suppose I could spill the milk in some psychopathic manner. In what way I am responsible for my psychopathy? The point is we draw some arbitrary film around a person at a given moment and handle the contents of that film differently. What is a consist way to handle the contents the film? I agree the universe might not be the result of any cause. It might be just one cause … ie Joseph's point of view (if I understand correctly). But I think I agree with your quote. Though the word "driving" in your sentence is interesting … it does sort of vaguely imply a direction.

I'm a BC town/village

Can I suggest … in the universe would be a good place to start? I see you are getting the hang of Alberta

What's the difference between a miracle and something we don't have the wit to understand? That should go down well. Yep, this is sad. 🙅‍♂️

It's funny, I don't ever recall believing in hell (or heaven for that matter). I can't help thinking traditional Christianity has (and continues to do) harm to its flock with the more literal interpretations of hell (and heaven). At best it is a metaphor for the long-spoon story. A load of codswallop? Potentially it could be worse than that. But I suspect things are going in a healthier direction. Just as aside checked data for the UK. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/26/o-we-of-little-faith About a third of UK Christians (self identified) definitely do not believe in hell and under a third do. And it looks like interesting times for traditional Christianity in the UK

There are people who I have been (or am) drawn to. Though not anybody from two thousand years ago. People in my current life. I suspect part of the draw for Jesus is familiarity of the texts and the communal aspects. Douglas Adams is one of my textual heroes.

I can safely say I have never had an experience of god … or anything I could call god (or God).

Yes it is fascinating … and the back story of the model is also. Speaking of cinnabar … it has been postulated she died of mercury poisoning, intentional or otherwise in that mercury [compounds] were widely used as cosmetics at that time. Also in the Christian tradition there are variety classes of angels. Up to ten according to Billy Graham. "The colours of the angels are most likely not coincidental. The three blue cherubs are believed to represent purity and air, while the six red seraphs are thought to symbolise love and fire. On closer scrutiny, it appears that just one group of angels actually touches Mary's throne." From

.Doing the a little bit of reading up on the painting, which I thought had a very twentieth century surreal feel to it, and apparently the internet also thinks so. I know little of Jean Fouquet, the painter. But skimming through his works … I thought his work was impressive. He seems to be known for his Diptychs. Regarding the model for Madonna turns out to be an interesting: Agnes Sorel Apparently she was renown for her beauty. Was the first official royal mistress to the French King Charles VII, apparently up to that time they were unofficial. She died at 28, during the birth of her fourth stillborn daughter; it is speculated she may have been poisoned. She was into haute couture, wearing dresses at court with low necklines and with one breast exposed. Funnily enough this made her enemies at court, and her influence on the king likely did not help. In the painting she has a Barbie doll waist and the right breast seems strangely located.

No Paul, I am trying to say that if there is no causality then there is no ticking (or perhaps no tock). If causality is false the I cannot be a cause and as a result I cannot be responsible in either sense of the two major uses of the word. I personally do not believe this, but there are scientific interpretations that comport with this view. I agree But here we then discuss the nature of that responsibility. All the causes appear to be lined up in a mesh like structure that extend to points before we can be responsible for our actions. As two year-olds in what sense are we responsible for our actions? As we grow up are we responsible for our genetics, our parents skills, our predisposition to learn, our predispositions in general, the environment we find ourselves in. Ultimately, it is just luck that I had the parents I had, the skill to cope at school, the intelligence to go to university, marry the wife I did, etc. Sure I can considered a proximate cause ie a focal point of my actions. That does not mean my actions should not be contained if they are found undesirable. This I think depends on the nature of the causality. If that causality is probabilistic then existence is not predetermined. Our determined existence depends on what I call partly in jest a cosmic dice shaker. The probability of events occurring depends on the state of the universe. The hook is, mixing in probability does not save us from being proximate causes. Moral responsibility just does not make sense other than as tool to manipulate others and perhaps even ourselves.

OK back tracking a little and hearing a lot of silent agreement 🙂 Assumptions I have to make 1 to 3 and 4 is a consequence. I exist and by extension, we exist as well. A universe exists beyond me (and us). That my (our) experience is a reflection of that universe, though our "reflections" might not be totally accurate or possibly complete Consequently we need to take our conclusions with possibly a pinch of salt. There seem to be three possibilities. The universe ticks to the beat of causality, it does not tick to causality or perhaps it is some combination. My interpretation of Joseph's two cents is the universe is more of a megalithic tock rather than ticks. For the moment I'll treat this as point 2 below. I really don't know how to tease the two apart or if it in deed matters at this stage. If causality is false we don't cause anything so consequently we are not in any sense responsible for any consequences of actions we take. If causality is true our actions are a result prior cause then we are responsible in the sense of proximate cause. Being morally responsible is a non sequitur because we could not have done otherwise.  If it some combination of the one and two does not seem to let us of the hook.  Lets look at 1 to 3 in slightly more detail. If the lack of cause is true, then our pride and joy are not warranted in that our child did not cause their success nor did we influence their success. So in summary if cause is false, we don't cause our actions, we don't help, hurt or insult other people, other people are not helped, hurt by us or in deed insulted by other people's actions. ie This lack of cause could be due to the universe coming into existence in a solid block, so to speak. Apparently some interpretations of General Relativity would be consistent with this view. I must admit I find this view does not seem to fit reality. We can't help asking ourselves what causes cause and effect to seem so real, of course this question is a non sequitur if cause is false. And is it a coincidence that our scientific explanations of the mechanics of existence seem to work? On a day to day basis we certainly are unaware of our underlying causality that lead to the bulk of our actions. We might be aware of somethings that have caused our emotions for example … But we don't choose to be happy in any normal sense of the word. We are completely oblivious to the underlying mechanisms (the ticks or the tock) on a moment to moment basis. Though we may have an general understanding that there are mechanistic causes are in place, if not the details. So if our child does well, the underlying causes stretch back in the causal mesh beyond a point where our child or us as parents are responsible. For example are we responsible for our child's intelligence? Well genetics certainly plays a small (at least). Is the child responsible for its genetics? Education also plays a small part in intelligence, is the child responsible for the quality of the teacher, class or her support at home? Well we might argue the child is responsible for the discipline she might exert on herself? Really? Again there is a genetic component to this plus the support she gets at home at school to exert this discipline. In short we can follow the causal mesh/chain and it ends up being luck … good or bad. If it is a mixture of one and two? Does not seem to help us much. Quantum phenomena can be seen as uncaused (inaccurately I think). The quantum phenomena itself simply becomes a cause itself (even though its probability of occurring is fashioned by the universe). So in 2 we might derive that existence is predetermined, and extremely uncomfortable position from some; but in case 3 it is not predetermined but things re not much better (or at least for those who are worried by such a universe). Here we seem to be "determined" and at the whim of some cosmic dice shaker. I'll stop here for the moment.

OK Burl … I really have no interest in this, but I went to Wiki anyway to understand what on Earth is actually an Apostolic Father … and still I really have little interest in this. According to Wiki: The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them.[1] OK fair enough. Cyril of Jesusalem … (c. 313[1] – 386 AD). Athnasius … (c. 296–298 – 2 May 373), Gregory of Nanzien: Gregory the Elder, or Gregory of Nazianzus the Elder, (c. 276 – 374) … OK with bit of prayerful imagination he meets the first part of the definition of Apostolic Father. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329[2] – 25 January 390) The wiki page names five of the Fathers, none of whom are the ones you listed? So where do we go from here? … They don't seem like Apostolic Fathers to me, but then I am not an expert on this like what you are.

Feel free to reveal the name of an Apostolic Father that meets the requirements. I look forward to this revelation.

You continue to play the man Burl. Frankly I don't care about my foundational or scriptural inadequacies. But I do care about how we treat others and how we formulate an argument. Paul was not asking for personal homilies, but was asking for a name of an Apostolic Father that you attribute to understanding the physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God as occurring at Pentecost. If you don't have one that is fine, no one will think the worse of you. But you continue to paint yourself into a corner Burl. I can recommend a couple of books on formulating arguments.

It would appear that you don't have the skill to tackle the ball Burl. Is this why you are going after the player?

It would seem that you don't differentiate between your bona fides and supporting a claim that you made. I have an SSF* in church history * Sunday School Failed But then it is not me that is not backing up my statements.

Well it would give me some confidence in the accuracy of your claim.

If they are illusions (not as they seem) then I can't say my pride is justified or warranted. Which in turn are a product of brain chemistry, which in turn is a product of our immediate and distant past environment. which in turn are a product of the cosmos. I don't think we are disagreeing here. All this is or seems fair enough … and to me seems to agree with pride is not warranted. We can focus on the subjectivity and end of the day pretty much any opinion (including ours) is subjective, this does not mean some opinions are not a more accurate reflection of reality than others. For example Burl's recent comment to Paul about spoon feeding to me seems to fall into this general category of self justification. Clearly self-justification is an illusion, and to be fair, at times we all fall prey to this. In terms of self-justification, excessive use of this behaviour is not conducive to self-preservation.