Grim

Funny you say that.

I've had an OOB.

The result of a casual stabbing when I nearly karked it.

An experience that cannot be easily explained-in words that is- not 'spiritual terms', I can assure you.

And post-event, I have to say, that that #$%^&* of a chap, Kerry Packer, probably had the same one.

And I agree with his conclusion.

As blood drains from you, and shock sets in, the auld head takes a trip where it hasn't been before.

Clarity is the order of the day, for a brief period at least, then ..... not too sure.... and then, wake up, or not for some, of course.

The promise of 'if I get through this' was made to myself, not to some 'other', after all, if the 'deal' is not kept, the person best placed to ask 'why not' is not too far away, so, funnily enough, a closer eye seems to be kept on 'progress'.

And it saves on candles.

And, there has been 'progress'.

Would it be better if 'He' had been in on it?

Ah, best not wait to see if He exists, and get on with it anyway, is my advice, as I suspect with you too.

I do recognise your comment about 'quite peaceful' though, so was mine.

But I felt I still had 'things', quite undefined of course, to do, so hung on for the next episode.

Sells could not comprehend this, unless a church organ falls on his head, I doubt he'd be ever be in the running for an OOB, even a partial 'secular' one.

to reply spindoc....evolutionary interpretations..don’t really fit what we see...species evolution...dosnt validate genus evolution

Let’s look at an example....The Bible says..that God created distinct groups of animals...“after their kind” ..see Genesis 1).

Starting with this truth..of the Bible..as one of our assumptions,..we would expect to observe animals..divided into distinct groups,..or kinds.

Creationists postulate that our creative God..placed phenomenal variability..in the genes of each kind,..so there could be considerable variety within each kind.

But the preprogrammed mechanism..for variation within the kind..could never change one kind...into a different kind,..as evolutionists claim...and their belief system requires.

they point to..mutated fruit/flies ..r speciation..observed in the field..(such as new species..of mosquitoes or fish or gull).

But..this is where many people..are confused—what is meant by..“science”..or..“scientific.”

It is helpful to distinguish..between operational science..and origin science,..and compare how each one seeks to discover truth...Before we get caught up..in a debate about whether the Bible..or evolution is scientific,

we have learned to ask,..“Could you please define..what you mean by science?”..The answer usually reveals..where the real problem lies.

Defining Science..People are generally unaware..that dictionaries give a root meaning,..or etymology,..of science similar to this..from Webster’s:..“from Latin scientia,..from scient-.. sciens ‘having knowledge,’..from present participle of scire..‘to know.’”

And most dictionaries..give the following meaning..of the word:..“the state of knowing:..knowledge as distinguished..from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

But over the past 200 years,..during the so-called Scientific Revolution,..the word science has come to mean..a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth.

Operational science uses observable,..repeatable experiments to try to discover truth.

Origin science relies on relics..from the past and historical records to..try to..discover truth.

Because the past..cannot be observed directly,..assumptions greatly affect..how these..'scientists'..interpret what they see

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=biblical+science+knowing&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

OUG

In Gen 7 Noah is instructed to take "two of every kind" of animal "a male and its mate". Now there wouldn't be much point in that unless "kind" meant something very much like "species"... would there?

Oliver,
>> I wonder if such a Christian anthropologist ... belief system. <<
You see, this is where we differ. I would never write that “I wonder if such an atheist researcher would apply the rigour of the discipline to his/her personal belief system” because I not only respect the reasons for an atheist to subscribe to this or that world-view (which I might not even be familiar with or understand), but also because I sincerely believe that atheists can be as honest and successful in their striving for objectivity as theists, exceptions on both sides notwithstanding.

bushbasher,
I have no idea how a definition would “reasonably satisfy” your requirements.

A theist (Christian) who needs to argue that the atheist is immoral, irrational, illogical, inconsistent, ridiculous or what (apparently to reaffirm his/her own beliefs) has obviously a personal problem that only indirectly is related to where theism and atheism differ. Does this not hold also the other way around? One thing is to engage in world-view discussions in order to broaden one’s own perspective (and hopefully in doing so help the opponent to broaden his/hers), another thing is to attack the opponent’s world-view with sweeping accusations, to overcome one’s own world-view insecurities. Conversions from theist to atheist, or vice-versa, seldom follow from that.

>>The central theme of the book is the question of whether God exists.<<
I have read only parts of the book, but it did not impress me as a serious philosophical inquiry or argument one way or another. Or even a historical inquiry as e.g. Hans Küng’s “Does God exist?” whose English version takes 835 pages. Nevertheless, it serves its purpose as I explained earlier in this thread.

Sqeers,
Thanks for the thoughts (and confession). It is unremarkable that your Christian geologist believes in resurrection (a basic Christian tenet with many interpretations). Did he publish a paper on geology in a peer-reviewed journal on geology, where he referred to resurrection? That would be remarkable. I agree that anthropologists (and others) should “leave at the door” theist or atheist world-views (prejudices) that could unfairly compromise their research.

OUG, The question was and still is: Can we please have an example of religious knowledge, or if you prefer it, “knowing”?

The question remains unanswered. Your response has again drifted down into theological and biblical content.

Look OUG, if all the vast quantities of religious “information” you have, cannot produce a single example of useable “religious knowledge”, is it not time that you recognized the fact that the reason for this is that it cannot.

Peter Sellick attempted to draw a parallel between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge, thus creating the illusion that there is such a thing as religious knowledge, there is no such thing. There are vast quantities of recorded information created by humans to help make life bearable over the millennia.

The reason that you and others have failed to answer this simple question is that it is impossible, because theology is based upon fiction. The further you drill down into the theological morass, the further you are from answering the question and the more theology you need.

You can have “data” and you can have “information” but you “use” knowledge

Does the light not shine within your content layer?

Relda.
Thanks for the information about Tillich, it goes far beyond my knowledge of him. Some of your statements seemed to confirm (is that conditioned enough?) that in Tillich’s theology man is really at the center. I know this is a broad statement but it is has been the fault of much theology since the “turn to the self” and I think Tillich is a part of that. I read “The courage to be” before I became a theology student and was impressed. However more study distanced me from him. I would argue with your statement that he was the greatest 20th C theologian. Almost no one walks in his path nowadays. In my wide reading of contemporary theology I rarely come across his name.

I am sorry I have no time to investigate further and give you a fuller response.

Peter Sellick