Come on, Creationists!

[PruePhillip]

Think of it like a test in school
Response must relate to question

And comments must have context.

 

[PruePhillip]

I see them as immoral demands.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I suppose in our narcissistic, drug addled and adulterous world these admonitions ARE 'immoral' - they do nothing to cater
to yourself, inflate the self, set demands on our character and relationships that people are not inclined to heed anymore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I suppose in our narcissistic, drug addled and adulterous world these admonitions ARE 'immoral' - they do nothing to cater
to yourself, inflate the self, set demands on our character and relationships that people are not inclined to heed anymore.

Yes, yes.
Let's pretend as if that is all it says.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, yes.
Let's pretend as if that is all it says.

That's the Beatitudes as the Catholics call them.
I can give you a copy of the while Matt 5,6 and 7 but you get the idea.
Many religious people believe these standards are too high for any
normal person to live by - so why would Jesus have given them then?

 

[ppp]

Yes, yes.
Let's pretend as if that is all it says.

Apparently, @PruePhillip is actually going to pretend exactly that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently, @PruePhillip is actually going to pretend exactly that.

Uhu.

Off course, it would be kind of devastating to his case if he were to also acknowledge that among those "demands", is also the idea of thought crimes and alike.

 

[Audie]

And comments must have context.

Of course. Its the same thing said a different way.
Needs only to be acted on.

 

[Audie]

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I suppose in our narcissistic, drug addled and adulterous world these admonitions ARE 'immoral' - they do nothing to cater
to yourself, inflate the self, set demands on our character and relationships that people are not inclined to heed anymore.

Wonder why so many Christians
have such a bleak negative view of the world.

 

[Audie]

Yes, yes.
Let's pretend as if that is all it says.

So list the immoral stuff

 

[PruePhillip]

Wonder why so many Christians
have such a bleak negative view of the world.

Funny you should say that. When societies like ours become less religious we have fewer children because there's a loss of optimism.
We have less respect for authority and we don't care for our flag as much. So negativity comes with secularism.

 

[Audie]

Funny you should say that. When societies like ours become less religious we have fewer children because there's a loss of optimism.
We have less respect for authority and we don't care for our flag as much. So negativity comes with secularism.

Lets see a chart that shows " optimism"
declining in step with less religiosity.
No?
You made it up?

Your odd notions about cause and effect
explain your negativity, or the other way around?

Flag and authority get the respect they earn
and deserve. The decline started in big time
with the war on Vietnam, the "credibility gap"
and Nixon.

Try this correlation: as the church loses more
of its stranglehold on American* society,
respect for the rights of women and minorities
has finally been recognized as a matter of human decency.
The reckless environmental destruction
sanctified by Christianity is seen finally as
disasterous.

* there is no society like yours

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Despite the constant false refrain from creationists, there is nothing in the Big Bang Theory that either says or implies that the universe came from nothing.

If you, a Young Earth Creationist, were able to demonstrate that the Big Bang Theory was incorrect, and that both Common Descent and the Theory of Evolution by natural selection were impossible, that would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that there is a god.

There are not enough water molecules on Earth for there to have been a worldwide flood.

If the Earth were 6000 years old, it would be either a blob of molten rock or a cloud of dispersing plasma.

Beware the blue wire.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.

In science, a law is not a higher level than a theory.

The second law of thermodynamics does not preclude life.

Evolution has been observed.

You are a great ape.

To Serve Man is a cookbook.

Calling you a numbskull is not an ad hominem fallacy. Saying that you are wrong because you are a numbskull is.

Your value as a human being is not a function of your composition.

The animal world is not all tooth and claw.

If you think that ancient peoples did not know that an embryo at the mudghah stage looks like a wad of gum, then you did not grow up on a farm.

Onan's sin is not about masturbation.

I don't really understand the points you are trying to make - other than you rely on the interpretation of scripture to formulate your claims rather than the scriptures themselves.

However - you are right about Onan - his sin was disobeying a direct commandment from God - not simply spilling his seed.

 

[ppp]

I don't really understand the points you are trying to make - other than you rely on the interpretation of scripture to formulate your claims rather than the scriptures themselves.

Because the interpretations are what matter primarily when talking to someone about their religious beliefs. I would only point out God's condoning and advocation of the institutions of chattel slavery and indentured servitude to someone who claimed that the Bible is entirely moral and without fault. Not to someone who sees the Bible as a rough guide and only takes the moral parts and shuns the rest.

I would also point out that there are only interpretations of the Biblical text. Nothing else.

 

[PruePhillip]

Because the interpretations are what matter primarily when talking to someone about their religious beliefs. I would only point out God's condoning and advocation of the institutions of chattel slavery and indentured servitude to someone who claimed that the Bible is entirely moral and without fault. Not to someone who sees the Bible as a rough guide and only takes the moral parts and shuns the rest.

I would also point out that there are only interpretations of the Biblical text. Nothing else.

Like anything, it ain't simple.
Christianity does not condone slavery - in fact slavery slowly disappeared from Europe when Christianity
took hold. The letter Paul wrote to Philemon helps defines this as Philemon was a slave owner. Jesus
made the point in his Sermon on the Mount that we are all the equal - man and woman, rich and poor,
Jew and Gentile, young and old. This is Universalism. Furthermore, it states in scripture that he wh leads
into slavery will be led into slavery.

 

[Audie]

I don't really understand the points you are trying to make - other than you rely on the interpretation of scripture to formulate your claims rather than the scriptures themselves.

However - you are right about Onan - his sin was disobeying a direct commandment from God - not simply spilling his seed.

The distinction between "the scriptures "
and interpreting them is meaningless

 

[ppp]

Christianity does not condone slavery - in fact slavery slowly disappeared from Europe when Christianity
took hold.

Twaddle. Christians were the almost exclusive purveyors of slavery for the first one-thousand nine hundred years of Christianity in Europe and later the Americas. They made an entire industry out of it. The Atlantic slave trade was a Christian industry that supported the economy and benefited all of the members of Christendom -- except the slaves -- for almost 500 years. Then there was the effective enslavement of India, and western and southern Africa. Christianity not only condoned slavery, it wallowed in it.

Go ahead and invoke the Quakers. I dare you. The <1% of Christians who fought against slavery. And who were they fighting against? The 99% of other Christians who either actively supported the institution or tacitly benefitted from it.. The only reason that the Quakers were able to make headway against slavery was because the Industrial Revolution made slavery much less profitable. Under their Quaker watch, with a very few exceptions, slavery only became illegal in Industrialized areas, Which is why Christian slave ownership persisted long after the repeal in UK and the American Civil war. It persisted in the Caribbean, South America, India, the west cost of Africa, the Africans interior, and South Africa. Probably more places of which I am unaware.

Claiming that slavery was not condoned by Christianity is twaddle.

One-thousand nine hundred years.

 

[PruePhillip]

Twaddle. Christians were the almost exclusive purveyors of slavery for the first one-thousand nine hundred years of Christianity in Europe and later the Americas. They made an entire industry out of it. The Atlantic slave trade was a Christian industry that supported the economy and benefited all of the members of Christendom -- except the slaves -- for almost 500 years. Then there was the effective enslavement of India, and western and southern Africa. Christianity not only condoned slavery, it wallowed in it.

Go ahead and invoke the Quakers. I dare you. The <1% of Christians who fought against slavery. And who were they fighting against? The 99% of other Christians who either actively supported the institution or tacitly benefitted from it.. The only reason that the Quakers were able to make headway against slavery was because the Industrial Revolution made slavery much less profitable. Under their Quaker watch, with a very few exceptions, slavery only became illegal in Industrialized areas, Which is why Christian slave ownership persisted long after the repeal in UK and the American Civil war. It persisted in the Caribbean, South America, India, the west cost of Africa, the Africans interior, and South Africa. Probably more places of which I am unaware.

Claiming that slavery was not condoned by Christianity is twaddle.

One-thousand nine hundred years.

So...
1 - WHO was responsible for the end of slavery after the Roman empire?
2 - Did the people who REINTRODUCED SLAVERY do so in honor of the bible, or in breach of it?
3 - Why was it that Christianity finally ended slavery in Europe, the Americas, Africa and the Middle East?
4 - Why is it that people don't like to think that Lincoln ended slavery as an institution amongst native Americans?

 

[ppp]

So...
1 - WHO was responsible for the end of slavery after the Roman empire?
2 - Did the people who REINTRODUCED SLAVERY do so in honor of the bible, or in breach of it?
3 - Why was it that Christianity finally ended slavery in Europe, the Americas, Africa and the Middle East?
4 - Why is it that people don't like to think that Lincoln ended slavery as an institution amongst native Americans?

Q: Who was responsible for the perpetuation of Christianity in the late Roman Empire and beyond.
A; Christians.
Q: Was slavery ever reintroduced?
A: No. Because it was never banned.
Q: Why was it that Christianity finally ended slavery in Europe, the Americas, Africa and the Middle East?
A: It didn't. A tiny schism sect of Christians who opposed slavery took advantage of the changing economics of the industrial age, to convince the VAST MAJORITY of Christians who benefitted directly and indirectly from slavery, that it was in the best interest of their pocketbooks. Likewise, it was economics and optics that drove Britain out of India. And Christianity did not end slavery in the Middle East.
Q: Why is it that people don't like to think that Lincoln ended slavery as an institution amongst native Americans?
A: I have no idea what that sentence means. In any case, don't ask me why unspecified people don't like to think something.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Because the interpretations are what matter primarily when talking to someone about their religious beliefs. I would only point out God's condoning and advocation of the institutions of chattel slavery and indentured servitude to someone who claimed that the Bible is entirely moral and without fault. Not to someone who sees the Bible as a rough guide and only takes the moral parts and shuns the rest.

I would also point out that there are only interpretations of the Biblical text. Nothing else.

Doh! I meant to say that you rely on the interpretations of others about the text - not the text itself.

For example - nowhere in the Bible does it claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I believe that it was the moral thing for Israel to enslave their enemies - rather than kill them - because it offered them both temporal and spiritual salvation.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The distinction between "the scriptures "
and interpreting them is meaningless

Correct - I meant to say "the interpretation of others".