Part 2, an attack on creationism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the most subtle and destructive attack and discrimination on creationism than has ever been done, that being humanism !!
Many of those non thiestic scientists, who support and are advocates of this seemingly harmless, noble, scientific community and it's studies, not only hold some form of humanistic position, claiming, it's all for the betterment of our civilization,seem to do so,as if they are from some elite sect of higher learners.
They think their association to science positions them somewhat superior than the average person ,giving them crediability and prestige,but their studies and findings,which, so often are inconclusive and absurd, not only sound more like circular reasoning,but bias,prejustice, unfounded, discriminatory towards the creation account.

The essence of hypocrisy in it's finest moment.

Science tends to be discriminatory towards hypotheses with no evidence, and rightly so.

Tell you what: list some things that would be support for Young Earth Creation, the literal occurrence of Genesis, or whatever other idea you believe for the origin of life on Earth. We can then test these predictions against the evidence.

I already touched on one prediction for a literal interpretation of Genesis: that animals which are currently carnivorous would have been herbivorous at some point in time. This would imply a few things:

- herbivorous examples of the remains of "carnivorous" species may exist. If we look long enough and hard enough, we might find a grass-eating carnivore. I acknowledge that this may be in such low number that finding one may be like finding a needle in a haystack, but if you were to find a well-preserved lion or T-Rex whose stomach contents are only leaves and berries, then you would have something that would support literal Genesis.

- there is something about human sin (though quantifying and measuring "sin" would likely have its own problems) that at some point in time caused physiological changes to certain animals; this mechanism also no longer works, apparently. If you were to find some gland, for example, that exists in carnivores but not in herbivores that triggers a major physiological response depending on God's disappointment in humanity, that would also support literal Genesis.

Do you agree that these are fair tests of Genesis? What do you think the results of investigating them would be? What other predictions do you have that we could measure?

 

[Autodidact]

A historical source "doesn't mention it", therefore it didn't happen? I have six historical sources that say it happened, and you don't have a single source that says it didn't -- just one that doesn't mention it.

It's not an historical source, it's the first and only one remotely close in time to the alleged occurrence. And he mentions the death, but not the martyrdom. I think it's reasonable to conclude that, had he been martyred, this church leader would have mentioned it.

You did not name any primary source. A primary source would be written by someone who had access to the truth, that is, someone close in time to the event.

But you have to recognize that needing evidence for belief is an idea in itself. You acquired this idea from the conditioning you received from your environment and culture. If you were raised in Saudi Arabia, you probably wouldn't have this idea and be Islamic too.

Of course it's an idea. I'm not sure where I acquired it from. The point is, it's a good idea. It works. And, if I'm not mistaken, you agree with it. Correct?

I believe it is because it is the worldview that makes the most sense to me. You talk as if evidence will lead me to a worldview. It won't. As an alternative, I could assume no worldview, which to me, would lead me to a purposeless, self-indulgent life.

But I think I've shown that it really doesn't make sense to you. When it doesn't, you don't let that bother you. Unless you're telling me that it makes sense that a just and loving God would order soldiers to murder babies. Or that it's possible for the sun to stand still in the sky. Etc. etc.

Of course I do, I have said this several times. Faith is not a substitution for evidence based knowledge.

Great. So, are you saying that you have some evidentiary support for your beliefs?

Really there is no definitve way to know. To be honest, I don't know if the sun actualy stood still for Joshua, but I suspect it didn't. But really, how much does it really matter if the lesson is learned? Some Christians squabble over these type of issues, but in the real message of Christ, these things do not really matter that much.

It demonstrates that the Bible is not a credible source of information. It's the idea that a witness caught lying is not generally to be believed. Or, again, using evidence, how would you know what parts to believe and what parts not to believe. Does your God have the power to perform miracles, or doesn't he?

I would be happy to start a new thread. What solves the problem is having a spirit/soul that is a free agent not controlled by the external laws of nature.

Or God's foreknowledge.

The Bible is quite clear which is which. Most of the NT discusses these ethics. I believe there are timeless principles as far as what is ethical and what is not.

What are they?

Slavery is simply not part of that ethical system. The Christian theology is about changing people's hearts, not reforming society. I believe slavery was a social-economic system that was a method of distribution of wealth for many of these ancient societies.

Of course it was.

It was better for the slave to live in a good house that could provide them with shelter and food, rather than living in poverty. People sold themselves into slavery because they could not provide for themselves or pay their debts.

And you know this how? Some Hebrew slaves sold themselves into slavery. And some non-Hebrews were captured in war, or purchased from foreign slave-traders. How about those who were previously free, were captured and sold into a poor house that could not provide them with shelter and food. btw, the requirement to circumcize slaves, in a time before anesthetics or surgery, was a bit cruel, don't you think?

Today, it makes sense that slavery is illegal because it does not benefit the slave in any way. The slavery of the past few centuries is very different from ancient times. Certainly God made know his feelings of slavery based on forced labor and racism in Exodus.

No, only slavery of Hebrews. God made it clear that it's permissible to capture, buy and sell foreigners as slaves, regardless of whether it benefited them. Why would this change?

So would it be moral for me to capture a poor Sudanese child and keep him as my slave? It would certainly improve his life, since I could feed him.

Don't you find it odd that being a Christian puts you in the position to defend slavery, genocide and infanticide?

 

[Autodidact]

First off, in Christian theology, God's will defines what is good and evil. It is not possile for God to be evil. Certainly, genocide commanded by a mere human is unethical. But God has an authority that we do not have.

I see. So your God, the God that you worship and obey, can do things that, if you did them, would be unspeakably reprehensible, but because it's God doing it, that makes it O.K. God could command the worst atrocities, and they would be moral, because God commanded them. He could, for example, command you to slice a baby in two with a sword, and that would be moral, just because God commanded it.

You have to understand that in my belief, God is all-powerful and all-knowing. There are 5 billion people on the planet, and he knows the heart of each one of us. Each day we live is borrowed time from God because He sustains this Universe. We are all fallen creatures, destined for death. Who am I to question what fits into His plan? What are my credentials?

A person with a brain, unless you sacrifice your brain to blind obedience to a bronze-age war god. I think it's important to make moral judgments about what I and everyone else does. I further don't believe in moral relativism, that an evil action becomes moral just because the perpetrator believes God commanded them to do it. Do you?

You also have to understand that God is all-powerful and will reconcile all things after death. We will all die someday and if an innocent child is killed in conflict, then God is fully capable of compensating in the after-life.

And you have to understand that you have no way of knowing whether God exists, let alone what His attributes are. This belief system--that what may or may not happen after death is more important than what happens during our life, which we do know about, is responsible for much of the world's evil. By perpetuating it, you contribute to that evil. Cuz, y'know, those suicide bombers just know the babies they kill will be taken care in heaven, just like you. And, just like you, they know God has commanded them to kill innocent people in His name. They know that God is all-powerful and all knowing, and that good consists in doing His will. And, like you, since their belief system is not evidence based, but based in faith, they have no way to tell whether it's right or wrong. Just like you. And all the other religious fanatics who have slaughtered innocent people in the name of their God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First off, in Christian theology, God's will defines what is good and evil. It is not possile for God to be evil. Certainly, genocide commanded by a mere human is unethical. But God has an authority that we do not have.

You're stating your opinion as doctrine of all Christianity. I know of no Christian denomination that has made a definitive pronouncement either way on the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

[Autodidact]

Happiness is an emotion. Some people think snorting cocaine or beating up weaker people makes them happy.

They're mistaken.

If we are just creatures that are interested in feeding our own emotional needs, what keeps us from stepping on other people to get what we want?

It will result in your unhappiness.

Certainly, you can't deny that there are many thugs in the world that are perfectly happy stomping on other people to get what they want.

I certainly can. There are many thugs that do that. I deny that they are happy. A thuggish life does not lead to happiness. As I said, "If you want to be happy, practice compassion."

I never said I didn't know what happiness and love were (why would you assume that?). Happiness is an emotion and love is an action. What I was asking is how you define them. If happiness is the cornerstone of your purpose/meaning in life, certainly you can define it and how it relates to you morality. You see, my ethics have little to do with "happiness", and all to do with love.

You asked me. Happiness: the emotion of joy.

Your ethics has to do with love? I thought it had to do with God's will, even if what God commands is the opposite of love. I thought it was ethical for ancient Hebrew soldiers to stab innocent Malekite babies to death; is that loving? I thought you believed it was ethical to capture a young Hittite woman and make her your slave or concubine; is that love?

If your ethics has to do with love, then why do you think my love for my beloved is not ethical? Because she's female? Doesn't sound like your ethics is about love to me.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It's not an historical source, it's the first and only one remotely close in time to the alleged occurrence. And he mentions the death, but not the martyrdom. I think it's reasonable to conclude that, had he been martyred, this church leader would have mentioned it.

Your source was:

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

How does this alledge he was not martyerd? My "church leader" doesn't talk about Peter's martyrdom any time he talks about Peter. From my vantage point your argument is extremely thin. Again, I have 6 sources, you have one source that doesn't comment on it one way or another.

Of course it's an idea. I'm not sure where I acquired it from. The point is, it's a good idea. It works. And, if I'm not mistaken, you agree with it. Correct?

I agree that evidence is a good source of knowledge. I just don't believe it is the only source.

But I think I've shown that it really doesn't make sense to you. When it doesn't, you don't let that bother you.

Please elaborate on how you've "shown that it really doesn't make sense" to me.

Unless you're telling me that it makes sense that a just and loving God would order soldiers to murder babies. Or that it's possible for the sun to stand still in the sky. Etc. etc.

It make sense that God is justified in making such commands, and it make sense that I don't have all of the answers as to why.

Great. So, are you saying that you have some evidentiary support for your beliefs?

What? Perhaps I am not being clear in my points. Faith is no substitution for evidence based knowledge, but that does not mean faith is not valid. In otherwords, I will not favor faith over clear evidence, however, when evidence is not possible, faith is required. Haven't I stated this like 6 times?

It demonstrates that the Bible is not a credible source of information. It's the idea that a witness caught lying is not generally to be believed.

Perhaps you are mistaking the Bible for being somehing it is not?

Or, again, using evidence, how would you know what parts to believe and what parts not to believe. Does your God have the power to perform miracles, or doesn't he?
Or God's foreknowledge.

Of course God can perform miracles.

What are they?

According to the covenant set by Christ Jesus, here are some (I don't intend to name them all):

Love your God. Love your neighbor as yourself.
To be humble always. Do not seek revenge. Give more to others than what they ask. Love your wife. Forgive others always. Respect authority. Do not have hate in your heart. Do not have lust in your heart outside of your wife.

Of course it was. And you know this how? Some Hebrew slaves sold themselves into slavery. And some non-Hebrews were captured in war, or purchased from foreign slave-traders. How about those who were previously free, were captured and sold into a poor house that could not provide them with shelter and food. btw, the requirement to circumcize slaves, in a time before anesthetics or surgery, was a bit cruel, don't you think?

They had more assortments of drugs and medicines than you probably realize.

Again you seem to be ignoring the culture of that time period.

No, only slavery of Hebrews. God made it clear that it's permissible to capture, buy and sell foreigners as slaves, regardless of whether it benefited them. Why would this change?

Because we live in a completely different cultural/social/economic system.

So would it be moral for me to capture a poor Sudanese child and keep him as my slave? It would certainly improve his life, since I could feed him.

It would be illegal. So in that case it would be immoral because it is unethical to disobey the law.

Don't you find it odd that being a Christian puts you in the position to defend slavery, genocide and infanticide?

Like I said, genocide and infanticide commanded by God is completely different from genocide and infanticide commanded by God. All I am defending is that God is justified to take which ever life He sees fit. That is why believers refer to each other as God fearing men and women.

But please, keep asking me if this make sense to me and see if you eventually get a different answer ....

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I see. So your God, the God that you worship and obey, can do things that, if you did them, would be unspeakably reprehensible, but because it's God doing it, that makes it O.K. God could command the worst atrocities, and they would be moral, because God commanded them.

Don't you understand how the infinitely powerful and wise, creator and sustainer of the Universe has ultimate authority over us? I have no authority to judge you or any other non-believer for your sins. Only God has this authority.

He could, for example, command you to slice a baby in two with a sword, and that would be moral, just because God commanded it.

I suppose it would. But that does not reflect or in any way represent the God I know. His covenent with me is clear that your scenario would never take place.

A person with a brain, unless you sacrifice your brain to blind obedience to a bronze-age war god. I think it's important to make moral judgments about what I and everyone else does. I further don't believe in moral relativism, that an evil action becomes moral just because the perpetrator believes God commanded them to do it. Do you?

A "bronze-age war god" is a pretty big distortion of my God. He is a holy, eternal God. Like I said, I have no authority to judge your behavior, much less God's. I am not God. I have authority to judge other believers, and the members of my family, but those are very different relationships.

I too do not believe in moral relativism and I am glad to hear that you do not either. God's will defines what is right and wrong for me. And He is absolute and unchanging.

And you have to understand that you have no way of knowing whether God exists, let alone what His attributes are.

Prove it.

This belief system--that what may or may not happen after death is more important than what happens during our life, which we do know about, is responsible for much of the world's evil. By perpetuating it, you contribute to that evil.

What a bunch of anti-religious bunk. You have now revealed where you are coming from and the glasses you peer through.

You clearly have a very distorted view of my faith. If you read the NT, attended any of the sermons of my church, or attend any of my Bible studies, you would see we are much more interested in charity than what ever you think evil is.

 

[~Amin~]

. And, like you, since their belief system is not evidence based, but based in faith, they have no way to tell whether it's right or wrong. Just like you. And all the other religious fanatics who have slaughtered innocent people in the name of their God.

AND YOU KNOW THIS HHHOOOWWWW?

 

[Autodidact]

Your source was:

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

How does this alledge he was not martyerd? My "church leader" doesn't talk about Peter's martyrdom any time he talks about Peter. From my vantage point your argument is extremely thin. Again, I have 6 sources, you have one source that doesn't comment on it one way or another.

It doesn't mention that he was martyred. This is the closest there is to a primary source. Your sources, written hundreds of years later, would have been based on this one or the sources it was derived from. Instead, they follow a classic pattern of exaggeration in which, the further back in time the event, the more dramatic.

I agree that evidence is a good source of knowledge. I just don't believe it is the only source.

What other sources are there?

Please elaborate on how you've "shown that it really doesn't make sense" to me.

I've stated it repeatedly. A God of love and righteousness, Creator and Ruler of the entire universe, talks to human beings once, chooses only one group of people to talk to ever, and what He finds the most important thing to tell them, over and over again, is to kill all their neighbors, including their children. He spends page after page teaching them exactly which animals to sacrifice and how, then turns around and says never mind, forget the whole sacrifice thing. His idea of a good morality is that it's O.K. for some people to capture and possess other people, but if two people of the same sex love each other, that's bad. You shouldn't kill, unless God tells you to. Then it's fine. Here's a whole explanation of how the earth got here, which is wrong. Just plain factually incorrect. Coincidentally, it matches quite well with the primitive understanding of the people who wrote it. As for all those other people, the Inuit, Maori, Bantu, etc. etc., people--God really couldn't be bothered to touch base with them. God is one, and also three. Because one is three. A supernatural being impregnates a human woman, who gives birth to a God man. Most of this myth happens to coincide with other popular myths of the same time and place.

What God doesn't tell us: the importance of compassion for all sentient beings; the complex and intimate interrelationship between human beings and all other life and the universe itself, the nature of the Godhead.

Instead you just get a primitive, war-God, jealous, full of wrath and very particular about his burnt offerings, grafted onto a Mithraic man-God myth of sacrifice and resurrection.

It make sense that God is justified in making such commands, and it make sense that I don't have all of the answers as to why.

Oh, I see, it makes sense that it doesn't make sense. That makes sense.

So what you're saying is, infanticide is justified, if God commands it. Also genocide. That's your morality. And....(wait for it)...that MAKES SENSE to you. That you worship a God whose commands you cannot understand? Doesn't it disturb you at all that your understanding of this issue is exactly the same as the 9/11 bombers?

What? Perhaps I am not being clear in my points. Faith is no substitution for evidence based knowledge, but that does not mean faith is not valid. In otherwords, I will not favor faith over clear evidence, however, when evidence is not possible, faith is required. Haven't I stated this like 6 times?

Everyone's faith? My faith that there is no God is as valid as your faith that there is? Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Mormon, faith? Even when they contradict each other? And let's not forget the huge faith of the suicide bomber. That's some major faith there.

Perhaps you are mistaking the Bible for being somehing it is not?

I think I've demonstrated pretty well that I know better than you what is and is not in the Bible.

Of course God can perform miracles.

But not make the sun stand still in the sky? Why would you doubt that? Or cover the earth with more water than exists? Or create a talking snake?

According to the covenant set by Christ Jesus, here are some (I don't intend to name them all):

Love your God. Love your neighbor as yourself.
To be humble always. Do not seek revenge. Give more to others than what they ask. Love your wife. Forgive others always. Respect authority. Do not have hate in your heart. Do not have lust in your heart outside of your wife.

And don't have sex with another man?

They had more assortments of drugs and medicines than you probably realize.

I love how you think you know all this stuff, and never feel the need to substantiate your statements. I feel fairly secure in stating that neither anesthesthia nor antiseptic methods were discovered until the recent past, and many adult men subject to circumcision during Biblical times died as a result.

Again you seem to be ignoring the culture of that time period.

Oh no, I think the culture of the time period was barbaric and primitive, and that slavery then was probably horrific. The whole image of unprovoked armies swooping down on your town, slaughtering all the men and married women and then capturing me for a sexual slave is just horrifiying to me. What was your point?

Because we live in a completely different cultural/social/economic system.

Thank goodness, but no thanks to Christianity or Biblical morality, which was fine with slavery and would have been happy to maintain it.

In the same way, those of us who think that gay people should have equal rights need to fight hard to create a different cultural/social/economic system, and once again much of the Christian Church is one the wrong side.

It would be illegal. So in that case it would be immoral because it is unethical to disobey the law.

1. Really? What if the law was immoral? 2. No other reason, then? If the law permitted it, you would be O.K. with me owning a nice young Sudanese slave?

Like I said, genocide and infanticide commanded by God is completely different from genocide and infanticide commanded by God. All I am defending is that God is justified to take which ever life He sees fit. That is why believers refer to each other as God fearing men and women.

Not so different to the poor dead baby and her parents.

I gotta say it, Nick. What you are advocating is absolutely sickening, immoral, horrific and atrocious. Your morality makes me absolutely sick. It frightens me to live on the same planet with people who believe in a being for which they have no evidence and no way to test whether their beliefs are true, and whom they believe commands us to kill other people, and following this commandment is morally justified.

But please, keep asking me if this make sense to me and see if you eventually get a different answer ....

If it makes sense to you, you are an immoral psychopath.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

They're mistaken. It will result in your unhappiness. I certainly can. There are many thugs that do that. I deny that they are happy. A thuggish life does not lead to happiness. As I said, "If you want to be happy, practice compassion."

I tend to agree with that motto, but it is hardly a system of ethics.

You asked me. Happiness: the emotion of joy.

The problem I have is that your ethics are based on emotion. There are plenty of unsavory people out there that do terrible things to feed their emotions. They crave power and violence and they don't seem to have a conscious about stepping on others to get it.

Now if you say your ethics are based on acts of compassion (which I think you are close to), then I think we are nearly on the same page.

Your ethics has to do with love? I thought it had to do with God's will, even if what God commands is the opposite of love. I thought it was ethical for ancient Hebrew soldiers to stab innocent Malekite babies to death; is that loving? I thought you believed it was ethical to capture a young Hittite woman and make her your slave or concubine; is that love?

Those things have little to do with the ethics set forth in my relationship with God and the covenent Jesus set forth. My ethics are centered around the act of love. If you really understood Christianity, you would know that.

If your ethics has to do with love, then why do you think my love for my beloved is not ethical? Because she's female? Doesn't sound like your ethics is about love to me.

I don't think love is ever unethical. I have no right to judge you or your relationship because you do not share the same covenent I do. If you were Christian, then it would be different.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It doesn't mention that he was martyred. This is the closest there is to a primary source.

Why should it? My pastor speaks of Peter frequently and I can't remember a single time he mentioned his martyrdom.

Your sources, written hundreds of years later, would have been based on this one or the sources it was derived from. Instead, they follow a classic pattern of exaggeration in which, the further back in time the event, the more dramatic.

The six independent sources couldn't possibly based on older sources--it must be a conspiracy.

What other sources are there?

Special revelation. But I can't prove it and you can't disprove it. So if we can't advance the topic, perhaps we should drop it.

I've stated it repeatedly. A God of love and righteousness, Creator and Ruler of the entire universe, talks to human beings once, chooses only one group of people to talk to ever, and what He finds the most important thing to tell them, over and over again, is to kill all their neighbors, including their children. He spends page after page teaching them exactly which animals to sacrifice and how, then turns around and says never mind, forget the whole sacrifice thing. His idea of a good morality is that it's O.K. for some people to capture and possess other people, but if two people of the same sex love each other, that's bad. You shouldn't kill, unless God tells you to. Then it's fine. Here's a whole explanation of how the earth got here, which is wrong. Just plain factually incorrect. Coincidentally, it matches quite well with the primitive understanding of the people who wrote it. As for all those other people, the Inuit, Maori, Bantu, etc. etc., people--God really couldn't be bothered to touch base with them. God is one, and also three. Because one is three. A supernatural being impregnates a human woman, who gives birth to a God man. Most of this myth happens to coincide with other popular myths of the same time and place.

What God doesn't tell us: the importance of compassion for all sentient beings; the complex and intimate interrelationship between human beings and all other life and the universe itself, the nature of the Godhead.

Instead you just get a primitive, war-God, jealous, full of wrath and very particular about his burnt offerings, grafted onto a Mithraic man-God myth of sacrifice and resurrection.

Oh, I see, it makes sense that it doesn't make sense. That makes sense.

So what you're saying is, infanticide is justified, if God commands it. Also genocide. That's your morality. And....(wait for it)...that MAKES SENSE to you. That you worship a God whose commands you cannot understand? Doesn't it disturb you at all that your understanding of this issue is exactly the same as the 9/11 bombers?

Everyone's faith? My faith that there is no God is as valid as your faith that there is? Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Mormon, faith? Even when they contradict each other? And let's not forget the huge faith of the suicide bomber. That's some major faith there.

I think I've demonstrated pretty well that I know better than you what is and is not in the Bible.

But not make the sun stand still in the sky? Why would you doubt that? Or cover the earth with more water than exists? Or create a talking snake?

And don't have sex with another man?

I love how you think you know all this stuff, and never feel the need to substantiate your statements. I feel fairly secure in stating that neither anesthesthia nor antiseptic methods were discovered until the recent past, and many adult men subject to circumcision during Biblical times died as a result.

Oh no, I think the culture of the time period was barbaric and primitive, and that slavery then was probably horrific. The whole image of unprovoked armies swooping down on your town, slaughtering all the men and married women and then capturing me for a sexual slave is just horrifiying to me. What was your point?

Thank goodness, but no thanks to Christianity or Biblical morality, which was fine with slavery and would have been happy to maintain it.

In the same way, those of us who think that gay people should have equal rights need to fight hard to create a different cultural/social/economic system, and once again much of the Christian Church is one the wrong side.

1. Really? What if the law was immoral? 2. No other reason, then? If the law permitted it, you would be O.K. with me owning a nice young Sudanese slave?

Not so different to the poor dead baby and her parents.

I gotta say it, Nick. What you are advocating is absolutely sickening, immoral, horrific and atrocious. Your morality makes me absolutely sick. It frightens me to live on the same planet with people who believe in a being for which they have no evidence and no way to test whether their beliefs are true, and whom they believe commands us to kill other people, and following this commandment is morally justified.

If it makes sense to you, you are an immoral psychopath.

I have to say, your comments are getting more personal and more hateful as we go on. I do not mean to aggrevate you and I appologize if I have. You are asking challenging questions and I am trying to be intellectually honest.

By your comments, I can say with confidence that your understanding of my religion seems pretty shallow. I hope that some day you will understand it better and realize that it is a religion of love. You refuse to even recognize or acknowledge any positive aspect of it. Do you hate Christianity?

You keep accusing me that my morality advocates genocide and infanticide, which could not be further than the truth. The convent set forth in the NT of the Bible is my authority. It overrides any religious leader or human authority. So you can be sure in knowing I won't be participating in any baby killing or genocide.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Your logic is impeccable, given your faith-based assumptions. The frightening thing is that, had you happened to be born in a culture which placed its faith in an ancient text that is less amenable than the New Testament to 'warm and fuzzy' interpretations, you might not be apologizing for ancient genocide but for modern-day terrorist attacks.

If a religion was not centered on love, I can't imagine being attracted to it. My covenent is in the "warm and fuzzy" NT.

I do admit that it is difficult to reconcile some of the acts in the OT, but then I am deeply humbled by God's power, presence, and sovereignty. The OT certainly succeeds in making me God-fearing.

 

[fantome profane]

They're mistaken. It will result in your unhappiness. I certainly can. There are many thugs that do that. I deny that they are happy. A thuggish life does not lead to happiness. As I said, "If you want to be happy, practice compassion."

I tend to agree with that motto, but it is hardly a system of ethics.

Why not? It seems like an excellent system of ethics to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tend to agree with that motto, but it is hardly a system of ethics.

And "defer to authority" is?

BTW - anyone want to tackle what I mentioned before? All brands of creationism make some testable claims and predictions. Anyone want to examine them and consider them on their merits?

 

[Mr. Peanut]

So... still no reason besides religous faith to consider a literal interpretation of Genesis even possible, let alone plausible or likely.

And I still don't get my pizza. All that sinning for nothing.

Hi!

Nice to talk with you again. For myself, I examined different views; evolution, literal seven (24 hr.) day creation, also, each day representing many years, creation by evolution, the gap theory, etc. and I came to my own conclusions. I suppose that is what we all should do. I don't think it is something I would want to argue about or cause hard feelings. The information on all sides is out there, to me, it is an individual study, and I respect everyone's opinion, because, afterall, it is about the past and origins.

Cheers!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi!

Nice to talk with you again. For myself, I examined different views; evolution, literal seven (24 hr.) day creation, also, each day representing many years, creation by evolution, the gap theory, etc. and I came to my own conclusions.

All of those, except "the gap theory" (which I take to mean the claim that if we don't know the cause of something, God might have done it Himself, which isn't really a theory at all) can be used to create predictions that can be tested, and there's measureable evidence all around us that will let us see which ones are supported and which ones aren't.

Which does each hypothesis say about the age of the Earth? The age of the universe? How living things came to be? Whatever the predictions of each, we can go out and look for evidence that confirms or denies each one.

The information on all sides is out there, to me, it is an individual study, and I respect everyone's opinion, because, afterall, it is about the past and origins.

I'm not sure I understand this point of view. How we came to be is a matter of fact; it's not something where a particular person's beliefs might change the truth of what happened (whatever "what happened" is). The way you came into the world is a matter of past and origins, too; would you respect someone's opinion if they said you weren't born of your mother at all, but were brought by a stork? One view is factual, one is not. All the respect in the world won't make an incorrect factual assumption correct.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

All of those, except "the gap theory" (which I take to mean the claim that if we don't know the cause of something, God might have done it Himself, which isn't really a theory at all) can be used to create predictions that can be tested, and there's measureable evidence all around us that will let us see which ones are supported and which ones aren't.

Which does each hypothesis say about the age of the Earth? The age of the universe? How living things came to be? Whatever the predictions of each, we can go out and look for evidence that confirms or denies each one.


I'm not sure I understand this point of view. How we came to be is a matter of fact; it's not something where a particular person's beliefs might change the truth of what happened (whatever "what happened" is). The way you came into the world is a matter of past and origins, too; would you respect someone's opinion if they said you weren't born of your mother at all, but were brought by a stork? One view is factual, one is not. All the respect in the world won't make an incorrect factual assumption correct.

Hi, the gap theory (not god of the gaps), is the view that there is a gap between the first 2 verses in Genesis of a long period of time, held by some Christians. (Not my view) I agree that as we examine different theories and ideas we must look at the evidence and go by the facts and draw what we see to be the most obvious answer, and that it is not an easy task to endeavor upon. That is why I prefer to study these things for myself and my own satisfaction, and not so much try to put forth my conclusions on others. It seems an individual study, to me, although there are many very well educated people today who bring forth well thought out and researched views on all sides of the question of origins.

 

[~Amin~]

I have to say, your comments are getting more personal and more hateful as we go on. I do not mean to aggrevate you and I appologize if I have. You are asking challenging questions and I am trying to be intellectually honest.

Autodidact i also apologize, but Nick is 100% right , if i were an atheist
and just listening to this discussion between you two i would become a believer,
you sound very aggressive, and that you don't CARE about others, i would HATE
for someone of your mentality to rule the world, i wouldn't leave my house.:sad4:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi, the gap theory (not god of the gaps), is the view that there is a gap between the first 2 verses in Genesis of a long period of time, held by some Christians. (Not my view)

Ah... okay. Sounds like the sort of thing that could be supported or refuted by looking at the world around us just like all the others.

I agree that as we examine different theories and ideas we must look at the evidence and go by the facts and draw what we see to be the most obvious answer, and that it is not an easy task to endeavor upon.

I agree.

That is why I prefer to study these things for myself and my own satisfaction, and not so much try to put forth my conclusions on others. It seems an individual study, to me, although there are many very well educated people today who bring forth well thought out and researched views on all sides of the question of origins.

And to me it seems to be very much a team effort. The evidence for what happened before us is in everything from the structure of the sea floor to the variation of life. No person could investigate all of it themselves in a lifetime. We humans have the ability to benefit from the work, study and investigation of others; why not take advantage of that?

The age of the Earth, for example, does not depend at all on our religious beliefs. It is what it is, regardless of how we feel about the matter. Why reinvent the wheel and disregard the work that others have done that sheds some light on this question?

 

[~Amin~]

I consider infanticide and genocide morally wrong; you disagree?

How do you know whats right or wrong, good or bad.