Creationism and Science

[Arch Guillotti]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Whatever your belief, cutting and pasting loads of stuff from other websites really is sort of a drag.

I'm just trying to lay out my argument. Both sides make valid points. I'm not a rigid "ideologue" on the subject. Rather, I found the study of "how we got here" fascinating as do many others.

Look here slim, all I am saying is that cutting loads of stuff from other sites and dropping it here is hard on the eyes and is bad netiquette, particularly when there is no source attributed.

You are free to post your opinion and argue as much as you want.

 

[btbam]

👍

There isn't a debate because you produce no evidence whatsoever that anyone should believe in your religion. Attacking weaknesses in evolution theory is a good thing. Science grows through challenges and revision to theories, but you aren't proposing improvements in evolution theory. You have created a false dichotomy that leads to acceptance of a man-made religion.
Your assumption that if evolution is wrong, then Christianity must be right is a ridiculous leap. You don't seem to believe in the idea that there must be a God because evolution occurs too rapidly to be explained by our current observation of mutation rates and relative lack of gain-of-function mutations, you believe in a Judeo-Christian God with no evidence other than a work of fiction, full of internal contradictions, full of unethical and contradictory mandates, written by ignorant people thousands of years ago.
You want to frame this discussion as attack on evolution vs defense of evolution. How about you defend Christianity instead? At least there is physical evidence favoring evolution, however incomplete the theory currently is. There is nothing to support Christianity except words on a page written by people with the ability to imagine and the ability to lie and the desire to manipulate and control. Fossils are the remains of animals without the ability or desire to mislead. Which are more reasonable to believe?
Look at the world today. Consider the current world assuming Jesus was God vs a world where he was just a regular guy who had followers who told tall tales about his life. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the world today that you can point to that favors him being God. His complete lack of impact on the world or human nature makes the God theory unlikely. People invent stories of a second coming, or removal of original sin, of forgiveness of sins- all of which are conveniently invisible. The lion was supposed to lie down with the lamb, but instead- nothing happened.

Isaiah 11:6 Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat;
The calf and the young lion shall browse together,
with a little child to guide them

 

[BLADEMDA]

Look here slim, all I am saying is that cutting loads of stuff from other sites and dropping it here is hard on the eyes and is bad netiquette, particularly when there is no source attributed.

You are free to post your opinion and argue as much as you want.

On that note I'll consider this topic closed. I've enjoyed the discussion.

 

[pgg]

Therefore we can do what we want and when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody.

First of all, this is a classic strawman argument. Find me one atheist in 100 who actually believes this.


Second, who is the more moral person?

The one who behaves because he fears eternal divine punishment?

Or the one who behaves even though he does not fear punishment?

 

[Arch Guillotti]

On that note I'll consider this topic closed. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Dude you can post and argue and discuss all you want🙂. Cutting and pasting large files from other sites is a drag though. I am not talking about a graph or picture or whatever, but the prodigious amounts of text that make my eyes bleed when I try to read through it.

 

[deleted307836]

First of all, this is a classic strawman argument. Find me one atheist in 100 who actually believes this.


Second, who is the more moral person?

The one who behaves because he fears eternal divine punishment?

Or the one who behaves even though he does not fear punishment?

👍

Classic Kohlberg.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Kohlberg's Moral Stages. Faith and Logic, contrary to popuar opinion, can go hand in hand.
Also, not all individuals are capabale of Stage 5 reasoning; Kohlberg's Stage 6 is B.S.

 

[BLADEMDA]

First of all, this is a classic strawman argument. Find me one atheist in 100 who actually believes this.


Second, who is the more moral person?

The one who behaves because he fears eternal divine punishment?

Or the one who behaves even though he does not fear punishment?

Ask yourself the bigger question (yes, I researched several dozen philosophers and thinkers already) "do you believe that man has a propensity for evil/sefilshness or good/selflessness?"

From an evolutionary standpoint what would Darwin say?😉 What does Morality look like based on Atheism and Evolution?

 

[BLADEMDA]

First of all, this is a classic strawman argument. Find me one atheist in 100 who actually believes this.


Second, who is the more moral person?

The one who behaves because he fears eternal divine punishment?

Or the one who behaves even though he does not fear punishment?

Richard Dawkins' comment about the universe having no design, purpose, good or evil, "nothing but pointless indifference" thus: "Since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use the problem of evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil—the very thing the materialist seems to deny." If we can't derive natural moral law separately from God by human reason, if we can't get an "ought" from an "is" without reference to religious revelation, we can't condemn God for allowing evil, now can we? If indeed all is relative, and one person's good is another's evil, such as for (say) female genital mutilation or Chinese foot binding, which traditional societies affirm(ed) but feminists condemn, on what basis can we criticize God for being a permissive libertarian about the actions resulting from His creatures' freely chosen moral decisions? If indeed there are no moral absolutes, the ideologies that led to gulags and concentration camps are just as ethical as the ideologies that eliminated them. Hence, our innate moral sense, although it may manifest itself differently from culture to culture and person to person, constitutes intrinsic evidence for something beyond the material world.


Otherwise, a fist hitting someone's face in the street is no more or less morally significant than two rocks hitting each other in the wilderness, since all are composed of atoms in motion coming in contact with each other. True, various philosophical attempts to derive an "ought" from an "is" exist, such as the differing arguments of James Q. Wilson ("the moral sense" that has a psychological/mental/behavior origin in our human natures), C.S. Lewis ("the Tao" or way, of cross cultural ultimate similarities show traditional morality is a kind of irreducible primary), and Ayn Rand ("living entities intrinsically need certain values to sustain life") show. But unless atheists and agnostics discard their moral relativism, they can't use the existence of evil to discard God.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Without God Evil is reduced to a relative/personal concept. Each person or Society can decide what constitutes evil. There are no absolutes without God. Morality is as much cultural as it is individually based.

Are athesits reduced to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous phrase? "I know it when I see it."
Without God evil is subjective every bit as much as it is objective.

(The phrase was famously used by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

 

[BLADEMDA]

I believe man has a sinful nature. We are descended from Adam (our great ancestor) who brough sin into the world. Evil has a context for me in absolute terms because I believe in God. Our nature is towards selfishness (Freud's ID) and away from God.

This fallen nature never changes, much less improves. "That which is born of flesh is flesh" (John 3:6). The Adamic nature is self-centered (the sin of sins), therefore totally against God and that irreparably. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh.... Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be. So, then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God." "I am carnal [in Adam], sold under sin" (Romans 8:5, 7; 7:14, ASV).

 

[BLADEMDA]

Evolution without God? I don't believe it or buy into it. We aren't here due to random mutations without purpose. Darwin's theory of natural selection only has any validity at all because God is the underlying designer of this universe. This shows the genetic makeup of all His creatures all have his stamp: DNA.

I fully understand the majority don't believe in a Creator or Creationism in any context. That makes discussion of a person's "soul" even more difficult since if one denies the Divinity of the Creator then naturally it follows the creation isn't divine.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Darwin held off on publishing his theory for 20 years, until forced to by fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently come up with the same idea. One of the reasons for Darwin's delay was he knew what a shock his theory would represent to Christians, including his beloved wife Emma, who believed that God had created all living things, whole and independent of all others. Darwin didn't hold this view. His friend, the biologist T. H. Huxley, agreed. "As a natural process of the same character as the development of a tree from its seed, or of a fowl from its egg," Huxley wrote, "evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention." Of course, many people around the world still believe in a divine instrument of creation.

 

[BLADEMDA]

'One therefore now tries in the opposite direction: the way mankind is going shall serve as proof of his grandeur and kinship with God. Alas this, too, is vain! At the end of this way stands the funeral urn of the last man and gravedigger (with the inscription 'nihil humani a me alienum puto' [I hold nothing human alien from me]). However high mankind may have evolved ... it cannot pass over into a higher order, as little as the ant or earwig can at the end of its 'earthly course' rise up to kinship with God and eternal life. ... why should an exception to this eternal spectacle be made on behalf of some little star or for any little species upon it! Away with such sentimentalities'. 12


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

 

[BLADEMDA]

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are always way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they all sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? (Harper’s Magazine, June 1899)

 

[pgg]

Richard Dawkins' comment about the universe having no design, purpose, good or evil, "nothing but pointless indifference" thus: "Since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use the problem of evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil—the very thing the materialist seems to deny." If we can't derive natural moral law separately from God by human reason, if we can't get an "ought" from an "is" without reference to religious revelation, we can't condemn God for allowing evil, now can we?

[snip]

This is all bull**** and there are multiple reasons why:
- that the universe is "indifferent" does not imply that evil cannot exist
- we CAN and HAVE derived moral law by human reason alone
- atheists don't "condemn god for allowing evil" because we don't believe in god in the first place

One would think at least the 3rd point would be self-evident.


Honestly, BLADEMDA, listen to yourself. "You people who don't believe in god are angry at god." Stand back for a second - doesn't the cognitive dissonance here just leap out and hit you square between the eyes? Even if they're closed I'd think you'd feel the thump.

The only thing consistent about your copypasta'd arguments is a knack for fabricating internally inconsistent atheist strawmen and then tearing them down with more copypasta. Copypasta that often recites classic creationist logical fallacies that have been exhaustively and repeatedly exposed time and time and time again.

What's next? Pascal's Wager? The watchmaker argument? Anselm's ontological argument?

Kohlberg's Moral Stages. Faith and Logic, contrary to popuar opinion, can go hand in hand.
Also, not all individuals are capabale of Stage 5 reasoning; Kohlberg's Stage 6 is B.S.

You just got done copypasta'ing an argument that people can't be moral without god, because without threat of hellfire, they'd be nefarious evildoers by default.

And in a rare moment of non-copypasta'ing, you asked

"do you believe that man has a propensity for evil/sefilshness or good/selflessness?"

To answer your question directly, I think Kohlberg was basically correct:

To wit, distilled to one long sentence - humans progress through states of moral understanding, starting with blind obedience based on fear of consequences, gradually deepening their understanding of why moral behavior benefits them individually, later how and why it benefits society, and ultimately how and why rules are made and how and why exceptions to those rules may be morally permissible under certain circumstances.

Not everybody reaches higher stages. But everybody starts off at stage 1, and to the degree that they progress, they do so in order, without skipping stages. The fact that ALL humans start off at something akin to Kohlberg's stage 1 is not "evidence" or proof of any kind of inherent evilness or selfishness in humanity. On the contrary, the fact that almost all humans eventually progress through the stages to one degree or another, regardless of their cultural, religious, or geographic upbringing is suggestive that humanity has an innate tendency toward morality.

One might even theorize that an innate biological tendency toward morality evolved because the kind of social groups that morality and altruism permitted thrived, and conferred a survival benefit.

I've had this argument with Christians before, and they universally hate it, because central to Christianity is a basic belief that humans are bad, incorrigible, corrupt ... and the best humanity can hope for is forgiveness.


But to get back to Kohlberg, you realize that your previous arguments of 'no morality without god' amount to Kohlberg stage 1, right? A child who obeys laws handed down from parental or presumed divine authority, because he both fears punishment and lacks the maturity to think past the what and arrive at the why.


If inherent human evilness this isn't your belief; my apologies. I can't reliably distinguish between which copypasta you believe and which you post for other reasons.

 

[fakin' the funk]

The worst SDN thread ever, started by who has certainly just proven himself the worst SDN poster ever.

Blade, you could post some Farmville stuff here and it would make about as much sense as your copy-and-paste-and-CAPITALIZE-a-thon. You are more focused on your Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V functions than intelligent discourse.

 

[vector2]

Wow. Now, I would flunk my basic exams. My USLME scores were very good. I also crushed my Written and Oral Board Exams. I understand anatomy, genetics and evolution quite well. I simply disagree with evolution as the source for why we are here as human beings.

Are you still not getting why a search for evolution on pubmed brings back 15,000 pages worth of hits? The fact that you think physicians' training in anatomy and genetics allows one to understand evolution on par with a graduate-level evolutionary biologist reveals how much you don't know about how much you don't know. Are you likewise qualified to make judgements about molecular synthesis at Pfizer since you took organic chemistry and have an anesthesiologist's background in pharm?

Nowhere in your copy/paste spam have you detailed that you even understand the basics of evolution let alone the genetic, anatomic, and biochemical intricacies that allow one to make finer points in an argument/discussion. If you disagree, I'd love to see your personal summary of the anatomic and genetic homologies that went into creating what is a widely accepted model of the common descent of humans, and a detailed analysis of why that model is totally wrong. And preferably include something more substantial than "because god."

 

[Cardio2b]

The problem I see with extremes of religion is when people are so rigid in their beliefs that it truly blinds them to new knowledge, or when their practices are plain and simply backward and non-progressive. All because some book(s), written by men whom were perhaps wise for their time, but unbelievably ignorant in our modern times, say so.

Good thing those folks are usually in the minority of any religion.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The problem I see with extremes of religion is when people are so rigid in their beliefs that it truly blinds them to new knowledge, or when their practices are plain and simply backward and non-progressive. All because some book(s), written by men whom were perhaps wise for their time, but unbelievably ignorant in our modern times, say so.

Good thing those folks are usually in the minority of any religion.

Let's look at Abortion for a moment. The debate on Abortion is pretty heated and it is usually framed as an Individual rights issue. But, why are some in the GOP and right wing of America so opposed to abortion? Why is it Abortion plays a role in Presidential politics?

Is it because the GOP doesn't support Individual rights? Or is it because some believe life begins at conception and hence the human soul has value? I'm not arguing abortion here but rather the central role Faith still plays in our society, courts and political system.

Of course, you can have a secular society without religion whatsoever. The society and people are then the determinants of what is legal in that country/region/state. But, morality and ethics are another story.

It comes down to whether you believe Man is just another animal. A Darwinian creature whose place on this planet is nothing more than evolutionary chance. Or, is man something more, much more?

 

[Trisomy13]

Yes, this thread also needs an abortion angle. Open the gates!

 

[pgg]

Let's look at Abortion for a moment. The debate on Abortion is pretty heated and it is usually framed as an Individual rights issue. But, why are some in the GOP and right wing of America so opposed to abortion? Why is it Abortion plays a role in Presidential politics?

It's because many religious people believe life begins at conception and think abortion is murder, and very religious people tend to gravitate toward the GOP. But you know this.

I think they're wrong and it's absurd to claim that a ball of cells with a non- or minimally-developed nervous system is a sentient human being, but that's what they think.

I'm not arguing abortion here but rather the central role Faith still plays in our society, courts and political system.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Our society is democratic. People vote based on what they believe. Of course their faith affects their votes. File this under self-evident.

That is not the same thing as religious beliefs or edicts being codified in the laws of a secular state, even if some of the laws have parallels to religious teachings.

It comes down to whether you believe Man is just another animal. A Darwinian creature whose place on this planet is nothing more than evolutionary chance. Or, is man something more, much more?

Seems to me that to believe yourself special, just because, is the absolute height of narcissism.

It's no different than the Catholic church teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the sun orbits the earth.

You're not special Blade, and neither am I. We're alive now, soon we'll be dead. That doesn't make our lives meaningless, and it doesn't give us carte blanche to be *******s. If anything, it obligates us to live well and help others to live well, because this life is all any of us have got.

See - THAT right there is basic morality, and it's not predicated on fear of punishment or hope of reward from some supernatural creature.

 

[Bertelman]

You're not special Blade, and neither am I. We're alive now, soon we'll be dead. That doesn't make our lives meaningless, and it doesn't give us carte blanche to be *******s. If anything, it obligates us to live well and help others to live well, because this life is all any of us have got.

See - THAT right there is basic morality, and it's not predicated on fear of punishment or hope of reward from some supernatural creature.

 

[Valadi]

Our society is democratic. People vote based on what they believe. Of course their faith affects their votes. File this under self-evident.

That is not the same thing as religious beliefs or edicts being codified in the laws of a secular state, even if some of the laws have parallels to religious teachings.

Seems to me that to believe yourself special, just because, is the absolute height of narcissism.

It's no different than the Catholic church teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the sun orbits the earth.

You're not special Blade, and neither am I. We're alive now, soon we'll be dead. That doesn't make our lives meaningless, and it doesn't give us carte blanche to be *******s. If anything, it obligates us to live well and help others to live well, because this life is all any of us have got.

See - THAT right there is basic morality, and it's not predicated on fear of punishment or hope of reward from some supernatural creature.

👍

 

[D P356]

Just a question for the folks out there? Dawkins proposed in The Selfish Gene that we existed to pass on our DNA (our DNA could essentially be the main character, while we are temporary pawns propogating our AT purines and CG pyrimidines along. I don't believe that doctrine, personally. I think we are very well designed creatures. DNA is a great instrument, in my mind.


Question for discussion, just curious for answers from the crowd
so say there is no good vs evil? Some of you have daughters, (I hope this doesn't ever occur...ever to any of your children or anyone for that matter), and lets say that a sexual predator rapes your daughter, would you drop the charges and say, "hey, he was just trying to pass on his genes." This occurs enough to make it a legit question. Clearly the State would have a different stance and would likely charge them. But, there is no good vs evil, right? So this individual was doing what would best pass on his genotype for future generations?

I appreciate this discussion between you all. I'm a Christian, and I believe God created everything.

 

[countingdays]

But, there is no good vs evil, right?

Wrong.

 

[Valadi]

Just a question for the folks out there? Dawkins proposed in The Selfish Gene that we existed to pass on our DNA (our DNA could essentially be the main character, while we are temporary pawns propogating our AT purines and CG pyrimidines along. I don't believe that doctrine, personally. I think we are very well designed creatures. DNA is a great instrument, in my mind.


Question for discussion, just curious for answers from the crowd
so say there is no good vs evil? Some of you have daughters, (I hope this doesn't ever occur...ever to any of your children or anyone for that matter), and lets say that a sexual predator rapes your daughter, would you drop the charges and say, "hey, he was just trying to pass on his genes." This occurs enough to make it a legit question. Clearly the State would have a different stance and would likely charge them. But, there is no good vs evil, right? So this individual was doing what would best pass on his genotype for future generations?

I appreciate this discussion between you all. I'm a Christian, and I believe God created everything.

That is half the story Dawkins told. The other half was our creation of societies and the creation of constructs that out-live our bodies: memes.

I don't think an atheist or evolutionist would argue that there is no such thing as right and wrong. The question is where these concepts come from. The areligious argument states that we as societies determine what is acceptable and unacceptable, and set appropriate boundaries so that our societies can continue to thrive. The religious argument might state that our concepts of right and wrong ('good & evil') are divinely mandated.

In your example the man was both morally reprehensible and was ultimately not doing what was best to propagate -- living outside of prison and having children in socially acceptable ways would serve him better. He's just a rapist.

The only case I could see him not getting sent to prison is if we were to follow Biblical law, which has stated that men may capture virgin women as spoils of war to marry, or a rapist must marry a virgin girl if he pays her father a few shekels for property loss (Numbers and Deuteronomy, respectively).

 

[BLADEMDA]

Just a question for the folks out there? Dawkins proposed in The Selfish Gene that we existed to pass on our DNA (our DNA could essentially be the main character, while we are temporary pawns propogating our AT purines and CG pyrimidines along. I don't believe that doctrine, personally. I think we are very well designed creatures. DNA is a great instrument, in my mind.


Question for discussion, just curious for answers from the crowd
so say there is no good vs evil? Some of you have daughters, (I hope this doesn't ever occur...ever to any of your children or anyone for that matter), and lets say that a sexual predator rapes your daughter, would you drop the charges and say, "hey, he was just trying to pass on his genes." This occurs enough to make it a legit question. Clearly the State would have a different stance and would likely charge them. But, there is no good vs evil, right? So this individual was doing what would best pass on his genotype for future generations?

I appreciate this discussion between you all. I'm a Christian, and I believe God created everything.

I'm a Believer with a heavy bias towards the Old Testament. Thus, I say hang 'em high for all to see. Alternatively, if I find him anywhere near my home, my daughter, etc. I'd put a bullet in him. God Forgive me. But I would.

Yes, that ain't what Jesus would do but I'm not Jesus.

 

[BLADEMDA]

That is half the story Dawkins told. The other half was our creation of societies and the creation of constructs that out-live our bodies: memes.

I don't think an atheist or evolutionist would argue that there is no such thing as right and wrong. The question is where these concepts come from. The areligious argument states that we as societies determine what is acceptable and unacceptable, and set appropriate boundaries so that our societies can continue to thrive. The religious argument might state that our concepts of right and wrong ('good & evil') are divinely mandated.

In your example the man was both morally reprehensible and was ultimately not doing what was best to propagate -- living outside of prison and having children in socially acceptable ways would serve him better. He's just a rapist.

The only case I could see him not getting sent to prison is if we were to follow Biblical law, which has stated that men may capture virgin women as spoils of war to marry, or a rapist must marry a virgin girl if he pays her father a few shekels for property loss (Numbers and Deuteronomy, respectively).

I agree with your assesment about "right and wrong." You don't need the bible to devise a reasonably solid set of rules for people to follow in a civilized nation. The rule of law must take precedent over religion/faith when deciding punishment. Hence, I could go to jail fo exercising my moral judgment on that rapist (which I would do regardless of the penalty).

There are times when our Faith or moral conscience dictates we oppose society's unjust laws. Abortion is an example of such conscience. There are some who will protest and donate time/money to prevent abortions. These people are serious about their Faith.
But, if they cross the line and kill an abortion Doctor then they must pay the price for violating the rule of law regardless of religious belief.

In general, Judges are fairly lenient on citizens who violate the law based on sound biblical principles. But, society has boundaries which must be observed by all or chaos reigns.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Just a question for the folks out there? Dawkins proposed in The Selfish Gene that we existed to pass on our DNA (our DNA could essentially be the main character, while we are temporary pawns propogating our AT purines and CG pyrimidines along. I don't believe that doctrine, personally. I think we are very well designed creatures. DNA is a great instrument, in my mind.


Question for discussion, just curious for answers from the crowd
so say there is no good vs evil? Some of you have daughters, (I hope this doesn't ever occur...ever to any of your children or anyone for that matter), and lets say that a sexual predator rapes your daughter, would you drop the charges and say, "hey, he was just trying to pass on his genes." This occurs enough to make it a legit question. Clearly the State would have a different stance and would likely charge them. But, there is no good vs evil, right? So this individual was doing what would best pass on his genotype for future generations?

I appreciate this discussion between you all. I'm a Christian, and I believe God created everything.

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11. ..
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..

 

[BLADEMDA]

The classic work Chovot Halevovot (1:6) quotes a beautiful parable. Once a rabbi entered a king’s palace and was granted an audience with the king. The king asked him the question, “how do you know of the existence of the Creator?” The rabbi respectfully asked the king to leave the room for a short while. On the table was a quill, an inkwell and some paper. While the king was out of the room, the rabbi wrote a beautiful poem on the paper. When the king returned he noticed the poem and was amazed at its poetic style. The ink was still wet and the king praised the rabbi for writing such a beautiful poem. The rabbi replied that he had not written the poem, rather, he had taken the inkwell, poured it onto the paper and the letters had formed themselves. The king ridiculed such a suggestion saying that it was impossible for the ink to arrange itself into a single letter, let alone a word, let alone a sentence, and certainly not into a beautiful poem! The rabbi replied, “there is your answer. If the ink in an inkwell cannot form a poem without the hand of a poet, then certainly the world, which is infinitely more complex than the poem, could not possibly form itself without the hand of a Master Creator!”

 

[D P356]

Valadi, I appreciate your response. To summarize your statement, One doesn't have to be religous to be a moral person, as morals could be set up by a tribe or society.

Religion gives one a "moral compass" (Tony Dungy, Quiet Strength, 2006). I think the apostle Paul himself said that he would not have know what sin was if the law (commandments) were not present. Regardless, the laws given by religion tend to give a guiding light towards right and wrong. As a Christian, I see the greatest commandment of love God with all your heart, soul, mind strength, and love your neighbor as yourself as very solid foundation. If you keep these in mind when viewing the ten commandments of the Old Testament, they are in line. Ie, if you have an idol or other 'god' you clearly don't love God with all you've got. If you lie, covet, steal, etc then you are not loving your neighbors. I believe we all fall short of these commands, thus Jesus Christ was sent to save us. I know that not everyone here believes that, but that is how I seek to live my life. And I don't scoff at or degrade anyone who believes differently than me. Free will is great. For everyone who is seeking, I hope you find what you're looking for.


Blade, I agree with your post on what you believe.

 

[pgg]

The classic work Chovot Halevovot (1:6) quotes a beautiful parable. Once a rabbi entered a king’s palace

I don't personally find much beauty in such a superficially and dramatically flawed argument, but to each his own. It's simply argument by design, aka the watchmaker argument.

When I asked in post #116 if you were going to bring up that tired, flawed "argument" in defense of creationism, I didn't think you actually would. 🙂

so say there is no good vs evil?

Who says that?

Don't confuse a supposition that the universe has neither good nor evil intentions, with a claim that good and evil don't exist. They're not the same thing.

Physics may be indifferent to us all, but we're not indifferent to each other. Gravity isn't evil, but throwing a person off a building might be.

 

[Intubate]

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11. ..
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..

So, God created man, made some rules he knew would be broken, then got angry and surprised when the rules were broken, and cast man out of heaven. Later, he changed his omniscient mind and decided to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive us for the crime of a distant ancestor, and let us back into heaven. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Trisomy13]

I'm a Believer with a heavy bias towards the Old Testament. Thus, I say hang 'em high for all to see. Alternatively, if I find him anywhere near my home, my daughter, etc. I'd put a bullet in him. God Forgive me. But I would.

Yes, that ain't what Jesus would do but I'm not Jesus.

So, post after post of God this and Jesus that, and then BOOM Yeah I'd break the 6th commandment and kill another human. Moral compass be damned. But it would be ok because I would be forgiven, and I'm reeeeallly trying to be like Jesus. And yeah well I'm actually Old Testament, angry god follower, when it suits me.

It's this hypocrisy that contributes to my eyerolls. 😉

Now don't get me wrong. I'd still have a beer with you, and to each his own as far as beliefs are concerned, but this attitude ALWAYS gets me smirking. And I guess that makes me smug and arrogant. 😀

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, God created man, made some rules he knew would be broken, then got angry and surprised when the rules were broken, and cast man out of heaven. Later, he changed his omniscient mind and decided to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive us for the crime of a distant ancestor, and let us back into heaven. That makes perfect sense.

1. Yes, God created man
2. Yes, He made One rule which we broke
3. Yes, He got angry but wasn't suprised. Man was cast out of the Garden of Eden.
4. Hashem provided a sacrifice, the Son of Man, to redeem us out of our sin.
5. God didn't change His mind. He always keeps His promises unlike us.
6. He provided a perfect sacrifice, unblemished and without sin, so we may gain entrance to a heaven which we don't deserve.


So, some of your post is correct and I pointed out those areas which needed some correction.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, post after post of God this and Jesus that, and then BOOM Yeah I'd break the 6th commandment and kill another human. Moral compass be damned. But it would be ok because I would be forgiven, and I'm reeeeallly trying to be like Jesus. And yeah well I'm actually Old Testament, angry god follower, when it suits me.

It's this hypocrisy that contributes to my eyerolls. 😉

Now don't get me wrong. I'd still have a beer with you, and to each his own as far as beliefs are concerned, but this attitude ALWAYS gets me smirking. And I guess that makes me smug and arrogant. 😀

No friend. I'm far from perfect. We are all guilty of moral inequity. That's the point.
I'm not able to rise to the highest level of Jesus and His disciples. I recognize that fact.
I've got to learn to deal with my issues on a personal level. That said, I'd have a beer with you after we go target shooting.

As far as hypocrisy that is an issue I fully recognize. It's in our DNA.😉 By the way, the Old Testament doesn't give me permission to shoot the rapist either; I only get to charge him a "penalty" of $100,000 for the act and my daughter gets the option of marrying him.😱

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, post after post of God this and Jesus that, and then BOOM Yeah I'd break the 6th commandment and kill another human. Moral compass be damned. But it would be ok because I would be forgiven, and I'm reeeeallly trying to be like Jesus. And yeah well I'm actually Old Testament, angry god follower, when it suits me.

It's this hypocrisy that contributes to my eyerolls. 😉

Now don't get me wrong. I'd still have a beer with you, and to each his own as far as beliefs are concerned, but this attitude ALWAYS gets me smirking. And I guess that makes me smug and arrogant. 😀

Another thing friend is that per my Lord I've broken every commandment at least once if not twice. I'm no Saint just a sinner working my way through life.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I don't personally find much beauty in such a superficially and dramatically flawed argument, but to each his own. It's simply argument by design, aka the watchmaker argument.

When I asked in post #116 if you were going to bring up that tired, flawed "argument" in defense of creationism, I didn't think you actually would. 🙂




Who says that?

Don't confuse a supposition that the universe has neither good nor evil intentions, with a claim that good and evil don't exist. They're not the same thing.

Physics may be indifferent to us all, but we're not indifferent to each other. Gravity isn't evil, but throwing a person off a building might be.

I was going to post Pascal's Wager but I saw you already expected that one.

 

[Intubate]

1. Yes, God created man
2. Yes, He made One rule which we broke
3. Yes, He got angry but wasn't suprised. Man was cast out of the Garden of Eden.
4. Hashem provided a sacrifice, the Son of Man, to redeem us out of our sin.
5. God didn't change His mind. He always keeps His promises unlike us.
6. He provided a perfect sacrifice, unblemished and without sin, so we may gain entrance to a heaven which we don't deserve.


So, some of your post is correct and I pointed out those areas which needed some correction.

I think you missed my point which is-- the whole thing makes no sense. He knew man would fall all along, why go through with the casting out, instead of just sending our sinful, imperfect selves down to earth in the first place. Why did he wait thousands of years to give a chance for forgiveness? Why would a perfect being require a blood sacrifice to appease himself because someone broke a rule he made? How is appearing in man form and being killed such a great and perfect sacrifice? Seems pretty small really when compared to things like creating the universe. The simple truth is that requiring a sacrifice in order to give forgiveness is not really being forgiving. Accepting the death of another person as punishment for your own sin (which I don't think exists) is equally immoral.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I think you missed my point which is-- the whole thing makes no sense. He knew man would fall all along, why go through with the casting out, instead of just sending our sinful, imperfect selves down to earth in the first place. Why did he wait thousands of years to give a chance for forgiveness? Why would a perfect being require a blood sacrifice to appease himself because someone broke a rule he made? How is appearing in man form and being killed such a great and perfect sacrifice? Seems pretty small really when compared to things like creating the universe. The simple truth is that requiring a sacrifice in order to give forgiveness is not really being forgiving. Accepting the death of another person as punishment for your own sin (which I don't think exists) is equally immoral.

Yes. I know what you meant when you posted the original statement. I just wanted to clarify my beliefs to you. I understand that most on here fully reject my belief system. I respect your right to make your own choice. I wouldn't have it any other way. Those of you who can't or won't accept the personal sacrifice/atoning work of the Messiah should explore other Faiths or concepts which are acceptable to you.

That type of comment is HERESY in most Christian sects. It would get me burned at the stake by Catholics and Protestants alike. But, Faith is a personal thing and with time the Lord may Call you or open your eyes to why a Willing, unblemished, lamb of God (who is both Man and God in one) was needed to die for us.

Around here just getting the majority to admit there is a being known as a Creator takes a miracle.

 

[countingdays]

Yes. I know what you meant when you posted the original statement. I just wanted to clarify my beliefs to you. I understand that most on here fully reject my belief system. I respect your right to make your own choice. I wouldn't have it any other way. Those of you who can't or won't accept the personal sacrifice/atoning work of the Messiah should explore other Faiths or concepts which are acceptable to you.

That type of comment is HERESY in most Christian sects. It would get me burned at the stake by Catholics and Protestants alike. But, Faith is a personal thing and with time the Lord may Call you or open your eyes to why a Willing, unblemished, lamb of God (who is both Man and God in one) was needed to die for us.

Around here just getting the majority to admit there is a being known as a Creator takes a miracle.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm

 

[Robert Loblaw]

It's because many religious people believe life begins at conception and think abortion is murder, and very religious people tend to gravitate toward the GOP. But you know this.

I think they're wrong and it's absurd to claim that a ball of cells with a non- or minimally-developed nervous system is a sentient human being, but that's what they think.




I'm not sure what your point is.

Our society is democratic. People vote based on what they believe. Of course their faith affects their votes. File this under self-evident.

That is not the same thing as religious beliefs or edicts being codified in the laws of a secular state, even if some of the laws have parallels to religious teachings.




Seems to me that to believe yourself special, just because, is the absolute height of narcissism.

It's no different than the Catholic church teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the sun orbits the earth.

You're not special Blade, and neither am I. We're alive now, soon we'll be dead. That doesn't make our lives meaningless, and it doesn't give us carte blanche to be *******s. If anything, it obligates us to live well and help others to live well, because this life is all any of us have got.

See - THAT right there is basic morality, and it's not predicated on fear of punishment or hope of reward from some supernatural creature.

This...for multiple reasons, not least of which is you apparently have the patience to read through his posts and respond.

From humility comes compassion and empathy, and there is nothing more humbling than appreciating the speck of one's own existence against the vastness of our universe in both space and time.

I am certain that my atheism has allowed me to experience the finality of the death of a patient in a way far more profound than those colleagues who haven't contemplated to the same degree how an entire existence of hopes, dreams, and aspirations is extinguished with the last breath.

It is amazing that existence seems to mean everything...and yet it means nothing in an instant.