• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Origin of God's Morality.

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Darwin got Natural Selection right.
Darwin didn't know about DNA, so he got a lot of things wrong as well.

We've come a long way since then.

But I have a feeling that you don't actually care about what exactly Darwin got right or wrong... I think you simply associate the name "Darwin" with something bad or evil or whatever. I think you simply cringe at the sound of the name, and that you don't actually care about the ideas / models he put forward.

Amirite?
The problem with Darwin is similar to the problem with Galileo. Both made assumptions and tried to assert their truth when they had nothing to back it up. Darwin took God out of the theory, aside from things that nobody could know. But as I stated, I do believe in evolution, just not Darwin's flavor, or many of the others. Some form of evolution took place over a very long period of time. I believe that. I also believe Genesis 1 and 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Denial.

The references are at the bottom of the page, for your convenience to double check the information in the article.
Yes, I did, and from what I read, Lemaitre's opinion was considered and rejected by the Pope, who is his superior in matters of faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The problem with Darwin is similar to the problem with Galileo. Both made assumptions and tried to assert their truth when they had nothing to back it up. Darwin took God out of the theory, aside from things that nobody could know. But as I stated, I do believe in evolution, just not Darwin's flavor, or many of the others. Some form of evolution took place over a very long period of time. I believe that. I also believe Genesis 1 and 2.
Are you saying Galileo was all wrong or had no real evidence? If so, you are going to be in for a rude wakening when you review the facts of his case. Also, Darwin did not abandon God. Matter of fact, he mentions God nine times in "Origins." He at least believed that God was necessary to get the whole evolutionary process started.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Are you saying Galileo was all wrong or had no real evidence? If so, you are going to be in for a rude wakening when you review the facts of his case. Also, Darwin did not abandon God. Matter of fact, he mentions God nine times in "Origins." He at least believed that God was necessary to get the whole evolutionary process started.
Galileo didn't have the tools to prove his idea. That's the fact. The problem with Galileo and the Catholic Church is that they asked him to stop teaching heliocentrism as fact when there was no proof. They agreed with the theory but he was so sure, he claimed it as fact.
Regarding Darwin, 9 times in that tome? Not very many. But even if he didn't abandon God totally, those who came after him did. Darwin claimed that man came from earlier hominids, not, as the Bible states, created by God. It's possible that that's an interpretation by his disciples, and that he believed that God is necessary. But the way you say it, he kick started it, and then got out of the way. I disagree with that. I believe God was involved intimately in every step of the process. And then there's Oncedeceived's link...
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
I still do not see the dichotomy. Science can be poetic. By "poetic", do you mean, "excused from having to comport with observation of reality"?
So be it.
I would seem that they believe something different to you. How am I to track all of the varying beliefs of those that identify as "Christians"?
I don't think it is inaccurate. I think it's not a science book.
So what kind of book is it, that need not comport with observations of reality, but that you do not describe as fiction?
Could have been.
If Noah had existed.;)
I disagree with it.
If you disagree with my description, in what way do you think it inaccurate?
Epic poetry. Poetry that tells a history, like Illiad or Aeneid
"A" history. But not actual history, as in what actually happened in the past. Historical fiction then.
I concede that you believe you have a basis.
Obfuscation. ^_^

You are not clear on what you believe, I am not clear on what you believe, you evade direct questions that might clear it up, yet you still deny me a basis for not accepting whatever it is you do believe. I'm glad that you are being fair about this. ;)
Neither does "I believe in God".
But "I believe it's IRrational not to believe it" does require justification, with its implied accusation of irrationality directed at all that disagree with your beliefs, whatever they may be.
Your characterization of what Christians believe proves that.
I do not claim it to be what Christians believe; it is only a working definition, in the absence of a robust, testable, falsifiable definition of "God" is in any given exchange. (see ignosticism)

Feel free to provide a detailed synopsis of your particular religious beliefs, and a general description of what major scientific theories must be falsified in order to accommodate them, for use in going forward.
Most Christians believe that neither Genesis nor Science is wrong.
I do not know why you keep falling back to this "most christians" routine. Do you gain comfort in claiming that you are not alone in your beliefs? Do you feel that a popularity of a belief in some mysterious manner lends credibility to it?

What I do understand is that there is a psychological condition, known as compartmentalization, that allows individuals to hold conflicting beliefs.:

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

link

"Christianity" meaning your crusade against "religion."
I have no such crusade. What I want is to understand what other people believe, and why they believe it, be it gods, Bigfoot, or extraterrestrial aliens. Although, in the case of the chemtrail lady I ran into, I just backed away slowly...
I believe Christianity is right and accurate in what its subject matter is,
By what methodology did you make this determination in regards to your religious beliefs?
and science is right and accurate, much of the time,
Much of the time? Throw out common descent and modern evolutionary theory and geology, and what else is left?
in what its subject matter is.That seems to be your primary sticking point with the Bible, that Genesis is a fairy tale because some people claim that the earth is only 6000 years old based on the 'chronology' in Genesis.
And what it claims to have happened, in the ordered it happened, and what made it happen. Pretty much all of it fails to comport with observations of reality.
I don't need scientific methodology to discuss religion, and I don't need religion to discus science. Theology is one thing, science is another.
That is a position that I have not seen reflected in your posts in this thread.
The only point at which they meet, to me, is that without God, there is no science.
As you inadvertently alluded to earlier, "God" is of no significance. Science is simply a methodology, and ignores things of no significance. Where does your "God" come into it?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Again, you're conflating science and religion. Science does what science does (explain how things work), religion does what religion does (explain why we should be good to one another).
You seem to be confused. You are the one that finds the two to be incompatible, in having to rail against science as you have been doing.
Himalayan sea salt.
What about it? Do you put it on your fries?
You said something about a flood happening some time in the billions of years. I'm not going to go looking for it.
I would think that the morally correct thing to do would be to retract an accusation that you are unable to substantiate.
What life was it then that first appeared 3.8 billion years ago? Your literal "Adam and Eve"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, I did, and from what I read, Lemaitre's opinion was considered and rejected by the Pope, who is his superior in matters of faith.

You're wrong.
As per the sources I gave you.

When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21]
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The problem with Darwin is similar to the problem with Galileo. Both made assumptions and tried to assert their truth when they had nothing to back it up.

Such as?

Darwin took God out of the theory

False. God was never part of the theory, so how could he take God "out"?
The fact, off course, is that God is not included in the model, because there is not "God-factor" or variable that can be shown to play any kind of role.

For the same reason, God isn't mentioned in Germ theory, plate tectonics, atomic theory, theory of relativity, etc etc.

Not because gods are somehow excluded a priori...Nope. Rather, just because there isn't any god-factor present that has any kind of observable part in the models in question.

Why would one include a variable in a formula if it doesn't change anything, and has no measurable or observable effect on the whole?

But as I stated, I do believe in evolution, just not Darwin's flavor, or many of the others.

Nobody asks you to accept a model of biology that is 2 centuries old, either.

Some form of evolution took place over a very long period of time. I believe that. I also believe Genesis 1 and 2.

You can "believe" whatever you want, off course.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
  • Like
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
But even if he didn't abandon God totally, those who came after him did.

So what?

Darwin claimed that man came from earlier hominids

And he was just as right about that, as Galileo was about heliocentrism.


But the way you say it, he kick started it, and then got out of the way. I disagree with that. I believe God was involved intimately in every step of the process.

Again, you can believe whatever you wish.
You can also believe that the universe and all it contains was created 5 seconds ago.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To the biological model he put forward, it doesn't matter what Darwin's god beliefs were.

Just like to math, it doesn't matter what the god beliefs were of the arabs that invented algebra.
That is what the conversation I was responding to was about.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure.

And to that, I'm responding that it doesn't matter what people believe, when it comes to their work in evidence-based science.
It doesn't matter unless of course they let their own biases get involved. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It doesn't matter unless of course they let their own biases get involved. :)

At which point, their work becomes unscientific.

That was kind of the whole point, once...

In science, the data/evidence takes the lead. Not the faith based beliefs. Those are left at the door (no matter what they are).
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I still do not see the dichotomy. Science can be poetic. By "poetic", do you mean, "excused from having to comport with observation of reality"?
It can be, today, I guess you can have it that way. But Genesis wasn't a scientific text.
I would seem that they believe something different to you. How am I to track all of the varying beliefs of those that identify as "Christians"?
If you wanted to, you would. Some Christians believe evolution, some don't.
So what kind of book is it, that need not comport with observations of reality, but that you do not describe as fiction?
Do you only read science books? The Truth can be told in many ways. I'd call it a story that conveys Truth.
If Noah had existed.;)
Believe what you want.
If you disagree with my description, in what way do you think it inaccurate?
the whole thing, really. God's not a character, and he didn't poof things into existence. And so forth.
"A" history. But not actual history, as in what actually happened in the past. Historical fiction then.
We can say that, since nobody was there, we don't know how it actually happened.
Obfuscation. ^_^
Whatever.
You are not clear on what you believe, I am not clear on what you believe, you evade direct questions that might clear it up, yet you still deny me a basis for not accepting whatever it is you do believe. I'm glad that you are being fair about this. ;)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is what I believe. It's as clear as day. I also told you I believe evolution and the Creation accounts to be true. You're the one being dense in not seeing what I've been saying. That's not my fault. If you are unclear on how an ancient story and modern scientific thought can be reconciled, that's your problem.
But "I believe it's IRrational not to believe it" does require justification, with its implied accusation of irrationality directed at all that disagree with your beliefs, whatever they may be.

I do not claim it to be what Christians believe; it is only a working definition, in the absence of a robust, testable, falsifiable definition of "God" is in any given exchange. (see ignosticism)

Feel free to provide a detailed synopsis of your particular religious beliefs, and a general description of what major scientific theories must be falsified in order to accommodate them, for use in going forward.
Read the Catechism. But since you won't,
Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
I do not know why you keep falling back to this "most christians" routine. Do you gain comfort in claiming that you are not alone in your beliefs? Do you feel that a popularity of a belief in some mysterious manner lends credibility to it?
No, what it is, is that you keep talking about those Christians who believe in YE Creationism, the literal truth of what Genesis says, when that's not the view of most Christians. Most of us believe in evolution. Some say this discounts Genesis, some of us say it doesn't.
What I do understand is that there is a psychological condition, known as compartmentalization, that allows individuals to hold conflicting beliefs.:

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

link
[
/quote]But we're not compartmentalized, even by that definition.
I have no such crusade. What I want is to understand what other people believe, and why they believe it, be it gods, Bigfoot, or extraterrestrial aliens. Although, in the case of the chemtrail lady I ran into, I just backed away slowly...
If you want to understand what Christians believe, start by reading the Catechism, which is the basis for all Christian belief before the 1500's, and then work on The Protestant reformation.
By what methodology did you make this determination in regards to your religious beliefs?
I questioned the Truth, and it was proven to my satisfaction.
Much of the time? Throw out common descent and modern evolutionary theory and geology, and what else is left?
I think many scientists are wrong on AGW. Nutritionists are often wrong as to what is good for us and what is not. Meteorologists often don't get the weather right. There's plenty of times when they don't say they're wrong, but they are wrong.
And what it claims to have happened, in the ordered it happened, and what made it happen. Pretty much all of it fails to comport with observations of reality.
So that tells you that it's totally false? The very first verses of Genesis can be equated to the Big Bang. Who is to say it didn't happen that way, just that the time frame of 7 days is metaphorical? Were you there to say it's completely false?
That is a position that I have not seen reflected in your posts in this thread.
Really? Sorry you have trouble with your eyes.
As you inadvertently alluded to earlier, "God" is of no significance. Science is simply a methodology, and ignores things of no significance. Where does your "God" come into it?
I never said God is of no significance. God is the author of science and of the universe. Where, in Hamlet, does Hamlet meet Shakespeare?
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You seem to be confused. You are the one that finds the two to be incompatible, in having to rail against science as you have been doing.
I never said they're incompatible. I said they explain the same events in two different ways. Just as most laymen wouldn't understand Einstein explaining his theory of relativity or Hawking explaining his thoughts.
What about it? Do you put it on your fries?
To me, it proves that there could have been a worldwide flood. No, I put it on popcorn.
I would think that the morally correct thing to do would be to retract an accusation that you are unable to substantiate.

What life was it then that first appeared 3.8 billion years ago? Your literal "Adam and Eve"?
I don't believe life began with Adam and Eve. Neither does Genesis 1 say so.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You're wrong.
As per the sources I gave you.

When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21]
And yet, the Church continues to do so...that's where you're wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Such as?



False. God was never part of the theory, so how could he take God "out"?
A distinction without a difference.
The fact, off course, is that God is not included in the model, because there is not "God-factor" or variable that can be shown to play any kind of role.

For the same reason, God isn't mentioned in Germ theory, plate tectonics, atomic theory, theory of relativity, etc etc.

Not because gods are somehow excluded a priori...Nope. Rather, just because there isn't any god-factor present that has any kind of observable part in the models in question.

Why would one include a variable in a formula if it doesn't change anything, and has no measurable or observable effect on the whole?



Nobody asks you to accept a model of biology that is 2 centuries old, either.
http://www.godandscience.org/
You can "believe" whatever you want, off course.
Gee. Thanks. I needed your permission, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So what?



And he was just as right about that, as Galileo was about heliocentrism.
What proof do you have of either? Heliocentrism isn't right either-the sun isn't the center of the universe.
Again, you can believe whatever you wish.
You can also believe that the universe and all it contains was created 5 seconds ago.
Nah, there's evidence against that. Even those who think the Bible is literally true regarding Creation don't believe that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0