Any Christians believe in macroevolution?

AV1611VET · Jul 19, 2011

chris4243 said:
As for the Flood, there is no doubt in my mind that a global flood 4,300 years ago or so cannot have happened. (alternately, God intentionally hid all the evidence that it did happen, making Him a liar).

Wow -- He sure didn't fool you, did He?

I'm sure every court on earth could use a person like you.

You're better than DNA!

Cabal · Jul 19, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Jesus' grandfathers were Jacob (maternal) and Heli (maternal).

Oh look, non-literal interpretation!

AV1611VET · Jul 19, 2011

Cabal said:
Oh look, non-literal interpretation!

} Ain't that something!?

Cabal · Jul 19, 2011

AV1611VET said:
} Ain't that something!?

Yup - you're proving my original point. The genealogies are not literally reconcilable.

nebulaJP · Jul 19, 2011

lucaspa said:
Third, there are other ways for stories to be fictional than allegory.

If the stories in the Bible that we can scientifically investigate prove fictional, why should we assume other unverifiable stories are literal?

lucaspa said:
Fourth, however the Biblical authors personally considered the stories, all your examples have them using the non-literal truths of the story.

What's the non-literal truth of this one, that women should be subservient to men?:

1 Timothy 2:13 
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

What's the non-literal truth of this one?:

Jude 1:14
 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “ Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

If the Biblical authors did personally consider these stories literal history it means they were misinformed individuals, which is significant.

lucaspa said:
It was common at that time to make up geneologies. Aeneus had a geneology going back to Apollo. Does that make Apollo a real god?

No, so how does the Bible make God a real god?

lucaspa said:
In this case, there is a theological reason to make such a geneology: to tie the "father" of the Israelites back to the supposed first man.

How is that theologically useful? Doesn't it discredit the scriptures?

AlexBP · Jul 24, 2011

nebulaJP said:
If you Google 'animal morals' and read scientific articles about it you'll see that social animals do have morality. Following are two relevant quotes. The first is by Mike, the person who solved the problem of the first question in my original post and the second one is by myself and was an answer to a question in another thread. Also, I have a thread going called "Can someone explain what Sin is?" in the Ethics and Morality forum to work on the problem of the second question from my original post.
...
To say hi to others is good. To kill them is bad. These two things are not arbitrary. If every member of a species was prone to do the latter that species would die out.

So the 'rationale' for social animals (animals that depend on the group to survive), especially mammals, is:

Kill my kind

I die

Don't kill my kind

I live

Hurt my kind

I hurt

etc.

I don't think you need anything special to explain empathy (or extrapolation - "I prefer not to be murdered, perhaps others of my kind feel the same way"). Why would empathy be any harder to develop than any other concept we conceive of with our relatively advanced, homo sapiens brains (God given through evolution or not)?

I fear that the two of us may be talking past each other. I've already presented two examples of animal behavior. Chimpanzees kill each other, and human beings, and other animals for no reason other than that it's their nature to do so. Male cats kill each other and kill kittens just because. As I see it, these two examples flatly contradict what you're saying here. They show that animals, including the most intelligent and social animals, will regularly kill while showing no empathy or concern for the victims of their killing. How can this possibly be squared with the claims you're making?

I'm afraid that telling me to search on Google simple doesn't answer the question. I can find articles telling me that some animals assist each other in some situations. I've never denied that. In fact, I've acknowledged it, but I've also explained why I don't count it as morality. Recall what I said in my last post:

When a human being attacks another human being, we can make moral judgments about it. Generally we'll say it's morally wrong unless there's a mitigating circumstance such as self-defense. But I've never heard anyone applying the concepts of moral right and wrong to what Travis did. He attacked that woman because it was his nature as a chimpanzee to be violent.

As for cats, just consider cat behavior in the wild. Tom cats will fight each other to the death over control of territory and females. They'll also kill any kittens other than their own. Are these actions morally right or wrong? I would say that morality simply doesn't exist in the animal world. Some animals we can train to not bite and scratch. (Others we can't even do that.) But then again we can also train cats and dogs to fight. If an animal is trained to be violent, does it ever put a paw to its chin and contemplate the moral ramifications of being violent?

Until I get an answer to these questions, I simply can't understand the claim that morality exists among animals.

nebulaJP · Jul 25, 2011

AlexBP said:
Until I get an answer to these questions, I simply can't understand the claim that morality exists among animals.

I'll respond but I just want to see how you're defining 'morality'. These two definitions below are from dictionary.com. Are we agreed on the definitions of these words?:

morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

morals: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

lucaspa · Jul 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
You mean the father?

The father -- Joseph -- is the same, but the geneologies are wrong about that, aren't they? Joseph isn't the biological father, is he?

Jesus' grandfathers were Jacob (maternal) and Heli (maternal).

I stand corrected. I was looking at the great grandfather, but it appears that Matthat and Matthan are different people, too.

Try 36 -- source.

I was counting from David. However, I notice you source says "modern scholars tend to view the genealogies as theological craftsmanship rather than historical fact." Modern scholars also view the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 the same way. But, of course, you don't.

I don't read.

That's quite an admission. But it does explain a lot.

lucaspa · Jul 25, 2011

nebulaJP said:
If the stories in the Bible that we can scientifically investigate prove fictional, why should we assume other unverifiable stories are literal?

Why not? First, should we be reading the stories literally to begin with? If we were people living in 500 BC and were reading (or hearing) the creation stories in Genesis 1-3, would we have thought they were literal history? No. Why not? Because we would have known the social, historical, and theological context.

The human idea that Genesis 1-3 was "scientific" came much later, after people had forgotten the times and settings the stories were written in. In their arrogance, these people assumed that their time and setting was the same as that of 500 BC and that their reading was the correct one. The result?

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (1620)

What's the non-literal truth of this one, that women should be subservient to men?:

1 Timothy 2:13 
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

That's it, the non-literal truth. Let's face it, having Adam created before Eve does not mean that women should be subservient to men. The order of creation doesn't confer subservience. What's more, Paul knew very well that in Genesis 1 men and women are created together. So Paul is using a well-known story as his rationalization that women should be subservient to men. As I discuss in more detail below, you can argue that Paul's conclusion is faulty and contrary to God's intention. That Paul uses what turns out to be a "false" creation story is actually beneficial for God, isn't it?

What's the non-literal truth of this one?:

Jude 1:14
 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, [/quote]
You stopped the context. Why? Let's go back to verse 4: "For certain men whose condemnation was written about [fn] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. "

So, the author wants to condemn people who are preaching what Jude considers false things. What Jude cares about is Enoch's prophecy, not Adam. Let's go to verse 15:
"to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The point of all this is a prophesy against the preachers that Jude says are preaching false things. Jude also invokes the disciples in verse 17 "But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. "

The argument and prophecy stand independent of a literal Adam.

If the Biblical authors did personally consider these stories literal history it means they were misinformed individuals, which is significant.

Click to expand...

But the points they are making do not depend on the story being literal history. Everyone knows the story, so Paul can use it as a rationalization. In Jude, the point is the prophecy, not a literal Adam. You can take out "in the seventh generation from Adam" and nothing changes in Jude's argument.

I think that is significant. It looks like God is preventing the authors from any important theological message being dependent upon a literal Adam. In fact, it's the opposite. In your example, only a faulty theological message is tied to a literal Adam and Eve. In Paul's argument, the conclusion is faulty, isn't it? God didn't really intend for women to be subservient to men. What better way to correct Paul's mistake than to have Paul's argument based upon a faulty premise?

No, so how does the Bible make God a real god?

Click to expand...

I never said the Bible makes God a real god. I only said "It was common at that time to make up geneologies. Aeneus had a geneology going back to Apollo. Does that make Apollo a real god?" See? A genealogy going back to Apollo doesn't make Apollo real. A genealogy going back to Adam doesn't make Jesus the son of God.

What makes Jesus the son of God? You should know this.

How is that theologically useful? Doesn't it discredit the scriptures?

Click to expand...

Here you are worrying about "the scriptures" Stop doing that. Your real concern is God, isn't it? Or maybe not. Maybe your real concern is the scriptures and not God.

For the Jews, it is important that the first man be a Jew. That helps make them the "Chosen People" and gives them a (false) sense of superiority over any other group. When you get to Genesis 4-5 take careful note of which nations are descended from Cain and which from Seth, then compare that to Israel's enemies, friends, and neutrals.

Now, in the geneaologies the important thing is to tie Jesus to the House of David. Why? Because the common belief among Jews was that the Messiah will be from the House of David. And Jesus is claimed to be the Messiah. Tying him back to Adam is an afterthought and comes only because David (as a Jew) traces his ancestry back to Adam.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2011

lucaspa said:
The father -- Joseph -- is the same, but the geneologies are wrong about that, aren't they?

No.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

lucaspa · Jul 25, 2011

AlexBP said:
II've already presented two examples of animal behavior. Chimpanzees kill each other, and human beings, and other animals for no reason other than that it's their nature to do so.

It appears that the "no reason" is incorrect. Chimps will kill invaders into their territory. This includes humans.
Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
Chimpanzees Kill for Land
"After at least 5 million years of separate evolutionary history, chimpanzees and humans still have one thing in common: Males of both species kill each other over ..."
news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/chimpanzees-kill-for-land.html

However, chimps and other primates also exhibit what we consider "moral" behavior. They will share food, even when that means the individual doing the sharing goes hungry. In one experiment that I have read, a chimp (A) was in one room able to see into another room with another chimp (B). Whenever A took food from a slot, B would get a painful electric shock. A could see B suffering pain. From that point A would not take food, even when refusing to take food earned A an electric shock. For other examples:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

Male cats kill each other and kill kittens just because. As I see it, these two examples flatly contradict what you're saying here. They show that animals, including the most intelligent and social animals, will regularly kill while showing no empathy or concern for the victims of their killing.

First, felines are not social animals. They are solitary predators. So male cats killing each other and kittens is not "just because". They are protecting their hunting territory.

Second, while social animals will look out for their group, other groups are competitors.

Now, your criteria of "regularly kill while showing no empathy or concern for the victims of their killing" means that H. sapiens also fails to have morality. C'mon, humans do this regularly and have done so all thru history.

When a human being attacks another human being, we can make moral judgments about it. Generally we'll say it's morally wrong unless there's a mitigating circumstance such as self-defense. But I've never heard anyone applying the concepts of moral right and wrong to what Travis did. He attacked that woman because it was his nature as a chimpanzee to be violent.

1. There's a difference between having morality and making moral judgements. Do you see that? We are being wise in not making moral judgements outside our species. Our morals are for us and our behavior. We have no justification for extending them beyond H. sapiens. One reason is that we teach members of our species what is, and isn't, "moral" behavior. Therefore we can hold those members responsible for following, or not, those teachings. We have not, and due to the communication barrier, cannot teach our moral principles to members of other species.
2. Our nature as humans is also to be violent. We fight against our nature as part of our morals.
3. Within his species, Travis had reasons. You aren't looking or seeing those. It's not "just his nature as a chimpanzee". Like most human violence, there were reasons behind it.

Tom cats will fight each other to the death over control of territory and females. They'll also kill any kittens other than their own. Are these actions morally right or wrong?

Within their species, yes that is moral. Cats are solitary animals, not social ones. As predators they need a large territory with enough prey to sustain them. Killing over control of territory is self-defense for them. Also, access to females is limited. Again, it's a form of self-defense to kill rivals to females and kill kittens not their own. When they do that, then the females ovulate and the tomcat can have children of its own.

If an animal is trained to be violent, does it ever put a paw to its chin and contemplate the moral ramifications of being violent?

Many soldiers do not. Over the centuries humans have trained other humans to be violent. Some consider the ramifications of being violent. But most of the rank and file do not. They just do their jobs. I suggest reading the works of David Drake and Rudyard Kipling. Yes, it's fiction, but Drake and Kipling have insight into the psychology of soldiers and it's more fun reading them than dry scientific papers.

lucaspa · Jul 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
No.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

And there you note that the genealogies are wrong about Jesus being the son of Joseph!

I wondered if you would find that verse. Good for you. Thank you for proving my point.

Therefore, even tho Luke continues with the entire genealogy, that genealogy is wrong.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2011

lucaspa said:
And there you note that the genealogies are wrong about Jesus being the son of Joseph! I wondered if you would find that verse. Good for you. Thank you for proving my point.

Therefore, even tho Luke continues with the entire genealogy, that genealogy is wrong.

You might want to read some of the other posts here, instead of [apparently] just chiming in with your microscope.

Here's a good starting point: 49

Jazer · Jul 25, 2011

lucaspa said:
Therefore, even tho Luke continues with the entire genealogy, that genealogy is wrong.

Can you show me in the J1 J2 haplotype where the Hebrew genetic DNA is "wrong"? Where they do not line up with the geneologys that we get from Luke? Can you demonstrate that Abraham is not the father of the Hebrew nation and the Arab nation? That Sarah is not the mother of the Hebrew nation and that Hagar is not the mother of the Arab nation as the Bible teaches us. Can you show us that in the mtDNA? From the Evolutionary tree of Human mitochondrial DNA.

Jazer · Jul 25, 2011

Cabal said:
How then is it certain they got the rest of the genealogy right?

The Hebrew tradition for one thing. They do not question this at all. It's a fact to them. Christians and Hebrews keep track of the geneology of Abraham and his decendants. Actually if you were to study the Bible it is very very easy to trace the geneology from Abraham back to Moses and back to Adam.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2011

Jazer said:
The Hebrew tradition for one thing. They do not question this at all. It's a fact to them. Christians and Hebrews keep track of the geneology of Abraham and his decendants. Actually if you were to study the Bible it is very very easy to trace the geneology from Abraham back to Moses and back to Adam.

The two lines (Joseph's & Mary's) merge at David:

Matthew 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

In other words, David had two sons: Solomon and Nathan -- (more than two, actually).

From Solomon came Jesus' paternal line; and from Nathan came Jesus' maternal line.

Solomon's line would eventually give rise to Joseph; and Nathan's line would eventually give rise to Mary.

Cabal · Jul 25, 2011

Jazer said:
The Hebrew tradition for one thing. They do not question this at all. It's a fact to them.

The phrase "it's a fact to them" is a contradiction in terms.

Either way, this is no reason to necessarily accept anything.

Christians and Hebrews keep track of the geneology of Abraham and his decendants. Actually if you were to study the Bible it is very very easy to trace the geneology from Abraham back to Moses and back to Adam.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making, which remains - you have to resort to non-literal interpretation to reconcile them.

nebulaJP · Jul 25, 2011

lucaspa said:
First, should we be reading the stories literally to begin with?

lucaspa said:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

Lucas, thanks for your response. This is my personal belief: God, as described in the Bible, doesn't exist. However, if the universe has a consciousness (which I personally don't believe) and if this 'conscious universe' did directly inspire the Bible's authors in some way, and if it was somehow scientifically proven that the Bible was 'divinely inspired', then the Bible would still be 100% fiction to me. I would assume that the reason the Bible has so many miracles and fantasy elements in it is so that we would know it's fiction. (I wrote about this in my 'Sin' thread in the Ethics and Morality forum) Here is a list of miracles in the Bible from Christian Answers (dot net). Which of these fantastic stories (or stories concerning the stuff of fantasy rather than reality) do you not believe in, as a man of science? Only the first 2? If so, why would that be the case?

List of miracles recorded in the Bible (partial list)
1. Creation of the universe, including plants, animals and humans (Genesis 1-2)
2. The flood (Gen. 7, 8)
3. Confusion of languages (tongues) at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9)
4. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24)
5. Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26)
6. Birth of Isaac at Gerar (Gen. 21:1)
7. The burning bush not consumed (Ex. 3:3)
8. Aaron's rod changed into a serpent (Ex. 7:10-12)
The ten plagues of Egypt (Ex. 7:20-12:30)
9. waters become blood
10. frogs
11. lice
12. flies
13. murrain
14. boils
15. thunder and hail
16. locusts
17. darkness
18. death of the first-born
19. Red Sea divided; Israel passes through (See: Passage of Red Sea) (Ex. 14:21-31)
20. waters of Marah sweetened (Ex. 15:23-25)
21. Manna sent daily, except on Sabbath (Ex. 16:14-35)
22. Water from the rock at Rephidim (Ex. 17:5-7)
23. Nadab and Abihu consumed for offering strange fire (Lev. 10:1, 2)
24. Some of the people consumed by fire at Taberah (Num. 11:1-3)
25. The earth opens and swallows up Korah and his company. (Num. 16:32-34)
26. Fire at Kadesh (Num. 16:35-45)
27. Plague at Kadesh (Num. 16:46-50)
28. Aaron's rod budding at Kadesh (Num. 17:8)
29. Water from the rock, smitten twice by Moses, desert of Zin (Num. 20:7-11)
30. The brazen serpent in the desert of Zin (Num. 21:8-9)
31. Balaam's ass speaks (Num. 22:21-35)
32. The Jordan divided, so that Israel passed over dryshod near the city of Adam (Josh. 3:14-17)
33. The walls of Jericho fall down (Josh. 6:6-20)
34. The sun and moon stayed. (Josh. 10:12-14)
35. Hailstorm. (Josh. 10:12-14)
36. The strength of Samson (Judg. 14-16)
37. Water from a hollow place that is in Lehi (Judg. 15:19)
38. Dagon falls twice before the ark. (1 Sam. 5:1-12)
39. Emerods on the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:1-12)
40. Men of Beth-shemesh smitten for looking into the ark (1 Sam. 6:19)
41. Thunderstorm causes a panic among the Philistines at Eben-ezer (1 Sam. 7:10-12)
42. Thunder and rain in harvest at Gilgal (1 Sam. 12:18)
43. Sound in the mulberry trees at Rephaim (2 Sam. 5:23-25)
44. Uzzah smitten for touching the ark at Perez-uzzah (2 Sam. 6:6, 7)
45. Jeroboam's hand withered. (1 Kings 13:4)
46. Jeroboam's new altar destroyed at Bethel (1 Kings 13:4-6
47. 31. Widow of Zarephath's meal and oil increased (1 Kings 17:14-16)
48. Widow's son raised from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24)
49. Drought at Elijah's prayers (1 Kings 17, 18)
50. Fire at Elijah's prayers (1 Kings 18:19-39)
51. Rain at Elijah's prayers (1 Kings 18:41-45)
52. Elijah fed by ravens (1 Kings 17, 18)
53. Ahaziah's captains consumed by fire near Samaria (2 Kings 1:10-12)
54. Jordan divided by Elijah and Elisha near Jericho (2 Kings 2:7, 8, 14)
55. Elijah carried up into heaven (2 Kings 2:11)
56. waters of Jericho healed by Elisha's casting salt into them (2 Kings 2:21, 22)
57. Bears out of the wood destroy forty-two young men (2 Kings 2:24)
58. Water provided for Jehoshaphat and the allied army (2 Kings 3:16-20)
59. The widow's oil multiplied (2 Kings 4:2-7)
60. The Shunammite's son given, and raised from the dead at Shunem (2 Kings 4:32-37)
61. The deadly pottage cured with meal at Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38-41)
62. A hundred men fed with twenty loaves at Gilgal (2 Kings 4:42-44)
63. Naaman cured of leprosy, Gehazi afflicted with it (2 Kings 5:10-27)
64. The iron axe-head made to swim, river Jordan (2 Kings 6:5-7)
65. Ben hadad's plans discovered. Hazael's thoughts, etc. (2 Kings 6:12)
66. The Syrian army smitten with blindness at Dothan (2 Kings 6:18)
67. The Syrian army cured of blindness at Samaria (2 Kings 6:20)
68. Elisha's bones revive the dead (2 Kings 13:21)
69. Sennacherib's army destroyed, Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35)
70. Shadow of sun goes back ten degrees on the sun-dial of Ahaz, Jerusalem (2 Kings 20:9-11)
71. Uzziah struck with leprosy, Jerusalem (2 Chr. 26:16-21)
72. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego delivered from the fiery furnace, Babylon (Dan. 3:10-27)
73. Daniel saved in the lions' den (Dan. 6:16-23)
74. Jonah in the fish's belly. Safely landed (Jonah 2:1-10)
75. Gideon's fleece (Judg. 6:37-40)
Miracles Recorded in the Gospels
76. Cure of two blind men (Matt 9:27-31)
77. Piece of money in the fish's mouth (Matt 17:24-27)
78. The deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:31-37)
79. The blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)
80. Jesus passes unseen through the crowd (Luke 4:28-30)
81. The miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:4-11)
82. The raising of the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-18)
83. The woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:11-17)
84. The man with the dropsy (Luke 14:1-6)
85. The ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
86. The healing of Malchus (Luke 22:50-51)
87. Water made wine (John 2:1-11)
88. Cure of nobleman's son, Capernaum (John 4:46-54)
89. Impotent man at Bethsaida cured (John 5:1-9)
90. Man born blind cured (John 9:1-7)
91. Lazarus raised from the dead (John 11:38-44)
92. Draught of fishes (John 21:1-14)
93. Syrophoenician woman's daughter cured (Matt 15:28; Mark 7:24)
94. Four thousand fed (Matt 15:32; Mark 8:1)
95. Fig tree blasted (Matt 21:18; Mark 11:12)
96. Centurion's servant healed (Matt 8:5; Luke 7:1)
97. Blind and dumb demoniac cured (Matt 12:22; Luke 11:14)
98. Demoniac cured in synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33)
99. Peter's wife's mother cured (Matt 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38)
100. The tempest stilled (Matt 8:23; Mark 4:37; Luke 8:22)
101. Demoniacs of Gadara cured (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26)
102. Swine rush into and drown (Mark 5:1-20)
103. Leper healed (Matt 8:2; Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12)
104. Jairus's daughter raised (Matt 9:23; Mark 5:23; Luke 8:41)
105. Woman's issue of blood cured (Matt 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43)
106. Man sick of the palsy cured (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3; Luke 5:18)
107. Man's withered hand cured (Matt 12:10; Mark 3:1; Luke 6:6)
108. A lunatic child cured (Matt 17:14; Mark 9:14; Luke 9:37)
109. Two blind men cured (Matt 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35)
110. Jesus walks on the sea (Matt 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:15)
111. Jesus feeds 5,000 in a desert place (Matt 14:15; Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10; John 6:1-14)
112. Many fulfilled prophecies (also see: prophets)
113. The conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35)
114. Star of Bethlehem
115. The transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8)
116. The resurrection (John 21:1-14)
117. The ascension (Luke 2:42-51)
118. Peter and the healing of a the paralytic Aeneas at Lydda (Acts 9:32, 35, 38)
119. Miraculous ability to speak and/or understand a foreign language (tongue) previously unknown to the speaker (See: Gift of tongues)
120. Inspiration of Scripture by God

SonOfTheWest · Jul 25, 2011

Count me in for, "believes in macroevolution."

AlexBP · Jul 25, 2011

nebulaJP said:
I'll respond but I just want to see how you're defining 'morality'. These two definitions below are from dictionary.com. Are we agreed on the definitions of these words?:

morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

morals: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

When defining morality, I refer to Aristotle, who posited that there are six stages of moral development, arranged in a hierarchy from lowest to highest. Every human being enters the world at the lowest stage and moral development consists of moving to higher ones. Not all humans beings reach the highest stages. The six stages are explained at greater length on this page, but I'll give a summary.

STAGE 1 [The lowest]: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE ORIENTATION

The individual does whatever feels good and avoids whatever feels bad, with zero concern for how other individuals feel.

STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE (PERSONAL REWARD/PUNISHMENT) ORIENTATION

The individual understands the authority of whoever or whatever has the physical ability to force them to do things, and obeys that authority. Anyone else who isn't capable of applying force gets ignored.

STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY ORIENTATION

The individual treats whatever is normal in his or her community as being morally right.

STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER ORIENTATION

The individual understands that some authority, typically understood as "the law", has basis in that it provides a social, legal, and institutional order, which theoretically improves human life. In this case, some groups that use force are understood to be wrong, such as gangs, but whatever the law asserts is held to be right.

STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT ORIENTATION

The individual understands that the idea of rights and dignity for all human beings is the basis for moral thinking. Authority is right and must be followed to the extent that it respects the underlying moral principles, but must be rejected when it goes against this moral principle.

STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL MORAL PRINCIPLES ORIENTATION

The individual makes all decisions based on moral principles involving the assumption of the dignity, equality, and worth of his or her fellow humans.

So, with the six stages defined, we can define morality as "a desire and conscious attempt to reach higher levels of moral development". It is not defined as existence at any particular level. As already mentioned, everyone enters the world at the lowest level. A person at a higher level may be entirely immoral--think about the Nazis who justified what they did by saying "Orders are orders." That's classic level four.

Animals generally exist at level one. If we train an animal to do what we like, by definition it must be at level two. There may be perhaps some at level three, but no animals has any desire to move upwards in moral levels. Animals by definition cannot understand something as abstract as a principle or apply reasoning to determine whether adherence to the law is just. Establishing that animals feel something like empathy in some cases does not make them moral. Empathy is an emotion, not a principle or a result of reasoning. One can easily imagine scenarios in which empathy causes a person to do something wrong. One obvious example would be if, due to empathy with members of a family or tribe, we do nasty things to those outside the family or tribe.

Any Christians believe in macroevolution?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Legend

Legend

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Britpack

Newbie

Similar threads