- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,081
- 51,503
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
The Evolution of Morality
- Thread starter biggles53
- Start date
- Status
EternalDragon
Counselor
I think you have some misconceptions. Most Christians have read the Bible (me included) front to back and studied/read many parts more than once. Most Christians do not and are told (by God's word) not to trust what man says. They read and study for themselves.
In fact many Christian churches have a reading schedule for reading through the entire bible in one year. My church has a study group that goes through different books over the year although that is a bit slower as it is one day a week.
Upvote
0
I have no misconceptions because I am not bothered, I only know what I have heard ex Christians say about reading the bible all the way through.
Have you seen The Atheist Experience Show? they take questions from Christians and Atheists and discuss them,
I realise you might not have much to do with other opinions about Christianity but why don't you give them a call and put them straight? [it's free] or just listen to what some of the callers have to say, you might have a laugh if nothing else.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Putting words into my mouth AV? Really now; when did I say anything about sacrificing sheep? It makes no difference to me. Anyone professing to take the Bible literally should abide to ALL the laws of the Bible. All I am saying is you cannot pick and choose. If you on the other hand take the Bible as a spiritual guide then you are not obliged to adhere to such laws.
All I am saying is put your money where your mouth is.
By the way I sold land to an American foundation. They built a school that adheres strictly to evangelical, Baptist, doctrine and they even believe that only the various protestant faiths are Christian. Guess what? This Easter they forced the primary school children to witness a lamb sacrifice to God. So My good man, it seems that some of your brethren do indeed sacrifice animals to God!
If they truly did this they are rejecting Christ and that He died for their sins. They are rejecting Christianity at its most basic of doctrine. If this is true they are not adhering to evangelical, Baptist doctrine and are actually denying Christ's death and resurrection.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
You were shown what the verses you "picked" meant in context and literally. You can choose to believe what you want, but you do so ignoring what you have been shown. There are two Religions or religious groups within the Bible. There are verses that relate to one or both of the groups throughout. It takes a deep study and revelation to understand the messages to both.
Upvote
0
Sadly Oncedeceived that's only your take on Christianity others however have a different take,
the strange thing is you are all reading the same book so how can that happen? could God be a bad writer?
or are people only reading it as they want to read it and taking only what they want to take?
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I don't know about you, but before I had aid of the Holy Spirit the Bible just seemed like a dead boring book. It took God's revelation to open it up and create the living word. I can read a passage twenty times and then suddenly God opens it for me and I am amazed that I had not understood it until then.
Upvote
0
No it's just you changing your mind because you want to.I don't know about you, but before I had aid of the Holy Spirit the Bible just seemed like a dead boring book. It took God's revelation to open it up and create the living word. I can read a passage twenty times and then suddenly God opens it for me and I am amazed that I had not understood it until then.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Ginger, the whole doctrine of Christianity is Christ. That HE died for our sins and lives again. IF you take Christ out there is no Christianity.
Yes, people can be lead astray and are. That is what the Bible is for. To remain true to the gospels. IF someone teaches other than that Christ died for our sins they teach falsely. Period.
1 Timothy 6:3-5
King James Version (KJV)
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I want to change my mind??? Why would I want to change my mind?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Don't tell me tell them.. 30.000 flavours at the last count and all of them reading from the same book,
you tell me what's happening? can you smell fish because [like you] they all think they have it right.
Upvote
0
Because you so want it all to be true, why? because you don't want to die when you die,
you want to believe that you are going to have another life, that's why.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived you are so in love with fooling yourself about a God the very very last thing you want to do is stop,
if you stopped you think you would fall apart, you might but only for a while then you would be free to be yourself.
if you stopped you think you would fall apart, you might but only for a while then you would be free to be yourself.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
It doesn't matter the denomination. All Christianity is based on the Life, death and resurrection of Christ.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I would be interested to know how long you think it would take to evolve not just one type of eye but all the different eyes found in the Cambrian.
How do we determine the truth and which are best?
So if they have this level of awareness of self preservation and little or no awareness of how cooperation will aid in that survival, how does the survival of the species or group arise from self preservation?
Ok. We have determined that things survive that lack intelligence, we see things surviving such as neanderthals without thinking about anything more than self preservation. So where do we find cooperation being valued enough to evolve morality? We don't find neanderthals or even early humans thinking about the group as a self preservation tool, so if we find our ancestors sacrificing self for the group, how do we explain that?
Would you not agree that for morality to have evolved it would have to be the same for all humans at least? If it were evolved behavior wouldn't be evolved within the species? If so, why do we have such differences? If it is hard wired into our brains it would seem to be universal within the species would it not?
That the universe is the way it is does not, for me, constitute evidence that it was supernaturally created. Not in and of itself.
But if there were miraculous violations of the natural laws they would be considered natural anyway. Anything in nature would be considered nature. No matter what you would see, whether it be like we see with rules and laws or whether there were violations of those laws you would see it as the way it is. If you think about it, why are there rules and laws that the universe adheres to if the universe was a result of unplanned and entirely unguided processes? How do laws and rules create themselves?
That can go both ways, correct? If we saw life existed in violation to universal law we would see naturalists explaining it as a natural violation of the universal law.
With the universal laws of the universe, we see precision and mathematical logic within the very elements of the universe. The universe can be explained mathematically. The universe was mathematical cohesive before man discovered mathematical equation.
However, you do not know whether that is even true. You do not know that the universe could have expanded without supernatural aid. You do not know that the universe would not collapse if the undetectable force that keeps it from collapsing was gone. You don't know what that force is but it is required for our universes existence. You don't know what supernatural aid is required for the continuous function of existence of the universe or life itself.
Why would it be magic?
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry - weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible - gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form - electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry - ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements - ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above - ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above - expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed - entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form - mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements - velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support - age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed - initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space - average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit - density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material - average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life - fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun - decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life - 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life - ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above - decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry - ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes - initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation - polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result - supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form - white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry - ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form - number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result - number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result - mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense - big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form - size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result - uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable - cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Continued in next post.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
How would you know? There already is the scenario that the universe requires great precision for life, laws that the universe must adhere to and exact requirements for life, yet you claim that these are all just how it all happened naturally. You see that there are forces that keep the universe together today that are not even detectable on their own, but can only be known to exist due to the way things behave in regard to them. Yet you claim that there is no need for anything supernatural. You can claim that we don't know now but we might later, but we know much when it comes to gravity but we still don't have a grasp on what it is, how it exists. We know it exists because of the effects of it, but we don't even know what it is.
Which is sensible. However to claim supernatural is not required when you are not aware of how much there is to explain naturally that defies natural explanations is basing your conclusions on your worldview rather than the evidence out there. You might not know, but you can make an educated determination based on what you have available to you. The fine tuning is an example of this. There are articles out there that do not require a PhD in physics that give a good easy to understand run down of the parameters that are required to allow for life and the universe to exist. There is a consensus of Physicists that claim the parameters are so precise that they appear designed. Granted appearance of design does not prove design. It does however, support it.
We can indeed, but what of the person who made the sacrifice? That needs to be known to make that sacrifice.
Reason is not left at the door for faith. Interpretations may lead some to do so. However, when one knows that God exists and is who He claims to be, it is not a matter of dismissing evidence but evaluating it through a different lens.
Do you think that people go to hell because they do not believe in God or because they will not accept God's rules?
If God exists and has created the universe as He claims, do you think that He deserves credit for it? Does He deserve appreciation for the very breath we take each moment? Does He deserve to be viewed as a Creator, if He in fact created us? IF HE deserves these does He not deserve to live with those who wish to accept and love Him for it or with those who refuse to accept and show appreciation to Him? Now is it true that there are those who deserve judgement? Someone that kills someone else without due cause, do they deserve judgement and punishment? Are there those who steal from others, do they deserve judgement and punishment? IF yes, we do see that there is a moral code that we adhere to that says to do these things causes them to be judged and punishment to be made if they are found guilty. Is this moral or immoral? We would claim this is a moral judgement and punishment is deserved. If we are all morally guilty in the eyes of God because He is perfect and requires those around Him to be moral, do we deserve punishment? If so, would we wish to have mercy? If we want mercy and God devised a way to show mercy if we only allow Him His status of Creator and God. A simple way to avoid punishment and to live forever without punishment. Is that a fair exchange?
Which comes down to a very fine point. Perhaps you refuse to worship God. Perhaps you have reason to believe He exists but you will not worship Him because you will not worship period? I don't know that to be the case but is that possible?
Ok you believe in free will. So in naturalistic explanations why do you think free will exists.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Why would I read the Bible and determine after multitude of times that I have a new awareness of what it means? It is not wanting to believe something or something else, it is simply a new meaning to the words.
It has nothing to do with afterlife or doctrine, it has to do with seeing words in a new way.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
This is simply crazy. I love to fool myself? Why would someone love to fool themselves? It just doesn't make sense. Why does it matter to you anyway?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
