Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[BananaSlug]

Are you kidding??"If" being the key word here.

People back then lived multiple hundreds of years and there could indeed be gaps of time where there are no children.

All of this because you don't want to accept the fact that God kills babies and children? He did it all the time in the OT.

Couple that with an alien race of giants on the earth doing who-knows-what here, and I don't think it's stretching it much to assume there were no babies at the time.

It amazes me the stuff people will add to the Bible if the Bible doesn't explicitly mention something. Jesus himself said the end times would be as before the flood, "people marrying and being given in marriage". It's not a stretch to believe that people were having kids too.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- it is way better to let God handle the situation, rather than us.

Which makes it all the better that you're not God -- you've have nobody to pass the buck to.

And, by the way, you're assuming there were babies then, aren't you?

There's that uniformitarianism at work again.

So, in "basic theology," back in Noah's time, people popped out of the womb fully grown?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you kidding??"If" being the key word here.

People back then lived multiple hundreds of years and there could indeed be gaps of time where there are no children.

How so?

Couple that with an alien race of giants on the earth doing who-knows-what here, and I don't think it's stretching it much to assume there were no babies at the time.Then geology should let go of its monopoly on the word and let us apply it to other areas.

It's an effective word.

Alien race of giants which not even God was able to kill -- oh, AV -- your "Basic Theology" just gets better and better...

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a stretch to believe that people were having kids too.

Did I say they weren't?

 

[Skaloop]

Did I say they weren't?

I don't think it's stretching it much to assume there were no babies at the time.

Unless that's written is some weird language that closely resembles English but actually means the opposite of what it would mean in English, then yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

... I don't think it's stretching it much to assume there were no babies at the time.

It's not a stretch to believe that people were having kids too.

Unless that's written is some weird language that closely resembles English but actually means the opposite of what it would mean in English, then yes.

Do you see a difference in the first two quotes?

 

[Bombila]

Cute --- this is why I'm glad you guys don't rule the world like you interpret the Bible.

Wasn't atheists or agnostics who interpreted that literally.

And every godly massacre in the OT inherently espouses that philosophy.

 

[Cabal]

Let me get this straight, Hespera.

You're suggesting that when Noah got off the Ark, he should have encountered homeless babies walking and crawling around crying for their mothers and fathers?

Babies who would have been miraculously protected through the Flood?

That scenario sounds morbid to me; but some time ago I brought this up to someone who was complaining about God committing infanticide in Numbers 32.

If you've got a better way, once again, I invite you to share it.

Oh wow, I just love this.

Raise one little objection to the creation or flood stories where God does something positive like save people, and the amount of "He's God! He can do anything!!!!1" you get...

But if it's something like looking after babies he orphaned, you get shrugs "Well, how else could He have looked after them? He was right to kill them!"

Geepers guys, it's not like He's omnipotent or anything.

 

[BananaSlug]

Oh wow, I just love this.

Raise one little objection to the creation or flood stories where God does something positive like save people, and the amount of "He's God! He can do anything!!!!1" you get...

But if it's something like looking after babies he orphaned, you get shrugs "Well, how else could He have looked after them? He was right to kill them!"

Geepers guys, it's not like He's omnipotent or anything.

So true it's rep worthy.

He could have saved the babies then fast forward their age so they would be adult. Instead he killed them all. Seems to me that someone was being lazy...

 

[Cabal]

So true it's rep worthy.

He could have saved the babies then fast forward their age so they would be adult. Instead he killed them all. Seems to me that someone was being lazy...

My choices were:

Manna + air bubbles
Taking them into heaven temporarily

or my favourite

NOT GENOCIDING THE ENTIRE PLANET

 

[Hespera]

My choices were:

Manna + air bubbles
Taking them into heaven temporarily

or my favourite

NOT GENOCIDING THE ENTIRE PLANET

Personal fav is pretending that there is no mention in the bible of god slaughtering the innocents.

 

[marktheblake]

Does God enjoy having people sacrificed to him?

The verse you quoted does not say that people were sacrificed to him.

I could find other verses where God commands the murder of children.

You cant even find one.

 

[marktheblake]

Lets get this straight. I dont believe for a second that there was a "flood".

Then that should mean you dont beleive for a second that God killed innocents, No, it doesnt matter whether you beleive it or not. You are questioning the Bible, and the flood account is in there.

I dont say 'god" killed innocent people. I said the stories tell of such things.

I know that you are claiming that the bible tells you that God killed innocent people. But nowhere in the bible does it say that.

But if the deal is to define things so that there is no such thing as an innocent person

If thats the deal and you are right, God is meant to kill everyone, now. Fortunately you are not right and god doesn't kill innocent people.

Do you think abortion is killing, or is it just uh, a procedure?

Of course it is, what gives any human the right to kill another?

note: the executioner in a country that has capital punishment does have the lawful right to 'kill', and James Bond too.

Do you think that a newborn child could be "corrupt: and deserve to die?

Yes, but I am not agreeing with 'deserve' and one could write a book on this question.
Children bear the consequences of their parents/ancestors actions. A child born into an evil regime/race has no hope of not becoming evil themselves.

ALL the people had "corrupted their ways"? ALL would include Noah wouldnt it?

No, Noah was made an exception to "ALL" a few lines earlier.

So basically.... the story is that god defined newborn babies as being corrupt and so he killed them all?

He said ALL, you are still calling God a liar.

A little understood verse prefacing the Flood account tells us that a unique breed of men was populating the human race. I beleive that this tells us that they were not human and therefore their offspring were not human. This was a plan by the Devil to corrupt the genetic line of the 'seed of the woman' and save him from the curse.

This is a little speculative, I am not dogmatic or hung up about it, but it does not contradict scripture and does help understand why God says "ALL", and thats the bottom line.

For those that beleive in God it is not a stretch to understand that if God says "ALL" then he knows that it is "ALL". If you want to honestly question whats written in the Bible then you need to take it from our perspective not yours.

Personal fav is pretending that there is no mention in the bible of god slaughtering the innocents.

Once again, there is no mention in the Bible of God slaughtering the innocents.

If there is, would you mind mentioning it?

 

[BananaSlug]

The verse you quoted does not say that people were sacrificed to him.

They were given as an offering to the Lord along with the livestock.

You cant even find one.

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]
"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

 

[marktheblake]

They were given as an offering to the Lord along with the livestock.

They were not, that is plain silly.

Not in one of these quotes you give show that anyone was murdered.

 

[BananaSlug]

So you say the killing of "infants and sucklings" is not murder? If so then abortion should be perfectly fine, it is not murder or anything...

 

[marktheblake]

So you say the killing of "infants and sucklings" is not murder?

Perhaps you are being misunderstood. Please define what is your definition of murder?

 

[BananaSlug]

Perhaps you are being misunderstood. Please define what is your definition of murder?

The most simple definition is "the unlawful killing of a human being, with exceptions for self defense of oneself or others". Please tell me what crime these "infants and sucklings" have commited? Are they not innocent? If it is okay to murder babies (I cannot think of any justified reason to kill an infant) then it should be perfectly acceptable to allow abortion.
Either is is okay to kill babies or it isn't. Do you think it is okay to kill babies?

 

[anagnostic]

The most simple definition is "the unlawful killing of a human being, with exceptions for self defense of oneself or others". Please tell me what crime these "infants and sucklings" have commited? Are they not innocent? If it is okay to murder babies (I cannot think of any justified reason to kill an infant) then it should be perfectly acceptable to allow abortion.
Either is is okay to kill babies or it isn't. Do you think it is okay to kill babies?

God can kill anyone he likes, for any reason. It will never be murder, by definition.

If you still want to worship that kind of God, your own judgement may need questioning.

 

[marktheblake]

The most simple definition is "the unlawful killing of a human being, with exceptions for self defense of oneself or others".

In other words, that must mean that the lawful killing of a human being is not murder. Thank you for the clarification.

Please tell me what crime these "infants and sucklings" have commited?

You tell me, you are tossing up these claims that innocent are being murdered. But you have not given any scripture to support this.

If it is okay to murder babies

Strawman. You have yet to establish that babies have been murdered.

(I cannot think of any justified reason to kill an infant)

You are applying argument from outrage here.

What about doctor that is faced with a situation when a woman is in serious trouble giving birth, where he can only save the life of the mother, or the baby being born. In all cases he will sacrifice the child for the sake of the mother.

Their remains countless examples in reality and in fiction where a parent has killed their own child to save them from a worse fate, like rape, murder, eaten by wild animals, starvation and so on.

So there is two justified reasons.

Either is is okay to kill babies or it isn't. Do you think it is okay to kill babies?

You are claiming murder, now kill. You need to make up your mind what you are arguing for.