Question for creationist and "evolutionists"

[Cabal]

You guys must get some kind of satisfaction in considering yourselves a cut above the general populace in the information realm

It's not really a case of "consider" - we are, and not just within the information realm.

but this form of narcissism only tends to lead to a general disgust for all things sacred.

No, a general disgust for all things uncritical and ridiculous, like creationism, fundamentalism, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

To my lasting regret, you can't get banned here for making fallacious remarks, otherwise you would have been out a long, long time ago.

I was "out" for awhile, and it wasn't a long, long time ago.

Don't think the mods aren't doing their jobs.

I'm on the edge of getting another "vacation" now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

but this form of narcissism only tends to lead to a general disgust for all things sacred.

you mean a general disgust for all things you consider sacred -- which would be your own ideas, and... what else, exactly?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Prior to the final fall of Jerusalem the Jews could punish civil and criminal offenders under their own laws, up to the point of capital punishment, which Rome didn't allow.

Right -- because only Rome had the authority over life and death.

What's your point?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Right -- because only Rome had the authority over life and death.

What's your point?

My point is that the Jews, the remnant of the OT 'church' did enforce civil laws upon Jewish offenders. Rome didn't intervene as long as order was maintained and no one was executed. Though similiar througout the world these civil and criminal laws were not enforced equitably in many cultures. God insisted that the laws be carried out in a fair manner, regardless of social status of the offender. This was, and still is, a hallmark difference in 'jurisprudence'. The real question is did our laws spring from Roman law, or from the Judeo-Christian tradition? It seems to me that our laws came from English Common Law, which was strongly enfluenced by J/C tradition.

 

[Nathan Poe]

My point is that the Jews, the remnant of the OT 'church' did enforce civil laws upon Jewish offenders.

Right -- because for the Jews, "Church" and state were virtually one and the same.

Rome didn't intervene as long as order was maintained and no one was executed.

Right -- Rome was, all things considered, relatively kind to their conquered provinces. As long as you paid your taxes and didn't stir up trouble, they left you to practice your own customs.

Eminently practical, really -- the more the territories policed themselves, the less Roman resources need to be used.

Though similiar througout the world these civil and criminal laws were not enforced equitably in many cultures. God insisted that the laws be carried out in a fair manner, regardless of social status of the offender.

And were they in Jewish culture? No.

No matter who "insists" on the laws, people always find ways to use their status and power to rise above them.

This was, and still is, a hallmark difference in 'jurisprudence'. The real question is did our laws spring from Roman law, or from the Judeo-Christian tradition? It seems to me that our laws came from English Common Law, which was strongly enfluenced by J/C tradition.

Tradition, yes -- practice... very iffy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No matter who "insists" on the laws, people always find ways to use their status and power to rise above them.

True. Israel, and the Jews were warned what would happen if they fell into these practices, and it happened. As long as Israel was true to the Law they prospered. The Jews in Jesus day had sunk to new levels of rebellion against these laws, and paid the price.

 

[Nathan Poe]

True. Israel, and the Jews were warned what would happen if they fell into these practices, and it happened. As long as Israel was true to the Law they prospered. The Jews in Jesus day had sunk to new levels of rebellion against these laws, and paid the price.

Which is interesting, because the only place those warnings appear is in books that were written (sometimes centuries) after the price was paid.

It doesn't take a lot of divinity to retcon in a few "prophecies."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is interesting, because the only place those warnings appear is in books that were written (sometimes centuries) after the price was paid.

It doesn't take a lot of divinity to retcon in a few "prophecies."

Wrong. The Jews were a captive people at the time of Jesus. They were under a prior curse and only remained a somewhat viable state until the prophecied birth of Christ. Then God pulled the final plug.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Wrong. The Jews were a captive people at the time of Jesus. They were under a prior curse and only remained a somewhat viable state until the prophecied birth of Christ. Then God pulled the final plug.

Nope. Christ was born, when: 4 BCE? Nothing much happened to the Jews for a good forty years after he died.

Not much causal connection there, old guy.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Wrong. The Jews were a captive people at the time of Jesus. They were under a prior curse and only remained a somewhat viable state until the prophecied birth of Christ. Then God pulled the final plug.

Nor were the Jews a captive people when Christ was born. They were actually their own, self-ruled client state: far MORE free than most states in the Empire.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope. Christ was born, when: 4 BCE? Nothing much happened to the Jews for a good forty years after he died.

Not much causal connection there, old guy.

To the untrained eye, no. Isn't 'forty years' a time period of either peace, or probation? In a (dual) prophecy Jesus said that, 'This (present) generation shall not pass 'til......(the stuff hits the fan). The forty year period was used to establish the NT church, and prepare it for the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the Levitical priesthood. There's yer connection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nor were the Jews a captive people when Christ was born. They were actually their own, self-ruled client state: far MORE free than most states in the Empire.

And yet a Roman soldier could strike a Jew without cause, take his garments, and compel him to carry his armor for up to a mile. Free indeed. Judea was a 'vassal' state, that while controlling it's own territory was 'owned' by Rome.

 

[lucaspa]

Yep. So long as there are gaps in our knowledge, people will find a way to stuff their deity in them.

That's a bit too general, sandwiches. Christianity discarded god-of-the-gaps long ago. Fundamentalism and atheism still rely on it.

From Origin of Species:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

That is not god-of-the-gaps.

Here's a more recent discussion:

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

 

[sandwiches]

That's a bit too general, sandwiches. Christianity discarded god-of-the-gaps long ago. Fundamentalism and atheism still rely on it.

From Origin of Species:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

That is not god-of-the-gaps.

Here's a more recent discussion:

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

You're a very progressive and knowledgeable theist and I honestly admire you for that. However, in my opinion, most theists and Christians, specifically, do NOT agree with your view. Even some theists that believe in evolution seem to still believe that things like love, consciousness, the beginning of the universe, et cetera are things that are beyond human knowledge and because they're beyond us, they're the 'obvious' realm of their deity.

Now, as far as atheism relying on god-of-the-gaps, that's something I'd like to discuss further, since I've never heard that. I'm assuming that it's something to the effect of atheists believing that natural means 'without god' or some such.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I suspect that he means that atheists rely on god-of-the-gaps in this way: Fundies hang on to God by noting that science cannot explain such-and-such, therefore we are right to believe in God; Atheists say that the gaps are shrinking and will continue to shrink, therefore god(s) doesn't exist.

If this is what Lucaspa means, then I'm sure he is wrong. I've never met an atheist who doesn't believe in God because the gaps are closing "knock on wood", "fingers crossed", etc.

All the atheists here, so far as I can recall, don't believe in gods because there is no evidence or the definition of any given god is incoherent. The only time an atheist raises GOTG is to point out the weakness of some argument.

If this is not what Lucaspa means, I am certainly curious to hear his explanation.