Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[BPPLEE]

I don't think 'corruption' addresses the issues I've raised but I don't want to push you unnecessarily. I'll leave you to think about it.

I notice 2Phil also appears to be struggling a bit with this one.

OB

The flood poses a lot of difficulties. Where two animals enough to preserve a species? What about all the insects? Where did the flood waters go? Did salt water get mixed in and kill the fresh water fish? But God can do anything. He made a way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It has to do with who The Sons Of God were and what they were doing. Though it's not scripture The Book Of Enoch gives a clue

BPPLEE, I get what you're trying to say, and I fully understand that one interpretation of the Flood passage involves the possibility of there being Nephilim among the masses. Another interpretation simply proffers that human beings became thoroughly corrupt in their cultures and were extremely violent. Think Alexander Dugin on steroids ... or something along those lines.

However, with all of the above set to the side, the point I'm making to AV is that there is a difference between an act that we think is unfortunate but has to be done (e.g. the amputation of a diseased limb), versus an act that is essentially morally evil, however and whenever and to whomever it is applied.

I want AV to make sure to affirm the difference in denotation between these ideas.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And nice to see that the qualifications have been taken off the wall and put in storage.

Yeah, I think you're right. The presence of my qualifications does seem to play against the effect of the irony I really want to express through my Kierkegaard quote ...

Besides, it's better to be honest, isn't it Bradskii?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, my making my own choice would circumvent the whole psycho-analytic interrogation process that is being employed here by the skeptics, BB. Don't you know?

Dance, Philo, dance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dance, Philo, dance.

I'm just doing what "they" taught me to do in school ...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm just doing what "they" taught me to do in school ...

Did you graduate? You'd be the first person I've heard of who graduated by avoiding answering questions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you graduate? You'd be the first person I've heard of who graduated by avoiding answering questions.

I guess you haven't heard of either Socrates or Jesus, then? (Don't answer that: it's a question!)

Well, at least now there's one question from another person I can directly respond to in the affirmative.

So: "yes."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I guess you haven't heard of either Socrates or Jesus, then? (Don't answer that: it's a question!)

Well, at least now there's one question from another person I can directly respond to in the affirmative.

So: "yes."

Ah, now I understand. You don't like responding in the negative, so when asked "was God's action moral?" you refused to answer "no" and chose to dance around instead.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, now I understand. You don't like responding in the negative, so when asked "was God's action moral?" you refused to answer "no" and chose to dance around instead.

No, I've already explained earlier in this thread as to why I think 'judging God' from a human point of view--any human point of view-- is problematic.

But, hey! I get it. I can't expect you to have automatically read through 29 pages of a thread to see that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is that for real?

Sadly, not only is it real, but it was the basis for the case that took nine years to make it to the Supreme Court -- Loving v Virginia (1967), which finally ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriages were in fact unconstitutional.

Score one for human decency, however -- the Supreme Court's ruling was unanimous.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, I've already explained earlier in this thread as to why I think 'judging God' from a human point of view--any human point of view-- is problematic.

But, hey! I get it. I can't expect you to have automatically read through 29 pages of a thread to see that.

I have read the thread and watched you dance and evade from the outset. It's been amusing watching you prevaricate and avoid answering the questions asked. I even offered you the option of defining your own ethical framework, but you still danced away. And let's face it, the only reason you refuse to respond is that you cannot see a way to justify killing pretty much everything in such a cruel manner.

It's clear you have no intention of engaging in an honest manner, but thanks for playing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have read the thread and watched you dance and evade from the outset. It's been amusing watching you prevaricate and avoid answering the questions asked. I even offered you the option of defining your own ethical framework, but you still danced away. It's clear you have no intention of engaging in an honest manner, but thanks for playing.

So, now I'm dishonest? Thanks for the ad hominem! I'll remember that.

I mean, I'm just trying to figure YOU guys out: why would God be wrong, even 'evil,' for wiping out most of humanity?

Thus far, I'm not seeing any of you putting forth any kind of absolute, clear and comprehensive framework by which to present the supreme moral Litmus Test? Care to explain YOUR supposed moral position?

Is there some kind of Physics or Life Science I'm supposed to get ahold of Frans de Waal style by which I'm going to assert and insert into my little 'noggin and see that, golly gee: God be ... !

 

[AV1611VET]

God created man so He obviously created evil. But you have Him actually performing evil.

You left a word out.

NECESSARY evil.

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't agree with all that but we can still be friends.

Absolutely!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You left a word out.

NECESSARY evil.

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Within the context of what Abraham is represented to be implying here in moral deliberation with the Lord, the same kind of act by God wouldn't be a necessary evil, but a necessary JUDGEMENT.

Biblically speaking, it's not evil to execute a wicked person.

 

[AV1611VET]

Within the context of what Abraham is represented to be implying here in moral deliberation with the Lord, the same kind of act by God wouldn't be a necessary evil, but a necessary JUDGEMENT.

Biblically speaking, it's not evil to execute a wicked person.

Good point!

 

[TLK Valentine]

The flood poses a lot of difficulties. Where two animals enough to preserve a species? What about all the insects? Where did the flood waters go? Did salt water get mixed in and kill the fresh water fish? But God can do anything. He made a way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good point!

And here's the upshot, and the one that the World today can't grapple with: Biblically speaking, it also isn't evil to execute a wicked culture that lives and breathes, and perpetuates itself by, a wicked philosophy.

 

[BPPLEE]

Haha

View attachment 315171

 

[TLK Valentine]

Haha

Bad theology often makes good comedy.