Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[AV1611VET]

I'm not talking about floods or Jacobean bibles (the latter surely a one off). I specifically mean your dismantling of the concept of an all powerfull God. Do others in your congregation concur with this? Is there anyone at all who would agree?

Evidently you would, if you were in my congregation, wouldn't you?

I have a feeling though, you'd be alone in this.

God performed many "necessary evils" throughout the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

And they didn't take away His omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence one bit.

 

[Occams Barber]

Evidently you would, if you were in my congregation, wouldn't you?

I have a feeling though, you'd be alone in this.

God performed many "necessary evils" throughout the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

And they didn't take away His omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence one bit.

If your God can be forced, by necessity, to perform an evil act then, by definition, He is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc.

Your version of God sounds all to human.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

God performed many "necessary evils" throughout the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

And they didn't take away His omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence one bit.

God created man so He obviously created evil. But you have Him actually performing evil. Which discounts the concept of omnibenevolence. And you discounted omnipotence and almost certainly omniscience. Who on earth would support your view? That's what I'm asking. In all my years discussing religion, I have never known anyone who would even contemplate such a position.

You should go back to that ancient thread to which you linked, edit it and add that as well.

 

[BPPLEE]

I've read Genesis 6. Unfortunately it doesn't provide an answer to the issues I raised.

This is what I said:


OB

There was a reason for all that which if I go into you will reject so just say you won the argument and feel better.

 

[BPPLEE]

Many of them are my speculations.

A lot of them too, I back up with Wikipedia and Bible footnotes and various links and whatnot.

Some, like what happened to the Flood waters, I can understand others thinking it's outlandish.

But I've made it plain that that those are my pet theories -- not standard doctrine.

Here's a thread I started some time ago:

Setting the Record Straight

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

 

[BPPLEE]

God created man so He obviously created evil. But you have Him actually performing evil. Which discounts the concept of omnibenevolence. And you discounted omnipotence and almost certainly omniscience. Who on earth would support your view? That's what I'm asking. In all my years discussing religion, I have never known anyone who would even contemplate such a position.

You should go back to that ancient thread to which you linked, edit it and add that as well.

God created Lucifer who rebelled and was therefore evil

 

[Occams Barber]

There was a reason for all that which if I go into you will reject so just say you won the argument and feel better.

I've been on CF for 10 years. If my objective in being here was to to win arguments and feel better I would have given up long ago. I'm more interested in what Christians think and why they think it. You (Christians) seem to have a view of life and a way of thinking which is completely foreign to the way I look at things.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All I'm doing Phil is trying to pin you down to a clear statement of what you actually believe. It seems to me that I've seen a lot of ducking and weaving but no clear point of view. This isn't exceptional. In fact its more or less typical behaviour for many Christians when painted into a similar moral corner.

Is drowning most of the population of the Earth (by God), whether real or hypothetical, a moral act?

OB

Oh, let me think about it for a moment ...

k...k....OK. I think I have it now.

Oh, wait a minute! Which absolute human system of Ethics did you say I have to use for my moral evaluation?

 

[BPPLEE]

I've been on CF for 10 years. If my objective in being here was to to win arguments and feel better I would have given up long ago. I'm more interested in what Christians think and why they think it. You (Christians) seem to have a view of life and a way of thinking which is completely foreign to the way I look at things.

OB

Agreed. I shouldn't have been flippant. You have been respectful. The world was corrupted in Genesis 6 to the point God took a drastic action to stop the corruption.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was a necessary evil.

NOOO! Don't say that, AV! You'll confuse them.

 

[Occams Barber]

Oh, let me think about it for a moment ...

k...k....OK. I think I have it now.

Oh, wait a minute! Which absolute human system of Ethics did you say I have to use for my moral evaluation?

If you're unable to answer the question just say so. This is a situation where God's actions appear to be in direct conflict with modern Christian morality.

I can understand how this might create a moral quandary for you.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you're unable to answer the question just say so. This is a situation where God's actions appear to be in direct conflict with modern Christian morality.

I can understand how this might create a moral quandary for you.

OB

I did say so, more than once in previous posts here in this same thread.

But hold the phone! You've added a twist! Now you're importing a new term: "Modern Christian Morality" (whatever that is). Others have just been content to bandy around with "Modern Morality" (whatever that is), but now you've conveniently added yet one more to the pluralist moral smorgasboard.

What a jaunty thing for you to do!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You bet the question is problematic. Which is why you've been skating around it for so long.

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

Look at me! Look what I can do:

 

[Occams Barber]

Agreed. I shouldn't have been flippant. You have been respectful. The world was corrupted in Genesis 6 to the point God took a drastic action to stop the corruption.

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

 

[Larniavc]

Indeed.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

-- Judge Leon Bazile, sentencing Richard and Mildred loving to one year in jail for getting married, 1958.

Is that for real?

 

[BPPLEE]

NOOO! Don't say that, AV! You'll confuse them.

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

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, let me think about it for a moment ...

k...k....OK. I think I have it now.

Oh, wait a minute! Which absolute human system of Ethics did you say I have to use for my moral evaluation?

Pick whichever system of ethics you prefer. Your choice, that way you can't complain that you've been forced into a position not of your choosing. Now please, answer the question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Yep. I'm struggling. Struggling existentially to figure out why I'm expected to buy into the same thought processess as folks all around me in this big wide world who clearly don't have a comprehensive, clearly coherent, let alone absolute, moral bone in their entire bodies.

They'll claim some amorophous concept like "moral objectivity," but the jury's still out as to what exactly that amounts to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pick whichever system of ethics you prefer. Your choice, that way you can't complain that you've been forced into a position not of your choosing. Now please, answer the question.

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?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pick whichever system of ethics you prefer. Your choice, that way you can't complain that you've been forced into a position not of your choosing. Now please, answer the question.

Besides, I already did answer the question in the previous post that OB cited, even if I did so conditionally.

A better question would be the one that Kierkegaard entertained ...

... would I do what Abraham was asked to do?