Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[inquiring mind]

Nonsense. God plays no more role in the life of a scientist, just because he is a scientist, than He does in the life of anyone else. Our intellectual efforts of any kind are entirely our own, subject to the moral and spiritual presence of God. Do you think God intervenes personally to help a motor mechanic diagnose a fault in an engine? A prospector to find gold? Why should he personally intervene to help a scientist?

 

[dad]

I wouldn't read the Bible without the aid of what academicians have to say about it, To do otherwise would be an insult to the Word of God. The Bible is not a personal message from God to you, it is a gift, a wedding gift to the Bride of Christ. It is a message to the whole community of the faithful, and the whole community is involved in understanding it, including literary scholars, historians, archaeologists, and all other fields of human intellectual endeavor. As far as the child is concerned, he should be given the Gospel, as countless millions have been given it before him: by personal witness. The written Gospels next, with suitable guidance. The Bible, straight, is for much later and even then not without well-informed guidance.

So you seem to think that the eggheads of academia, many of whom are not even believers in the inspired word of God have a personal message for us...while the One who died for us does not in His revealed word?

 

[Speedwell]

So you seem to think that the eggheads of academia, many of whom are not even believers in the inspired word of God have a personal message for us...while the One who died for us does not in His revealed word?

No, they merely aid us finding out what Jesus' message is.

 

[dad]

No, they merely aid us finding out what Jesus' message is.

If they believed, that could be the case in some instances. In other cases, people may not use them for whatever reasons. I listen to some bible preacher/teachers sometimes. I take from it what is good, and maybe reject 5 or 10% as off base.

We need to suck the paps of God, not man.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not at all. Why would I be trying to say original sin was the reason for the shared DNA? That’s not why the flood occurred because of original sin. Otherwise it would have happened long before it did.

Apparently it is beyond you as you equate the reason for the flood back to original sin. So why would you find it insulting when apparently it is still beyond you? Perhaps you need to reread the portion concerning why the flood happened...

Then perhaps we can discuss why you observe shared markers in the DNA....

-_- we weren't talking genetics, we were talking about how the human spine is terrible (or adequate, in your case) for bipedal movement over a lifetime by virtue of structure.

-_- also, read the bible, "corruption and wickedness" in the world is the reason for Noah's flood given by the bible. I don't really view "wickedness" and "sin" to be particularly dissimilar to each other, but if you read something else in it, then do tell. Because your evasiveness on the matter will not be tolerated any further.

 

[Astrophile]

And now you don't want It taught in our schools ... right?

It's okay for you to read it ... just as long as they put a KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN sticker on It?

Yes, I agree with you, and I will tell you why. When I was in secondary school, during the early 1960s, any pupil who was found in possession of Lady Chatterley's Lover was threatened with expulsion. However, when I was in primary school, during the late 1950s, I was taught the Biblical story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Why should one story be a required part of the primary-school curriculum while the other is prohibited on pain of expulsion?

By the way, I have never read Lady Chatterley's Lover.

 

[Astrophile]

So we should toss out all right and wrong and god and bad, and replace that with whatever you decide is moral? We should consider His plan of salvation over history as barbarous?

No, of course not. I think that questions of right and wrong and good and bad are very important.

However, first, I think that moral principles can be derived from humanism, and it is better to derive them from humanism than from the supposed teachings of a god enshrined in a 2000-year-old book. Second, I can't make up moral principles on my own, any more than I can make up scientific theories or rules of grammar on my own; I have to rely on the authority of people who have studied moral philosophy and who therefore know more about it than I do. Third, I do not believe that the Bible, or any other so-called holy book, enshrines a divine plan of salvation over history; I think that 'holy books' ought to be judged on their merits, not on the claims made for them by their believers.

 

[dad]

No, of course not. I think that questions of right and wrong and good and bad are very important.

However, first, I think that moral principles can be derived from humanism, and it is better to derive them from humanism than from the supposed teachings of a god enshrined in a 2000-year-old book.

That depends if the bible is right or wrong. That must first be determined. If it is right, then fallen man (humans) and whatever they might vote on/cook up/decide is right or wrong is doomed to be an ill conceived thing.

Second, I can't make up moral principles on my own, any more than I can make up scientific theories or rules of grammar on my own; I have to rely on the authority of people who have studied moral philosophy and who therefore know more about it than I do.

Merely getting a lot of wrong minded/hearted sinners to agree on something cannot help in the least.

Third, I do not believe that the Bible, or any other so-called holy book, enshrines a divine plan of salvation over history;

Yet the bible says that plan was here before the world was. It says He chose a nation/people to help implement that plan, and that He did do so as He took on a human form/body in Jesus. The fall of nations including the one He chose is what history is mostly all about.

I think that 'holy books' ought to be judged on their merits, not on the claims made for them by their believers.

So should science books!

 

[Speedwell]

No, of course not. I think that questions of right and wrong and good and bad are very important.

However, first, I think that moral principles can be derived from humanism, and it is better to derive them from humanism than from the supposed teachings of a god enshrined in a 2000-year-old book. Second, I can't make up moral principles on my own, any more than I can make up scientific theories or rules of grammar on my own; I have to rely on the authority of people who have studied moral philosophy and who therefore know more about it than I do. Third, I do not believe that the Bible, or any other so-called holy book, enshrines a divine plan of salvation over history; I think that 'holy books' ought to be judged on their merits, not on the claims made for them by their believers.

That is true even for theists. It has been known since the time of Aristotle that moral precepts depend on man's nature. Consequently, they are not arbitrary, but are potentially discoverable by us, and because we are gifted with the knowledge of good and evil. So the moral precepts are the same whether God reveals them to us or we discover them for ourselves. Merely obeying the arbitrary edicts of a supremely powerful entity out of fear of everlasting torment is not moral behavior, it is merely expedience. Observant Jews know this and obey the Law as an act of worship, not in hopes of salvation.

The dichotomy you refer to "obey God's laws as interpreted by us from the Bible" or "Make up anything you like for yourself" is a false one and nothing but propaganda. Morality is a social entity, not individual whim.

 

[dad]

That is true even for theists. It has been known since the time of Aristotle that moral precepts depend on man's nature.

Since that nature is messed up with sin, we have God's word instead.

Consequently, they are not arbitrary, but are potentially discoverable by us, and because we are gifted with the knowledge of good and evil.

Being aware of what is good does not mean what is good is up to what man decides.

So the moral precepts are the same whether God reveals them to us or we discover them for ourselves.

They are only the same if..they are the same. If you tell me a sacred marriage is between a man and a woman, then in that case it would be the same. If you tell me there is no other way to God but Jesus and no other name on earth whereby we must be saved...in that case it would be the same as the bible. If you tell me we can do what we like and it becomes right for us...well, gong.

Merely obeying the arbitrary edicts of a supremely powerful entity out of fear of everlasting torment is not moral behavior, it is merely expedience.

The reason you do right is not what makes it right.

Observant Jews know this and obey the Law as an act of worship, not in hopes of salvation.

They do not and never did obey the law actually. Jesus showed that was impossible for sinful man to do.

The dichotomy you refer to "obey God's laws as interpreted by us from the Bible" or "Make up anything you like for yourself" is a false one and nothing but propaganda. Morality is a social entity, not individual whim.

No more than hitting the nail on the head is avoiding the nail.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That depends if the bible is right or wrong. That must first be determined. If it is right, then fallen man (humans) and whatever they might vote on/cook up/decide is right or wrong is doomed to be an ill conceived thing.

The bible condones slavery, so you might want to rethink that. Unless you think allowing slavery is more moral (what the bible allows) than banning it (a secular ideal).

 

[Speedwell]

.
They do not and never did obey the law actually. Jesus showed that was impossible for sinful man to do.

They knew that already, but obey the best they can anyway--as I said, not to achieve salvation, but as an act of worship.

 

[inquiring mind]

The bible condones slavery, so you might want to rethink that. Unless you think allowing slavery is more moral (what the bible allows) than banning it (a secular ideal).

I don’t think the Bible condoned or condemned slavery, it just presented accounts of it as it existed at the time. It did spell out the way slaves should be treated though; that’s a positive. The Bible was more about history and personal salvation than a plan for societal change. That would have taken volumes.

 

[Speedwell]

I don’t think the Bible condoned or condemned slavery, it just presented accounts of it as it existed at the time. It did spell out the way slaves should be treated though; that’s a positive. The Bible was more about history and personal salvation than a plan for societal change. That would have taken volumes.

I don't know. The Southern Baptists were sure it condoned slavery.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't know. The Southern Baptists were sure it condoned slavery.

I'm sure that's true for a lot of them, but I think most just avoided the issue.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sure that's true for a lot of them, but I think most just avoided the issue.

Perhaps so, but the denomination was founded on it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Perhaps so, but the denomination was founded on it.

Still doesn't mean the Bible supported it.

 

[Speedwell]

Still doesn't mean the Bible supported it.

My point was that they thought it did, quoted the Scripture in support of it and didn't change their minds until 1995. They, and the rest of right-wing Protestant fundamentalists still maintain that they are the only "real" Christians. What should the rest of us believe?

 

[inquiring mind]

My point was that they thought it did, quoted the Scripture in support of it and didn't change their minds until 1995. They, and the rest of right-wing Protestant fundamentalists still maintain that they are the only "real" Christians. What should the rest of us believe?

Apparently, PsychoSarah thinks it does too, and she's Atheist, but (respectfully) that doesn't make it so.

 

[Speedwell]

Apparently, PsychoSarah thinks it does too, and she's Atheist, but (respectfully) that doesn't make it so.

I, like you, don't think the Bible either condones or condemns slavery. But maybe, just maybe, her view from the vantage point of atheism is colored by the fact that the largest Protestant denomination in the country believed it did until just recently, and there are fringe Evangelicals who still proclaim it, uncondemned by the rest.

The other thing to keep in mind, something I should really repent of, is that Atheists and Traditional Christians in these forums sometimes have too much fun playing reductio ad absurdum with Fundamentalists about the Bible.