Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[inquiring mind]

But maybe, just maybe, her view from the vantage point of atheism is colored by the fat that the largest Protestant denomination in the country believed it did until just recently,

They believed it until recently, or just apologized for it recently? I can't speak for how her view came about, but it would be sad if it was because of that... there's just no way to justify slavery, and I think most people would agree with that.

 

[dad]

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).

Jesus came to set the slaves free. No one else can. All men are slaves until He frees them. The bible worked with men that had what we call slavery as part of their world system. It did not advocate it.

The bible worked with some soldiers of Rome too. That does not mean that the bible condoned what the military did in many cases. (although it foretold it)

 

[dad]

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.

I always wondered why there would be huge great cathedrals in dirt poor countries. It occurred to me that this was a church system, and that God probably thought it was ridiculous.

 

[dad]

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

Well, in any case they never obeyed it. Jesus never seemed to respect them as worshipers in heart either.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

And what if it is wrong?

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

For an atheist, it is the only way we have of telling right from wrong. As Michael Ruse says somewhere in Darwinism Defended, we have used the same brains to work out both moral principles and scientific theories. Both our morality and our science are imperfect, but by testing them and looking for their flaws and weaknesses we can learn to improve them.

So should science books!

Yes, of course they should. For once we are in complete agreement!

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus came to set the slaves free. No one else can. All men are slaves until He frees them. The bible worked with men that had what we call slavery as part of their world system. It did not advocate it.

The bible worked with some soldiers of Rome too. That does not mean that the bible condoned what the military did in many cases. (although it foretold it)

There wasn't a Bible until after Rome became officially Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

There wasn't a Bible until after Rome became officially Christian.

It became a Bible in AD 96.

 

[dad]

And what if it is wrong?

Well then I guess men would be good and not sinners, and we might have you consult on what is moral.

For an atheist, it is the only way we have of telling right from wrong.

So...no way then.

As Michael Ruse says somewhere in Darwinism Defended, we have used the same brains to work out both moral principles and scientific theories.

Look where it got you!

Both our morality and our science are imperfect, but by testing them and looking for their flaws and weaknesses we can learn to improve them.

Like Greece improved, and Rome, and Germany?

Yes, of course they should. For once we are in complete agreement!

Yet science that deals in origin issues is wholly belief based.

 

[dad]

There wasn't a Bible until after Rome became officially Christian.

Well, Jesus read Scripture before that. So did people in the old testament. The word of God was here before the new testament.

 

[Speedwell]

It became a Bible in AD 96.

I'm not even going to ask. The prospect of being told that Clement of Rome had a copy of the KJV in his pocket is just too much.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not even going to ask. The prospect of being told that Clement of Rome had a copy of the KJV in his pocket is just too much.

Do you remember me telling Bugsy to pick a year ... any year ... and use my list to ascertain what AV was the ruling word of God during that timeframe?

 

[inquiring mind]

It became a Bible in AD 96.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

 

[Speedwell]

Do you remember me telling Bugsy to pick a year ... any year ... and use my list to ascertain what AV was the ruling word of God during that timeframe?

You mean there was more than one? Were they in Elizabethan English too?

 

[NBB]

On thoughts about evolution:
The creation is always less than the creator.
Humans are unable to make something greater than themselves. How the process of evolution could have done it? zero IQ involved, no conciousness, no guidance from someone involved.

 

[pitabread]

Humans are unable to make something greater than themselves.

Depends on what you mean by "greater". We've created things that surpass our own physical limitations in certain ways.

 

[NBB]

Depends on what you mean by "greater". We've definitely created things that surpass our own physical limitations.

As a whole i mean. I don't think anything built by man surpasses us.

 

[the iconoclast]

Well, Jesus read Scripture before that. So did people in the old testament. The word of God was here before the new testament.

Hey hey my brother God bless you
So you're the famous dad. Pleasure to meet you me old china.

 

[dad]

Hey hey my brother God bless you
So you're the famous dad. Pleasure to meet you me old china.

God bless

 

[Heissonear]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

I like your thinking. It is very practicle, non-over promoting position. A view of reality around us, and things that are puzzeling.

 

[Heissonear]

Please don't get mark started on "Darwinism"... last thing we need is yet another rant

You speak of evolution (Darwinism) as it is factual.

Then why does the fossil record shows evolution never happened?

There are zero fossils inbetween any two different creatures showing morphological changes of one into the other

Like X to a deer, for example.

There are zero X to a Y fossil sequences.

The Tree of Life is based on conjecture not historical evidence.