Prosperity Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan51 God is bound only by His word, for He cannot lie. He is not bound by space and time like we are. He created it, so obviously He must be outside of it. God will always be as moral as His word. So you don't believe in absolute morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan51 So the morals of a nation begin and end with each person? Do you really believe that? A nation is a bunch of individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Was it a different God? Who were the followers of the One True God when those books were written? Did He have any? No, it wasn't a different God, but anyone who has done a little study of the two Testaments knows that the entire Old Testament is about the history of the Jews. They were/are "God's people." Why? Ask Him. (He has a free will, too. LOL.) Those laws applied to His people. I will say however, that it's completely logical that if there is a God and if He has a people, that He would give them the best moral and dietary laws in existence. If one were to follow the diet, for example, in the Old Testament, they would be very healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty A nation is a bunch of individuals. Wonderful! Well, I think it's ok to steal, so I'm coming over to your house to take your PC and TV. Why would I be wrong to do that? Why are my morals any worse or better than yours? Upon what basis? By who's or what authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Originally posted by stu: 1. I believe in a Creator because of creation itself. It's just too complex not to have someone behind it. 1. Faulty assumption, but hard to argue one way or the other. 2. Well Muslims kill themselves for Islam to this day. And Islam is growing at a faster pace than Christianity. Why is it a faulty assumption when it sure seems pretty clear that the natural world is designed? Suppose two survivors of a ship that sank have drifted for days in a life raft across the South Pacific and at last are washed ashore on an island. Their great hope, of course, is that the island is inhabited so they can find food, medical attention, and a means of returning to their distant homes. Pushing their way into the jungle, they suddenly come upon an automated factory operating full tilt. Though no person is visible, products are being manufactured, packaged, and labeled for shipping. One of the parties exclaims, "Praise God! The island is inhabited! Someone must have made and oversees this factory!" "You're crazy," replies his companion. "You've been out in the sun too long. There's absolutely no reason to believe that this thing was designed and put together by some intelligent being. It happened by chance over who knows how many billions of years." The first man looks down at his feet and sees a watch with a broken wristband lying in the dirt. Again he exclaims, "Look! A watch! This proves the island's inhabited!" "You've got to be kidding," retorts his companion. "That thing is just a conglomeration of atoms that happend to come together in that form by chance plus billions of years of random selection." No person in his right mind could imagine that a factory or a watch could just happen by chance. Then how could any rational person insist that the universe came into existence by chance, much less that the complex life forms on earth did so! A single cell in a leaf or in an animal's body is thousands of times more complex than the factory and the watch put together. The human body cosists of trillions of cells, thousands of different kinds, all working together in perfect balance. Our top scientists can't produce a human brain even with all of the computers and technology that exits today. Only God could do so. Certainly chance could not. So as you see, it's not a faulty assumption at all. It's a conclusion based upon visible evidence. Some might even call that a scientific observation. (Shhhh, somone might think I'm proposing that "ID" has some observable scientific basis!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Stu With that and Lot's "bargaining", I don't really see the conflict here. The question Liberty posed could be summed up as follows: is morality "prior to" God (that is, is God subject to an absolute morality) or is God the source of morality (and, therefore, any command by God, no matter how bad sounding, is by definition moral)? The story of Abraham and Isaac would seem to point to the latter case: it's OK to sacrifice your son if God tells you to. Fine. But then in the case of bargaining (which was Abraham too, not Lot--my bad), you get this: 20 Then the LORD said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, 21 that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out." 22 While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham. 23 Then Abraham drew nearer to him and said: "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? 24 Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?" 26 The LORD replied, "If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." 27 Abraham spoke up again: "See how I am presuming to speak to my Lord, though I am but dust and ashes! 28 What if there are five less than fifty innocent people? Will you destroy the whole city because of those five?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "if I find forty-five there." 29 But Abraham persisted, saying, "What if only forty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it for the sake of the forty." 30 Then he said, "Let not my Lord grow impatient if I go on. What if only thirty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it if I can find but thirty there." 31 Still he went on, "Since I have thus dared to speak to my Lord, what if there are no more than twenty?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "for the sake of the twenty." 32 But he still persisted: "Please, let not my Lord grow angry if I speak up this last time. What if there are at least ten there?" "For the sake of those ten," he replied, "I will not destroy it." This text would strongly seem to indicate that Abraham is persuading the Lord that it would not be correct--or just, or good--to go ahead with his actions the way He had planned. Therefore, the conclusion would be that there is a morality independent of God that even God has to answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black This text would strongly seem to indicate that Abraham is persuading the Lord that it would not be correct--or just, or good--to go ahead with his actions the way He had planned. Therefore, the conclusion would be that there is a morality independent of God that even God has to answer to. I have always interpreted this passage that God was making a point to Abraham. God knew how many righteous there were there or he wouldn't be God. He was letting Abraham know that hey, you can keep looking but you aren't going to find them. It's not like God had to go in and count out the righteous on his fingers. Just my :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Don't forget that God promised to never flood the Earth again. Almost like he had made a mistake, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The problem is that you are all using a term "morals" out of context of it's actual meaning. A moral is simply a principle that is generated out of a belief. So in a since morality is actually very independent and personal. There are levels of morality, but I beg to argue you could never claim absolute morals, because there are murders on death row who probably believe that murdering another person was morally right in someway. By Law, he is imprisoned and sentenced to death.. but yet again we have as a society at large defined a death sentence (which in it's bear essence is murder, as morally right... yet many would argue that that is actual wrong. There for even the view of murder is not absolute. We murder in war, but again as a society at large, we have deemed this morally just and allow it to happen. Our morals come to us from so many levels, we have the morals that are learned by our laws and our societies reaction to circumstances. We have morals we have learned from our families and our parents. We have morals we learn from our churches and our religions. We even have morals we have cometo posses solely on our own based on our own expirences. And morals DO change. I'd beg do argue that not one of you here has the exact same morals to this day that you did when you were five. I bet if you gave it serious consideration, I would bet everyone of you can come up with a moral you used to have and no longer do. We view morals such as murder, theft and the like to be absolute because they are beliefs and morals so widely excepted, and so reinforced through religion and law, that we can not imagine the possibility of that moral not existing... but I would argue that not all people would agree, which is why Laws were created to enforce the morals of the majority for the betterment of society. When you use the term immoral, you are in actuality stating that the person's actions are in conflict with your own beliefs. But we like to persume our beliefs are of a "better" quality then theirs and deem the actions immoral.. even if they are not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty 1. Faulty assumption, but hard to argue one way or the other. 2. Well Muslims kill themselves for Islam to this day. And Islam is growing at a faster pace than Christianity. Shipmate!(as we would say in the Navy.) "Faulty assumption but hard to argue one way or the other????" And you say I have a disconnect in logic???? Come on you can't really make such a statement with a straight face. Yes Muslims kill themselves for Islam. I encourage you to look into their message and judge accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Yes it is a faulty assumption, but I can't prove the origin of the universe, if there is one. I can't prove you wrong in this case, but you can't prove yourself right. If we were to argue you would point to finding a clock on a beach and saying it must have a creator, and I would again say that is a faulty assumption to assume that since something exists it must have at one point not existed, in this case matter and energy. I am right simply because the burden of proof is on you, but not because I know what happened. So it is hard to argue because it is all very theoretical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Stu Shipmate!(as we would say in the Navy.) "Faulty assumption but hard to argue one way or the other????" And you say I have a disconnect in logic???? Come on you can't really make such a statement with a straight face. Yes Muslims kill themselves for Islam. I encourage you to look into their message and judge accordingly. Their message is irrelevant, because you were pointing at the passion and longevity of the Christian religion as a way to prove why the messege is correct. I have pointed out that Muslims are as passionate and their religion is almost as old, so perhaps their message is correct too, based on your judgement anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Don't forget that God promised to never flood the Earth again. Almost like he had made a mistake, eh? What the heck are you talking about? Once again was God shocked about how he would have felt after the flood? No. He's God. God is the same today, yesterday, tomorrow, and forever. After the flood God made a covenant with Noah saying he would never do it again. Does that mean he was sorry? No. He was establishing a covenant with Noah and us. It was a continuation of his covenant with Adam that promised a savior would come from Eve. We soon find out that the "seed of the woman" would come through the line of Noah's son Shem and then Abraham and then Isaac and then Jacob and then Judah and so on. You know when you've read the Bible and the passages that put you to sleep about so and so begat so and so and so and so begat so and so. Those aren't in there so you don't have to buy Sominex. They are in there to connect Christ with Adam and Eve. Only one of us could save us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Their message is irrelevant, because you were pointing at the passion and longevity of the Christian religion as a way to prove why the messege is correct. I have pointed out that Muslims are as passionate and their religion is almost as old, so perhaps their message is correct too, based on your judgement anyway. Islam is 500 years younger than Christianity, but Christianity's roots, Judaism, are 4,000 years old. Islam is just a baby compared to that. The main difference between the two religions, and all religions to Christianity, is the present state of their leader. Muhammad is dead. Christ is alive. All other gods and leaders of every other religion are dead. All but Christ. Christian's serve a living God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan51 The main difference between the two religions, and all religions to Christianity, is the present state of their leader. Muhammad is dead. Christ is alive. All other gods and leaders of every other religion are dead. All but Christ. Christian's serve a living God. Testify! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty If we were to argue you would point to finding a clock on a beach and saying it must have a creator, and I would again say that is a faulty assumption to assume that since something exists it must have at one point not existed, in this case matter and energy. But we do have the faculties of reason and logic to apply to every situation in life. Both those faculties tell us that a watch must have a watchmaker. We are finite and cannot think too long on the concept of eternity. In this life we are bound by space and time, so we really have a very limited understanding of it. But within the realm of what we understand (time and space), something that is obviously designed MUST of had a designer. You can't deny this, Liberty. It's our first response, "WHO made this?" NO ONE with any sense would first think, "Look at what time and chance can do!" That is just silly. Look around your house right now. Tell me something that wasn't designed and didn't have a designer. It's logical to conclude that the keyboard you are typing on and the monitor you are looking at were designed. Yet, just outside your window is a world that is a BILLION times more complex and ordered than your monitor or keyboard, and you come to a different conclusion than you did for the things in your home. That's not logical and that is faulty reasoning. Be consistent. That's all we are asking. Be honest with yourself regardless of what you WANT to see. There is no virtue in self-deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Wow, this thread has really taken off since I last checked two days ago. It is now so unwieldy that I fear I will never be able to get through it. Still, I feel obligated to comment on Professor Giertych's article, thoughtfully posted by Skinfan in Vegas. The professor states Much evolutionary publicity is attached to forms that develop resistance to man-made chemicals. Usually they are variants that normally exist in nature but were selected out by the chemical reagent. In one instance, it was demonstrated that a single nucleotide substitution in the genome was responsible for resistance to a weed-specific herbicide. The herbicide is 'custom-made' for attachment and deactivation of a vital protein specific for the weed plant. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprives the herbicide of attachability and therefore of its herbicidal properties. Such a change has no selective value except in the context of the man-made herbicide. Even if originating from mutation (it could be a rare neutral allele always present in the population but springing into prominence because of the use of the herbicide) this would be no more than a neutral mutation; not depriving the protein of its function but neither creating a new function for it. So where is the evolution? Perhaps someone can explain to me how the professor makes this leap of faith. Where does it say that evolution requires the creation of a new function for what is evolved. Rather than disprove evolution, it seems to me that the professor has just given us evidence of its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Still on the pulpit SF51? Let it go man. Live your life. Quit trying to bring the "non-believers" into your flock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by rdsknbill Still on the pulpit SF51? Let it go man. Live your life. Quit trying to bring the "non-believers" into your flock. No No I do and I love it! No, and it's not my flock. Never has been, never will be. It's His. Truth is important even if you don't care about it. (Am I the only one in this discussion? Sigh! Why do I get singled out? LOL!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Two points on the design question: Francis Crick, one of the co-discovers of DNA, looked at DNA and basicaly said that it was too complex to have come about by chance. He then concluded that aliens must have delivered DNA. Why am I considered a "nut" for believing in a loving, just, all knowing God who created life? Secondly, Dr. David DeWitt, a biologist, tells a story of how he was discussing DNA with some classmates of his after a class on DNA he was taking for his doctorate. They were talking about it's complexity and someone made a statement that it couldn't have come about by chance. Dr. DeWitt stated that it didn't, God made it. The group paused and then they laughed at him. If a creationist did that he would probably be considered a hateful bigot who didn't understand science. Why is it that these people, who were studying at a graduate level at a secular university with years of education in their belief system, can do nothing but mock? I have been accused of hating science, being a member of the "Flat Earth Society", and had many other things said of me. No one has ever really said "Let's discuss this and I will show you some good evidence". Those that are willing to discuss have nothing to refute the evidence I have. Like I posted before someone once said "Well, they had to come from somewhere" after I had refuted the dinosaur to bird fallacy. Just some thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I'll admit im a hypocrit on Morality. I believe in no abortion but sometimes think the death penalty is o.k. I think murder is never a given, but self defense is a right. I think war to save the future of our planet is fine. It's all based on my upbringing and my "beliefs". I stopped going to the church i was in when i found out they dont believe in parables(sp). Every word in the Bible is absolute truth in every word according to the Lighthouse Baptist Church. What are you going to do? I'll find another one that believes somewhat closer to what my brain can handle... And therein lies the Morality issue.. something close to what your brain can handle. And if quite a few people finally MAKE it so in Numbers and Might it is so. ie... Slavery, checking your gun as you enter the wild west town, the right to vote.. etc.... I believe this came from something, and if the big bang could have been sparked by something.. I have a hard time with the PS2 Nemo game though so the meaning of life is out of the question right now for me. I believe in a lot of things... including my boss not firing me if he catches me typing this . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Baculus It's simple: Unless you can use the scientific method on Creationism, then it should be not be anywhere near a science classroom. On the other hand, you CAN use the scientific method on the theory of evolution. I was an anthropology major at one time, and I would guess that half of the "anti-evolution" folks have never taken a physical anthropology or archaeology course, held any early hominid remains, or conducted much research on the subject. It is amazing how much you can learn if you research a subject before condeming it. And Creationism is basically saying that science, and some disciplines such as anthropology AND geology, is 100% wrong. The anti-scientific drive of Creationism frightens me. When I think of Creationism, you know what I think about? Book burnings, because anti-science is soon followed by anti-intellectualism. And that is often followed in step by fascism. At that probably gets to the heart of the matter: Many folks pushing Creationism are anti-science and also reject rationalism, which is a motivating force behind science. They also understand that rationalism and secularism, and to a degree, traditional liberalism, go hand in hand. These are all belief systems that they often reject, so they pick evolution since it is a target in thier war against "rationalist liberals," or so they believe. Great points. Would love to see the ID radicals get some schoolin' on this matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Great points. Would love to see the ID radicals get some schoolin' on this matter! Have you had "schoolin" on these matters, Jackson? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 sf51, I think we need a new thread to talk about the comet NASA's going to crash a probe into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by flashback sf51, I think we need a new thread to talk about the comet NASA's going to crash a probe into. So start one. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.