EvC Forum: We are the gods..

Tokyojim

Inactive Member

Message 136 of 142 (28806)
01-10-2003 9:30 AM

Reply to: Message 135 by doctrbill
01-09-2003 12:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
This view ... seems to imply that the animals were carnivorous from the beginning whereas the Bible tells us they were vegetarians until sin entered the world.

- Where does the Bible tell us that animals were vegetarians until sin entered the world? (Chapter and verse please)

TJ REPLIES: Doctor Bill, welcome! It must seem so ridiculous to you to say such a thing and looking at things through the glasses of your worldview, that is normal. Don't worry I'm not offended. OK, so I overstated the case. The Bible never uses the term vegetarian, but it does say in Genesis 1 that God gave plants to the animals as their food. See v. 30 below.

1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
1:29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
1:30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.
1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The picture here is of a peaceful environment. No death yet in this world outside of plant death. No disease, killing, etc. This is all said to have entered the world as punishment for their grave sin of rebellion against their Creator.

Then after the flood, God writes this to Noah and his sons:
9:1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
9:2 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.
9:3 "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Now humans were allowed to eat meat. I don't know offhand when the animals started to eat meat. It may have been at this point or it may have been part of the curse that was placed on the earth after Adam and Eve sinned.

**********************************************

Dr. Bill continues:
- If Lions started out as grass eaters then they must have had the teeth, the feet, the digestion, the social order and the attitude of grass eaters.

If Lions changed their ways then and began to eat meat, they would have to change their teeth, their feet, their digestive systems, their social structure and their personal attitudes.

Lions would have had to evolve - suddenly.

Someone would have had to miraculously change the gentle herbivore into a vicious carnivore. Someone would have had to re-invent the passive grazing animal and re-create it as an aggressive predator.

And this was necessary because a couple of Jews ate a Non-Kosher diet?

TJ REPLIES:
God is able to do the exact thing you are saying. I haven't studied this part of Creation theory in depth, but yes, that is what we are saying. I think we would say that God created animals with the genetic capability to be both plant and meat eaters in the beginning. Actually I should just say I don't know and study up on it a little bit.

But No, Bill, there was no such thing as a Kosher diet at that time neither was the Jewish nation in existence. That came at a later point when God chose Abraham to be the Father of the Jews. Adam and Eve had very clear instructions from GOd about what they could and couldn't do. In fact there was only one restriction. Hardly very strict, wouldn't you say? Plus all their needs were met there in their relationship with God and with each other. God's command was to test them. Plus if they really did have free will there had to be at least the possibility of choosing evil to make free will meaningful. When Adam and Eve sinned, they elevated themselves to the level of God. They doubted His goodness and the legitamacy of His command, and they believed the lie of the devil who told them they could become like God. In spite of all they had, they were enticed to want more and to usurp the position of GOd. They deliberately rebelled against their loving Creator. It wouldn't have mattered what the command was. It could have been "Don't step on this square of ground" or anything small. The problem was that in disobeying they were consciously choosing to rebel against Him.

...........................................

Childrens stories are for children.

db

TJ REPLIES: Interesting how you put that. Jesus said in Mt. 18:3 "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

I guess I'm just a kid at heart and a sucker for fairy tales. Kids are teachable, trusting, and more willing to follow than adults. Christianity does demand that we bow the knee to our Creator and confess Jesus as Lord and I think that is the most repulsive thing about it to us humans because we are so self-centered. We have a will and a mind of our own. We want to run our lives rather than have to humble ourselves before God and depend on Him to save us.

Regards,

TJ

This message is a reply to:
	Message 135 by doctrbill, posted 01-09-2003 12:01 AM		doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 137 by doctrbill, posted 01-10-2003 9:06 PM		Tokyojim has not replied

John

Inactive Member

John Posts Only

Message 138 of 142 (28856)
01-11-2003 12:41 PM

Reply to: Message 133 by Tokyojim
01-07-2003 10:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
TJ REPLIES: Yes, is evolution true? That is the question. If it is, then I am wrong to oppose it.

Yes indeed, or perhaps just foolish.

quote:
Or wait a minute, if there are no morals, then why would I be wrong to oppose it.

Oops... you seemed to have missed a large and very relevant bit. Let me refresh your memory.

Morality and ethics are practical, functional, social constructs.

Thus your claim that evolution removes morality is false. None of the practical social functions are lost if one assumes evolution. You assume that morality comes from some divine source. It doesn't

quote:
Are you saying that if evolution is true $B!"(B everyone should believe it?

I have this thing about believing what is true.

quote:
I'm half joking here, but you do seem to be holding up truth as an absolute moral value here.

hmmm.... you flip a coin and get heads. So you accept that you flipped a coin and got heads. Where is the 'absolute moral value?' It seems you are just quibbling.

quote:
Or maybe you are just saying that in your opinion truth is important. Again interesting that truth is a universal value, isn$B!G(Bt it?

No, it isn't very interesting. Things fall down so I accept it as true. If I did not I may be tempted to jump off a building in order to fall upward to the next floor. Where is the value judgement in that?

BTW, what are you typing to get those weird character strings? Your post are riddled with things like this: $B!G(Bt.

quote:
If there is no God, then all religion is man made and religion tries to create universal standards, but that is only if God doesn$B!G(Bt exist. Since you cannot prove that God does not exist, it is only your personal opinion and belief.

I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, you have to prove that he does. You or I can prove anything by claiming that something is true until proven false. Proof requires evidence, and only things that exist produce evidence. Thus, technically, no proof is possible for things that don't exist. This is why people try to prove EXISTENCE not non-existence. The latter is an exercise in futility.

quote:
My opinion is different because I believe in a Creator whose character itself is the basis for all morality and ethics.

My opinion is based upon things we know, maybe it is wrong. Yours is based upon something for which we have no evidence-- God. There is a big difference.

quote:
Hence we see different explanations for the same observations, just like creation scientists and evolutionary scientists.

... not a very good example.

quote:
Not only do I think it removes moral responsibility as I said, but it takes away any true meaning in life. Yet I think we all live as if there is meaning to our lives so right here we have a fundamental inconsistency. Those who do not believe there is meaning to life and who truly live their life consistently with that view are the people who often end up in prison. So if there is no god, we are forced to make up a shallow purpose for our life and convince ourselves that our life really does have meaning even though in reality it doesn$B!G(Bt.

You are arguing that fact should be subservient to belief or to human emotional need. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. This is just practical knowlegde. I can believe that I am invulnerable but that won't stop a bullet from cracking my skull.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Some points are fuzzy, but if you use honest interpretation, there are lots of moral commands and principles that are as clear as day.

So principles that are written in plain language are acceptable? All of them, or only some? Is the NT more important than the OT? If your claim were true there would not be six hundred extant versions of Christianity and who knows how many extinct sects.

quote:
You cannot wholeheartedly justify anything you want to.

Really? Name something and I bet a case can be made, if it hasn't already.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: My answer would still be the same.

Then your ignorance of history is profound. Sorry to be so blunt. Take a look at the history of the RCC. Or of the churches in the Southern States pre-civil war. Or of the destruction of the native americans by the spanish.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Science is thought to be the best means of attaining objective truth

ok, good so far...

quote:
so therefore, scientists words are given a lot of weight.

Not really... I wish this were more true than it is.

[quote][b]but if scientists can persuade the educational community that it is right[quote][b]

You are glossing over the possibility that scientists actually come up with good answers. You word this as if science is a propaganda machine out to convince people that its views are right. This isn't the case. Do you criticise science? The basic methods of science, I mean? Do you have a problem with looking at evidence and drawing conclusions?

quote:
that opinion is taught in the schools

What opinion would be more appropriate? The conclusions of science are the most analyzed and criticised conclusion in the history of humanity. What more do you want? Oh, you want your un-critical belief.

quote:
and over time their opinions become validated by society.

What? You mean there is a problem with the average person believing what is shown to be true repeatedly for decades?

quote:
Evolution is one good example of this. What is taught in public school has great influence on our future and evolutionists know this and desperately want to keep any hint of even a vague designer out of the science classroom.

All you have to do is provide evidence for a designer and you are in like Flynn. There isn't any such evidence. ID has evidence of the caliber presented when defending spoon-bending and astrology. That is, it has laughable evidence.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: John, it's not funny.

It fact, your fear of information and knowledge is quite amusing.

quote:
Just wait until you are the old person they want to get rid of because you are no longer seen to have any value to society.

Perhaps, but science does not force this scenario. You are just paranoid.

quote:
When we devalue human life, we open the door for things like this to happen in the future.

I could find dozens of examples of religion devaluing human life. I think Christianity as it exists today is one of the worst in this respect. The OT is full of such things and you'd be blind not to see it. The point being that science or evolution can't be blamed for this type of behavior. Humans have been at it for millenia.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Yes, as I mentioned before, I am worried about scientists who are trying to push for stem cell research, human cloning, genetic manipulation which seems to be little more than eugenics, the whole animal rights movement, etc.

Whoa.... animal rights movement?????????

quote:
and that such modification isinevitable so why try and stop it?

Honestly, I don't fear what you fear. And that is kinda what I have been trying to point out. Feel free to make a case for or against something, but basically it looks like your argument is that you are afraid so we shouldn't do 'stuff.' Forgive me if I don't jump to attention.

quote:
John, do you know of any scientist who, when asked, will say that they do not want to get on with their work unhampered by any sort of regulation?

Most probably do want their research to be unregulated. But ask a slightly different question. Ask if they feel that ALL research should be unregulated. A scientist may be irritated that his/her work on the black plague is hampered by governmental regulation, but I doubt you'd find many scientist who'd say those regulations should be abolished. You are reaching too far if you want to make that claim.

quote:
I doubt it, otherwise they wouldn$B!G(Bt consider a regulation to be hampering if they agreed with it.

Not so. I deal with regulations that I consider restrictive, but grudgingly admit the utility and necessity of those regulations.

quote:
However, I think you will agree that unfettered science has not historically shown itself to be in the best interest of society, any more than unfettered government, religion or business have.

When has science ever been unfettered, that you can make this claim to historical knowledge?

Secondly, you are continually glosing over the fact that people can think and act responsibily outside of your, or any, religious paradigm.

quote:
Even pastors and religious leaders need accountability.

Peculiar that people pushing belief systems with no evidential base 'need accountability.'

quote:
The fact that biomedical tinkerings have brought benefits for some does not by any means translate into scientists having the right to pursue any kind of experiment.

Paranoia..... I haven't made this argument.

quote:
Where we draw the line – what regulations are helpful and harmful – that is another difficult question.

Of course it is.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: In your opinion, not a majority. Glad you got the point.

Everything I say is my opinion. That should be obvious. Shall I post this non-answer in response to your assertions?

The point being... that some people are mean and nasty? Yeah, no kidding.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I think there are plenty of people who dare not question the status quo of science - like for instance the Darwinian theory of Evolution. Many who question or oppose this theory are ridiculed or even face discrimination. Some have lost jobs or been refused jobs even though their disagreement with Darwinism would have nothing to do with their scientific work.

Could be because people use quack science to criticise the ToE. Good evidence will be accepted. Trash won't be. The problem for creationism is that it is trash in the worst way. I have yet to see one good argument. Life would be more interesting if creationists had good arguments, but they don't and the longer I post here the more convinced I become of that.

quote:
It is interesting that Scientific American magazine, which by the way started out as a Creationist journal, refused to hire a very well-respected scientist after it became known that he was a creationist.

uh-huh.... When? Where? Who? Back it up or you're just spreading rumors.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: John, it would be interesting to see what percentage of $B!H(BChristians$B!I(B want to do that as compared what percentage of non-christians want to do that. I personally do not know any Christians at all who feel that way, but yes, I$B!G(Bm sure there are some like that.

The exact statistic I could not find, but what is interesting is that I could not find ONE racist organization that is athiestic. All have religious affiliations/agendas.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I disagree. I really think you would be surprised how much would change if there was no god in this world. Maybe in your world, not much would change, but remove the influence God has on people beginning with their consciences, and you would quickly see just what nonsense you are speaking. But this can never be proved either way so it is just our own personal opinions and we$B!G(Bll have to agree to disagree.

Cross culturally people behave pretty much the same. Different gods, different ritual, different environments but all people behave pretty much the same. Some have no Gods, but we still get the same basic moral patterns. Even chimps show those patterns of behavior. You are just blowing smoke. You need a good education in anthropology.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Joke right? I sincerely hope you do not truly believe that.

Actually, I do believe that.

quote:
If so, it would seem that you are under the impression that all creationists are idiots and intellectual fools.

Only the ones with whom I am familiar. Probably this foolishness does not extend into all areas. Creationists are selectively blind is the nice way to put it.

quote:
You are ignoring the fact that many of the great scientists of the past were creationists

No I am not. Aristotle declared that the sun orbits the earth and he did so based on very good logic for the time. He couldn't detect the minute angles that we can detect today. The rules change as knowledge increases.

quote:
and there are many many more intelligent men today, respected scientists included, who are creationists as well.

Doesn't matter. There are no good creationist arguments. The same trash is repeated over and over again. Besides, there are far more intelligent people who are scientists who are not creationists. How do I know this? Because the consensus of science is nowhere near even considering creationism as a valid option.

quote:
If you are joking, that is one thing, but if that is your true opinion, you are woefully ignorant or prejudiced.

Woefully ignorant? Try me. Point out one good creationist theory. Point out just one that is not full of holes and contradictions.

quote:
TJ REPLIES:... Did you ever think that God's moral laws were based on what is best for us and that they make sense because they are true rather than that they are good because they work and make sense?

Why then do the same laws recur worldwide rather than just in the law-books of God's chosen? That is what one would expect if God gave moral law to a people as is claimed in the OT.

quote:
I think God's laws show us His wisdom quite clearly.

Then I can keep slaves so long as they are not Isrealites? And I can pillage my neighbors and take young girls for concubines? And throw them away if I don't like the merchandise? Come on. How can you be so obtuse?

quote:
There are very good reasons for most of the moral laws we see in Scripture

There probably are reasons, though not always the cherry-on-top reasons the religious push.

quote:
I think morality makes sense because God knows what is best for us, but you think morality has become accepted simply because it has been seen to be practical and beneficial. It can be looked at both ways, huh. You ridicule the $B!H(Bbecause God says so$B!I(B idea of morality, but in reality, there is no stronger base for morality.

hmmmm..... I can study culture and behavior. There is no evidence for God. So a morality, or a theory of morality mor properly, based on something for which we have no evidence is on a stronger foundation that a morality that is based on evidence? LOL.....

quote:
TJ REPLIES: No, it doesn't matter how many cultures I study

Really? Willful ignorance is not attractive.

[qutoe]People's opinions do not determine morality according to the Bible and that is my basis for my belief as well as what my heart(conscience) tells me.[/quote]

Nor does the Bible determine your morality, since the Bible doesn't give a damn about rape unless God's chosen are the victims. Don't be a hypocrit.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: If your worldview is correct, obviously that is what I am doing, but I don$B!G(Bt believe that your worldview is correct. In my view, I am simply choosing to believe the moral absolutes revealed by the Creator.

Hmmm... well anyone can say this same thing with equal conviction. Buddhist, Hindu, Voodoo..... So what does it matter? It is hollow. Until you have evidence for this creator all you have is a fairy tale.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Sorry, I don't follow your point here. I think I said that neither of us can prove our point. I am asking you for evidence to prove that God does not exist.

Yes, you said it. Forgive me for doubting. This has been covered above.

quote:
We can give evidence and say based on this evidence, I think this is the best supported belief, but there is not 100% proof.

ummmm..... ok. Are you now agreeing to go with the best supported theory?

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Yes, I see that is your opinion of the way things are. We$B!G(Bll just have to agree to disagree here. Again our different presuppositions causes us to interpret the evidence in different ways.

And again your world view is based on a critter no one has ever seen.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Very hollow, if not true.

So demonstrate that it is true.

quote:
However, your should rephrase your statement. It should be $B!H(BGod says so$B!I(B, not $B!H(Ba book says so$B!I(B.

No. My phrasing is correct. We have a book. It claims to be the word of God, but any book can claim that. There is no evidence that it is anything but a book.

quote:
trying to do is to see which world view has the most empirical evidence supporting it.

Is that what we are doing? Then I win. YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL.

quote:
On that basis and only on that basis can we make an honest evaluation of the worldview.

Glad to have you on the team.

quote:
I can see you desperately do not want the Biblical worldview to be true.

Typical response intended to discredit my arguments by casting doubt on my motivations and character. This is fallacious.

quote:
but there is more at stake for you than for me if the Biblical worldview is true.

No there isn't. If your view turns out to be true, I change my mind. Problem solved. Can you say the same?

quote:
For me I would have to face the fact that my whole life has been spent in promoting a lie – however a lie that has helped many people. How bad is that really?

Living inside the lie as you do, you cannot see the vaste damage that it does and has done for ages. This is what you would have to face, should you ever open your eyes.

quote:
For you though it would mean bowing your knee to the Creator and that goes against every bone in our bodies.

Like hell!!! It the first thing people do. Just look around you. Most of the world 'bows to a creator.' How is it that this goes against every bone in our bodies? The fact is that appealling to daddy is the easy way out. God is easier than taking responsibility.

quote:
I could be wrong here, but I think such a change would be much more difficult and even revolting than for me to go the other way.

Another typical subtly derogatory religious comment.

quote:
Therefore is it accurate to say that just maybe your bias is a bit stronger than mine?

No, it isn't, not by a lot. You seem to desperately want to believe that but it isn't true.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: If you had cancer, I'm sure you would be the first one to call for more work on genetic manipulation so as to get rid of cancer.

Perhaps? So what? I wasn't talking about curing disease, but about eugenics. Genetic manipulation of my cells to cure a cancer is not the same as cutting out a slice of DNA. The latter could have dire unforseen consequences.

quote:
You are arrogant enough to claim there is no God. Why all of a sudden humble here?

I claim there is no evidence for God, just like there is no evidence for Zeus, Ra, or spider-man. The way you feel about Zeus and Ra? Chances are, that is how I feel about your god.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Yes, in RARE circumstances. However in ALL instances it will lead to death and in MOST cases you would be better off without that mutation. In other words, it is a harmful mutation beyond a doubt, but just happens to have some benefit to the organism in very rare circumstances. Sickle cell DEVOLUTION will take you to the grave faster than it will ever pay off.

This is just silly. In areas where malaria is rampant, sickle cell is more benificial than harmful. Your misunderstanding of the dynamics is blatantly obvious.

quote:
If that is the kind of example you want to use as proof for evolution, you are in deep water.

A mutation that provides a net increase in an individual's chances to reproduce, given the environmental factors, is a bad example of evolution?

quote:
It is almost always a downward change, a loss of genetic information, a specialization of the species, etc.

Downward? From what? From perfect forms that no one has ever seen, and for which there is no evidence? Come on TJ.

quote:
So no matter how many changes like this you can muster up, you are simply leading the organism closer to death in the long run. This kind of change will never take you from a molecule to a man. This cannot be construed to be an example of the kind of change that will result in biological molecules to man evolution.

You present no argument, just incredulity.

quote:
[b]You hold hard to the idea that evolution has no direction. I agree. Blind chance has no goal and is oblivious to whether a particular species flourishes or not. It doesn$B!G(Bt care.[b/][/quote]

And?

quote:
If it was able to produce a change to help the organism survive in a particular environment, then why can$B!G(Bt it also produce a change to get it back to it$B!G(Bs original condition so that the organism does not die out, but keeps flourishing?

You suggest that I may be under-educated and biased because I can find no good creationist arguments, and then you present this tragic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory?

quote:
TJ REPLIES: The kind of logic that claims circumcision is torture of babies. Dead on logic? No, twisted logic.

Tell what, TJ. Go find a man who has had circumcision done in adulthood and ask if it hurts.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I happen to believe that God chose that sign for His people precisely because it did have medical benefits. I think it verifies the wisdom of God.

I don't care what you believe, TJ. Research is showing this opinion to be very very wrong.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: That's what I thought you were going to say. You don't think circumcision has any value. There are many medical professionals who are not Christians who would disagree with you.

Maybe, but you have given no evidence. I suspect you just made something up. And I suspect that you CANNOT back it up. It is also worth noting that doctors, once trained, don't have to keep up with modern research. This skews medicine toward the older opinions and data.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: How do you know? I'll try and back up my claim.

You do that. The arguments I have seen have to do with blood clotting factors that reach a peak on the eigth day after birth. The problem is that these factors don't reach a peak on the eigth day but slowly increase from birth to six weeks or so.

quote:
the 8th day is the best day for circumcision because of the 110% level of the blood clotting chemical.

Which, as I said, is crap. It doesn't happen.

quote:
Just remember, it is not as black and white as your website makes it sound.

Not my website TJ. And not the only source I have read.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Please enlighten me as to what archeological data you are referring to. Evidently you are telling me that after the Israelites came into contact with the Egyptians who practiced circumcision, they began to do it as well. I don$B!G(Bt know the timing involved in all of that, but even if that is true, I don$B!G(Bt believe the did it just because the Egyptians did it. I believe they did it because God commanded them to do it.

TJ, if you are going to invoke an force for which we have no evidence the argument is useless.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: What, you have data that says that God did not instruct the Jews to circumcise their males?

The Isrealites borrowed like everybody else. You can see it in the language, the mythology, pretty much the whole culture. Circumcision was one of the things they borrowed.

quote:
You want an example of absolute morality? Try this: How about torturing babies? Do you know of any cultures that think this is a moral act? Quoted from Post 118.

hmmmm.... ok.

quote:
That is specifically why I used the word torture John, because I$B!G(Bm sure that no culture views the torture of babies as a moral act.

If we right off inflicting pain to achieve some percieved end, you may be right. But is this strict definition really comfy for you? Does leaving a child out to starve so that bad luck will be avoided not qualify as abuse to you?

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Yes, hard to understand.

Yes, indeed. Maybe you should think about that.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: That was the law God gave to the children of Israel to follow. Although I do not understand it fully, yes, I defend it as a good law for the Israelites at that time.

Then despite your protestations you are arguing moral relativity.

It is disgusting that you defend this. And you fear the scientists? I fear the religious and this sort of thing is exactly why I do.

quote:
That is not relative morality.

Sure it is, and you'd know that if we were talking about someone else's religion.

quote:
The moral principles of the OT still hold true today, but they are applied differently.

How does one 'differently' apply keeping slaves?

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I am not God and cannot answer for you.

This is a cop-out. You are absolving yourself of the need to analyze and absolving yourself of the need to take responsibility for your beliefs. Look, imagine if something similar happened and a man offers heis daughters to be gang raped in lieu of men he believes to be angels? Do you believe him? Do you absolve him? God apparently did.

[quot]The whole thing came about because of Lot$B!G(Bs wrong choice to live in that wicked city.

You've made this part up. Lot choose that land because it was very fertile.

quote:
The very loss of his daughter was a sort of punishment in and of itself.

I'm sorry. LOT'S PUNISHMENT IS TO HAVE HIS DAUGHTERS RAPED? Are you insane man? Is your mind truly that twisted and desperate to hang onto your myth?

quote:
Although that wasn$B!G(Bt necessarily a direct punishment for the rape incident, it is all part of the consequences of his sin.

No. You have made this part up. Lot lost his stuff because God decided to tourch the city. He would have lost this whether the angels came to warn him or not, but Abraham convinced God that Lot should be spared, so you can't twist this into a type of punishment. Lot wasn't being punished. Lot is never included in the people who are to be punished. Lot is the one 'right and just' guy in the city.

quote:
We are not told that God did not punish him for that either. Not everything is written in the Bible.

So you can make up what you feel has been left out? That isn't much of a holy book. You are exemplifying what I mentioned above-- that one can make whatever one wants out of the Bible.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I agree with you here. Giving one$B!G(Bs daughter to be gang to be gang raped is probably another example of absolute morality.

Peculiar then that God doesn't seem to mind.

quote:
I bet Lot would even agree with you after the fact and admit that he made a mistake.

You've made this bit up. And given the misogyny of the ancient Isrealites, I kinda doubt it. Girls aren't real people.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Sorry, don$B!G(Bt follow you here.

Much of what you argue is blatantly relativistic, though you don't see it.

quote:
TJ REPLIES:Now, personally I think it was very fair of God to tell them what would happen if they didn$B!G(Bt repent.

Rape and enslavement is fair punishment TJ? This, essentially, is what you are saying?

So when we take Iraq the soldiers can bring back teenage trophies? Please.... this is absurd.

quote:
He simply tells them what the conquering people would do to their women and children.

If you have kids, is this a punishment you would feel comfortable allowing?

quote:
No, God$B!G(Bs letting sin slide by does not show His approval.

BS. And you'd realize this if we were not talking about your religion.

quote:
First of all, His Word tells us it is wrong.

Depends on the sin... some things you claim to be wrong are not condemned in the Bible.

quote:
Secondly, if He judged all sin, you and I would not even be alive to talk about it.

Could be, but if he actually judged we'd straighten up right quick. Humans aren't that stupid, but God doesn't judge in any clear way. It requires convoluted theories to connect God to anything at all.

quote:
Not all sin is even partially judged in this world. Some criminals get away scott free with their crime, don$B!G(Bt they? They must deal with their own conscience, but otherwise they are free. That is why there is a need for a judgment in the next world, to right all the wrongs.

Hey, I won't argue that there is a need for such judgement, but that does not make it so and this idea did not exist in the Isrealite worldview until long after the OT was written.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: For instance, in the Crusades, yes that happened, and in some of the other wars the Church has been responsible for as well.

But you are above that this isn't the case. Look way up at the beginning of this long post.

quote:
But these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

The exceptions are continuous, one after the other, in history. How is this not 'the rule'?

quote:
As I said in the past, the offenses of atheists who feel they are accountable to no one like Stalin, Mao, ad nauseum far surpasses those glaring sins of the Church.

Actually, not. You have your numbers very wrong. Pretty much everyone throughout history has been religious, yet look at the havoc. And that is the point of this, that religion does not check this sort of thing as you claim it does.

No webpage found at provided URL: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

quote:
TJ replies: What I mean here is that people need to be held responsible for their debts.

Your statement was that slavery then was different from slavery now. This is crap. It is true that Isrealite slaves had special rights, but non-Isrealite slaves were chattel. Period. Just read the rules in the OT and open your eyes. Pay attention. For example, it is not ok to beat a slave to death, but if the slaves lives for a day or two after the beating and then dies it is ok. Is this a better form of slavery? Hardly. Beating the slave to death outright is probably more humane.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: John, could it be that you have believed everything the skeptics say and your mind has been poisoned to the point where you aren$B!G(Bt even open to the truth nor do you want it to be true? Just wondering.

No, it couldn't be, but you aren't really interested in the answer. This is a patented religious response and really is designed to discredit.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I think you will find that there are many archeologists who hold the Bible in high regards. Check out this resource for some of the archeological support of the Bible. Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

I have looked at your site. It makes a lot of claims and backs up none of them that I can tell. This is just the sort of Biblical archeology that gives the term a bad taste. Not the mention that this sort of willingness to use fuzzy logic reflects badly on christianity as a whole. If there is something particular you want to discuss, start a new thread and I'll join you.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Sorry, I have not been able to verify it. I shouldn$B!G(Bt have quoted it until I could verify it. I found it on someone$B!G(Bs website and that is all I know right now.

So, you don't bothe to check your sources? You just post whatever suits you?

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Cutely worded, John. I already gave you my explanation for those passages. God did use war as judment on people and that is his prerogative.

Still very painful to watch the denial. Living inside the lie, I am sure you are blind to this.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: Yes, they were guilty of the sin of idolatry among many other sins.

LOL.... so killing idol worshippers is ok. Killing sinners in general is ok. LOL.......

quote:
We as humans do not have that authority, but God does. Now you say it is an excuse to kill because you don$B!G(Bt believe in God, but God is the giver of life and He has the authority to take it away as well.

But God doesn't take it. People do. This is the problem. Until there is some convincing reason to believe in God, all you've got is people killing people and claiming divine rights to do it.

quote:
In the OT, it is very interesting to note that God not only used the Jews at times to bring punishment on surrounding nations, but HE ALSO USED SURROUNDING NATIONS TO BRING JUDGMENT ON THE JEWS!

Big deal. Look at the history of some other densly populated region. You'll see the same types of conquest and power-exchanges and find the same sorts of God-punished-somebody stories but with different Gods. Are this all true as well, because somebody says so?

quote:
If this was simply an excuse the Jews used to kill others, interesting that they would use the same excuse to justify the warfare of their enemies against them.

No it isn't interesting at all. It allows the Jews to pretend that they, rather there God, is in control the whole time. Simple.

quote:
TJ REPLIES: I can say for sure that it wasn$B!G(Bt Allah, but no one can say for sure if that was a judgment of God on America. God allowed it to happen, yes. Is He not happy with us? I can think of many reasons why He is not, and it should be a wake-up call to consider how far we have wondered from our Creator. Whether or not it was a direct judgment of God on America, we cannot say for sure, but believers should all certainly take it as a wake up call, repent of our sins, and return to God if we have strayed.

So you won't commit to the same opinions when the events are current as when they are thousands of years in the past. This should tell you something.

------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
	Message 133 by Tokyojim, posted 01-07-2003 10:04 AM		Tokyojim has not replied

Tokyojim

Inactive Member

Tokyojim Posts Only

Message 140 of 142 (29378)
01-17-2003 10:09 AM

Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-12-2003 10:15 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]

tj writes:

It is interesting that Scientific American magazine, which by the way started out as a Creationist journal,...

You guys have *got* to stop believing everything you read at Creationist websites. Here's a link to an online version of the first issue of Scientific American from 1845 - it was *not* a Creationist journal. The evangelical movement did not even develop Creationism as a scientific response to evolution until more than a century later. Just like today, many of those who produced Scientific American then believed that God created the heaven and the earth, but that does not by any means imply they would have found acceptable any of the claims of Creationism in light of modern scientific evidence and understanding.

TJ REPLIES: I'll look into what you said before I respond.

...refused to hire a very well-respected scientist after it became known that he was a creationist.

Like John I find this hard to accept. Good science is good science, regardless of the beliefs of those who produced it. But beyond that this is a little hard to accept because Scientific American is a magazine, not a research lab. Scientists write and review many of the articles and sit on the various review committees, and depending on their role some probably receive some form of remuneration, but SciAm probably has extremely few if any practicing scientists on its full-time staff. Unless you can attach a name to this claim, and especially if this information comes from the same source that told you SciAm was originally a Creationist journal, it's probably a good idea to drop this.

Percy & John,
I apologize for not backing up my statement. I think I misstated it as well. He was being hired as their 'Amateur Scientist' columnist. Anyway, I had read it somewhere, but I couldn't remember where and I didn't have time to go and look for it. Here is a well-documented article about the incident. The man's name was Forrest M. Mims III. Check it out for yourself. Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Anti—creationist Victim | Answers in Genesis
There are quotes from other evolutionary magazines backing it up so it is not just some sour grapes from a guy who wasn't hired to create controversy. Anyway, I hope that helps.

Here is the relevant part of the article:
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
According to eThe Amateur Scientistf section of Scientific American, May 1997:

Haze is a vital indicator of our atmospherefs health c but little is known about how the amount of haze is changing globally because no-one is coordinating haze observations from widely dispersed areas. That may change with the latest design from Forrest M. Mims III c . He has invented an atmospheric haze sensor that costs less than $20 and is so simple that even the most hardened technophobe can put it together in under an hour. Mimsfs instrument could revolutionize this important area of study by opening the field to all-comers, that is, to amateur scientists.1

The article mentioned that Mims had written some Amateur Scientist columns in Scientific American in 1990. But it failed to mention that Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was efabulousf, egreatf and efirst ratef,and eshould be published somewheref.2 Mimsf invention is further confirmation of his ability. But no matter what onefs scientific ability, denying the modern-day religion of evolution is heretical enough to justify discrimination. Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views,3 wrote:

Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.4

Small wonder that many creationists write under pseudonyms or otherwise hide their beliefs from the establishment.

Percy, I am glad that you feel as you do - that "Good science is good science, regardless of the beliefs of those who produced it." It seems you disagree with some who feel that a belief in creation disqualifies a person from being regarded as a true scientist. However, it also seems you have a little more faith in the unbiasness and objectivity of evolutionists than I do. There are too many examples of scientific journals refusing to even publish articles by creationists simply because of the worldview issue. This doesn't serve anyone in the quest for truth. Many creation scientists have their work belittled and never taken seriously simply because they happen to believe that God is the Creator. If you want some concrete examples, I'll be glad to get some for you. Since I didn't give any examples before, I'll at least give a website address to back up that claim. Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis
Anyway, it is important to remember that we are all biased, evolutionists as well as creationists. We can't avoid it because of our worldview. We interpret the scientific observations through different worldviews, so naturally we come up with different conclusions.

Regards,

TJ

This message is a reply to:
	Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-12-2003 10:15 AM		Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 141 by Tokyojim, posted 01-17-2003 6:28 PM	Tokyojim has not replied
	Message 142 by Percy, posted 02-10-2003 9:43 AM	Tokyojim has not replied

Percy

Member

Posts: 22480

From: New Hampshire

Joined: 12-23-2000

Member Rating: 4.8

Percy Posts Only

Message 142 of 142 (31858)
02-10-2003 9:43 AM

Reply to: Message 140 by Tokyojim
01-17-2003 10:09 AM

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Just noticed your reply today...

Tokyojim writes:

He was being hired as their 'Amateur Scientist' columnist. Anyway, I had read it somewhere, but I couldn't remember where and I didn't have time to go and look for it. Here is a well-documented article about the incident. The man's name was Forrest M. Mims III.

I don't fault SciAm for backing out of their offer to Mims of The Amateur Scientist position after they discovered he was a Creationist. The possibility of embarrassment is too great. The primary risk is that since Creationists value revelation above evidence, which is unscientific, that this might come out in some way in the monthly column Mims would write.

Many creation scientists have their work belittled and never taken seriously simply because they happen to believe that God is the Creator.

Many, many scientists believe God is the creator and get published in the technical literature, but any scientist would find his publishing opportunities curtailed if his work did not have a solid evidentiary base.

Anyway, it is important to remember that we are all biased, evolutionists as well as creationists.

I am biased in favor of God's word as expressed in the world around us, rather than as captured in a book written by men.

--Percy

This message is a reply to:
	Message 140 by Tokyojim, posted 01-17-2003 10:09 AM		Tokyojim has not replied

11 online now:	AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, Larni, Percy (Admin), Phat, popoi, scoff, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,463 Year: 3,720/9,624 Month: 591/974 Week: 204/276 Day: 44/34 Hour: 1/6