|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
dogmai Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: We are the gods.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
TJ - OK, so I overstated the case.
I don't know offhand when the animals started to eat meat. db - You don't know ON hand when the animals started to eat meat. TJ - No death yet in this world outside of plant death. db - So, "death" means only certain kinds of death? NOT death in general? TJ - No disease, killing, etc. This is all said to have entered the world as punishment for their grave sin of rebellion against their Creator. db - "... all said to have ..." Now there's the key to understanding. By the way, please note that the first act of killing was perpetrated by God. I suppose he must have said - See what you made me do?Poor helpless God, being pushed around by his defective creation. Gots to put the hurt on them. Not perfect. Gots to break 'em now. TJ - God writes this ... :"... God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: ..." db - Do you know the difference between writing and saying? TJ - "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you." db - So the dietary laws of Leviticus are an afterthought? TJ - "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." db - So, the animals are disobeying God now? When did that begin? TJ - When Adam and Eve sinned, they elevated themselves to the level of God. db - OK TJ - they believed the lie of the devil who told them they could become like God. db - You can't have it both ways. It was a lie or it was not. God said they had become like him. So did they or didn't they? If they did, as God said they did, then the devil did not lie. If they did not, as you say, then God lied. Make up your mind. TJ - They deliberately rebelled against their loving Creator. db - They didn't know right from wrong until after they ate from The Tree of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong! TJ - they were consciously choosing to rebel against Him. db - They didn't know the meaning of the word! TJ - I guess I'm just ... a sucker for fairy tales. db - I guess you are. TJ - We have a will and a mind of our own. db - And whose fault is that? TJ - We want to run our lives rather than have to humble ourselves before God and depend on Him to save us. db - Some of us want to run the lives of others and make them humble themselves before God so we can depend on their money to save us. Isn't that right, preacher man? db
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes indeed, or perhaps just foolish.
quote: 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: I have this thing about believing what is true.
quote: 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: 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: ’t.
quote: 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 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: ... not a very good example.
quote: 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: 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: Really? Name something and I bet a case can be made, if it hasn't already.
quote: 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: ok, good so far...
quote: 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: 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: What? You mean there is a problem with the average person believing what is shown to be true repeatedly for decades?
quote: 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: It fact, your fear of information and knowledge is quite amusing.
quote: Perhaps, but science does not force this scenario. You are just paranoid.
quote: 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: Whoa.... animal rights movement?????????
quote: 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: 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: Not so. I deal with regulations that I consider restrictive, but grudgingly admit the utility and necessity of those regulations.
quote: 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: Peculiar that people pushing belief systems with no evidential base 'need accountability.'
quote: Paranoia..... I haven't made this argument.
quote: Of course it is.
quote: 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: 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: uh-huh.... When? Where? Who? Back it up or you're just spreading rumors.
quote: 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: 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: Actually, I do believe that.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Woefully ignorant? Try me. Point out one good creationist theory. Point out just one that is not full of holes and contradictions.
quote: 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: 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 probably are reasons, though not always the cherry-on-top reasons the religious push.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Yes, you said it. Forgive me for doubting. This has been covered above.
quote: ummmm..... ok. Are you now agreeing to go with the best supported theory?
quote: And again your world view is based on a critter no one has ever seen.
quote: So demonstrate that it is true.
quote: 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: Is that what we are doing? Then I win. YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL.
quote: Glad to have you on the team.
quote: Typical response intended to discredit my arguments by casting doubt on my motivations and character. This is fallacious.
quote: No there isn't. If your view turns out to be true, I change my mind. Problem solved. Can you say the same?
quote: 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: 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: Another typical subtly derogatory religious comment.
quote: No, it isn't, not by a lot. You seem to desperately want to believe that but it isn't true.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Downward? From what? From perfect forms that no one has ever seen, and for which there is no evidence? Come on TJ.
quote: You present no argument, just incredulity.
quote: You've made this part up. Lot choose that land because it was very fertile.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Peculiar then that God doesn't seem to mind.
quote: You've made this bit up. And given the misogyny of the ancient Isrealites, I kinda doubt it. Girls aren't real people.
quote: Much of what you argue is blatantly relativistic, though you don't see it.
quote: 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: If you have kids, is this a punishment you would feel comfortable allowing?
quote: BS. And you'd realize this if we were not talking about your religion.
quote: Depends on the sin... some things you claim to be wrong are not condemned in the Bible.
quote: 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: 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: But you are above that this isn't the case. Look way up at the beginning of this long post.
quote: The exceptions are continuous, one after the other, in history. How is this not 'the rule'?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: So, you don't bothe to check your sources? You just post whatever suits you?
quote: Still very painful to watch the denial. Living inside the lie, I am sure you are blind to this.
quote: LOL.... so killing idol worshippers is ok. Killing sinners in general is ok. LOL.......
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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.
...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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
[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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
Quetzal,
I don't know if you are still reading this thread, but I opened a new thread under Faith and Belief to try and answer some of your questions that you posed here earlier. Regards, TJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024