Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 5:02 PM
182 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (6 members, 176 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,542 Year: 2,579/19,786 Month: 661/1,918 Week: 249/266 Day: 21/92 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
John
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 142 (22985)
11-17-2002 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tokyojim
11-17-2002 3:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
TJ replies: John, if a person is looking for such an excuse, evolution presents a perfect one for them.

So does God's Will... and that has been used as an excuse since the beginning of recorded history.

quote:
TJ replies: The existence of God is only helpful if people believe it and voluntarily decide to submit their lives to Him.

You seem to be saying that the idea of evolution is respoinsible for bad behavior, but that the same criterion cannot be applied to the idea of God. This is a double standard.

quote:
TJ replies: Skip it but nevertheless, it shows the problem we have if there is no absolute moral law.

There is no absolute moral law anyway, despite the claims of religion to the contrary. Why? Because people simply incorporate their whims into their faith.

quote:
It is worth it for the sake of science. Science becomes the authority.

This reflects your perception of non-christians. You contrast faith-inspired behavior with a straw man version of non-faith-inspired behavior.

quote:
However, don't tell me that you are willing to trust scientists to make good moral choices in their research. There needs to be some kind of check on them or SOME will go astray.

You are right. Some checks need to be in place, depending on the research.

quote:
TJ replies: Oh, so if you could come up with some way to make scientific sense of it, it would be OK.

What you are asking me is "If it made sense, would it be OK?"

[quote][b]Everything is relative.[/quote]

[/b]

It always has been. Denying this doesn't change anything and tagging the sanction of God onto an opinion only makes the relative more dangerous.

quote:
Someday someone will come us with just such an idea and then what. Or technology will improve to the point where we will be able to do that and then what?

Remember, the discussion is about faith-based morality vs. non-faith-based morality. It is not about finding the extremes of behavior.

quote:
Even now, we know that certain traits are harmful so why not try and get rid of them. (Down's Syndrome, retardation, etc.)

You missed my point. What is not beneficial now, may be beneficial in the future. We simply don't know. Even Down's Syndrome, or some further mutation of the genes involved could be beneficial, or some genes associated with it but not responsible for the disabling conditions associated with it. The best example of what I thinking about is sickle cell anemia. It is crippling and eventually lethal, but provides a survival advantage in areas infested with sleeping sickness.

quote:
How about we leave abortion out of it and make the issue purposeful inflcting of pain on babies?

Actually, ours condones the purposeful infliction of pain on babies. It is called circumcision.

quote:
Do you know of any cultures where this is thought to be a moral act?

The Isrealites, who got it from the Egyptians, and passed it along to us.

quote:
I don't and I don't think you will find one.

It wasn't that hard.

quote:
And just because some cultures practiced infanticide doesn't mean that they really thought it was a moral act.

Really? I suspect some term re-definition goin on here.

quote:
TJ replies: Don't know anything about the Yanomamo. Indians?

Yes. South American indians. It is the largest group of S.A. Indians and probably the most studied tribe on the planet. They show up frequently in movies and even a PS2 commercial.

quote:
And as I said above, I would doubt that these Indians really thought that this act was a moral act.

Strange as it seems....

quote:
It may have been practiced and tolerated, but I doubt the women thought it was a moral act.

One study I read quoted a Yanamamo woman as saying "I am afraid my husband does not love me because he does not beat me enough" or something to that effect. I am going from memory.

quote:
I'd like to read more about the Yanomamo.

Interesting bunch. They are known as the Fierce People.

quote:
However, it was never condoned or left unpunished. Marrying the victim in the aftermath was actually a punishment for the man. It made him take responsibility for his sin.

Do you realy believe this? Ask a rape victim how fair this punishment is?

quote:
Don't tell me he wanted to give his daughter to those men to rape. Where's your head at? He only did it to spare the angels who were sent from God from homosexual rape.

Would the idea even cross your mind? Should I let my daughters be gang-raped.... hmmmmm.....? See what I mean about the idea of God not being the best guide for morality.

[qutoe]Give the men the angels sent from God to be gang raped or give them his daughter.[/quote]

How about give them neither and take a stand? Godless, faithless, evolutionist that I am, I'd consider myself as having no choice but that one.

quote:
TJ replies: OK then I'll answer my question.

TJ, the God of the OT isn't the God you describe.

quote:
TJ replies: Did you cut out some of my post here?

Probably, but I try not to edit the meaning.

quote:
Plus it is not right even with God in the picture so your statement doesn't make sense.

God and God's agents have ordered exactly the behaviors which God supposedly disaproves of. You cané have it both ways.

quote:
TJ replies: I dealt with this misguided statement above.

And again you avoid the point. You make the claim that the idea of evolution is dangerous and that the idea of God keeps people in check. I am pointing out that that idea does not keep people in check.

quote:
You can't blame all the blood and nastiness on Christians.

I'm not blaming it on Christians. I am saying that the idea of God has not kept people in check.

quote:
TJ replies: No way. The OT has a lot of value.

Right. How else would we know from whom we can take slaves?

quote:
It gives us a valuable historical record of human history.

It is a mythological history of a tiny tribe of warlike nomads. It has value in being that I suppose.

quote:
We learn much about God in the OT.

He is nothing like God in the NT.

quote:
We have a record of prophecies that validate Jesus as the Messiah.

Actually.... I can't tell that Christ fits the genealogical requirements for being the messiah, as outlined in the OT.

quote:
TJ replies: John, on the contrary. I am not aware of any general command that God gives to humans to go out and kill their fellow humans. Please go ahead and post them. Thanks.

God consistently gives the command to conquer any people not like the Isrealites. It doesn't take a big leap to realize that if God, in the past, commanded HIS people to kill those not like them, the same rules apply today.

quote:
TJ replies: John, you confuse judgement for sin and murder.

I think you are confusing war and the consequent death, destruction and slavery with judgement-- perfectly illustrating how religion DOES NOT check human behavior.

quote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I think you have twisted it a little to make it look foolish.

Sorry, it isn't kill. It is 'cut off her hand' Duet. 25:11-12

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tokyojim, posted 11-17-2002 3:13 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Tokyojim, posted 12-01-2002 7:56 AM John has responded

  
allen
Unregistered


Message 122 of 142 (23036)
11-17-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Andya Primanda
09-13-2002 7:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Sorry to butt in. Mammuthus, you're a German. Do you have first-hand experience of Hitler's reign? I'm curious about something. Did Hitler really massacre Jews because they were planning to take over the world? My friends the Muslim activists say that Hitler killed Jews because he's concerned about their hidden conspiracy. He didn't finish the job, and look, today the world's run by Jews!

Continue it, you two. I'll do the knock-out counts.


------------------------------------------------------------
LOL.. Jews are God's chosen people blessed. They have inherited
the gifts given them by God..They (Jews), are not running the world as you so punningly express. They are using the gifts as blessings given them throughout the seeds of their forefathers. You are just jelous that you are not the apple of God's eye. Spare me comparing the Jewish People to some murderous demon posessed fool who thought he could exit a mental ward to become some great man. He just struck out at the very heart of God Himself, and look how he died. Dont see Germany continuing their quest to fulfill the endevors of a mental patient. LOL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-13-2002 7:58 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by John, posted 11-17-2002 11:50 PM You have not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 142 (23040)
11-17-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by allen
11-17-2002 10:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by allen:
LOL.. Jews are God's chosen people blessed.

Is this from a hymn perhaps? It has that hymnal twang.

quote:
They have inherited the gifts given them by God.

I don't recall God giving them any special gifts. He just beat them up a lot.

quote:
They are using the gifts as blessings given them throughout the seeds of their forefathers.

Perplexing... but I like the sound of it.

quote:
You are just jealous that you are not the apple of God's eye.

Of course, none of are... except the Jews of course.

quote:
Spare me comparing the Jewish People to some murderous demon posessed fool who thought he could exit a mental ward to become some great man.

The comparison fits. The Jewish People were, if you believe the mythology, every bit as murderous and vicious. Lets not forget about that Nazi state called Isreal.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by allen, posted 11-17-2002 10:05 PM allen has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 142 (23696)
11-22-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by John
11-11-2002 10:15 AM


quote:
The part that tells us that we are all created in God's image and have worth?

I was thinking more about how the Isrealites pretty much get to kill, rape and pillage at will and with God's blessing. It doesn't speek much for the theory that we are all equal and have worth.

quote:
They were guilty of racism at times as we Gentiles have been as well. However, it never comes as an order from God.

Like bloody hell! The OT is full of orders from God to kill other peoples. Ex. 23:24, 34:11-14, Num. 21:1-5.

TJ replies: Sorry, I didn't mean to cause you to sin. In spite of your passages(first one doesn't apply anyway), I maintain what I said. God is not racist, no matter what you may think. It is not because of prejudice, but because of sin that God ordered the Jews to destroy those people. He is not racist, but it doesn't mean He won't judge sin. If you don't believe in God, you will never understand what God is doing in the OT through the Israelites. God loves all people and sent his Son to die for them all to prove it. He speaks about blessing all the nations of the earth through the Jews. In fact that was His purpose in choosing a people to work through to begin with. He didn't choose the Jews because of who they were. He chose them before they were even a people. It was important that the Jewish nation not be corrupted by idolatry and fall away from God. It was through the Jews who God had promised to send the Messiah adn it was the Jews through whom He gave us the Bible.

quote:
When Christians use the Bible to justify racism, they are sinning and bringing shame on the name of God.

How do you breathe with your head under so much sand?

TJ replies: It's hard, but I'm getting better at it. Verses like this help though. Colossians 3:9-11 "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncir-cumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."
John, God is the giver of life and He has the right to take life as well. He is God. Actually when you think about it, God is rather patient. He allows sinners like us to go on living when we have already sinned and therefore are worthy of the punishment of both spiritual and physical death. He would be totally just in destroying the world again just like He did in the past. However, He has promised not to do that again with a flood at least. We look at God's judgments and forget just how merciful, longsuffering, and patient He really is. For instance, He allows scoffers like you to exercise your free will and say whatever you want to about Him. If you were God, would you allow that? I probably wouldn't. My patience, love, and grace run out far too quickly. No, God is not racist, but nothing I can say will persuade you so again we will have to agree to disagree. Aren't you glad we have the freedom to do that? I disagree with you but respect your right to believe whatever you want.

quote:
So who is to say that Galton and his ideas of eugenics(taking natural selection one step higher and making it intelligent selection rather than letting things up to chance.

I've covered this.

TJ REPLIES: Yes, but in other words, who is to say how we apply evolutionary philosophy to society.

quote:
Evidence is interpreted by fallible biased people.

Funny thing, the Bible is interpretted by fallible people too. So would you like to retract the objection or shall I dismiss your religion-- with your blessing-- based on the same grounds?

TJ replies: Yes it is. But no, I will not retract my statement. Just because evidence is interpreted by fallible people doesn't mean there isn't a right and a wrong interpretation. I'm sure you would agree. We might not always be able to agree on that interpretation, but that doesn't change that fact that one is right and the other is wrong. I do not dismiss science for this reason or for any reason actually. Science has an important and valid role to play in society and life. The point is that it is not infallible. This is especially true when it comes to historical science or origins science. If scientists would admit that their interpretation of the facts is influenced by their worldview, I would be much happier, but instead they try and pass off their interpretations of the facts as true science while claiming that creationists, who look at the same facts but interpret them differently, are ridiculed for being biased. Both are biased and this needs to be made clear. This is what the problem is.
Plus then you have those scientists who actually claim that evolution is fact! I think many even are deluded enough to think it is a proven fact too. They forget that it all depends on whether their presuppositions are true or not. They can never be proven so when it comes to the science of our origins, all we can ever have are different hypothesis.

quote:
That is the problem with science. Everyone wants us to believe that scientists are these unbiased people seeking truth and that their conclusions are always trustworthy.

Only creationists push this characature of science. Scientist know damn well that scientists are biased and fallible. This is why science must be reproducible and conclusions testable. Different people, different biases, same answer--- well gee, maybe it is true.

TJ replies:John, now your head is in the sand or else you are ignorant or something.
First of all, evolution is not reproducible. No one ever witnessed the origin of life, nor has it ever been reproduced. Even by cheating in the lab to make conditions much more optimal than they would have been in the supposed pre-biotic soup, all you get are a few simple amino acids that can't remain stable anyway unless they are separated from the mixture as soon as they form. When it comes to evolution, we have to do a lot of interpretation and guessing. We look at some bones and since we already believe evolution to be true, we interpret the bones on that basis and then use that interpretation as proof for evolution. Most people fall for this trick. We can't produce any missing links in experiments, yet we have faith to believe that even without intelligent human help, billions of them have come into existence.
What do you mean reproduceable? On what terms?
COnclusions must be testable. Good point. How can we test the current day theory on the origin of life? We can't! Or at least so far whatever tests have been attempted have failed. Then how can we in all honesty tell our kids that it happened?. Some say, "Well, we're here so that is the proof." Yes, if you take God out of the picture, that is all you have left. That is a statement that is believed in faith without any proof. It is not reproduceable nor is it testable. Yet we call this science! No wonder the non-christian microbiologist Michael Denton who wrote Evolution: Theory in Crisis, called evolution the greatest myth of the 20th century.
Here is his quote:
"The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian revolution. The social and political currents which have swept the world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without its intellectual sanction. ... The influence of the evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age. Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."pg 358.

quote:
If scientists would have enough courage and honesty to say that, we would be getting somewhere.

LOL..... ask a scientist!!!!!!

TJ replies: I will admit that not all scientists are such fools to think that evolution is a proven fact. Some are honest, others are not when it comes to this area. Others are just deluded and swallow the party talk hook, line, and sinker. Others say, even though the evidence is against us, I'm not going to abandon the ship. I'm going to hang in there and keep believing in evolution. Here is one example:

Professor Richard Lewontin is one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Reference:
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demonsE The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

Now, there's a real fool for you, but at least he is honest. In spite of the evidence, I'm going to believe in evolution because I want to. Fortunately not all scientists are this stubborn or committed to their naturalistic religious views. But most scientists try and paint the creationist as a dishonest fool. Let's remember that we're both 100% biased.

quote:
It is always tentative and dependent upon current knowledge as you said. That is all we want to hear in the science classroom.

If that is all you want, I have no problem; but I bet you want more than that. I'd bet that you want to include theories for which there is no evidence.

TJ replies: Hmm. According to some scientists, there is no evidence for evolution either. But wait a minute, are you implying that there is no evidence for intelligent design? I didn't think you were that brainwashed.
Yes, I think both the evidence and problems with evolution need to be fairly presented. Intelligent design could be presented in the same way. Of course, whoever does the teaching, will present the evidence for their worldview and the opposing worldview in a biased way, but at least both views would get a hearing.

[quote][b]TJ replies: No it is not so simple. Let's take a group oof Great Danes..... But if small size were to suddently be an advantage for survival, this species of dog would go extinct.[quote][b]

Exactly what I said.

TJ replies: And you call this evolution? From a stable well-adjusted species of dog to a species that is less stable and cannot adjust to the environment as easy? That seems like devolution rather than evolution. From changes like this we're going to go from a dog into a new animal? You do have faith, don't you!

quote:
Breeders can through selective breeding create many things, but their creations are always limited by the genetic information they have to work with.

Breeders are not working with time-frames of millions of years, and ten's of thousands of generations.

TJ replies: Yes, it is too bad we cannot give breeders millions of years to do their research. But ask any breeder and they realize the limits of genetics. Genetics is science too and these limits are clearly defined and contrary to evolution. You can only go so far and then you are stuck. But even then a tiny dog is still a dog and a large dog is still a dog. You have no evolution, just change within the dog genre or whatever you want to call it. Unimpressive! Even creationists recognize this type of change, but let's be honest. This is not support for the ToE.

quote:
This is the biggest problem with evolution.

This is the biggest problem with the cartoon creationist version of evolution. Thankfully, that isn't the ToE. Here is an experiment-- difficult but not impossible. Take two dogs and sequence their DNA. Breed the two. Sequence the DNA of the pups and check for mutations. Wham-bam!!!! There is the new genetic material.

TJ replies: Ah, don't you wish it were only that simple?! Everyone recognizes that the children of any two animals will have some new combinations of the genetic information in the parents. Some of that might be due to mutation as well. Every human is different, but this is not evolution. What you need for evolution to take place for example is new coded information in the genes to allow the DNA to produce something that previously was not coded for in the genes. When I say new information, I mean this. The simplies known cell right now is mitoplasma I think. It is a parasite so it cannot live on it's own, but anyway it has about 500,000 letters in it's genetic code. Whereas a human has 3 billion letters in it's DNA code. This is the problem. How do you get information to build itself. Do you really think that chance undirected mutations can change one or two letters at a time in this code in such a way as to make each change more viable than the last until you have a human being? You are placing your faith in chance. All the evidence we have today shows that information does not arise by chance, yet you choose to believe this. You gotta admit, it takes a lot of faith to be an evolutionist these days, much more than in Darwin's day when no one knew just how complex living things were.

quote:
You can never get something in an offspring that you do not have in the genetic code of the parents.

Patently false. See above.

TJ replies: OK, you are right. I didn't state that properly. Thanks for correcting me. But you will never get more information in the offspring or shall we say better or higher quality information in the offspring. When information is copied and passed on, we mainly find degeneration of the information, mistakes in copying, and a lower quality of information. That is why mutations are almost all harmful. Perhaps 1 out of every 100 mutations are neutral or perhaps there is even a rare beneficial mutation. But even then, a beneficial mutation doesn't mean that the new organism contains higher quality information than the parent. For instance, a beetle that loses the ability to fly on a windy island will probably survive better than one which can fly but might get blown out into the ocean. But this is a loss of genetic information.
Evolutionists say that you can take the highly ordered and complex DNA information storage molecule and introduce mutations and come up with a higher quality of information. I think we usually call mistakes in a computer program a "bug". I don't have the faith to believe that random mistakes made in the information code of DNA can take a one-celled molecule to a mouse to a man. And that is ignoring the huge problem of the who origin of life which is a pre-requisite for this other kind of evolution to occur.
I am told that no one has ever been able to come up with an example of one information producing genetic mutation yet. Funny though. There should be thousands of this kind of mutations happening even today.

quote:
TJ replies: I understand your feelings. God's plan for the Jewish people was to reveal Himself to the surrounding nations through them. He promised to bless them and to bless others through them as well if they would follow Him. It was important that they didn't get led astray into idolatry and other sins that the surrounding nations practiced. God knew that if they were to intermarry there would be a negative result spiritually on the Jews and this is why He forbid intermarriage. Even in the NT, Christians are not supposed to marry non-christians. This is not racist. This is simply for the benefit of the family. Having similar values and goals in life helps a lot in a marriage. Plus if the parents have different ideas about spiritual things, then whose ideas do you teach your kids? I would never have married a non-christian because as parents, it is important for us to be united in child-rearing concerns. I wouldn't want my kids to have to choose between Mommy and Daddy which is how it could be conceived. This is for the kid's own best interests as well. It just so happened that in the OT, the only believers in God were the Israelites and that is why they could only marry each other.

Really, you have just given a nice pro-racist sermonette.

TJ replies: John, I told you you wouldn't believe. You don't understand God's plan for this world or His plan to bless the world including you through the Jews. You impose your views of things on God and you think He should act in accordance to your convictions. Not so. That is why He is God. And if you could see things from His perspective, you might even see that He is pretty wise and even right. But then, you don't need to worry about that since God is only an idea inside our messed up heads.

quote:
TJ replies: John, I know you can never accept what the Bible says at face value so nothing I say can persuade you.

Sure there is, theoretically.

TJ REPLIES: Just like an evolutionist, a Christian must have faith. THere will never be 100% proof of GOd's existence and God wants it that way. He doesn't want people following because they have been forced into it. No He wants people to follow Him who choose to follow Him. Who love Him and want to follow Him. THe Bible says this in Hebrews 11:1,6 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
Like it or not, this is how God set things us. So if you are holding out for 100% proof, forget it. But then you don't have 100% proof for your worldview either. God gives us enough evidence to be able to believe in Him without throwing out our intellect. In fact, as Kenyon I believe it was once said: "The more you study science, the more you will be forced to believe in God." The Bible says in ROmans 1:19-23 "because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

There is enough evidence around us that God can honestly say that we are all without excuse. Even a first grader knows that a watch needs a designer. A book needs an author. A machine needs an assembler. A noise must have a cause(In other words, an effect(universe) must have a greater cause outside of itself(Creator)).

quote:
How did they know it was really God who spoke to them? Because He spoke through the prophets.

And we know the prophet were no lying or tripping becasue they said so? You have got to joking.

quote:
No. First of all, if ever the words of a prophet did not come true, then it was clear that that prophet had not spoken the word of God and actually he was to be put to death.

Lots 'o prophets spoke falsely.

TJ replies: Good point. And that is exactly why God gave the Jews strict instructions on how to judge a prophet. It was dangerous to be a false prophet back then because the penalty for that was death. It wasn't always carried out though it seems.

quote:
There were also various miracles that took place from time to time that gave further confirmation to them that God had indeed spoken and was leading them.

Or so says a book for which we have no external verification of its accuracy. Many religious texts claim miracles. You believe all of them I suppose?

TJ replies: No of course not. But the Bible has lots of support. There are good reasons to believe the Bible in my opinion.

quote:
Oh, that's right. Miracles can't happen.

More like, miracles don't happen. Miracles conveniently stopped happening at some point in the distant magical past.

TJ replies: No, some miracles still happen today. They do not happen as regularly as they did in Jesus time or in the time of various prophets. Now we have the Word of God through which God speaks to us. They didn't have that back then. Although I have never personally experienced a miracle so I cannot speak from experience.

I thought you were honestly searching for the truth?

TJ replies: It will sound arrogant to you, but I believe I have found the truth, as do you I think. At least, it seems like you think you are right and that I am wrong. If I am persuaded that I am wrong, then I would be forced to give up my faith. But I really am not concerned about something like that happening. (and probably you are not worried about that happening to you either.)

Regards,
Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by John, posted 11-11-2002 10:15 AM John has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 142 (23699)
11-22-2002 10:28 AM


quote:
First of all, evolution is not reproducible. No one ever witnessed the origin of life, nor has it ever been reproduced. Even by cheating in the lab to make conditions much more optimal than they would have been in the supposed pre-biotic soup, all you get are a few simple amino acids that can't remain stable anyway unless they are separated from the mixture as soon as they form.

Hmmm - confuses abiogenesis and evolution, and then...

quote:
When it comes to evolution,

Shows he did know the difference, so presumably was just being disingenuous.

quote:
we have to do a lot of interpretation and guessing. We look at some bones and since we already believe evolution to be true, we interpret the bones on that basis and then use that interpretation as proof for evolution. Most people fall for this trick.

Your interpretation of the migration of the reptilian jawbone through the reptile/mammal series is invited.

quote:
We can't produce any missing links in experiments

But we produce them out of the ground in large numbers.

quote:
yet we have faith to believe that even without intelligent human help, billions of them have come into existence.

Nope. Observation. Why "billions"? Billions of individuals, possibly, but not billions of transitionals.


Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Tokyojim, posted 12-01-2002 9:46 AM Karl has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 142 (25120)
12-01-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by John
11-17-2002 12:18 PM


Here is the second part of my reply to John's post #121.

Originally posted by Tokyojim:
TJ replies: John, if a person is looking for such an excuse, evolution presents a perfect one for them.

JOHN:
So does God's Will... and that has been used as an excuse since the beginning of recorded history.

TJ REPLIES: Yes, you have a point. Some people have used God$B!G(Bs will as an excuse to do wrong and that is perhaps even worse!$B!!(B

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

TJ: John, the existence of God is only helpful if people believe it and voluntarily decide to submit their lives to Him.

JOHN:
You seem to be saying that the idea of evolution is respoinsible for bad behavior, but that the same criterion cannot be applied to the idea of God. This is a double standard.

TJ REPLIES: I take my comment back. Even I disagree with it. I believe the existence of God is of benefit to the whole world even if people do not believe in Him. First, we cannot even exist apart from His sustaining the order of the world and holding it together. Second, even atheists benefit from God$B!G(Bs existence when they follow their conscience which is really God$B!G(Bs laws written on their hearts. This is what the Bible says and what I believe. I know you have a different way to try and explain away our moral feelings. There is also what the Bible calls the restraining power of the Holy Spirit which prevents the world from going totally amuck. And the existence of God is beneficial to all people because it has influenced countless of Christians to show love in the name of Jesus. Countless schools have been started, medical works, relief efforts, individuals strengthened, changed for the better, and lives changed. America has been greatly influenced by Christianity as well. I$B!G(Bm not denying there has been some negative, I$B!G(Bm just saying the positive far outweighs the negative. That is what I was trying to say.
Yes, the idea of evolution is responsible for much bad behavior. Because it removes the whole idea of moral responsibility, destroys the meaning of life by reducing us to meaningless accidents of nature, provides no hope for our future outside of our own accomplishments, influences people to chuck belief in their Creator, etc. Of course, if evolution is true, then there is no such thing as good and bad behavior. Even many non-christians realize this truth. Like Richard Dawkins said in response to some evolutionists who feel uncomfortable with morality being reduced to human opinion and pure relativity, $B!H(BThat$B!G(Bs tough.$B!I(B He is right. That$B!G(Bs tough. If evolution is true, than we must have the courage to face the truth " that is if truth is really an absolute moral value.

**************************************************************
quote:

TJ: Nevertheless, the worry about moral controls on scientists shows the problem we have if there is no absolute moral law.

JOHN:
There is no absolute moral law anyway, despite the claims of religion to the contrary. Why? Because people simply incorporate their whims into their faith.

TJ REPLIES: Some do John, but others really do seek to follow God$B!G(Bs laws wholeheartedly. You accuse me of misjudging non-christians. It would seem here that you are guilty of the same. We are all imperfect and no one can ever follow them perfectly, but your statement is not fair. I$B!G(Bm sure everyone has done that at one time or another, but as a basic pattern in their lives, I disagree.
What I was trying to say was that, without an absolute moral law, scientists become the supreme authority and so if a particular thing benefits science and the future of mankind, even if it is morally wrong (like experimenting on fertilized eggs and throwing them away when done, abortion, making clones to harvest organs, etc.) it can be so easily justified and that is scary. If something is not accepted now. Scientists don$B!G(Bt fret. It will just take a little time until they can $B!H(Beducate$B!I(B people into seeing things their way. What is seen as downright taboo today could very well become morally acceptable in 20, 10, 5 or even 1 year. Who knows? So in the end, nothing is really wrong. Why wait then until all the people or the majority of the people come to support your views. These morally handicapped people are simply holding back the advance of science.

**************************************************
quote: TJ:It is worth it for the sake of science. Science becomes the authority.

JOHN:
This reflects your perception of non-christians. You contrast faith-inspired behavior with a straw man version of non-faith-inspired behavior.

TJ REPLIES: Again I don$B!G(Bt mean to characterize all non-christians like that, but you have to admit that there are plenty of people around who would feel like that. And why not? If there is no source of revealed truth, then science becomes our best bet, does it not? Science almost becomes god. Just the fact that you too are worried about controls on scientists, the fact that we have scientists who want to go ahead with human cloning even though it will mean lots of mistakes and the destruction of those lives proves my point. Please tell me what is the real version of non-faith-inspired behavior. I$B!G(Bm sure this will be your own particular opinion and not all will agree with you. My statement is not a straw man. There are some of these straw men who actually are real which your following admission reflects.

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

TJ: However, don't tell me that you are willing to trust scientists to make good moral choices in their research. There needs to be some kind of check on them or SOME will go astray.

JOHN:
You are right. Some checks need to be in place, depending on the research.

**********************************************************
quote: TJ: Oh, so if you could come up with some way to make scientific sense of a particular action, it would be OK?

JOHN:
What you are asking me is "If it made sense, would it be OK?"

TJ REPLIES: Yes, that seems to be what you are saying. If so, I have to ask $B!H(BTo whom must it make sense?$B!I(B If it makes sense to you, is that good enough? What if it doesn$B!G(Bt make sense to your neighbor? What if it doesn$B!G(Bt make sense to your fellow scientist or to our allies? Making sense is very subjective and anyone who is good with words, can present a case in such a way as to make is sound like it really makes sense. People would actually be tempted to lie in order to make their version $B!H(Bmake sense$B!I(B. Of course, lying isn$B!G(Bt a sin in your view so I guess that would be OK. I mean, a lie would $B!H(Bmake sense$B!I(B if it enables you to convince people that some other particular thing either makes sense or doesn$B!G(Bt make sense - like say for instance, cloning.

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

quote: TJ: Everything is relative then.

JOHN:
It always has been. Denying this doesn't change anything and tagging the sanction of God onto an opinion only makes the relative more dangerous.

TJ REPLIES: Well, we have to agree to disagree here. I will never be able to accept that rape is wrong only if the culture thinks it is wrong. Or whatever else you want to use as an example. If there is no God, then you are right. In fact, then it really isn$B!G(Bt morally wrong in any culture. Only legally wrong. I would then be guilty of just tagging His name on to my opinion to try and give it more weight or authority. But, if there is no God, why would that be wrong(no absolute morality)? However, our disagreement goes back one more step to the existence of God. You cannot prove your point – that God does not exist. Neither can I prove my worldview. We both take it by faith.

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

quote: TJ: Someday someone will come us with just such an idea and then what. Or technology will improve to the point where we will be able to do that and then what?

JOHN:
Remember, the discussion is about faith-based morality vs. non-faith-based morality. It is not about finding the extremes of behavior.

TJ REPLIES: No, the discussion is not about that. You are saying there is no absolute morality. I disagree and am trying to show the dangers of such a belief. And there are plenty of people who will see through the hollowness of non-faith-based moral theory and realize that nothing is really ultimately immoral. Enough have done it in the past and so there is certainly a danger of it happening again.
When people come to us with an idea that is wrong, but try and say the end justifies the means, then we are in trouble and we can justify any kind of wrong that we want to.

***************************************************************
quote: TJ: Even now, we know that certain traits are harmful so why not try and get rid of them. (Down's Syndrome, retardation, etc.)

JOHN:
You missed my point. What is not beneficial now, may be beneficial in the future. We simply don't know. Even Down's Syndrome, or some further mutation of the genes involved could be beneficial, or some genes associated with it but not responsible for the disabling conditions associated with it. The best example of what I thinking about is sickle cell anemia. It is crippling and eventually lethal, but provides a survival advantage in areas infested with sleeping sickness.

TJ replies: Right, a tendency towards cancer in the genes could someday be beneficial! And Down$B!G(Bs Syndrome as well. That is what kind of faith evolutionists have – a blind faith. You$B!G(Bre illustration of sickle cell anemia is right on. The organism although weaker and less viable than others who are normal, will in this one specific instance gain a survival advantage. But the key here is that it is crippling and lethal itself. This kind of change will get you nowhere in evolution. What a great example of evolution or should we say devolution? Do you want this kind of benefit(one that eventually kills you) even if you live in areas infested with sleeping sickness?

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

quote: TJ: How about we leave abortion out of it and make the issue purposeful inflcting of pain on babies?

JOHN:
Actually, ours condones the purposeful infliction of pain on babies. It is called circumcision.

TJ REPLIES: Very Funny! This kind of logic won$B!G(Bt get you a passing grade in logic class. Inflicting pain for the fun of it is called torture and it is world$B!G(Bs apart from the medical practice of circumcision. If we take your logic, then doctors ought to be imprisoned. They are inflicting pain on people all the time. Parents ought to be imprisoned whenever they inflict pain on their children through discipline. Don$B!G(Bt we live in a terrible world.
By the way, have you ever wondered why God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children on the 8th day? Medical science has given us the answer. I guess a lot of people are against circumcision because of the pain and because sometimes(actually very rarely) complications develop as a result of the process. One of those complications is excessive bleeding. So nowadays, doctors must first give the boy an injection of vitamin K which helps produce prothrombin.(promotes coagulation of the blood.) But the OT Jews of course did not know that nor did they have prothrombin available to give to the children. But it is interesting that during the first 7 days of a baby$B!G(Bs life, the body$B!G(Bs supply of prothrombin gradually increases until on the 8th day a baby$B!G(Bs natural supply of prothrombin skyrockets to 110% of normal. This is the highest it will ever be in his whole life. There is no safer day to circumcise a baby than the 8th day medically speaking. Either God$B!G(Bs wisdom is again attested to by medical science or here again, we have a lucky coincidence.
If you need documentation for what the medical benefits of circumcision are, check out this site. http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmorris/circumcision.shtml To name of few off hand, circumcision helps avoid penile cancer, urinary tract infections, sexual diseases, cervical cancer in your partner, prostate cancer, etc. The author is definitely not a Christian. Anyway, the medical benefits of circumcision are well documented. Obviously, even though pain is experienced, this is not torture! But you already knew that didn$B!G(Bt you?

*************************************************************
quote: TJ: Do you know of any cultures where this is thought to be a moral act?

JOHN:
The Isrealites, who got it from the Egyptians, and passed it along to us.

TJ REPLIES: John now wait a minute. Are you saying that you actually believe that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt? I thought you said the Bible was a bunch of mythology. Anyway, I think you will have a hard time proving that the Israelites got circumcision from the Egyptians. The Bible says God instructed them to circumcise their males. So the Egyptians practiced circumcision too? So what. God$B!G(Bs command to circumcise males was first given to Abraham in Genesis 17, long before the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. According to the Bible which you don't believe, Abraham did travel to Egypt once before then, but that doesn$B!G(Bt prove anything. Besides, from your point of view, maybe he never even went. An atheist obviously cannot accept that the idea of circumcision came from God so some other feasible explanation must be found. Here is a good example of how both of us look at the same fact and interpret it in different ways. Neither of us can prove our interpretation. I believe what the Bible says and you don$B!G(Bt. You are looking at the fact of Israelite circumcision and using your worldview to understand it. This same thing happens in science as well as I have mentioned. Scientists eliminate God from the start and look for answers apart from Him. If there is a God, then all their theorizing and research will never yield the right answer.

But the point here is that circumcision is world$B!G(Bs apart from torture. Even if there were no medical benefits to it, it still could not be construed to be torture in any sense of the word because it wasn$B!G(Bt done with the intent to produce pain. There was a different purpose and pain was simply a side-effect. That is not torture. Nice try though. If you give it some more thought you might be able to find a culture that actually endorses the torture of babies. Keep the faith!!

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

quote: TJ: And just because some cultures practiced infanticide doesn't mean that they really thought it was a moral act.

JOHN:
Really? I suspect some term re-definition goin on here.

quote: TJ replies: Don't know anything about the Yanomamo. Indians?

JOHN:
Yes. South American indians. It is the largest group of S.A. Indians and probably the most studied tribe on the planet. They show up frequently in movies and even a PS2 commercial.

quote: TJ: And as I said above, I would doubt that these Indians really thought that this act was a moral act.

JOHN:
Strange as it seems....

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

quote: TJ: It may have been practiced and tolerated, but I doubt the women thought it was a moral act.

JOHN:
One study I read quoted a Yanamamo woman as saying "I am afraid my husband does not love me because he does not beat me enough" or something to that effect. I am going from memory.

TJ REPLIES: Interesting. And hard to understand. Still doesn$B!G(Bt persuade me that rape is not a moral absolute, but it really might be an example of a culture which really doesn$B!G(Bt view it as immoral. I$B!G(Bm surprised.

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

quote: TJ: I'd like to read more about the Yanomamo.

JOHN:
Interesting bunch. They are known as the Fierce People.

TJ REPLIES: I did find out some stuff about them on the internet, but not detailed enough.

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

quote: TJ: However, rape in the Bible was never condoned or left unpunished. Marrying the victim in the aftermath was actually a punishment for the man. It made him take responsibility for his sin.

JOHN:
Do you realy believe this? Ask a rape victim how fair this punishment is?

TJ REPLIES: I understand what you are saying here. The point is here that if he doesn$B!G(Bt marry her, no one ever will marry her and she$B!G(Bll be left single all her life. Marriage wasn$B!G(Bt based on love back then. So it sounds more repulsive to us nowadays than it was to them back then I$B!G(Bm sure. I gave an example of a woman who was angry at her half-brother because not only did he rape her, but he also then refused to marry her. And this was only in the case of a virgin being raped. If a married woman was raped, it was death for the man. Some of these rules are hard to understand. Did every woman want to marry the guy who raped her? Probably not. Don$B!G(Bt know what happened in those instances. It would have been kind of pitiful is she was then forced to marry the guy who raped her adding insult to injury. However, even in arranged marriages, it had nothing to do with the woman$B!G(Bs desires. That was just the way it happened.

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

quote: TJ: Don't tell me he wanted to give his daughter to those men to rape. Where's your head at? He only did it to spare the angels who were sent from God from homosexual rape.

JOHN:
Would the idea even cross your mind? Should I let my daughters be gang-raped.... hmmmmm.....? See what I mean about the idea of God not being the best guide for morality.

TJ replies: Now wait a minute. I never said that Christians or Jews never make wrong moral decisions just because they believe in God. The point is I believe that far more often than not it has a positive influence on their decisions. Sure you can find examples of times when people made wrong decisions, even terrible decisions, but those seem to be more the exception rather than the rule.
Remember, we all still live in a sinful world and still have sinful desires. No one is perfect nor will they be until heaven.
Besides, you are forgetting that Lot was not a model Jewish believer in any sense of the word. He chose to live in this god-forsaken city against better judgment. He was no doubt adversely influenced by his culture. He should have known better than to live there to begin with. And he didn$B!G(Bt go there as a missionary either. You can$B!G(Bt take a $B!H(Bbackslidden Jew$B!I(B and hold his life up as a good example of how faith in God influences a person$B!G(Bs life. Even though it didn$B!G(Bt influence his life as much as it should have, still it did influence his life and he knew what was right and wrong, even though he didn$B!G(Bt do it.
***********************************************************

[qutoe] TJ: Give the men the angels sent from God to be gang raped or give them his daughter.

JOHN:
How about give them neither and take a stand? Godless, faithless, evolutionist that I am, I'd consider myself as having no choice but that one.

TJ REPLIES: I agree with you here. He shouldn$B!G(Bt have given them his daughter either. Better be careful though. You almost sound like you are saying that what Lot did is absolutely wrong.
You said you would have no choice by that one, but maybe other people would feel differently. Shouldn$B!G(Bt we respect their views and show a little tolerance here? After all, morality is relative, right?

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

JOHN: TJ, the God of the OT isn't the God you describe.

TJ REPLIES: God never changes John. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. He deals with mankind in a very different way though. In the NT, He rejected the Jews for a time and now is dealing with $B!H(Bspiritual Israel$B!I(B or all those who believe in Christ. It is not physical lineage that is important, but spiritual lineage. Not physical circumcision that is important, but spiritual circumcision of the heart. Not outward forms but the condition of the heart. However, even in the NT, faith is the means of salvation and justification. But we are now in the Age of Grace. Jesus opened up a more direct approach to God through his sacrificial death on the cross and now we don$B!G(Bt have to go through the priest to pray to God. Jesus is our High Priest and through Him, we have access to God. He will once again judge sin in the end times, but now, He is building His Church. In the OT, He spoke through prophets, but now we have His Word through which He speaks to us. God himself didn$B!G(Bt change, but again, I can understand from your position why you think this.

***********************************************************
quote: TJ: Plus it(rape) is not right even with God in the picture so your statement doesn't make sense.

JOHN:
God and God's agents have ordered exactly the behaviors which God supposedly disaproves of. You can't have it both ways.

TJ REPLIES: No, God has never ordered someone to rape another person as far as I can tell. There are punishments listed in Scripture for those who are guilty. God has ordered Israel to destroy neighboring nations at times. Since God does not exist in your eyes, the idea of God is here being used by these people to justify war I suppose. I understand how you feel. If I didn$B!G(Bt believe in God, obviously that would be the only way to look at it. But when you understand who God is, there are other ways to look at that and it is not inconsistent. Rampant murder is never condoned, but God has a right to judge any nation whenever He wants to. In the OT, we$B!G(Bre told that God use neighboring nations to judge the sin of surrounding nations. It is interesting that God also used heathen nations to judge His own people in this same way. So God is being consistent. It isn$B!G(Bt just something that the Jews made up to justify the killing of nearby nations. If it were, you wouldn$B!G(Bt expect the writers of the Bible to say that the Jews also were justly judged by God for their sins through the invasion and subsequent capture of their people by surrounding heathen nations.

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

quote: TJ: I dealt with this misguided statement above.

JOHN:
And again you avoid the point. You make the claim that the idea of evolution is dangerous and that the idea of God keeps people in check. I am pointing out that that idea does not keep people in check.

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

quote: TJ: You can't blame all the blood and nastiness on Christians.

JOHN:
I'm not blaming it on Christians. I am saying that the idea of God has not kept people in check.

TJ REPLIES: OK, again we$B!G(Bll just have to agree to disagree. I agree that faith in the God of the Bible does not keep people in check 100% of the time. My point is that it does so far more than it doesn$B!G(Bt. And I think the idea of evolution leads to moral problems far more than it doesn$B!G(Bt. My opinion. I$B!G(Bm not going to argue this anymore.

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

quote: TJ replies: No way. The OT has a lot of value.

JOHN:
Right. How else would we know from whom we can take slaves?

TJ REPLIES: So you say that because the OT gives rules for having slaves that it is of no value. I don$B!G(Bt profess to fully understand all the laws given to the Jews governing slavery, but I do know that their slavery was nothing like we think of today. It was more of an economical arrangement, even employment. It was a way for a person who got himself into financial trouble to pay off his debts and even make some money to get financially stable again. In fact there were laws that required the freeing of slaves every 7th year. Discipline of slaves was permitted, but mistreatment was not. Provision was even made for slaves who didn$B!G(Bt want to go free to commit themselves to their master for the rest of their life. In essence, they forfeited their freedom because they were happy with their current situation. Actually, it provided a way to hold people responsible for their debts and it seemed to work very well. So actually you are right. The OT is valuable in this sense. Perhaps we could learn some principles here that could be applied to modern bankruptcy claims.
Were there masters who mistreated their slaves? I$B!G(Bm sure there were. Not all of those laws applied to foreign slaves either. But it was a way to help out fellow Jews who had financial problems. It wasn$B!G(Bt near as bad as people imagine it.
Yes, there were probably Christians in modern times who misunderstood it and used it to justify their slavery of blacks. This kind of slavery is not what is not what is referred to here in the Bible and it is one of the big sins of some Christians in the past. We forget that not all Christians were slave-owners. Some were dead set against it. But there were a minority of Christians as well as non-christians of course, who did enslave other people. And of course among them, there were both $B!H(Bgood$B!I(B slave owners and true tyrants who treated the people as things.
Also, we must not forget that much of the impetus to get rid of the slave system came from Christian principles. William Wilburforce, the man in Britain who worked so hard for so many years to see slavery abolished there was a dedicated Christian. Finally on his deathbed, after many years of hard work, he experienced the fruit of his labors. The British Congress or whatever you call it declared slavery to be illegal. Then in the States, there was of course Lincoln and many others, both Christian and non-christian who were involved I$B!G(Bm sure. The whole constitution of the US was based on the fact that we were created equal in God$B!G(Bs sight. It was this truth that provided the main argument against slavery in the States.

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

quote: TJ: The Old Testament gives us a valuable historical record of human history.

JOHN:
It is a mythological history of a tiny tribe of warlike nomads. It has value in being that I suppose.

TJ REPLIES: John, very interesting choice of words, but you are either willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest. It is not mythology. I think you would be surprised just how much of the OT has been validated by archeology. Not all problems have been solved of course, but it is far more than mythology. The Bible is a valuable book to archeologists. By the way, the following is a statement supposedly put out by the Smithsonian Institute about the historicity of the OT. (I'm trying to verify that they actually made this statement.) Obviously, not everything in the Bible is verified and there are some problems, but your above statement is just simply inaccurate.

$B!H(BOn the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers.$B!I(B http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9156/ssotb.htm

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

quote: TJ: We learn much about God in the OT.

JOHN: He is nothing like God in the NT.

quote: TJ:
We have a record of prophecies that validate Jesus as the Messiah.

JOHN:
Actually.... I can't tell that Christ fits the genealogical requirements for being the messiah, as outlined in the OT.

TJ REPLIES: What are your problems with this? Just curious.

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

quote: TJ: John, on the contrary. I am not aware of any general command that God gives to humans to go out and kill their fellow humans. Please go ahead and post them. Thanks.

JOHN:
God consistently gives the command to conquer any people not like the Isrealites. It doesn't take a big leap to realize that if God, in the past, commanded HIS people to kill those not like them, the same rules apply today.

TJ REPLIES: As I said, there was no command like that. Now, perhaps if we didn$B!G(Bt have the NT, someone could try and make that errant conclusion, however, it would of course be false. You have to go back to the reasons for why God commanded what He did. That limits it to the specific context and prevents someone from making that kind of an unwarranted interpretation. And God didn$B!G(Bt command the Jews to kill EVERYONE who was not like them. The reason wasn't because they were different from them either. Your statement is misleading. As I said earlier, it was God$B!G(Bs desire to bless all the nations of the earth through the Israelites. The commands to destroy their neighbors were limited to a rather specific period of time especially Joshua leading the Israelites to take over the Promised Land. King Saul and King David were involved in a lot of wars as well. However, it is Biblical interpretation like you do above that causes so much trouble. We don$B!G(Bt have freedom to make a mockery of God$B!G(Bs Word. Now granted people do it, but the point is, it is wrong.

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

quote: TJ: John, you confuse judgement of sin with murder.

JOHN:
I think you are confusing war and the consequent death, destruction and slavery with judgement-- perfectly illustrating how religion DOES NOT check human behavior.

TJ REPLIES: Well, John, the Bible says that God was judging the surrounding nations for their idolatry and so forth. The wages of sin is death and God would be perfectly just in destroying all of us sinners. The only reason He doesn$B!G(Bt is because of His grace and love for us. Now there are times when God chooses to exercise His right to judge. Then we are the first to cry $B!H(BFOUL!$B!I(B And of course, many of Israel$B!G(Bs wars were self-defense.
John, the difference between you and I is that I believe what the Bible says and you don$B!G(Bt. So there is no satisfactory answer here. Your assumption here seems to be that God, if He exists, certainly would not use the Jews to judge other nations. But if He used other nations to judge the Jews, His own chosen people, why would He not use the Jews to judge others as well? (Granted I am assuming He did use other nations to judge the Jews.) Plus, you are projecting your idea of who God is or should be onto God and He is far higher and greater than that. I simply choose to believe what the Bible says about God. You do not. Again, God, if He really did exist, must in your eyes fit into your own little idea of what He should be and how He should act. This is not the case. People criticize God for sending people to hell. A $B!H(Bloving$B!I(B God in their eyes would never do such a thing. That is because they do not understand the seriousness of sin and the absolute holiness of God. If we finite humans whose powers of judgment have been warped by sin, could completely understand God, He would cease to be God.

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

quote: TJ: I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I think you have twisted it a little to make it look foolish.

JOHN:
Sorry, it isn't kill. It is 'cut off her hand' Duet. 25:11-12

TJ REPLIES: Here is the text: $B!H(BIf two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.$B!I(B
I don$B!G(Bt really understand this law. First of all, it isn$B!G(Bt an accidental thing though like you suggested in your last post. It does demonstrate that outside of the marital relationship, that kind of touching is taboo. If the circumstances of the touching were different, ie. adultery, then the punishment was death. We have come so far from God$B!G(Bs standards that judgment according to God$B!G(Bs standards seems extra harsh. We will all be in for a rude awakening when we stand before God and realize that He judges us according to His standards and not according our standards. Again, I don$B!G(Bt fully understand this particular law, but it might have something to do with purity and respect for the opposite sex. Nowadays, if my daughter was being attacked, I would tell her to give a good knee to the groin.

Regards,
TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by John, posted 11-17-2002 12:18 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by John, posted 12-01-2002 11:44 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 142 (25128)
12-01-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Karl
11-22-2002 10:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
quote:
First of all, evolution is not reproducible. No one ever witnessed the origin of life, nor has it ever been reproduced. Even by cheating in the lab to make conditions much more optimal than they would have been in the supposed pre-biotic soup, all you get are a few simple amino acids that can't remain stable anyway unless they are separated from the mixture as soon as they form.

KARL:
Hmmm - confuses abiogenesis and evolution, and then...

TJ replies: But the truth of the statement still remains doesn't it? No such thing as abiogenesis is there?
I responded to Mammuthus about this ridiculous ploy in the past. I provided a quote from an evolutionist who included abiogenesis in his definition of evolution. I mean even Darwin's book was entitled what? Let's see, I think it was Development of the Species right? Nothing to do with the Origin of the species I'm sure. OK, sure his book mostly had to do with biological evolution, but come on Karl, it all goes together. You can't separate the two. If you don't have a means for abiogenesis or successful chemical evolution, then your best theorizing for how evolution might have happened is useless isn't it? I mean if there was no chemical evolution in the beginning, there would be no biological evolution right? At least from the atheistic standpoint. You have to start with a reproducing cell. Now, obviously you realize that there are various types of evolution. Chemical or molecular evolution which is said to be responsible for the first cell is one kind of evolution. Then there is evolution as you are trying to narrowly define it. Biological evolution is what you would call it I presume. I would like to note that the distinction was not made in the original quote so I interpreted it broadly.

quote:
When it comes to evolution,

Shows he did know the difference, so presumably was just being disingenuous.

TJ REPLIES: Whatever that means! Actually Karl, I didn't know that evolutionists made this distinction, but who cares? I'm still learning.
Karl, as I stated above, we need a clearer definition of terms here. If you are talking about biological evolution, then you have to say that since there are various kinds of evolution. If you want someone to understand what you are saying, then you need to be clear. I took it in the general sense including both chemical and biological evolution. Besides I think this kind of distinction is a relatively recent one in evolutionary thought.

quote:
we have to do a lot of interpretation and guessing. We look at some bones and since we already believe evolution to be true, we interpret the bones on that basis and then use that interpretation as proof for evolution. Most people fall for this trick.

KARL:
Your interpretation of the migration of the reptilian jawbone through the reptile/mammal series is invited.

TJ REPLIES: Karl, I am not qualified to reply on that. But suffice it to say that I do not accept the evolutionary interpretation of these fossils. Here is the introduction to an article dedicated to showing why this idea of evolution from reptiles into mammals is not near as clear as evolutionists would like to have us believe. If you are interested in the other side of the argument and why I said interpretation plays so much a part of evolutionary science, here is an article to read. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_mammal.asp

"The so-called mammal-like reptiles are believed by evolutionists to be the ancestors of the mammals and to have become more mammal-like with the passage of time. Evolutionists consider anatomical traits to be mammal-like if they occur in modern mammals but not in other modern vertebrates.

The highly-touted, alleged succession of mammal-like reptiles towards increasing "mammalness"is not found at any one location on Earth.[INTERESTING!] It can only be inferred through the correlation of fossiliferous beds from different continents. Judgments are made as to which stratum on one continent is older than another stratum on another continent. Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not correspond with each other. [STRAIGHT FORWARD SCIENCE HERE. NO BIAS INVOLVED I'M SURE!]
Instead, the correlations are based on the general similarity of specimens, as well as their assumed degree of evolutionary advancement.1 The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. Thus, despite the claims of some evolutionists, it is clear that such biostratigraphic correlations are not empirically self-evident:

"Stratigraphic correlations, like phylogenetic relationships, must be inferred from data and are not actually observations themselves.'
Quote from:
Wagner, P.J. and Sidor, C.A., Age rank/clade rank metrics sampling, taxonomy, and the meaning of stratigraphic consistencyE Systematic Biology 49(3):473, 2000.

quote:
We can't produce any missing links in experiments

KARL:
But we produce them out of the ground in large numbers.

TJ REPLIES: Now there's a real exaggeration! Many of your claimed missing links are disputed even within the evolutionary world. Only if you wear evolutionary glasses through which to make your interpretations of the data can you make such a bold claim.

quote:
yet we have faith to believe that even without intelligent human help, billions of them(transitional forms) have come into existence.

KARL:
Nope. Observation. Why "billions"? Billions of individuals, possibly, but not billions of transitionals.


TJ REPLIES: Karl, I beg to challenge you on this point. Just how many of these changes have you actually seen take place? Last time I checked my dictionary, that was the definition of observation.
Wearing your evolutionary research glasses you guess that these fossils are missing links.

And come on, the numbers of incremental positive changes that need to happen by chance in order to see a simple cell with less than 500,000 letters in the DNA code turned into a human with what - over 3 billion letters in the DNA code - seems absolutely incredible. Not that each letter is indicative of one transitional form, but evolutionary change didn't go in a straight line from the simple cell to the human. There are millions of other species of life that would have had to develop in small incremental postive steps. There you have your billions of transitional forms. OK, maybe billions is an exaggeration, I really don't know. But certainly millions. Imagine the number of absolute miracles scientists are forced to believe in by their denial of God! We could start to throw out some figures on just how utterly ridiculous it is to place faith in chance for the creation of life. Oops. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Somehow that slipped my mind. Sorry. The miracles that are necessary to see information increasing positive genetic mutations take place on a regular basis to enable biological evolution would have to also be extremely large. Creationists too believe in miracles, but we believe they were accomplished by an Almighty All-wise Creator and not by the deity of Chance, whom most evolutionists worship.
Regards,

Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Karl, posted 11-22-2002 10:28 AM Karl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2002 8:57 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 9:32 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 142 (25139)
12-01-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tokyojim
12-01-2002 7:56 AM


Hi TJ! I missed ya man.

quote:
Because it removes the whole idea of moral responsibility, destroys the meaning of life by reducing us to meaningless accidents of nature, provides no hope for our future outside of our own accomplishments, influences people to chuck belief in their Creator, etc.

But is it true?

Secondly, I don't think the ToE removes any moral responsibility. Morality and ethics are practical, functional, social constructs. Religion coops these for itself but doesn't create them.

quote:
Some do John, but others really do seek to follow God laws wholeheartedly.

That isn't the point. I wouldn't argue against this. What I would argue is that "God's Laws" are so fuzzy as codified in the Bible that virtually any activity can be justified wholeheartedly. And this is precisely what has been done throughout history. And this is why we have ~600 denominations of Christianity, not all of them compatible despite the gloss to the contrary.

quote:
Sure everyone has done that at one time or another, but as a basic pattern in their lives, I disagree.

I'm not talking about individuals exclusively but about groups as well.

quote:
What I was trying to say was that, without an absolute moral law, scientists become the supreme authority and so if a particular thing benefits science and the future of mankind, even if it is morally wrong (like experimenting on fertilized eggs and throwing them away when done, abortion, making clones to harvest organs, etc.) it can be so easily justified and that is scary.

Why do you think SCIENTISTS are going to become the supreme authority?

quote:
What is seen as downright taboo today could very well become morally acceptable in 20, 10, 5 or even 1 year.

Bet you don't have breeches on your piano legs eh?

quote:
Why wait then until all the people or the majority of the people come to support your views. These morally handicapped people are simply holding back the advance of science.

So now you fear an armed revolt of amoral scientists?

quote:
Again I don't mean to characterize all non-christians like that

But you do.

quote:
but you have to admit that there are plenty of people around who would feel like that.

Sure, but not a majority. There are plenty of people around now who feel that way. We put them in prison.

quote:
Science almost becomes god.

Nope.

quote:
Just the fact that you too are worried about controls on scientists, the fact that we have scientists who want to go ahead with human cloning even though it will mean lots of mistakes and the destruction of those lives proves my point.

And we have christians who want to ship minorities back to there native countries or worse.

You miss the point that not all people believe that these extremes of behavior are correct.

quote:
To whom must it make sense?

To whom must it make sense now? You are behaving as if ALL safeguards are religious. That simply isn't the case. In fact, most are not religious. Not much would change if you eliminate God.

quote:
If it makes sense to you, is that good enough? What if it doesn't make sense to your neighbor? What if it doesn't make sense to your fellow scientist or to our allies?

That depends on who the action effects, just like it works right now.

quote:
Making sense is very subjective and anyone who is good with words, can present a case in such a way as to make is sound like it really makes sense.

No they can't. Just look at the creationist's arguments. LOL.

quote:
People would actually be tempted to lie in order to make their version make sense

Just like some do now.

quote:
Of course, lying isn't a sin in your view so I guess that would be OK.

A sin, no, but that doesn't mean I approve. Some of us have values derived from careful consideration instead of "a book told me so"

quote:
I will never be able to accept that rape is wrong only if the culture thinks it is wrong.

You desperately need to do some cross-cultural comparisons.

quote:
I would then be guilty of just tagging His name on to my opinion to try and give it more weight or authority.

But you tag his name to cultural norms codified thousands of years ago.

quote:
You cannot prove your point – that God does not exist.

I ask for evidence.

quote:
You are saying there is no absolute morality. I disagree and am trying to show the dangers of such a belief.

I am arguing that this condition of no absolute morality is precisely the condition we've lived in all along.

quote:
And there are plenty of people who will see through the hollowness of non-faith-based moral theory and realize that nothing is really ultimately immoral.

Faith based morality is not hollow? "A book says so....." is not hollow? "I can't prove it, but I believe it" is not hollow?

quote:
Right, a tendency towards cancer in the genes could someday be beneficial!

Dunno. And I am not arrogant enough to make pronouncements about it.

quote:
And Down's Syndrome as well.

Dunno. Sickle cell sometimes pays off.

quote:
That is what kind of faith evolutionists have – a blind faith.

LOL. Throwing rocks in a glass house my friend.

quote:
You're illustration of sickle cell anemia is right on. The organism although weaker and less viable than others who are normal, will in this one specific instance gain a survival advantage. But the key here is that it is crippling and lethal itself. This kind of change will get you nowhere in evolution. What a great example of evolution or should we say devolution? Do you want this kind of benefit(one that eventually kills you) even if you live in areas infested with sleeping sickness?

That is exactly how evolution works TJ. The people who survive to reproduce are the ones who pass along the genes. Evolution isn't a thing that cares about the conditions of the survivors or about the possible future consequences if malaria wasn't a factor or if the populations moved. Selections works NOW. If selection causes an organism to adapt to an environment which then vanishes, that organism may die out. Its adaptations may not be suitable for the new environment.

quote:
Very Funny! This kind of logic wont get you a passing grade in logic class.'

What kind of logic, TJ, dead on target logic?

quote:
Inflicting pain for the fun of it is called torture and it is world''s apart from the medical practice of circumcision.

Circumcision isn't a medical practice. It is a cultural ritual like scarification.

quote:
If we take your logic, then doctors ought to be imprisoned.

Can't imprison them for something that is not currently illegal, but the practise ought to be outlawed.

quote:
They are inflicting pain on people all the time.

Your reaction would have some bite if circumcision were a medical practice instead of an ancient tribal ritual. It does no good. Setting a broken bone, while painful, actually does do some good.

quote:
Parents ought to be imprisoned whenever they inflict pain on their children through discipline.

Now you are really flying off on a tangent.

quote:
By the way, have you ever wondered why God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children on the 8th day? Medical science has given us the answer.

No it hasn't. Your scenario is crap. It doesn't happen.

quote:
Anyway, the medical benefits of circumcision are well documented.

http://www.cirp.org/

Read it and weep. I trust you will.

quote:
Are you saying that you actually believe that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt? I thought you said the Bible was a bunch of mythology.

I said they got it from the Egyptians, not that they were enslaved by the Egyptians. The Isrealites were once indistiguishable from the Babylonians and lived in Egypt under the name Hyksos.

quote:
Anyway, I think you will have a hard time proving that the Israelites got circumcision from the Egyptians.

Yeah, probably, unless I look at the archeological data.

[qutoe]The Bible says God instructed them to circumcise their males.[/quote]

So the myth goes.... it isn't supported by the data we have.

quote:
Neither of us can prove our interpretation.

LOL. I have data and you don't.

quote:
Even if there were no medical benefits to it, it still could not be construed to be torture in any sense of the word because it wasn't done with the intent to produce pain.

I believe you asked me if I knew of a culture that supported inflicting pain on babies. This qualifies. Throwing around the idea of torture is misleading.

quote:
Interesting. And hard to understand.

Yeah, no kidding.

quote:
Still doesn't persuade me that rape is not a moral absolute, but it really might be an example of a culture which really doesn't view it as immoral. I'm surprised.

Well, TJ, if one culture dissents it isn't absolute.

quote:
The point is here that if he doesn't marry her, no one ever will marry her and she'll be left single all her life.

That's a bit twisted in itself. She is punished, in effect, for being raped. She marries her rapists or doesn't marry. Pretty vicious.

quote:
Marriage wasn't based on love back then. So it sounds more repulsive to us nowadays than it was to them back then I'm sure.

Right. What was that about moral relativity?

quote:
It would have been kind of pitiful is she was then forced to marry the guy who raped her adding insult to injury.

Yet you defend the behavior?

[qutoe]However, even in arranged marriages, it had nothing to do with the woman's desires. That was just the way it happened.[/quote]

LOL.... glad to see that a world based on God's laws is so appealing.

quote:
Sure you can find examples of times when people made wrong decisions, even terrible decisions, but those seem to be more the exception rather than the rule.

Surely god knew that this was a wrong decision. Why then wasn't Lot punished? God was quick to punish back in the good old days.

quote:
I agree with you here. He shouldn't have given them his daughter either. Better be careful though. You almost sound like you are saying that what Lot did is absolutely wrong.

hmm...... give my daughter up to be gang raped? gee.... I wonder what I should do?

quote:
Shouldn't we respect their views and show a little tolerance here? After all, morality is relative, right?

Strangely, you seem to going just that direction, even after arguing the opposite earlier in the post.

quote:
No, God has never ordered someone to rape another person as far as I can tell.

God sure threatened it. Isaiah 13:16. And... 2 Samuel 12:11 which threat was carried out in 2 Samuel 16:22 by David's own son Absalom. There are many tales of conquest and kidnapping as well, most of which God lets slide, thereby showing approval.

quote:
There are punishments listed in Scripture for those who are guilty.

Yup. Pay the dad and marry the victim.

quote:
Rampant murder is never condoned, but God has a right to judge any nation whenever He wants to.

And whomever convinces the people that he has the ear of God gets to order the massacres. This is precisely what I have been saying.

quote:
So you say that because the OT gives rules for having slaves that it is of no value.

Absolutely. I think slaves are quite valuable.

quote:
I don$B!G(Bt profess to fully understand all the laws given to the Jews governing slavery, but I do know that their slavery was nothing like we think of today. It was more of an economical arrangement, even employment.

Like hell. Maybe you should review the rules governing such things.

quote:
It was a way for a person who got himself into financial trouble to pay off his debts and even make some money to get financially stable again. In fact there were laws that required the freeing of slaves every 7th year.

Applicable only to fellow Isrealites, by the way.

quote:
Perhaps we could learn some principles here that could be applied to modern bankruptcy claims.

Right.

quote:
John, very interesting choice of words, but you are either willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest.

Niether.

quote:
I think you would be surprised just how much of the OT has been validated by archeology.

Do you think I haven't checked these claims? Precious little has ever been validated. Pull your head out of the sand.

quote:
The Bible is a valuable book to archeologists.

Anything that might hold clues to the past is valuable to archeologists. That is a long way from saying it is accurate.

quote:
By the way, the following is a statement supposedly put out by the Smithsonian Institute about the historicity of the OT.

You haven't veriefied it yet? Very sneaky.

quote:
What are your problems with this? Just curious.

Its in another thread.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=1

quote:
As I said, there was no command like that.

Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:13, 20:16

Please, TJ, its just painful to watch the denial.

quote:
You have to go back to the reasons for why God commanded what He did.

Right. They weren't Isrealites and didn't worship him. Oldest excuse in the book.

quote:
Well, John, the Bible says that God was judging the surrounding nations for their idolatry and so forth.

I guess Allah was judging us on the Sept. 11. Or maybe it was God who wasn't happy with us?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tokyojim, posted 12-01-2002 7:56 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tokyojim, posted 12-31-2002 8:07 AM John has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Tokyojim, posted 01-07-2003 10:04 AM John has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 129 of 142 (25235)
12-02-2002 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tokyojim
12-01-2002 9:46 AM


TJ:I responded to Mammuthus about this ridiculous ploy in the past.

M: Quite unsuccessfully I would add. You only demonstrated that you know nothing about evolution, genetics, or paleontology..but you re-enforce that in your post to Karl.

TJ:
I provided a quote from an evolutionist who included abiogenesis in his definition of evolution. I mean even Darwin's book was entitled what? Let's see, I think it was Development of the Species right? Nothing to do with the Origin of the species I'm sure

M: Funny that he did not title it Origin of Life or did that slip by you? Amazing that you cannot distinguish between the origin of a species and the origin of all life but that is your problem...not that of most educated people. Of course you have read the Origin of Species and know what it is about? I mean you would never argue from ignorance would you?

TJ REPLIES: Karl, I am not qualified to reply on that. But suffice it to say that I do not accept the evolutionary interpretation of these fossils.

M: Interesting that given your lack of qualifications to debate genetic or paleontological evidence you present your posts as if you are an authority worth listening to on both subjects i.e. claiming your incorrect definition of evolution is correct, claiming what the religious backgrounds or motiviations of scientists are without knowing, and making baffling claims about how genetics works. You make quite a few claims from authority without the requisite knowledge in the disciplines you declare are false. I do hope you apply a higher standard to your missionary work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Tokyojim, posted 12-01-2002 9:46 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 142 (25240)
12-02-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tokyojim
12-01-2002 9:46 AM


On definition of evolution:

Darwin's book does not concern itself with the origin of life. In fact, it merely suggests that God created the first form or forms, and leaves it at that. It is entirely about development of existing life, and does not address abiogenesis at all.

Your telling phrase is "at least from the atheistic viewpoint". Your point (however good or bad it may be) is contra atheism, not contra evolution. Actually, I'm a theist but I do strongly suspect God used natural processes for the origins of life.

No, "seperation" of chemical and biological evolution is not a new development. They have always been quite seperate.

On reptile/mammal transitionals:

Since the transition took of the order of 100 million years or so, from the late Carboniferous through to the early Triassic, why should various forms not radiate, as later mammals have done? Would it make sense for them to say "hey guys, let's hang around here until we've fully evolved into mammals"? Not sensible. Geographical considerations aside, you still have to deal with the sequence, and the remarkable congruence between the transitional state of each specimen and its age. Unless you suggest we consciously fiddled the figures?

And I have no idea what Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not correspond with each other. means.

On Transitionals

Most disputes are not about whether a specimen is transitional, but exactly what the transition is. No-one within mainstream science disputes that Ambulocetus is transitional, but debate rages over what the exact ancestor of it was, and what course evolution took between it and modern cetaceans, or whether Amb. is truly ancestral to modern cetaceans, or merely a cousin. None of it helps creationism in the slightest, because Ambulocetus shouldn't exist at all for you!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Tokyojim, posted 12-01-2002 9:46 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Tokyojim, posted 01-07-2003 10:06 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 142 (28182)
12-31-2002 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by John
12-01-2002 11:44 AM


John,
It's been a while. Sorry, we were quite busy here with preparations for Christmas services and so forth. Then we went away for a little break and all 4 of us got sick. I'm still trying to kick a cough and runny nose and the two kids still have fevers. Anyway, I'll get back to you, have just been busy. Hopy you had a good holiday season. Being here in Japan I always miss the football games over New Year's. My b-in-law will tape a few of them and send them to me, but it's not quite the same as seeing them as they go down.
Anyway, I'll try and get back with you soon. Just checking in.

Regards,

TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by John, posted 12-01-2002 11:44 AM John has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 132 of 142 (28300)
01-02-2003 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by John
11-11-2002 10:15 AM


quote:
:Well, how about rape? Do you know of any culture that thinks this is a moral act?

Yanomamo. oh.... and the ancient Isrealites as long as 1) the victim wasn't an isrealite, 2) you married the victim in the aftermath, 3)certain special circumstances apply-- such as in the case of Lot and the angels.

quote:Rape is wrong no matter what. Why? Because it hurts someone else?

You need to read your Bible.


Another example:

"Marital rape" wasn't even thought of as a concept until recently. It wasn't considered rape when a husband forced his wife.

Rape was also considered a woman/girl's fault if she wore certain clothes or wore makeup.

Basically, rape was considered the fault of the woman up until about 50 years ago or so. Lots of people still basically believe this, most of whom are high school and college-age men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by John, posted 11-11-2002 10:15 AM John has not yet responded

    
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 142 (28585)
01-07-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by John
12-01-2002 11:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
[B]Hi TJ! I missed ya man.

quote:
Because it removes the whole idea of moral responsibility, destroys the meaning of life by reducing us to meaningless accidents of nature, provides no hope for our future outside of our own accomplishments, influences people to chuck belief in their Creator, etc.

JOHN:
But is it true?

Secondly, I don't think the ToE removes any moral responsibility. Morality and ethics are practical, functional, social constructs. Religion coops these for itself but doesn't create them.

TJ REPLIES: Yes, is evolution true? That is the question. If it is, then I am wrong to oppose it. Or wait a minute, if there are no morals, then why would I be wrong to oppose it. Are you saying that if evolution is true$B!"(B everyone should believe it?
I'm half joking here, but you do seem to be holding up truth as an absolute moral value here. Or maybe you are just saying that in your opinion truth is important. Again interesting that truth is a universal value, isn$B!G(Bt it?
Religion coops morality and ethics for itself? Yes, 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$B!G(Bt exist. Since you cannot prove that God does not exist, it is only your personal opinion and belief. My opinion is different because I believe in a Creator whose character itself is the basis for all morality and ethics. Hence we see different explanations for the same observations, just like creation scientists and evolutionary scientists.
Not only do I think it removes moral responsibility as I said, but it takes away any true meaning in life. Yet I think we all live as if there is meaning to our lives so right here we have a fundamental inconsistency. Those who do not believe there is meaning to life and who truly live their life consistently with that view are the people who often end up in prison. So if there is no god, we are forced to make up a shallow purpose for our life and convince ourselves that our life really does have meaning even though in reality it doesn$B!G(Bt.

quote:
Some people do interpret the Bible to match their own opinions, but others really do seek to follow God laws wholeheartedly.

JOHN:
That isn't the point. I wouldn't argue against this. What I would argue is that "God's Laws" are so fuzzy as codified in the Bible that virtually any activity can be justified wholeheartedly. And this is precisely what has been done throughout history. And this is why we have ~600 denominations of Christianity, not all of them compatible despite the gloss to the contrary.

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. I disagree. You cannot wholeheartedly justify anything you want to.

quote:
Sure many have probably used the Bible to support his/her own ideas at one time or another, but as a basic pattern in their lives, I disagree.

JOHN: I'm not talking about individuals exclusively but about groups as well.

TJ REPLIES: My answer would still be the same.

quote:
What I was trying to say was that, without an absolute moral law, scientists become the supreme authority and so if a particular thing benefits science and the future of mankind, even if it is morally wrong (like experimenting on fertilized eggs and throwing them away when done, abortion, making clones to harvest organs, etc.) it can be so easily justified and that is scary.

JOHN: Why do you think SCIENTISTS are going to become the supreme authority?

TJ REPLIES: Science is thought to be the best means of attaining objective truth so therefore, scientists words are given a lot of weight. Now of course, you also have the politicians there whose power can offset the opinions of scientists, but if scientists can persuade the educational community that it is right, that opinion is taught in the schools and over time their opinions become validated by society. 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.

quote:
What is seen as downright taboo today could very well become morally acceptable in 20, 10, 5 or even 1 year.

JOHN: Bet you don't have breeches on your piano legs eh?

TJ REPLIES: John, it's not funny. You make a joke of it, but it is a serious problem. 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. When we devalue human life, we open the door for things like this to happen in the future.

quote:
Why wait then until all the people or the majority of the people come to support your views. These morally handicapped people are simply holding back the advance of science.

JOHN: So now you fear an armed revolt of amoral scientists?

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. Here is just one example: Dr. Gregory Stock, who heads the program on medicine, technology and society at the School of Medicine of the University of California, Los Angeles wrote 'Redesigning Humans': Taking Charge of Our Own Heredity and he is promoting modern day eugenics. He claims that germ-line modifications will ''write a new page in the history of life, allowing us to seize control of our evolutionary future,'' and that such modification isinevitable so why try and stop it?
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? I doubt it, otherwise they wouldn$B!G(Bt consider a regulation to be hampering if they agreed with it. However, I think you will agree that unfettered science has not historically shown itself to be in the best interest of society, any more than unfettered government, religion or business have. Even pastors and religious leaders need accountability. The fact that biomedical tinkerings have brought benefits for some does not by any means translate into scientists having the right to pursue any kind of experiment. Nor is it an adequate argument to say that if banned, germ-line manipulations would simply move offshore or go to the black market. That may be true. But if the fact that people will seek to avoid the law were a reason not to have a law, we would have no laws at all – don$B!G(Bt you agree?
If enough people jump on the bandwagon, we could be in trouble and I$B!G(Bm glad that you agree here. Where we draw the line – what regulations are helpful and harmful – that is another difficult question.

quote:
Again I don't mean to characterize all non-christians like that

JOHN: But you do.

TJ REPLIES: No, I just told you that that is not what I am intending to say. That's why I qualified whatever statement it was that I made and letting you know my real intentions. Here I am saying that my statement was too general. Comprendo? I am withdrawing my unabridged statement which was - now I don't even remember anymore. I think I was speaking in general about scientists.

quote:
but you have to admit that there are plenty of people around who would feel like that.

JOHN: Sure, but not a majority. There are plenty of people around now who feel that way. We put them in prison.

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

quote:
Science almost becomes god.

JOHN: Nope.

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. 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. Funny how up until that point they thought his scientific research was good quality science and then suddenly changed their minds.

quote:
Just the fact that you too are worried about controls on scientists, the fact that we have scientists who want to go ahead with human cloning even though it will mean lots of mistakes and the destruction of those lives proves my point.

JOHN:
And we have christians who want to ship minorities back to there native countries or worse.

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.

quote:
To whom must it make sense?

JOHN:
To whom must it make sense now? You are behaving as if ALL safeguards are religious. That simply isn't the case. In fact, most are not religious. Not much would change if you eliminate God.

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.

quote:
If it makes sense to you, is that good enough? What if it makes sense to you but doesn't make sense to your neighbor? What if it makes sense to you, but doesn't make sense to your fellow scientist or to our allies?

JOHN: That depends on who the action effects, just like it works right now.

quote:
Making sense is very subjective and anyone who is good with words, can present a case in such a way as to make is sound like it really makes sense.

JOHN: No they can't. Just look at the creationist's arguments. LOL.

TJ REPLIES: Joke right? I sincerely hope you do not truly believe that. If so, it would seem that you are under the impression that all creationists are idiots and intellectual fools. You are ignoring the fact that many of the great scientists of the past were creationists and there are many many more intelligent men today, respected scientists included, who are creationists as well. If you are joking, that is one thing, but if that is your true opinion, you are woefully ignorant or prejudiced.

quote:
People would actually be tempted to lie in order to make their version make sense

JOHN:$B!!!!!!!!(BJust like some do now.

TJ REPLIES: OK. Let's say that more people would be tempted to do that if you remove God from the picture.

quote:
Of course, lying isn't a sin in your view so I guess that would be OK.

JOHN:
A sin, no, but that doesn't mean I approve. Some of us have values derived from careful consideration instead of "a book told me so"

TJ REPLIES: I$B!G(Bm sorry, I didn$B!G(Bt mean to imply that you automatically approve of lying, but would I be wrong in saying that your decision on lying is all relative to the situation? However, you state that in an interesting way. 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? I think God's laws show us His wisdom quite clearly. There are very good reasons for most of the moral laws we see in Scripture - OK, you don't need to bring up the Dt. 25 passage again. 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.

quote:
I will never be able to accept that rape is wrong only if the culture thinks it is wrong.

JOHN: You desperately need to do some cross-cultural comparisons.

TJ REPLIES: No, it doesn't matter how many cultures I study, I still will always feel that rape is wrong no matter if there is one culture that might happen to have accepted it as a part of life. 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:
I would then be guilty of just tagging His name on to my opinion to try and give it more weight or authority.

JOHN: But you tag his name to cultural norms codified thousands of years ago.

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.

quote:
You cannot prove your point that God does not exist.

JOHN: I ask for evidence.

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. I have already given some evidence and you have reinterpreted it to fit into your worldview. The point is that neither of us can prove our belief about God$B!G(Bs existence. We can give evidence and say based on this evidence, I think this is the best supported belief, but there is not 100% proof.

quote:
You are saying there is no absolute morality. I disagree and am trying to show the dangers of such a belief.

JOHN: I am arguing that this condition of no absolute morality is precisely the condition we've lived in all along.

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.

quote:
And there are plenty of people who will see through the hollowness of non-faith-based moral theory and realize that nothing is really ultimately immoral.

JOHN:
Faith based morality is not hollow? "A book says so....." is not hollow? "I can't prove it, but I believe it" is not hollow?

TJ REPLIES: Very hollow, if not true. 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. And no I cannot prove it, but again, here we are both equal. You cannot prove your worldview either so what we$B!G(Bre trying to do is to see which world view has the most empirical evidence supporting it. On that basis and only on that basis can we make an honest evaluation of the worldview. I can see you desperately do not want the Biblical worldview to be true. Just be aware, that your desire for it not to be true can color your evaluation of the evidence and influence how open you are to really considering the facts. Yes, for me the same thing can be said as well, but there is more at stake for you than for me if the Biblical worldview is true. For me I would have to face the fact that my whole life has been spent in promoting a lie – however a lie that has helped many people. How bad is that really? I am happy with my lifestyle as it is so, although I can$B!G(Bt say for sure, outside of an occupational change, I don$B!G(Bt think I would make a lot of changes in my lifestyle, even if I were to throw away my faith. That is a good question though. Maybe over time, I would slowly creep away from my current moral values in some areas if I knew they were not really wrong but just man made ideas that really don$B!G(Bt need to be followed.
For you though it would mean bowing your knee to the Creator and that goes against every bone in our bodies. It would mean changing your lifestyle to fit with God$B!G(Bs desires and many more things. 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. Therefore is it accurate to say that just maybe your bias is a bit stronger than mine?

quote:
Right, a tendency towards cancer in the genes could someday be beneficial!

JOHN: Dunno. And I am not arrogant enough to make pronouncements about it.

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. Christopher Reeves is pushing stem cell research with the hopes that it will benefit him someday. Peter Singer is for euthanasia of the elderly except in the case of his mother who has Alzheimer$B!G(Bs disease.
What$B!G(Bs this humility all of a sudden? You are arrogant enough to claim there is no God. Why all of a sudden humble here?

quote:
And Down's Syndrome as well.

JOHN: Dunno. Sickle cell sometimes pays off.

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. If that is the kind of example you want to use as proof for evolution, you are in deep water. I agree this is a good example of the quality of change that we see in nature. It is almost always a downward change, a loss of genetic information, a specialization of the species, etc. 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 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.

quote:
That is what kind of faith evolutionists have, a blind faith.

JOHN: LOL. Throwing rocks in a glass house my friend.

TJ REPLIES: OK, so you think my faith is a blind faith as well. We're even.

quote:
You're illustration of sickle cell anemia is right on. The organism although weaker and less viable than others who are normal, will in this one specific instance gain a survival advantage. But the important thing to remember here is that it is a crippling and lethal mutation itself. This kind of change will get you nowhere in evolution. What a great example of evolution or should we say devolution? Do you want this kind of benefit(one that eventually kills you) even if you live in areas infested with sleeping sickness?

JOHN:
That is exactly how evolution works TJ. The people who survive to reproduce are the ones who pass along the genes. Evolution isn't a thing that cares about the conditions of the survivors or about the possible future consequences if malaria wasn't a factor or if the populations moved. Selections works NOW. If selection causes an organism to adapt to an environment which then vanishes, that organism may die out. Its adaptations may not be suitable for the new environment.

TJ REPLIES: You are right there. It isn$B!G(Bt a person and has no feelings. It cannot care if the organism survives or goes extinct. This very thing makes real evolution very improbable. If it was able to produce a change to help the organism survive in a particular environment, then why can$B!G(Bt it also produce a change to get it back to it$B!G(Bs original condition so that the organism does not die out, but keeps flourishing? Sometimes it does. For instance Darwin$B!G(Bs finches and the length of their beaks is such an illustration, but it only works because there are still individuals in the population who have the genetic information for the longer or shorter beak. If you remove all the genetic information for a longer beak from the DNA of the finch population, then you are stuck if a longer beak again becomes necessary for survival.

quote:
Very Funny! This kind of logic wont get you a passing grade in logic class.'

JOHN: What kind of logic, TJ, dead on target logic?

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

quote:
Inflicting pain for the fun of it is called torture and it is world''s apart from the medical practice of circumcision.

JOHN: Circumcision isn't a medical practice. It is a cultural ritual like scarification.

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.

quote:
If we take your logic, then doctors ought to be imprisoned.

JOHN:
Can't imprison them for something that is not currently illegal, but the practise ought to be outlawed. Your reaction would have some bite if circumcision were a medical practice instead of an ancient tribal ritual. It does no good. Setting a broken bone, while painful, actually does do some good.

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.

quote:
Parents ought to be imprisoned whenever they inflict pain on their children through discipline.

JOHN: Now you are really flying off on a tangent.

TJ REPLIES: My argument was based on the idea that circumcision has medical value which you do not accept so I see your problem with my statement above. What I was trying to say was that since or if it has medical benefit, it can in no way be construed to be torture in any sense of the word. In discipline, we sometimes inflict pain on our children in order to teach them a more important lesson. Doctors inflict pain on their patients in order to help them overcome sickness(for example shots). This is not torture - pain for the purpose of pain, but rather a pain that leads to healing and beneficial lessons.

quote:
By the way, have you ever wondered why God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children on the 8th day? Medical science has given us the answer.

JOHN: No it hasn't. Your scenario is crap. It doesn't happen.

TJ REPLIES: How do you know? I'll try and back up my claim. I first read that statement in a book by a medical doctor entitled None of These Diseases. I don't have the book nor do I remember his name so I can't give you the reference for my claim that the 8th day is the best day for circumcision because of the 110% level of the blood clotting chemical.

quote:
Anyway, the medical benefits of circumcision are well documented.

JOHN:
http://www.cirp.org/ Read it and weep. I trust you will.

TJ REPLIES: John, did you read the link I suggested for you? Probably not. Interesting that the guy who wrote it was not even a Christian. In fact, he was an evolutionist. His statistics showed an increase of circumcision in modern day due to the rising understanding of the medical benefits of circumcision. Does everyone agree? Obviously not. You have your website which is on an anti-circumcision campaign. Fine. Just remember, it is not as black and white as your website makes it sound.

quote:
Are you saying that you actually believe that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt? I thought you said the Bible was a bunch of mythology.

JOHN:
I said they got it from the Egyptians, not that they were enslaved by the Egyptians. The Isrealites were once indistiguishable from the Babylonians and lived in Egypt under the name Hyksos.

TJ REPLIES: I think the Bible actually agrees with you here. God called Abram who lived in Ur of the Chaldees which I think would be in the neighborhood of Babylonia.

quote:
Anyway, I think you will have a hard time proving that the Israelites got circumcision from the Egyptians.

JOHN: Yeah, probably, unless I look at the archeological data.

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.
As you know, archeological data must also be interpreted so you have that factor there as well. And again, our interpretations of the facts are always colored by the worldview that we hold, scientists included.

[qutoe]The Bible says God instructed them to circumcise their males.[/quote]

So the myth goes.... it isn't supported by the data we have.

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

quote:
Neither of us can prove our interpretation.

JOHN: LOL. I have data and you don't.

quote:
Even if there were no medical benefits to it, it still could not be construed to be torture in any sense of the word because it wasn't done with the intent to produce pain.

JOHN:
I believe you asked me if I knew of a culture that supported inflicting pain on babies. This qualifies. Throwing around the idea of torture is misleading.

TJ REPLIES: No, I specifically used the word torture. Let me refresh your memory.
. 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. But that was a while ago and I know it is easy to forget. 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.

quote:
Still doesn't persuade me that rape is not a moral absolute, but it really might be an example of a culture which really doesn't view it as immoral. I'm surprised.

JOHN: Well, TJ, if one culture dissents it isn't absolute.

TJ REPLIES: Yes, according to your definition of absolute morality, that would be true. However, torture of babies still applies even according to your definition. However, from the Christian point of view, the fact that all humans agree or disagree is not the determining factor of the universality of morality. God sets the rules not us humans. Whether we agree with his view of morality will not change the standards by which He judges us in the future.

quote:
The point is here that if he doesn't marry her, no one ever will marry her and she'll be left single all her life.

JOHN: That's a bit twisted in itself. She is punished, in effect, for being raped. She marries her rapists or doesn't marry. Pretty vicious.

TJ REPLIES: Yes, hard to understand.

quote:
Marriage wasn't based on love back then. So it sounds more repulsive to us nowadays than it was to them back then I'm sure.

JOHN: Right. What was that about moral relativity?

TJ REPLIES: John, I don$B!G(Bt understand everything about that law, but I still respect it as God$B!G(Bs law. My point was that I think it is harder for us in this society to understand it because of our circumstances and surrounding culture. I$B!G(Bm not arguing for moral relativity.

quote:
It would have been kind of pitiful is she was then forced to marry the guy who raped her adding insult to injury.

JOHN: Yet you defend the behavior?

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. The law that was given to the Jews does not apply to us today. All God$B!G(Bs commands are based on moral principles that flow from His character. Those moral principles are applied in our culture today in different ways than back then. There were some things that God specifically commanded the Israelites to do or not to do that do not apply today. That is not relative morality. It was a case of specific commands that were given to His people during the OT period. Now we are in the Age of Grace. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. He actually freed us from the Law and so now we are under grace, not Law. The moral principles of the OT still hold true today, but they are applied differently. Read Mt. 5 for some illustrations for how the principles of the OT are to be applied in our society today for some examples.

[qutoe]However, even in arranged marriages, it had nothing to do with the woman's desires. That was just the way it happened.


JOHN: LOL.... glad to see that a world based on God's laws is so appealing.

quote:
Sure you can find examples of times when people made wrong decisions, even terrible decisions, but those seem to be more the exception rather than the rule.

JOHN: Surely god knew that this was a wrong decision. Why then wasn't Lot punished? God was quick to punish back in the good old days.

TJ REPLIES: I am not God and cannot answer for you. The whole thing came about because of Lot$B!G(Bs wrong choice to live in that wicked city. The very loss of his daughter was a sort of punishment in and of itself. Plus, in the end, Lot lost his home and all his possessions. Even his wife. Although that wasn$B!G(Bt necessarily a direct punishment for the rape incident, it is all part of the consequences of his sin. We are not told that God did not punish him for that either. Not everything is written in the Bible.

quote:
I agree with you here. He shouldn't have given them his daughter either. Better be careful though. You almost sound like you are saying that what Lot did is absolutely wrong.

JOHN: hmm...... give my daughter up to be gang raped? gee.... I wonder what I should do?

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

quote:
Shouldn't we respect their views and show a little tolerance here? After all, morality is relative, right?

JOHN:
Strangely, you seem to going just that direction, even after arguing the opposite earlier in the post.

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

quote:
No, God has never ordered someone to rape another person as far as I can tell.

JOHN: God sure threatened it. Isaiah 13:16. And... 2 Samuel 12:11 which threat was carried out in 2 Samuel 16:22 by David's own son Absalom. There are many tales of conquest and kidnapping as well, most of which God lets slide, thereby showing approval.

TJ REPLIES: 2 Sam. 12:11 is a prophecy of judgment on David. Is. 13:16 is God$B!G(Bs prophecy of judgment on Babylon. It was a warning of judgment, of what would happen if they continued on in their sinful ways. Now, personally I think it was very fair of God to tell them what would happen if they didn$B!G(Bt repent. He simply tells them what the conquering people would do to their women and children. At least He gave them a chance. He lets them see in the looking glass to see what would happen if they didn$B!G(Bt repent. No, God$B!G(Bs letting sin slide by does not show His approval. First of all, His Word tells us it is wrong. Secondly, if He judged all sin, you and I would not even be alive to talk about it.
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. There is coming a day in which these sins that God $B!H(Blet slide$B!I(B will be accounted for. The whole world will be made accountable to Him – Romans 3:19,20.

quote:
Rampant murder is never condoned, but God has a right to judge any nation whenever and however He wants to.

John:
And whomever convinces the people that he has the ear of God gets to order the massacres. This is precisely what I have been saying.

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 these are the exceptions rather than the rule. 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.

quote:
So you say that because the OT gives rules for having slaves that it is of no value.

JOHN: Absolutely. I think slaves are quite valuable.

quote:
I don$B!G(Bt profess to fully understand all the laws given to the Jews governing slavery, but I do know that their slavery was nothing like we think of today. It was more of an economical arrangement, even employment.

JOHN: Like hell. Maybe you should review the rules governing such things.

quote:
It provided a way for a person who got himself into financial trouble to pay off his debts and even make some money to get financially stable again. In fact there were laws that required the freeing of slaves every 7th year.

JOHN: Applicable only to fellow Isrealites, by the way.

quote:
Perhaps we could learn some principles here that could be applied to modern bankruptcy claims.

JOHN: Right.

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

quote:
John, very interesting choice of words calling the OT a bunch of mythology, but you are either willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest.

JOHN: Niether.

quote:
I think you would be surprised just how much of the OT has been validated by archeology.

JOHN: Do you think I haven't checked these claims? Precious little has ever been validated. Pull your head out of the sand.

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.

quote:
The Bible is a valuable book to archeologists.

JOHN: Anything that might hold clues to the past is valuable to archeologists. That is a long way from saying it is accurate.

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. http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

quote:
By the way, the following is a statement supposedly put out by the Smithsonian Institute about the historicity of the OT.

You haven't veriefied it yet? Very sneaky.

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.

quote:
As I said, there was no command like that.

Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:13, 20:16 Please, TJ, its just painful to watch the denial.

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.

quote:
You have to go back to the reasons for why God commanded what He did.

JOHN:
Right. They weren't Isrealites and didn't worship him. Oldest excuse in the book.

TJ REPLIES: Yes, they were guilty of the sin of idolatry among many other sins. This was judgment on these cultures after years and years of sinful rebellion against their Creator. God would have been just in destroying them hundreds of years earlier. 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. 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! 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. Again, we have to agree to disagree.

quote:
Well, John, the Bible says that God was judging the surrounding nations for their idolatry and so forth.

JOHN:
I guess Allah was judging us on the Sept. 11. Or maybe it was God who wasn't happy with us?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by John, posted 12-01-2002 11:44 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by John, posted 01-11-2003 12:41 PM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-12-2003 10:15 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 142 (28586)
01-07-2003 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Karl
12-02-2002 9:32 AM


On definition of evolution:
Darwin's book does not concern itself with the origin of life. In fact, it merely suggests that God created the first form or forms, and leaves it at that. It is entirely about development of existing life, and does not address abiogenesis at all.
Your telling phrase is "at least from the atheistic viewpoint". Your point (however good or bad it may be) is contra atheism, not contra evolution. Actually, I'm a theist but I do strongly suspect God used natural processes for the origins of life.
No, "seperation" of chemical and biological evolution is not a new development. They have always been quite seperate.

TJ@REPLIES: Always separate and yet well respected evolutionists have included both in the definition of evolution at times. Of course they have always been separate. They are two very different kinds of evolution, and from an atheistic viewpoint, both are necessary and I think should be included together in the general definition of evolution. However, from a theistic evolutionistfs standpoint, I understand why you would separate them. For you the problem of the origin of life is solved and you are only concerned about how we got from the first cell to where we are today.
I personally have trouble understanding why God would stoop to using the cruel natural processes of life to create living creatures when He could have done it perfectly the first time and saved a lot of pain and hassle. This view has death, pain, and suffering as part of Godfs original perfect creation rather than the result of human sin. It seems to imply that the animals were carnivorous from the beginning whereas the Bible tells us they were vegetarians until sin entered the world. These are just some of my personal problems with the theistic evolutionary point of view, but Ifm glad to know we both believe in Godfs existence and participation in the process of creation.

On reptile/mammal transitionals:
Since the transition took of the order of 100 million years or so, from the late Carboniferous through to the early Triassic, why should various forms not radiate, as later mammals have done? Would it make sense for them to say "hey guys, let's hang around here until we've fully evolved into mammals"? Not sensible. Geographical considerations aside, you still have to deal with the sequence, and the remarkable congruence between the transitional state of each specimen and its age. Unless you suggest we consciously fiddled the figures?
And I have no idea what Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not correspond with each other. means.

TJ REPLIES: I think that geographical considerations are quite large in this whole idea. If there is no way that these different gtransitionalsh could have been related to each other because of geography, then it is hard to see how you can call them a part of the same tree. As far as the ages go, there is much assuming that goes on in these dating techniques. Plus, often times incongruous dates are freely ignored while ones that fit our idea of what happened are embraced. I think the dates makes the geographic differences more difficult a problem as it would seem to preclude the time to migrate to the next place and then from that place to the next place etc.

On Transitionals
Most disputes are not about whether a specimen is transitional, but exactly what the transition is. No-one within mainstream science disputes that Ambulocetus is transitional, but debate rages over what the exact ancestor of it was, and what course evolution took between it and modern cetaceans, or whether Amb. is truly ancestral to modern cetaceans, or merely a cousin. None of it helps creationism in the slightest, because Ambulocetus shouldn't exist at all for you!

TJ REPLIES: No that is not true. The existence of ambulocetus is not a problem for creationists at all. Plus you have to remember the great amount of evolutionist assumptions that are put into a drawing of ambulocetus. It is amazing how much the ambulocetus looks like a transitional form the way evolutionists draw it! No bias there Ifm sure, even though no pelvic bone was found for the specimen and it is a very incomplete skeleton. It is a clear stretch of the imagination to declare that Ambulocetus, a creature with powerful forelimbs and hooved hind limbs, unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, or even an intermediate form. It was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation.
I think you will admit that for an earthbound mammal of any size to evolve into a huge body specially shaped to enable it to swim in the depths of a new environment like an ocean would be an amazing feat.
Evolutionist Michael Denton described the problem of such a fantastic transition by saying: ". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great. M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.

No matter what land animal you choose as the whalefs ancestor, the morphological differences are huge. For instance, the skeletal features would need to change radically, as well as the physiology (the collective functions of an organism). The animal would have to have evolved a way to go from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water without it killing it. This means an extreme change must have taken place in the physiology of these creatures in a period of about 3 million years at the most. J. Thewissen, et al., "Evolution of Cetacean Osmoregulation," Nature, 381:379-380 (1996).
Other necessary physiological mechanisms that would have had to develop would be mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation. Maintaining a core body temperature while being bathed in an ocean of cold water would be a definite problem for creatures not used to living in water. These are tremendously complicated mechanisms and it takes a lot of faith to believe that chance, mutations, and natural selection can come up enough successive positive beneficial changes to accomplish such a feat, especially when you remember that the process is totally unguided. As a theistic evolutionist, I donft know if you believe that God guided these processes or not, but most evolutionists clearly would rebel against such a preposterous unscientific idea.
Whale fins have fascinating biological structures called countercurrent heat exchangers to conserve heat. This kind of system is way beyond the abilities of natural selection and mutations. Plus where are all the fossils showing how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of Ambulocetus and the whales? For this to happen, the land ancestor of the ambulocetus would have to gradually eliminate its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes). Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea. Evolution really is amazing isnft it?!
I took some of this information from the following website: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
Well, Karl, I prefer to believe that God created all the creatures of the sea on day 5 like the Bible says. After all, God knows better than we do since He did it. But I certainly understand the temptation to try and fit evolution into the Bible. I guess that is where we disagree.

Regards,
TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 9:32 AM Karl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by doctrbill, posted 01-09-2003 12:01 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 135 of 142 (28727)
01-09-2003 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Tokyojim
01-07-2003 10:06 AM


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)

- 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?

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

Childrens stories are for children.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Tokyojim, posted 01-07-2003 10:06 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tokyojim, posted 01-10-2003 9:30 AM doctrbill has responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019