Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Gramps]

I was a Christian until about 15. Then I started reading this crap.

Deuteronomy 21 18-21, clearly states that a disobedient child should be stoned. Have you ever actually read the bible? Or do you just go off what your cult leader (I mean pastor) tells you?

Many people claim to be a specific religion because their parent were members of x religion.

One is not a Christian unless they have been saved by the grace of God. Once one is saved, one may turn his/her back on God but is still a child of God.

When one is saved their past sins are done away with. One starts with a clean slate the moment he/she is saved. Any sins done after that moment wil be paid on this earth through some type of chastisement from God. If one has never been saved all their sins will be paid in the afterlife

 

[FLVOL69]

Good to see ya back gramps... Hope you're feeling better.

 

[Vol8188]

Do you know this? Was there anything to be punished for? Did rape occur? If there had, how would you have Him punish them? Has he specifically punished you yet for your sinful lifestyle? Being a sinful person, do you really want quick justice? The Bible says that God is long-suffering, giving people time to repent and find forgiveness.

Being a sinful person, will you repent and find forgiveness by turning to Him?

You don't think it was important for the bible to come out and specifically state that Moses acted in appropriately? The same way the bible did with David.

Interesting I bring up David, because there was another baby god killed to punish David.

I just don't see how you as a Christian can read these things and still follow your god. Even if your god existed, I would not.

 

[Vol8188]

Many people claim to be a specific religion because their parent were members of x religion.

One is not a Christian unless they have been saved by the grace of God. Once one is saved, one may turn his/her back on God but is still a child of God.

When one is saved their past sins are done away with. One starts with a clean slate the moment he/she is saved. Any sins done after that moment wil be paid on this earth through some type of chastisement from God. If one has never been saved all their sins will be paid in the afterlife

I went to a baptist church all of my life (although I have been to Pentecostal churches with my maternal grandparents) and was saved at the age of 14. A preacher man up there with his scare tactics can be a persuasive thing for a young man.

 

[Roustabout]

I went to a baptist church all of my life (although I have been to Pentecostal churches with my maternal grandparents) and was saved at the age of 14. A preacher man up there with his scare tactics can be a persuasive thing for a young man.

Sorry you were wounded by a Hellfire nutjob. There are certainly a lot of those out there.

I am confused though, when you say you were "saved."
Do you mind explaining what exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Morality being relative does not mean that all aspects of morality are up or debate. Baby murder is one of those absolutes.

...

You began with a nonsensical statement. I'm not trying to be rude, just transparent in conversation. You literally just said that relative morality does not mean that morality isn't absolute. I am beginning to think that you have trouble with even a semblance of critical thinking.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet you allow your religion to entirely dictate your morality, therefore you share a very common bond with those who blow up abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings.

I was wondering when you would get to this equivocating ad hominum attack.

Well done. Thank you for not disappointing. Now, except for the spurious claim that relative morality is absolute, how do you claim baby killing to be immoral?

 

[rjd970]

I was wondering when you would get to this equivocating ad hominum attack.

Well done. Thank you for not disappointing. Now, except for the spurious claim that relative morality is absolute, how do you claim baby killing to be immoral?

How do you?

 

[Orange_Crush]

How do you?

By the objective moral standard, all murder is wrong.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You don't think it was important for the bible to come out and specifically state that Moses acted in appropriately? The same way the bible did with David.

No. I do not. He stated right/wrong very specifically in the law. Then, the Bible showed a lot of messed up people, doing a lot of messed up things, while God ordered history to bring the Savior that would save them

Interesting I bring up David,

How surprising...!

because there was another baby god killed to punish David.

I just don't see how you as a Christian can read these things and still follow your god. Even if your god existed, I would not.

I took the time to study and dwell upon those things that troubled me. You... Not so much.

 

[rjd970]

By the objective moral standard, all murder is wrong.

Says who? God's objective standard?

That is your opinion. We are just cutting the fore play and calling it an opinion to begin with. If we are talking objective moral standards, then it is outside of human opinion and would still be wrong even if nobody agreed with it.

How do you know you aren't wrong? Because God said so? That seems suspiciously like an opinion smuggled in as fact.

Let's be honest, you simply saying "see, this is God's objective standard" to a non-believer would be no better than me saying to a believer it is just my opinion.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Says who? God's objective standard?

That is your opinion. We are just cutting the fore play and calling it an opinion to begin with. If we are talking objective moral standards, then it is outside of human opinion and would still be wrong even if nobody agreed with it.

How do you know you aren't wrong? Because God said so? That seems suspiciously like an opinion smuggled in as fact.

You are confusing the theory with the law. Again. Before Newton, gravity still existed. You don't have to believe in the objective moral law for it to exist.

You referenced the objective moral law earlier when you referenced the overall commonality of moral beliefs. 8188 just "tried" to reference it by saying some things are just objectively wrong. His problem was that he tried to say relative morality is absolute-- a contradiction.

Again, you don't have to believe the moral law. I couldn't care less. But here's your problem... I can point to an objective and say:

"I don't care what you think, that is wrong. You can disagree with me all you want, but it is wrong and 'this' says so."

And I can do it with no worldview internal contradictions. You can't. You will try-- probably every day in some sort, but you can't do it with an ounce of credibility whatsoever, as far as your worldview is concerned.

If I do it, you can say you disagree with the objective. And that's fine. If you do it, with no objective, all I can do is laugh at your internal inconsistencies.

edit: Oh, and when you do it, I can point out that you really DO believe in the objective moral law, you just deny it because you don't like its implications. I'd say you are generally a good guy who would not rape babies and go on murderous sprees. And I imagine in normal conversation, when you aren't being painted into philosophical corners while trying to retain a denial of God, you'd freely admit that those things are just plain wrong. But here, in this context, you can't appeal to what you know because it is very inconvenient.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You are confusing the theory with the law. Again. Before Newton, gravity still existed. You don't have to believe in the objective moral law for it to exist.

You referenced the objective moral law earlier when you referenced the overall commonality of moral beliefs. 8188 just "tried" to reference it by saying some things are just objectively wrong. His problem was that he tried to say relative morality is absolute-- a contradiction.

Again, you don't have to believe the moral law. I couldn't care less. But here's your problem... I can point to an objective and say:

"I don't care what you think, that is wrong. You can disagree with me all you want, but it is wrong and 'this' says so."

And I can do it with no worldview internal contradictions. You can't. You will try-- probably every day in some sort, but you can't do it with an ounce of credibility whatsoever, as far as your worldview is concerned.

If I do it, you can say you disagree with the objective. And that's fine. If you do it, with no objective, all I can do is laugh at your internal inconsistencies.

edit: Oh, and when you do it, I can point out that you really DO believe in the objective moral law, you just deny it because you don't like its implications. I'd say you are generally a good guy who would not rape babies and go on murderous sprees. And I imagine in normal conversation, when you aren't being painted into philosophical corners while trying to retain a denial of God, you'd freely admit that those things are just plain wrong. But here, in this context, you can't appeal to what you know because it is very inconvenient.

Where do you get this objective knowledge/law?

 

[Gramps]

Good to see ya back gramps... Hope you're feeling better.

Thanks 69. I am having a good day

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where do you get this objective knowledge/law?

It exists. We interpret it through both conscience and Bible. Now, I know where you are going with this, calling the Bible my opinion. But you are missing my points.

(1) The Bible is a description of it. It is not the prescription. It describes what transcends the words on the page. It is the "theory". The objective moral law is the law. It is gravity. You and I don't have to believe it or understand it for it to exist.

You can claim you can float all you want, because gravity does not exist. But it still exists and you still can't float.

(2) At least I have one. At least I can say that my beliefs have an objective morality that are beyond opinion. So, when I tell someone they shouldn't have done something, I have a valid reason (internally) for doing so. I have a philosophical claim to the accusation. I have the right to the belief that an offense has occurred. You do not. You have an admission of relativity. You are having a conversation about ice cream flavors.

It's like arguing with someone for throwing your ball down a hole, while claiming that gravity doesn't exist.

 

[Septic]

The Bible is the standard. God is the judge.

I heard somewhere that only the Sith speak in absolutes.

 

[rjd970]

You are confusing the theory with the law. Again. Before Newton, gravity still existed. You don't have to believe in the objective moral law for it to exist.

You referenced the objective moral law earlier when you referenced the overall commonality of moral beliefs. 8188 just "tried" to reference it by saying some things are just objectively wrong. His problem was that he tried to say relative morality is absolute-- a contradiction.

Again, you don't have to believe the moral law. I couldn't care less. But here's your problem... I can point to an objective and say:

"I don't care what you think, that is wrong. You can disagree with me all you want, but it is wrong and 'this' says so."

And I can do it with no worldview internal contradictions. You can't. You will try-- probably every day in some sort, but you can't do it with an ounce of credibility whatsoever, as far as your worldview is concerned.

If I do it, you can say you disagree with the objective. And that's fine. If you do it, with no objective, all I can do is laugh at your internal inconsistencies.

edit: Oh, and when you do it, I can point out that you really DO believe in the objective moral law, you just deny it because you don't like its implications. I'd say you are generally a good guy who would not rape babies and go on murderous sprees. And I imagine in normal conversation, when you aren't being painted into philosophical corners while trying to retain a denial of God, you'd freely admit that those things are just plain wrong. But here, in this context, you can't appeal to what you know because it is very inconvenient.

Gravity existed, sure. but we are interpreting it through a prism to provide an explanation (science, magic, whatever). How is that different with morality? You are viewing it through your prism, and I am mine. At the end of the day how we view it is still an opinion.

The validity of "this" as the objective standard is open to debate. That is my point. Your "this" as an objective standard is still a matter of opinion on the authority "this" has.

Holy crap, you're saying your Christianity (or any religious belief system) isn't a worldview?

An agreement on the objective standard must be met before both sides can argue it. You can claim the other side of inconsistencies, that that side can claim the objective authority your preaching from should be questioned to begin with. Just because you can point to "this" doesn't make the objectivity any stronger than a mere opinion. You believe otherwise, great. That is your OPINION.

I'm disagreeing with your use of "objective" to begin with I guess, and some others on here are as well. Until the credibility of that "objective" is established, then we are are just talking a matter of opinions, whether you realize it or not.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It exists. We interpret it through both conscience and Bible. Now, I know where you are going with this, calling the Bible my opinion. But you are missing my points.

(1) The Bible is a description of it. It is not the prescription. It describes what transcends the words on the page. It is the "theory". The objective moral law is the law. It is gravity. You and I don't have to believe it or understand it for it to exist.

You can claim you can float all you want, because gravity does not exist. But it still exists and you still can't float.

(2) At least I have one. At least I can say that my beliefs have an objective morality that are beyond opinion. So, when I tell someone they shouldn't have done something, I have a valid reason (internally) for doing so. I have a philosophical claim to the accusation. I have the right to the belief that an offense has occurred. You do not. You have an admission of relativity. You are having a conversation about ice cream flavors.

It's like arguing with someone for throwing your ball down a hole, while claiming that gravity doesn't exist.

What makes your "description" any more valid or correct than any other holy "description"? One cannot test any of them.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What makes your "description" any more valid or correct than any other holy "description"? One cannot test any of them.

The good news for me is that I get to have these debates with fellow theists. You do not. You are lost in relativity without any basis to call anything abjectly wrong. You seem fine with that so, so am I.

Edit: For that matter, your claim is that no one can know objective truth, so why are we even discussing. I think you have absolutely nothing to offer the conversation.

 

[Roustabout]

Says who? God's objective standard?

That is your opinion. We are just cutting the fore play and calling it an opinion to begin with. If we are talking objective moral standards, then it is outside of human opinion and would still be wrong even if nobody agreed with it.

How do you know you aren't wrong? Because God said so? That seems suspiciously like an opinion smuggled in as fact.

Let's be honest, you simply saying "see, this is God's objective standard" to a non-believer would be no better than me saying to a believer it is just my opinion.

I addressed this earlier. And yet you don't take the time to read the thread you are posting in. I haven't seen myself or Crush advocate divine command theory. Now, he may hold this position, but I'll leave that up to him to share.
The issue of objective truth has been studied philosophically by non Judeo-Christian cultures, long before the NT was written. And their conclusions caused them to consider a God who was transcendent, immaterial, uncaused, immutable, etc. And no, they didn't have the Bible. The fact is that people don't like where OM points, so they will deny it at all costs.

You are asking an epistemological question. How do you know this or that is wrong.....? We need to first deal with the ontological question. Does OM exist? Crush has asked 8188 to account for his morality by which he is judging God's decrees. He then says some things are absolute, while concurrently holding to no OM. It's self-defeating and contradictory.

He then tries to smuggle in OM without calling it such, and in essence is saying absolute morals exist because they do. But this opens Pandora's box, that is there is a source for morality outside of man. Of course this begs us to ask, what can account for laws to govern the metaphysical notions of morality? Yes, Plato and Aristotle pondered such things.

He is admitting that even if all people approved of baby murder then it would still be wrong. He is saying he KNOWS this to be objectively true. I agree, but I don't have to trespass on someone else's worldview to do so.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I addressed this earlier. And yet you don't take the time to read the thread you are posting in. I haven't seen myself or Crush advocate divine command theory. Now, he may hold this position, but I'll leave that up to him to share.
The issue of objective truth has been studied philosophically by non Judeo-Christian cultures, long before the NT was written. And their conclusions caused them to consider a God who was transcendent, immaterial, uncaused, immutable, etc. And no, they didn't have the Bible. The fact is that people don't like where OM points, so they will deny it at all costs.

You are asking an epistemological question. How do you know this or that is wrong.....? We need to first deal with the ontological question. Does OM exist? Crush has asked 8188 to account for his morality by which he is judging God's decrees. He then says some things are absolute, while concurrently holding to no OM. It's self-defeating and contradictory.

He then tries to smuggle in OM without calling it such, and in essence is saying absolute morals exist because they do. But this opens Pandora's box, that is there is a source for morality outside of man. Of course this begs us to ask, what can account for laws to govern the metaphysical notions of morality? Yes, Plato and Aristotle pondered such things.

He is admitting that even if all people approved of baby murder then it would still be wrong. He is saying he KNOWS this to be objectively true. I agree, but I don't have to trespass on someone else's worldview to do so.

Perhaps you can do a better job of this than I have. I thank you for the input.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

It exists. We interpret it through both conscience and Bible. Now, I know where you are going with this, calling the Bible my opinion. But you are missing my points.

(1) The Bible is a description of it. It is not the prescription. It describes what transcends the words on the page. It is the "theory". The objective moral law is the law. It is gravity. You and I don't have to believe it or understand it for it to exist.

You can claim you can float all you want, because gravity does not exist. But it still exists and you still can't float.

1) Saying "it exists" without any tangible evidence is just a meaningless assertion. Same thing with the flying spaghetti monster, unicorn, etc.

2) The effects of gravity are tangible, testable, and falsifiable; your claim of existence is not. Why you continue to compare the two is beyond me.

(2) At least I have one. At least I can say that my beliefs have an objective morality that are beyond opinion. So, when I tell someone they shouldn't have done something, I have a valid reason (internally) for doing so. I have a philosophical claim to the accusation. I have the right to the belief that an offense has occurred. You do not. You have an admission of relativity. You are having a conversation about ice cream flavors.

It's like arguing with someone for throwing your ball down a hole, while claiming that gravity doesn't exist.

You have "one"? That you have rules or guidelines that you use to discern what is right and wrong? You think others don't?

 

[PKT_VOL]

The good news for me is that I get to have these debates with fellow theists. You do not. You are lost in relativity without any basis to call anything abjectly wrong. You seem fine with that so, so am I.

Edit: For that matter, your claim is that no one can know objective truth, so why are we even discussing. I think you have absolutely nothing to offer the conversation.

You totally ignored the question. Kudos.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I addressed this earlier. And yet you don't take the time to read the thread you are posting in. I haven't seen myself or Crush advocate divine command theory. Now, he may hold this position, but I'll leave that up to him to share.
The issue of objective truth has been studied philosophically by non Judeo-Christian cultures, long before the NT was written. And their conclusions caused them to consider a God who was transcendent, immaterial, uncaused, immutable, etc. And no, they didn't have the Bible. The fact is that people don't like where OM points, so they will deny it at all costs.

You are asking an epistemological question. How do you know this or that is wrong.....? We need to first deal with the ontological question. Does OM exist? Crush has asked 8188 to account for his morality by which he is judging God's decrees. He then says some things are absolute, while concurrently holding to no OM. It's self-defeating and contradictory.

He then tries to smuggle in OM without calling it such, and in essence is saying absolute morals exist because they do. But this opens Pandora's box, that is there is a source for morality outside of man. Of course this begs us to ask, what can account for laws to govern the metaphysical notions of morality? Yes, Plato and Aristotle pondered such things.

He is admitting that even if all people approved of baby murder then it would still be wrong. He is saying he KNOWS this to be objectively true. I agree, but I don't have to trespass on someone else's worldview to do so.

The question of whether there is a supernatural being is a wholly separate issue of whether there is objective morality. There could certainly be a supernatural being that set things into to motion, but who holds nor punishes nor cares anything about deeds, morality, or the conditions of life on planet Earth.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Gravity existed, sure. but we are interpreting it through a prism to provide an explanation (science, magic, whatever). How is that different with morality? You are viewing it through your prism, and I am mine. At the end of the day how we view it is still an opinion.

The validity of "this" as the objective standard is open to debate. That is my point. Your "this" as an objective standard is still a matter of opinion on the authority "this" has.

Holy crap, you're saying your Christianity (or any religious belief system) isn't a worldview?

An agreement on the objective standard must be met before both sides can argue it. You can claim the other side of inconsistencies, that that side can claim the objective authority your preaching from should be questioned to begin with. Just because you can point to "this" doesn't make the objectivity any stronger than a mere opinion. You believe otherwise, great. That is your OPINION.

I'm disagreeing with your use of "objective" to begin with I guess, and some others on here are as well. Until the credibility of that "objective" is established, then we are are just talking a matter of opinions, whether you realize it or not.

Feel free to disagree. It's beside the point. Lots of people disagreed with Newton. That didn't make them float into space.

Now, note that I am not trying to make the Judeo-Christian Bible your American law standard. I am merely saying that I have an objective to point to. I can in good conscience call baby-rape objectively wrong. You can't. As far as you are concerned, it is vanilla ice cream.