Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#951
#951
MercyPercy said:
tumblr_mezy08dbze1qbm00wo1_500.gif
Click to expand...

The butler is not saying those words. He's saying words like you are which has been nothing but gobbledy-gook in this thread so far. If that word is too big to understand then get you a dictionary & see the definition.
 
#956
#956
Orange_Crush said:
God did not evolve. Your moral code is not appropriate to the accusations.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I've stated that your god does not meet my moral code, therefore even if your god existed I would not follow him (all of which I've previously stated).

I guess the only question left is, does that meet moral your standard? If you can rationalize live with worshiping a god such as that, then so be it.
 
#957
#957
Vol8188 said:
I've already told you multiple times that I used my own moral code that is most likely the result of evolution.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
God did not evolve. Your moral code is not appropriate to the accusations.
Click to expand...

You haven't realized yet that you are asking for an objective answer to your subjective opinion? If I rallied congress for a law making atheism illegal because it is my opinion that atheism is wrong, what would you say?

You would decry my actions because I am trying to enforce a subjective opinion as objective law, no?

So, you are saying that you are judging God based on your subjective opinion. I'm saying get the heck out of here. You wouldn't let me do that. You'll have to do better than subjective opinion. You'll have to find a source of objective truth to base the accusation on.
 
#959
#959
Orange_Crush said:
You haven't realized yet that you are asking for an objective answer to your subjective opinion? If I rallied congress for a law making atheism illegal because it is my opinion that atheism is wrong, what would you say?

You would decry my actions because I am trying to enforce a subjective opinion as objective law, no?

So, you are saying that you are judging God based on your subjective opinion. I'm saying get the heck out of here. You wouldn't let me do that. You'll have to do better than subjective opinion. You'll have to find a source of objective truth to base the accusation on.
Click to expand...

I understand the logic behind your argument. I also understand your analogy about people evolving to kill their children (even though it would be evolutionarily impossible).

Where our disconnect lies and that I believe you consider all morality to come from god. If so, then anything god says or does should be considered moral to you. Meaning if your god were pro baby rape, you would also support baby rape because you believe it's impossible for morality to be independent of god.

Am I correct about your views?
 
#960
#960
Vol8188 said:
He has not. All he wants to talk about is "why is murdering babies wrong".
Click to expand...

:question: Well, let's see. OC talks about "why is murdering babies wrong" is because.....news flash to the little boy 8188.......you keep bringing that subject up for discussion.....hello!! Earth to Vol8188......is that brain of yours working this morning?
 
#961
#961
Vol8188 said:
I understand the logic behind your argument. I also understand your analogy about people evolving to kill their children (even though it would be evolutironarily impossible).

Where our disconnect lies and that I believe you consider all morality to come from god. If so, then anything god says or does should be considered moral to you. Meaning if your god were pro baby rape, you would also support baby rape because you believe it's impossible for morality to be independent of god.

Am I correct about your views?
Click to expand...
And we are back to the square circle.
And you are saying morality is just evolution. So survival of the fittest. Might makes right. You've got the same problems with one major caveat. No ontological ground to stand on.
 
#962
#962
Vol8188 said:
Where our disconnect lies and that I believe you consider all morality to come from god. If so, then anything god says or does should be considered moral to you. Meaning if your god were pro baby rape, you would also support baby rape because you believe it's impossible for morality to be independent of god.

Am I correct about your views?
Click to expand...

(First, let me just say that he supports neither rape not baby rape. He made that very specific.)

You misrepresent them, and you miss a fundamental truth about transcendent morality. It is true, no matter opinion. Something is right/wrong independent of opinions or perceptions. If rape were right, it would just be right. It wouldn't matter my opinion of it. If that "rightness" was imprinted on everyone, it would be right and perceived as right. It's a bit of a non-question.

Thirdly, when we speak of God as the lawgiver, the law issues forth from His character. He didn't invent it, He defines it. He is the standard. He is perfectly just. So, again, you are asking an irrational question. You are asking, "What if a circle was square?"

Are you asking, "If God were a brutal rapist, would I follow Him?" If I am made in His image and inherited His character, then I would be a brutal rapists and see nothing wrong with it. You would be made in His image and see nothing wrong with it. The transcendent standard would be our shared standard. But God is not a brutal rapist, and being a just God, He could not be a brutal rapist. So you are back to square circles.

Now, concerning murder and baby deaths, which is really the core of what you want... (I apologize for drawing this out, but it was important for you to see that, by trying to deny God with the moral law, you were actually appealing to His existence. It was also important that you realize that it is a misnomer to judge His actions by our standards, or our actions, which I'll get to in a second...)

The moral law actually says: "The blood of man will be paid by man, for man was made in the image of God."

The reason it is wrong for a person to kill a person is two-fold:

  1. To take a life that is made in the image of God is to disrespect its creator-- God.
  2. You are taking what you can't pay back. You could never give that life back if you made a mistake in the reason for killing. It's a non-refundable mistake.

If God takes a life:

  1. He was the author of that life.
  2. He is perfect in His judgments, so could not make a mistake.
  3. As the author of life, He can restore life.

Now, as I mentioned, God revealed Himself in mighty and miraculous ways to every nation He judged through Israel. For 400 years! Just read Genesis. Just read Exodus and Joshua. Over and over, those nations quaked at the existence, miracles and power of Yahweh. Yet they continued in their idolatrous rebellion, sexual religion, and child-killing worship. Knowing God, God finally judged them.

As their Creator, He had the right to do so. As a perfectly just judge, He was just in doing so.

Now the babies... That's hard for me to read. But I trust Him and His judgments above my own. He was wiping out a society that defiled themselves and every nation around them with child sacrifice and more. Their religion was also based on fertility cults and sexual deviancy. They were also most likely riddled with sexual diseases. (Thus the, "Keep only virgins for yourself -- in case they may want to marry you"-- if that was actually God's statement at all).

God had to clean house. He needed to wipe these cultures off the planet, or the special people He had chosen to be the bloodline of the world's Savior would have been defiled and ruined.

Apparently that included wiping the children away too. It's hard to read and consider. But God had to break the cycle of that religious and national identity or it would continue (as it actually did continue because Israel did not do what God asked).

Any person in that nation that was old enough to have made a moral judgment died and was judged. Anybody too young to have made a moral judgment died and "awoke" in heaven, to an eternity with God in paradise that they would not have experienced had He allowed the culture to continue, for that baby to grow up, and that baby to have become an adult that promoted the religious cycle.

God made a judgment against David by showing him that the wages of sin is death. That judgment effected the baby by bringing it directly to heaven, in the presence of God directly and utter bliss.

It is wrong for you and I to take life because we can not make perfect judgments, it is not our right to judge, and we cannot restore life. God makes perfect judgments. As the creator of humanity, He has the right to judge. And having judged, He can restore true life for eternity.

Lastly:

1 Corinthians lists several gifts of the Spirit, and then says that "the greatest if these is love". Think about that. That says that the highest ideal that God has for us is that we love. Now think of the implications. For one to love, they must have free will. Compulsion is not love-- it is emotional rape.

So, for God's highest ideal for us to be actualized, He had to allow us free will. That is an amazing thought to me. For God to give us free will, He had to willingly condescend himself to willingly allay a portion of His sovereign will. This means that a sovereign God, who could do anything He wants, sometimes has to do things He wouldn't have wanted to do.

Like wiping out entire nations. Like snuffing a baby's life, only to give that baby immediate eternal life.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#963
#963
Orange_Crush said:
(First, let me just say that he supports neither rape not baby rape. He made that very specific.)

You misrepresent them, and you miss a fundamental truth about transcendent morality. It is true, no matter opinion. Something is right/wrong independent of opinions or perceptions. If rape were right, it would just be right. It wouldn't matter my opinion of it. If that "rightness" was imprinted on everyone, it would be right and perceived as right. It's a bit of a non-question.

Thirdly, when we speak of God as the lawgiver, the law issues forth from His character. He didn't invent it, He defines it. He is the standard. He is perfectly just. So, again, you are asking an irrational question. You are asking, "What if a circle was square?"

Are you asking, "If God were a brutal rapist, would I follow Him?" If I am made in His image and inherited His character, then I would be a brutal rapists and see nothing wrong with it. You would be made in His image and see nothing wrong with it. The transcendent standard would be our shared standard. But God is not a brutal rapist, and being a just God, He could not be a brutal rapist. So you are back to square circles.

Now, concerning murder and baby deaths, which is really the core of what you want... (I apologize for drawing this out, but it was important for you to see that, by trying to deny God with the moral law, you were actually appealing to His existence. It was also important that you realize that it is a misnomer to judge His actions by our standards, or our actions, which I'll get to in a second...)

The moral law actually says: "The blood of man will be paid by man, for man was made in the image of God."

The reason it is wrong for a person to kill a person is two-fold:

  1. To take a life that is made in the image of God is to disrespect its creator-- God.
  2. You are taking what you can't pay back. You could never give that life back if you made a mistake in the reason for killing. It's a non-refundable mistake.

If God takes a life:

  1. He was the author of that life.
  2. He is perfect in His judgments, so could not make a mistake.
  3. As the author of life, He can restore life.

Now, as I mentioned, God revealed Himself in mighty and miraculous ways to every nation He judged through Israel. For 400 years! Just read Genesis. Just read Exodus and Joshua. Over and over, those nations quaked at the existence, miracles and power of Yahweh. Yet they continued in their idolatrous rebellion, sexual religion, and child-killing worship. Knowing God, God finally judged them.

As their Creator, He had the right to do so. As a perfectly just judge, He was just in doing so.

Now the babies... That's hard for me to read. But I trust Him and His judgments above my own. He was wiping out a society that defiled themselves and every nation around them with child sacrifice and more. Their religion was also based on fertility cults and sexual deviancy. They were also most likely riddled with sexual diseases. (Thus the, "Keep only virgins for yourself -- in case they may want to marry you"-- if that was actually God's statement at all).

God had to clean house. He needed to wipe these cultures off the planet, or the special people He had chosen to be the bloodline of the world's Savior would have been defiled and ruined.

Apparently that included wiping the children away too. It's hard to read and consider. But God had to break the cycle of that religious and national identity or it would continue (as it actually did continue because Israel did not do what God asked).

Any person in that nation that was old enough to have made a moral judgment died and was judged. Anybody too young to have made a moral judgment died and "awoke" in heaven, to an eternity with God in paradise that they would not have experienced had He allowed the culture to continue, for that baby to grow up, and that baby to have become an adult that promoted the religious cycle.

God made a judgment against David by showing him that the wages of sin is death. That judgment effected the baby by bringing it directly to heaven, in the presence of God directly and utter bliss.

It is wrong for you and I to take life because we can not make perfect judgments, it is not our right to judge, and we cannot restore life. God makes perfect judgments. As the creator of humanity, He has the right to judge. And having judged, He can restore true life for eternity.

Lastly:

1 Corinthians lists several gifts of the Spirit, and then says that "the greatest if these is love". Think about that. That says that the highest ideal that God has for us is that we love. Now think of the implications. For one to love, they must have free will. Compulsion is not love-- it is emotional rape.

So, for God's highest ideal for us to be actualized, He had to allow us free will. That is an amazing thought to me. For God to give us free will, He had to willingly condescend himself to willingly allay a portion of His sovereign will. This means that a sovereign God, who could do anything He wants, sometimes has to do things He wouldn't have wanted to do.

Like wiping out entire nations. Like snuffing a baby's life, only to give that baby immediate eternal life.

:hi:
Click to expand...

So you do not believe that fundamental truths of transcendent morality apply to god? Since god created man, you believe he may also take the life of man without violating any moral standards?

And I am familiar with "the wages of sin is death", but clearly the unborn child had not sinned. It seems unfair to pass judgement on a child for the sins of his father. God even clearly states that he will hold the sins of their fathers (ancestors) against children, how can you read this and still consider your god to be perfectly just?

I'll admit that my attacks were childish, but I still have issue with defining morality through your god. Because if transcendent morality exists, I believe your god would fall slightly short of moral (for the reasons previously stated).
 
#964
#964
Vol8188 said:
So you do not believe that fundamental truths of transcendent morality apply to god? Since god created man, you believe he may also take the life of man without violating any moral standards?
Click to expand...

I believe they are defined by His very character, so it is impossible for Him to break them. How would God break the fundamental law that :"Man shall not kill man"?

Vol8188 said:
And I am familiar with "the wages of sin is death", but clearly the unborn child had not sinned. It seems unfair to pass judgement on a child for the sins of his father. God even clearly states that he will hold the sins of their fathers (ancestors) against children, how can you read this and still consider your god to be perfectly just?
Click to expand...

Scripture tells us that death passed to all people through Adam, so they were already under the curse of sin, if not yet sinful. That is why I made a distinction between the adults who were judged, and the children who died, but were not judged, thus didn't "really" permanently die. They were recreated in an eternal nature that was no longer under the curse of sin.



Vol8188 said:
I'll admit that my attacks were childish, but I still have issue with defining morality through your god. Because if transcendent morality exists, I believe your god would fall slightly short of moral (for the reasons previously stated).
Click to expand...

You are free to believe that. It does not make it so.

:hi:
 
#965
#965
Orange_Crush said:
I believe they are defined by His very character, so it is impossible for Him to break them. How would God break the fundamental law that :"Man shall not kill man"?



Scripture tells us that death passed to all people through Adam, so they were already under the curse of sin, if not yet sinful. That is why I made a distinction between the adults who were judged, and the children who dies, but were not judged, thus didn't "really" permanently die. They were recreated in an eternal nature that was no longer under the curse of sin.





You are free to believe that. It does not make it so.

:hi:
Click to expand...

So if nothing else you can understand where suicide bombers are coming from then? They define morality through their god, so whatever he says goes. They believe god wants them to kill infidels, just like god told Joshua to do. And according to your views on morality, the only thing separating you from them, is there bible has a slightly different cannon.
 
#966
#966
Vol8188 said:
So if nothing else you can understand where suicide bombers are coming from then? They define morality through their god, so whatever he says goes. They believe god wants them to kill infidels, just like god told Joshua to do. And according to your views on morality, the only thing separating you from them, is there bible has a slightly different cannon.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand them. I believe that they are absolutely wrong. There is more separating me from them-- our views of God to start with.

My God says of Himself, "I am long-suffering and slow to judgment wishing instead that the sinner would repent and find life.

In the Old Testament, God sent Israel to testify on His behalf and waited a long time. To the church, Christ gave no order for rebellion or jihad. He said, "Go spread the gospel and see as many saved as possible because the next time I come, it will be with a sword in my hand (not yours)."

Think of even the vocabulary, 8188. Jesus sent the church to save people. Allah sent a jihad-- a holy war."

So, no. I do not understand their god, even if I can comprehend their mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#967
#967
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, I understand them. I believe that they are absolutely wrong. There is more separating me from them-- our views of God to start with.

My God says of Himself, "I am long-suffering and slow to judgment wishing instead that the sinner would repent and find life.

In the Old Testament, God sent Israel to testify on His behalf and waited a long time. To the church, Christ gave no order for rebellion or jihad. He said, "Go spread the gospel and see as many saved as possible because the next time I come, it will be with a sword in my hand (not yours)."

Think of even the vocabulary, 8188. Jesus sent the church to save people. Allah sent a jihad-- a holy war."

So, no. I do not understand their god, even if I can comprehend their mindset.
Click to expand...

So Joshua didn't have the sword in his hand? It really seems like you are splitting hairs here. Joshua and his men did your gods dirty work them, as terrorist believe their god has commanded them to do.
 
#968
#968
Vol8188 said:
So Joshua didn't have the sword in his hand? It really seems like you are splitting hairs here. Joshua and his men did your gods dirty work them, as terrorist believe their god has commanded them to do.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. But there is a difference. Israel was not doing it according to a book, now were they? They were doing it by the direct voice of God, coming audibly and miraculously. Israel was not poring through old scripture making inferences about anything. They were being told directly.

Israel, at the time, was the sword. I guess Islam could claim to be the sword of Allah. But they don't have Allah directly speaking to them and telling them exactly what to do. That was your issue with God in the first place. HE was directly there, telling them directly what to do. It wasn't the inference of men. It was His direct command.

Edit:

Remember the story of Moses when he would have to cover His face because it glowed from the presence of God? God gave supernatural proof that He was ordering it. He didn't want to open the door of people inferring a bunch of hideous acts in His name, not by His commands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#969
#969
Hey, look what I found. A link to tons of articles from Paul Copan, one of the leading experts in dealing with difficulties in the Bible. Lots of scholarship here.

Paul Copan - Articles
Vol8188 said:
So you do not believe that fundamental truths of transcendent morality apply to god? Since god created man, you believe he may also take the life of man without violating any moral standards?
Click to expand...
Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites - Evangelical Philosophical Society
Since I hold to the notion of divine simplicity I would state that morality and God are the same. God did not create morality. (God has prescribed certain moral codes down through time, most notably His covenant with Israel.)
Thus God is not under a moral code, but is the essence of perfect morality. And He is therefore bound unto His own nature and not law. Herein also lies the issue of soveriengty. Human life has no intrinsic value apart from God. Theoretically, if God were to end all life today, He is its soveriegn, and no it would not be a violation. However, God is not arbitrary and therefore would not destroy the creation in such manner. So, to ask, "If God asked you to__________ would it then make __________ morally right," is a flawed question. Much like, "Do you still beat your wife?"

And I am familiar with "the wages of sin is death", but clearly the unborn child had not sinned. It seems unfair to pass judgement on a child for the sins of his father. God even clearly states that he will hold the sins of their fathers (ancestors) against children, how can you read this and still consider your god to be perfectly just?
Click to expand...
I would say that you are reading to much into this, while also ignoring a contextual exegesis. For example, if my Father gambles away the families savings, then his sins will likely impact me down the road. In this sense I am experiencing the judgment (consequence) of his choices. In this sense, it's a very practical truth that if God punished Israel, then the consequences for that would be felt for generations to come.

I'll admit that my attacks were childish, but I still have issue with defining morality through your god. Because if transcendent morality exists, I believe your god would fall slightly short of moral (for the reasons previously stated).
Click to expand...
And I'm sure Crush, as well as myself, wholeheartedly disagree. Peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#970
#970
Roustabout said:
Wow. You just committed an adpopulum fallacy to try and cover up another. Nice work.
You need to learn how to have an intellectual exchange. Please show me where I have appealed to the Bible in this thread regarding evolution. I provided you a link to peer reviewed research that counters Darwinism.

Seems you are more interested in getting high fives from others who are incapable of an actual discourse, but in reality you are lighting the fuse that blows up your own worldview. Please continue.
Click to expand...

fallacyMan1.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg


fallacyMan2.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg


fallacyMan_final.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#972
#972
So what happens when humans clone the first humans? Can god create 50 sheep with the exact same DNA? Humans can..
 
#975
#975
But on the actual subject of cloning, here's another area of medical science where the religious and their superstitions are really impeding important stem cell research. Stem cell treatments have so much potential to help people but the lord is against it.

Great job guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top