Re: Continue the debate in here

by Burns_William Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:33 am

First off, there is proof that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea;

Nathan (Larkin) showed this site me at Christmas. Ok, lets begin…First of all you agree with me that the original Hebrew states that Moses crossed the ‘Sea of Reeds’ and not the Red Sea. So if you claim that the Egyptian chariots are genuine and that Moese crossed the Red Sea, then the bible is lying, and if it is, then it makes it historically unreliable. Now if you bothered to do some more research, you would notice some interesting facts. The article appeared on the WorldNetDaily website in 2003. Here is a selection of its quotes:

I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel,… It was covered in coral.

I believe I actually sat in an ancient chariot cab,… Without question, it is most definitely the remains of the Egyptian army.

- Peter Elmer

So what is Peter Elmer’s profession? Marine biologist? Historian? Well…neither. He is a ‘38-year-old forklift mechanic from Keynsham, England’. Hardly reliable, I think you’ll agree.

But wait, surely there is a accredited archeologist in this article somewhere?

…Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, who have documented artifacts that in at least one case authorities have confirmed to be a chariot wheel dating to the time of the Exodus

Ok, so who are these guys? Ron Wyatt, is an amateur archeologist, with no accreditation, i.e. he is not qualified.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

What about Jonathan Gray? He is not an archaeologist either, but he runs a ministry in Australia. http://www.surprisingdiscoveries.com/

But the article mentions that ‘…authorities have confirmed to be a chariot wheel dating to the time of the Exodus’. But wouldn’t you know, they don’t mention who it was. Maybe it was Wyatt Archaeological Research? Nope, what does their president Richard Rives have to say on this matter?

All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts,… It's most likely coral covered with coral. ... Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars. Richard Rives

But then again, what does he know, he was an amateur too. But a partner of Ron Wyatt.

The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo.
Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C.

Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

So, Dave, No this is not proof.

So in old Testament Hebrew Almah means a girl who is most likely a virgin, whilst the Greek PARTHENOS mentioned in the New Testament is definitely a virgin. So we can say, with more probability, that Jesus was born of a virgin than we can that He was born of just a young women.

So Dave, which testament is the perfect word of God? If one claims Jesus was to be born of a young woman, and the other claims he was born of a virgin, then one has to be wrong? The bible is incredibly inconsistent, on this, not what you would expect from a perfect book. Of course you assume, that Mary was a virgin, remember she had other children, but this is an assumption, and indeed a valid one, just as assuming Mary and Joseph got it on in order to conceive Jesus. They are both valid assumptions. However, the problem lies with your interpretation of the bible. The prophecy said the messiah would be born of a young woman, yet the fulfillment of this prophecy was that he would be born of a virgin. These are two different words, and in two different languages, and having two different meanings.

So lets look at the facts, the Old Testament says, ‘young woman’, the New states ‘virgin’. Yes we can assume that this young woman was a virgin, we can also equally assume that they had sex in order to conceive. But which is more likely? We know, parthenogenesis is impossible, so the only way Mary could conceive was through intercourse. All the evidence points to this being the case. (Do not say that the bible is evidence, as I have shown it to be inconsistent and therefore not the word of God/perfect)

Now please, continue rebuttal of my claims. And also take the challenge!

by Burns_William Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:35 am

bennett_david wrote:
Ok I admit that the first part of this statement is true, I do not know every intelligent Christian. However, top-notch scientist, who believes in Creation? I am confident that none exist, can you present me with one?

I quote from here: http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/scientists.html :
``Men such as Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, David Brewster, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), and a host of others of comparable stature were men who firmly believed in special creation and the personal omnipotent God of creation, as well as believing in the Bible as the inspired Word of God and in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Their great contributions in science--indeed, in laying the very foundations of modern science--were made in implicit confidence that they were merely `thinking God's thoughts after Him,' and that they were doing His will and glorifying His name in so doing. They certainly entertained no thoughts of conflict between science and the Bible.

For further info on these Scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Kepler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brewster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thompson

First of all, don't post a reply to a question you were not asked.

And secondly, are any of these scientists alive today? or within the past 50 years? (That is directed to you Dave)

by bennett_david Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:50 am

And secondly, are any of these scientists alive today? or within the past 50 years? (That is directed to you Dave)

Seriously, what does it matter if none of those scientists lived within the last 50 years? You can't discredit Isaac Newton as a scientist just because hes been dead over 50 years.

If you want modern day scientists who believe in creation, heres a list:

Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

by Burns_William Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:54 am

Seriously, what does it matter if none of those scientists lived within
the last 50 years? You can't discredit Isaac Newton as a scientist just
because hes been dead over 50 years.

He did not have the evidence and technology we now have.

If you want modern day scientists who believe in creation, heres a list:

Where did you steal that from?

By the way, what about my challenge?

by bennett_david Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:20 am

Nathan (Larkin) showed this site me at Christmas. Ok, lets begin…First of all you agree with me that the original Hebrew states that Moses crossed the ‘Sea of Reeds’ and not the Red Sea. So if you claim that the Egyptian chariots are genuine and that Moese crossed the Red Sea, then the bible is lying, and if it is, then it makes it historically unreliable.

King James Bible says this:

Exodus 15:4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.

The original Hebrew for that verse is:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ex+15:4&translation=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en

"Pharaoh's chariots and his army He has cast into the sea; And the choicest of his officers are drowned in the Red * Sea.

Red:

Definition
1.reed, rush, water plant
a.rushes
b.sea of rushes
a.of Red Sea
b.of arms of Red Sea
c.of Gulf of Suez
d.of sea from straits to Gulf of Akaba

Sea:

Definition
1.sea
a.Mediterranean Sea
b.Red Sea
c.Dead Sea
d.Sea of Galilee
e.sea (general)
f.mighty river (Nile)
g.the sea (the great basin in the temple court)
h.seaward, west, westward

He did not have the evidence and technology we now have.

And what does the evidence and technology show us? It shows us that the world is more complex than we first thought.

Where did you steal that from?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

By the way, what about my challenge?

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by a believer that could not be performed or said by a non-believer?

http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070927165346AArWxkR

It is morally right to worship God. A non-believer can't do that.

by nathan_purdy Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:26 am

William,

Thanks again for your post. Actually, regarding the rules, I was referring to your description of dave's preaching!

I am confident that none exist, can you present me with one?

Top-notch Christian who is a creation believing scientist? John Polkinghorne. Even if I couldn't find one it would not prove much - just because I didn't know at least one would not mean such did not exist.

"Richard Dawkins has said of Polkinghorne that he is one of a number of 'good scientists who are sincerely religious', but says 'I remain baffled ... by their belief in the details of the Christian religion.'"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne, apparently cited from Richard Dawkins (2006). The God Delusion, p. 99.)

Hey, please forgive my 'ignorance.' But what I meant when I referred to the 'beginning' was the big bang. What about my point, though?

It was relevant, to your morality question

Hey! What I said about Augustine had nothing to do with the morality issue! That came later. What have Augustine's beliefs on the unity of truth got to do with the evolutionary basis for morality?

I was also showing that intelligence does not, by default, mean a person is reasonable

I don't think there is any dispute there.

But if Isaac Newton discovers the laws of gravity, should we also believe him when he talks about alchemy? Absolutely not! The evidence is severely lacking.

Again, this is true. This is precisely my point.

Getting back to the morality issue.

In order for natural selection to continue, the genes must pass from generation to generation. One of the best ways to do this is to ‘make friends’, start a tribe, if you will. This provides many benefits. Namely it ensures the survival of the species. A tribe will survive longer in the wilderness than an individual.
These newly formed groups, help each other out. But if one begins to do thing that are not beneficial to the group, then problems arise. The group are less likely to help that individual, although not an out cast, but the group will become weary of helping this one individual. It is a kind of ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine’ type of situation.
This type of behavior stretched to murder of other group members. The punishment may have been exile from the group, or something along those lines. As the groups got bigger they became societies. The punishments became more regulated. So it was a disadvantage for a society to ‘Do what each individual wanted’. That may be the basis of our morals.

Thanks for your honesty. You do not claim things emphatically here. However, where is the evidence for these specific claims? It is easy to say this because it fits your theory. The fact is then, from what you have said, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything, other than I might get caught. Can any one look me in the face and say "You OUGHT not to do that?" You have heard these before, I'm sure. But is what you are saying is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with...

sexual abuse of a child
raping a woman
murder etc?

Anyway, even if your view may work within societies, what happens when societies clash?

If society A is the most moral nation on earth, and society B the most immoral. If B decides to nuke A, who survives the longest. A or B? What value is society A's morality in terms of survival? Your theory seems to be a legitimate attempt at something reasonable in the scope of a single society. What about different societies with different moral codes? Which code is better, the one that helps it to survive the longest?

The link between dictator's and evolutionary thought is not redudant. Hilter clearly esposed the survial of fittest mentality, and shows us what the logical implications of it are. He did believe in a superior race, didn't he? He was merely exerting his force to do away with the, what he perceived to be weaker, inferior people? While I did say that cause and effect are difficult to determine under such great complexity, this link is much more than tenuous.

Therefore, can you please state whether or not you believe Hitler was morally wrong?

Anway, enough for now.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

The length of your posts doesn't overly bother me. It does make it harder to come to conclusions on specifics though.

by Burns_William Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:56 am

And what does the evidence and technology show us? It shows us that the world is more complex than we first thought.

Who on Earth ever said the universe was simple? I am talking about the fossil record, Astronomy, physics etc. None of these areas of science invoke the supernatural.

It is morally right to worship God. A non-believer can't do that.

First of all Dave, may I suggest you stop posting. You didn't even respond to the challenge with your own answer. Pathetic! I would greatly appreciate it if you refrained from posting from now on. You have shown yourself to be incompetent and, dare I say moronic and further lowering the credibility of the Christian faith (not that It had much to begin with).

Disbelief is not immoral, and belief is not moral. I'm sure Nathan would agree.

Moral

Adjective

* S: (adj) moral (concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles) "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral
convictions"; "a moral life"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=moral

Thank your for you time and setting up this forum. I will, of course, answer any unanswered questions in your previous posts in due time. I already have a word document full of information and sources that I could not have posted due to word limits.

Thank you!

by bennett_david Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:02 am

First of all Dave, may I suggest you stop posting. You didn't even respond to the challenge with your own answer.

Actually I did:

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by a believer that could not be performed or said by a non-believer?

Can you forgive your enemies? Like the forgiveness that Jesus asked for when He was dieing on the cross;

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

If you don't believe in God and are living on this Earth for yourself (enjoy life, do what you like etc...) then why would you show forgiveness to your enemies? What higher purpose would you have to do that? You wouldn't. To me, without God in a person's life, enemy forgiving is very difficult. Maybe not impossible, but very difficult.

by nathan_purdy Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:06 am

Gentlemen,

Forgive me, the new-comer, for suggesting this, but can I suggest a new rule? That we keep the content in tune with the title i.e. a debate.

Rule: Content must stick to the issues and not degenerate into personal attacks.

All in favor say "aye."

I'm not saying in debates we never get irate at other's views, but I do make this recommendation.

by Burns_William Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:27 am

Actually, regarding the rules, I was referring to your description of dave's preaching!

I whole heartedly stick by my comment. Maybe you could do a better job of getting him to understand what a debate actually is? If you can, please do so.

Top-notch Christian who is a creation believing scientist? John Polkinghorne. Even if I couldn't find one it would not prove much - just because I didn't know at least one would not mean such did not exist.

Apologies but John Polkinghorne is not a creationist. Let’s call a spade a spade here. Creationism is the belief the God created the world in 6 days etc. However, Polkinghorne, is more of an Intelligent Design advocate. He, like most scientist says he cannot prove God, and nor it be disproved.

…does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism. - Science and Theology

Although I see your point, that although (if) you couldn’t name one, it does not mean one exists, but may I ask for a top-notch scientist who believes in literal creation? I was hoping to go into more depth with the scientists Dave listed earlier, so forgive me if I do not mention it in this post.

Hey, please forgive my 'ignorance.' But what I meant when I referred to the 'beginning' was the big bang. What about my point, though?

Well, evolution does not - and rightly so - make any venture into origins.

In regard to Newton:

This is precisely my point.

What is? That nothing should be believed without evidence?

Thanks for your honesty. You do not claim things emphatically here.

I liked the way you embolded the text that seems unsure, how very ‘Way of the Master’ of you. This reaches back to my ‘pedantic’ explanation of belief. I do not claim to be an anthropologist, nor biologist, but of the latter I know more. I did not want to state ‘emphatically’ something I did not have the references for, at that time. Perhaps I should refer you to Desmond Morris?

Morality in primates: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040112/full/news040112-4.html

The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;312/5770/108

And other journal papers:
Altruistic punishment in humans, 2002
Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game, 2000

Books:
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9411466-6028820?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191630810&sr=1-1

And Anthropologist (Jane Goodall):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall

But, we KNOW that our morals are not derived from the Bible, and indeed religion. We just need to read the thing. One example is slavery. It is never condemed, by anyone!

The fact is then, from what you have said, thatthere is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything, other than I might get caught.

I think you are boiling this down a bit too much. What action can be performed that is ‘wrong’ that does not involve the suffering of others? Let us say, that masturbation is ‘wrong’ well, in a private environment, no one is there to witness it, so is it wrong? (If a tree falls in the woods…)

Essentially morality is a question of happiness and suffering. This is why you and I have no moral obligation to rock formations. Only actions that can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively are regarded in terms of morals. The belief that the Bible is the perfect guide to morality is (literally) unbelievable, considering the contents of the book.

If society A is the most moral nation on earth, and society B the most immoral. If B decides to nuke A, who survives the longest. A or B?

You would be surprised how a out-group can be form in a matter of hours. Imagine you separated your church into two groups, and gave them a task, say making a poster. It is natural for you to assume that the other group is not as good as you are. You won’t be doing it in a negative way, but will still have that in-group, out-group scenario. Now imagine this over extended periods of time, and not only that, try introducing beliefs that out of this world. This is where the scenario you pose occurs. No one societies views may lead to survival, however the scope becomes bigger. Societies that act together will have more chance of survival. International politics are based on this thinking. Who would you rather have as an ally, the US and UK, or Lebanon and Syria? Or would you risk it on your own?

The link between dictator's and evolutionary thought is not redudant. Hilter clearly esposed the survial of fittest mentality, and shows us what the logical implications of it are. He did believe in a superior race, didn't he? He was merely exerting his force to do away with the, what he perceived to be weaker, inferior people? While I did say that cause and effect are difficult to determine under such great complexity, this link is much more than tenuous.

Well, no! Hitler did not necessarily want a ‘fit’ race, but rather a ‘pure’ race. For example this essay says something very interesting: http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life

Whoever wrote this clearly does not know much, if anything, about evolution. There are no ‘races’. There never was and there never will be. It is a man made concept. All life on this planet shared 90 something % of the same DNA. Humans and primates share 96% (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html). The separation within evolution, it is called species. Evolution shows us that we are constantly evolving. There is no ‘pure’ blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler often uses the term ‘Aryan race’ and ‘German Culture’. German Jews were not considered part of this race, or culture, yet some Austrians were. Hitler, was a racist and anti-Semite.

Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. – Hitler 1943

He even suggests a young Earth, in Mein Kampf it states, ‘this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men’. But you will be pleased to know that the 2nd edition changes ‘thousands’ to ‘millions’. Again in 1943 he says:

The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of he Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

And…

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.

http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/

Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquistadors, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.

Therefore, can you please state whether or not you believe Hitler was morally wrong?

Pardon me for being dense, but what has that got to do with anything?

by Burns_William Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:30 am

Can you forgive your enemies? Like the forgiveness that Jesus asked for when He was dieing on the cross;

Read my previous post!

Essentially morality is a question of happiness and suffering. This is why you and I have no moral obligation to rock formations. Only actions that can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively are regarded in terms of morals.

If you don't believe in God and are living on this Earth for yourself (enjoy life, do what you like etc...) then why would you show forgiveness to your enemies? What higher purpose would you have to do that? You wouldn't. To me, without God in a person's life, enemy forgiving is very difficult. Maybe not impossible, but very difficult.

How would you know if I forgive people?

The point of the challenge is to show that religion/belief is optional. You can be a moral person with or without belief.

by bennett_david Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:14 pm

How would you know if I forgive people?

You might tell me and if I knew the person you forgave I could ask them. But unless I knew the situation where you needed to forgive and also knew the people involved it wouldn't be easy for me to know if you forgive people. Heres a a challenge for you:

Name me somebody in history, who without God, found it easy to forgive their enemies.

The point of the challenge is to show that religion/belief is optional. You can be a moral person with or without belief.

Without belief, can you prove to me that any moral is actually right or wrong? And you can't say because society accepts certain things to be right. I shall take the example of murder. How come the Nazi German society accepted murder as being OK during the holocaust, but the UK nowadays deems murder wrong? Who was right? How do you tell without belief? I know that murder is morally wrong because I believe the Bible and it says so.

One more thing. Please tell me of a society/race who has survived until now who have a moral system in place that is not based on some kind of belief system.

Heres an interesting article:

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=129

I quote:

But the problem becomes even worse. For, regardless of immortality, if there is no God, then there can be no objective standards of right and wrong. All we are confronted with is, in Jean-Paul Sartre’s words, the bare, valueless fact of existence. Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning. In the words of one humanist philosopher, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion.”8 In a world without God, who is to say which values are right and which are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a saint? The concept of morality loses all meaning in a universe without God. As one contemporary atheistic ethicist points out, “to say that something is wrong because . . . it is forbidden by God, is . . . perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong . . . even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. . . .” “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”9 In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist–there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.

by nathan_purdy Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:18 pm

William,

I take your point about Pilkinghorne.

One fairly recent example is: Aurthur Ernest Wilder-Smith (died in 90's).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith

There are, of course, others who have both doctorates and publications in leading journals e.g. ken cummings and todd c. wood.

how very ‘Way of the Master’ of you

Ad hominem. btw - you agree with my earlier post on a new rule?

Apologies, but was I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I was trying to highlight the parts of a slightly longer post which my comments most referred to.

I read what I could get access to in your sciencemag link, the article in nature and the wiki on Goodall.

we KNOW that our morals are not derived from the Bible, and indeed religion

Up to this point I have not said they are, I am merely trying to see how they emerge as mandatory in a system which is random and purposeless.

Your question,

What action can be performed that is ‘wrong’ that does not involve the suffering of others?

deflects from what I am asking you. I am asking you what is wrong with anything?
What is your view on Russell's position in this dialogue (a 1948 bbc debate between Fr. Copleston and Bertrand Russell)

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?
R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.
C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?
R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.
...
R: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.
C: Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?
R: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.
C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?
R: By my feelings.

published several places inc. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

Can you help me see where the objective basis for right and wrong is? Or is it something as subjective as feeling?

Essentially morality is a question of happiness and suffering.

Said who? and why? Can you help me to see how the survival of fittest cares about happiness and suffering? Should you not be saying, essentially morality is about helping us to survive? Or proving how happiness and suffering help survival? What exactly do you mean here?

Societies that act together will have more chance of survival. International politics are based on this thinking. Who would you rather have as an ally, the US and UK, or Lebanon and Syria? Or would you risk it on your own?

I agree with your thought. However, here is what I genuinely do not see. Why anyone is obligated to abide by the societal rules, or how these rules are always conducive to survival. Can these rules be universal?

Where do, for example, I draw the line of my society? Can I set that myself? Individual, family, town, city, country, coalition?

America could wipe out nations with ease. That would ensure their long term survival. Would that be morally justified?

It seems to me like we have at least a feeling of how we ought to be treated. Say one culture feels polygamy is moral. Are you happy to share your g'friend with many guys? What if that was conducive to survival? Say one family can survive better with an extra computer and at the moment that family is stronger than yours, can they force their way into your house and take your computer? They are hurting you, but helping themselves to suvive.

Take, for example, the claim of Craig Palmer, author of A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, who said,

"And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions."

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/rape.asp and before you object too much, this in an interview with Palmer - relatively interesting actually)

So, what if rape were actually helpful to survival. if a guy rapes someone's g'friend is he guilty or not? Did his DNA make him do it, or did he make a moral choice for which he is responsible.

I know you will tear some of these apart. My point is not to prevent that, it is to see what you say.

Thanks.

btw. there is no way i can sustain the frequency of your posts. Honestly, my schedule just doesn't allow it. next week I am due to be out every evening, as well as busy through the day. I want to be consistent, but not as fequent as you guys.

by Burns_William Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:12 am

You might tell me and if I knew the person you forgave I could ask them. But unless I knew the situation where you needed to forgive and also knew the people involved it wouldn't be easy for me to know if you forgive people.

Forgiveness is not moral. If anything it is selfish. Someone who forgives an oppressor is either doing it for one of two reasons, 1. Their faith dictates that they should, or 2. It removes any bitterness they may have toward the oppressor. You forgiving someone, has no bearing in that persons life, unless they ask for it. And they are asking, essentially to make themselves feel better. It has nothing to do with morals!

In some contexts, it may be granted without any expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is dead).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness

Name me somebody in history, who without God, found it easy to forgive their enemies.

Your point is? (Considering forgiveness is NOT moral, nor is it immoral)

Without belief, can you prove to me that any moral is actually right or wrong?

Can you prove otherwise? Did the Jews think murder, lying, and theft were moral before the 10 commandments?

And you can't say because society accepts certain things to be right. I shall take the example of murder. How come the Nazi German society accepted murder as being OK during the holocaust, but the UK nowadays deems murder wrong? Who was right? How do you tell without belief? I know that murder is morally wrong because I believe the Bible and it says so.

Read my posts about Hitler and Darwin!

By the way, the German people agreed to the extermination of the Jews ‘specifically’ because of religion and their belief in God.

One more thing. Please tell me of a society/race who has survived until now who have a moral system in place that is not based on some kind of belief system.

The Yanomami tribe of the Amazon rainforest. Or, if you want a more recent one, the United States of America. What about Norway?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/OPINION02/710020304/1006
In fact, morality is not derived from religion, so essentially all surviving societies are based on secular systems.

Now Dave, lets get back to what we were doing. Answer my challenge, either by providing an answer, or state that you cannot answer it. And reread all my posts and offer rebuttals.

by bennett_david Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:57 am

Forgiveness is not moral. If anything it is selfish. Someone who forgives an oppressor is either doing it for one of two reasons, 1. Their faith dictates that they should, or 2. It removes any bitterness they may have toward the oppressor. You forgiving someone, has no bearing in that persons life, unless they ask for it. And they are asking, essentially to make themselves feel better. It has nothing to do with morals!

The ideal; 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Surely that is moral and must include forgiveness. You would want somebody to forgive you, so you would show forgiveness. Therefore I believe that offering somebody forgiveness is a moral action and an action that Jesus taught.

Can you prove otherwise? Did the Jews think murder, lying, and theft were moral before the 10 commandments?

William, what do you base your morality on? How do you know right from wrong?

There is reason to believe that the Jews did think murder, lying and theft where moral before they where given the ten commandments;

Murder:

Genesis 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

So the Jews knew murder was wrong.

Lying:

Genesis 42:16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.

This verse is from when Joseph was checking out his brothers to see if they where lying about being spies. So Joseph would have known about the moral concept of lying.

Theft:

Genesis 31:33 And Laban went into Jacob's tent, and into Leah's tent, and into the two maidservants' tents; but he found them not. Then went he out of Leah's tent, and entered into Rachel's tent.

This verse is from when Laban went after Jacob because because Laban's idols had been stolen. Therefore the people must have known about the concept of theft.

All these events took place well before God gave the ten commandments.

By the way, the German people agreed to the extermination of the Jews ‘specifically’ because of religion and their belief in God.

Yeh and the crusades where done in the name of religion as well. Like I've said before, these examples do not represent true Christianity. Its a misuse of the teachings of Christianity by people to further their own causes. It paints Christianity and God in a bad light.

EXODUS 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

So the actions of the people directly involved in the crusades and the German Nazi holocaust, are wrong and not right. None of those people should have used religion to commit their wicked crimes. The Bible clearly states what they where doing was wrong.

William, answer this question for me; Why are people quicker to blame God for the bad things that happen in the world, than to thank Him when good things happen and they are blessed by God?

Here is an article I was reading recently (you might find it interesting):

http://www.activated.org/reading/questions_article.php?article=30

I quote:

Q: I've read in the Bible and often heard people say, "God is love," or "God loves you," but if that's so, why does He allow so much suffering in the world? He's all-powerful, right? So why doesn't He put a stop to things like disease and poverty and war and natural disasters?
Nearly all of us have asked those questions at one time or another. The answer hinges on two basic truths: First, most suffering is not due to so-called natural causes. In other words, it's not according to the way God intended for things to work; it's not His doing. It's man's doing. Second, He has given us freedom of choice, and this plays a big part in His plan for us. He didn't create us as robots, but with decision-making abilities and the need to exercise them. He put us here to make choices between right and wrong, good and evil.
So when it comes right down to it, most suffering is the result of people's choices. Sometimes people deliberately inflict suffering on others, and sometimes the suffering is a byproduct of selfish choices or indifference--choosing not to make choices that could avoid or alleviate the suffering. But either way, people are to blame. God doesn't approve of choices that harm others or us, but if He were to step in every time we made a bad choice, He'd have to put an end to freedom of choice altogether.

So, as we can see, humans made the choice themselves to kill the Jews during the 2nd World War and wrongly used religion to back up their actions. Therefore God can not be blamed.

by Burns_William Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:13 am

Let me begin by reiterating that I will address the, Scientific Creationists in a later post. (If it is ok, even right after this post?)

Ad hominem. btw - you agree with my earlier post on a new rule?

I beg to differ. This is a fact that, that tactic is used on the ‘Way of the Master’. If you choose to see that as an ad hominem attack, then that is up to you. But, again, is stick by the statement. Dave, with his ‘belief is moral’ statement can, me seen as an ad hominem attack, but I know that he is wrong on several accounts, so it does not bother me, nor should it bother you.

Up to this point I have not said they are, I am merely trying to see how they emerge as mandatory in a system which is random and purposeless.

Apologies if you thought I assumed you were implying that they were, (others would though). I was just pointing out that we could categorically rule out religion as the origin.

And may I add that the ‘randomness’ of evolution occurs in the gene, the ‘purpose’ is survival, survival of the gene. Read Dawkins The Selfish Gene.

deflects from what I am asking you. I am asking you what is wrong with anything?

I will try to be as clear as I can be here. Does morality evolve? Or the question better put, does the Zeitgeist move forward? I think so. We can only evaluate it with the benefit of hindsight. 50 years ago, the ‘moral’ majority of the American public ‘knew’ that blacks were lower than whites, in all aspects. So much so that the Jim Crow laws were introduced, meaning, by today’s standards, the abhorrent segregation of blacks.

Rewind a further 100 years, and the majority though that the blacks were nothing more than property, to be bought and sold. Until Lincoln, decided to abolish slavery. Of course this was ahead of it’s time, who would have thought that a white man would fight to free the black man. But although Lincoln was ahead of his time, that time only ventured as far as the 50’s & 60’s.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people… - Lincoln/Douglas debate 1858

So by today’s Zeitgeist, Lincoln freeing the slaves was moral, but his view of and rights given to them would be considered highly immoral. But at the time, only a small minority of people agreed with the freeing of slaves.

Do you think Lincoln would be in the ‘moral’ majority if he existed today? If he was born post 1970, then yes, but with the views mentioned above, he would be seen as veering very close to racism.

What is your view on Russell's position in this dialogue (a 1948 bbc debate between Fr. Copleston and Bertrand Russell)

Having read ‘The Moral Argument’, I would say my views closely mimic those of Russell, in fact, he makes a similar point to the one I made above.

I love the following statement, which Russell presented regarding ‘that that moral order is unintelligible apart from the existence of God.’

Then you have to say one or other of two things. Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of mankind -- which happens to include yourself -- or He deliberately says things are not true in talking to the consciences of savages.

Can you help me see where the objective basis for right and wrong is? Or is it something as subjective as feeling?

I think Russell explained it better and more eloquent than I could ever do.

Said who? and why?

I thought it was self evident. Can you provide me a list of immoral actions performed that do not cause suffering to others?

I agree with your thought. However, here is what I genuinely do not see. Why anyone is obligated to abide by the societal rules, or how these rules are always conducive to survival. Can these rules be universal?

Apologies, but I don’t fully understand this question. If people were ‘obliged’ to follow societies rules, then no crimes would be committed. However, because some people go against these rules, then they must face the consequences. If you will the consequences are the deterrent. Not always effective.

Where do, for example, I draw the line of my society? Can I set that myself? Individual, family, town, city, country, coalition?

Again, apologies, I do not understand this question at all. Can you rephrase it?

America could wipe out nations with ease. That would ensure their long term survival. Would that be morally justified?

I assume, you mean nuclear war? If not, just look at Iraq and Vietnam. America did not win those wars against lesser nations. The tribal camaraderie between the Vietcong, and the Iraqi militia, is stronger than the weapons and technology of a nation. Not only that, but in a Nuclear war, the Americas would wipe out valuable resources they need to survive. So it is in their nature to have trade agreements rather than occupy the land.

It seems to me like we have at least a feeling of how we ought to be treated. Say one culture feels polygamy is moral. Are you happy to share your g'friend with many guys? What if that was conducive to survival? Say one family can survive better with an extra computer and at the moment that family is stronger than yours, can they force their way into your house and take your computer? They are hurting you, but helping themselves to suvive.

‘How we ought to be treated.’ That is what is known as the Golden Rule. That is universal.

Polygyny I think is the term you should be using. How many cultures are there in which one woman, has many husbands? I can’t think of one. Sorry if I am being too logical, but surely my girlfriend sharing me, would be better for the survival of the genes, as in the space of nine months I could have several children, however if I shared my girlfriend with several other men, then in that same time frame only one man’s genes would pass on.

So, what if rape were actually helpful to survival. if a guy rapes someone's g'friend is he guilty or not? Did his DNA make him do it, or did he make a moral choice for which he is responsible.

Oh, I don’t object. Rape was one of the best and often easiest ways in which to ensure the survival of the genes. Remember, we are talking about genes, not individuals. But through time and social evolution and the moving Zeitgeist, this became unacceptable. However, although I agree with, the rape claims, it is not an anthropological consensus, regarding certain scenarios in Palmers book.

I am very wary about the authenticity of the article. Apologies but it reeks of Christian propaganda. I may be wrong. I was alerted to this by the comment supposedly made by Palmer:

Sure. OK, this all comes certainly with Christianity. I've written a paper but never published it arguing that all types of sexual crimes increase when religion and moral traditions in general deteriorate.

No such statistics support this claim. Kent Hovind makes a similar claim, but it didn’t even get off the ground.

I am not surprised that a Christian who believes in the bible, conducting an interview regarding rape, and how it is morally wrong, ‘forgets’ to mention the following bible verses:

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

I would like to know your interpretation on the above verses, and rape in the bible.

btw.there is no way i can sustain the frequency of your posts. Honestly, my schedule just doesn't allow it. next week I am due to be out every evening, as well as busy through the day. I want to be consistent, but not as fequent as you guys.

Well I work a 9-5 job. And although I really get into debating (As I enjoy it something shocking, I really should get a life). I hope you don’t think I’m breaking the rules by possibly ignoring Dave all together, as I am sure you can see, he is not actually debating. But I look forward to your reply.

by Burns_William Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:23 am

1. Dave, define Morals? Should we imprison people for not forgiving each other? Let me rephrase my challenge:

Name a moral action, or statment (that would not result in imprisonment), that can be performed by a believer that cannot by a non-believer?

2. What makes your interpretation of Christanity better and more reliable than those of Augustine or Aquinas?

3. If I don't ask for forgivness, so therefore someone cannot forgive me, does that mean they are immoral?

4. Is slavery immoral? If so why is it not included as immoral in the Bible. Is rape immoral? Why, in the Bible, is a 'punishment' for rape, marrige of the rape victim?

by bennett_david Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:23 pm

1. Dave, define Morals? Should we imprison people for not forgiving each other? Let me rephrase my challenge:

At what point did I say people should be sent to prison for not forgiving? I never said that. In fact, if they don't send people to prison for abortion, which is the same as murder, then I doubt they would ever send anybody to prison for not forgiving.

Name a moral action, or statment (that would not result in imprisonment), that can be performed by a believer that cannot by a non-believer?

The forgiveness one still applies there, as you don't get sent to prison for that and its harder for a non-believer.

2. What makes your interpretation of Christanity better and more reliable than those of Augustine or Aquinas?

I never once said my interpretation of Christianity was better or more reliable than those of Augustine or Aquinas. I've been making the point that if somebody uses the Christian religion to further their cause and their actions go directly against what the Bible teaches, then it can not be a right interpretation of what the Bible says. The Bible says murder is wrong, therefore it was wrong for Augustine (or any other Christian person) to ever promote the killing of anybody. If murder was deemed Ok by God, then King David should never have been punished for the murder of Bathsheba's husband.

3. If I don't ask for forgivness, so therefore someone cannot forgive me, does that mean they are immoral?

Not if they weren't given the chance. But if somebody is given the chance to forgive, they should. Obviously not an easy thing. There where people in Germany in the Second World War who choose to murder. By their choice they where being immoral. Those who lived in Germany who never made a choice to murder, where not immoral. If they where given the chance to choose, they should not have murdered. And if they did murder, they would have been immoral.

Immoral means 'Not adhering to ethical or moral principles.' Your feelings are not a good basis for what you deem to be right or wrong. One of the reasons is your circumstances. Your feelings could change over time depending on your circumstances and what you once thought was wrong you might accept as being ok and right. No matter how long humans exist on this earth, murder will always be morally wrong. If what you accept as right and wrong can change, then that in turn makes it more difficult for you to enforce morality on yourself or anybody else.

4. Is slavery immoral? If so why is it not included as immoral in the Bible. Is rape immoral? Why, in the Bible, is a 'punishment' for rape, marrige of the rape victim?

Well for one thing. If a women was raped and then left to die in the street and did in fact die, you would say God wasn't very loving by letting that person die. Marriage of a rape victim was the best of a very bad situation. Rape shouldn't have taken place.

by lou{sosiennaboho} Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:42 pm

I have only been watching this debate, reading the updates and I didn't intend on partaking but I could not let the following statement by dave go without commenting on how ridiculous it is...

Well for one thing. If a women was raped and then left to die in the
street and did in fact die, you would say God wasn't very loving by
letting that person die. Marriage of a rape victim was the best of a
very bad situation. Rape shouldn't have taken place.

Dave, If I was raped I'd rather be left to die than forced to spend the rest of my living life with my rapist. That indeed would be hell, for if he can do it once, he would probably rape me whenever he wanted for the rest of his life, not to mention the other victims he would rape leaving me vunderable to unwanted pregancies and STDs as well as emotional and physical torture. Marriage of a rape victim is certainly not the best of a very bad situation. And a person or God who thinks it is is sick and twisted.

And if you think that Liam would say God wasn't loving by letting the rape victim die in the street, then you're wrong. I believe that if God was loving, he wouldn't let the rape happen in the first place rather than stepping in after the atrosity and making the life of the victim worse. And forget the laws of that time, God had a say in that too remember, after all if he is "all powerful" the blame lies with him.

by bennett_david Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:16 pm

And if you think that Liam would say God wasn't loving by letting the rape victim die in the street, then you're wrong. I believe that if God was loving, he wouldn't let the rape happen in the first place rather than stepping in after the atrosity and making the life of the victim worse. And forget the laws of that time, God had a say in that too remember, after all if he is "all powerful" the blame lies with him.

I will admit that both situations for the woman (marriage and death) would be terrible. I wouldn't wish either upon anybody.

But God is not to blame. The blame lies solely with the rapist. The rapist is responsible for his own actions. God gave free will; the man chose to rape.

One more thing. Without God, you can't tell me rape is right or wrong. How do you know? And don't tell me because your feelings tell you its wrong. Your feelings can change.

by lou{sosiennaboho} Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:03 pm

But God is not to blame. The blame lies solely with the rapist. The
rapist is responsible for his own actions. God gave free will; the man
chose to rape.

If God gave free will, he knew that we would ultimatley do whatever we wanted, thus knowing that there would be bad consequences, therefore the blame ultimatley lies with him.

And if thats not enough reason to blame try this:
God creates humans, give them the ability to fail (knowing they will fail) then when they do fail, punishes them and then says you can redeem yourself through me. Ie God is the answer to himself. Your saviour is also your destroyer.

Moraility isn't exempt to religion, the environment a person is brought up in and exposed to determines theyre judgment. What religion condones rape? Despite what god they have! So how do you know slavery is wrong when it is advocated in the Bible? Feelings have nothing to do with it. I know rape isnt acceptable as it is forced upon a person, it is not a mutual agreement and that violates the person's human rights. And every human being is equal.

by bennett_david Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:29 pm

If God gave free will, he knew that we would ultimatley do whatever we wanted, thus knowing that there would be bad consequences, therefore the blame ultimatley lies with him.

It doesn't matter that God knew what was going to happen. The issue is free will. God gives us free will and lets us choose what to do. If we choose unwisely, then we face the consequence of our decisions.

God creates humans, give them the ability to fail (knowing they will fail) then when they do fail, punishes them and then says you can redeem yourself through me. Ie God is the answer to himself. Your saviour is also your destroyer.

It all boils down to free will. With free will, humans can fail, if they make wrong choices. If a human rejects God, then God lets the human do that. Its the humans choice. Its not the way God intended for humans to live, but God lets the humans have the choice. And does the fact that through Jesus we have a solution to our failure not demonstrate that even though we have failed God, He still loves humans? It does demonstrate that God loves us even though we have failed Him. Give me one good reason why God shouldn't leave us all in hell, considering we have failed Him.

Moraility isn't exempt to religion, the environment a person is brought up in and exposed to determines theyre judgment.

Yes it does determine their judgement. But how do they know that what they think is right is actually right? The German people thought murder was Ok during the second world war because thats what their society and environment was making them think. But was murder right?

by Burns_William Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:11 pm

Burns_William wrote:1. Dave, define Morals? Should we imprison people for not forgiving each other? Let me rephrase my challenge:

Name a moral action, or statment (that would not result in imprisonment), that can be performed by a believer that cannot by a non-believer?

2. What makes your interpretation of Christanity better and more reliable than those of Augustine or Aquinas?

3. If I don't ask for forgivness, so therefore someone cannot forgive me, does that mean they are immoral?

4. Is slavery immoral? If so why is it not included as immoral in the Bible. Is rape immoral? Why, in the Bible, is a 'punishment' for rape, marrige of the rape victim?

Dave, they are four simple questions. Answer them!

The German people thought murder was Ok during the second world war
because thats what their society and environment was making them think.

By the way, on what evidence do you base this claim? How do you 'know' they thought murder was right?

by Burns_William Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:59 pm

Some stuff I left out of previous posts, specifically regarding Dave's post.

The Sumerian King List:

The Sumerian King List (pictured here), for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed. - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html

The Sumerian Kings list, if true would mean the earth is 241,200 years old (At Least)!

Your Christian website claims that this tablet mention the flood, and that it backs of the Genesis account. Well in a way it does, it mentions a flood. But it contradicts the young earth claim. You claim the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but if this tablet is correct then Genesis is wrong, or you have no non-biblical evidence for a flood.

Bear in mind where in the world you are. Your geography GCSE teacher should have told you about the yearly flooding of the middle-east and Asian rivers. These flood still occur today!

The Prophesy of the Coming Messiah

Isaiah 9:6 - Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Jesus, according to the bible, spent most of his time in Jersuleam. But there is no archealogial evidence that the Kingdom of David existed there, ever. So how is this prophecy fulfilled?

And :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity_of_David

Scientists

Based on a Gallup poll conducted in the United
States in 1991, 5% of American scientists are ‘Creationists’. However, included within this poll were the opinions of people working in fields not related to life origins (computer scientists, mechanical engineers etc). When the opinions of scientists in the relevant fields are accounted for, of which there are approx 500,000, about 800 of which believe in ‘creation science’, or consider it valid. This is approx 0.15%. And this is just in the US, which has the highest creationism belief in the industrial world. In western Europe this number drops to less than 0.10%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

We need to examine not how many of the scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence is lacking. Claims for such evidence by the Discovery Institute (DI) have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. - Discovery Institute 2004

Scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. - NCSE 2003

Most of the signatures on the DI's list (about 80%) are not from biologists; some are not even scientists. Generally speaking, mathematicians, electrical engineers, philosophers, and so forth are only marginally more qualified to comment on the validity of evolution than the average person like me.

by bennett_david Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:05 am

Dave, they are four simple questions. Answer them!

I did answer them. I shall quote my answers:

Quote:1. Dave, define Morals? Should we imprison people for not forgiving each other? Let me rephrase my challenge:

At what point did I say people should be sent to prison for not forgiving? I never said that. In fact, if they don't send people to prison for abortion, which is the same as murder, then I doubt they would ever send anybody to prison for not forgiving.
Quote:Name a moral action, or statment (that would not result in imprisonment), that can be performed by a believer that cannot by a non-believer?

The forgiveness one still applies there, as you don't get sent to prison for that and its harder for a non-believer.
Quote:2. What makes your interpretation of Christanity better and more reliable than those of Augustine or Aquinas?

I never once said my interpretation of Christianity was better or more reliable than those of Augustine or Aquinas. I've been making the point that if somebody uses the Christian religion to further their cause and their actions go directly against what the Bible teaches, then it can not be a right interpretation of what the Bible says. The Bible says murder is wrong, therefore it was wrong for Augustine (or any other Christian person) to ever promote the killing of anybody. If murder was deemed Ok by God, then King David should never have been punished for the murder of Bathsheba's husband.
Quote:3. If I don't ask for forgivness, so therefore someone cannot forgive me, does that mean they are immoral?

Not if they weren't given the chance. But if somebody is given the chance to forgive, they should. Obviously not an easy thing. There where people in Germany in the Second World War who choose to murder. By their choice they where being immoral. Those who lived in Germany who never made a choice to murder, where not immoral. If they where given the chance to choose, they should not have murdered. And if they did murder, they would have been immoral.

Immoral means 'Not adhering to ethical or moral principles.' Your feelings are not a good basis for what you deem to be right or wrong. One of the reasons is your circumstances. Your feelings could change over time depending on your circumstances and what you once thought was wrong you might accept as being ok and right. No matter how long humans exist on this earth, murder will always be morally wrong. If what you accept as right and wrong can change, then that in turn makes it more difficult for you to enforce morality on yourself or anybody else.
Quote:4. Is slavery immoral? If so why is it not included as immoral in the Bible. Is rape immoral? Why, in the Bible, is a 'punishment' for rape, marrige of the rape victim?

Well for one thing. If a women was raped and then left to die in the street and did in fact die, you would say God wasn't very loving by letting that person die. Marriage of a rape victim was the best of a very bad situation. Rape shouldn't have taken place.

By the way, on what evidence do you base this claim? How do you 'know' they thought murder was right?

If there wasn't wide spread support in Germany for the killing, then it just wouldn't have been on such a large scale.

Heres an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
I quote:

Compliance of Germany's institutions
Michael Berenbaum writes that Germany became a "genocidal nation."[8] Every arm of the country's sophisticated bureaucracy was involved in the killing process. Parish churches and the Interior Ministry supplied birth records showing who was Jewish; the Post Office delivered the deportation and denaturalization orders; the Finance Ministry confiscated Jewish property; German firms fired Jewish workers and disenfranchised Jewish stockholders; the universities refused to admit Jews, denied degrees to those already studying, and fired Jewish academics; government transport offices arranged the trains for deportation to the camps; German pharmaceutical companies tested drugs on camp prisoners; companies bid for the contracts to build the ovens; detailed lists of victims were drawn up using the Dehomag company's punch card machines, producing meticulous records of the killings. As prisoners entered the death camps, they were made to surrender all personal property, which was carefully catalogued and tagged before being sent to Germany to be reused or recycled. Berenbaum writes that the Final Solution of the Jewish question was "in the eyes of the perpetrators … Germany's greatest achievement."[13]

So we can see that there was widespread support for the killing. You don't support something if you think it is wrong, unless your pressured into supporting something against your will.

by Sponsored content