original sin
Posted on: June 23, 2010 - 8:00pm
Offline
original sin
quick little practice in logic: adam and eve committed the original sin by going against God's word and eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating the fruit of the tree i assume gave them knowledge of good and evil. So it is implied that beforehand they did not know what is good and what is evil. so how can they have known that god is good and they going against his word is evil until after they ate the fruit. so really the original sin was carried out in ignorance. doesnt seem very fair to me or is God allowed to punish you for sins you did not know you were committing?
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
- Login to post comments
No dear, I think your being blinded by your secular humanism! You believe in what you believe because you want to. You don't want to find the truth. If things are purely naturalistic then that means the love you have for your family is just a chemical reaction in your brain. If naturalism is true, then why do we have laws? It wouldn't be fair to punish us for breaking the law because we don't know what we are doing. It's just a chemical reaction. It's all just pure chaos!
Why do good things? Or evil things?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Biblical view of marriage? Polygamy, what Jesus supposedly spoke of or Paul's view?
Societies legislate morality all the time - the problem comes when a group tries to say that the morality their church teaches should be the moral basis for these laws. It's wrong when Muslims do it (Sharia). It's wrong when evangelical Christians attempt it.
To educate you - Christianity was a cult that sprang up in rebellion to Judaism.
If evolution is a religion then it has successfully stood up to a lot more scrutiny than Christianity.People have been trying to disprove it for 150 years. Christianity has had a pass for the better part of 2000 years.
I get the feeling you wouldn't care so much about your tax money if your religion was being taught. Since something that you don't understand/frightens you is being taught, it must be wrong.
Google "observed instances of speciation" for some examples of transition. Look in the mirror for another - you don't look exactly like your parents do you?
I'd tell you to go to a museum bud you'd probably head to AiG's monument to wrong science and poor theology instead.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
When did I even mention a cell phone in my previous post?
Your being very immature and you didn't sincerely try to answer my question.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Can't answer your questions until you give me more information - I asked for that in my post. Was it just easier for you to pick on cj?
Makes sense - Christianity is a moral path of least resistance. Don't believe me - read your Bible.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Because these are God's words! I don't read into the text what I want it to tell me I read what is says. God warns not to take away or add to the scriptures.
I have to correct you sir! Jesus created Christianity! The law doesn't give you righteousness, Christ does!
Paul wanted to destroy Judaism and set himself up as a prophet? Where is that in the bible? I thought atheist's were supposed to know the bible better than Christians?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I'm not picking on anybody here. You guys are making yourself look foolish by your irrational thoughts and your not answering my questions sincerely. Your just making stupid childish comments and avoiding my questions. It takes time to reply to everyone's question.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
You made a basic error there, Lee.
The rates are per 100 people, not total numbers, so your argument is a total fail. That is what 'rate' means.
The fact that you failed to understand something so basic suggests you are either not very smart or not well-educated.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Oh, I was talking about the other kind of "speaking" where God is speaking to your heart and head.
If your going to correct me, provide correct information. Jesus would have been extremely offended if he knew what Paul the Roman had in mind for him. See, Jesus and his disciples were observant Jews and for a Jew to believe that a man was God was blasphemy. Believing that Jesus was Messiah is radically different from believing he was God.
And the fact that you took from Paul's teaching supports my point. Jesus never called himself God. He claimed that he was sent by God - big difference.
As Paul wanted his followers to not follow the Torah and the teachings of the Pharisees (Jesus was a Pharisee) and replace them with his own, I consider that Paul wanting to destroy Judaism. Does "Where there is no law there is no transgression" ring a bell?
Sounds like I do know the Bible and other teachings quite a bit better than you do.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes biblical view of marriage. One man and one woman joined together to form one flesh. Let man not separate what God joined together. You've heard of that right?
You contradict yourself! You said problems arise when there is subjective morality? Isn't what that atheist's subscribe to? Subjective morals? Christian doctrine adheres to objective morality,which is the correct way.
Christianity is not a cult! Christianity branched off of Judaism. Jesus made some amendments, but Christianity is not in rebellion to Judaism. You have heard of a Messianic Jew right?
Christianity has been bashed since it's beginning! Are you kidding me! But, it's still growing! Explain that one for me.
It has nothing to do with my religion being taught. I want the truth taught. For your info, I believe in separation of church and state.
No I don't look exactly like my parents! I'm still a human being just like my parents though. That's your argument for evolution, me looking a little different than my parents? C'mon man! Give something of substance!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Oh, I get it, beating the shit out of your girlfriend is the default position. She can either leave and nothing will happen to her that wasn't going to happen anyway, or she can stay and be relieved of her beating. It's based on positive reinforcement.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
OK you've chosen the view allegedly held by Jesus. Polygamy and Paul's view of "Don't get married unless you just can't control yourself" are biblical views as well Why choose that one?
No, I said that problems arise when one religious group masses enough money and political power to make their views the law of the land. I said nothing about subjective morality (though we both know it is). The only difference between us is that you deny its existence while you practice it.
If you have read the gospels, you would understand that Jesus was crucified for political sedition and for being a cult leader. the Sanhedrin had to add sedition because Rome would not have acted on Jewish religious grounds.
I have indeed heard of messianic Jews. Believing Jesus is the Messiah is not the same as claiming Jesus is God. Do you see the difference yet?
Christianity has been bashed, yes. Bashing is not the same as examination. Only recently have the basic arguments of Christianity been examined and they are lacking. Why are there so many Christians? A good PR machine. It's not hard to gain converts when all you do is point up the positives of a position.
You not looking like your parents is my argument for transitional forms and I'm glad you agree with it. Same thing has happened in the fossil record. the Google search I asked you to do shows examples of one species evolving into another. Did you not look at it because it frightens you that you'd be proven wrong?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Evolution does not require that the difference from generation to generation be any greater than we see, just that under some conditions there will some significant advantage to a particular characteristic, so that, on average, there will be a more-or-less progressive shift in that direction with each generation. Continued long enough, the change from the starting point can be indefinitely large. That was the point being made there. That IS the substance of evolution, the same modest degree of difference from parent to child, but tending in a particular direction over a prolonged period.
It is up to the anti-evolutionist to show what would stop such a process from proceeding beyond what they would like to call 'micro-evolution'. There would have to be some as-yet undiscovered biological mechanism to prevent continued 'micro-evolution' from amounting to 'macro-evolution'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So if the earth is as old as some scientists believe and this progressive shift with each generation continues over billions of years there should be much more fossil evidence. That's the problem! There are no transitional fossils. Every living organism on earth has information in the cell from it's beginning. Information on where all the parts go from the beginning, no information is introduced into the system. These are irreducibly complex. That's not half the problem with evolution though. Life comes from life! Life can't come from non-life. So, how was life created? The theory of evolution cant' answer that can you?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Every fossil is, in principle, transitional, unless the species it represented was on the brink of extinction.
The conditions necessary to form identifiable fossils in areas close to the surface or near mines where we have a chance of finding them are somewhat special, especially for those from millions of years ago, so we should not expect to see many.
Nevertheless, we do find more than enough to give us plenty of evidence for the nature of life in the past, and nowadays evolution is massive re-inforced by evidence from DNA studies.
There is much more information in an mature animal or plant than in a single fertilized cell. The extra information comes from the interacting with the environment as it matures.
Increase of information only requires a source of energy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The information in DNA, by itself, is not remotely sufficient to determine every detail of the mature organism. It only works with in the context of the rest of chemistry of a cell, and of the food supply and other energy sources available.
'Irreducible complexity' was thoroughly refuted at the Dover trial and elsewhere. Plenty of structures in the bacterium have been shown to be plausible precursors of the flagellum - such precursors are often serving other functions, but extra copies of them with small changes can easily become flagellum.
Life comes from lesser forms of life. It has already been shown that the basic self-replicating building blocks of life, such as RNA molecules, can form spontaneously in conditions likely to be present on the early Earth. Once you get a group of self-replicating structures, evolution can start to work.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Evolution is not supposed to answer questions of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life...except when your God supposedly creates it from dirt? And you accuse me of self contradiction.
Behe's notion of irreducible complexity has been debunked by science and law. Why do you hold on to old information?
Fossilization is difficult - it is different from stone forming around something so don't bring up "fossilized" hats or tools, OK?
Are you a Poe?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Pure assumptions with no basis in anything. But hey, the fun part is, we can always put the shoe on the other foot. Two can play the assumption game. Like This :
No dude, I think your blinded by your irrational and superstitious beliefs. You believe in what you believe with Jesus simply cause you want to. You are not interested in finding the truth, just taking some parts of the Bible that match your needs and using them for your own ends.
Now to the last part. Why do we have laws ? Laws existed before Christianity or Judaism. Laws existed in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt and many other civilized cultures that were well established long before the idea of Jesus.
Why do good things or evil things ? Well, judging by the history of the church and all of the atrocities committed in the name of God in the past and present and today, they certainly have not answered that question. Since quite a bit of evil and perverse things have been done by the trusted servants of your superstitious church and quite a bit of them done in the name of your god. Does religion make people more moral ? Hmm, it did not stop the Catholic priests from molesting children. It did not stop that family values stickler politician from toe tapping in a bathroom, etc. etc. All seems to be chaos under your ideas of order, but wait, isn't that what you are accusing rational scientific evolutionists of ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
With or without evolution, it is a well established FACT accepted by the vast majority of scientists, not just "some", that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, based on evidence from many different fields. And the number of fossils would not necessarily be greater or less whether or not evolution was occurring.
We might expect to see MORE fossils without evolution, since there would have been large bony critters around right from the beginning in that case.
Although I presume you are tying Old Earth theories as just an aspect of Darwinism, along with Abiogenesis.
Ideas that the Earth was far older than previously thought came before Darwin, and it was necessary for such ideas to become strongly supported before Darwin could consider natural evolution as plausible, since such a process would be expected to take a long time.
You not only have to reject the fossil evidence we do have, which is quite enough to support evolution very strongly, but you have to reject a massive amount of independent geological and astronomical evidence if you also believe in a Young Earth.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You haven't done your homework.
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R Prothero and Carl Buell.
Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds by John Long and Peter Schouten.
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution by Douglas J Futuyma - or most any other book he has written.
They are available at Amazon or Barnes and Noble or your local library. The first one has pages and pages of fossil lineages. Start with creature A, A', A'', A''', A'''', A''''', A'''''', A''''''', A'''''''', A''''''''', A'''''''''', A''''''''''', A''''''''''''=B. And another, and another, and another species.
Yeah, you can see the intermediates and how A is not exactly A' and so on until B is really different from A.
Until you have done your homework, and demonstrate that you have read and understand works by respected scientists who are paleontologists by profession, you have no credibility with me.
Give the iron/bronze age goat herders a break. Just how was god/s/dess supposed to explain mutations and DNA to people who didn't have a microscope so they could watch pond scum swim around. How was s/he/it/they supposed to explain a billion years to people who counted time according to moon phases and seasons and didn't even have the concept of zero.
You are expecting an awful lot out of god/s/dess.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
We don't believe in evolution so we can have rampant sex with the nephelim. We all live lives at least as boring and upright as you do. I have dinner with my mother twice a week at great personal cost. She was a missionary. The fact is, we believe because the weight of evidence supports evolution as being true. Evolution is a fully functioning scientific theory based on extensive data. There's no faith required. These creatures lived.
There are 250,000 fossil species known and I agree it's not many given 99 per cent of all species that ever lived are thought to be extinct. The reason for this is that the conditions for fossilization are extremely rare. The body must be covered pretty much the same day it dies by a layer of silt or mud. The sedimentary body must then be covered to depth and lie undisturbed until the present day. It must then be discovered.
I recommend you make the effort to read about the Burgess Shales. I have read the bible a number of times. You read Morris.
P.S. Anything engendering faith is a religion? Crikey Lee. I have faith you will accept nothing I say because you have too much invested in your subjective belief system. I have faith in Lee. It's new religion with you as my saviour.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
"Faith" only applies when there is little or no objective justification for a belief.
From my dictionary:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
So it simply a nonsense to claim that belief always involves faith in any meaningful way. Faith is a particular kind of belief, belief in an a scientifically well established theory is quite different. The only similarity is that there is an element of trust, that the theory has been well-tested by people who are experts in the field, especially when you personally have not worked through all the evidence and testing yourself.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The fossil record has always been represented as a vertical column with marine invertebrates at the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, mammals, then man on the top. Evolutionists believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution. This theory poses several problems. The fossils don't occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom are as equally complex as any animal we see today. The truth is, the fossils appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed and fully functional with out less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. The entire fossil record consists of predominantly marine invertebrates. The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. Evolution presented in textbooks implies that all life comes from one ancestor. The Cambrian System, contains extensive multicellular fossils, exhibiting an explosion of life. The sudden appearance of diverse life forms does not match the evolutionary predictions of one form of life descending into many.
Again, I have read article after article about RNA molecules forming spontaneously. In every article I run into the words
"may have", "could have", "this is what we think." You are stating this as a fact. Where did the first RNA molecules come from?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
No I don't believe it's nonsense at all.
From my dictionary:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, IDEA, or thing.
Don't you have a confident belief in the truth of your idea or theory? That's called faith my friend.
Belief - confidence; faith; trust
Anytime the word belief is used faith is required therefore atheism and evolution are religions.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I have always found it funny when Christians argue against one form of life becoming many forms of life. Why? Because they are arguing against the position the Bible says they must hold (if they believe the story to be true).
From Genesis 1:
"11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
According to this, not only was all life generated from one being but that being was male.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Regular fossils only start appearing for life-forms with hard shells or skeletons became common, so they may easily be thought to have started appearing out of nothing.
Evolution is not just 'simple to complex', except in the very earliest stages. The very earliest stages of life were small soft-bodied cells which don't form fossils of the usual form. They occasionally leave traces of a different kind, such as Stromatalites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
So there is the evidence for the simple to complex part of the fossil record.
Evolution does not assume all life came from one ancestor. Maybe one population of closely related replicating entities, yes, certainly not one individual. Only populations can evolve, not individuals.
You may be confused by talk of 'most recent common ancestor', but that only refers to the idea of tracing back all currently living individuals to a single parent. That does not imply that there were no others of that species alive at the time, just that none of the others left descendants right thru to today.
As you go back, generation by generation, the average number of possible descendants for each individual grows very fast, depending on the average number of children each person has, and the degree of intermarriage between lineages. Eventually, the number of potential descendants per individual will become comparable to, and then greater than, the population today. If you go far enough, most people whose lines did not die out within a few generations will have a link to everyone alive today.
The Most Recent Common Ancestor will have lived somewhere after that point, and can be estimated by various techniques including DNA analysis and historical and archaeological records.
"May have" does not mean "cannot have". What it does establish is that you have no justification for saying it is impossible, or even highly unlikely.
There may well be several plausible paths. Even if one of those paths is the correct one, until we have some way of identifying which one, we still need to qualify with "may" any account of a particular mechanism.
Once Science has established a possible explanation for something, even if we cannot prove that it is THE explanation, we have proved that claims that it is impossible are not justified.
You seem to be fishing for any way to cast doubt on evolution, rather than simply seeking to learn more about it. That is extremely dishonest. You want to twist everything to find justification for ignoring the mountain of evidence that evolution is an extremely good explanation for life as we see it today.
Abiogenesis is trickier, because simple molecules and cells do not leave regular fossils, and any traces they may have left will have had to survive billions of years of weather, earthquakes, movements in the continental plates, volcanoes, etc. But the stromatalites I referred to above are a useful clue.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yeah ok Lee, I don't believe in god because I don't want to fall victim to you're kind of thinking.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Jesus claimed to be God! It's all throughout scripture! He didn't use the literal words I am God. Your being dishonest.
"Very truly I tell you, Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus hid Himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. John 8:58 Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus? Because He claimed to be God, which was blasphemy in their eyes.
Your claim is erroneous and does not fit the facts. It's easy to take various scriptures out of context and try and set Paul against Jesus. Paul and Jesus taught the same thing. Granted, Paul focused more on theological issues than Jesus did, but nothing Paul said was contrary to Jesus. In Acts 9 Luke records the events surrounding Paul's conversion. Jesus Himself called Paul and sent him to be an apostle. If Paul and Jesus are not in agreement, then why would Jesus call Paul to be his apostle. Jesus is God in the flesh, and therefore knows all things. Jesus and Paul are both in agreement in many verses so you don't know what your talking about.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
If naturalism is true, then why do we have laws? It wouldn't be fair to punish us for breaking the law because we don't know right from wrong. It's just a chemical reaction. Why do good things? Or evil things? Answer my question, I like to read your thoughts.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
We have a firmer basis for deciding right and wrong that the Bible - ours is based on whether some action can potentially cause unnecessary harm or distress to another person, or a group, or to the functioning of society at large so as to reduce the well-being of its members.
This is in turn based on the need for cooperation within a group for it to continue to thrive.
Punishments are necessary to deter those individuals who are less restrained by the emotions of empathy and desire for friendship and respect.
Being based on 'chemical reactions' does not mean they are 'only' chemical reactions, any more than the functioning of the computer you are using is "only" a flow of electrons, which would imply that your computer was no different in any sense than a electric lamp.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Laws predate Christianity. As do moral codes. Consider this for instance, if you were to take an Ancient Roman from the times of earliest Christendom, a medieval man from the 1300's, a 19th century cowboy from the old west, and a modern Christian of today, would it be remotely possible to say that all of these different people from different time periods have the exact same morals throughout history all the way across the board? While some people could make the argument for the morals of say, an Abe Lincoln or a H.G. Wells from the 19th century as an example, I can assure you that their ideas of equality were not the same as say, the ideals of 21st Century man.
So if God created morals, why do morals change with every time period and why do morals change upon the society that we live in ?
Eastern Cultures in China and Japan that span back time over thousands of years have laws and have morals. Where do they get these from if Jesus didn't preach them to those cultures ? Granted, I find some of the principles of Buddhism to be just as ridiculous as Christianity, society had rules and morals long before the establishment of a religion. The fact that you are claiming your doctrine as the "ONE TRUE" doctrine from which all laws and morals originate does not make it so.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You do know John 8:58 was mistranslated, right? "I have (seen Abraham before he was born)" became "I am". Remember what I told you about correcting me with correct information? Still waiting for you to do it. We can't ever be sure because we don't have the original Aramaic and Jesus didn't speak Greek. What Greek there is stands against you - http://noreligionblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/is-jesus-god/
As for your use of Acts, remember that the writer was a convert of Paul's and would not put his master into a position of conflict with Jesus. They were trying to sell Jesus as God. I tend to look at what Paul wrote as opposed to what was written about him.
Jesus didn't call Paul to be his apostle. According to the aforementioned convert of Paul, Paul claimed he saw a vision, claimed it was Jesus and claimed that it made him an apostle. You're taking way too much for granted.
If Jesus and Paul are in such agreement, I'm sure you could pull verses that would show this. Instead, I have only your claim that this is so. for myself, I invite you to Google "Jesus vs. Paul".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It was a moral thing to own slaves at one point. It is not considered moral now, so if morals are objective why did they change ?
It was a moral thing to beat your wife and children at one time, as the Bible allowed. Today it is not considered moral to do so, if morals are objective why did they change ?
It was a moral thing to burn heretics at the stake at one time. For the sake of saving their souls. It is not considered moral today to burn people at the stake, if morals are objective why did they change ?
It was a moral thing to stone women to death for adultery at one time. It is not considered moral today to stone women to death for adultery, if morals are objective why did they change ?
It was moral to crucify people on a cross at one time. It is not considered moral today to crucify people to crosses, if morals are objective why did they change ?
It is considered moral, in some parts of the Old Testament, for conquering tribes to rape women and take them as brides. It is not considered moral today to rape women and force them to be your bride, if morals are objective why have they changed ?
See where I am going with this ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Thanks for your honest reply! I'm not being dishonest at all. I have looked at both evolution and intelligent design (God) and I always end up in the intelligent design camp. There are just to many questions that science and naturalism just can't answer. Take the information in DNA for example. This information is a digital code which is instruction. Information and code don't come from anything other than an intelligent mind. Just read a paragraph in any instruction booklet. These words and letters have to be in a certain sequence in order for the instructions to be coherent. Now, one DNA strand if stretched out flat is 2ft long. That's a lot of letters that have to be in perfect order. The statistical probability of the these letters lining up to form a coherent paragraph with instructions just by natural means and a long period of time is highly improbable. When we see a skyscraper, we can look at it and I think you would agree that we can say it was designed by intelligent engineers. The human body is much more complex than a skyscraper but whenever someone says God created the human body and everything in the universe they get laughed at and mocked. Evolution and naturalism to explain our origins is just not very logical or reasonable in my opinion.
Energy can't be created or destroyed and is only transferable. Scientist's can't explain this. Scientist's can't explain anything about the human spirit. Look at the laws of physics or gravity. The only way we can explain them is by mathematical computations. Mathematics is information! Language is information! Where does this information originate. I believe and have faith that the Bible is God's word! The human heart is deceitful and who can understand it? We see good and evil in this world we live in. We have a problem with our hearts which is a spiritual matter. I belief there is only one person that can change it. Bible Prophecy is evidence for God but that is a totally different subject.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Let me see if I understand you.
You believe:
The human heart is deceitful.
Human senses can't be trusted.
Human knowledge is unreliable.
To solve this problem, you accept the words of a book written by humans at face value?
"I read your work. Insightful. Naive but insightful." - Batman Forever
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You haven't bothered to do any reading - or even looking at pretty pictures, have you? The very firs natural philosophers who examined Darwin's theory may have thought that evolution resembled a tree, but that hasn't been the case for years. In fact, the most common theory now is that life evolved not once, not twice, but many times here on earth. The bacteria that are most likely animal ancestors are not like the bacteria that are most likely plant ancestors and neither one are very like the fungus and slime mold ancestors. Evolution is not a tree or even a bush but more like a garden - a lawn with dandelions, flower beds with weeds, bushes and trees of various kinds and shapes. Related, but maybe not directly.
If you had ever studied ecology, you would know that bacteria are evolved well enough for their current environment that they don't need to evolve any more. Humans would not be able to take advantage of the niches that bacteria inhabit. Each species has a niche, a habitat, that they have evolved to fill. They are not more advanced than humans or less advanced than humans. If their habitat or niche changes enough, they will evolve or remain the same and go extinct. It all depends on how flexible their genetics are and how fast the environment changes compared to their generational length. They don't need to evolve into a new species, necessarily. They just need to change enough to be able to reproduce in the new conditions.
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
And you have something better? You believe, you have faith, you have a book written by a bunch of bronze/iron age goat herders. And I'm supposed to be impressed?
The first RNA molecules came from proteins, which came from the elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulpher (CHNOPS) - you know, dirt and some air. I can hunt them up for you, though you probably won't bother to read them, but there have been laboratory experiments that generated proteins from these elements using all inorganic methods.
You just keep repeating the same old garbage. Try learning something for a change.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Today we know not only there is a terrible amount of disorder in the heavens--great conflagrations or catastrophes occur frequently--but evolution gives us a perfectly natural explanation of such order as there is. No distinguished astronomer now traces the "Finger of God" in the heavens and astronomers ought to know best. ---Joseph McCabe, Former Roman Catholic Priest who renounced his faith and went on to write nearly 250 Atheist and Anti-religious books. Above excerpt is from the Story of Religious Controversy.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
And we all know that if science can't some explain something, then God trips and falls into the gap.
Heck, I'll believe anything without evidence rather than saying "I don't know." That's just scary.
Sigh, such simple question begging.
I don't believe that DNA comes from an intelligent mind. Therefore, not all codes come from intelligent minds. Try again.
Wow, that means it's really hard for complex organisms to be organized via blind chance, huh?
Whew, good thing evolution isn't blind chance.
Right, because most people in the world are atheist evolutionists.
Science can't explain anything that's supernatural by definition.
The only way to explain quantity is with mathematics because....that's what mathematics is; it's the study of quantity. You can certainly still explain the concepts without math, to an extent.
It doesn't "originate" from anywhere. It's not a "thing."
Okay. You keep using your faith, and I'll keep using evidence.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The DNA code is not "instructions". It is a set of groups of three amino acids which each attract a particular peptide molecule which when connected in sequence form a particular protein. It requires no intelligence to form or to read.
I had a term of instruction in Information Theory" at the end of my University degree course in Engineering, in which I qualified with Honors, just to let you know I am not just making this shit up.
"Information" is simply a measure of the statistical unlikeliness of a particular combination of elements. As such, everything in the universe has some measurable information content, and the more ordered something is, the lower its information content, which is often conceptually defined as the shortest computer program which could be written to generate the sequence in question. A sequence of 100 identical units could be generated with a very simple instruction. The highest information content is something with no discernable pattern in it, effectively random, but one specific 'random' sequence.
Since there is a direct physical matching between the DNA sequences and the proteins it codes for, we are not talking about intelligent generated codes, where the correspondence between the code symbols and what they code for is arbitrary or even deliberately random.
The direct matching allows such 'code' to be evolved by natural selection. Copying errors in the DNA will result in different proteins, which if they occasionally give rise to an improvement in the organisms ability to reproduce, and if they in cells which are involved in sperm or egg production, may have a chance of spreading through the breeding group, and contribute to an evolutionary step.
If the miscopied 'code does not line up into a viable organism, it will not spread, because there will be no offspring to carry it on. So there is no problem. The changes only occur a small number at a time, most will have no effect, the 'bad' ones will not be passed on the next generation, the 'good' ones will tend to spread more. Voila! Evolution.
A grown human body is vastly more complex than the egg and sperm from which it grew, yet we see such complexity grow spontaneously every day.
Skyscrapers can't reproduce, so they can't evolve. Life does self-reproduce, so it can evolve, so it can become more complex, although most evolution since the earlier era of life is not becoming more complex. Some life forms evolve to become less complex, such as ones that move into caves, where they no longer need eyes, and they have less concern about predators.
Code can be generated by computers, including code which was not specified in the programming of the computers. In particular there are 'genetic algorithms' which can come up with original code which is at least as good as any human programmer, and sometimes better, especially when the problem is complex.
Most information these days is processed by computers, which are not minds, including logic and mathematics, which themselves are NOT 'information'. Information originates in its raw form from random processes, and we select the patterns that make sense to us. Math and Logic and Reasoning in general do not generate information, they organize it.
Science is learning more about the human mind and its drives and emotions all the time these days.
'God' doesn't actually explain anything. Once you effectively invoke 'magic' you have surrendered any attempt to explain something. Mathematical computations don't explain the laws of physics. They allow us to define and apply them. Those laws are just basic properties of the Universe we find ourselves in. We do not have an ultimate explanation for the origin of reality, but adding a supernatural entity into the scene only complicates things with something even more inherently beyond our comprehension.
Science does allow us to construct the wonders of modern technology, including the computer you are using and the communication channels which allow us to interact. 'God' concepts make no contribution to these advances, in fact during the middle ages, it is arguable that the Church held back scientific progress for a 1000 years.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I didn't come here to impress you cj! Where did the elements come from? This is a legitimate question!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
It takes NO INTELLIGENCE to read? REALLY? How do you read Bob? Here is the defintion of DNA - A nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms with the exception of some viruses. Here is the definition of instructions - the process or act of imparting knowledge; teaching: education. The definition of knowledge - the state of fact or knowing; understanding gained through experience or study. How does the DNA know what to do? Where does it gain the knowledge? Knowledge is immaterial and comes from a mind.
I guess you missed the point. The question wasn't even about reproduction. Skyscrapers, computers and human bodies were designed. Design comes from knowledge. Knowledge comes from a mind. This is basic knowledge a common sense! I guess they don't teach that in college anymore.
So, your implying that those people who don't have a college education aren't smart enough to look at the evidence and make a decision for themselves as to whether there is or isn't a God. This information can only be understood by the highest of intellect? I don't understand your naivet'e. I've seen many people who don't have a very high IQ, but have stronger faith than even the most intelligent. God requires faith, not intelligence!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Humans are allowed to punish, but God is evil for punishing? See, God is the authority figure whether you believe in Him or not and He has to punish those who have broken His laws.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Of there is no intelligence required to read them in their use. The matching peptide molecules are directly physically attracted to each fragment of DNA that 'codes' for them - no external intelligence required in that process, to 'read' them. Genes are not INSTRUCTIONS, they simply code for a sequence of peptide molecules (proteins).
You missed the point. Skyscrapers cannot evolve, since they cannot reproduce, therefore they are not good analogies for the 'design' we see in living things.
Evolution relies on successive generations that can progressively change at each generation.
No I am not implying that, just pointing to some evidence that I understand information theory.
It is perfectly possible to acquire that knowledge independently. You do not appear to understand it, though, based on your posts.
Unfortunately, there is good evidence that people without a college eduction, even if intelligent, are more likely to fall for the 'faith' thing, since it obviously dopes not require intelligence or understanding to believe in God.
This is because it does require some minimal intelligence/education to realize all the logical and other problems with the God idea. Many people on this site who were believers can attest to that.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Societies punish lawbreakers for violating laws that the rest of society observes. God punishes people for violating laws he breaks as well.
Societies mete out punishments that are temporal and generally fit the crime. God punishes eternally and goes way over the top in comparison to the violation committed.
See the difference?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
If you want to make a dent in my reliance on science rather than religious faith, you had better be impressive about something.
I have learned where the elements come from. Look it up yourself. You didn't address the entire rest of my post, going with a -- so there! -- response. In the future I will only reply to your posts if there is some hint - just a tiny one - of a willingness to actually learn something vaguely scientific rather than the wishful thinking you seem addicted to.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I perfectly understand! I totally disagree with you! All knowledge originates with God.
Colossians 2:2 - Romans 11:33,36 - Proverbs 2:6 - Daniel 2:20 - Job 11:7 - Jeremiah 33:3 - Matthew 13:11 - Ephesians 1:13 - Amos 3:7 - Daniel 2:28 - John 8:31
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
So you don't think on your own but wait for God to put things in your head?
That explains a lot and not just about you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No, I disagree! Law is given by authority and there is no authority higher than God. The moral law is the expression of God's character. The Ten Commandments are given to His creatures. He is perfect righteousness therefore He is exempt from the law. If He were subject to the law, He wouldn't be God. I don't know why you get the impression you are higher than God.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I find it interesting that you bring up God's moral character against the laws that he supposedly gave man.
I don't place myself higher than God. I just find it strange that he is willing to punish people for laws that he is incapable of keeping himself.
That's almost as laughable as saying "God can't do anything contrary to his nature". If I were you, I'd hope he could. His nature as portrayed in the Bible is one of a sociopath and capricious serial killer. Certainly not a being deserving of worship.
I'd ask you to think about this and the other stuff posted here but you already said that you don't think unless God drops a thought straight into your head.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You have it backwards.
If there was a God, we could not know anything with any confidence, since he could change everything at any moment at a whim.
There is no logical way we could know anything about the motives or intentions of such a creature - he could tell us anything and we would have know way to know whether he was being honest with us or misleading us for whatever reason.
God is the End of Knowledge.
Only a naturalistic Universe conforming to consistent Laws could be studied successfully and confidently, and the success of Science strongly suggests that, no sign at all so far of a supernatural being meddling in things.
The Bible is clearly the work of men, it has so many contradictions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
A God of such power and good-will toward us, as Christians believe, would not just dump some ambiguous text on us and then not make a real effort to correct the inevitable mistakes of interpretation that would happen to 'his word' as us fallible beings attempted to pass it on down the millennia.
The Bible itself claims He deliberately made things worse by causing us to speak in many different languages, as punishment for building the Tower of Babel.
Which would be crazy if he really wanted us to understand things. So if there is a God, he is a bastard, worthy only of contempt.
Of course we know that story was just a lame attempt to explain why we have so many different languages.
As was the "original sin" idea a lame attempt to explain why "bad things happen to good people".
Buddhist Karma and reincarnation was another lame attempt to explain the same thing, by assuming you must have actually done something bad in a "previous life".
"Life, the Universe, and Everything" actually makes far more sense if we assume no Gods or Supernatural nonsense, the more so as Science investigates ever more deeply into everything.
"God" is for those who can't handle the Truth.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That's just a stupid question! I don't answer stupid questions. Ask an intelligent question and I'll try and answer it.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
You're the one that gave Biblical evidence stating the position that you can't know anything without God.
If your position sounds funny when it's thrown back at you, rethink your position.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin