[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.
Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]
You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.
Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:
"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]
Been here, done it.
Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.
I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.
I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.
[/quote]
Because these people are trying to prevent us from teaching evolution and the Big Bang in school.
[/quote]
So? Do you have some kind of inherent right to a secular public education, or something? What moral rule are they breaking? There is no objective universal law in your worldview as to how they must behave. Where is the commandment of the universe stating that humans beings should conduct themselves socially, politically, etc., according to science?
People lobby/fight for what they want.
[/quote]
There is no objective universal law in your worldview. See if you can figure out why. I’ll be happy to explain if you want. [/quote]
God is my final judge. That is my claim.
But let’s talk about you. “Religion is ridiculous.” So, that’s just your meaningless subjective opinion. And if there is a predisposition to religious thought (possibly on a sliding; Not------Devout) how can it be “ridiculous?” You’re Captain Empiricism, so you have no room for faith or belief. So, you must reject notions of good and evil, inherent rights, etc. Frankly, I’d be terrified of a society that actually came to believe such things in their hearts. Seems incredibly naive to think such a society would “do things better.”
[/quote]
Either religions are true or they are false. Thus they are all either fundamentally ridiculous or one of them might not be.
God is subjective. How do you know he’s good? Oh, he says so. How do you know he isn’t evil? Because he says so. How do you KNOW he’s not lying about these things? Because he says so. Ummm, how do you REALLY know?
[/quote]
If man has a propensity for religious thought, then religion can’t be ridiculous. Instead of “fundamentally ridiculous” it is “fundamentally human.”
How do I know God isn’t “evil?” How could God be “evil?” My worldview is that good and evil is separated out only by God. If God was “evil,” that is what would be “good.” The prerogative of an all powerful inescapable creator. I
You’re not one of those atheists who will on the one hand tell me that “good” and “evil” doesn’t exist (i.e. no action is in reality good or evil), and then turn around and tell me that God does “evil” stuff in the bible are you?
“There is no moral law. No moral obligations. No inherent rights. If so, stain it and put it under a slide.”
10 minutes later.
“God did evil stuff.”
15 minutes after that.
“Christians are infringing upon my rights!”
[/quote]
So might makes right. In other words, god’s goodness is not actually goodness, but merely strength. You are literally equating goodness with strength. That has human written all over it.
In your worldview, god could create every creature only to torture absolutely every one of them. No Jesus. No salvation. Everyone and everything burns. Forever.
If you think this is good then the word good has no meaning.
Good and evil are not very good words. I don’t think there are good and evil people. There are only people who do good and evil. And good and evil deeds are not black and white.
Morality IS vague, just as the concept of health is vague. Can you tell me what the objective standard of good health is? I know you can’t. Does that mean we can’t call things healthy or unhealthy? Of course not. Morality is the same way.
