*** Please carry on your discussions without personalising them. ***
Printable View
*** Please carry on your discussions without personalising them. ***
I am sorry that my answer has bothered you so. I was simply trying to answer your question. I am not the privileged "mouthpiece" for God, but all believers are called to defend the faith. Anybody who is truly searching for truth can read the Bible and it will "speak" to them - but its meanings become clearer when one allows the guidance of the Holy Spirit to inform his/her reading. Nothing is because "I say so" - I tell things as I understand them from years of reading the Bible and asking God to open my eyes and heart into the true understanding the Bible has to offer. If one reads the Bible merely to rebut it or scoff at it, then yes, it will appear fairly ridiculous. Certainly you understand how the attitude one has towards someone/something "shapes" our view? That my love for my wife or children makes them lovely to me - while you might find my wife unattractive and my children obnoxious and unlovable. The Bible and God are the same way: the attitude with which one approaches them will largely decide how they appear. There is no secret, esoteric knowledge - but there is understanding given to those who earnestly seek to understand for the right reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Jesus was not a social revolutionary; He only had so much time on this earth and His primary mission was to save humanity from the consequences of sin and the Law. Other social problems He left up to us to deal with, along with the guidance offered by scriptures. Yes - He could have made a few issues less "gray" - but then again, how much of life exists in the black and white you seem to desire? Just because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean it has no validity - you can't extract Christ out of the Bible and say the rest of it is invalid: either it all is valid, or none of it is. It is sufficient that God, Paul or some other writer made a statement.
I'd like to have a peaceful discussion, but I'm losing hope that that's possible.
One thought here. People keep talking about empirical proof. I find that defined as provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Now we come to something called burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the person presenting the case, not the ones to whom the case is being presented. With something this big, there can be no room for simple preponderance of the evidence. This needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. The fact is, there are holes in evolution theory. There are problems with Creation, some that are not going to go away. The burden of proof lies with those who present the evidence. The other side doesn't have to do anything. There is no empirical evidence one way or another. There is what we call “most likely.” There is what we call "Faith." Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."
Hi Pen,Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Hehe, looks like you may be up here on the fence with me. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, imo.
Cheers
What reasonable person wouldn't agree that "anything is possible, nothing is certain"? But not all assumptions are equal. Knowlege is not UTTERLY subjective. All ideas are not equal, just because no human can know anything for absolute certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.
Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.
People are free to "believe" in whatever the heck they wish - invisible pixies hiding behind tree stumps in the forest, if that makes them happy. Who should care if such people obey the law?But science tries to actually understand the universe, not interpret it according to some faith-based initiative of dogmatic adherence to two thousand year old "science".
Live and let live works here - when people know their places and actually live and let live, not just say the words. E.g., when school board members pronounce on what science is or isn't, even thought they are laymen, and inject politics (it's really politics, not religion) into science, then we have a problem.
Every judge to date - pretty much - has thrown the creationists out of the business of interfering with science classes. Believers in creationism have changed the language used recently name to promoting "Intelligent Design", but they are not fooling anybody - a wolf in sheeps' clothing is still a wolf.
If scientists don't get to teach science in Sunday school in churches on some equal time basis, then creationists don't get to push their foolishness on public school science classes - just like astrologers can't sell their garbage in public school astronomy classes.
THAT is the issue. And if the scientific community doesn't win this particular fight, and similar fights, then it may very well be back to the dark ages for us all.
Let science be science and religion be religion. That's the best that can happen, giving the circumstances of our society, composed as it is of such a huge number of people who are as ignorant of science as I am of 15th century French literature.
Agreed. My mistake, I was talking about the more foggy questions like, "does an intelligent universe creator exist?" ...forgot which thread I was in. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Yes, I've seen enough evidence to be completely convinced that evolution is fact. There is definatly a ton more evidence than an Adam & Eve like scenerio.
Would you mind directing me to the source of this statement? Do you have a published reference that evolution is "proved beyond any reasonable doubt," or is that simply your opinion/preferrence?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Atomic theory, germ theory of disease and heliocentricity all deal with things/processes that continuously occur/exist, and are therefore observable NOW; evolution provides a theory as to how things began and progressed in the far removed past - totally unobservable in the present and understood only through speculation based upon clues found in nature. Evolution is in a different category than the others listed.
The source, please?
Hey there. By mere coincidence i just adressed a while ago the issue about evolution being observable and the whole controversy about it on the "Atheists..." thread. Maybe you could check out what I wrote and give me your opinion. I look forward to your response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
well normally i take an ignorant position for fun to attack the close minded christians i know but i think i will limitedly use my actual opinion here.
there really isnt a way to debate this effectively. people have to have doubts on their own whether they be atheist agnostic or religious before any sort of discussion benefits them. this topic is pretty much a watse of time in achieving any actual sort of conversion of the opponenet. im quite happy to see some more or less intelligent debate which is a nice change from waht i am used to. in my opinion the best evidence of god not existing is the affect that atheist and even religous scientists have created. heliocentricity and germ theory seem to me to be very powerful arguements for the bible being wrong. the church ahs been forced quite a bit to alter its claims when good and supportive evidence for a theory turns up. the constant revision of a system (the chruch especially) which claims to have the answers to every issue in comparison with science which agrees that many of its ideas are geusses suggests that either god is not real or that the bible wasnt inspired by god. i cant agree with the idea about them not udnerstanding issues and thus god waiting to allow them to discover them.
Personal bias: I don't like to think that we're evolved from monkeys. That's kind of disturbing.
I will situate this now. I am a Christian and I believe in Creationism. However, that does not mean that evolution isn't real. The power of evolution is all around us. People adapt by forcing nature to adapt to us, nature changes to accept us, animals feed off of our wastes (trash type, I mean).
Now Matrim, I want you to think about this: the Bible was finished over 1700 years ago. Can you really expect medical science to be the same back then as it is now? Also, according to what I've heard (though I do not assume that what the person said is God's own opinion), the "unclean" animals were deemed thus for the safety of humans. If you undercook pork, you can die. If you don't prepare shellfish and certain other seafood, you'll die. The list goes on and on. Since the people of the time could not prepare the food correctly back then, they would have died had they eaten it. However, by the time Christ came to save us, people could properly prepare the food.
And when you say "the church", do you mean the Catholic Church or Christianity as a whole? Because "the church", as used in the Bible, refers to all Christians as one body.
And although society groups Christianity and Protestantism together, I personally think that they're not one in the same. The beliefs and requirements are much, much different. Such as the belief that the virgin Mary is holy. By definition, she'd have to be sinless if she were to be considered holy. There's other stuff too.
It is perfectly reasonable to doubt that the animal life evolved from “Primordial Soup”, as they call it, given the vast diversity of life on this planet. And if Darwin was correct, why has evolution as he described it passed up some things that remain unchanged, while others change so rapidly that we can’t keep up with them? It is also perfectly reasonable for people to doubt the existence of an all-powerful God when they see so much go wrong in the world. In the end, it is all a question of what you choose to believe. Choice is the gift of mankind that sets him above the animal. God bless.
When our cat Indy jumps in bed with us at night, she makes a choice--should she curl up next to me or my wife? Her decision varies based on some thought process of her own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Also, if one assumes choice to be a 'gift', then one must also assume something gave the gift--which kind of limits one's choice, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.
Where's your god then, Moses?
Well if one takes 'choice' to be along the lines of .... If not A Then B, I'd have to say yes it's fairly obvious that animals work at that level. My sheepdogs do anyway. But perhaps what Pendragon means is a more complex form of choice, which involves moral decisions and the choosing between the good and the better. My sheepdogs cannot do that but mind you I reckon we are not all that consistently good at doing that ourselves.
:D well saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
:rolleyes: science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Both require blind faith.
Both require people.
Both compliment eachother.
and...science has not proven what has created the universe. and...theories...theories...theories...nothing human is a fact.
*sigh* your right...this has proven to me that religion is useless...science is correct...oh but wait...it can't be correct either because its not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since perception using the senses is involved...Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I guess it could be said that we don't exist...or maybe...just maybe...theres something else...I know its whacked out...but possibly theres something that answers the most basic question...something that ties all the theories together...but thats impossible...
Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
There is a difference between conscious choice and instinctive or learned behavior. Your cat has learned that it can sleep on the bed and it merely curls up where it feels most comfortable.
BTW, JLG57, please do not compare me to Moses. I am not worthy to hold Moses’ staff for him.
The truth is where you find it. “Seek, and ye shall find.” If you are convinced of what you believe, let me say this: It should be strong enough a conviction that you will stand for it against all odds. Do not waver from point to point, remain with what you believe. God bless.
I think I have meddled enough in a thread I washed my hands of long ago. :)
Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ranzy
There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.
Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty, or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.
As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.
If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.
Have a nice day.
It is true just if you don't know enough of the argument to have a real opinion about it. I think maybe I'm not expressing myself very well (btw english is not my mother tongue). Let me make an example: I don't know much about physics so if you talk me about the relativity theory either I don't accept it or I accept it with an act of blind faith. But if you study in depth relativity (or evolution or whatever) no act of blind faith is required. You have to decide rationally if the proofs the scientists bring in support of their theory are enough and the theory works or you can bring forward other arguments that prove that that theory is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
If you say that science requires blind faith, this would stop this whole discussion about evolution. Because being faith something that doesn't have to be rational, it cannot be discussed. It must be accepted as it is.
These two statements contradict each other. Which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Can you make your point without trying to insult people, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Do you even read my posts? I'm not asking science to do anything. I'm not complaining that it doesn't offer "certainty," I'm pointing out that its inability to do so in all cases makes it similar to religion: both require faith, and some questions simply cannot be answered with definitive, unequivocal evidence. In terms of "reality" - science and religion offer two different versions (which are not always contradictory of each other). Just because you don't understand one doesn't mean it's any less "real." It just means you don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I don't usually enter religious discussions, especially when the break down to "I'm right-your wrong" dichotomy, but since this one has trned on science, of which I know a little something about, let me venture in, not to pick a side but to throw in my perspective.
As someone who believes in God and is an engineer who works with physics, I believe that science itself is the hand of God. I will also say that we do not have a complete understanding of science. Perhaps humanity will never have a complete understanding. To me the more we learn of science, the more firmly I believe that all this could not have been randomly generated. I proudly stand on this with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.
Thankyou. That is what I have been attempting to say...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
...I follow Galileo and Copernik, both were devote in their fatih, but also studied science. They both believed that science was a means to understand God's creation...even Darwin stated as such.
...but my point about science is more one of philosophy, we require our senese to determine empirical value, and our senses can easily be decieved.
...however time for a little sharing of my personal belief: everything can be true, it just all dempends on you point of view and how true it is for you...ie, in you mind it is the truth, so for you it is true, it really depends upon perspective...
...also, real scientinst admit they don't know everything...
...time for a pointed comment: not all realigeous people are dumb to science, some infact hold degrees and work in the sciences. So claiming ignorance based on association is blatent biggotry.
As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.
Practising Catholic
Devout Baptist
Confirmed Atheist
Uconvinced Agnostic
OH and Contradictory Calvinist - That's me ... well up-to-a-point
well...think of it this way, God is a bad label, infact, any earthly label is bad, because, atleast in my humble opinion, God cannot be defined by Human definitions, God is perfect beyond human definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Hence why there are many different religions, perhaps, they are all right, yet not 100% there, maybe together an aproximate can be reached...but people aren't ready to percieve such an Idea yet.
No they don't. Beyond a reasonable doubt and certainty are anything but the same. If you aren't just trying to be a contrarian and really don't understand this fact, then I am going to have to insult your intelligence by questioning it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You react to someone effectively questioning and criticizing your fondest wishes by thinking they are just trying to insult you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No further comment needed here. I will let others draw their own conclusions.
I hate to have to go over all this - one more time - but you seem incapable of understanding the difference between science and religion. That is sad, in a way, but if you are happy in your world, then I am happy for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
For those of us who DO know the difference, we will continue to fight for keeping religion out of science. Sunday school is not the subjective logical equivalent of science class. Science is based on facts in evidence and the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible in understanding the facts. Religion is about emotional comfort. That is the primary reason for the "faith" in things unseen, unproved and non-provable, and outside of scientific examination.
You're right. I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I'm not "wishing" anything. And, not everybody is capable of seeing how they come across. Unfortuanate, but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I'm quite clear on the difference. The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't make me wrong - it just means we disagree. I personally don't think you have the faintest idea as to what religion is about beyond the most basic, stereotypical hearsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Who are you crusading against? I don't recall advocating doing anything to the science curriculum. Religion is far more profound than you can understand. I'm sorry you don't get it. Science is a good, useful thing - and it has much truth for the world. But it too is not without a certain degree of faith that is required of us to believe that it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You keep harping on this point. I don't know what your point supposedly is. All human beings are fallible. No human ever has all the data, but must work with a finite amount of the infinitely available data. Only lunatics claim god-like knowledge of anything.
Thus - every concept will trace back to an assumption, or a conclusion based on a series of assumptions.
And on this fact you wish to equate religion with science? You wish to conflate the pragmatic naturalistic assumption of scientific reasoning with the "faith" of religion to just conclude, well, everything is just a matter of "faith"?
That's ridiculous and yet you keep pushing this like it some profound insight or something.
Scientists don't just believe stuff. Religionists just believe stuff. Scientists prove understandings to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how science progresses. Religion stays stuck in the mud at step one - and stays there until and unless it is dragged kicking and screaming into a new century, one century at a time, by scientific progress.
Religion gave us demon possession. Science gave us vaccines and antibiotics. Do I need to give you a couple hundred other examples to prove my point, or will that suffice?
Mod note to all:
Posts have been deleted. I am not closing this topic, that happens to be one of the more successful long-standing ones in the Religious Texts area, just because people are (again) getting into the
'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours'.
Please stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.
A Creationist and an Evolutionist discovered the bones of an ancient humanoid in a cave. They began a long argument over how old the bones were, how far along the evolutionary chart this being might be, and how it came to be in the first place. The argument became rather heated as each man warmed to his topic. Suddenly, there was a macabre interruption. A skeletal hand fell upon the shoulder of each man. "Come on, guys!" The dead man said. "Give a man a proper burial, won't you? It's too noisy up here!" :lol:
Maybe this will ease the tension... :)
I sure do appreciate your posts, Pen.
I see part of the problem this way: the discussion about creationism vs. evolution is really a discussion as to whether or not God exists. I'm quite OK with the fact that - when all is said and done - I might discover that I was terribly wrong in my choice to interpret Genesis literally and that the "day=age" theory was correct, or that God set evolution into motion. Neither of those really changes the core of my belief system. Whether the world was created in 6 days or 6 millenium isn't a "deal breaking" belief of mine. The fact that I defend the biblical narrative is based more on my belief as to who God is than whether or not we should interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally or figuratively.
I think evolution overall has lots of holes in it - BUT that science has (since Darwin's time) made some amazing discoveries that do clearly appear to put the biblical narrative into question. I get that. I can easily concede that point. What seems to get lost in the shuffle is the idea that Christians believe in God as the creator - and that if He is who He says He is, then it is perfectly possible that the Genesis narrative is literal. When atheists scoff at this idea, they are not really trying to understand; I can't seem to get across the idea that if the non-believer tried to imagine - just for a minute - that such a being could exist, that it would follow that a belief in the biblical narrative is not as insane as it seems to appear. The numerous facts and evidence put forth to support evolution are certainly impressive, but they cannot shake my faith in God. They may shake my faith in a literal 6 day creation, but not God.
Think of it this way: I don't know your wife/husband - I have no relationship with them. Let's assume that you have a close, intimate relationship with him/her. How much of my questioning of your partner's integrity would you give credence to? Yes, I've got some hearsay and some circumstancial evidence, but no pictures, no eyewitnesses, no "smoking gun." Again: how quickly would you doubt that person? And what if that person was unquestionably honest and faithful. How serious would you take my attempts to bring your belief into doubt? Because my example is a human relationship, I know it can be attacked, but the principle behind it is what I'm appealing to. Because the Christian sees the Bible as an authority, we take seriously the description of who God is - as such, we tend to give credence to things that non-believers may simply scoff at as blindness.
In creation vs. evolution we have
Creationism: the naked or unsubstantiated belief in an invisible and immaterial magical person who is infinitely complex, who was not created him or herself and has existed forever, and about 6,000 years ago started speaking complex entities into existence out of nothing, e.g., the earth, the moon, the sun, a human being, a frog, a whale, a kangaroo, etc., as in "Let there be light, let there be fish, let there be crawling things," etc.
This magical person created day and night on the first day, and the sun on the fourth day (think about that for a while and see if your head explodes). The first man was created fully grown, with no previous history (did he have a navel?) out of dirt and hot air. The first woman was created fully adult too, with no previous history (did she have a navel?) out of a bone taken from the guy's side while he was in a coma. They, as were all animals (even ants and anteaters?) were immortal at first, but a talking snake gave them a bum steer, so death came into the world.
Also, these Neanderthals or Australopithicuses or whatever they were suddenly realized that they were naked and the monkeys and whatnot could see their "areas" so they put on leaf dresses. Then they had two sons, then one killed the other, then there was a huge amount of incest, since there was no one to date except your sister, so then the world was populated. But the invisible person in the sky got crabby again and drowned them all except for eight people who escaped in a boatload of very stinky unhappy animals, then the world started over again from scratch - about 4,500 years ago. There followed a lot of first cousin sex - no one else to date again.
So then Ham looked at his naked father and laughed and the Negroes were cursed to be slaves, then the Jews started committing genocide on all their neighbors, etc., etc. (The really crazy stuff didn't start until god knocked up a human female and wound up sacrificing himself to himself, but that's another story - see the N.T.).
vs.
Evolution: a singularity of unimaginative small dimensions and incomprehensible density exploded - the so-called Big Bang. (Put aside the fact that space and time started at that point, there may be an infinite number of such Big Bangs, etc.) Skip ahead about 10 billion years. The solar system evolved, then singular-celled life evolved on earth around 3.8 billion years ago.
Skip ahead about 3 billion years after enough waste oxygen builds up, then other life evolves that breathes the oxygen (grossing out the anaerobic bacteria, but screw them - they're losers). Skip ahead to only a few hundred million years ago and some plant (a trifid?) crawled up on land, followed by an animal (a monkey-fish-squirrel?), then larger animals, finally some apes got kicked out of the trees for not sharing their bananas, walked out from the forest to the savanna, and eventually evolved into humans over 10 or so million years.
Cave drawings dating back 100,00 years revealed humans had already invented religion by then (animism and shamanism, foreshadowing the far more sexy monotheism) because they had evolved egos and egos MUST be fed. Present day "evolution scientists" have found several hundred million fossils of various species of life forms, 99 per cent of which are extinct and have been extinct for a time many orders of magnitude longer than that of human existence ("creation scientists" believe Adam an Eve rode dinosaurs to church, and god planted the other fake fossils in the proper strata to make Richard Dawkins and his ilk look stupid, become unbelievers and eventually go to hell - because god is a Calvinist xxx.
----
Now, granted, these are rather truncated versions of our two choices and, also granted, I took a lot of poetic license in delineating some of the details, but I think everyone can see what each side has to offer, regarding objectivity, disinterested examination of the evidence, following many different lines of evidence to a logical conclusion, and so forth.
For further information, in order to understand the issues in more depth, I recommend
1. reading the KJV bible for understanding the creationism theory (you'll have the basic idea down after reading the first book, Genesis, but do read at least the entire OT - after reading how often the Jews committed genocide on their neighbors, you may no longer wonder where Hitler got the idea.
and
2. reading the seven or so books explaining evolution written by Richard Dawkins - the best one in my opinion is "The Ancestor’s Tale". Also, for the overachiever, I think the 15 or so books on evolution by Stephen J. Gould are very good - my favorite of his is "Full House".
This is one long thread filled with strong ideas.
Well for starters, "adam and eve" is a false bible story. This has been admitted by the church. It's supposed to be a typical life lesson story dealing with how one should never disobey the divine. If you want to get technical, the apple in the story symbolically represents knowledge (a good course in theology or philosophy will clear that one up).
My question is, why deny science and place one's beliefs in a made up bible story? Do you honestly think God used his finger to zap Adam and Eve onto the earth? How would one explain fossils left by prehistoric creatures?
This link I'm about to post is another reason behind the downfall of western culture: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp
Mon ami, there is nothing in the Bible that states this. This was a doctrine brought about by highly prejudiced master race people who wished to make what they were doing Biblically correct, so they claimed that the "Mark of Cain" was that God made him a black man. Nothing in the Bible supports this at all, and slavery is a horrible thing, which is why there was a time when anyone could walk free or reclaim property freely. It was called the year of Jubilee. You had to chose it, not say, "Oh, I'm OK, here, The Master treats me fine." Because then you were a slave by choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
No argument from me that slavery was (and is in present day Africa) a horrible thing that should be condemned outright by all who claim to have any moral sensitivity whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
That being said, does the bible condone slavery? That’s a question that I suppose could be debated forever. There are fundamentalist christians who believe the bible does indeed record the fact that god condemned blacks to servitude because of the "sin" of their common ancestor, Ham. Many other christians, I suppose the majority these days, argue that is not true, as you do.
Obviously the whole idea of god cursing an entire race is an absurd idea. I can only report that many christians in the past, and many still today believe this to be true. You can argue with other christians regarding this issue. I don't have a dog in that fight. (As I said I took a bit of poetic license in describing both the religious creation notion and scientific theory of evolution.)
I think there's a bit of that in every Scotsman actuallyQuote:
Originally Posted by ennison
This story strikes me as just as fantastic as the highly simplified and biased rendition of Creation originally given above it. As far as I'm concerned, this rendition is just as fantastic as the one I believe in - except this one was fabricated by a human (so that makes it more credible, I guess).Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Ultimately, none of what is printed above is provable. Just like Creation. Neither is provable.
Hey, but at least the fundamentals of creation theories are based off empirical evidence, and not on what some imaginary construct had to say.