Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?

---

You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?

---

Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?

---

God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days? - if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?

---

Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here:

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5

Which part of that is unclear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what?

To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.

---

Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period.

For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers.

Someone above said that atheists were often looked on as 'hedonistic sociopaths'

Hedonists I can live with. Sociopaths are different but you don't judge a sociopath by what he/she says but by actions and if the sociopathic behaviour is based on or justified by a set of beliefs then it is normal to be suspicious of these beliefs - theist or a-theist. But of course being sociopathic it may be that a claim to justify actions by beliefs is only a lie or smokescreen for a deeper underlying malaise. Sin is what I believe that refers to. I doubt if many people are persuaded one way or the other by what is posted here but feel themselves more akin to poster A than poster B or C and so on. Maybe later a thought might take root that was first aired here - who knows. People are touchy and would rather not face up to unpleasant truths about things that have been done by their co-believers and frequently find themselves adopting apparently rigid positions in order not to give an inch in argument. It is usually easier to discuss these matters with those who have similar beliefs - everything else is argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.

---

I just picked that one randomly, coz it's easy to address quickly ;)

Quote:

---

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

---

Quote:

---

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

---

Quote:

---

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

---

Quote:

---

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear.

---

;) ;) ;)

Point? There is a passage in the OT that refers to men making their own laws (end of Judges) Are you suggesting that we base our Biblical authority on old Jewish laws or are you suggesting that the abolitionists did not get support from the Bible or are you saying they were mistaken. Dash and I so need a slave right now too..... if only these Wilberforces and others had been more knowledgeable about what the Bible REALLY said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

... You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?..

---

Yes I do - so do 80 per cent of extant Americans, and most of the world - especially during the first month or two, and especially in the first week or two. It would have been helpful if Jesus (not Paul) had said "from the moment of conception, before the fertilized ovum is even implanted, or when there is only a blastocyst smaller than the eye can see - or words to that effect. Again, if this is such an important issue, why did not Jesus (not Paul) address it? Abortions, BTW, are not a modern phenomenon - they performed them back then also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

...Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America...

---

That's a copout. Jesus took the time to whip the thieves out of the temple, yet he didn't have time to address one of the more heinous sins of man against man? Slavery is less a sin than dishonoring one's parents? Or coveting one's neighbor's ***? Or committing adultery? Why do civilized nations today generally have laws against slavery but not against most of the 10 commandments, including adultery and coveting? By any decent standards the "moral" teachings of the bible, including the N.T., are totally out of whack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

...God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul...

---

Again, a copout. If homosexuality is SUCH a big deal one would think Jesus (in addition to Paul) would have uttered a few lines specifically denouncing it. It certainly is a big deal to many Christians today. Why the lack of emphasis on this "sin" by extant Christians but not by Jesus? He took time to forgive the women caught in adultery - his famous "Let he who is without sin" speech, but didn't think it worth the time to address the leading "sin" issue of today? I thought Jesus, as the alleged son of god, was prescient?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

...Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here:

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5 ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

...Which part of that is unclear?..

---

As poetic expression, nothing. As science it is crap, as the sun was created on the fourth day, four days after god began separating light and dark. The ancients would wrote Genesis was primitives regarding their understandings of natural processes - they didn't even understand that the sun is the light, and the earth rotation causes the night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

...Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period...For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers...

---

Right. You and yours are right and everyone else - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and thousands of other religions, plus atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, etc. are all wrong. Because you and a privileged few have plugged into the true god and have the ability to understand the biblical messages from god that the majority of us lack because..... You say so. Those many Christians who do not interpret the bible your way are just wrong and not under the guidance of the "holy spirit" because....you say so. Everything you say and believe is true and correct because.... you say so.

Yeah - I get it. Everyone should never contradict you because you know exactly what you're talking about because....you say so. You speak for god, the creator the universe because....you say so. Your interpretation of the bible is the correct on because....you say so.

Well - isn't that special.

*** Please carry on your discussions without personalising them. ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Right. You and yours are right and everyone else - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and thousands of other religions, plus atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, etc. are all wrong. Because you and a privileged few have plugged into the true god and have the ability to understand the biblical messages from god that the majority of us lack because..... You say so. Those many Christians who do not interpret the bible your way are just wrong and not under the guidance of the "holy spirit" because....you say so. Everything you say and believe is true and correct because.... you say so.

Yeah - I get it. Everyone should never contradict you because you know exactly what you're talking about because....you say so. You speak for god, the creator the universe because....you say so. Your interpretation of the bible is the correct on because....you say so.

Well - isn't that special.

---

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.

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

... 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,

Hehe, looks like you may be up here on the fence with me. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, imo.
Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Hi Pen,

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

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.

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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?

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.

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.