right and wrong in the bible

[Morrisonhotel]

Unless parents take an active role to discourage this inherent focus on self, it grows into an ego that only sees the world as an extension of itself.

You're placing rather a large amount of your argument on nurture.

[Morrisonhotel]

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

Firstly, see the last post I made above.

Secondly, explaining anything to me would pointless? Way to go on the personal attack.

I see that you are, by your post, one of those types that believe unconditionally in the biblical account of God: that is fine. What is not fine is attacking me personally for the fact that your God allows suffering - to even the most innocent (even those that have no ability to create evil (when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?). That, to me, is a completely inept form of decision making by God (whilst it is true that I have agnostic/atheistic leanings, it seems difficult to not judge a book that has been shown, in sections, to be completely false (or, in several cases, very unlikely) - therefore, of course I have difficulty in allowing the God is great, etc. mantra)). Why allow such things to happen? I cannot possibly think one of reason - even less so when the perpetually occurring universal sin is considered.

You may describe him as a 'good' God but as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise. If all this 'good' omnipotent God can create is the way humanity has been over the last few thousand years then you can keep him.

Give me a single good reason as to why God would allow it? Universal sin marking someone seems so inadequate as an answer - after all, how long do you continue punishing man? Several people have stated the 'evil' persuasion of humanity without the right confines to keep people good - that, to me, seems like a continually perpetrating act as it would require, to break this chain, every single person to behave good (both morally and in terms of biblical teaching). In short, if one is to live a continually sin-free life then one is punished in this life by God for the failings of others - that seems like a thing a good God would do.

[Redzeppelin]

Firstly, see the last post I made above.

Secondly, explaining anything to me would pointless? Way to go on the personal attack.

No attack was made upon you; I made an prediction of the success of engaging in dialogue with you about the nature of God because you have revealed that you do not see Him (even theoretically) as He is described: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, the source of all that is Good, Right, Just, Loving, Compassionate, etc in the universe. I'm not attacking your intelligence or you as a person; I'm indicating my idea of projected success in having a discussion based upon your characterization of God as a human being. All-knowing beings cannot be "inept" except when being evaluated by people who refuse to accord them the qualities they are described as having. Socrates' first rule of engagement was an agreement upon what the term being discussed meant; if you and I have diametrically opposed ideas of who God is, our discussion will be at cross-purposes from the start to the finish. That's what my comments were asserting.

I see that you are, by your post, one of those types that believe unconditionally in the biblical account of God: that is fine. What is not fine is attacking me personally for the fact that your God allows suffering - to even the most innocent (even those that have no ability to create evil (when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?).

For the second time: nobody attacked you. I predicted the "success" we would have in this discussion. You are free to prove me wrong.

That [God allows suffering - to even the most innocent], to me, is a completely inept form of decision making by God (whilst it is true that I have agnostic/atheistic leanings, it seems difficult to not judge a book that has been shown, in sections, to be completely false (or, in several cases, very unlikely) - therefore, of course I have difficulty in allowing the God is great, etc. mantra)). Why allow such things to happen? I cannot possibly think one of reason - even less so when the perpetually occurring universal sin is considered.

Your evaluation is based on your limited understanding of God's decision-making process; you make evaluations on what you observe in the world and what you believe is the right thing to do in terms of evil and suffering; while I respect your humanitarian view, it ignores certain realities about free will, love, and the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God; why don't you show me where it has been "proved false"?

You may describe him as a 'good' God but as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise. If all this 'good' omnipotent God can create is the way humanity has been over the last few thousand years then you can keep him.

I do not describe God as "good" - the Bible (the authority on His character) does so (many times and in many ways). The presence of sin does not mean that God isn't good; it means that there is a reason that God chooses not to eliminate these things at this point in time.

Give me a single good reason as to why God would allow it?

From the human perspective, there is no good reason to allow evil to exist - period. I can't give you an example you'll accept because I don't know the mind of God. I will tell you this: since the Bible tells us that God desires that we freely love Him, there must also exist the choice to rebel against Him and reject Him; if God stops us from rejecting Him and stops us from commiting evil, then we really don't have free will - because free will involves the ability to choose between two legitimate choices. If God stops us from commiting evil, then He is not a God of love, because love cannot exist without the choice to not love.

Universal sin marking someone seems so inadequate as an answer - after all, how long do you continue punishing man? Several people have stated the 'evil' persuasion of humanity without the right confines to keep people good - that, to me, seems like a continually perpetrating act as it would require, to break this chain, every single person to behave good (both morally and in terms of biblical teaching). In short, if one is to live a continually sin-free life then one is punished in this life by God for the failings of others - that seems like a thing a good God would do.

A sin-free life is impossible. God counterbalances the suffering and evil in this world through His provision of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - the death of whom allows all sinners to come to God, to be justified, forgiven and saved. The Holy Spirit provides comfort to those in affliction. None of this - I understand - is probably even remotely reasonable or acceptable to you. I would suggest that the "good" God you want - if He existed according to the parameters you set - would be a horrible God to live under.

[Scheherazade]

Anymore personal or inflammatory comments, this thread too will be closed.

[weepingforloman]

when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?

as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise

Why, just the last week I read about a fetus that shot its twin prenatally. Of course, that was in "The Onion," so I'm not sure that counts...

You happen to be using my words out of context. How could you blame God for war? Hatred, war, murder, etc. are not from God.

[Morrisonhotel]

No attack was made upon you; I made an prediction of the success of engaging in dialogue with you about the nature of God because you have revealed that you do not see Him (even theoretically) as He is described: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, the source of all that is Good, Right, Just, Loving, Compassionate, etc in the universe. I'm not attacking your intelligence or you as a person; I'm indicating my idea of projected success in having a discussion based upon your characterization of God as a human being. All-knowing beings cannot be "inept" except when being evaluated by people who refuse to accord them the qualities they are described as having. Socrates' first rule of engagement was an agreement upon what the term being discussed meant; if you and I have diametrically opposed ideas of who God is, our discussion will be at cross-purposes from the start to the finish. That's what my comments were asserting.



For the second time: nobody attacked you. I predicted the "success" we would have in this discussion. You are free to prove me wrong.



Your evaluation is based on your limited understanding of God's decision-making process; you make evaluations on what you observe in the world and what you believe is the right thing to do in terms of evil and suffering; while I respect your humanitarian view, it ignores certain realities about free will, love, and the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God; why don't you show me where it has been "proved false"?



I do not describe God as "good" - the Bible (the authority on His character) does so (many times and in many ways). The presence of sin does not mean that God isn't good; it means that there is a reason that God chooses not to eliminate these things at this point in time.



From the human perspective, there is no good reason to allow evil to exist - period. I can't give you an example you'll accept because I don't know the mind of God. I will tell you this: since the Bible tells us that God desires that we freely love Him, there must also exist the choice to rebel against Him and reject Him; if God stops us from rejecting Him and stops us from commiting evil, then we really don't have free will - because free will involves the ability to choose between two legitimate choices. If God stops us from commiting evil, then He is not a God of love, because love cannot exist without the choice to not love.



A sin-free life is impossible. God counterbalances the suffering and evil in this world through His provision of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - the death of whom allows all sinners to come to God, to be justified, forgiven and saved. The Holy Spirit provides comfort to those in affliction. None of this - I understand - is probably even remotely reasonable or acceptable to you. I would suggest that the "good" God you want - if He existed according to the parameters you set - would be a horrible God to live under.

1) I felt it was a personal attack.

2)Proven false - where to begin? Archaeologically and geologically speaking, we can flat out disprove quite a few things in the bible: notably, however, a rather obvious one is the Noah story - we can show that there was never and has never been a worldwide flood (even within the limited area that was known about). It is an obvious embellishment - if it is, indeed, the inerrant word of God then you'd think he'd notice that he hadn't actually covered more than the Euphrates river floodplain(where, most archaeologists and historians agree, this story was embellished from).

3) I'm still not convinced on saying God is good (either from the bible's perspective or humanities perspective).

4) I disagree when you say that love cannot exist without 'non-love' whilst I appreciate the philosophical arguments behind such sentiments, I just don't accept it.

5) If we were, hypothetically speaking, to take a baby, place them in an environment where they could not escape but were allowed to live in relative comfort, I fail to see how this child could succomb to sin.

[Morrisonhotel]

Why, just the last week I read about a fetus that shot its twin prenatally. Of course, that was in "The Onion," so I'm not sure that counts...

You happen to be using my words out of context. How could you blame God for war? Hatred, war, murder, etc. are not from God.

I'd hazard a guess at saying that The Onion isn't the most accurate and trustworthy thing to gleam news from.

I disagree. A good God, at least by my definition, would not allow such things to occur. Whilst he is not to blame directly (except, perhaps, when the occassion arises when such things happen in the name of him - slightly tenuous, I admit), I would argue that he is to blame by proxy.

[kiobe]

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

What's the cutoff. At what age does God no longer considere us children?

[Redzeppelin]

1) I felt it was a personal attack.

Feelings don't equal reality; I made it clear that I wasn't attacking; if you wish to insist otherwise, your choice. Sorry you feel that way.

2)Proven false - where to begin? Archaeologically and geologically speaking, we can flat out disprove quite a few things in the bible: notably, however, a rather obvious one is the Noah story - we can show that there was never and has never been a worldwide flood (even within the limited area that was known about). It is an obvious embellishment - if it is, indeed, the inerrant word of God then you'd think he'd notice that he hadn't actually covered more than the Euphrates river floodplain(where, most archaeologists and historians agree, this story was embellished from).

You proved nothing.

No - there are opposing arguments that use the fossile layers to suggest that something very much like a worldwide flood could have happened. Archeology - in fact - has made many discoveries that verify the existence of ancient cities and peoples mentioned in the Bible.

3) I'm still not convinced on saying God is good (either from the bible's perspective or humanities perspective).

Fine: then what would God need to do to convince you He is good?

4) I disagree when you say that love cannot exist without 'non-love' whilst I appreciate the philosophical arguments behind such sentiments, I just don't accept it.

The "while I appreciate your argument I just don't accept it" statement is the kind Christians get nailed for making (especially when debating evolution).

5) If we were, hypothetically speaking, to take a baby, place them in an environment where they could not escape but were allowed to live in relative comfort, I fail to see how this child could succomb to sin.

Sin is pretty much a relational thing - once you put this child with other children, the sin would become obvious.

[Morrisonhotel]

Feelings don't equal reality; I made it clear that I wasn't attacking; if you wish to insist otherwise, your choice. Sorry you feel that way.



You proved nothing.

No - there are opposing arguments that use the fossile layers to suggest that something very much like a worldwide flood could have happened. Archeology - in fact - has made many discoveries that verify the existence of ancient cities and peoples mentioned in the Bible.



Fine: then what would God need to do to convince you He is good?



The "while I appreciate your argument I just don't accept it" statement is the kind Christians get nailed for making (especially when debating evolution).


Sin is pretty much a relational thing - once you put this child with other children, the sin would become obvious.

1) Wrong. Prior to studying English Literature at university, I studied Environmental Archaeology and Geology - one of the largest areas of study I worked in was flooding and I can categorically state there is no evidence of a world-wide flood. None - in fact, the only evidence that shows there was a world-wide flood is literalist Christian science (hardly the benchmark of good scientific practise). If we are adhering to fundamentalist dating of the earth then the level of evolution and diversification is completely incompatible with this time scale (not to mention the difficulty of the marsupials being in Australia, etc.) - if we aren't then there's no evidence otherwise. End of. I find it a bizarre story: if everyone is mired by sin then how come Noah and a few others escaped? I find it hard to believe that so few people in the world could be considered good - if everyone is, in some way, a sinner then we must surmise that Noah was a sinner. I have to say that I acknowledge that there is no secular evidence to actually show that Noah existed so naturally I'm a bit cynical fullstop.

I did not state that archaeology has disproven everything in the bible. I merely stated that it has disproven significant parts of the bible (of which, the Noah story is one of the most famous).

2) What would God need to do to make me think he was good? Stop perpetually marking humanity as sinners; stop economic injustice; stop 'good' people being killed; stop babies from dying; etc., etc.

3)I hardly think that's the worst thing that Christians can be attacked for in terms of evolution.

4) I meant that the child be kept apart from others at all time. If there is no possible way they can interact with sin then surely, one would think, that that child would not be a sinner as it has no possibilities to be so.

[Redzeppelin]

1) Wrong. Prior to studying English Literature at university, I studied Environmental Archaeology and Geology - one of the largest areas of study I worked in was flooding and I can categorically state there is no evidence of a world-wide flood. None - in fact, the only evidence that shows there was a world-wide flood is literalist Christian science (hardly the benchmark of good scientific practise).

1) Evidence requires interpretation (which is far from objective in nature). Evidence does not always speak for itself - especially in terms of the fossil record. Your assertion is one interpretation. Creationist scientists look at the same evidence and come up with a different interpretation (and their science is just as rigorous - they simply come up with a different conclusion).

If we are adhering to fundamentalist dating of the earth then the level of evolution and diversification is completely incompatible with this time scale (not to mention the difficulty of the marsupials being in Australia, etc.) - if we aren't then there's no evidence otherwise. End of.

I'm not interested in pursuing this point too far - it's more germane to the evolution thread. Science doesn't disprove the Bible - it merely disagrees with its interpretation.

I find it a bizarre story: if everyone is mired by sin then how come Noah and a few others escaped?

Noah and family were not spared because they were sinless; they were spared because they served God.

I find it hard to believe that so few people in the world could be considered good - if everyone is, in some way, a sinner then we must surmise that Noah was a sinner. I have to say that I acknowledge that there is no secular evidence to actually show that Noah existed so naturally I'm a bit cynical fullstop.

"Hard to believe" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible"; as well, "good" is a term that we and God see differently, since He knows all; from His point of view, someone who appears very "good" to us may actually be a horrible person.

I did not state that archaeology has disproven everything in the bible. I merely stated that it has disproven significant parts of the bible (of which, the Noah story is one of the most famous).

I'll need something more convincing than the dispute over the flood. ID scientists have advanced convincing interpretations of the fossil record that suggest a cataclysmic flood.

2) What would God need to do to make me think he was good? Stop perpetually marking humanity as sinners; stop economic injustice; stop 'good' people being killed; stop babies from dying; etc., etc.

*God doesn't "make" sinners - we do that all by ourselves.
*So you want a world where there is no suffering or pain of any type? That's called "heaven" and eventually we'll get there (as long as we've made an agreement with the Guy in charge). You seem to suggest some sort of Divine Police Officer to stop all evil. There are (at minimum) two problems with that desire:

1) Such action would negate our free will - in order to be free moral agents we must have the choice to serve God or to reject Him. If He interferes in my free will choice to rob you, He has denied me my free choice - and now I cannot serve Him out of love (His desire) but out of fear.
2) Why stop at people being killed? How about He stops you from telling that "off color" joke, or from flirting with your secretary (which your wife wouldn't like)? How about if He stops even that evil thought you had of flipping off the guy who cut you off in traffic? Can't you see the problem with the kind of God you suggest? That God creates a world of mindless submission because being bad isn't an option. That was the whole point of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden: humanity had to have the legitimate choice to not choose God in order for the choice to choose Him to have any meaning at all. Love must be freely chosen. Free will is necessary for love, and one of the potential problems of free will is that it must allow for the choice of evil. An unfortunate (and thankfully, not a permanent) situation.

3)I hardly think that's the worst thing that Christians can be attacked for in terms of evolution.

It's not.

4) I meant that the child be kept apart from others at all time. If there is no possible way they can interact with sin then surely, one would think, that that child would not be a sinner as it has no possibilities to be so.

More than likely, a baby without human interaction would die. Either way, I think psychology would suggest that no human interaction would severely warp the kids psyche. We are born inherently evil - period. That evil first manifests itself as infantile ego (only I exist). If that world-view is not altered, the child will become the worst of monsters.

[Morrisonhotel]

1) Evidence requires interpretation (which is far from objective in nature). Evidence does not always speak for itself - especially in terms of the fossil record. Your assertion is one interpretation. Creationist scientists look at the same evidence and come up with a different interpretation (and their science is just as rigorous - they simply come up with a different conclusion).



I'm not interested in pursuing this point too far - it's more germane to the evolution thread. Science doesn't disprove the Bible - it merely disagrees with its interpretation.



Noah and family were not spared because they were sinless; they were spared because they served God.



"Hard to believe" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible"; as well, "good" is a term that we and God see differently, since He knows all; from His point of view, someone who appears very "good" to us may actually be a horrible person.



I'll need something more convincing than the dispute over the flood. ID scientists have advanced convincing interpretations of the fossil record that suggest a cataclysmic flood.



*God doesn't "make" sinners - we do that all by ourselves.
*So you want a world where there is no suffering or pain of any type? That's called "heaven" and eventually we'll get there (as long as we've made an agreement with the Guy in charge). You seem to suggest some sort of Divine Police Officer to stop all evil. There are (at minimum) two problems with that desire:

1) Such action would negate our free will - in order to be free moral agents we must have the choice to serve God or to reject Him. If He interferes in my free will choice to rob you, He has denied me my free choice - and now I cannot serve Him out of love (His desire) but out of fear.
2) Why stop at people being killed? How about He stops you from telling that "off color" joke, or from flirting with your secretary (which your wife wouldn't like)? How about if He stops even that evil thought you had of flipping off the guy who cut you off in traffic? Can't you see the problem with the kind of God you suggest? That God creates a world of mindless submission because being bad isn't an option. That was the whole point of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden: humanity had to have the legitimate choice to not choose God in order for the choice to choose Him to have any meaning at all. Love must be freely chosen. Free will is necessary for love, and one of the potential problems of free will is that it must allow for the choice of evil. An unfortunate (and thankfully, not a permanent) situation.



It's not.



More than likely, a baby without human interaction would die. Either way, I think psychology would suggest that no human interaction would severely warp the kids psyche. We are born inherently evil - period. That evil first manifests itself as infantile ego (only I exist). If that world-view is not altered, the child will become the worst of monsters.

1) Do you know anything about modern science (that isn't a personal attack, it's a serious question)? ID 'science' is not science period. End of story. Almost every part of ID is refutable by good science: that is, science which does not have an objective to prove one's belief system (and, furthermore, presents itself to other experts for debate and discussion. I.D. 'science' does not do that. Want to know why? It does not satisfy good scientific practise and it would be picked to pieces by a good scientist (especially when questioning global flooding: if the earth is indeed a few thousand years old (as ID proponents claim) then it would be very very easy to see this flood - so why can't we?). You have not refuted what I have stated about the impossibility of the 'global' flood because, in simple terms, you can not possibly refute it. The simple fact of the matter is that if I.D. 'scientists' were indeed as rigorous as you claim then they would indeed come to the same conclusions as the rest of the field - I find it really interesting to see how many creationists claim to be experts on such fields as this yet have no academic training on the subject. I can demonstrate that there has been no such flood. Can you, using 'good' scientists?

Scientists do not just postulate their theories and leave it at that. They say to the wider academic community: "here is my intepretation of the evidence. Does this sit true?" The scientific community will then help test this - funnily enough, I.D. 'scientists' (I'm dying to hear about a single respected scientist who actually works within this field (i.e. has a full PhD degree in geology/archaeology or some such)) don't allow this kind of serious testing of their work except within Christianity. I wonder why that is? I have done the exact same kind of testing: as someone who has studied this stuff, I have worked within the same realms of this scientific practise and would happily allow any leading authority on the subject to read my musings above.

Convince me otherwise on I.D. 'scientists' as I see no real reason to introduce their 'work' to a discussion on scientific understanding when it follows none of the same premises that have dominated science since, well, the dawn of modern science.

2) So we are concluding, therefore, that the rest of the world did not serve God in any way. I believe that is the implication of the Noah biblical story but I'm finding that a bit difficult to believe.

3)Show me the evidence of the cataclysmic flood. I want to see articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I want to see science that is both empirical and clearly stated, and I want to see articles in peer-reviewed journals by non-I.D. scientists who agree with that.

4)I see no problems either way. God has impounded constrictions on us already: stating how we should live, and so forth. Several times in the bible he invokes his wrath on the world and, therefore, my summation on the topic is that if he really wanted us to be given free will, he'd never ever interfere.

I see no real problem with such a world. I 'd happily enjoy a world where everyone could prosper equally, and not live in any form of fear - I'm not convinced that God would create fear if all humanity got along (if anything, I think they'd be more inclined to love God if everyone was happy).

5)Really? My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is a biologist. I've seen him debate the same subject with creationists and he always brings up far 'worst' criticisms of the biblical account in regards to evolution.

6)If we were to allow it knowledge of others then surely that would negate such sentiments?

[Redzeppelin]

1) Do you know anything about modern science (that isn't a personal attack, it's a serious question)? ID 'science' is not science period. End of story. Almost every part of ID is refutable by good science: that is, science which does not have an objective to prove one's belief system (and, furthermore, presents itself to other experts for debate and discussion. I.D. 'science' does not do that. Want to know why? It does not satisfy good scientific practise and it would be picked to pieces by a good scientist (especially when questioning global flooding: if the earth is indeed a few thousand years old (as ID proponents claim) then it would be very very easy to see this flood - so why can't we?). You have not refuted what I have stated about the impossibility of the 'global' flood because, in simple terms, you can not possibly refute it. The simple fact of the matter is that if I.D. 'scientists' were indeed as rigorous as you claim then they would indeed come to the same conclusions as the rest of the field - I find it really interesting to see how many creationists claim to be experts on such fields as this yet have no academic training on the subject. I can demonstrate that there has been no such flood. Can you, using 'good' scientists?

I'm going to answer philosophically: creationists and naturalists view the world through their individual "lenses." As such, both essentially engage in circular reasoning: the creationist starts from the foundation that God is real and then argues backwards, interpreting the evidence to fit the conclusion; the Naturalist does the same: he starts from the conclusion that only matter is reality and that there is no spiritual component of reality; as such, he also argues backwards, interpreting his evidence (the same evidence by the way) to fit his view. That's how it works - that's why I cannot offer you any convincing ID arguments or why you can't offer me any convincing naturalist arguments; it also explains why both sides criticize the conclusions of the other. The scientific method is used by both sides - but since we both begin from completely opposite premises, we automatically discount any conclusions the other side makes because of our presuppositional beliefs that our interpretations and conclusions are based upon. Christians are clear on the fact that they view the world through the filter of God; atheists and naturalists tend to believe that they view the world "directly" - they don't: their view is just as influenced as ours is - but they won't often admit to that.

Scientists do not just postulate their theories and leave it at that. They say to the wider academic community: "here is my intepretation of the evidence. Does this sit true?" The scientific community will then help test this - funnily enough, I.D. 'scientists' (I'm dying to hear about a single respected scientist who actually works within this field (i.e. has a full PhD degree in geology/archaeology or some such)) don't allow this kind of serious testing of their work except within Christianity. I wonder why that is? I have done the exact same kind of testing: as someone who has studied this stuff, I have worked within the same realms of this scientific practise and would happily allow any leading authority on the subject to read my musings above.

See above.

Convince me otherwise on I.D. 'scientists' as I see no real reason to introduce their 'work' to a discussion on scientific understanding when it follows none of the same premises that have dominated science since, well, the dawn of modern science.

See above.

2) So we are concluding, therefore, that the rest of the world did not serve God in any way. I believe that is the implication of the Noah biblical story but I'm finding that a bit difficult to believe.

That's OK. I find evolution difficult to believe too.

3)Show me the evidence of the cataclysmic flood. I want to see articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I want to see science that is both empirical and clearly stated, and I want to see articles in peer-reviewed journals by non-I.D. scientists who agree with that.

Dealt with already.

4)I see no problems either way. God has impounded constrictions on us already: stating how we should live, and so forth. Several times in the bible he invokes his wrath on the world and, therefore, my summation on the topic is that if he really wanted us to be given free will, he'd never ever interfere.

Oh but there is a problem: the God you're asking for wouldn't even allow you to be expressing the opinions you have right now. The fact that you can doubt His existence and question it is proof that free will exists and must exist. The God who wouldn't allow the consequences of free will would also not allow you to question His existence. As well, free will doesn't mean no consequences; it simply means that you freely choose what happens.

I see no real problem with such a world. I 'd happily enjoy a world where everyone could prosper equally, and not live in any form of fear - I'm not convinced that God would create fear if all humanity got along (if anything, I think they'd be more inclined to love God if everyone was happy).

You would be far more critical of this world you've asked for because even evil thought could not exist - "goodness" cannot legitimately exist on earth without the option to choose evil; goodness does not need evil to exist to be good, but we must have the option to choose evil if we are to be good of our own free will. If God didn't allow evil, there'd be no true love - it would be love by default - but such a thing cannot exist, so now we're into involuntary servitude.

5)Really? My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere is a biologist. I've seen him debate the same subject with creationists and he always brings up far 'worst' criticisms of the biblical account in regards to evolution.

Not a point I wish to pursue. Just made a comment. It's not a foundational point to the argument I'm making.

6)If we were to allow it knowledge of others then surely that would negate such sentiments?

No. Your experiment is impractical. Sin exists - it is not a matter of nurture or nature (though those things can influence it in either direction).

[hyperborean]

Sin has nothing to do with nature and nurture. Sin is made up!

[Redzeppelin]

Sin has nothing to do with nature and nurture. Sin is made up!

Hi Hype. You're wrong. But I still respect you.