The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane · 05-02-2008 11:21pm

daithifleming wrote: »

So why don't they stand their ground and insist it be sold as a 4,000 year old item? Why not hold their own creation auction? They are willingly taking part in this. There is no other way of looking at it. They are selling out.

Yes, they could have held their own auction - but for the most comprehensive market, most folk normally leave it to the professionals.

But the central point remains, EVERYONE knows the divergent views of the seller and the auctioneers/scientific establishment. NO deceit, no compromise.

Logic should tell you this, and most of you have enough of it to be without excuse. So I reckon bigotry must explain your persistant claims of selling out.

Come on, guys - force yourselves toward impartiality. It won't harm you.:D

Ekancone · 05-02-2008 11:40pm

Are they profiting from the fact the item is 10,000+ years old?

[] Yes

[] No

Zombrex · 05-02-2008 11:49pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, they could have held their own auction - but for the most comprehensive market, most folk normally leave it to the professionals.

But the central point remains, EVERYONE knows the divergent views of the seller and the auctioneers/scientific establishment. NO deceit, no compromise.

Logic should tell you this, and most of you have enough of it to be without excuse. So I reckon bigotry must explain your persistant claims of selling out.

Come on, guys - force yourselves toward impartiality. It won't harm you.:D

I just think it is funny how quickly this "Christian" group abandons it principles to make money. And how quickly you "Christians" rush to support them :rolleyes:

J C · 05-02-2008 11:53pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Are they profiting from the fact the item is 10,000+ years old?

[] Yes

[] No

NO....the thing is clearly about 4,000 years old......and possibly a lot less!!!!!:D

What makes it so valuable is it's rarity....and NOT it's age.....everyone agrees that it less than 10,000 years old ......a mere 'drop in the ocean' of Evolutionist time......it is the fact that it is the largest Mastodon skull discovered so far, that makes it so valuable!!!:D

I don't know who bought it......but if an Evolutionist bought it and chooses to BELIEVE that it is 10,000 years old then cé la vie !!!:D:)

.......you can point out the truth to some Evolutionists, until you are 'blue in the face'........but they may still choose to believe whatever they want to believe!!!:D

J C · 05-02-2008 11:56pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I just think it is funny how quickly this "Christian" group abandons it principles to make money. And how quickly you "Christians" rush to support them :rolleyes:

WHAT principle have they abandoned?????

......for all we know, it may have been a Creationist who bought the thing in the end anyway!!!!:D:)

......and are you ALSO suggesting that the Creationist Museum should have disriminated against the Auctioneering Firm ......even though they are the biggest and best in the business......just because they may be Evolutionists???

Wolfsbane wrote: »

Come on, guys - force yourselves toward impartiality. It won't harm you.

.....unfortunately it doesn't look like some Evolutionists ......are capable of impartiality.....when it comes to Creationists......and Creation Science!!!!!:D

daithifleming wrote: »

How old do you loonies think the earth is again?

.....as I have said........
.......unfortunately it doesn't look like some Evolutionists ......are capable of impartiality and objectivity.....when it comes to Creationists......and Creation Science!!!!!:D

robindch · 06-02-2008 12:16am

J C wrote: »

WHAT principle have they abandoned?????

Quite right. One must have principles before one can abandon them.

J C wrote: »

......for all we know, it may have been a Creationist who bought the thing in the end anyway!!!!:D:)

In due course, I look forward to "Diploma-Mill-doctor" Ham unveiling the thing to his flocks of adoring sheep in Kentucky.

J C · 06-02-2008 12:31am

robindch wrote: »

Quite right. One must have principles before one can abandon them.

In due course, I look forward to "Diploma-Mill-doctor" Ham unveiling the thing to his flocks of adoring sheep in Kentucky.

.....as I have said........
.......unfortunately it doesn't look like some Evolutionists ......are capable of impartiality and objectivity.....when it comes to Creationists......and Creation Science!!!!!:D

.......welcome back Robin........
......and could I ask if you are able to manfully overcome the 'fears' which seem to be 'gripping' Scofflaw in relation to the Georgia Guidestones.....and give us your erudite view on WHO is behind them and HOW they plan to achieve a population of 500 million people on Earth???

.....equally, could I ask you to comment on Darwin's apparent 'fondness' for inbreeding!!!!!:D

Hot Dog · 06-02-2008 12:49am

4000 years, about the age of the pyramids eh? I got it, the Egyptians used mastodons to build the pyramids! that solved the mystery of how they could move the huge stone blocks. Obviously, though, the mastodons were shaved so they would not overheat in all that hair.

J C · 06-02-2008 11:11pm

Hot Dog wrote: »

4000 years, about the age of the pyramids eh? I got it, the Egyptians used mastodons to build the pyramids! that solved the mystery of how they could move the huge stone blocks. Obviously, though, the mastodons were shaved so they would not overheat in all that hair.

You MAY actually be partially correct.......the Mastodon is a member of the Elephant Kind.....

.....and Elephants MAY have been used as a beast of burden at the time of the construction of the Pyramids!!!:D:)

......BTW is there any further 'illumination' forthcoming from any of the Evolutionists on the 'Guidestones' or 'Darwin and Inbreeding'???

:eek::D

......isn't it amazing how the Skeptics stand in frightened awe of the 'Guidestones'.......but reject the Word of God with total abandon!!!!

The following verses of scripture seem appropriate:-

Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2Scoops · 06-02-2008 11:35pm

J C wrote: »

......BTW is there any further 'illumination' forthcoming from any of the Evolutionists on the 'Guidestones'

Like that they may have been built by a group of Christian masons? :eek: Scary stuff.

Since you like following up on dead ends, is there any chance of further illumination on the peer review practices of creation scientists? Do they still hang around in 'university peer review committees' casually discussing all the 'ordinary' science that gets submitted to them? :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2008 11:36pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Like that they may have been built by a group of Christian masons? :eek: Scary stuff.

Christians shouldn't be masons.

2Scoops · 06-02-2008 11:38pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Christians shouldn't be masons.

Tell that to the Brotherhood of the Rose Cross... whoever they may be...:D

robindch · 07-02-2008 12:01am

J C wrote: »

.......the Mastodon is a member of the Elephant Kind.....

Where does it say that in the bible?

J C · 07-02-2008 12:06am

2Scoops wrote: »

Like that they may have been built by a group of Christian masons? :eek: Scary stuff.

......it is only 'scary' for those involved in this stuff .......and possibly the unsaved who aren't involved!!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

Since you like following up on dead ends, is there any chance of further illumination on the peer review practices of creation scientists? Do they still hang around in 'university peer review committees' casually discussing all the 'ordinary' science that gets submitted to them? :rolleyes:

......OK.......if you must be pedantic about it ......some Creationists are on Academic Conference Programme Committees.......that invite peer reviwed papers (and non-peer reviewed papers) to be presented .........and published in Conference Proceedings!!!

J C · 07-02-2008 12:12am

Originally Posted by J C
.......the Mastodon is a member of the Elephant Kind.....

robindch wrote: »

Where does it say that in the bible?

The fact that the Mastodon was a member of the Elephant Kind...... is a Scientific Observation .....and not a Biblical Statement!!!!:D

J C · 07-02-2008 12:15am

Originally Posted by BrianCalgary
Christians shouldn't be masons.

2Scoops wrote: »

Tell that to the Brotherhood of the Rose Cross... whoever they may be...:D

Quite!!!:)

Sed tantum dic verbo credo in Jesu Christe et servare tu. (Fac 16:31)

Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. His qui credunt in Nomine ejus.

Pater noster, qui es in coelis. Sanctificetur Nomen tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo, et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debiroribus nostris, et ne nos inductas in tentationem.
Sed libera nos a male.

Scofflaw · 07-02-2008 1:56am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Christians shouldn't be masons.

Indeed. More of a carpentry vibe, I would have thought.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops · 07-02-2008 3:18am

J C wrote: »

......OK.......if you must be pedantic about it ......some Creationists are on Academic Conference Programme Committees.......that invite peer reviwed papers (and non-peer reviewed papers) to be presented .........and published in Conference Proceedings!!!

Ah, much more accurate, albeit much less impressive from a creation science standpoint!

I assure you that the distinction is far from trivial and to imply that I'm merely being pedantic is grossly incorrect.

For those who weren't paying attention or forget the context to this non sequitur, J C has modified his original statement that creation scientists sit on university peer review committees to:

creation scientists sit on conference programme committees, which do not involve peer review per se, that 'university peer review committees' do not exist, and that conferences comprise only a small minority or published research, some of which is not peer reviewed at all and certainly not by the programme committees themselves.

An embarrassing climbdown by anyone's standards.

Ekancone · 07-02-2008 9:41am

J C wrote: »

'Darwin and Inbreeding'???:eek::D
[/COLOR]

Tell me how Adam and Eves children managed not to do this?

Zombrex · 07-02-2008 10:59am

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
.......the Mastodon is a member of the Elephant Kind.....

The fact that the Mastodon was a member of the Elephant Kind...... is a Scientific Observation .....and not a Biblical Statement!!!!:D

Really. Would you perhaps like to show us the "science" behind that then?

You could start by defining the characteristics that a species must have to be a member of the "Elephant Kind"

(I won't hold my breath..:rolleyes)

J C · 07-02-2008 7:02pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Ah, much more accurate, albeit much less impressive from a creation science standpoint! I assure you that the distinction is far from trivial and to imply that I'm merely being pedantic is grossly incorrect.

For those who weren't paying attention or forget the context to this non sequitur, J C has modified his original statement that creation scientists sit on university peer review committees to:

creation scientists sit on conference programme committees, which do not involve peer review per se, that 'university peer review committees' do not exist, and that conferences comprise only a small minority or published research, some of which is not peer reviewed at all and certainly not by the programme committees themselves.

An embarrassing climbdown by anyone's standards.

.....not a climbdown BECAUSE conventional scientists who are Creationists .......and especially the tenured ones.....ALSO peer review many conventional scientific papers.....along with their Evolutionist colleagues!!!!:eek::)

......and, no I don't mean they do it together in committee......but each of them individually and anonamously!!!!:D

......and for those who still believe in Evolution.....here are some quotes from leading Evolutionists .......whose honestly expressed doubts about ALL aspects of Evolution......puts Spontaneous 'Molecules to Man' Evolution somewhere between Santa Clause and the Yeti......on the 'believability scale'!!!!:D
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

2Scoops · 07-02-2008 9:22pm

Are conventional scientists who are creationists the same as creation scientists? Or do you have to be actively engaged in creation research?

J C · 07-02-2008 10:58pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Are conventional scientists who are creationists the same as creation scientists? Or do you have to be actively engaged in creation research?

They are all Creation Scientists.......some are actively engaged in Creation Science research......and most are engaged in conventional science work.

J C · 07-02-2008 11:12pm

Originally Posted by J C
'Darwin and Inbreeding'???

daithifleming wrote: »

Tell me how Adam and Eves children managed not to do this?

It's all about timing!!!:D

Adam and Eve's children DID engage in intermarriage of the first and second degrees......but because they had little or no 'mutational loading' it was safe for them to do so.

The problem with Darwin's advocacy and practice of inbreeding is that it HASN'T been safe to do so for almost 4,000 years.....because of our ever-increasing 'mutational loadings'

It is a contention of Creation Science that the originally created Humans were perfectly 'out-bred' ......and therefore the early generations of Mankind were also highly 'out-bred'......even with closely related marriages.

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders from mutations have greatly increased since then, and a Law was given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Incest between consenting adults is now, sinful…….and genetically risky……but marriage by close cousins is still legally allowed by both church and state ……..but it is also increasingly genetically risky.......and Creation Scientists have therefore ALWAYS maintained that close relatives shouldn't marry!!

HOWEVER, some Evolutionists including Darwin himself actually advocated and / or practiced inbreeding!!!!
Darwin observed that pigeons from many different regions of Europe possessed accentuated and varying characteristics. He postulated correctly that an historical phenomenon of inbreeding had occurred. He then postulated, again correctly, that inbreeding was the cause of specializing of strains. He further continued, this time with error, by saying that inbreeding was good, especially among superior specimens.

Darwin lived as he taught. He taught inbreeding, and he inbred HIMSELF......

........by 'wedding and bedding' his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood who, like Darwin, was a grandchild of the famous potter, Josiah Wedgwood.:D

Darwin presumed that if two "superior" humans who were closely related were mated, the chances for markedly superior offspring would be excellent.!!!!!
And as it happened, of his ten children, one girl died shortly after birth, another, the much-beloved Annie, died in childhood, his youngest son, Charles, lived only two years, Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen, and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids.

J C · 08-02-2008 12:01am

Wicknight wrote: »

Really. Would you perhaps like to show us the "science" behind that then?

You could start by defining the characteristics that a species must have to be a member of the "Elephant Kind"

(I won't hold my breath..:rolleyes)

Here is a comparative illustration of the Mastodon, the Mammoth and the Elephant.....showing them to be clearly species of the one Kind
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-106830/Illustration-comparing-a-mastodon-a-woolly-mammoth-and-an-elephant

.....and amazingly two Mammoth-like 'Elephants' have recently been found in Nepal. They exhibit the typical dome shaped head of the Mammoth ......and they also have the typical tusk shapes of a Mammoth.........but they have predominantly Asian Elephant DNA........and so they are apparently a 'throwback' to the speciation of the Elephant Kind!!!!:D

In February and March of 1992, the British explorer Sir John Blashford-Snell was trekking through a remote valley in the Bardia region of western Nepal in search of "giant elephants" reported by the locals. Two representatives of these strange elephants, both bulls, were eventually observed - and photographed.
The two beasts, living up to their 'giant' reputation, were estimated to have footprints measuring 22.5 inches across and a height to the shoulders of 11 feet 3 inches, which makes them larger than the largest-ever recorded specimen of the Asian elephant.
Adding to the confusion was the presence of two very large domes on each elephant's forehead, and a distinctive nasal bridge. These two features are not present on normal Asian elephants, but are, however, distinct on extinct species of elephant, such as the Stegodont and the Mammoth.

The two bulls, named Raja Gaj and Kanji, are huge, Raja Gaj stands 3.7 meters tall, and he weighs around seven tons.

Obtaining DNA samples to compare with the DNA of mammoths (of which there are some samples) involves some difficulty. Also, neither mammoth nor modern elephants' DNA has been properly sequenced yet. Nevertheless, using dung believed to be from these creatures, preliminary DNA testing is said to show that they are more similar to the Asian elephant than to the mammoth. Some speculate that these unique giants might represent some sort of 'throwback' due to unusual inbreeding.

Scientists are therefore not sure if the Nepalese Elephant is actually an elephant or some from of Mammoth.
It's interesting to note that the Siberian Evenk tribe have well-preserved mammoth skins and claim that they still hunted mammoths, at the end of the 19th century.

......and here are photos of the newly discovered Nepalese Mammoth/Elephant

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/lostworld.asp

2Scoops · 08-02-2008 7:58am

J C wrote: »

They are all Creation Scientists.......some are actively engaged in Creation Science research......and most are engaged in conventional science work.

If they don't actually do creation science, why call them 'creation scientists?' With this working definition of creation scientist, the fact that they believe in creation will be largely irrelevant to their research. I mean, we don't say creation fireman, creation janitor, creation accountant, etc.

How many creation scientists that actually do creation research also do peer review for non creation journals, do you know? Just wondering.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2008 12:55pm

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In the case of the individual Christian, he - if he is sincere - has to make an honest attempt to understand what the Bible teaches on this or that moral point.

How "honest" he is has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is right.

True. But it means he is operating under a real moral restraint, not just changing his morals to suit his situation.

And lets be frank, how many Christians make honest attempts to understand what the Bible teaches?

All of them, usually. If they don't, they're sinning, and that is not a characteristic of the real Christian.

What if the Bible honestly attempts to teach that slavery is ok?

It doesn't. Any more than it teaches easy divorce or polygamy.

What would happen to a Christian if he stood up and said that?

He would be challenged by his Brethren. Challenged to prove it from the Bible, and failing to do so, urged to repent.

He would be denounced as immoral because slavery isn't in tolerated in post-Enlightenment western world, and therefore no one would accept that the Bible could ever honestly teach that slavery is ok.

Western society would indeed agree with us on this.

Of course that fact is irrelevant to whether or not it does. See that moral opinions of the current generation shape entirely how they interpret the Bible, because to them the Bible will always appear to match their own standards.

Cultural baggage is always a danger when we come to interpret the Bible - but is no excuse for misinterpreting it. Both the evil desires of our sinful nature and the sinful consensus of society have to be rejected by the Christian.

If you believe it is wrong to rape prisoners of war you will find some way to get around the passages in the Bible that describe Hebrew prisoners of war being rapes.

We don't and it doesn't.

If you think slavery is wrong you will find some excuse to get around the fact that slavery is regulated through the entire Bible.

Glad you used the correct term - regulated. Yes, the sins of slavery, easy divorce, polygamy were regulated in Scripture. God could have killed everyone who practiced them, but He restrained their excesses instead - until Christ came and restored the original order - But I say to you http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=50

BTW, the slavery we think of today is not the usual sort tolerated in Israel in the OT times: It was much more akin to bonded labour, a social contract for a specific period of labour in return for board and keep and negation of debt. We think today of man-stealing when we talk of slavery. That was a capital offence in Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If he is insincere, he of course can twist it to whatever suits his desires.

Well actually he can do that even if he is sincere, because there is nothing but interpretation. Its not his morality, it is simply his interpretation of morality. Even if he is being sincere he has no idea if he is correct because it isn't his moral idea. The moral will twist itself naturally simply through the process of interpretation.

Only if words can mean anything to anyone. They can't - only to the hypocrite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christians truly believe in the morality taught in the Bible, as best they understand it.

The last bit is the problem Wolfsbane, as best they understand it. Since they cannot understand it fully they can't believe in it fully, they instead end up believing fully in their own bastardized copy of what they think is supposed to be the message from the Bible. They certainly believe in that fully, but that is their own moral, a flawed copy of "perfect" moral that is supposed to be in the Bible.

Not getting it perfect is not the same as not getting it substantially. All communication depends on that being true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You shall love your neighbour as yourself, for example. That presses upon my conscience when I'm tempted to ignore his feelings in fulfilling my own. Simple, clear externally revealed morality that I have embraced and now motivates my heart.

Yes but ask 10 Christians what that actually means and you get 10 different answers.

No, you don't. Words do have agreed meanings.

Who is your "neighbor".

My fellowman.

What does "love" mean.

Seek the welfare of.

How do you love yourself,

Seek my welfare.

and how does that reflect on your "neighbor"?

Seek his welfare.

You have taken that passage and formed your own moral around it, a moral that is most likely unique to you or at least to your interpretation. Other Christians would interpret that differently forming their own version, their own flawed copy, of it.

There will be differences in understanding exactly what the best welfare of self and neighbour entails in each situation, but the governing principle will usually keep things in the right direction.

The issue gets worse when you attempt to expand that out in to the implications for the real world. For example, if you love your neighbour do you still punish criminals?

Yes, for the protection of all others and to reform the criminal. Both their welfares are catered for.

What does "love" mean in that context. Different Christians will provide different answer to that question. Do you fight your neighbour if needs be? Again, different Christians different answer, all with their own different interpretation of that moral. A Quaker interprets that passage much differently than a Christian who believes in "just" violence when necessary. Which one is correct? Which one has actually understood the perfect moral behind that passage?

The Quaker and the others both agree on the love principle. Both may also agree that the State has a duty to punish evil. Where they differ is on the Christian's involvement with the State.

When it comes down to it your interpretation is as subjective and as personal as an atheist's version of morality.

Far from it, as I've shown above. Words do have agreed meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I haven't went to war with anyone over their interpretation of morality, if by that you mean their religion. My fathers did go to war over Hitler's interpretation of morality, when it involved threatening our lives and liberties.

Excellent example. "Love thy neighbor" How does that apply to Hitler and his army? Again 10 different Christians 10 different answers.

I'm not aware of more than 2; war or pacifism.

Which answer is the one God wants you to take from that passage?

We don't take just one passage as the full revelation of God's will. All of Scripture must be taken. So the command to the individual is taken together with the command to the State, and from that we see it is right that Hitler and his hordes should have been resisted by the Allied Powers, but that the individual has no right to wage war on his own behalf.

Should you kill your neighbour if he is threatening you? If so when and under what criteria? Should you continue to try and "love" him as you are trying to kill him? What does that even mean?

It becomes more complex when we introduce individual self-defence, or civil responsibility (coming to the defence of a woman being raped, for instance). Again, most Christians concur that loving one's neighbour does not prohibit that. It is an act of love and righteous to prevent great evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree, we do not get it 100% right. But it is a much better source of morality than inventing your own for these reasons:

Not really. The Bible as a source of morality has some good bits sure, but it also has some very bad bits (slavery, homosexuality, women, genocide).

The Bible does not condone slavery; it rightly condemns homosexuality; it gives women due honour; it reveals God wrath against sin.

One either takes the good and finds some way to ignore or excuse the bad, or takes it all and becomes like Fred Phelps.

All the Bible teaches is good. Phelps violates its teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
1. It must offer a credible interpretation of the written code (the Bible).

You say that as if the written code will some how be useful. If we both agree that Love your neighbor is a correct interpretation of that passage what then? What does that get us? Not very far because you then have to turn the passage into an actual moral. And that is the hard bit because no one is going to tell you if you have interpreted it correctly.

There is general agreement on most outworkings of the commandment.

History is full of examples internally generated morality that works beyond the best interests of the people developing them. For example the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Of the US Constitution, both secular in nature, both being determined by humans rather than religion.

Both informed by consciences; both informed by Judaeo/Christian culture; both serving the main interests of their drafters.

robindch · 08-02-2008 1:17pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you don't. Words do have agreed meanings.

No they don't, and Wicknight was, of course, completely correct in saying that they don't.

In research which is quoted in a book I'm reading at the moment, the understanding of even very basic christian concepts has been shown to vary wildly from person to person, even within the same congregation. Having established this fact, the researchers asked believers to try to connect other believers' definitions with the concepts that the others defined, with results that were little different from random.

The reason is quite interesting -- because there's no way on earth that, as a religion, you can make everybody think the same thing. People are much too different. Consequently, religious concepts have evolved to the point that they are sufficiently poorly and vaguely defined that they can mean exactly whatever the believer wants them to mean.

Wishful thinking by definition, one could say.

Zombrex · 08-02-2008 2:24pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

True. But it means he is operating under a real moral restraint, not just changing his morals to suit his situation.

Yes but what do you mean by "real" moral restraint? The moral restraint is self imposed and an atheist can do exactly the same thing, he can self impose his own moral restraint, if he so wishes. Or he might not, an the Christian might not either. The Christian still doesn't have any more authority to test he is actually right than the atheist does. As I said, how honest a Christian is when attempting to understand the Bible has no bearing on how correct he is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All of them, usually. If they don't, they're sinning, and that is not a characteristic of the real Christian.

Well you don't, and neither do most of the Christians on this forum. You all seem far more interested in fitting the Bible to what you want it to be than anything else.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It doesn't. Any more than it teaches easy divorce or polygamy.

See what I mean.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He would be challenged by his Brethren. Challenged to prove it from the Bible, and failing to do so, urged to repent.

Many people have justified slavery using the Bible. The problem is that it is impossible to "prove" something is or is not supported by the Bible. At the end of the day you are still left simply with interpretation. So they can no more convince you than you can convince them.

There are tons of passages in the Bible that regulate slavery, that speak of it as simply an everyday matter, and not a single one that says it is wrong. But you look at that and go "Oh course it says it is wrong" That is your interpretation but you can no more prove that than I could prove to you that it is.

So your objective morality ends up out the window because objective morality is useless if the system you use to discover it is subjective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Western society would indeed agree with us on this.

Well that is kinda the whole point Wolfsbane. Your opinion on how to interpret the Bible is shaped by the moral standards of society around you, which are subjective. You don't actually get your morals form the Bible, your morals shape how you read the Bible in the first place. You simply use the Bible to justify what you already believe, the delusion of objective morality in a subjective world. If you were born 1,000 years ago in a society where slavery was the norm you would probably read the Bible and see that it supported slavery.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Cultural baggage is always a danger when we come to interpret the Bible - but is no excuse for misinterpreting it.

Well apparently it is, since most Christians seriously believe that the Bible is out and out against slavery, despite there not being a single passage in the Bible to "prove" that.

The nonsense that you as a Christian reject the "sinful consensus of society" is just a smoke screen. You didn't actually believe these things were Ok in the first place, before you read the Bible. Your rejection of them didn't come from the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We don't and it doesn't.

Yes actually it does.

But I've heard various excuses, from the excuse that just because the Hebrew and the prisoner of war got married doesn't mean they had sex, just because the Bible says they "lay together" doesn't mean they had sex, just because she was a prisoner of war doesn't mean she wasn't happy with marrying the soldier who captured her, she was given a month to grieve for her family in that time she could have learned to love him etc etc etc.

All these are excuses because it becomes necessary to re-interpret passages of the Bible once the moral standards of modern society move to make what is described in the Bible immoral. There isn't a society in the Western World that would condone the taking of wives from prisoners of war, so naturally Christians in the western world need to go back to the passages in the Old Testament and re-interpret them to reach an outcome that fits this moral standard.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Glad you used the correct term - regulated. Yes, the sins of slavery, easy divorce, polygamy were regulated in Scripture. God could have killed everyone who practiced them, but He restrained their excesses instead

Or he could have just said to them they can't do it. After all he said that about a lot of things.

Of course he actually encouraged it because the Hebrews were ordered and encouraged to take slaves from those they defeated in battle.

wolfsbane wrote: »

BTW, the slavery we think of today is not the usual sort tolerated in Israel in the OT times: It was much more akin to bonded labour, a social contract for a specific period of labour in return for board and keep and negation of debt.

Actually it is. This type of "bounded labor" applied only to agreements between Hebrews.

Slaves from defeated neighboring civilizations were taken full honest to God as slaves in the very modern sense of the word. Or they were killed

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only if words can mean anything to anyone. They can't - only to the hypocrite.

Well apparently they can. Unless you want to explain the only way that "Love thy neighbor" can be interpreted.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not getting it perfect is not the same as not getting it substantially. All communication depends on that being true.

That is ridiculous. What? you get the moral half right? A quarter right? What? Which part do you get right, the important part, the unimportant part?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you don't. Words do have agreed meanings.

They certainly do, but that brings up the next problem, the people who wrote these books are dead and so too is everyone who was around them. We have simply a "best guess" at interpretation of these languages. And that is before we get to the issue of translation.

But again even if the translation is perfect that doesn't mean the moral will be understood. "Love thy enemy" is a set of easy words to understand. But you are still going to end up with 10 different morals if you ask 10 different people to apply that to a real world situation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My fellowman.
...
Seek the welfare of.

Well that is an interesting definition of love .. your own would that be? Wonder how many other Christians would agree with that exact definition :rolleyes:

But anyway, so a man pulls a knife on you in the street. You naturally seek his welfare over your own because your moral teaches you that. Am I right?

The simple fact of the matter is what message you take from that sound bite is going to be different to anyone else (eg love = seek the welfare of, which is a new definition to me), and how you actually apply what you interpret the moral to be to a situation like the one above is going to be different.

So where is your objective morality?

It actually doesn't exist because you lack the ability to objectively determine the actual moral you are supposed to be learning in the first place

wolfsbane wrote: »

There will be differences in understanding exactly what the best welfare of self and neighbour entails in each situation, but the governing principle will usually keep things in the right direction.

But that is meaningless Wolfsbane. The "governing principle" is so abstract that anyone could come up with it, it is irrelevant to the actual Bible. You will only understand the "governing principle" if you already understand it in the first place, in which case the Bible is unnecessary.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, for the protection of all others and to reform the criminal. Both their welfares are catered for.

Pretty sure the welfare of the criminal is not catered for in that situation Wolfsbane :rolleyes:

Society determines that the welfare of the criminal is of less important that the welfare of society as a whole, which is why they are locked up. But you won't get that from love thy neighbour, and in fact you have to start building in exceptions to that "message" to get to that position in the first place.

Another classic example of this is the message that we are supposed to take from the judge not lest ye be judged. If everyone actually followed that we would have no legal system. So it has to be interpreted based on our own current standards to fit.

Again the seemingly objective morality turns out to be simply smoke and mirrors. You end up with a wholly subjective interpretation of what the moral actually is and how to apply it

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Quaker and the others both agree on the love principle.

They don't though, because a Quaker takes that to mean that they cannot ever use violence against anyone. How many non-Christians agree that that is the correct interpretation of the moral?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Words do have agreed meaning.

Only to a certain extend. For example "love". Define the correct mean of that word.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not aware of more than 2; war or pacifism.

That is nonsense. Are you saying that every war is exactly the same. That every pacifist movement is exactly the same.

For example is it moral to a Christian facing attack from the German Army to defend himself? How does that fit "love thy neighbour"? Is it moral from him to attack the Germans, to put himself on the offensive? What if such an action is deemed a long term defense.

Tell me the correct moral to deal with that from the Bible, the objective moral that you know is perfect.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We don't take just one passage as the full revelation of God's will. All of Scripture must be taken.

Well of course, that makes it even worse. The ability to argue the different meanings of one sentence is obviously limited by the words in the sentence. But a massive book! With stories from all over the place! You can pretty much argue anything you like because some where there will be a passage in the Bible describing something. Look at Fred Phelps. He never has trouble finding passages some where in the Bible to support him.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the command to the individual is taken together with the command to the State, and from that we see it is right that Hitler and his hordes should have been resisted by the Allied Powers, but that the individual has no right to wage war on his own behalf.

I'm pretty sure you can't give me any passages in the Bible that actually say that. You certainly cannot prove to me that that is the correct interpretation of the morals in the Bible. It is your interpretation, it is as valid as anyone else's, but it is completely subjective based on how you choose to piece together the different parts of the Bible. Many Christians believed that war against the Germans was wrong. Were they reading a different Bible?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, most Christians concur that loving one's neighbour does not prohibit that.

Thats wonderful. But by your own admission some do. Are they wrong? Can you prove that their morals do not match the objective perfect morality of God that is communicated in the Bible?

I seriously doubt it, and likewise they cannot demonstrate you are wrong. Why? Because neither of you have any method to tell if you are actually right or wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is an act of love and righteous to prevent great evil.

Even if preventing great evil means killing your neighbours? Interesting take on love thy neighbour.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All the Bible teaches is good. Phelps violates its teachings.

I'm sure Phelps agrees with you that the Bible teaches good, and he believes that what he is going is for the good of humanity. Can you prove he is wrong? And then prove you are right to attack Germany?

See it is all very well to say that you take the message from the Bible. But that is simply fluff. You take a message from the Bible and then you tell yourself it is the correct one because it comes from the Bible.

You can't demonstrate you are any more correct that Phelps can. You can look around you and hope the society in general agrees with you and use that as some kind of standard to judge if you are correct and Phelps is wrong, but sure I can do that equally well as you.

So in the end what do you have? You have subjective morality that is tested against how many people agree with you. Which is exactly what I have.

Your objective morality disappears into a puff of smoke and mirrors and you are left with what everyone else has, their opinion.

Ekancone · 08-02-2008 3:13pm

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
'Darwin and Inbreeding'???

It's all about timing!!!:D

Adam and Eve's children DID engage in intermarriage of the first and second degrees......but because they had little or no 'mutational loading' it was safe for them to do so.

Do ye just make this up as ye go along? Where is the evidence behind this?

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments