The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ciaran500

J C wrote: »

If God produced you from goo via the zoo.....then when He wrote it up in Genesis......He must have forgotten about the 'goo' and the 'zoo' bits!!!!:eek::D

Maybe the people writing the bible decided to leave it out?

Nerin

If God produced you from goo via the zoo.....then when He came to tell us how He Created us ......He must have forgotten about the goo and zoo parts!!!!

the page it was on must have fallen out of the giant heavenly typewriter :rolleyes:

Mutation can be good,as well as bad. usually bad,but some people with mutations might not see their change as some punishment from angry god.
thats like the man that believed people born differently abled were reincarnated evil doers.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now if only the beaver weren't actually a rodent (Order Rodentia) and the otter a weasel (Order Carnivora). Also, such a pity that the cat and dog are also members of the Carnivora - and that all of these relationships are easily provable genetically and morphologically.

Never mind, I'm sure your scheme goes better on a nice children's poster, which seems to be the main thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LOL

I am sure it makes sense in JC's head. I mean he must have studied the relationship between an otter and a weasel for oh, at least 5 minutes

Yes lets bring this nonsense into the class room. We can have the child decide what "kinds" are :rolleyes:

Nerin

Now if only the beaver weren't actually a rodent (Order Rodentia) and the otter a weasel (Order Carnivora). Also, such a pity that the cat and dog are also members of the Carnivora - and that all of these relationships are easily provable genetically and morphologically.

Never mind, I'm sure your scheme goes better on a nice children's poster, which seems to be the main thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LOL
Zing.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now if only the beaver weren't actually a rodent (Order Rodentia) and the otter a weasel (Order Carnivora). Also, such a pity that the cat and dog are also members of the Carnivora - and that all of these relationships are easily provable genetically and morphologically.

cordially,
Scofflaw

......so do you not believe that the Created Kind MAY diverge up to the Order level of taxonomy??!!!:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......so are you saying that the Created Kind MAY diverge up to the Order level??!!!:)

No, actually I'm not. I'm saying that when someone says the beaver and the otter are of the same 'kind', they are just playing the child's game of "these two animals are like each other".

'Baraminology' is the same thing dressed up in adult clothes, but it produces exactly the same kind of results - classifications that have nothing to do with the actual relationships between real animals, but put the beaver and the otter together because they look a bit like each other and live in streams and rivers.

It's not science, it's picture book animal matching.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, actually I'm not. I'm saying that when someone says the beaver and the otter are of the same 'kind', they are just playing the child's game of "these two animals are like each other".

cordially,
Scofflaw

OK Scofflaw, I admit I was WRONG.......now there is a FIRST.....

........I was being too smart for my own good......and I accept the conventional classification of Beavers and Otters!!!


Having said that there are many creatures which have classification ambiguities ...... for example, is an otter a 'water weasel'.......because it is a carnivore......or is it a 'carnivorous beaver' because it shares aquatic characteristics such as webbed feet, an enlarged tail, waterproof fur and a predominantly aquatic lifestyle with beavers ???:D

If you focus on the teeth and the diet you would classify them within separate orders......but if you focussed on their webbed rear feet, their rudder-like tails and waterproof fur you would classify them as somewhat 'closer' taxonomically.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

OK Scofflaw, I admit I was WRONG.......now there is a FIRST.....

I am appropriately honoured.

J C wrote: »

........I was being too smart for my own good......and I accept the conventional classification of Beavers and Otters!!!

Having said that there are many creatures which have classification ambiguities ...... for example, is an otter a 'water weasel'.......because it is a carnivore......or is it a 'carnivorous beaver' because it shares aquatic characteristics such as webbed feet, an enlarged tail, waterproof fur and a predominantly aquatic lifestyle with beavers ???:D

If you focus on the teeth and the diet you would classify them within separate orders......but if you focussed on their webbed rear feet, their rudder-like tails and waterproof fur you would classify them as somewhat 'closer' taxonomically.

Well, I believe that taxonomists, who have been looking at such questions for a couple of centuries now, may have solved many of these questions. The results are often taught in school biology classes - admittedly in some places with some sort of disclaimer mandated by the school board.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not science, it's picture book animal matching.

Never a truer word has been said on this thread

In fact that kinda sums up Creationism TBH.

Wolfsbane I hope you are reading this nonsense

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

If you focus on the teeth and the diet you would classify them within separate orders......but if you focussed on their webbed rear feet, their rudder-like tails and waterproof fur you would classify them as somewhat 'closer' taxonomically.

And if you could define a "kind" in the first place then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

The problem is that "kind" is just an abstract idea taken wholesale from the Bible with no proper attempt to scientifically define it. You might as well classify animals into "nice" animals and "smelly" animals. Its the kind of nonsense a 10 year old would come up with.

Picture book matching, as Scofflaw said.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

And if you could define a "kind" in the first place then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

The problem is that "kind" is just an abstract idea taken wholesale from the Bible with no proper attempt to scientifically define it. You might as well classify animals into "nice" animals and "smelly" animals. Its the kind of nonsense a 10 year old would come up with.

Picture book matching, as Scofflaw said.

There's so many interesting ways to classify animals into kinds - size, colour, smell, number of limbs etc - who knows which one is correct?

Still, it's good to know that somewhere a creation scientist is taking on the important question of whether all small, hairy, brown semi-aquatic creatures are a 'kind'.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

who knows which one is correct?

Well Creationists, apparently.

Both JC and Wolfsbane have made the claim that "kinds" are well understood and defined concept within Creationism, on which a large number of conclusions about biology can be drawn about how life developed after the Flood.

For some strange reason they seem completely unable to back that up with anything substantial.

Funny, no?

bonkey

J C wrote: »

OK Scofflaw, I admit I was WRONG.......now there is a FIRST.....

........I was being too smart for my own good......and I accept the conventional classification of Beavers and Otters!!!

Have you come to this realisation by consulting some 'Creation science' resource and found that your previously-held beliefs were wrong? If so, could you let us know what this resource is?

The alternative would seem to be that you just make up what Kind something is, based on whatever you think it should be, and have realised that this has led you on a short hiding to nothing thus forcing you to 'discover' your error.

In short, either you can explain how you came to realise your error, or you implicitly suggest that 'Kind' is just allowing science to do the scientfic work, then takes those findings and wrapping them in a layer of handwaving which says it all fits with your Creationist viewpoint.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is quite reasonable, but applies no less to those who actually like/love their fellow human beings - which I see as applying to the vast majority of us (and you might not?).

cordially,
Scofflaw

You raise a good point I had ommited.

Yes, love of our fellowman is a real restraint. Indeed, it is commanded by God:
Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Yes, I doubt that the majority of mankind like/love their fellow human beings. They normally like/love some of them. But as wars, crime, exploitation and neglect indicate, it takes little for us to be selfish at other's expense.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

For the love of Allah can one of your Creationists please define what a "kind" is

Are you saying that Darwinian evolution takes place but only within this (as yet) completely undefined higher than species but lower than, what? Class?

What stops evolution continuing past the "kind" barrier?

Eventually in the Creationist model a descendant of a "kind" should evolve traits that are so far away from others who descendant from the "kind" that they no long fall into a different class.

I don't love Allah, but I will address your request.

This article should help: http://www.icr.org/article/567/
e.g. It may be worth mentioning that this fact was stressed in my first book on creationism some 55 years ago:

It is well to observe at this point that the Bible does not teach the fixity of species, . . . Thus, it is probable that the original Genesis "kind" is closely akin to what the modern systematist calls a "family." And let it be stated in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence that evolution ever has occurred or ever can occur across the kinds.1

And this has some interesting points:
http://www.icr.org/article/170/
The Darwinian Revolution of 1859 was not a scientific one (the science had been taken care of 24 years earlier); it was religious and philosophical. In fact, Darwinian zealots extrapolated natural selection into scientific absurdity.

The fossil evidence makes the point most clearly. Darwin, the same astute scientist who recognized both pangenes and complex adaptations as "difficulties with the theory," called the fossil evidence" perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to extrapolating evolution from natural selection. Given the paucity of fossil data in his time, Darwin tried to blame the conflict between his theory and the fossil facts on faults with the facts—"the imperfection of the geologic record."

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin," writes David Raup of Chicago's famous Field Museum," and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded."8 Did this wealth of new data produce the "missing links" the Darwinists hoped to find? " … ironically," says Raup, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian [sic] change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." Rather than forging links in the hypothetical evolutionary chain, the wealth of fossil data has only served to sharpen the boundaries between the created kinds. As Gould says, our ability to classify both living and fossil species distinctly and using the same criteria "fit splendidly with creationist tenets." "But how," he asks, "could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?" 9

Now let me point out that the problem of exact definitions of kind is shared by evolutionists in defining species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
that bacteria will not evolve into non-bacteria, for example. Evolutionist say they will.

You wouldn't be here if it didn't.

That is the point under debate - not the conclusion.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

You raise a good point I had ommited.

Yes, love of our fellowman is a real restraint. Indeed, it is commanded by God:
Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Yes, I doubt that the majority of mankind like/love their fellow human beings. They normally like/love some of them. But as wars, crime, exploitation and neglect indicate, it takes little for us to be selfish at other's expense.

If you are, as you appear to be, a 'conservative', you will almost certainly believe the majority of people to be naturally selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative. This is not borne out by the facts.

Overall, the majority of humans are peaceful, law-abiding, and prone to help rather than hinder their fellow man, even strangers. They donate portions of their wealth to help people on the far side of the world they will never see, and go to enormous efforts to free even trapped animals. In the absence of dominant 'warlords', they fall naturally back to peace and co-operation.

Even in war, the human remains essentially benevolent - wars take enormous organisation and exhortation, and an awful lot of discipline, frequently harsh - yet still only 15% of soldiers in the world wars actually fired at the enemy at all.

Of course, we both explain this in different ways - you by claiming that God's commands are indelibly printed on the hearts of men, I by claiming evolution has left the same print. We explain the violent and amoral minority of behaviour by sin on the one hand, and by the shifting advantage of different behavioural strategy on the other. Both sets of explanation are internally consistent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Originally Posted by J C
The (ultimate) reason why Lions kill.......other creatures, as well as lion cubs.....is because sin entered the World at the Fall and with sin came death.

What do you mean "sin entered the world"???

"Sin" isn't a thing JC. It is a state, a state of displeasing God, a state in absence of grace, a state that God put the world in himself as punishment for Adam's actions.

Sin is an act against God. Adam & Eve acted against God. That was sin entering the world.

God cursed the world with death as a consequence of man's sin. The world of plants and animals do not sin, but they do die.

Humans sin because God has removed his grace from us.

It is true that humans sin more if God removes His gracious restraining hand from them, but they sin first of all because they are sinners. If God does nothing to them, they will sin all the time.

If lions "sin" it is because God has removed his grace from lions as well. Quite why he would do that is anyone's guess, but I'm not quite sure how anyone can argue the lions deserved it.

As I said above, lions do not sin. Why do they then die? Because they were under man's dominion and so suffer with him.

The lions didn't do anything The idea that God would punish all life, all human life and non-human life alone, as punishment for Adam's actions is quite horrific to be honest (that idea is also not supported by the Bible by the way, a fact you seem quite happy to completely ignore).

We humans are inheritors of Adam's nature: no one has to teach us to sin, we just naturally lie, steal, kill, etc. So Adam's punishment is entirely appropriate for us.

The idea that God is punishing the animal world is incorrect. They do suffer with us, but that is incidental - a result of being our subjects. When they die, their spirit returns to God who gave it. God is not angry with animals.

The Bible certainly teaches death came upon all because of man's sin; and the whole of creation awaits deliverance when Christ returns:
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

It boggles the mind why you and Wolfsbane would turn to that idea because the theory of evolution is too unpleasant for you. Quite why you find the idea of such a spiteful and mean spirited God appealing I'll probably never understand.

That idea was believed by all Christians centuries before the theory of evolution was heard of; Creationists did not dream it up.

For spiteful and mean spirited read infinitely holy. God will not ignore sin. He will ultimately punish it in hell.

You need One who can save you from your sins and from their eternal consequences, Wickie.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sin is an act against God. Adam & Eve acted against God. That was sin entering the world.

God cursed the world with death as a consequence of man's sin. The world of plants and animals do not sin, but they do die.

It is true that humans sin more if God removes His gracious restraining hand from them, but they sin first of all because they are sinners. If God does nothing to them, they will sin all the time.

And if he did nothing to them afterwards, there would be no consequences to sinning all the time bar the consequences we see in this world..

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:
I don't love Allah, but I will address your request.

I don't understand how that answers my request

I'm asking you to define a "kind" and you are giving me a biological definition of family which is a huge group of species.

I want you to define the actual physical animals that you claim all other animal species evolved from in under 6 thousand years .

You say that all animals on Earth evolved from a handful of original animals. Define what those animals were and the process of how the modern animals evolved so quickly from them. And while you are at it explain why this process has seemingly stopped.

Please. This is a really simple request that the non-Creationist have been asking you guys to provide for months. You keep giving us answers to questions we aren't asking

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

God cursed the world with death as a consequence of man's sin. The world of plants and animals do not sin, but they do die.

Well I'm pretty sure JC was saying that the lion is killing the cubs because of sin. Are you saying that JC is wrong.

As a side question, if before the Fall nothing died then what did animals eat?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said above, lions do not sin. Why do they then die? Because they were under man's dominion and so suffer with him.

And the lion kills the cubs of other lions when he enters the pride because ... ?

wolfsbane wrote: »

We humans are inheritors of Adam's nature: no one has to teach us to sin, we just naturally lie, steal, kill, etc.

Yes, as God created us .. oh wait ... no that doesn't work I'm afraid. God created us in his image. Are you saying it is God's image to lie steal and kill?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The idea that God is punishing the animal world is incorrect. They do suffer with us, but that is incidental - a result of being our subjects. When they die, their spirit returns to God who gave it. God is not angry with animals.

God is not angry at the animals yet he made them our subjects to suffer with us? Really? That makes sense to you?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You need One who can save you from your sins and from their eternal consequences, Wickie.

No, I need you to define what a "kind" is ....

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If you are, as you appear to be, a 'conservative', you will almost certainly believe the majority of people to be naturally selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative.

I've been called many things, conservative is one of the nicer.

If we are talking economics/politics, then compassionate conservatism sort of covers me. If religiously, then conservative evangelical is near enough. Anyway, Yes, I believe most people are naturally selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative.

This is not borne out by the facts.

Overall, the majority of humans are peaceful, law-abiding, and prone to help rather than hinder their fellow man, even strangers. They donate portions of their wealth to help people on the far side of the world they will never see, and go to enormous efforts to free even trapped animals. In the absence of dominant 'warlords', they fall naturally back to peace and co-operation.

Even in war, the human remains essentially benevolent - wars take enormous organisation and exhortation, and an awful lot of discipline, frequently harsh - yet still only 15% of soldiers in the world wars actually fired at the enemy at all.

What's missing here is the absence of punishment. If one can be assured that no bad consequences will follow any selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative act, then how many people will normally chose to forgo wealth, health, power, or whatever one desires even at the expense of others? It is the reasons you give below that make the difference.

Of course, we both explain this in different ways - you by claiming that God's commands are indelibly printed on the hearts of men, I by claiming evolution has left the same print. We explain the violent and amoral minority of behaviour by sin on the one hand, and by the shifting advantage of different behavioural strategy on the other. Both sets of explanation are internally consistent.

Yes, both sets are indeed internally consistent. Whatever one holds to be the real one, without it mankind would soon come to a bloody end.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if he did nothing to them afterwards, there would be no consequences to sinning all the time bar the consequences we see in this world..

cordially,
Scofflaw

I entirely agree. But He assures us He will:
Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I'm asking you to define a "kind" and you are giving me a biological definition of family which is a huge group of species.

Hmm, would that not suggest to you kind covers a huge group of species?

I want you to define the actual physical animals that you claim all other animal species evolved from in under 6 thousand years .

I doubt any of them are around today. I can say that the common ancestor of the horse and zebra looked basically like them, not like a lion.

You say that all animals on Earth evolved from a handful of original animals.

You need to define what you mean by handful. Certainly not half a dozen. Likely to be in the thousands. See What is a ‘kind’? in:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp

Define what those animals were and the process of how the modern animals evolved so quickly from them. And while you are at it explain why this process has seemingly stopped.

See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp

Has it stopped? http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

pH

For all those still reading -

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/uoca-lcp112007.php

It's not "muck to man" yet, but I predict that science will get there eventually - just because *we* don't understand it doesn't mean that "God did it" is therefore a reasonable answer.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've been called many things, conservative is one of the nicer.

Ah, well - no reason to be rude simply because one disagrees.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If we are talking economics/politics, then compassionate conservatism sort of covers me. If religiously, then conservative evangelical is near enough. Anyway, Yes, I believe most people are naturally selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative.

As far as I know, there's nothing you can do about that belief, either.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What's missing here is the absence of punishment. If one can be assured that no bad consequences will follow any selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative act, then how many people will normally chose to forgo wealth, health, power, or whatever one desires even at the expense of others?

Curiously, the answer has to be the majority, because in society after society throughout all of recorded history (and as far as we can tell, through unrecorded history too), the rule of law has been instituted to implement exactly those restrictions. Even the capability of the most powerful to arbitrarily help themselves is regularly restricted by law, by custom, by counter-balances. Every period of anarchy and violence comes to an end, even without - indeed particularly without - outside interference.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, both sets are indeed internally consistent. Whatever one holds to be the real one, without it mankind would soon come to a bloody end.

Fortunately, you believe that God is eternal, and I believe that morality is evolutionarily inbuilt - and so in neither case does the question arise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

And if he did nothing to them afterwards, there would be no consequences to sinning all the time bar the consequences we see in this world..

I entirely agree. But He assures us He will.

Exactly so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I never said it absolutely deterred immorality, only that it is a powerful deterrent.

Well I see little evidence that it is either. It seems to be far easier for a criminal to convince himself that what he is doing is morally justified than to convince others. And if the criminal has convinced himself that what he is doing is justified then he won't believe that God will object either, since the concepts of what God will or will not approve are all in his head anyway, therefore the deterrent breaks down completely.

People believe in religions that suit them. A criminal will simply not believe in a religion, or interpretation of a religion, that does not suit him.

Religious morality powerfully deters religious people from crime. Not absolutely, but powerfully. It will have no effect on those who disbelieve, for the logical reasons you have stated. But do all unbelievers totally disbelieve? Do most not have some fear that there really is a Judge to whom they must answer? I certainly had some unease about my sinful actions on that account - long before I became a believer.

But the main restraint is one those who believe God is real, even if they are not commited followers.

If humanity can grant itself rights, in the same way that humanity can be the source of morality, then that isn't an issue.

Rights, just like morality, are simply a human concept. We invented them, and we decide collectively how to establish them.

A good example is the constitution of a country. That isn't written by a deity. It isn't something that exists independently of humanity. But it does establish rights for citizens of that country.

Ultimately rights, and morals, are simply human ideas.

Exactly, the atheist concept of morality applies to no one but those who want it. Just as the Frenchman can logically feel under no obligation to adhere to the American Constitution, so too the criminal can have no logical reason to observe anyone else's morality. But if George Bush threatened to nuke Paris unless they sang The Star Spangled Banner every morning, there might indeed by a vote to be the next state in the Union! As that is veryt unlikely, we won't be hearing it sang in Gallic accents in the forseeable future. So with the criminal - atheistic morality has no restrain on him, other than the punishment it can credibly threaten. http://www.lyricsondemand.com/miscellaneouslyrics/nationalanthemslyrics/americanationalanthemlyrics.html

But TBH your argument is like saying that no Christian can interpret God's word because you yourself are not a god and therefore have no authority to know that what is claimed to be God's word actually is God's word.

I don't need to be God to correctly understand what He says. He has made the essentials clear enough so that I will understand. It's not that I am smart, but that He reveals.

Therefore your interpretation of God's word has not authority and cannot be used.

I claim no authority for my interpretation. The Word itself has the authority.

You are not though, because for some reason you think the "theory of evolution" explains how stars form and evolve. It doesn't, stars do not evolve (meaning "grow and change") anything like the way replicating systems do.

Not the biological theory of evolution. That is specific to the biosphere. But even it is depends on what happened previously.

The context of this thread is the evolution of replicating systems.

I seem to recall the Big Bang, starlight and time, etc. being debated.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It doesn't matter? Then how come you reject Creationism on the basis that its origins are supernatural?

Because it's origins are supernatural, and therefore ultimately untestable and unscientific. And because there are non-supernatural theories that explain things without resorting to guessing at supposed supernatural events to explain things. Supernatural guessing is unnecessary.

See how you jump from one side to the other? What led to the first life does not matter - so the theory of evolution can be discussed as a stand alone.
But when it comes to the theory of creation, it must be ruled out as its' idea of what happen before the first life is supernatural.

What am I dealing with - lack of logic or presence of hypocrisy? I will assume the former.

Logical doesn't mean self-consistent. If a person bangs his head off a wall every day for 10 years because he says it kills the demon that grows in his head that is certainly consistent, but I'm not sure anyone would call it logical.

It would not be for them, but it is for him. He is behaving consistently with his beliefs.

Neither does logical mean the outcome that favors the individual who came up with it.

No, only that he thinks it does.

By self-consistent you seem to mean "I consistently do what I interpret as my God has declared is moral" The bit you seem to be skipping over is the fact that it is necessary for you to interpret, even if God exists.

It would not matter if I got it wrong - my self-consistency would be doing whatever I believed God had said. But we were talking about the system's self-consistency. As Scofflaw pointed out about man's conscience, two opposite systems can be self-consistent, even if one must be basically wrong: Of course, we both explain this in different ways - you by claiming that God's commands are indelibly printed on the hearts of men, I by claiming evolution has left the same print. We explain the violent and amoral minority of behaviour by sin on the one hand, and by the shifting advantage of different behavioural strategy on the other. Both sets of explanation are internally consistent. Self-consistency is not proof of veracity.

But the key point I'm making is that objective morality is not self-consistent with atheism. I think you have conceded that, indicating that there is no such thing as a morality that anyone need feel bound to keep; that all morality is a human construct and varies with our perceived needs.

Your interpretation can try and be consistent, but then so can the moral decisions of an atheist like myself. I try to be consistent with my moral and ethical decisions. They are as logical as yours, if by logical you mean starting from a fixed starting point and working from there

I've no problem with you being consistent with your morality. It is just that you can't be consistent with it and atheism, unless you acknowledge your morality is artificial and applies only to you and only for as long as you want it to. I think you are saying that?

Subjective morality is consistent with atheism - as a temporary measure to achieve your goals. Objective morality is not. In Subjective morality, raping one's neighbour is only wrong for those who hold it to be so. In objective morality, it is so no matter who agrees or disagrees.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I explained above, the Biblical view of God has all morality coming from Him.

That doesn't stop it being illogical paradox. The Bible is full of illogical paradoxes. You can certainly accept the contradictions at face value, but it is a bit silly to claim that you are therefore working from a logical footing. It is only logical back to a certain point, in which case it becomes a logical nightmare.

Seems perfectly logical to me. As to the wider Scripture, there are certainly things that are mysterious - but I can't think of any that are illogical. I'm open to suggestions.

And God's opinion carries more weight than my opinion because ....?

Because you have decided that it does, because he is the creator of the universe. So you have decided that his opinion carries more weight than mine.

It does not matter what I say. It is what He says that establishes that His opinion carries more weight than your's.

Fire burns wood. Is that because I say it does? Or because it does, no matter what I say?

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The point was that different rights to punish apply to different persons.

Yes, but you are ignoring that a person cannot give themselves that right. Who the person is is irrelevant, what matters is the authority given to them.

God is like a king. A king gives himself authority because of who he is and then uses his strength to enforce this authority on the people he claims authority over.

You contradict yourself: a person cannot give themselves that right vs
A king gives himself authority. But perhaps you meant cannot morally give themselves that right?

That is immoral by most peoples modern assessment.

In the modern system the people give the authority to a person, and this is independent of who the person is.

Democracy is a good restraint on man's propensity to lord it over his fellowman. But how does that apply to God, the creator and sustainer of all? Is He just one of us, depending on us for any power He may exercise? Not the God revealed in the Bible:
Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever:

For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom is from generation to generation.
35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;
He does according to His will in the army of heaven
And among the inhabitants of the earth.
No one can restrain His hand
Or say to Him, “What have You done?”

I appreciate that it is part of the human condition to feel the safety net of a universal authority that appears to constantly back someone up. But TBH your concept of God as a universal authority is as flawed as this kid's belief that his mother's say applied universally.

If God is who He says He is, then His authority is universal. If He is not, then He does't exist. You cannot logically accept His reality and deny his authority.

You appear to be starting off with the grand assertion that unless God exists nothing matters. That is fine, but again that is not a logical conclusion, it is a philosophical decision.

Seems to me it is the logical conclusion, for as you have already acknowledged, atheism permits no objective morality and thus no objective value on man other than an observation of his physical nature and behaviour. No ought or should, only is and does.

You may of course apply subjective value to man - he like a dog/ he is like a god, whatever. But it means he is nothing more than molecules really.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What's missing here is the absence of punishment. If one can be assured that no bad consequences will follow any selfish, violent, and competitive/exploitative act, then how many people will normally chose to forgo wealth, health, power, or whatever one desires even at the expense of others?

Curiously, the answer has to be the majority, because in society after society throughout all of recorded history (and as far as we can tell, through unrecorded history too), the rule of law has been instituted to implement exactly those restrictions. Even the capability of the most powerful to arbitrarily help themselves is regularly restricted by law, by custom, by counter-balances. Every period of anarchy and violence comes to an end, even without - indeed particularly without - outside interference.

I'm not following your reasoning here. You say the majority will be self-restrained and history proves it, but then you show that it was the rule of law that actually did it.

My point was that without fear of consequences, most would suit themselves. Man is naturally evil. As such a situation would lead to terrible consequences, God ensures it does not continue. Leaders arise who dominate and enforce some sembleance of law, or men band together as a society to do it.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

I'm not following your reasoning here. You say the majority will be self-restrained and history proves it, but then you show that it was the rule of law that actually did it.

I probably skipped over something I considered obvious. The rule of law didn't fall from the sky (not a dig!) - society after society has invented it and implemented it, for themselves.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My point was that without fear of consequences, most would suit themselves. Man is naturally evil. As such a situation would lead to terrible consequences, God ensures it does not continue. Leaders arise who dominate and enforce some sembleance of law, or men band together as a society to do it.

Exactly - "men band together as a society to do it". Every single time, in every part of the world. The laws produced are often summary, but that usually reflects the resources available for it. Importantly, the rule of law breaks down whenever it is opposed by the majority - proving that it is not so opposed the rest of the time, which hardly sits well with the idea that men are naturally evil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Just so we're singing from the same hymn-sheet, have I got this right?

1. Creation Science says evolution is a myth. :eek::eek::D:D:eek:
2. Natural selection is perfectly ok.
3. Different species arising from a common ancestor (kind) is perfectly ok.

I think the discussion has come a long way. All that's really left is the whole 6000 years versus a few billion issue. And, at this rate, I'm sure the goalposts will be moved eventually.