The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your concept of anger is, er, unusual. Most people do not define it as the loss of control, but the emotional response to a perceived wrong. It may or may not be accompanied by a loss of control - an uncontrolled anger. Often it is controlled by the will, the person deciding an appropriate action to follow the emotional response.

If anger is a flaw, how do you think man or God should respond to wickedness - to child-molestation, for instance?

Ah, the resort to child-molestation. How about `rationally`? It`s a major problem in the world, and anger alone isn`t going to solve it. Like the rest of what you`ve said, the causes of child molestation must be addressed, and this is far more important than dealing with the crime itself.

Anger,　incidentally, does lead to hasty decisions, and perfection with the capacity for sin is still a contradiction. These remain true despite what you`ve said to the contrary.

pH

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is this rejection of anger as an appropriate response common today, or just to this thread? Do you really think one should be unmoved by wickedness? Or just disappointed when children are sexually abused, women raped, workers enslaved?

Can you just clarify, has child sexual abuse always been a sin, or like incest, murder and genocide was there a time in the past that God allowed it?

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should think that statement through a bit more.

I suppose there are no such things as beauty, ugliness, evil, or stupidity since so many people define these things differently?

Would you say that Arsenal don't actually play beautiful football because Vinnie Jones defines 'beautiful' differently?

There is no such thing as universally perfect beauty because what I find attractive might be repulsive to someone else.

There is nominal perfection (eg, a perfect season in the Premiership would have 38 victories and maximum points) but it would be very hard to argue that any team plays perfect football (even if you score 20 goals in a game, it could be possible to score 21 goals if you played just a little bit better, or it could be argued that one team being so dominant would be a disaster for football as it would ultimately destroy the game)

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

He permitted the sin. But that does not make Him hypocritical in condemning it. Unless granting the ability to choose to obey or not obey is itself sinful.

What he has granted is an illusion, if he can block it at any time. How can we possibly identify what is our choice versus what is God's?

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

Can you just clarify, has child sexual abuse always been a sin, or like incest, murder and genocide was there a time in the past that God allowed it?

Interestingly (edit: as a side note) the age of consent is different around the world. What would be interpreted as abhorrent statutory rape in one country would be considered perfectly normal in another.

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

Interestingly (edit: as a side note) the age of consent is different around the world. What would be interpreted as abhorrent statutory rape in one country would be considered perfectly normal in another.

Yes I'm aware that different societies have very differing views on what is child abuse (Mohammed and Gandhi are revered by their followers). It's just that wolfsbane implied that God was angered by child abuse, and having been told recently that God changes his mind about what constitutes a sin, I was wondering if that's always been the case or is it a recent change?

Also I was wondering where in the bible God actually lays down some laws as to what constitutes child abuse, is it even mentioned in the Bible as a sin?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What he has granted is an illusion, if he can block it at any time. How can we possibly identify what is our choice versus what is God's?

The ability to choose to live holy lives or not was possessed by Adam & Eve alone. We, their descendants inherit their fallen nature, not their created nature. Left to ourselves, we will always choose to reject God and do our own thing.

God intervenes by preventing many of the sins we would commit if left unchallenged, but the sins we do commit are our choice. God does not force us to sin against our will. He just let's us do what comes naturally, but directs us away from any other sinful course.

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

Can you just clarify, has child sexual abuse always been a sin, or like incest, murder and genocide was there a time in the past that God allowed it?

Child sexual abuse, like all sexual abuse, has always been a sin.

The definition of incest changed, with brother/sister marriage being banned under Moses. The reason was not given for the change, but we now know the genetic problems that are likely to arise for their children. It may be solely that that was God's reason for the ban - the further from the created perfection of the genome, the greater the risk.

Murder also has always been a sin. Genocide was always a sin, unless ordered by God. He alone has the right to terminate any nation's existence absolutely.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your concept of anger is, er, unusual. Most people do not define it as the loss of control, but the emotional response to a perceived wrong. It may or may not be accompanied by a loss of control - an uncontrolled anger. Often it is controlled by the will, the person deciding an appropriate action to follow the emotional response.

If anger is a flaw, how do you think man or God should respond to wickedness - to child-molestation, for instance?
Ah, the resort to child-molestation. How about `rationally`? It`s a major problem in the world, and anger alone isn`t going to solve it. Like the rest of what you`ve said, the causes of child molestation must be addressed, and this is far more important than dealing with the crime itself.

I'm all for rationality. Anger forms a part of any rational response to paedophilia.

I agree we must seek ways to prevent men (and some women) becoming corrupted in the first place, and ways to help them recover afterwards. But punishment plays a big part in that: it helps deter, and for those imprisoned it can offer counselling/therapy to help them turn.

Pedos need to know that society views their passion as vile, abhorrent, unnatural and their practice as criminal. Without sensing society's anger and revulsion, they will have much less reason to question their perverted desires.

Anger,　incidentally, does lead to hasty decisions, and perfection with the capacity for sin is still a contradiction. These remain true despite what you`ve said to the contrary.

Anger can lead to hasty decisions, just as love can do. Neither are to be classified as sinful on that basis.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The ability to sin was not an imperfection, just a different ability. Spiritual perfection consists in being pure from any sin.
That means absolutely nothing.

What, being pure from any sin means absolutely nothing? I assure you the difference between even a small amount of sin and a big amount of sin is noticable in an individual and in society. The utter absence of sin would be a remarkable thing to behold. Imagine someone full of grace and truth, without a trace of pride, selfishness, or folly.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

The ability to choose to live holy lives or not was possessed by Adam & Eve alone. We, their descendants inherit their fallen nature, not their created nature. Left to ourselves, we will always choose to reject God and do our own thing.

God intervenes by preventing many of the sins we would commit if left unchallenged, but the sins we do commit are our choice. God does not force us to sin against our will. He just let's us do what comes naturally, but directs us away from any other sinful course.

So many contradictions, so little time.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Child sexual abuse, like all sexual abuse, has always been a sin.

The definition of incest changed, with brother/sister marriage being banned under Moses. The reason was not given for the change, but we now know the genetic problems that are likely to arise for their children. It may be solely that that was God's reason for the ban - the further from the created perfection of the genome, the greater the risk.

Murder also has always been a sin. Genocide was always a sin, unless ordered by God. He alone has the right to terminate any nation's existence absolutely.

What is a perfect gene? How can a gene be perfect?

MooseJam

wolfsbane wrote: »

Imagine someone full of grace and truth, without a trace of pride, selfishness, or folly.

sounds like me tbh

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Flamed Diving said:

What, being pure from any sin means absolutely nothing? I assure you the difference between even a small amount of sin and a big amount of sin is noticable in an individual and in society. The utter absence of sin would be a remarkable thing to behold. Imagine someone full of grace and truth, without a trace of pride, selfishness, or folly.

Spiritual perfection, both words together are meaningless.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Spiritual perfection, both words together are meaningless.

Hmm. You have a problem with perfection? It does/can not exist?

Or you have a problem with Spiritual? It does/can not exist?

Or is it your belief that a spiritual being cannot be perfect? Or a perfect being cannot be spiritual?

Please say why with your answer.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. You have a problem with perfection? It does/can not exist?

Or you have a problem with Spiritual? It does/can not exist?

Or is it your belief that a spiritual being cannot be perfect? Or a perfect being cannot be spiritual?

Please say why with your answer.

Well perfection is of course entirely subjective and is often meaningless in most uses. Unless you enter the realm of mathematics, where such things can be proven. I have no problem with the word spiritual, a word which has absolutely nothing to do with the abrahamic religions, which only serve to crush spirits.

In any case, a persons spirit (how you define spirit is up to you) cannot be perfect nor imperfect, for it really has no meaning. Its like saying the colour blue is perfect. A perfect being also has no meaning, as perfection in this sense is also subjective.

Galvasean

Veering slightly off current topic. I found this on National Geographic. Apparently tuataras are evolving faster than other creatures:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080331-tuatara-evolution.html

A good read for those interested in such things.

Galvasean

Also found some nice articles on human evolution for those interested;

New candidate for our ancestor?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080320-biped-ancestor.html

New info on Neandertals (yes, apparently the h is supposed to be left out):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080317-neandertal-split.html

enjoy

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well perfection is of course entirely subjective and is often meaningless in most uses. Unless you enter the realm of mathematics, where such things can be proven. I have no problem with the word spiritual, a word which has absolutely nothing to do with the abrahamic religions, which only serve to crush spirits.

In any case, a persons spirit (how you define spirit is up to you) cannot be perfect nor imperfect, for it really has no meaning. Its like saying the colour blue is perfect. A perfect being also has no meaning, as perfection in this sense is also subjective.

Perfection can be subjective; or it can be an agreed standard by many people. In this context - the Christianity forum - perfection is what God defines it as. Absence of sin is spiritual perfection - a spirit morally pure.

You of course are free to define spirit/spirituality and perfect/perfection as you see fit. I'm using them in the Christian sense.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What is a perfect gene? How can a gene be perfect?

Without defect; fully functional.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without defect; fully functional.

Right, but that still has no meaning. A gene is neither perfect, nor imperfect. Whether it performs a function or not. It's like saying the word 'Hello' is perfect, when 'Bonjour' is not. Or saying the word 'geicueffjio' is imperfect, and that 'iurhguihfviu' is perfect. The word perfect has no meaning for any of these.

You can't put a Christianity spin on this either, this is science.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but that still has no meaning. A gene is neither perfect, nor imperfect. Whether it performs a function or not. It's like saying the word 'Hello' is perfect, when 'Bonjour' is not. Or saying the word 'geicueffjio' is imperfect, and that 'iurhguihfviu' is perfect. The word perfect has no meaning for any of these.

You can't put a Christianity spin on this either, this is science.

Can a gene be defective? Can it be not defective? Is there one word you could use to describe a non-defective gene?

Here's synonym.com's offering on defective:
Sense 1:
defective, faulty

imperfect (vs. perfect)
http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/defective/

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can a gene be defective? Can it be not defective?
[/URL]

Genes are only functional or not. They produce a protein or they don't. As to being "defective", that can only be assessed in the context of the organism and the environment. A highly beneficial gene can become highly detrimental in a new or changing context.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Veering slightly off current topic. I found this on National Geographic. Apparently tuataras are evolving faster than other creatures:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080331-tuatara-evolution.html

A good read for those interested in such things.

National Geographic wrote:

New Zealand's "living dinosaur," the tuatara, hasn't changed its look in millions of years. But the reptile is actually evolving faster than any other animal studied so far, new DNA analysis reveals.

Scientists recovered DNA from 8,000-year-old tuatara bones and compared it with DNA in blood samples from living tuatara. The modern species is the only surviving member of the order Sphenodontia, which flourished around 200 million years ago.

....a 'living dinosaur'.....eh......
....I wonder, does this ALSO make it a 'living fossil'????:D

Anyway, this proves that Evolutionists are eternal optimists........with ENORMOUS faith!!!!!

.....anybody who can believe that a SMALL lizard that has been around for less than 10,000 years .........is a hundred million year old DINOSAUR will believe ANYTHING!!!!

.......could I gently remind you that the word DINOSAUR means TERRIBLE LIZARD......and while the Tuatara is a LIZARD.....it most definitely isn't TERRIBLE.......unless. perhaps, to a frog or a mouse!!!!!:D


......I guess the 'Dinosaur Lizard' must be the Evolutionist equivalent of 'the mouse that roared'!!!!:D

National Geographic wrote:

The results showed that tuatara evolve faster than bears, horses, and many other warm-blooded vertebrates.

.........I wonder if we compared the DNA of a Zebra and a Horse would this indicate that the Horse Kind is 'evolving' even FASTER than the tuatara ????:D

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but that still has no meaning. A gene is neither perfect, nor imperfect. .........You can't put a Christianity spin on this either, this is science.

......"a gene is neither perfect, nor imperfect'........eh????:D

.....I guess there goes Gene Therapy, Amniocenthesis and Genetic Counselling 'up in smoke'.....as far as Evolutionists are concerned!!!!!! :eek::D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

......"a gene is neither perfect, nor imperfect'........eh????:D

.....I guess there goes Gene Therapy, Amniocenthesis and Genetic Counselling 'up in smoke'.....as far as Evolutionists are concerned!!!!!! :eek::D

And it is comments like these the expose why creationism is still not taken seriously as a science. Its proponents aren't very good at understanding things.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Genes are only functional or not. They produce a protein or they don't. As to being "defective", that can only be assessed in the context of the organism and the environment. A highly beneficial gene can become highly detrimental in a new or changing context.

Hence a gene being perfect or imperfect has absolutely no meaning.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......"a gene is neither perfect, nor imperfect'........eh????:D

.....I guess there goes Gene Therapy, Amniocenthesis and Genetic Counselling 'up in smoke'.....as far as Evolutionists are concerned!!!!!! :eek::D

Once again you insist on a black and white interpretation...

Genes are functional, non-functional or detrimental based purely on the context within which they are expressed. Context includes the other genes being expressed, the organism as a whole and the environment. Whilst some genes are clearly detrimental in all practical contexts, many disease-causing genes have a more ambiguous quality. For example, the gene which causes sickle-cell anemia appears to be "imperfect", until we consider its protective effects against malaria. Similarly, many Europeans have a gene which reduces T-cell function but provides protection from bubonic plague and HIV.

So, as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned gene therapy, amniocentesis and genetic counseling are all valuable and valid (if young) practices. Genes just don't fit into ideal "good" and "bad" boxes in and of themselves.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perfection can be subjective; or it can be an agreed standard by many people.

Um, that's still sujective.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ka-D5UMr0