The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

gaynorvader

smokingman wrote: »

I apologise for the confusion good sir. Hang on, I'm an atheist, I shouldn't be nice should I

I'm agnostic, I'm not sure! :P

bus77

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't like the implications of this, could you please expand a bit? It sounds to me like you are saying that a person who doesn't believe in a deity is unable to follow a moral rule.

No, I'm not saying that. Perhaps I came across as being hard on the golden rule when taken on it's own. I didn't meen to come across as saying people who look at this and call it good are really no better than racists or lions

gaynorvader

bus77 wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that. Perhaps I came across as being hard on the golden rule when taken on it's own. I didn't meen to come across as saying people who look at this and call it good are really no better than racists or lions

I understand that, it wasn't your declaration that the golden rule is amoral but rather the implication that because it's amoral everyone can follow it (sounds like you're discounting any non-religious person from being able to follow a moral or immoral rule). This is what I'm concerned about. What did you mean by it? Did you mean both moral and immoral people can follow it? If so, do you agree that there are immoral and moral people both inside and outside of religious beliefs?

Zombrex

bus77 wrote: »

I just don't see where your going with this at all. While I agree in some way that there is a certain 'decorum' that is there with us when all is well, like sitting on a bus. I just don't get why you would bring another species into it as an example of a difference in standards.

Firstly, the lions might be grand with each other on the bus, just like humans. But, of course, what your saying is if a human went on the bus he'd be dead, yeah probably. But what about a cow on a bus with 50 humans? Tell him we are nice humans with golden rules built into us as the bus drives by Supermacs.

The golden rule, the silver rule in Christianity, is followed by a lot of people if you expand it out. It's followed by racists; they wish to be treated as a single group and treat others accordingly. It's followed by me sometimes, in ways too numerous to list.

The golden rule is amoral, and that's why everyone can follow it.

It is not really anything to do with whether we should follow it, it is to do with whether evolution has evolved this into us, which it clearly has. A lion has not evolved an emotional response that stops him ripping me apart on a whim. You have. You don't have to be a Christian to have an emotional instinct not to bash my face in.

bus77

gaynorvader wrote: »

Did you mean both moral and immoral people can follow it?

That's it, just everyone can follow it.

gaynorvader wrote: »

If so, do you agree that there are immoral and moral people both inside and outside of religious beliefs?

yes, there are good peeps all over the place

J C

bus77 wrote: »

The golden rule is amoral, and that's why everyone can follow it.

...The Golden Rule can indeed be amoral ... and without a Judeo-Christian moral framework to support it, the Golden Rule can be perverted into justifying downright evil.

I once knew of a doctor who loudly advocated euthenazia for anybody with terminal cancer and he proudly claimed that he assisted many people to die without their consent on the basis that if he were suffering their symptoms he would want a doctor like himself, to end the supposed misery that some of his patients were going through.
He thus used the Golden Rule to justify doing in others because he would have himself supposedly done in under similar circumstances.

Anyway, this particular doctor eventually developed a very nasty form of terminal cancer himself ... and he fought the illness for over a year using all medical means available to him ... and he REFUSED to be assisted to die.

...so the Golden Rule must be applied within a moral framework ... and it isn't capable of producing a 'moral framework' where none already exists!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh? It's considered the central moral rule in dozens of religions

...the central moral rule of Chritianity is to honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and (THEN) to love your neighbour as yourself ... i.e. love your neighbour WITHIN the Judeo-Christian moral framework of the Ten Commandments....and not within some arbitrary self-serving 'morality' that you make it up as you go along!!!

J C

smokingman wrote: »

My point being that you don't need a religion to be inherently good.

...there is NOBODY who is inherently good ... we ALL have fallen short of the standards of God.

Mt 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...there is NOBODY who is inherently good ... we ALL have fallen short of the standards of God.

I seriously think you need to get tuned into science a little more

Goodness and understanding is the first characteristic that is present within human beings - without it we would not be where we are today.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...The Golden Rule can indeed be amoral ... and without a Judeo-Christian moral framework to support it, the Golden Rule can be perverted into justifying downright evil.

I once knew of a doctor who loudly advocated euthenazia for anybody with terminal cancer and he proudly claimed that he assisted many people to die without their consent on the basis that if he were suffering their symptoms he would want a doctor like himself, to end the supposed misery that some of his patients were going through.
He thus used the Golden Rule to justify doing in others because he would have himself supposedly done in under similar circumstances.

Anyway, this particular doctor eventually developed a very nasty form of terminal cancer himself ... and he fought the illness for over a year using all medical means available to him ... and he REFUSED to be assisted to die.

...so the Golden Rule must be applied within a moral framework ... and it isn't capable of producing a 'moral framework' where none already exists!!!!

Any rule can result in immoral actions when applied incorrectly, whether it's the golden rule or a christian one. Assuming that actually happened, that doctor was not applying the rule correctly because he was not taking into account other's wishes as he would want others to do for him. Any conclusion can be wrong if it's based on faulty assumptions, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the rule any more than it would mean my calculator was faulty if I got the wrong answer having entered the wrong numbers. The calculator gives the correct answer for the input and the rule did too. The problem was faulty input
and a misunderstanding of the rule

In fact, what he did wasn't the golden rule at all because, as you point out, when given the opportunity of assisted suicide he refused so he was doing unto others as he would not like done to himself. This says nothing about the golden rule being bad because he wasn't even following it......assuming this actually happened

J C wrote: »

...the central moral rule of Chritianity is to honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and (THEN) to love your neighbour as yourself ... i.e. love your neighbour WITHIN the Judeo-Christian moral framework of the Ten Commandments....and not within some arbitrary self-serving 'morality' that you make it up as you go along!!!

The first 4 commandments, the parts about God and the sabbath, have nothing to do with morality and the last 6 can easily be derived from the golden rule
. "love your neighbour as yourself" is just the golden rule reworded. You really should think of the golden rule that way because you seem to have trouble understanding it when it's worded in the "do unto others...." format, thinking it means it's acceptable to enforce your views on others. It's not

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm agnostic, I'm not sure! :P

...INDEED .... I used be indecisive ... but now I'm not so sure!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Any rule can result in immoral actions when applied incorrectly, whether it's the golden rule or a christian one. Assuming that actually happened, that doctor was not applying the rule correctly because he was not taking into account other's wishes as he would want others to do for him. Any conclusion can be wrong if it's based on faulty assumptions, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the rule any more than it would mean my calculator was faulty if I got the wrong answer having entered the wrong numbers. The calculator gives the correct answer for the input and the rule did too. The problem was faulty input
and a misunderstanding of the rule

In fact, what he did wasn't the golden rule at all because, as you point out, when given the opportunity of assisted suicide he refused so he was doing unto others as he would not like done to himself. This says nothing about the golden rule being bad because he wasn't even following it......assuming this actually happened

...he was obviously a hypocrite but he proves that the Golden Rule, in and of itself, isn't a perfect moral compass with which to produce ethical behaviour.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...he was obviously a hypocrite but he proves that the Golden Rule, in and of itself, isn't a perfect moral compass with which to produce ethical behaviour.

As you point out that man was a hypocrite. He would be a hypocrite no matter which ethical and moral rules existed around him. The golden rule is not capable of producing perfectly moral behaviour from bad people who don't follow it properly but then religious morality can't produce perfectly moral behaviour from bad people who don't follow it properly either. An example would be Fred Phelps who thinks he's behaving morally by warning people that they're going to hell or this guy, a Jewish baby who got sick while his christian maid was looking after him and she thought he would die so she baptised him. He was then taken from his parents because the authorities didn't want a "christian baby" raised by Jews.

No form of morality can produce perfectly moral behaviour at all times because people are fallable and don't always follow the rules properly but for the most part good people will tend to do good and bad people will tend to do bad

My problem with religious morality is that it is taken to be perfect and binding on everyone so if someone misinterprets it or is tricked by an authority figure into misinterpreting it they can do terrible things and there is no way to argue with them because they're "doing God's will". People who acknowledge that their morality does not come from the perfect creator of the universe are easier to bring back from the brink of destruction when they've got it wrong

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Where exactly are you getting that idea from???
Current thinking is that this universe is constantly retuning verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy slowly.What makes you think the solar system should be any different???

The universe is certainly changing - I wouldn't call it retuning. Winding-down seems a better term.

The solar system is also changing - the moon receding, for example. Away from the fine-tune that was necessary for our existence. Away from the initial creation condition set by God. But an evolutionist concept of the universe means the solar system could have been at many other settings than would have permitted life ever to evolve here.

The FACTS are that the universe and the solar system are in the very narrow band that permits our life on earth. You guys say it is just chance. We say it is God's creation purpose.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why should we be in submission to our biological condition? Why are we not free to change what we don't like - our nose, breasts, mental state (drugs), morality? Just because they exist doesn't mean we have to keep them - or does it?
Society would break down fairly quickly were we not moral creatures. And morality does change, but in society rather than in individuals. When an individual does something contrary to his or her society's morals, they are seen as an immoral individual, and are shunned by their society or arrested.

Quite so. But that does not answer my question - am I not objectively free to do as I please? Can you say I'm somehow lesser than you if I choose to murder, rape and pillage and you are kind and selfless toward others? Surely the materialist must concede both sorts of individual are no better or worse than the other - just different?

Or if we move it to societies rather than individuals - is Nazi Germany somehow lesser than Democratic Sweden? On what basis?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

Quite so. But that does not answer my question - am I not objectively free to do as I please? Can you say I'm somehow lesser than you if I choose to murder, rape and pillage and you are kind and selfless toward others? Surely the materialist must concede both sorts of individual are no better or worse than the other - just different?

Why? These things are bad for, and condemned by, human society - that is what makes them bad.

Or if we move it to societies rather than individuals - is Nazi Germany somehow lesser than Democratic Sweden? On what basis?

That seems like a rather naïve view of Nazi Germany: largely their morals were similar to ours, but experiments such as the Milgram experiment have shown that many people will ignore their own morals if an authority figure tells them to do so.

Say, didn't someone in the Bible do that?

Eulick D

Following my joke last week about the Holy Qur'an, and the large number of private messages from Muslim members of this site that followed it, I would like to make the following statement:

"Islam is a religon based on peace, love and respect, and this is the central message of the Qur'an. As such I offer a full apology for making the claim that it encourages suicide bombing and violence."

OK, there - I said it. Now can you please stop sending me death threats?

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quite so. But that does not answer my question - am I not objectively free to do as I please? Can you say I'm somehow lesser than you if I choose to murder, rape and pillage and you are kind and selfless toward others? Surely the materialist must concede both sorts of individual are no better or worse than the other - just different?
Why? These things are bad for, and condemned by, human society - that is what makes them bad.

And so, if society did not condemn them - say where murder, rape and pillage of the next village is seen as a good thing? It is then good, not bad?

But my point really is that the materialist cannot hold that there is any actual good or bad, whether society or individuals adopt such morals or not. Morality, if materialism is true, is purely invention - a belief held for a time by an individual or a collection of individuals; often opposed by the beliefs of other societies and individuals.

So for you to say murder is wrong is merely to express your belief, a belief based on chemical reactions in your brain that result from biological structures inherited from your ancestors. Someone else's chemical reactions may give an different belief, so the materialist has to admit all such beliefs are of no more significance than another.

Quote:
Or if we move it to societies rather than individuals - is Nazi Germany somehow lesser than Democratic Sweden? On what basis?
That seems like a rather naïve view of Nazi Germany: largely their morals were similar to ours, but experiments such as the Milgram experiment have shown that many people will ignore their own morals if an authority figure tells them to do so.

OK, let's assume most Germans loved the Jews. What about the Hutus and the Tutsis circa 1994? Was it good for the majority of the Hutus to hate the Tutsis?

Say, didn't someone in the Bible do that?

Yes, many people in the Bible choose to ignore their morals in deference to those in authority. It took courage to defy the rulers and do right. Daniel in the lion's den and all that.

Same today. The Establishment shuts the mouths of many scientists who would question evolution but fear for their jobs.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

The universe is certainly changing - I wouldn't call it retuning. Winding-down seems a better term.

The solar system is also changing - the moon receding, for example. Away from the fine-tune that was necessary for our existence. Away from the initial creation condition set by God. But an evolutionist concept of the universe means the solar system could have been at many other settings than would have permitted life ever to evolve here.

The FACTS are that the universe and the solar system are in the very narrow band that permits our life on earth. You guys say it is just chance. We say it is God's creation purpose.

:Facepalm:

Yeah, and what you have to realise is that there weren't always!
Why in the heavens would a designer make a universe that didn't suit life for say several years after it's inception??

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

And so, if society did not condemn them - say where murder, rape and pillage of the next village is seen as a good thing? It is then good, not bad?

But my point really is that the materialist cannot hold that there is any actual good or bad, whether society or individuals adopt such morals or not. Morality, if materialism is true, is purely invention - a belief held for a time by an individual or a collection of individuals; often opposed by the beliefs of other societies and individuals.

So for you to say murder is wrong is merely to express your belief, a belief based on chemical reactions in your brain that result from biological structures inherited from your ancestors. Someone else's chemical reactions may give an different belief, so the materialist has to admit all such beliefs are of no more significance than another.

I know many people that have gripes about little tit bits in evolution - there in no fear of losing their jobs? Unless of course you're referring to the Global Recession


OK, let's assume most Germans loved the Jews. What about the Hutus and the Tutsis circa 1994? Was it good for the majority of the Hutus to hate the Tutsis?


Yes, many people in the Bible choose to ignore their morals in deference to those in authority. It took courage to defy the rulers and do right. Daniel in the lion's den and all that.

Same today. The Establishment shuts the mouths of many scientists who would question evolution but fear for their jobs.

Morality is not invention *refains from calling wolfsbane something*
It is a something that is present in ALL animals in some shape or form it is a process of nature. Not derived from the bible it is merely our conscience. You can argue that god gave it us, but then you seem to argue that we need God to get it : he never gave it to us??

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

:Facepalm:

Yeah, and what you have to realise is that there weren't always!
Why in the heavens would a designer make a universe that didn't suit life for say several years after it's inception??

This intelligent designer does not seem that intelligent :pac:

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

This intelligent designer does not seem that intelligent :pac:

Wait a second, I thought God was perfect??

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

And so, if society did not condemn them - say where murder, rape and pillage of the next village is seen as a good thing? It is then good, not bad?

But my point really is that the materialist cannot hold that there is any actual good or bad, whether society or individuals adopt such morals or not. Morality, if materialism is true, is purely invention - a belief held for a time by an individual or a collection of individuals; often opposed by the beliefs of other societies and individuals.

So for you to say murder is wrong is merely to express your belief, a belief based on chemical reactions in your brain that result from biological structures inherited from your ancestors. Someone else's chemical reactions may give an different belief, so the materialist has to admit all such beliefs are of no more significance than another.

In a way. Society decides what's right and wrong based on the instincts of the people and societal standards. That's why there are so many different standards all over the world. Potentially a very scary thought but its scariness has no bearing on its truth

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

:Facepalm:

Yeah, and what you have to realise is that there weren't always!
Why in the heavens would a designer make a universe that didn't suit life for say several years after it's inception??

He made it perfectly suitable in the beginning. It fell when man fell, and has become subject to decay just like him.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In a way. Society decides what's right and wrong based on the instincts of the people and societal standards. That's why there are so many different standards all over the world. Potentially a very scary thought but its scariness has no bearing on its truth

Thank you. That's all I'm looking the materialist to admit - that morality is (for them) various self-contradictory beliefs held in any one age, and subject to change with age. A thing is only immoral if one thinks it is. If one thinks it is moral, then it is. Entirely subjective, though it may be shared by many at any one time.

If you say paedophilia is immoral and I say it is moral, both of us are right - if materialism is true. So when atheist evolutionists talk about morality, we need to understand they may mean anything at any time. They cannot rightly insist their morality is any better than another's.

The Christian - or any theist - can logically make the claim. If their God is real, their morality is the only true morality. They may be wrong about their god, but they are logically consistent.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you. That's all I'm looking the materialist to admit - that morality is (for them) various self-contradictory beliefs held in any one age, and subject to change with age. A thing is only immoral if one thinks it is. If one thinks it is moral, then it is. Entirely subjective, though it may be shared by many at any one time.

If you say paedophilia is immoral and I say it is moral, both of us are right - if materialism is true. So when atheist evolutionists talk about morality, we need to understand they may mean anything at any time. They cannot rightly insist their morality is any better than another's.

The Christian - or any theist - can logically make the claim. If their God is real, their morality is the only true morality. They may be wrong about their god, but they are logically consistent.

No that's not what I said. Humans have a sense of morality built into them by evolution. Some higher levels things vary but the basics are the same across the whole of humanity and much of the animal kingdom too, the basics being the golden rule of morality, which is all you need to live a moral life

Morality is just another instinct, like the ability of birds to fly thousands of miles in a wind resistance reducing triangualar formation to the same pond they landed in the previous year

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Wait a second, I thought God was perfect??

Who said the intelligent designer was God?

If the only conclusion one can draw is that life is designed because it would be impossible otherwise, but the design has such serious flaws in it that it could possibly be the work of a perfect omniscient being, then that clearly rules God out as the designer.

So I guess the designer is unknown at this stage. Some imperfect alien designed the universe and life on it. But it definitely wasn't God.

Lets see how many of the Intelligent Designers "we aren't saying it was God" pack are happy to accept that one :pac:

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Morality is not invention *refains from calling wolfsbane something*
It is a something that is present in ALL animals in some shape or form it is a process of nature. Not derived from the bible it is merely our conscience. You can argue that god gave it us, but then you seem to argue that we need God to get it : he never gave it to us??

I thought I was clear about it being biologically determined. That is my meaning of invention.

So you as a self-reflective person can recognise that your qualms about robbing the bank or seducing your neighbour's wife is merely a helpful biochemical conditioning that warns you of danger.

But you are no longer just an animal who operates on instinct, so you may choose to override these warnings. It is not right or wrong to rob or commit adultery - just a choice.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Who said the intelligent designer was God?

If the only conclusion one can draw is that life is designed because it would be impossible otherwise, but the design has such serious flaws in it that it could possibly be the work of a perfect omniscient being, then that clearly rules God out as the designer.

So I guess the designer is unknown at this stage. Some imperfect alien designed the universe and life on it. But it definitely wasn't God.

Lets see how many of the Intelligent Designers "we aren't saying it was God" pack are happy to accept that one :pac:

What if the flaws came after the initial perfect design became operative?

Ever heard of the Fall?

Sam Vimes

Also, I'd be of the opinion that the "religion" instinct evolved because of people such as yourself, who think there's no right and wrong without it