Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1727728730732733822

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    God did Create everything 'good' ... so there was no evil ... and no earthquakes or disease in His perfect Creation.

    All these evils have come about as a result of the (voluntary) entry of sin into the Universe by one Man (Adam) and one Woman (Eve)... when they decided that they could be 'as God' ... on the prompting of Satan.

    If you made an artifically intelligent machine that you knew was going to makes cancer curing tablets for a while but then was going to "turn evil" and make cyanide tablets that would kill millions, could the machine be called "good"? And could you as the creator be called good for that matter, considering you knew in advance that it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Atheists differ, some think abortion is acceptable and some don't, just like christians
    ... thou shalt not kill seems pretty clear to me ... so I don't know how a Christian could think that procured abortion is acceptable ... other than where a woman's life is in imminent and real danger from the pregnancy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... and do you believe that abortion is murder?
    I used to very strongly but recently I thought about it and realised that at the very early stages of development it's pretty much a chemical process and there is nothing there to be aware of anything. I'd still be against it once the foetus is developed enough to be aware of what's happening but the first few weeks gives a woman the opportunity to end the pregnancy without causing suffering. I wouldn't jump for joy at the thought of it but there's a conflict of rights that has to be resolved and I think it's an acceptable compromise


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... thou shalt not kill seems pretty clear to me ... so I don't know how a Christian could think that procured abortion is acceptable ... other than where a woman's life is in imminent danger from the pregnancy.

    And yet millions of them do. Thou shalt not kill is pretty clear so I don't know how christians commit murder, fight in wars, support the death penalty or how they reconcile the fact that god explicitly instructed people to break that rule many times in the bible but there ya go


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If you made an artifically intelligent machine that you knew was going to makes cancer curing tablets for a while but then was going to "turn evil" and make cyanide tablets that would kill millions, could the machine be called "good"? And could you as the creator be called good for that matter, considering you knew in advance that it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it?
    ... an interesting question.

    ... why is it that Atheists ask some of the most searching questions when it comes to Theology ... while many of the the Christians stay silent ???

    Anyway, the answer to your question ... is that God actually created free-willed Beings ... with the capacity to freely love Him ... or to freely hate Him.

    Some people decide to love Him ... and are Saved ... while others continue to hate Him ... and are Lost.

    The alternative to what God did ... would be to create pre-programmed 'robots' that could only do 'good' ... but they wouldn't then have the free will to love.

    God is a Loving, Just and Good God ... the fact that some of His Creation has chosen to hate Him is to be regretted ... but it doesn't in any way make Him any less of a Loving, Just and Good God.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... an interesting question.

    ... why is it that I find that the Atheists ask some of the most searching questions when it comes to Theology ... while many of the the Christians stay silent ???

    Anyway, to answer you question ... what God actually did was to create free-willed Beings ... with the capacity to freely love Him ... to freely hate Him.

    Some people start to love Him ... and are Saved ... while others continue to hate Him ... and are Lost.

    The alternative to what God did ... would be to create pre-programmed 'robots' that could only do 'good' ... but they wouldn't then have the free will to love.

    God is a Loving, Just and Good God ... the fact that some of His Creation has chosen to hate Him is to be regretted ... but it doesn't in any way make Him any less of a Loving, Just and Good God.:)

    God created free willed beings in the full knowledge that they were going to use it to bring about every evil thing that has ever existed and he did nothing to prevent it. God has already limited my free will, I can't freely decide to kill someone with a thought or by throwing them into the sun. The only way to have unlimited free will is to be omnipotent ourselves. If he was omnipotent he could have , for example, made our bodies bullet proof and a lot more durable and we would still have had free will. If god can't create people that can't hurt other people but who still have free will then he's not omnipotent


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I used to very strongly but recently I thought about it and realised that at the very early stages of development it's pretty much a chemical process and there is nothing there to be aware of anything. I'd still be against it once the foetus is developed enough to be aware of what's happening but the first few weeks gives a woman the opportunity to end the pregnancy without causing suffering. I wouldn't jump for joy at the thought of it but there's a conflict of rights that has to be resolved and I think it's an acceptable compromise
    ... so you are discriminating on the basis of 'disability' ... the foetus is a Human Being from the moment of conception ... but you are only prepared to grant it protection for its life when it has the ability of 'being aware'.

    Lack of suffering isn't much of an 'ethical standard' either ... as any murderer who administered a cocktail of barbiturates and anaethetics could claim that their victim didn't 'suffer' ... but it would still be murder nontheless.

    Equally, the fact that all growth and development (both in and ex utero) is a 'chemical process' ... doesn't validate the murder of the person using the 'chemical process' to grow and live either pre- or post-birth!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    God created free willed beings in the full knowledge that they were going to use it to bring about every evil thing that has ever existed
    ... and I, for one am very grateful to Him for doing so ... because, if He didn't I wouldn't be here to enjoy my life and love Him ... and my fellow Humans.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    ... and he did nothing to prevent it.
    God has already limited my free will, I can't freely decide to kill someone with a thought or by throwing them into the sun. The only way to have unlimited free will is to be omnipotent ourselves. If he was omnipotent he could have , for example, made our bodies bullet proof and a lot more durable and we would still have had free will. If god can't create people that can't hurt other people but who still have free will then he's not omnipotent
    ... God didn't do nothing to prevent the excesses of evil ... He created Hell as a deterrent and to (eventually) confine Satan and his minions.
    He also allows physical death, following the Fall.
    ... death is one means of preventing the worst excesses of evil men ... can you imagine what it would be like if Hitler, or any of the other psychopaths down through history, were physically immortal or with bullet-proof bodies???!!

    God could have removed our free will ... and created 'good' pre-programmed 'robots' ... but I then wouldn't be able to freely love Him ... and my fellow Human Beings!!!!!

    God has limited our physical abilities ... but He hasn't limited our free-will.:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you are discriminating on the basis of 'disability' ... the foetus is a Human Being from the moment of conception ... but you are only prepared to grant it protection for its life when it has the ability of 'being aware'.

    Lack of suffering isn't much of an 'ethical standard' either ... as any murderer who administered a cocktail of barbiturates and anaethetics could claim that their victim didn't 'suffer' ... but it would still be murder nontheless.

    Equally, the fact all growth and development is a 'chemical process' doesn't validate the murder of the person using the 'chemical process' to grow and live both pre- and post-birth!!!
    I'm discriminating on the basis of awareness and sentience, that which makes us different to a rock. Do you eat meat?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... and I, for one am very grateful to Him for doing so ... because, if He didn't I wouldn't be here to enjoy my life and love Him ... and my fellow Humans.


    ... death is one means of preventing the worst excesses of evil men ... can you imagine what it would be like if Hitler, or any of the other psychopaths down through history, were physically immortal or with bullet-proof bodies???!!

    God could have removed our free will ... and created 'good' pre-programmed 'robots' ... but I then wouldn't be able to freely love Him ... and my fellow Human Beings!!!!!

    God has limited our physical abilities ... but He hasn't limited our free-will.:)

    God could have limited our physical abilty to harm each other entirely and we would have still had free will. And then it wouldn't really matter if Hitler was still alive because he couldn't hurt anyone. Again, if god cannot do this he's not omnipotent and if he chose not to do it then he's not worthy of worship


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm discriminating on the basis of awareness and sentience, that which makes us different to a rock. Do you eat meat?
    ... somebody under a general anaesthetic is neither 'aware' nor 'sentient' .... but this cannot provide a legitimate reason for killing them with impunity!!!!

    ... like I said at the start of this debate today, Atheists are discriminating on the basis of 'disability' when they don't classify procured abortion (where the woman's life isn't in imminent and real danger from the pregnancy) as murder !!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    God could have limited our physical abilty to harm each other entirely and we would have still had free will. And then it wouldn't really matter if Hitler was still alive because he couldn't hurt anyone. Again, if god cannot do this he's not omnipotent and if he chose not to do it then he's not worthy of worship
    ... like I have said God could have totally limited our ability to harm each other ... but He would then have removed our free will to love Him and each other.

    God is omnipotent ... but He chose to give us free-will ... and the rest is history.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... somebody under a general anaesthetic is neither 'aware' nor 'sentient' .... but this cannot provide a legitimate reason for killing them with impunity!!!!

    ... like I said at the start of this debate today, Atheists are discriminating on the basis of 'disability' when they don't classify procured abortion (where the woman's life isn't in imminent and real danger from the pregnancy) as murder !!!
    Someone under a general anaesthetic is an aware and sentient being who is not currently using those faculties. A very early foetus does not have those faculties. Again, do you eat meat?


    Also, you're still talking as if only atheists support abortion but that's demonstrably not the case


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... like I have said God could have totally limited our ability to harm each other ... but He would then have removed our free will to love Him and each other.

    God is omnipotent ... but He chose to give us free-will ... and the rest is history.

    How is it that not giving us the ability to kill with a thought doesn't remove free will but not giving us the abilty to kill at all would somehow turn us into automatons? We'd still be able to choose to reject god which is what really matters right?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    ... all this information relates to the Anti-Christ and the End Times ... and it will only be needed (and become clear) then.
    This fact is confirmed in the following verses:-

    Da 12:8 I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, "O my lord, what shall be the issue of these things?"
    9 He said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

    Well this implies that you don't believe we are currently in the 'End Times'. I'm limiting myself to Christian logic so: Touche/ Fair enough. :)

    That null and voids my reference to the 'Umayyad Caliphate' as you're not claiming that Daniel refers to the conflicting powers of the last 1500 years. (Or at least you're not claiming to have the ability to successfully interpret any such reference.)

    An example of a Christian faith that does consider the world to be in the 'end times' is the JWs. As such they've proposed an interpretation for the king of the North king of the south which includes Nazi Germany and the Cold war.

    (Have a look at this book if you've not already. I'd consider it tosh myself but it will definitely be of interest to a hard-core Christian such as yourself if you've not already read it. :P)

    There's one more vision that I'll direct attention towards and that is the crazy looking animals described in Daniel 7. i.e:
    Daniel's Dream of Four Beasts

    1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.
    2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

    4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

    5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'

    6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

    7 "After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

    8 "While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

    9 "As I looked,
    "thrones were set in place,
    and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
    His clothing was as white as snow;
    the hair of his head was white like wool.
    His throne was flaming with fire,
    and its wheels were all ablaze.

    10 A river of fire was flowing,
    coming out from before him.
    Thousands upon thousands attended him;
    ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
    The court was seated,
    and the books were opened.

    11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

    13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

    The Interpretation of the Dream

    15 "I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.
    "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'
    19 "Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

    23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]

    26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

    28 "This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself."

    What's the correct interpretation of the fourth beast?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Someone under a general anaesthetic is an aware and sentient being who is not currently using those faculties. A very early foetus does not have those faculties. Again, do you eat meat?
    ... so you are back again to discriminating on the basis of disability i.e early foetuses that don't have awareness abilities !!!!

    ... and I hope that you aren't comparing a living foetal Human Being to dead animal meat??!!!:):D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you are back again to discriminating on the basis of disability i.e early foetuses that don't have awareness abilities !!!!

    ... and I hope that you aren't comparing a living foetal Human Being to dead animal meat??!!!:):D
    It's only dead because someone killed it for you to eat. What's the difference between killing an almost microscopic cell grouping that has no awareness of anything and killing a fully aware animal when you can live a perfectly healthy life without doing it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    GaNjaHaN wrote: »
    Well this implies that you don't believe we are currently in the 'End Times'. I'm limiting myself to Christian logic so: Touche/ Fair enough. :)

    That null and voids my reference to the 'Umayyad Caliphate' as you're not claiming that Daniel refers to the conflicting powers of the last 1500 years. (Or at least you're not claiming to have the ability to successfully interpret any such reference.)

    An example of a Christian faith that does consider the world to be in the 'end times' is the JWs. As such they've proposed an interpretation for the king of the North king of the south which includes Nazi Germany and the Cold war.

    (Have a look at this book if you've not already. I'd consider it tosh myself but it will definitely be of interest to a hard-core Christian such as yourself if you've not already read it. :P)

    There's one more vision that I'll direct attention towards and that is the crazy looking animals described in Daniel 7. i.e:



    What's the correct interpretation of the fourth beast?
    . the first three beasts are symbolic of the three main powers in existence in the lead up to the emergence of the end time Antichrist System.

    ... and the Fourth Beast is the Antichrist System that will replace them.

    ... and I'll leave you to guess which powers the Lion in close association with the Eagle might be ... and who the Bear might be ... and who the Leopard might be!!!!:eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's only dead because someone killed it for you to eat. What's the difference between killing an almost microscopic cell grouping that has no awareness of anything and killing a fully aware animal when you can live a perfectly healthy life without doing it?
    ...here you are actually claiming that certain Human Beings are less important than certain animals purely on the basis of the disability of the Human Being!!!

    ... and this is the dangerous logic of Atheism 'playing out'!!!!!

    ... you can equally argue that you shouldn't kill a healthy young animal to provide sustinance for an old sick Human ... and using this 'logic' mass extermination can be countenanced to get rid of 'surplus' Humans in order to give rare species a better chance of survival!!!

    BTW , the logic of killing an animal (humanely) is that we are allowed to do so by God since the Flood ... for nutrition purposes. Because our declining genomes means that we are unable to live fully healthy lives as vegetarians (which we were before the Flood).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    . the first three beasts are symbolic of the three main powers in existence in the immediate lead up to the emergence of the end time Antichrist System.

    ... and the Fourth Beast is the Antichrist System that will replace them.

    ... and I'll leave you to guess which countries the Lion in close association with the Eagle might be ... and who the Bear might be ... and who the Leopard might be!!!!

    Well you've highlighted 'immediate' so I'm assuming you believe these beasts address modern powers? here's a few recent world powers:
    China -> This is still classed as up and coming.
    Anglo/American power,
    Russia,
    Nazi Germany.
    Or does Daniel 12:8 still apply here? (I’ve seen Christians apply it to all the prophecies in the book of Daniel.)
    Be careful. The interpretation given for the beasts shouldn't conflict with the interpretation given for the statue.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    GaNjaHaN wrote: »
    Well you've highlighted 'immediate' so I'm assuming you believe these beasts address modern powers? here's a few recent world powers:
    China -> This is still classed as up and coming.
    Anglo/American power,
    Russia,
    Nazi Germany.
    Or does Daniel 12:8 still apply here? (I’ve seen Christians apply it to all the prophecies in the book of Daniel.)
    Be careful. The interpretation given for the beasts shouldn't conflict with the interpretation given for the statue.
    ... you need to be Saved, my friend ... and then the Holy Spirit will tell you all you need to know!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    J C wrote: »
    ... you need to be Saved, my friend ... and then the Holy Spirit will tell you all you need to know!!!

    lol, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not trying to divert the discussion onto a tangent.

    edit/
    My contribution to this thread in the form of questions should not be confused with an innocent misguided curious soul. :) I don't want to get bogged down in a 'super-debate' p1ssing competition so I'll only make points that I feel are relevent.

    I do find this area of Christianity extremely interesting though. Albeit interesting in the same sense that the hit US tv show 'Lost' is interesting. :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...here you are actually claiming that certain Human Beings are less important than certain animals purely on the basis of the disability of the Human Being!!!

    ... and this is the dangerous logic of Atheism 'playing out'!!!!!
    I didn't say certain human beings, I said a microscopic grouping of cellls. But since you mention it, if a baby was born without a brain I would have no qualms in allowing it to die. What's the point of feeding an empty shell through a tube for 80 years?

    And you need to stop blaming atheism for abortion. Millions of christians get abortions every year.
    J C wrote: »
    ... you can equally argue that you shouldn't kill a healthy young animal to provide sustinance for an old sick Human ... and using this 'logic' mass extermination can be wheeled out to get rid of 'surplus' Humans in order to give a rare species a chance!!!
    no you can't equally argue that because an old sick human is still an aware and sentient being
    J C wrote: »
    BTW , the logic of killing an animal (humanely) is that we are allowed to do so by God since the Flood ... for nutrition purposes. Because our declining genomes means that we are unable to live fully healthy lives as vegetarians (which we were before the Flood).

    Well firstly the idea that we're unable to live full healthy lives as vegetarians is nonsense as evidenced by the fact that vegetarians aren't dropping dead in the streets so if god did say that then he's a liar*. Secondly, if god gave us a series of commandments that we're never supposed to break and then gave us bodies that require us to regularly break one of those commandments in order to survive then not only is he not omnipotent, he's not that bright. And finally, by telling us that we're allowed eat animals but not humans what is god doing if not discriminating based on a being's abilities and setting a precedent that such things are acceptable?

    *note I don't actually think this, just pointing J C's inconsistency


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    GaNjaHaN wrote: »
    lol, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not trying to divert the discussion onto a tangent.

    edit/
    My contribution to this thread in the form of questions should not be confused with an innocent misguided curious soul. :) I don't want to get bogged down in a 'super-debate' p1ssing competition so I'll only make points that I feel are relevent.

    I do find this area of Christianity extremely interesting though. Albeit interesting in the same sense that the hit US tv show 'Lost' is interesting. :p
    ... fair enough ... at least you are seeking after truth ... and that is always a good start!!!:):D

    ...now where have these Theisitic Evolutionists gone to ... or have they been Raptured ... and nobody has noticed????:eek::):D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I didn't say certain human beings, I said a microscopic grouping of cellls. But since you mention it, if a baby was born without a brain I would have no qualms in allowing it to die. What's the point of feeding an empty shell through a tube for 80 years?
    ...sadly anacephaly occurs in approximately 1:10,000 births ... and the babies rarely survive more than a few hours. However, miracles do happen ... and here is one of those miracles:-
    http://blog.taragana.com/health/2009/12/19/baby-without-a-brain-a-miracle-story-17325/

    ...and could I gently point out that we are all a 'macroscopic grouping of cells' ... and so your 'ethics' are now discriminating on the basis of the size (of our 'grouping of cells') ... so I guess if an Atheist is 6'4", like myself ... then anybody under 6' must logically be 'fair game' for elimination!!!!:eek:


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And you need to stop blaming atheism for abortion. Millions of christians get abortions every year.
    ... any Christians who do, are breaking the Sixth Commandment as well as Jesus Christ's injunction to love your neighbour as yourself.
    They are also hiding, if they are on this thread!!!



    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    no you can't equally argue that because an old sick human is still an aware and sentient being
    ... like I have said before none of these positions are ultimately defensible once Humans are regarded as being equivalent to animals ... and the 'sentience' test is a very 'slippery slope' indeed ... you could even argue that a quick 'coup de grace' administered to somebody that is sleeping is 'ethical' if 'lack of awareness' about what is happening to them and 'no suffering' are the only considerations when killing a Human Being!!
    ...indeed in such an 'ethical environment' the only consideration that would need to be taken into account could be how likely the person is to kill me ... if I try to kill him!!!

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well firstly the idea that we're unable to live full healthy lives as vegetarians is nonsense as evidenced by the fact that vegetarians aren't dropping dead in the streets so if god did say that then he's a liar*.
    ... I have yet to see a healthy-looking one ... and most now resort to food supplemements to try and make up for the deficiencies in their diet!!!!
    Ironically, I have never heard of a Vegetarian having a problem with a Lion eating meat ... yet they have problems with Humans doing so!!!
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Secondly, if god gave us a series of commandments that we're never supposed to break and then gave us bodies that require us to regularly break one of those commandments in order to survive then not only is he not omnipotent, he's not that bright. And finally, by telling us that we're allowed eat animals but not humans what is god doing if not discriminating based on a being's abilities and setting a precedent that such things are acceptable?
    ... Eating animal meat is based on the status of the animals ... and not their capacities. Humans are a Direct Special Creation of God and this difference is the key ethical grounds for eating animal meat.

    You are correct, that an Atheist who believes that Humans are effectively the same as other animals is behaving as a Cannibal, if they eat animal meat ... and they have no effective moral basis for condemning the killing and eating of Humans!!!!
    I have no doubt that many Atheists, who have thought about this issue, have become vegetarians to 'restore' their 'ethics' in this regard !!!

    ..... so if you want to enjoy your next sirloin steak ... with no qualms of conscience ... and no ethical hypocracy ... you need to be Saved!!!!:eek::D:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...sadly anacephaly occurs in approximately 1:10,000 births ... and the babies rarely survive more than a few hours. However, miracles do happen ... and here is one of those miracles:-
    http://blog.taragana.com/health/2009/12/19/baby-without-a-brain-a-miracle-story-17325/

    ...and could I gently point out that we are all a 'macroscopic grouping of cells' ... and so your 'ethics' are now discriminating on the basis of the size (of our 'grouping of cells') ... so I guess if an Atheist is 6'4", like myself ... then anybody under 6' must logically be 'fair game' for elimination!!!!:eek:
    no, again I'm discriminating on the basis of awareness and sentience and the fact that you have to keep strawmanning to make it look bad speaks volumes

    J C wrote: »
    ... any Christians who do, are breaking the Sixth Commandment as well as Jesus Christ's injunction to love your neighbour as yourself.
    They are also hiding, if they are on this thread!!!
    and yet they do it anyway so your attempt to blame atheism for abortion fails.
    J C wrote: »

    ... like I have said before none of these positions are ultimately defensible once Humans are regarded as being equivalent to animals ... and the 'sentience' test is a very 'slippery slope' indeed ... you could even argue that a quick 'coup de grace' administered to somebody that is sleeping is 'ethical' if 'lack of awareness' about what is happening to them and 'no suffering' are the only considerations when killing a Human Being!!
    ...indeed in such an 'ethical environment' the only consideration that would need to be taken into account could be how likely the person is to kill me ... if I try to kill him!!!
    I don't regard humans as equivalent to animals, I know there's a difference and when I ask myself what those differences are I note that a very early foetus does not possess any of those characteristics. And again, no a sleeping person could not be regarded as being the same as a foetus. More strawmanning and you even gave the name of the other logical fallacy you're using, the slippery slope fallacy.
    J C wrote: »
    ... I have yet to see a healthy-looking one ... and most now resort to food supplemements to try and make up for the deficiencies in their diet!!!!
    Ironically, I have never heard of a Vegetarian having a problem with a Lion eating meat ... yet they have problems with Humans doing so!!!
    What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Firstly there are millions of vegetarians in the world who live perfectly healthy lives, there are no essential nutrients in meat that you can't get somewhere else and secondly, do you not see the inconsistency with declaring that we see humans and animals as equivalent and then making the remark about lions eating meat as if it's ironic? The reason we have a problem with one and not the other is that we don't see humans and animals as equivalent.
    J C wrote: »
    ... Eating animal meat is based on the status of the animals ... and not their capacities. Humans are a Direct Special Creation of God and this difference is the key ethical grounds for eating animal meat.

    You are correct, that an Atheist who believes that Humans are effectively the same as other animals is behaving as a Cannibal, if they eat animal meat ... and they have no effective moral basis for condemning the killing and eating of Humans!!!!
    I have no doubt that many Atheists, who have thought about this issue, have become vegetarians to 'restore' their 'ethics' in this regard !!!

    ..... so if you want to enjoy your next sirloin steak ... with no qualms of conscience ... and no ethical hypocracy ... you need to be Saved!!!!:eek::D:)

    when you say I have no "moral basis" for eating meat, what you mean is that no authority figure has told me it's ok, allowing me to abdicate responsibility and not think about it myself. The reason I eat meat and think that very early abortions are acceptable is that I have asked myself what the difference between humans and animals is and noted that neither animals nor early foetuses possess the characteristics that make "thou shalt not kill" an important rule to follow. The rule "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to rocks, plants, animals or very early foetuses because, unlike humans, they are not aware and sentient beings (not even ones that have the faculties but are currently not using them)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    J C wrote: »
    ... fair enough ... at least you are seeking after truth ... and that is always a good start!!!:):D

    ...now where have these Theisitic Evolutionists gone to ... or have they been Raptured ... and nobody has noticed????:eek::):D

    I feel dishonest if that's how I'm coming across. This discussion for me is nostalgic, reminding me of before I was atheist.
    I was getting warmed up, asked something tricky and that's where the discussion seems to have hit a brick wall.

    Either you've encountered a head-wrecking question that the 'holy spirit' won't enlighten you on or this discussion is so beneath you that you've casually encouraged me to seek some sort of Christian intervention.

    If the former is the case all I can say is, with horrible irony, "Ah, God love ye." :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    But anyway J C, I asked you what you would accept as an example of an increase in CSI. You said:
    J C wrote: »
    ... a complex new functional organ in a number of steps would be an example of increasing CSI ... should be possible with short-generation organisms like Fruit Flies (if Materialistic Evolution exists) ... but has never been observed!!!

    I gave you the example of single-celled organisms that evolved into multi-celled organisms (an entirely new genus) and developed a primitive skin. Since skin is an organ I have met your criteria but you have already declared this to be an expression of previously existing CSI. Would I be right in saying that you have contradicted yourself and that, as I suspect, even if you were presented with a brand new internal organ like a lung spontaneously developing you would still dismiss it as an expression of existing CSI and that there is actually nothing that could ever be presented that you would admit to being an increase in CSI?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No disabled is a relative concept.

    Humans traditionally consider someone disabled if they can't do the things we normally associate with humans because we (some what egotistically) put more significance on what we do normally than anything else.

    For example a blind person is considered disabled because they cannot see, and I am not considered disabled because I can see. This is true even if I get dazzled by the sun and walk out in front of a train where as a blind person in the exact same instance wouldn't have.

    No one would say I was disabled by my sight, despite that being what killed me, because we (again some what egotistically) consider sight to be "normal"

    A Creationist is forced by their religious doctrine to view biology in these terms as well, view life in the context of original God given perfect forms and degradation from these forms. It is a sliding scale of best to worst, with disabled people being on the lower end of the scale because "sin" has degraded their bodies.

    This view has also traditionally been applied to the concept of race as well, with native populations of Africa, America and Asia being considered more degraded from the original forms of Noah's family (ie European people), though some what understandably Creationists have largely backed away from this idea in recent times as it smacks some what of racism (despite Creationist protests that it isn't)

    Applying these human, relative, concepts to evolution, or to a fly, seems rather ridiculous.

    From an evolutionary position different people are simply different. Terms like "better" or "worse" are completely relative depending on the environment and situation they find themselves in at that moment. They may be better in one situation and worse in another depending on what the situation is.

    And as such able and disabled are also relative concepts, defined (unlike Creationism) not by the person but by the context of what the person is trying to do and where they are doing it.

    Everyone should be helped to perform the tasks necessary to modern human existence that are difficult to them. Which is why we build wheel chairs and make sun glasses. I am disabled when I am attempting to drive in glaring sun light because my eyes cannot see the road. We build sun glasses to help me with that.

    Another person might be disabled when they are attempting to walk up stairs because their legs are unable to move. We build wheel chairs and ramps to help them with that.

    But unlike what Creationist teaches, there is nothing inherently wrong with a "disabled" person, they are not a deviation from a perfect form because no such concept exists in modern biology.
    Yes, the creationist, and all Christians, hold that inability to see, hear, walk, etc. are not the way humans are supposed to be. And so we make efforts to help those so disabled. But there is no moral wrongness involved.

    We cannot give them the abilities in most cases, so we offer alternatives - like glasses, ear-implants, etc. We do not say, 'You are just different and so we won't bother helping you'. Jesus healed the sick, and in the resurrection all disabilities will be removed.

    Some certainly perverted the difference in skin colour into a disability, but not on the basis of Scripture. Sinful men invent their own ideas, instead of sticking to the Bible's teaching.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    This is a somewhat semantic and ostensibly amusing argument, based on the fact that a "fly" is called a "fly" because it "flies". If it doesn't "fly", how can it be a "fly"? See an equivalent argument from The Mad Hatter regarding dogs' tails and "dogs" being called "wags".

    In fact, if you bothered to follow my logic beyond the mildly amusing to the serious, you will come to the next comment which clearly states that a dog with no tail is still a dog. Which you'll agree matches with you here:



    Ahh, but which of the "flies" is disabled?

    Anyway, you clearly didn't follow my post through to this as it would have denied you the opportunity to release the horror of the the thalidomide comment. I can only assume you are projecting your definition of a "human" as I wouldn't even entertain the idea of describing someone with any kind of birth defect as "non-human". And then you have the audacity to drop in the eugenics comment, when it is you who has framed a sentence linking disabled children and the phrase "not human". I find that breathtaking that someone even has that in their head, let alone uses it in a sensible debate.

    A few notes: Thalidomide defects are not genetic defects so you couldn't even pick something that was logically consistent. Also, your knowledge of the genus Homo needs some revision.

    You said it to be inflammatory, score points, whatever, but you provide a remarkably good example for why creationists should be metaphorically gagged.
    I'm glad you openly support censorship - it beats hiding the intention.

    Anyway, it was your confused 'It is a fly/It's not a fly' argument that was being exposed. I take your point that thalidomide deformity is not genetic - so I should have used Down's instead. I have Down's Syndrome friends, and regard them as fully human as any of us. No 'human/not human' confusion.

    I'm now glad you confirm your contradictory claim was down to a somewhat semantic and ostensibly amusing argument. I'm sorry I took you to be serious (and confused).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement