To all the Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists

[El_Machinae]

Another point: you can't prove or disprove the parting of the Red Sea. The parting of the Red Sea is entirely consistent with the Christian and scientific community. In both instances, "a superior being, not bound by our limitations, interceded to part the Red Sea". In fact, it's not even (by default) supernatural, since advanced technology could have performed the action. IF it happened, there's no proof that it wasn't manipulative aliens or a supercomputer from the future.

Where the parting of the Red Sea bothers me is the moral implication. Eric has spent some time saying that God shouldn't nanny, but the parting of the Red Sea is very much a nannying action. This means, then, that a lack of additional nannying is a stain on God's moral character (if he exists).

I've already established that a moral person helps innocent people if it's within his power. If aliens had parted the Red Sea, and don't save puppies in house fires, we can say that they are not performing enough good actions, they could be doing more. By the same standard, I acknowledge that I could be doing more charity, and you can easily compare me to someone like Mother Theresa, and I am obviously less 'good'.

So, 'God' parted the Red Sea, but doesn't save puppies. Is this consistent with the Christian view? Not in my opinion. "What would Jesus do?" is the question, well, the answer is obvious, "Not a heck of a lot".

That's where faith in the Bible breaks down, the fact that God does act like a moral being would. He doesn't act any different than a super-computer from the future, manipulating events with superior power.

 

[ironduck]

There are also those christians who believe that the old testament stories are not real, but merely myths that were being explained with a god. In that case the only interfering was by Jesus, and it's then interpreted that he didn't nanny anyone, rather he set an example to follow. I can go with that. It's generally much easier to go with the Jesus of the four gospels because it's easy to just see as a spiritual guide on how to live one's life.

 

[ironduck]

Oh, and classical_hero, are you ever going to study some science or are you just going to keep copying your religious websites?

 

[ironduck]

El Machinae, you might want to look at this thread about the mormons which I temporarily took a bit off topic (I suppose).. starting from near the bottom of page 6 and onwards people state how they will do anything god tells them to - including going against the very moral code they have learnt from god. It's outside my comprehension.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146266&page=6

 

[MobBoss]

Well, I acknowledge science...god gave me a brain after all. However, where I think you err is that you assign human traits and morals to a omnicient and all powerful being. The bible often says no one knows the mind of god and his ways are mysterious.

You can assume and suppose what was possible and what wasnt till the sun dies out and you will still never know exactly what happened. Why worry about it at all? It has no direct bearing on your daily walk or life.

Personally, it doesnt matter to me if god put a pillar of flame to stop the Egyptian pursuit or if it was some type of lava flow that did it. I would assume an all powerful being would have an infinite number of ways of expressing his power.

Bottom line, those with eyes let them see. You will look at such things and see what you want to see regardless. Reading history in a book isnt going to convince you one way or another......now, if you were to have a near death experience and have something totally new happen to you, who knows?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd blame it on my 'god module' in my brain.

And I say, we can judge God, if we're told what he's supposed to be. I'm told that God is 100% good, but I can see that he's not (unless you redefine 'good', and remove common sense). Ergo, God isn't what people say he is.

In fact, Fallen Angel Lord, with his statement "God doesn't know everything" means that my logic puzzle is defeated, because he doesn't accept my premise. Good for him.

Edit: thanks ironduck. I'll look. I've been waiting for the Mormon thread to read it, so I can get multiple pages of discussion in one sitting.

 

[MobBoss]

And I say, we can judge God, if we're told what he's supposed to be.

Heh. That made me laugh. You think you can judge a all powerful being? I would humbly submit that you dont have the brain capacity to fully render a valid judgement. Thats like saying an Ant reserves the right to judge us for kicking over the ant nest, but the ant will never see the garden we planted in its place.

I'm told that God is 100% good, but I can see that he's not (unless you redefine 'good', and remove common sense). Ergo, God isn't what people say he is.

False assumption. You incorrectly assign your definition of good on an all powerful being. Sometimes what you view to be as "not good" could actually be good in disguise. Example: Although hurricane katrina is generally viewed as a "bad thing" it was probably the only real way a lot of poor people were ever going to get out of the slums of New Orleans. For them, it was a chance at a new beginning that they otherwise not have had. Maybe not the best example, but just the first one that came to mind.

 

[El_Machinae]

The ant can still be pissed. And rightly so. I just don't care, and I don't claim to be 100% good.

The defintion of 100% good that I'm using is "never hurting someone". That's the 'best' good. You can slide towards evil by "hurting someone for their own good", then "hurting someone for MY good". The definition of 100% evil is "hurting someone with no benefit to anyone".

The selfish scale consists of a range of "helping others with total sacrifice" to "helping people, to my benefit" to "not helping anyone, ever".

Do you not like that defintion? God seems to be in the middle, in both scales.

With regards to your example (and I understand the frustration you'll feel, because I don't like it when people point out holes in my analogy when it's just an analogy): I can think of over a dozen ways of relocating poor people that hurts them less than Katrina did. Heck, half of those dozen ways could have been performed by 'mere humans'. If that was the 'best' solution to a problem from your God, then I can't see how you condone the action.

 

[MobBoss]

The ant can still be pissed. And rightly so. I just don't care, and I don't claim to be 100% good.

Ah. But being pissed is a different matter than being qualified to judge.

The defintion of 100% good that I'm using is "never hurting someone". That's the 'best' good.

I beg to differ. If I spank my child and I not hurting them to teach them a greater lesson? Do I not still have "good" intentions towards them? Its not "evil" to correct and teach in such a way. If we never experienced hurt, we wouldnt really grow now would we?

You can slide towards evil by "hurting someone for their own good", then "hurting someone for MY good". The definition of 100% evil is "hurting someone with no benefit to anyone".

Ah. But how do you know that when God hurts someone that its not for some good reason? That it might actually benefit someone down the line, when you lack the ability to be omnicient (sp?)?

Do you not like that defintion? God seems to be in the middle, in both scales.

Only according to your limited and non-all-powerful way of viewing such things.

With regards to your example (and I understand the frustration you'll feel, because I don't like it when people point out holes in my analogy when it's just an analogy): I can think of over a dozen ways of relocating poor people that hurts them less than Katrina did. Heck, half of those dozen ways could have been performed by 'mere humans'. If that was the 'best' solution to a problem from your God, then I can't see how you condone the action.

Once again, you are solely armchair quarterbacking from your non-all-powerful objective. You see it like the ant sees it. Whats best from your point of view may not be whats best from his point of view as it is so far above yours. The are probably gazillions of other reasons that just escape your ability to grasp them. Maybe that storm hit there also to rejuvenate the flood plain of the Mississippi river....maybe it hit there to help clean the gulf in that area....maybe it hit there as a wake up call for all the corruption that had been going on there and reveal it......the possible list goes on ad infinitum. I am incapable of realizing or asking them all - you are incapable of seeing all the valid answers. We are just ants...and go about our ant business on a daily basis.

 

[El_Machinae]

If I spank my child and I not hurting them to teach them a greater lesson? Do I not still have "good" intentions towards them?

I know what you're saying. I'm willing to slap a dog when teaching it to not jump up. However, the use of pain to 'teach' is only acceptable when you have no other way of teaching. To use pain, when a non-pain method was available, is evil.

Is your God so limited that he cannot teach humans, except by including pain? Wow. I can teach humans without using pain, and I'm not even considered omnipotent and 'outside this universe'.

Once again, you are solely armchair quarterbacking from your non-all-powerful objective.

Guilty as charged, I guess. But I'd say you're rooting for a team, insisting he's a champion, when everything tells you otherwise, except your Bible. Do I insist that it's not raining (when it is) because my Farmer's Almanac says it won't rain that day.

 

[Perfection]

Another point: you can't prove or disprove the parting of the Red Sea.

Then why believe it?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why not? The myth is designed to be unprovable, that's why it's stood the test of time. There are a lot of things we can't prove, but we believe them anyway. In fact, by relying only on your senses, you're evidencing faith that your sense don't deceive you. But you know they can.

I can point you at cases where schizophrenic people were 'convinced' by their senses that a false reality existed. In fact, almost anything you can perceive can be mimicked by brain damage. We just find it convenient to act as if our sense are true.

There's no reason to not believe it either. There's just reason to disbelieve the Christian reason for it occuring. Who cares if it really happened? It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Perfection]

There's no reason to not believe it either.

The lack of reasons to believe is itself a reason not to believe.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is a reason to believe it. It's written about in an avowed autobiography. Heck, aren't most research papers essentially autobiographies? They're just more reliable in your eyes. If you were paranoid, you would certainly not believe research papers, because you could see the conspiracy links (and not disregard them, like we do).

The point is: everyone is a little paranoid regarding evidence. It's not brain damage, it's a survival trait. To have faith in research papers requires faith that you're not insane. Your paranoia-meter is set at a different standard as other people's, but it's not the 'best' setting. Except to you. But even schizophrenics believe that.

 

[Perfection]

There is a reason to believe it. It's written about in an avowed autobiography.

The bible is not an autobiography rather a book of mythology with a small smattering of fact.

Heck, aren't most research papers essentially autobiographies?

No, they're peer reviewed articles that are often independantly tested. They have demonstrated themselves time and time again correct

They're just more reliable in your eyes. If you were paranoid, you would certainly not believe research papers,

Except for the fact that I've had oppurtunities to test them, and it turns out that they are correct. Acedemic papers have demonstrated to me reliability. The bible has not

because you could see the conspiracy links (and not disregard them, like we do).

The point is: everyone is a little paranoid regarding evidence. It's not brain damage, it's a survival trait. To have faith in research papers requires faith that you're not insane. Your paranoia-meter is set at a different standard as other people's, but it's not the 'best' setting. Except to you. But even schizophrenics believe that.

I have no implicit faith in research papers. Rather, in personal experience they have demonstrated thier worth.

 

[MobBoss]

I know what you're saying. I'm willing to slap a dog when teaching it to not jump up. However, the use of pain to 'teach' is only acceptable when you have no other way of teaching. To use pain, when a non-pain method was available, is evil.

I disagree. I think pain is, in some ways, the ultimate teacher. You can preach to a kid all day long that a stovetop is hot, but he doesnt truly learn that its hot until the touches it. So you must think people who snap rubber bands on their wrist to break addictive behaviour are evil. Do you think that those fence-less dog collars that shock are evil? So you think a parent paddling a child because they disbehave is evil? I think your definition is way too restrictive and limited concerning evil.

Is your God so limited that he cannot teach humans, except by including pain? Wow. I can teach humans without using pain, and I'm not even considered omnipotent and 'outside this universe'.

Can you please try to not be so insulting? Thats not the case at all and not what I said. By that very comment you show how limited and closed minded you are in considering what I have said. If all you want to do is twist words and deal in absolutes you wont get very far in this discussion.

Guilty as charged, I guess. But I'd say you're rooting for a team, insisting he's a champion, when everything tells you otherwise, except your Bible. Do I insist that it's not raining (when it is) because my Farmer's Almanac says it won't rain that day.[/QUOTE]

The main point is this. Neither of us is qualified to judge as to whether he is a champion or not. I have far more than just my bible that tells me about him - I like to believe that I have a personal relationship with my god, and turn to him for help in dealing with everyday events that happen. I am not as you put it "insisting that its not raining" regardless of fact - I simply know you dont have all the answers and that you are vastly unqualified to sit in judgement over God regardless how smart you think you are.

 

[trada]

The bible is not an autobiography rather a book of mythology with a small smattering of fact.

Nobody on this earth can prove that.

 

[MobBoss]

The bible is not an autobiography rather a book of mythology with a small smattering of fact.

Its actually neither. But I suppose its different things to different people.

 

[Perfection]

Nobody on this earth can prove that.

It's a reasonable conclusion given the fact that there's so many different religious documents of similar type and it's unverifiable nature.

Here's how I see it:
A. We abandon science for new concept based on anecdotal evidence
B. We dismiss anecdotal evidence as incorrect

B is obviously the logical choice.

 

[trada]

C We hold that science is merely the consistencies set by a higher power that have been and could be wavered at any given time.