Evolutionism vs creationism

[Silfir]

You obviously haven't met that many fundamentalists.

Your grand revelation is standard teaching in German public schools ("Religion" is part of the basic curriculum, note that the class is not called "Bible Study"). Basically, you take fundamentalism as the standard for all Christianity, and get all amazed at the ludicrous results (as rightfully ludicrous as they are). That way you engage on a fool's errand; fundamentalists cannot be swayed by arguments to begin with, and your arguments don't apply to moderate Christian directions who might be open for reasons, but not if you're going to argue against positions they don't hold in the first place.

The Bible is a collection of about 70 books written by various humans of various ethnicities over the course of several hundred years. Those are old books and scriptures, from old times, representing old mores. You can judge individual parts of the Bible by modern standards and yes, they will come up short, just like bread you bake in 300 BC won't be very tasty when consumed as part of a 2010 breakfast. Christianity has evolved since then.

[Grey]

Christianity has evolved since then.

Nuh-uh! It's the product of intelligent design by an invisible flying spaghetti monster.

[gut]

it couldn't have evolved, as it didn't spend enough time
properly bumping into other religious texts

[Theym]

It didn't need to. It bumped against it's self(the sub texts that make it up) as the people around it bumped against each other. Evolution, ain't it grand?

[Dorten]

No, I found the Bible is immoral and untrue. I've illustrated this before, but I'll elaborate for your benefit:

We can judge the truth of the Bible directly by looking at the claims that it makes about things that are testable. If the Bible makes a claim about, say, there being a global flood, and we can determine, with a fairly high precision, that no such flood could have happened, then that makes the Bible less reliable. If we can look at a very large number of claims and find that there is no evidence for any of them (eg. lack of historical evidence for virtually any of the first six books of the Bible; lack of historical evidence for Jesus himself); look at a significant number of prophetic claims that have failed (eg. Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples); trace the nature and influences of the writers of the various texts (see: "A History of God"; "Who Wrote the Bible"; "Who Wrote the New Testament"; "Misquoting Jesus"), then regardless of our tradition, we can assert that two other major claims by the Bible are false, namely that it is infallable, and that it was written by perfect, omniscient the creator of the Universe. If you aren't willing to go that far, you can certainly assert that the Bible is so unreliable about claims that we can test, that we have no reason to believe any of the claims that it makes that we can't.

So, you like formal proofs? OK. Where's your 100% proof that there were no Flood? Is lack of evidence working as a 100% proof of something not happening? Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples? there's no such claim in Bible, actually. Who ever told you, that Bible was written by God?

As for morality, well, the Bible sets such low standards that it's hard to know where to begin. The Bible condones murder, slavery, rape, genocide, child sacrifice, wars of aggression, lying, thieving, thought crimes... the list goes on.

Facepalm.

It encourages its followers to support dictators and tyrants.

Where?

It encourages the subjugation of women.

Oh, and any law system, that says, that you should obey police, for example, encourages subjugation of people by police officers?

It encourages the persecution of homosexuals. It advocates violence against people of other faiths.

Old Testament, yes. People like that at that times were not 'curable' from sin. Not now.

It completely undermines the idea personal responsibility for our own actions.

Funny. Wherever I look into Bible or christian teachings, I see the idea of complete personal responsibility for actions.

It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved.

Which is bad, because..?

It encourages all kinds of evil under the notion that any suffering now is tolerable in exchange for a better afterlife.

encourages?

It says that it is okay if an innocent person is punished in the place of a guilty one.

It does not say, that it is OK. It says, that is such person suffers willingly, understanding, that such situation may be sent by God, then it's good and 'profitable' for that person. It also says, that if you are not that person, knowing of situation and you do nothing to help, then you are doing evil.

It is to the credit of Christians that they recognize the inherent evil of these doctrines and generally don't to practice any of them anymore (with a few exceptions). But they do so to a significant extent simply by ignoring or whitewashing huge portions of the text.

You are funny. You do not understand huge portions of text, and if someone does, you claim, that thay are just ignoring it. Funny, but sad.

[edit]On a general level, I'll add one thing about the absurdity of this proposition that you make. Christianity has on the order of 3-4000 denominations. Now, were I to spend one Sunday per week investigating the individual claims of each faith tradition, then I'd be over eighty before I'd have finished them all, and could not, by any reasonable measure, have done the due diligence you seem to feel is required. And that still assumes that Christianity itself is correct. If it turns out Islam is correct, then I'd have been wasting all of my time investigating Christian traditions and still be wrong. Clearly, the only rational approach is to investigate the claims common to all (or at least most) Christian denominations, and evaluate those claims directly.

That's why it is needed to know how real coin looks before looking onto false ones. You can argue about not knowing which coin is real actually, but I send you to orthodoxy. You still didn't give any proof that it is false or immoral.

This can be done most easily simply be looking at the Bible itself, which is the foundation for all Christian traditions.

Bible is not foundation of traditions, it's the other way around, actually. Jewish laws, written in Exodus and other books of OT were already there, when the books were written. All New Testament books were selected from much bigger pile of writings, beacause they were not contradicting teachings of Christ. First there was Tradition. Then there was Writings. That's why Writings are meaningless without tradition. That's why it's impossible to understand Writs correctly (as we can see on your example) without knowing Tradition, which produced them.

Are you familiar with Euthyphro's dilemma?

False-dilemma response. It works, actually.

[fazisi]

LOL... no offense Dorten, but you should be expecting a sick burn in the near future.

[JellySlayer]

So, you like formal proofs? OK. Where's your 100% proof that there were no Flood?

I never used the word "proof". It doesn't make sense to talk about proof outside of mathematical or logical systems. I said that "we can determine, with fairly high precision, that no such flood happened", which is true. I'm not going to bother going into how many things are wrong with this story--there are probably a dozen things in it that would, on their own, make this story ridiculous and implausable. Taken together, this is quite honestly among the most outrageous stories in all fiction, and I am frankly shocked that any person could believe this account.

Is lack of evidence working as a 100% proof of something not happening?

No, it's entirely possible that the world could have been created last Thursday. Does that mean that we should seriously consider such a thing as possible? No, of course not. Lack of evidence isn't proof. But lack of evidence is justification for lack of belief, which is all that really matters here--especially if all of our knowledge about such subjects (say, floods, which we know a lot about because we've observed them before) would indicate that evidence for such an event should be extremely easy to find.

To be honest though, I would probably have an easier time believing that the world was created last Thursday than that the account of Noah's flood occurs exactly as the Bible says it does.

Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples? there's no such claim in Bible, actually.

Matthew 16:28, among others.

Who ever told you, that Bible was written by God?

I'm a little surprised that you of all people would have a problem with this claim. Alright, let me elaborate: Christian theology (some of them, anyway) claim that the Bible was literally written by people who were inspired by the Spirit of God to write exactly what He wanted them to say. Same difference.

Facepalm.

That's not an answer. I've already provided you with a handful of examples of such things. I can give you plenty more if you need them.

Where?

Romans 13:1-7

Oh, and any law system, that says, that you should obey police, for example, encourages subjugation of people by police officers?

This analogy fails on several levels. Anyone can become a police officer. Obedience to police officers is not always required, and certainly not under every circumstance. Police are ultimately responsible to the people and their powers (or they themselves) can be removed/reformed by the people that they are responsible to. Giving inappropriate power to police for their station is called a "police state", which is considered extremely oppressive and undesirable.

Old Testament, yes. People like that at that times were not 'curable' from sin. Not now.

God didn't think that one through very well, did He? The only solution to being born in the wrong place or being born with the wrong genetic makeup was for God's people to kill you?

Funny. Wherever I look into Bible or christian teachings, I see the idea of complete personal responsibility for actions.

I might be willing to concede that this is an issue of traditions, but I'll make the point for clarity anyway:
Catholic priest abuses child. Catholic priest goes to Catholic bishop, confesses his sins, receives absolution from the bishop and from God. Has he accepted responsibility for his actions? No, of course not. His crime was against the child, not against the bishop, nor against God.

Which is bad, because..?

Because their lives have value and aren't depraved. People who don't value human life have a bad habit of doing very stupid things, like suicide bombing or commiting genocide.

encourages?

Sure. Under this doctrine, you would, for example, be morally justified in torturing me until I become Christian again. Depending on your interpretation, you might not only be morally justified, but morally obliged.

It does not say, that it is OK. It says, that is such person suffers willingly, understanding, that such situation may be sent by God, then it's good and 'profitable' for that person.

And you don't find this outrageously immoral? Oh, wait, right. Everything your God does is moral, even the things that are clearly not. Never mind.

It also says, that if you are not that person, knowing of situation and you do nothing to help, then you are doing evil.

I actually agree with this. I would have been, for example, morally obliged to stop the crucifixion of Christ had I been there at the time. Similarly, I am morally obliged to reject such a sacrifice on my behalf, because it would be evil to accept it. That is personal responsibility for one's actions. If there is a God in the universe that judges what is right and what is wrong, and finds me guilty of wrong, then I will accept that and face the punishment. I will not use a loophole that involves punishing an innocent person for my guilt, regardless of who that person is and their relationship to the God who is judging me. If that sends me to hell, then I'd rather go to hell a good and moral person than to heaven an evil and immoral one.

That's why it is needed to know how real coin looks before looking onto false ones. You can argue about not knowing which coin is real actually, but I send you to orthodoxy. You still didn't give any proof that it is false or immoral.

This doesn't make any sense. If I knew which one was true, there'd be no point in looking at any of the others. But the problem is more profound than this: we don't know that there is a real coin.

Bible is not foundation of traditions, it's the other way around, actually. Jewish laws, written in Exodus and other books of OT were already there, when the books were written.

The first statement contradicts the second. The second may actually be self-contradictory as well, for that matter.

All New Testament books were selected from much bigger pile of writings, beacause they were not contradicting teachings of Christ.

How could they know what the teachings of Christ were, if not by reading what the people who were (supposedly) there wrote down? Things that aren't written down have a way of... evolving... over time much more quickly since there's a lack of an authoritative standard.

False-dilemma response. It works, actually.

Not really, because your choice of defining God to be good is arbitrary. You could just as easily define God to be evil, and the false dilemma response is still valid. If you try to follow this line of reasoning, you have no basis to claim that God is good and Satan is evil, rather than the opposite, for example.

[Dorten]

I never used the word "proof". It doesn't make sense to talk about proof outside of mathematical or logical systems. I said that "we can determine, with fairly high precision, that no such flood happened", which is true. I'm not going to bother going into how many things are wrong with this story--there are probably a dozen things in it that would, on their own, make this story ridiculous and implausable. Taken together, this is quite honestly among the most outrageous stories in all fiction, and I am frankly shocked that any person could believe this account.

No, it's entirely possible that the world could have been created last Thursday. Does that mean that we should seriously consider such a thing as possible? No, of course not. Lack of evidence isn't proof. But lack of evidence is justification for lack of belief, which is all that really matters here--especially if all of our knowledge about such subjects (say, floods, which we know a lot about because we've observed them before) would indicate that evidence for such an event should be extremely easy to find.

To be honest though, I would probably have an easier time believing that the world was created last Thursday than that the account of Noah's flood occurs exactly as the Bible says it does.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
Very simple. You can believe it. You can not believe it. No proof, only evidence.

Matthew 16:28, among others.

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
That's about Transfiguration. Not about the End of Days.

I'm a little surprised that you of all people would have a problem with this claim. Alright, let me elaborate: Christian theology (some of them, anyway) claim that the Bible was literally written by people who were inspired by the Spirit of God to write exactly what He wanted them to say. Same difference.

And so the Writings are not written by God, but by people, inspired by God. Ant thus it is limited by their culture, their understanding and their scientific knowledge.

Romans 13:1-7

1Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the [powers] that be are ordained of God. 2Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: 4for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore [ye] must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience? sake. 6For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God?s service, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

So... Where's support there?

This analogy fails on several levels. Anyone can become a police officer. Obedience to police officers is not always required, and certainly not under every circumstance. Police are ultimately responsible to the people and their powers (or they themselves) can be removed/reformed by the people that they are responsible to. Giving inappropriate power to police for their station is called a "police state", which is considered extremely oppressive and undesirable.

That's where the analogy does not fail. And that rules out subjugation.

I might be willing to concede that this is an issue of traditions, but I'll make the point for clarity anyway:
Catholic priest abuses child. Catholic priest goes to Catholic bishop, confesses his sins, receives absolution from the bishop and from God. Has he accepted responsibility for his actions? No, of course not. His crime was against the child, not against the bishop, nor against God.

Go and learn what a penitence is. Until then you will not understand.

Because their lives have value and aren't depraved. People who don't value human life have a bad habit of doing very stupid things, like suicide bombing or commiting genocide.

It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved. The lives of others - no way. So suicide bombing or commiting genocide are completely out of here.

Sure. Under this doctrine, you would, for example, be morally justified in torturing me until I become Christian again. Depending on your interpretation, you might not only be morally justified, but morally obliged.

And now again. Where did you get this noncense? "this doctrine" says, that it cannot be spread by force, among other tings. Cause the one who says, that he believes, because he was forced to will not really believe. That's simple, really.

And you don't find this outrageously immoral? Oh, wait, right. Everything your God does is moral, even the things that are clearly not. Never mind.

You'll be surprised, how many things that are 'clearly' not moral are moral. And how many things that are 'clearly' moral are not. Because to see such things really clearly you should be as clean from sin as possible. And that's very hard to achieve.

I actually agree with this. I would have been, for example, morally obliged to stop the crucifixion of Christ had I been there at the time. Similarly, I am morally obliged to reject such a sacrifice on my behalf, because it would be evil to accept it. That is personal responsibility for one's actions. If there is a God in the universe that judges what is right and what is wrong, and finds me guilty of wrong, then I will accept that and face the punishment. I will not use a loophole that involves punishing an innocent person for my guilt, regardless of who that person is and their relationship to the God who is judging me. If that sends me to hell, then I'd rather go to hell a good and moral person than to heaven an evil and immoral one.

Again commo catholic/protestant mistake of sin being guilt. And to go to heaven you must be good and moral. Crucifixion of Christ does not save you automatically, you know. It just gives you the ability to accept God's help in cleaning yourself from sin, nothing more.

The first statement contradicts the second. The second may actually be self-contradictory as well, for that matter.

How so?

How could they know what the teachings of Christ were, if not by reading what the people who were (supposedly) there wrote down? Things that aren't written down have a way of... evolving... over time much more quickly since there's a lack of an authoritative standard.

That's why Writing were needed, orf course. But still, first there was only spoken word. Then some writings. Then more writings. and more writings and spoken words. And they evolved. And people saw, that some of them evolved in different directions. So the most knowing and enlightened people, guided by Holy Ghost gathered and fixated portion of writings to be Writings, so there would be some authoritative standard.
And why should you believe, that they really were guided by Holy Ghost? Hey, you are free, don't you? That's faith for you.

Not really, because your choice of defining God to be good is arbitrary. You could just as easily define God to be evil, and the false dilemma response is still valid. If you try to follow this line of reasoning, you have no basis to claim that God is good and Satan is evil, rather than the opposite, for example.

Facepalm again.
I did not define God. I believe God to be good. That's me, your average schismatic.

[Silfir]

FACT: The chance of your post convincing the opposing side in an argument is directly proportional to the amount of times you quote his writing for a rebuttal. There are not NEARLY enough QUOTE tags in here people.

[gut]

> If the Bible makes a claim about, say, there being a global flood,

I feel so silly, but if shaky memory serves, it doesn't use the word 'global'. Would be
rather telling if it did.

>> It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved.

> Which is bad, because..

It causes one to have a weak mind, leaving them open to be controlled. The 'sacrifice now in
exchange for later benefits' philosophy is one of exploitation. Convince someone that their
life is worth nothing, and you can get them to do anything. This is not a motivation of god,
it is a motivation of man. God doesn't need to convince you that you and/or your family is
worthless, as he would be quite capable of doing his own work.

> Under this doctrine, you would, for example, be morally justified in torturing me until I become Christian again.

That's what we've BEEN doing.

> we don't know that there is a real coin.

You see an imprint of a coin in the ground, it implies there is one. Unless of course you
believe the dirt was just assumed that arrangement of its own accord over enough time.
Personally, I don't have that much faith.

> Things that aren't written down have a way of... evolving... over time

Again, memory warning, but I think there was/is a threat of eternal damnation for changing
the bible (or maybe just parts of it), so that would have had some effect of quality control.