Evolutionism vs creationism

[Silfir]

As far as science is concerned, if there is a God, He does not interact with our world in any measurable way.

Precisely! Welcome to agnosticism!

[JellySlayer]

Precisely! Welcome to agnosticism!

I'm no longer quite sure what we're arguing about then . I think I've been pretty forthright about my positions on the various issues. While I have no problem debating the finer points of theology, I'm pretty sure that I've never claimed I believe any of it to be true. [edit]If anything, my intention was to demonstrate that many of the points in Christian theology are sufficiently ridiculous that they ought not to inspire belief, let alone worship, of a supernatural God.

This is rather a problem for the creationist side of things, since it is extraordinarily difficult to build a positive case for special creation.

There is far more evidence for evolution than there is evidence for God.

If I were feeling particularly belligerent, I might suggest that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

I think this is what finally lead me away from Christianity. I was able to, at least nominally, accept that God would create the universe in such a way that there'd be no trace of His existence. I was willing to accept that God could tolerate profound suffering worldwide despite His ability to alleviate it. I was prepared to overlook the numerous flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions, and plagarism in the Bible. What ultimately broke my faith was the conclusion that the actions of God, from cover to cover, are not consistent with a benevolent being, but rather, are more consistent with a being that is petty, spiteful, immoral, and unjust. And I'd rather believe in no God at all than a God who is evil.

Well, I can fairly definitively say that I don't believe in Christianity anymore. Christianity is, in its entirety, based off of the teachings of the Bible. I've illustrated, I consider many of these to be immoral, and many of the claims that it makes, historical, scientific or otherwise, appear to be completely false. While the Bible offers some teachings that are moral, most of these are things that we could just as easily get from secular sources. A rejection of the Bible naturally implies a rejection of the Christian faith and the Chrisitan God, since the Bible is the only source of information that we have about Him.

I can't completely rule out the existence of some supernatural agency, but I can say that at the moment I rank the existence of a god of some variety only slightly more probable than the existence of Santa Claus.

[gut]

> if the Bible isn't authoritative, on what basis
> can Christianity be believed in?

I do it like Silfir said, interpret, not beleive mindlessly.

> Go and sin no more would be entirely in harmony with OT teaching.

Then why were the religious powers that be trying to kill the gal?

> "if you wash your hands with soap, it

The phrase 'cleansing leppers' comes to mind, as well as
some stuff about washing feet. I'd assume hands would be
just as important.

[Silfir]

Where we differ is not the agnostic part, I'd say, but the rejection of Christianity. Now this might be related to the fact that you used to be a good bit more religious than I ever was, but I've never felt about Christianity as something to oppose, or an immoral religion, or of the Christian God as an immoral God. I guess we simply have differing images of what "Christianity" is.

[JellySlayer]

> if the Bible isn't authoritative, on what basis
> can Christianity be believed in?

I do it like Silfir said, interpret, not beleive mindlessly.

Here's the problem I have with this. If you are prepared to believe, a priori, that there is a supreme being in the universe who is going to reward or punish you based on your actions, then you damn well better get it right. If supreme being likes slavery and hates women, if you want his favour, you ought to like slavery and hate women too. Our understanding of morality is irrelevant; we have no reason to believe that the supreme being is good. If you're just going to say, well, I don't think supreme being really cares about slavery, even though he said he does, and really he does, that's a problem for you. Religion is by its very nature an all-or-nothing proposition because the stakes are so high. While you can certainly try to interpret how the texts apply to various contexts and what exactly they mean, arbitrarily picking and choosing the parts you like and ignoring the rest is problematic, because you don't know that you won't face condemnation for ignoring the parts that your supreme being thinks are important. If you believe that Jesus is the real supreme being and that the words that He spoke are the reality that will get you rewarded, well, Jesus affirmed that the laws of Moses and the texts of the prophets are from God. If there are certain parts that He wanted you to ignore, He probably should have said something about it.

> Go and sin no more would be entirely in harmony with OT teaching.

Then why were the religious powers that be trying to kill the gal?

Because the laws of Moses sanctioned punishment for sins here. Hell is not an OT concept. If you sinned under OT law, you were punished, up to, and including death, either by God through some dramatic smiting, or by the courts on His behalf. The OT very strongly commanded people not to sin, and allotted punishment for sins as necessary. The difference is that Jesus took this authority for condemnation Himself, and upped the ante from physical death to eternal spiritual death.

> "if you wash your hands with soap, it

The phrase 'cleansing leppers' comes to mind, as well as
some stuff about washing feet. I'd assume hands would be
just as important.

Jesus cleansed lepers by healing them miraculously. He said nothing about basic hygeine. Washing feet was a common custom at the time, and was used by Christ as a metaphor for how Christians ought to serve each other.

[fazisi]

I guess I should keep my opinions on slavery to myself then... >.>

But really, God doesn't care if you were "free" or "slave" by title. We are all humans. And if we "free" people of today think we are much other than slaves with long leashes, then someone has succeeded in doing a much better job of brain washing than most religious leaders.

[gut]

>>>>> a significant portion of his time is in fact spent teaching about the Scriptures

>>>> Or contradicting them. I don't think 'go and sin no more' was in harmony
>>>> with the OT teachings. He opposed the existing religious 'authorities'
>>>> to such an extent that they had him murdered.

>>> Go and sin no more would be entirely in harmony with OT teaching.

>> Then why were the religious powers that be trying to kill the gal?

> Because the laws of Moses sanctioned punishment for sins here.

So is it 'entirely in harmony' or 'laws of moses sanctioned punishment'?
You can't have it both ways, as the laws seldom punish people for being
entirely in harmony with the law.

> If supreme being likes slavery and hates women

It would take a lot of creativity to transform 'treat neighbors as you
would be treated' into 'hate women' and 'inslave neighbors'. Not saying
people haven't done that, I'm just saying they were idiots.

> we have no reason to believe that the supreme being is good.

Unless you count the parts where he tells us to be good to each other.

> arbitrarily picking and choosing the parts you like and ignoring
> the rest is problematic

Does my process of interpretation smack of 'arbitrarily picking'? The
process where I rank sentences in red like 'treat others well' more likely
the advice of god, and sentences in black like 'don't wear different types
of fabric' the advice of overbearing politicians? Seems like jesus did the
same. He lauded the value of some OT teachings, yet differed when it came
to executing someone for adultary.

> you don't know that you won't face condemnation

I may be wrong about ranking more highly the deeds of jesus as opposed to
the leviticus teachings, but I figure I'm playing the odds and won't have
any regrets if I'm wrong.

> If there are certain parts that He wanted you to ignore, He probably
> should have said

That's where we are differing. I think he did. He wants me to ignore the
parts that mentioned it being OK to kill people for adultary, because
that's what he did.

> Washing feet was a common custom at the time

So they washed their feet, yet nothing else? Rather odd. Seems like if
someone is going to wash their feet, they'd prolly do the rest, eh?

[Grey]

> Washing feet was a common custom at the time

So they washed their feet, yet nothing else? Rather odd. Seems like if
someone is going to wash their feet, they'd prolly do the rest, eh?

Are you saying Jesus should have given his disciples a sponge bath?

Anyway, washing a man's feet when he came into a building was considered a job for the lowest servants. In the Bible, Jesus reportedly does it as an act of supreme humility - a sign that he was a servant to humanity, etc etc. However it was only written in John, which I've always found to have great discrepencies with the three earlier gospels. The message is clear, but I personally find it hard to imagine the scene as described really happening.

[JellySlayer]

>>> Go and sin no more would be entirely in harmony with OT teaching.

So is it 'entirely in harmony' or 'laws of moses sanctioned punishment'?
You can't have it both ways, as the laws seldom punish people for being
entirely in harmony with the law.

I didn't say that she was in harmony with the law; she wasn't. I was that the statement "go and sin no more" is in harmony with the law because the law's purpose is to prevent sin and punish it when it happens. It is entirely consistent to say that she should not sin; that is equivalent to saying "follow the law" because the law defines what sin is.

> If supreme being likes slavery and hates women

It would take a lot of creativity to transform 'treat neighbors as you
would be treated' into 'hate women' and 'inslave neighbors'. Not saying
people haven't done that, I'm just saying they were idiots.

Supreme being might have wanted to take that into consideration then. It is entirely His fault if the words were misunderstood.

> we have no reason to believe that the supreme being is good.

Unless you count the parts where he tells us to be good to each other.

He also tells some of His follows to kill children. Just because you're ignoring those bits doesn't mean they aren't there.

> If there are certain parts that He wanted you to ignore, He probably
> should have said

That's where we are differing. I think he did. He wants me to ignore the
parts that mentioned it being OK to kill people for adultary, because
that's what he did.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-20.

[JellySlayer]

He also tells some of His follows to kill children. Just because you're ignoring those bits doesn't mean they aren't there.

Suppose I'd better source this.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all ? old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30)

God speaking:"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18)"