Support NeoGAF

[Herpes Reasons]

Doesn't this show that it is?

Ja 2:14 . What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

its saying faith by itself cannot give you eternal life. which in most denomination/evangelical circles accepts.
i've seen this argument before. that this passage contradict's paul's doctrine of justification by faith through grace. The original KJV is distinctly different from the original greek manuscript. yes the KJV translated it perfectly, but missed the mark in the essence of the translation.
its really asking "This kind of faith can’t save him, right?"
its implying that faith by itself is shallow. that real faith produces fruits of its labor.

edit: which i would like to add why there are plenty of publications/retranslations of the original manuscript and staying clear from KJV. scholars are much more educated now then before.

 

[JGS]

James 2.20 isn't about salvation. its about about the fruits you produce through works because of faith.
Jdogmoney's argument is that salvation is only through grace by faith and not through works.
2 distinct topics.

This may be true semantically. It's about faith which is what's needed for salvation, thus no work, no faith = no salvation.

Also, it is grace or undeserved kindness which allows salvation. However the undeserved kindness is in play no matter how faithful or unfaithful. Due tO being imperfect, we fall short of salvation no matter how faithful. But those who have faith have a better shot. However, faith in God's son is not possible unless you act on it which means imitating him as much as possible (Miracles excluded)

Since it is at God's discretion that we are saved, not at our saying we're saved, and Christians know what it means to do that, Christians should feel more concerned about being moral upstanding citizens than a non-Christian.

 

[Kinitari]

I think where we stand here is a different view on humanity in general. I don't think humanity is truly good nor are they truly evil. I think most people fall within a mixture of the two.

What makes you feel that humanity is evil?

I think the better question is, in a 'hypothetical' universe where there is no god, would there still be good and evil? Would a universal morality exist without the universal boss-man that is God?

Take that to the next level by asking yourself a very popular highschool-level philosophy question, what is evil really? Selfishness? Maliciousness? Where is the line drawn? And is evil universal and unwavering? Do the actions matter more than the reason for the actions? Or vice versa?

 

[wRATH2x]

I think where we stand here is a different view on humanity in general. I don't think humanity is truly good nor are they truly evil. I think most people fall within a mixture of the two.

What makes you feel that humanity is evil?

It really depends on the person, I met both saints and devils in my life. But to be fair it wasn't exactly pure good or pure evil.

 

[wRATH2x]

I think the better question is, in a 'hypothetical' universe where there is no god, would there still be good and evil? Would a universal morality exist without the universal boss-man that is God?

Take that to the next level by asking yourself a very popular highschool-level philosophy question, what is evil really? Selfishness? Maliciousness? Where is the line drawn? And is evil universal and unwavering? Do the actions matter more than the reason for the actions? Or vice versa?

Yes there would, but it differs from the people themselves and their opinions.

 

[Kinitari]

Yes there would, but it differs from the people themselves and their opinions.

So you are saying yes there is a universal morality, and no it is not universal it is personal - at the same time? And that in a universe without God/Religion, 'Good' and 'Evil' would still exist?

Edit: I hafta go out running now, so please if you can do me a favour, elaborate more and I'll read when I get back. Why would there still be a universal standard for morality when the one standard used by religious people (God) would be gone, what would be the new measuring stick?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

So you are saying yes there is a universal morality, and no it is not universal it is personal - at the same time? And that in a universe without God/Religion, 'Good' and 'Evil' would still exist?

Edit: I hafta go out running now, so please if you can do me a favour, elaborate more and I'll read when I get back. Why would there still be a universal standard for morality when the one standard used by religious people (God) would be gone, what would be the new measuring stick?

The entire premise of good and evil (and our laws) is originally rooted in harming/not harming others. Which is based on our nervous system, primarily pain.

Even cavemen saw that causing hurt or pain on another was either going to result in a fight, death, or displeasure. It's an instinct to know that pain=bad and that instilling it on another means they're going to feel the same thing. In a world without pain, our ideas of right and wrong (and laws) would be different.

If aliens came to Earth, their 'right and wrong' would be different. But if they still were capable of feeling pain and weren't immortal, I'm sure they'd have a few similar norms to us regarding the way to treat others, etc.

 

[Shanadeus]

The entire premise of good and evil (and our laws) is originally rooted in harming/not harming others. Which is based on our nervous system, primarily pain.

Even cavemen saw that causing hurt or pain on another was either going to result in a fight, death, or displeasure. It's an instinct to know that pain=bad and that instilling it on another means they're going to feel the same thing. In a world without pain, our ideas of right and wrong (and laws) would be different.

If aliens came to Earth, their 'right and wrong' would be different. But if they still were capable of feeling pain and weren't immortal, I'm sure they'd have a few similar norms to us regarding the way to treat others, etc.

Or they'd wonder why we didn't inflict more pain upon each other.
I doubt we'll have any similar norms whatsoever with any alien beings that we encounter, unless they've evolved in a very similar environment.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Or they'd wonder why we didn't inflict more pain upon each other.
I doubt we'll have any similar norms whatsoever with any alien beings that we encounter, unless they've evolved in a very similar environment.

Many scientists would argue that the set up for life on earth would be very similar to the set up of life on another planet.

Intelligent life would evolve:

'ears' to hear sound manipulation, 'noses' to smell molecules, 'hands' for tool use, dna for gene differentiation, and basically a direct relationship with the building blocks of the universe. These are all survival traits gained through adaptation and sometimes forced by predators. And so long as they had a brain and were mostly symmetrical, I'd wager they'd have a nervous system too. Their gas and air percent content might be slightly different but still consisting of H, O, C, N, etc.

 

[JGS]

My personal view (Not religious since that adds more to the moral code), is that personal morality is stronger the closer you get to your family unit. It fades out the more strangers you run into. However, it seems to rise again when we see large problems like genocide, the African AIDS epidemic, Haiti, etc...

 

[jdogmoney]

Since it is at God's discretion that we are saved, not at our saying we're saved, and Christians know what it means to do that, Christians should feel more concerned about being moral upstanding citizens than a non-Christian.

Because they fear a spanking?

Surely it means more to do good because you want to do good.

 

[jdogmoney]

I understand your position, but it presupposes that human beings are simply advanced animals that evolved from primates, something I do not accept. As such, our presuppositions are so different that it's impossible for us to have an agreed upon foundation from which we can each make our cases.

Again, in line with an above response of mine, I believe that the basic nature of every human being is an evil one.

Why not?

 

[Shanadeus]

Many scientists would argue that the set up for life on earth would be very similar to the set up of life on another planet.

Intelligent life would evolve:

'ears' to hear sound manipulation, 'noses' to smell molecules, 'hands' for tool use, dna for gene differentiation, and basically a direct relationship with the building blocks of the universe. These are all survival traits gained through adaptation and sometimes forced by predators. And so long as they had a brain and were mostly symmetrical, I'd wager they'd have a nervous system too. Their gas and air percent content might be slightly different but still consisting of H, O, C, N, etc.

Only if you assume the conditions for life are extremely similar throughout the Universe. While we have no other example aside from the conditions life here on earth has arisen in, plenty of those traits aren't even a necessity among life here on earth - life that have the potential of becoming as intelligent as we are.

And there are plenty of hypothesized lifeforms that aren't based on DNA and have evolved on a water world with our athmosphere. The following are just examples of what scientists have thought up, and I'm sure there are plenty of other lifechemistries we haven't even thought of:

Perhaps the least unusual alternative biochemistry would be one with differing chirality of its biomolecules. In known Earth-based life, amino acids are almost universally of the L form and sugars are of the D form. Molecules of opposite chirality have identical chemical properties to their mirrored forms, so life that used D amino acids and/or L sugars may be possible; molecules of such a chirality, however, would be incompatible with organisms using the opposing chirality molecules.

The most commonly proposed basis for an alternative biochemical system is the silicon atom, since silicon has many chemical properties similar to carbon and is in the same periodic table group, the carbon group.

Nitrogen and phosphorus also offer possibilities as the basis for biochemical molecules. Like carbon, phosphorus can form long chain molecules on its own, which would potentially allow it to form complex macromolecules were it not so reactive. However, in combination with nitrogen, it can form much more stable covalent bonds and create a wide range of molecules, including rings (a class of compounds called phosphazenes).

Sulfur is also able to form long-chain molecules, but suffers from the same high reactivity problems that phosphorus and silanes do. The biological use of sulfur as an alternative to carbon is purely theoretical. However, the biological use of sulfur as an alternative to oxygen is widespread—strains of sulfur-reducing bacteria have been discovered in exotic locations on Earth, and also not so exotic locations, such as aging water systems.[8] These bacteria can utilize elemental sulfur instead of oxygen, reducing sulfur to hydrogen sulfide. Examples of this type of metabolism are green sulfur bacteria and purple sulfur bacteria. Examples of micro-organisms that metabolize elemental sulfur can be traced back 3.5 billion years on Earth.[9]

Arsenic, which is chemically similar to phosphorus, while poisonous for most Earth life, is incorporated into the biochemistry of some organisms.[5] Some marine algae incorporate arsenic into complex organic molecules such as arsenosugars and arsenobetaines. Fungi and bacteria can produce volatile methylated arsenic compounds. Arsenate reduction and arsenite oxidation have been observed in microbes (Chrysiogenes arsenatis).[6] Additionally, some prokaryotes can use arsenate as a terminal electron acceptor during anaerobic growth and some can utilize arsenite as an electron donor to generate energy. It has been speculated that the earliest life on Earth may have used arsenic in place of phosphorus in the backbone of its DNA.

And then you have alternative solvents such as ammonia, formamide, methanol, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen chloride; all that mightd support life.

And there might even be something like Interstellar dust-based life:

In 2007 V. N. Tsytovich and colleagues discovered the possibility of life-like behaviors being exhibited by dust particles suspended in a plasma, similar to conditions in interstellar space.[20][21] Computer models showed that when the dust became charged the particles could self-organize into microscopic helical structures capable of replicating themselves, interacting with other neighboring structures, and evolving into more stable forms.S

 

[Mgoblue201]

long quote

So you're going to ignore every single other poll on the site and focus on the least scientific of them - a poll of website visitors - as your grand proof, and even only 10% of them can deduce what should be eminently obvious? Your original statement anyway was, "There are very few YEC out there." This poll clearly shows 43% of respondents believe in a young Earth. In the 2005 NBC News poll, it was 44% of respondents who hold a literal six day interpretation. Every Gallup poll leading up to 2004 showed between 44-47% for a young Earth creation. You can find more on the internet. That doesn't sound like very few to me.

You can keep telling me that your views make sense, but that doesn't matter if we're not addressing more of these "apparent contradictions" in a more direct manner. If you would actually address these points about the creation order in a way that is a satisfactory, then we could test your viewpoints in a fair manner. Otherwise you're just screaming at me because I don't "get you" when you make no attempt to explain yourself.

No, I don't believe the Bible, but I once did, having been inculcated from a young age until I saw its contradictions drawn out and could no longer support them in good conscience. I know what many influential Christians believe and argue, and they have their own reasons that would almost make sense if they didn't contradict everything we know. One website, for instance, makes this argument:

The word for "day" in Genesis one is the Hebrew word yom. It can mean either a day (in the ordinary 24-our sense), the daylight portion (say about 12 hours) of an ordinary 24-hour day (i.e., day as distinct from night), or, occasionally, an indefinite period of time (e.g.. "In the time of the Judges" or "In the day of the Lord"). Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word yom is never used to refer to a definite long period of time with specific beginning and end points. Furthermore, it is important to note that even when the word yom is used in the indefinite sense, it is clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning of the word day is not intended.

...

Indeed, this is why the author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to properly define the word day the first time it appears. In Genesis 1:4, we read that God separated the "light from the darkness." Then in Genesis 1:5 we read, God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. In other words, the terms were being very carefully defined. The first time the word day is used, it is defined as the light to distinguish it from the darkness called night. Genesis 1:5 then finishes off with, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is the same phrase used for each of the other five days, and shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (i.e., periods of light and periods of darkness). The periods of light on each of the six days were when God did his work, and the periods of darkness were when God did no creative work.

This is coauthored by Ken Ham, one of the founders of the vile little creationist museum which gets something like half a million visitors a year. You can debate this or not, but you can't say that I'm not using evidence within the Bible that is actually supported by believers.

I'm not totally sure what your point is on the bird topic, but I'll explain myself. If you try to interpret the story as a literal creation, then the entire account contradicts everything we know about the history of the universe. But if you do try to interpret it according to current scientific theories, then you run up against the bird problem: birds evolved after reptiles, but according to the creation account, they appeared before reptiles. Either way it's a contradiction, and the logical conclusion is that the author really had no idea about anything, rather than receiving dictation from an all-knowing God.

Lastly, you have to be careful with the word gap. We generally know how those groups evolved. For instance, there is an entire suborder called reptiliomorph which generally has characteristics between an amphibian and a reptile. What is agreed upon as the earliest reptile ever found, the species Hylonomus lyelli, still has certain amphibian-like characteristics. These evolved from early amphibians. Shortly after reptiles evolved, four separate lines split apart. One of them led to modern turtles, another modern reptiles. One led to mammals, becoming therapsids and then cynodonts, which are perhaps a form of proto-mammal. By this time, important mammalian characteristics were already emerging. I haven't studied bird evolution very well, but from what I understand, they are understood to a lesser degree because while they evolved from theropod dinosaurs, they could go on any one of two separate branches. However, enough winged, feathered theropods have been discovered to elucidate some of the connections.

I really don't want to get into evolution. On the contrary to what DeusTrinitas said, this isn't about evolution. It's about the veracity of the creation story, and I'd like to keep that focus.

 

[JGS]

Because they fear a spanking?

Surely it means more to do good because you want to do good.

Of course, but the issue is whether they need to in order to be saved. The answer is yes.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Only if you assume the conditions for life are extremely similar throughout the Universe. While we have no other example aside from the conditions life here on earth has arisen in, plenty of those traits aren't even a necessity among life here on earth - life that have the potential of becoming as intelligent as we are.

And there are plenty of hypothesized lifeforms that aren't based on DNA and have evolved on a water world with our athmosphere. The following are just examples of what scientists have thought up, and I'm sure there are plenty of other lifechemistries we haven't even thought of:

And then you have alternative solvents such as ammonia, formamide, methanol, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen chloride; all that mightd support life.

Very true, and I had only heard of a couple of those examples, that's fascinating to read.

Most of those elements would have a very hard time remaining stable in a complex organism, and were primarily in ancient/simple life. Unless their homeworld was heavily structured, friendly, and stable around it (as ours is with carbon), and didn't have water, I'm not sure if that's as likely as being fairly similar to life here.

IMO it still just comes down to if they had a nervous system and felt pain, they'd establish a few general good/bad ideas at least relatively comparable to ours.

 

[Shanadeus]

Very true, and I had only heard of a couple of those examples, that's fascinating to read.

Most of those elements would have a very hard time remaining stable in a complex organism, and were primarily in ancient/simple life. Unless their homeworld was heavily structured, friendly, and stable around it (as ours is with carbon), and didn't have water, I'm not sure if that's as likely as being fairly similar to life here.

IMO it still just comes down to if they had a nervous system and felt pain, they'd establish a few general good/bad ideas at least relatively comparable to ours.

They'd in all likelihood have some sort of system analogous to the nervous system life here on earth posses (Collections of neurons), but for all we know they mightn't have any specialized cells or other analogous parts for communication within the body.

They might be creatures with it's intelligence arising from decentralized cell to cell communication - essentially all the cells/parts in their body filling the function of the neuron in ours. They might not even need pain (which purpose is to motivate us to withdraw from damaging or potentially damaging situations, protect the damaged body part while it heals, and avoid those situations in the future) depending on how safe their environment is.

That's of course very speculating and I personally believe that any lifeforms with some sort of defense mechanism from hostile lifeforms or hostile environment (which they'd require or go extinct depending on environment) would probably evolve some sort of mechanism to avoid danger in the first place - which could be something similar to pain.

And yeah, it's really fascinating to read about possible alternative shapes of life.
That there could be a living and sentient being that's made out of dust is absolutely amazing:

Computer models showed that when the dust became charged the particles could self-organize into microscopic helical structures capable of replicating themselves, interacting with other neighboring structures, and evolving into more stable forms.

 

[wayward archer]

I understand your position, but it presupposes that human beings are simply advanced animals that evolved from primates, something I do not accept. As such, our presuppositions are so different that it's impossible for us to have an agreed upon foundation from which we can each make our cases.

Again, in line with an above response of mine, I believe that the basic nature of every human being is an evil one.

I accept your position as well (although I do not agree). I grew up going to church twice a week and was taught the exact same thing, so I definitely understand where you are coming from. Hope you have a nice Easter weekend.

 

[JGS]

So you're going to ignore every single other poll on the site and focus on the least scientific of them - a poll of website visitors - as your grand proof, and even only 10% of them can deduce what should be eminently obvious? Your original statement anyway was, "There are very few YEC out there." This poll clearly shows 43% of respondents believe in a young Earth. In the 2005 NBC News poll, it was 44% of respondents who hold a literal six day interpretation. Every Gallup poll leading up to 2004 showed between 44-47% for a young Earth creation. You can find more on the internet. That doesn't sound like very few to me.

I didn't see too many numbers on the age of the earth, just the age of man. I'll look again.

However, my supposedly oddball veiw hardly represents a miniscule portion of believers out there. A large chunk of religious folk don't believe in YEC. I'm sorry that blows your mind.

You can keep telling me that your views make sense, but that doesn't matter if we're not addressing more of these "apparent contradictions" in a more direct manner. If you would actually address these points about the creation order in a way that is a satisfactory, then we could test your viewpoints in a fair manner. Otherwise you're just screaming at me because I don't "get you" when you make no attempt to explain yourself.

Satisfactory for who? You? Do your own homework. It's not my goal in life to convince you of my beliefs. If anything, you care too much about mine. If anything, do homework on your own views and don't bring them up again until you can prove them the way you expect me to.

long quote

I'm not a creationist so a creationist blog has about as much interest to me as an atheist one! :lol

Yohm can mean different time lengths and does not hold fast at all to a rigid 24 hour period.

Is the creationist musuem supposed to be proof of something? There are probably 100 million Christians in an 8 hour vicinity of the museum. I'm less than an hour away and have no plans to go. There are plenty of people in my area that laugh at the musuem and it gets very little coverage outside of the ones that want to go and the ones that make fun of them.

Something tells me The Field Museum in Chicago or even the Natural Musuem up the street in Cincinnati have much to worry about.

I'm not totally sure what your point is on the bird topic, but I'll explain myself. If you try to interpret the story as a literal creation, then the entire account contradicts everything we know about the history of the universe. But if you do try to interpret it according to current scientific theories, then you run up against the bird problem: birds evolved after reptiles, but according to the creation account, they appeared before reptiles. Either way it's a contradiction, and the logical conclusion is that the author really had no idea about anything, rather than receiving dictation from an all-knowing God.

That was my point. 24 hour a day creation makes it impossible to look at it from a scientific perspective. From my view it's silly to fault the order of bird life when they lump all the land animals together from reptiles to mammals. Since he is the one controlling the matter, he could make adjustments to his CREATION cycle anyway. You can't possibly be so naive to think that humans have figured out all manners of how life got here can you?

I really don't want to get into evolution. On the contrary to what DeusTrinitas said, this isn't about evolution. It's about the veracity of the creation story, and I'd like to keep that focus.

It's not even about that since I have said that it doesn't matter how you believe creation. I'm just a Christian who believes in creation so of course I favor my view. What matters is that it makes more sense regardless of how you believe it over life starting on it's own which never happens. For all we know every single religion ever existing has it wrong. So what? It does not add one ounce of credibility to abiogenesis.

 

[jdogmoney]

You keep saying that, but you don't ever say why abiogenesis isn't credible.

 

[JGS]

You keep saying that, but you don't ever say why abiogenesis isn't credible.

I'm just a dumb religious guy. The main problem is you don't give credibility to it just by saying that it is. If it's scientific, it needs science, not just just a compare/contrast scenario. Just because it has some things going for it over creation (by your view), does not make it credible.

You've shown that you don't feel creation is credible, so why should I extend that to the least factual of all scientific theories out there?

 

[legend166]

JGS, if good works are required to be saved, what about the thief on the cross? He didn't have time to do any good works, yet was obviously saved.

 

[Expendable.]

usually post this in a film thread, but I can't find an appropriate one. :lol Well, here is our weekly Top Ten; Religious Films.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I didn't see too many numbers on the age of the earth, just the age of man. I'll look again.

The very poll that you quoted talks about the age of the universe. And while the other polls merely talk about the age of man, an affirmation of a recent one time creation of man is usually code for literal creationism. For instance, an NBC News poll found that 44% of respondents believed in a six day creation, which is in line with the other polls.

However, my supposedly oddball veiw hardly represents a miniscule portion of believers out there. A large chunk of religious folk don't believe in YEC. I'm sorry that blows your mind.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Of course large swaths of people hold these views. I have always said that they could and have not said otherwise in this debate. What I am arguing is that such a view makes no sense. You're changing the issue from what it was: whether "very few" Christians hold a literal six day interpretation of special, one-time creation. That has nothing to do with whether large amounts of people hold another view.

Satisfactory for who? You? Do your own homework. It's not my goal in life to convince you of my beliefs. If anything, you care too much about mine. If anything, do homework on your own views and don't bring them up again until you can prove them the way you expect me to.

So you're just going to bang on me for failing to understand your views when you can't even be bothered to tell me why there aren't any contradictions in your views? If you don't want to debate, then don't debate. But don't tell me that your views are perfectly coherent without giving me reasons why. I've heard "do your own homework" from many people, and it's usually code words for "I can't prove what I'm saying." Look, I'm asking you about these contradictions so that I can give you a chance to clear everything up. My proof is a simple logical model. For instance: the Earth originally formed as a sphere of rock and hard materials. The Bible says that land wasn't created until after water. Therefore, it must be wrong. That's my logic. There's nothing else to say unless you respond to the point. What else would you want from me?

I'm not a creationist so a creationist blog has about as much interest to me as an atheist one! :lol

Yohm can mean different time lengths and does not hold fast at all to a rigid 24 hour period.

Is the creationist musuem supposed to be proof of something? There are probably 100 million Christians in an 8 hour vicinity of the museum. I'm less than an hour away and have no plans to go. There are plenty of people in my area that laugh at the musuem and it gets very little coverage outside of the ones that want to go and the ones that make fun of them.

Something tells me The Field Museum in Chicago or even the Natural Musuem up the street in Cincinnati have much to worry about.

I didn't post the entry for your amusement. What's the point of telling me that it means different lengths of time when the point of the blog was to answer that accusation? What's the point of arguing if you're not going to address the points? The entry said that yom only means long periods of time when there is no definitive beginning or end. Otherwise, it typically means a day. Furthermore, within the creation story there is the clear implication that it is talking about an actual day and night period. I'm okay with you defending yourself, but answer the damned points. You don't answer anything, then wonder why people are getting snippy.

The museum isn't any more proof than the polls I posted, but you seem to be willfully neglecting the point that a sizable portion of this country still believes in that crap.

That was my point. 24 hour a day creation makes it impossible to look at it from a scientific perspective. From my view it's silly to fault the order of bird life when they lump all the land animals together from reptiles to mammals. Since he is the one controlling the matter, he could make adjustments to his CREATION cycle anyway. You can't possibly be so naive to think that humans have figured out all manners of how life got here can you?

This is not about trying to turn the Bible into some kind of damned science book. It's about basic factual information. Science is just a method of inquiry. If I say that I need oxygen to breath, then I am not just looking at it from a scientific perspective. I am stating something that is actually true. Just by listing something out of order, the Bible is wrong. I'm not sure what the rest of that is even supposed to mean. Birds evolved after land animals. The Bible states that birds were created before any land animals. It's wrong. And I can say that about a half dozen other aspects of the story.

It's not even about that since I have said that it doesn't matter how you believe creation. I'm just a Christian who believes in creation so of course I favor my view. What matters is that it makes more sense regardless of how you believe it over life starting on it's own which never happens. For all we know every single religion ever existing has it wrong. So what? It does not add one ounce of credibility to abiogenesis.

You're going in more run arounds. What do you want here? Several people have posted links to experiments in which complex carbon and macro molecules have been seen to arise from conditions mirroring the early Earth. Why do you keep saying that there is no proof when there is? You attempted to discredit it, but that fell by the wayside before you went back to this sheer incredulity, so I have no idea where this argument is or what you want from it.

 

[JGS]

JGS, if good works are required to be saved, what about the thief on the cross? He didn't have time to do any good works, yet was obviously saved.

This is why it's important to see things involving undeserved kindness as being at the discretion of God.

The thief was not Christian to begin with. He didn't even have time to be a disciple. Jesus, in imitation of his father and also by the power given to him, forgave the man right then and there without the thief having to do a thing. Given the circumstances, there wasn't much he could do but ask Jesus to remember him which Jesus promised he would. Undeserved kindness always involves mercy.

This could be the case with others as well. The Bible speaks of a resurrection of the righteous AND unrighteous, so we shouldn't assume everyone who is non-Christian is doomed. It's also why real Christians don't condemn anyone outside the church/congregation. It's not their place.

However, since Christians do know what they need to do, they have a greater responsibility to practice what they preach. Since liars and lazy good for nothings don't inherit God's Kingdom, this would mean that they would need to work hard not to exhibit those traits.

 

[jdogmoney]

I'm just a dumb religious guy. The main problem is you don't give credibility to it just by saying that it is. If it's scientific, it needs science, not just just a compare/contrast scenario. Just because it has some things going for it over creation (by your view), does not make it credible.

You've shown that you don't feel creation is credible, so why should I extend that to the least factual of all scientific theories out there?

Because creationism isn't science. Even if it happened, there's no way to test it or repeat it, so there's no way to look at it from a scientific standpoint.

Abiogenesis, however, has merit, by virtue of the fact that it can be supported by evidence. It's possible for non-organic molecules to react chemically in such a way to start life. We just haven't done it yet. The point remains, if you don't think that the principles behind the theory are sound, you have to give a reason why it's not credible.

 

[JGS]

Because creationism isn't science. Even if it happened, there's no way to test it or repeat it, so there's no way to look at it from a scientific standpoint.

Abiogenesis, however, has merit, by virtue of the fact that it can be supported by evidence. It's possible for non-organic molecules to react chemically in such a way to start life. We just haven't done it yet. The point remains, if you don't think that the principles behind the theory are sound, you have to give a reason why it's not credible.

Who said creation is a science?

Science & spirituality do not have to reconcile with each other and don't have to disprove each other. The two can co-exist just fine.

 

[Mumei]

You're going in more run arounds. What do you want here? Several people have posted links to experiments in which complex carbon and macro molecules have been seen to arise from conditions mirroring the early Earth. Why do you keep saying that there is no proof when there is? You attempted to discredit it, but that fell by the wayside before you went back to this sheer incredulity, so I have no idea where this argument is or what you want from it.

I must have missed the links earlier in the topic. Would you mind re-linking them?

And JGS, the argument from personal incredulity isn't going to work in this topic, yet you keep trying to make it.

 

[jdogmoney]

Who said creation is a science?

You asked why I don't view creation as credible. I answered.

You haven't answered me, though.

 

[The Librarian]

You asked why I don't view creation as credible. I answered.

You haven't answered me, though.

That's not how he rolls, man.

 

[JGS]

I must have missed the links earlier in the topic. Would you mind re-linking them?

And JGS, the argument from personal incredulity isn't going to work in this topic, yet you keep trying to make it.

What do you mean?

 

[Wickerbasket]

What do you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

 

[J-Rod]

I may be late for the particular subtopic, but I think it is futile to try and reconcile science with the Bible. Even if somehow creation did fit the scientific evidence and evolution or whatever else is discarded, you still have a lot of other supernatural events in the Bible that doesn't fit observable reality. Seas do not part, people who are dead for 3 days do not come back to life, and so on and so forth.

From the perspective of a believer, I think it's dangerous to write off the creation story as allegorical. Reason being is that I think it is a slippery slope. Once you question that, then you start to question other things up to the point where Christ wasn't really the son of God and was not resurrected, because again, it's just as contrary to science and/or visible reality as the creation story. And once you get to that point, then I think you have missed the core message and the minimum that determines your salvation. Maybe some people can just write that part off as a story and go through life perfectly fine with the rest, but I think most would not. At some point of constantly evaluating it, I decided all things put together, I believe it, so I might as well quit spending all my time pretending to question it and start acting on it some. Not that I do not reevaluate it constantly, but I'm so far into the deep end now, that I am to the point let the world be a lie and God be true if must be so. I'm sure that last part will disturb many GAFers.

Personally, I think the Bible is pretty straightforward, and I never really saw much room for significantly different interpretations. Certainly, at the very least, I believe the most crucial parts are plain enough. A lot of people do interpret it their own way to justify the way they want to live, and it's unfortunate, but I don't think anyone should make their decisions about God based solely on the actions of His modern self-proclaimed ambassadors. To me, those people are trying to make God in their own image, and try to make God to be a Stepford House-God, and I don't understand how people who do that can really believe it. I also feel it is the most damaging, and perhaps that is why God isn't too fond of hypocrites.

 

[Shanadeus]

I may be late for the particular subtopic, but I think it is futile to try and reconcile science with the Bible. Even if somehow creation did fit the scientific evidence and evolution or whatever else is discarded, you still have a lot of other supernatural events in the Bible that doesn't fit observable reality. Seas do not part, people who are dead for 3 days do not come back to life, and so on and so forth.

From the perspective of a believer, I think it's dangerous to write off the creation story as allegorical. Reason being is that I think it is a slippery slope. Once you question that, then you start to question other things up to the point where Christ wasn't really the son of God and was not resurrected, because again, it's just as contrary to science and/or visible reality as the creation story. And once you get to that point, then I think you have missed the core message and the minimum that determines your salvation. Maybe some people can just write that part off as a story and go through life perfectly fine with the rest, but I think most would not. At some point of constantly evaluating it, I decided all things put together, I believe it, so I might as well quit spending all my time pretending to question it and start acting on it some. Not that I do not reevaluate it constantly, but I'm so far into the deep end now, that I am to the point let the world be a lie and God be true if must be so. I'm sure that last part will disturb many GAFers.

Personally, I think the Bible is pretty straightforward, and I never really saw much room for significantly different interpretations. Certainly, at the very least, I believe the most crucial parts are plain enough. A lot of people do interpret it their own way to justify the way they want to live, and it's unfortunate, but I don't think anyone should make their decisions about God based solely on the actions of His modern self-proclaimed ambassadors. To me, those people are trying to make God in their own image, and try to make God to be a Stepford House-God, and I don't understand how people who do that can really believe it. I also feel it is the most damaging, and perhaps that is why God isn't too fond of hypocrites.

The bolded is rather disturbing, but at least you are honest with your feelings and beliefs.
And I respect your honesty.

 

[J-Rod]

The bolded is rather disturbing, but at least you are honest with your feelings and beliefs.
And I respect your honesty.

Thanks, that is nice of you to say considering how you feel about the beliefs. I know it is crazy.

Consistency is probably the most important thing to me when I call myself thinking through something logically, so that's probably one reason why I go that far. Probably also why I agree strongly with Greg Graffin that most Christians today have very muddled beliefs. Whatever backwards logic I used to get where I am at, I think it was at least consistent.

 

[jdogmoney]

J-Rod, I appreciate your candidness. I don't agree with you, but I'm glad you're being forthright.

And this isn't directly addressed to you, but your post reminded me of a question I've never had the chutzpah to ask someone in person. If the Resurrection weren't literal, would you discount Jesus' message?

 

[Monocle]

Okay, let me go a little bit further--what, based on empirical observation, leads you to conclude that a majority of individuals are altruistic, rather than selfish, in nature? You seem to believe that every human has a "naturally occurring instinct to help others," but is that necessarily the case? What if there were a society in which helping others was frowned upon and people were unabashedly selfish, yet the society still flourished?

Show me a society in which selfishness is the modus operandi. You won't find one, because societies rely on at least a basic form of cooperation—they cannot develop and persist without it.

Cooperation is a widely observed phenomenon in countless forms of life, not just humans. The reason is simple: natural selection favors certain behaviors that benefit groups, because the success of groups is shared by its constituents. That is to say, the better off the group, the better off most of the individuals within it, and thus the fitter they are to reproduce and ensure the survival of their offspring. That's the bare-bones explanation. If you want to get into the intricacies of human nature proper, we'll have to delve deeper into psychology. There things get more complicated.

 

[JGS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

I'm not doing this. I will believe abiogenesis when it's proven. Until such time, I am simply saying it's impossible now because science says it's impossible.

These experiments that are brought are more difficult and less successful than one is led to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[B]As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

They haven't even gotten the best methods down. Further, we are only talking aboiut the basic. Forget the fact that science proves it impossible for a fish to become a bird, they can't get past the amino acid. Believe me, it's not personal incredulity.

I'll be happy to look at other links if I have to. I think someone had posted one before but I can't locate it now.

 

[JGS]

You asked why I don't view creation as credible. I answered.

You haven't answered me, though.

Answered what?

EDIT: I just reread this. When did I ask this? I'm drawing a blank and I've been talking way too much. I thought I said a few times I wasn't concerned about your stance on creation.

 

[J-Rod]

J-Rod, I appreciate your candidness. I don't agree with you, but I'm glad you're being forthright.

And this isn't directly addressed to you, but your post reminded me of a question I've never had the chutzpah to ask someone in person. If the Resurrection weren't literal, would you discount Jesus' message?

I hope I'd still think it is a good message, but I would just think it is someone's personal view of right and wrong and no better than my own or anyone else's. I'd think he wouldn't have the authority to say what it is good or bad, because I think if he wasn't God incarnate, then it would just be a relative view rather than an absolute one. I'd probably think he was crazy too.

That's probably a reason why I believe it all, because I have a need for morality to be absolute, else I feel I'm not consistent. I can't find an absolute one in nature I'm satisfied with, because a pragmatic argument can conflict with the standpoint of a bioethics one. And I can't accept moral relativity, because then I don't think we don't have the right to say someone's behavior is wrong, no matter how horrific. So even if I find something in the Bible that I'm personally inclined to feel is morally wrong on the part of God or Jesus, I think He is right and I am wrong, that His definition should be the gold standard, and if not His, it at least certainly shouldn't be my personal one.

 

[soul creator]

I hope I'd still think it is a good message, but I would just think it is someone's personal view of right and wrong and no better than my own or anyone else's. I'd think he wouldn't have the authority to say what it is good or bad, because I think if he wasn't God incarnate, then it would just be a relative view rather than an absolute one. I'd probably think he was crazy too.

That's probably a reason why I believe it all, because I have a need for morality to be absolute, else I feel I'm not consistent. I can't find an absolute one in nature I'm satisfied with, because a pragmatic argument can conflict with the standpoint of a bioethics one. And I can't accept moral relativity, because then I don't think we don't have the right to say someone's behavior is wrong, no matter how horrific. So even if I find something in the Bible that I'm personally inclined to feel is morally wrong on the part of God or Jesus, I think He is right and I am wrong, that His definition should be the gold standard, and if not His, it at least certainly shouldn't be my personal one.

 

[GhaleonQ]

From the perspective of a believer, I think it's dangerous to write off the creation story as allegorical. Reason being is that I think it is a slippery slope. Once you question that, then you start to question other things up to the point where Christ wasn't really the son of God and was not resurrected, because again, it's just as contrary to science and/or visible reality as the creation story. And once you get to that point, then I think you have missed the core message and the minimum that determines your salvation.

You miss the easiest criticism. An allegorical creation decimates the concept of original sin (that is, 1 of the most tightly-held bits of Christian theology since the 200s). The rest of the Bible is nearly nonsensical without it.

 

[soul creator]

You miss the easiest criticism. An allegorical creation decimates the concept of original sin (that is, 1 of the most tightly-held bits of Christian theology since the 200s). The rest of the Bible is nearly nonsensical without it.

This is something I've always wondered about as well. If there's no "original sin", what is there to be "saved" from?

 

[Shanadeus]

This is something I've always wondered about as well. If there's no "original sin", what is there to be "saved" from?

I suppose some form of inherent evilness within human beings, something we are either born with or inevitably acquire as we are influenced by the evils of our surroundings.

 

[JGS]

The very poll that you quoted talks about the age of the universe. And while the other polls merely talk about the age of man, an affirmation of a recent one time creation of man is usually code for literal creationism. For instance, an NBC News poll found that 44% of respondents believed in a six day creation, which is in line with the other polls.

Well, yeah, that's why I picked that one out. However, I thought I concede the point to an extent. There are still quite a few of us who are not YEC.

So you're just going to bang on me for failing to understand your views when you can't even be bothered to tell me why there aren't any contradictions in your views? If you don't want to debate, then don't debate. But don't tell me that your views are perfectly coherent without giving me reasons why. I've heard "do your own homework" from many people, and it's usually code words for "I can't prove what I'm saying." Look, I'm asking you about these contradictions so that I can give you a chance to clear everything up. My proof is a simple logical model. For instance: the Earth originally formed as a sphere of rock and hard materials. The Bible says that land wasn't created until after water. Therefore, it must be wrong. That's my logic. There's nothing else to say unless you respond to the point. What else would you want from me?

You haven't brought up a contradiction I haven't addressed to your dissatisfaction. Are you saying I'm supposed to make my own contradictions up now?

I didn't post the entry for your amusement. What's the point of telling me that it means different lengths of time when the point of the blog was to answer that accusation? What's the point of arguing if you're not going to address the points? The entry said that yom only means long periods of time when there is no definitive beginning or end. Otherwise, it typically means a day. Furthermore, within the creation story there is the clear implication that it is talking about an actual day and night period. I'm okay with you defending yourself, but answer the damned points. You don't answer anything, then wonder why people are getting snippy.

The museum isn't any more proof than the polls I posted, but you seem to be willfully neglecting the point that a sizable portion of this country still believes in that crap.

Of all places you could have went a creationist blog is about as useful for defining day as an atheist trying to tell a religious person what they believe. The word is is used throughout the Bibel to denote either a literal day or an era/period of time. Again why would a God who had no beginning or end all of a sudden need to feel pressured to finish the job by 6:00 evening time?

I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's basically an is/is not argument and I had to break one of those up with my kids so it's silly for me to engage in it.

This is not about trying to turn the Bible into some kind of damned science book. It's about basic factual information. Science is just a method of inquiry. If I say that I need oxygen to breath, then I am not just looking at it from a scientific perspective. I am stating something that is actually true. Just by listing something out of order, the Bible is wrong. I'm not sure what the rest of that is even supposed to mean. Birds evolved after land animals. The Bible states that birds were created before any land animals. It's wrong. And I can say that about a half dozen other aspects of the story.

You are linking science with creation, something that at least starts miraculously. What do want me to say? That you know for a certainty that birds came after ALL land animals? Fine. But what does that have to do with creation? The simple answer is God created the bird first. However, I don't want to be flippant about it, so assume there was a misunderstanding from the writer. For some strange reason, I kept believing in God afterward.

You're going in more run arounds. What do you want here? Several people have posted links to experiments in which complex carbon and macro molecules have been seen to arise from conditions mirroring the early Earth. Why do you keep saying that there is no proof when there is? You attempted to discredit it, but that fell by the wayside before you went back to this sheer incredulity, so I have no idea where this argument is or what you want from it.

I can't find the link to the manmade experiments proving how life got here without an intelligence guiding it. I'll look for the several links, but they are going to all be the same because they always are.

If you did not keep responding I would never have mentioned creation or abiogenesis again, yet this blow up is my fault? I apologize.

However, for the life of me I simply do not understand the big deal.

Does my view make me dangerous? If so, how?
Are you trying to help me?
Do you just like to argue?
Are you happier than me?
Do you think I am miserable in my delusions?

Most of these are rhetorical except for the first one.

 

[jdogmoney]

since 2009

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/448...origin-of-life-often-confused-with-evolution/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309104434.htm

(I think this was the one posted earlier

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

How does science say this is impossible, precisely?

 

[J-Rod]

Just so I don't make you too ;(, here is a few bulletpoints that we probably do agree on and that might ease your mind a little bit.

-I don't by any stretch believe that an Atheist or non-Christian is immoral or unable to be moral. I believe there plenty if not more non-Christians living higher moral lifestyles than Christians.

-God doesn't hate "fags". Gay marriage should be legalized at the federal level and the states shouldn't have a say in it and just eat it.

-Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems. (though of course I'd say the root of all problems are in ourselves, nevertheless on the surface, wars are being fought over religion.)

-Another person sins are no greater than my own. If anything I'm a chief among sinners, and I'm also a liar, a fool, and hypocrite. And not to say that just because da Bible tells me soo and because it tells us to deny yourself, but because it is just a matter of fact.

I wanted to say that, because I could see what I've said could easily make someone think I'm a crazy asshole instead of just crazy.

You miss the easiest criticism. An allegorical creation decimates the concept of original sin (that is, 1 of the most tightly-held bits of Christian theology since the 200s). The rest of the Bible is nearly nonsensical without it.

You're right. And I think there is probably even more criticisms in addition to both. It just turns into a mess, and if you're honest with yourself, and apply the same logic across the rest of the book, then you should not to believe any of it.

 

[JGS]

usually post this in a film thread, but I can't find an appropriate one. :lol Well, here is our weekly Top Ten; Religious Films.

The ones on the list that I both saw and liked a lot:

10. History of the World: Part One (1981) (dir. Mel Brooks)- Mel Brooks last funny movie to me.
9. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (dir. Steven Spielberg)-It is my favorite movie of all time, but I had no idea Raiders of the Lost Ark was a Christian movie. I guess the Nazis claimed to be Christian.
3. Doubt (2008) (dir. John Patrick Shanley) - So good and it's a shame it didn't win something last year.
2. The Matrix (1999) (dir. Andy & Lana Wachowski)-Woah
1. There Will Be Blood (2008) (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)- I've abandoned my child!

 

[jdogmoney]

The ones on the list that I both saw and liked a lot:

10. History of the World: Part One (1981) (dir. Mel Brooks)- Mel Brooks last funny movie to me.
9. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (dir. Steven Spielberg)-It is my favorite movie of all time, but I had no idea Raiders of the Lost Ark was a Christian movie. I guess the Nazis claimed to be Christian.
3. Doubt (2008) (dir. John Patrick Shanley) - So good and it's a shame it didn't win something last year.
2. The Matrix (1999) (dir. Andy & Lana Wachowski)-Woah
1. There Will Be Blood (2008) (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)- I've abandoned my child!

Dogma is one of my favorite films.

You probably wouldn't like it.

Oh, yeah, answers PLZ.

 

[GhaleonQ]

usually post this in a film thread, but I can't find an appropriate one. :lol Well, here is our weekly Top Ten; Religious Films.

http://artsandfaith.com/t100 Much better. I think you were doing American-only, though. No Coens, though?