Posts
From Edward
Introduction
The first division of the sacred canon of the Old Testament is generally designated as the Torah (i.e, the Law.) The noun torah is from a root yarah, "to throw" or "to shoot," and means "direction," "law", "instruction." As a designation of the first five books of the Bible, the word is employed in a more restricted sense to stress the legal element which forms so great a part of these books. This usage does not exclude the narrative or historical sections, but rather includes them, since they form the fitting background or framework for the legislation.1 These first five books are also known as the Pentateuch. The work Pentateuch is derived from the Greek word pentateuchos, meaning "a compilation of five" or "five-volumed [book]." ... Origen, a third-century church father, was the first to give the name Pentateuch to these five books of Moses.2
Genesis
The Jews designated the book according to its first word, B'reshith ("In the Beginning"). Also in Talmudic times it was also called "Book of the Creation of the World". The title "Genesis" us from the LXX rendering of 2:4a, "This is the book of the geneseos of heaven and earth," The word means "origin," "source," "generation," and has been adopted by most translations as the title of the book.3
This first book of the Bible is a history of the creation of this world and it's first inhabitants and continues up until the Hebrews are brought into Egypt. We have learned about the perfect paradise that God had created for man, and mans rebellion against the one rule God placed on man, don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 4 Man grows and populates the earth but becomes exceedingly wicked. So bad man has become that God decides to wipe them out, all except one family. Noah found grace with God 5 and was saved from this disaster.
There are some people that believe that the flood was local and only in the Mesopotamian valley. However in the Bible it records "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." emphasis mine. 6 This only being local brings in more problems than it solves. And the people had to be really stupid, because all they would have to do was move to survive it. Also if you look around the globe you see evidence of a global flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide.7 Depending on what worldview you look at the evidence will determine the interpretation that you get from those evidences.
After the flood man rebels again and won't go forth and replenish the whole world. So God confuses their languages thus giving them a reason to disperse and fill the whole earth. There is a solution for every problem. :-D
Granted there is the "Tablet Theory" that suggests that portions of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets by men who personally experienced the events described. The tablets were later compiled by Moses.8 I think this is more plausible than the JEDP hypothesis.
The author of Genesis wrote the events because he believed that they really happened. He also wanted his readers to believe that they had happened. It's interesting there are scholars that stoutly insist that the biblical writer was wrong -- that the events in Genesis 1-11 never happened, but the meaning they gave to "history" is so valuable we need to extract it and apply it to present life situations.
Here one cannot but pose a question: If the meaning the biblical writer proposed for history led him to construct, intentionally or naively, a past that never happened, may not this same "meaning" lead later writers to abuse the past by talking about "events" that never happened? And if we adopt the meaning of history found in Genesis 1-11, or any other part of the Bible are we not likely to build a totally incorrect picture of events happening today?9
Exodus
The book of Exodus was called by the Jews after its opening words, we'elleh shemoth ("And these are the names"), or simply shemoth ("names"). The LXX designated it, according to its central theme, Exodos (the word appears in Ex. 19:1), and the Vulgate, Exodus.10
The book of Exodus is the link between the preparatory history that is contained in Genesis and the remaining books of the Law. The Hebrew children have a new Pharaoh that did not remember Joseph11, and the Hebrews having grown to such a size that it brings concern to Pharaoh and he decides to deal harshly with them12. Moses is born put into a basket and sent down the river. Pharaohs daughter finds him, and decides to keep him. Moses get's older knows about his past, sees an Egyptian smiting one of his Hebrew brethren. Moses thinking he was alone and nobody looking decided to take out the Egyptian. However the second day he goes out and learns that someone was watching him. This causes Moses to panic and run for his life.13 Pharaoh wanted him dead now as well.
Moses spends some time tending sheep and then spies a burning bush. Upon his investigation God speaks to Moses from the bush. I know Bruce mentioned something about God being in Heaven (i was being to lazy to fetch the reference, then thought better of it. :-D ). In Exodus 3:8 God says "I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians... I know late answer. :-D
After some lengthy dialogue Moses agrees to go up to Pharaoh and demand the people be set free. It takes 10 plagues climaxing in the killing of the first born before Pharaoh releases the Hebrews.
The Hebrews are on their way out of Egypt and come to the Red Sea. Now some people say this is interpreted wrong and should be the Sea of Reeds or Reed sea. However i guess if you look in the right place and seek the truth it will be revealed. There is a place in the Gulf of Aqaba where evidence of the crossing of Moses and the Hebrews have been discovered.14 I find when it comes to believing the Bible or man, as history has shown me, the Bible has not lost yet. :-D
The Hebrew children make it across the Red Sea and to Mt. Sinai. The people are now ready to be organized as a theocratic nation, and hence must receive the legislation necessary for such organization. This legislation consists of three parts: that given at Mt. Sinai (Exodus, Leviticus), that given in the wilderness wanderings (Numbers), and that delivered in the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy). The remainder of Exodus (i.e., 20-40) concerns that legislation given by God to Israel at Mt. Sinai.15
The Commandments Exodus 20
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;
- Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
- Honour thy father and they mother:
- Thou shalt not kill
- Thou shalt not commit adultery.
- Thou shalt not steal
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour. AKA no lying
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Which of these commandments don't you like and why?
Leviticus
Leviticus the third book of Moses, opens with the words "And he called" (way yiqra'), and is so designated by the Jews. In Talmudic times it was also called Law of the Priests (torath kohanim). In the LXX it bears the title Levitikon ("Levitical," an adjective modifying the word biblion, "book," which is to be understood). The Vulgate designates it simply Leviticus.16
In this book is a deep, underlying unity of plan and though which expresses itself in a twofold way. The first is it deals with the removal of that defilement which separates man from God and(1-16), secondly, it covers the restoration of the lost fellowship between man and God.(17-26)
There is nothing historical in Leviticus except the account which it gives us of the consecration of the priesthood (ch.8-9), of the punishment of Nabab and Abihu, by the hand of God, for offering strange fire (ch.10), and of Shelomith's son, by the hand of the magistrate, for blasphemy (ch. 24). All the rest of the book is taken up with the laws, chiefly the ecclesiastical laws, which God gave to Israel by Moses, concerning their sacrifices and offerings, their meats and drinks, and divers washings, and the other peculiarities by which God set that people apart for himself, and distinguished them from other nations, all which were shadows of good things to come, which are realized and superseded by the gospel of Christ.
We call the book Leviticus, from the Septuagint, because it contains the laws and ordinances of the Levitical priesthood (as it is called, Heb 7:11), and the ministrations of it. The Levites were principally charged with these institutions, both to do their part and to teach the people theirs.17
Aren't we all glad that we don't need to do the sacrifices anymore?
Numbers
By the Jews this book is called "In the wilderness" (bemidhbar - the word is construct) or "And he spake" (wayedhabber). The LXX gave it the title "Numbers" (arithmoi), and this is followed by the Vulgate.18
The titles of the five books of Moses, which we use in our Bibles, are all borrowed from the Greek translation of the Seventy, the most ancient version of the Old Testament that we know of. But the title of this book only we turn into English; in all the rest we retain the Greek word itself, for which difference I know no reason but that the Latin translators have generally done the same. Otherwise this book might as well have been called Arithmoi, the Greek title, as the first Genesis, and the second Exodus; or these might as well have been translated, and called, the first Generation, or Original, the second the Out-let, or Escape, as this Numbers. - This book was thus entitled because of the numbers of the children of Israel, so often mentioned in this book, and so well worthy to give a title to it, because it was the remarkable accomplishment of God's promise to Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude. It also relates to two numberings of them, one at mount Sinai (ch. 1), the other in the plains of Moab, thirty-nine years after (ch.26). And not three men the same in the last account that were in the first. The book is almost equally divided between histories and laws, intermixed.19
There are two things i took away from this this book. One was Moses not sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the children of Israel, and Moses then being told that he would not bring the congregation into the land which God had given them.20 I have covered this in the comments section on a previous post so i won't go over it here again.
Spies are sent into the promised land to see what it is like, 12 of them went in, only 2 came back and reported that they could take the land. The other spies said they could not take the land. The people believed them and not the 2. I guess majority is not always right. :-D And this was the second major thing i took from Numbers. The Hebrews not believing that God was with them, even seeing all that He had done to get them out of Egypt, are informed that since they rebelled and did not believe God that everyone 20 years or older would not be going into the Promised Land.
Also after reviewing this section i noticed that Joshua's name was Oshea Numbers 13:16, Moses called him Jehoshua and in Deuteronomy 32:44 Hoshea. Some kind of merge of the names? Or am i reading that all wrong? I had tried to make a joke of this. Just like my days in school i'm goofing off when i should have been paying attention a little more. ;-)
Many people think, i take it from reading their comments, that this punishment levied against Moses was to harsh. What would be an appropriate punishment? And can that punishment be consistent with how God dealt with the people that did not believe they could take the promised land? see Numbers 14:6-24.
Deuteronomy
The fifth book of Moses bears the name "These are the words" ('elleh haddevarim, or simply devarim). It came also to be designated by the Jews as "Repetition of the law" (mishneh hattorah, or simply mishneh), from the words in 17:18. It has also been called "The book fo Admonitions" (sefer tochahoth). The LXX has rendered 17:18 "this second law" (to deuteronomion touto), and the Vulgate, "Deuteronomium," which is really an incorrect rendering of the passage.21
Deuteronomy contains the last address of Moses to the Hebrew people. 40 years have passed and they have been in the wilderness for that time plus some. The generation 20 and older when the people rebelled in Numbers 14 have died off. Moses is now reminding or bringing to their attention the laws and covenant with God for their possession of the Promised land. At the end Joshua takes command of the people and prepares them to enter into the Promised Land.
Final question: You have a covenant with a people to bless them, their land, crops, their women so they would not be barren, to put fear in nations around them to stay away or be destroyed. Yet if they did not obey and broke the covenant you would bring the opposite on them. So do you feel it would be totally acceptable to allow them to take the good from the covenant, yet let them off the hook when they break the covenant? And if so what do you do with them? They broke the covenant after taking good from it. Do you still keep giving them the good or do you cut them off? And if you cut them off do you think you would not get what is in the curse of the covenant?
Closing remarks
There is so much to cover i hope i got a good portion in. Maybe if this is found lacking yet useful i will do a second edition and add in some items from the comments. I really enjoy this project and look forward to the upcoming 61 books.
References
- 1 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 43
2 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that demands a verdict Evidence I & II Fully updated in one volume to answer questions challenging Christians in the 21st Century. (Nashville, Tennessee; Thomas Nelson Publishers) pp. 400
- 3 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 49
4 (Genesis 2:16,17) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
5 (Genesis 6:8) But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
- 6 (Genesis 7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
- 7 http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html Accessed Sunday March 6th 2011 @ 2200 CST.
- 8 http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp Accessed Sunday March 6th 2011 @ 1830 CST.
- 9 G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in its cultural Environment (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House) pp. 147
- 10 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 65
- 11 (Exodus 1:8) Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
- 12 (Exodus 1:9) And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
- 13 (Exodus 2:11-15) And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. 12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. 13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? 14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.
14 http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm Accessed March 6th 2011 @ 2000 CST.
- 15 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 65
- 16 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 79
- 17 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary Genesis to Deuteronomy (Peabody, Massachusetts; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc) pp. 352
- 18 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 89
- 19 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary Genesis to Deuteronomy (Peabody, Massachusetts; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc) pp. 441
- 20 (Numbers 20:10-12) And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.
- 21 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp. 99
"Also if you look around the globe you see evidence of a global flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide.7 Depending on what worldview you look at the evidence will determine the interpretation that you get from those evidences."
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the overview, and you've done well, but I have to call you out on this little bit.
Ancient stories are not evidence. Evidence is something found in the natural world, which there truly hasn't been a single piece of conclusive evidence for a global flood. There is speculation on how these ancestral people might have all written about floods, but that is all there is. Speculation.
Also, if you happen to have some conclusive evidence, feel free to share. I would love to be enlightened.
ReplyDeleteWhich of these commandments don't you like and why?
ReplyDeleteSince you ask...
The first four are irrelevant theological commands.
#5 is wrongheaded if these are to be taken absolutely, because parents sometimes are wrong. It's also vague- what does "honor" mean? Always obey? Show general respect? Call every other week?
#6 "Do not kill" is a nice idea, but in context it is a useless command, since God is fine with certain types of killing (wiping out the Canaanites, for instance.) It's true meaning is apparently "do not kill (except when it's okay to)", which isn't helpful.
The last commandment is Orwellian- criminalizing a thought. No thanks.
The other four are sensible precepts that basically boil down to "be honest".
All in all, nothing groundbreaking.
@vaneby,
ReplyDelete"Ancient stories are not evidence."
My bad, i did not intend the stories to come across as evidence. Just odd that so many people would have similar stories about a flood event and have many similar points.
"Also, if you happen to have some conclusive evidence, feel free to share. I would love to be enlightened."
I cannot provide conclusive evidence. Unless i can get my time machine to work again. Not that it worked the first time... i'm still here. Anyway i do have some things i would like explained.
1. polystrate fossils. How do you get trees that are going through several layers of sediment that "Charles Lyell" said was laid down over millions of years? And this is not in one place, they are found all over the world. Where i'm from trees don't stand up to long when their dead. :-D Power was out 4 times in one year because of the neighbour lady and her dying tree. I wish she would just cut it down... or i could get enough money to move. :-D
2. Soft tissue in fossils. This conversation went on before, however this project moves to fast. Just to get a fossil it would need to be buried quickly, would it not?
3. Clams at the top of mountains i.e. Mt. Everest. Dead and in the closed position. Yes, yes mountains were once sea floors, yet for them to be in the closed position they had to die quickly. And with erosion would they not have moved?
This is my tin foil hat one! :-D I need people to laugh. :-p
4. Structures underwater in the ocean.
I cannot find the program i first saw some of these on, however, unless things have changed since then, some of these would have been around before the last ice age. And the general teaching was that language and skills needed for something like this was not around then.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is my problem with the belief that the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God" and many other religious beliefs.
ReplyDelete"I cannot provide conclusive evidence. Unless i can get my time machine to work again."
None of the listed items point to a global flood at the forefront, yet you are positive that it was a global flood because the Bible says so and you are so sure of this that you assume that all you would need is a time machine to prove it.
Again, I apologize if I sound abrasive, and I don't mean to be, but I just have a problem with the logic, if you want to call it that.
1. I had to look this one up again, :P I couldn't quite remember exactly what it was, but the wikipedia article is pretty helpful with how these are formed. Double checking is always good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
2. Yes, it would have to be buried quickly, but that doesn't point directly at a global flood. It is much more likely a fossil could be buried in a landslide, an area-flood, a meteor hitting the earth, etc. Also, as far as soft tissue goes, Scientists aren't sure whether or not soft tissue can last over 100k years or not, but some studies have suggested that they can depending on iron deposits. Also, regardless of what we don't know, that doesn't automatically mean "God did it, the Bible is true."
3. This one is easily pushed aside with the movement of the tectonic plates. Also, it depends on what happened during the mountain formation and how things were placed within the rocks. It's hard to say that this points to any type of global flood. It would seem to point more towards the tectonic plates than anything else.
4. Still doesn't point to a global flood... Even your link suggests otherwise.
My main problem is with the idea that if something cannot be explained then the Bible is true. It's like when a Creationist claims that Evolution is just a "theory" (not know what the word 'theory' actually means) and that it's wrong because it doesn't explain everything. There are plenty of problems to be solved in all theories. The issue is that the natural world screams out that the Bible is untrue. The world is round. The Bible says otherwise. The world says evolution happened. The Bible says otherwise. And the natural world has yet to tell us that there has been a global flood during the time that man has been around. It's quite possible that the entire Earth was covered with water at one point, but there is no evidence of a massive flood 4000-some years ago that we know of.
The only way that I can reconcile the natural world with the biblical view is that God was deliberately trying to trick us. (Which makes sense with his personality in the Old Testament--just saying). And who knows, maybe he is exactly how the Old Testament authors showed him, which makes me thank God that I'm an atheist.
(Apparently this is bugging out. Attempt number 3. Thank the flying spaghetti monster I copied this before trying to post!)
On the flood thing, if you had had a number of smallish communities spread across Queensland recently, or perhaps in Bangladesh in recent years, before the time of mass communication, air travel and high speed transport, you too would record stories of floods that had apparently wiped out the world - at least your know world, and those of other people and tribes living around you.
ReplyDeleteFloods happen, particularly in flood plains around rivers such as the Tigris, the Jordan, the Euphrates etc. There is no evidence that all these flood myths in different mythologies refer to the same 'worldwide' flood. They could easiy refer to a number of significant flood events that to the locals appeared to wipe out the world, but only extended of a significant local area. Again, by recent comparison, the Queensland floods at one point submerged and area greater than New South Wales. That would seem like the world was flooded in a world where several day's camel ride wouldn't bring you to the end of the flooded area.
Apparently my post has been deleted. Three attempts of submitting it and it bugged out.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is no longer on my clipboard. Hopefully someone will nail my points in later in these posts.
@vaneby,
ReplyDeleteYour post went to the spam folder for some reason.
TalkOrigins has a number of flood geology-related articles for those interested:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
re. Which of these commandments don't you like and why?
ReplyDelete"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Pretty much a dealbreaker for most of humanity, let alone us nonbelievers.
This is why I roll my eyes at attempts to put the decalogue up in courthouses and such.
@Van Eby,
ReplyDelete"Again, I apologize if I sound abrasive, and I don't mean to be, but I just have a problem with the logic, if you want to call it that."
No apologize necessary, one must have a tough hide to be in this line of work. :-D
"None of the listed items point to a global flood at the forefront, ..you are so sure of this that you assume that all you would need is a time machine to prove it."
I don't even think a time machine would work with some people. The evidence would be right in front of them, and they still would not believe, because they just don't want to. And i am not only referring to the flood.
And no i don't have a smoking gun, i only have many different findings that i can say, yes if there was a global flood this is what i would expect to find. I take all the evidence together to come to believe that yes what the Bible says i can trust.
"Also, regardless of what we don't know, that doesn't automatically mean "God did it, the Bible is true.""
You are correct in that. Just because we don't know something does not mean that "God did it". However it does not exclude it from being evidence for an event that has happened in the earths recent past and recorded in the Bible. So from the findings i do have and the little i know, it lines up with what is recorded in scripture. However if you find something that goes against evolution, well you might just lose your job. See polonium halos
However the reverse is also true. I read somewhere there were like 200 organs that "evolution" said were leftovers aka vestigial. I am glad some people decided to do real science and learned that those organs have a purpose.
Sorry you cannot just push #3 aside. You didn't even answer how clams stay on the top of a mountain? Erosion would move them away... right? And what is the growth rate vs. erosion rate of mountains? I don't expect an answer.
"It's like when a Creationist claims that Evolution is just a "theory""
Yes i am aware that people are trying to pass evolution off as fact. However what evidence do you have that evolution does happen or has? Please see my next post. I had to break this into two parts.
I am sorry if i come across as being rude, yet i must ask.
"The world is round. The Bible says otherwise."
What Bible are you reading man? Really! You make this statement and don't even back it up with references. We are reading the Bible at least show me where it says such a thing. I'm going to help tho. The Bible does have four corners when talking about the earth. see Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1. It also talks about the ends of the earth. see Deuteronomy 33:17;I Samuel 2:10;Psalms 65:5. What really frosts my rhubarb is people making comments like that.
So ya someone can take this and say see the Bible says the earth is flat. So does this Verizon droid commercial if i use that same logic.. if we can call it that. (The video comes up as private when i try to view it, however the text was on the page.) When i first saw that commercial i started to laugh. People can see that and think nothing of it because they know what they mean, N/S/E/W. However read those words in the Bible and it only means the earth is flat. I can only think that not many people have read Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: " emphasis mine.
So ya the earth is flat... not really, only if you really want to believe that. :-D
If you were referring to something else i am listening.
"The world says evolution happened."
ReplyDeleteFirst what kind of evolution are you talking about?
1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
2.Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
6. Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”
Now #6 i will agree with you on, however i feel people try to smuggle the other 5 in with it.
"The only way that I can reconcile the natural world with the biblical view is that God was deliberately trying to trick us."
I say try on a new pair of glasses, because the world view that you are looking through to study the evidence gives you the interpretation that you have.
It's interesting to me that "evolution" is not confirmed by operational science. For example:
Biogenesis: that life only comes from life. This is all we observe, however in "evolution" life came from non-life. So how is that able to work in the past, and not in the present? This is where some pull out their secret sauce "time". Yes folks apply time to any problem with "evolution" and it will be instantly solved.
Star formation: i have some thoughts of Boyle's gas law, however i will admit that i only know a little of this, and probably not enough to pass some tests i'll be taking. :-D
Talking about stars, If this universe is as old as is presented how can we still observe spiral galaxies? Again this is from what i have read, the inner part of the galaxy spins faster then the outer, so it should be all twisted up and not spiral any more. And i'm not aware of anyone seeing one of these form, or even a single star forming. We see many blowing up. Also how about order in the universe? The law of entropy says things wear down, decay and lose their order. And this is what we observe on this planet and in the universe. I am not aware of anyone observing the opposite, naturally without human intervention.
I appreciate the time you took in writing your comment. This is something that does touch us all. I ask you and others if they can answer these questions.
1. What are the unique differences between humans and the other animals?
2. What caused a particular line of primate to evolve into humans? Evolution still says monkey to man right?
3. What does the word human mean?
Something interesting, you know your more closely related to a mouse than monkey? Now don't go off killing your great uncle or aunt. :-D
I had to break this post into two parts. And rewrite the first half, i lost it. :-D
@Abbie,
ReplyDelete"The last commandment is Orwellian- criminalizing a thought. No thanks."
Discovery ID has this show called Stalked: Someone's Watching. I don't think i need to explain how #10 fits in here do i?
I do find it interesting that we just read over the first 5 books and it seems like you did'nt apply anything in those to these laws. Like honouring father and mother. We read in Deuteronomy 21:20 about that bad son.
Now "Thou shalt not kill", the Hebrew word used in the Torah is ratsah. Do you know if that is correct? I was hoping you would say something about the translation employed here. Maybe you did and i missed it. "Thou shalt do no murder" is how it's recorded Christ said it in Matthew 19:18.
@Blotz,
ReplyDelete"Pretty much a dealbreaker for most of humanity, let alone us nonbelievers.
You think if man knew there was a God and they would have to answer to Him upon leaving this world that would change their view of these laws?
Since we are talking about laws, how do we know which ones are right and those that are wrong? Who gets to decide? People? Government? Is it an individual decision?
@Dave,
ReplyDelete"There is no evidence that all these flood myths in different mythologies refer to the same 'worldwide' flood."
I do see enough evidence (similarities in the stories) to lead me to believe they just may be talking about the same event.
Edward, thanks for your summary and I've always enjoyed your thoughtful responses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dave's thoughts that stories from many cultures talking about a global flood doesn't mean they're referring to the same one. But if they were, wouldn't that refute the Bible since it would make it seem that people from different areas survived the flood rather than just Noah's family and the animals he gathered?
I also question whether God "coming down" is a reference to heaven considering how often they met on mountains it could mean that as well.
Evolution doesn't mean monkey to man but that both monkeys and man have a common ancestor.
I do like your take on how the Bible handles whether it's flat.
Lastly, even if the commandment is Thou shalt not murder (which is how I read that), it's hard to imagine Moses didn't murder repeatedly. The worst being when he ordered the killing of all the boys and non-virgin women. The Bible gives a reason for the women (which seems atrocious and errs on the side of killing many innocents even if the women who slept with Isrealites were guilty of something worthy of death) but no reason for the boys being killed. I thought it might have been guilt by association until we read Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV)
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall ...the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Now "Thou shalt not kill", the Hebrew word used in the Torah is ratsah. Do you know if that is correct? I was hoping you would say something about the translation employed here.
ReplyDeleteThe word used here seems to be rare; the only usage I can find is limited to Numbers ch. 35, the legislation regarding "cities of refuge". It appears both as a verb רֹצֵ×—ַ and as "the murderer" ×”ָרֹצֵ×—ַ quite frequently, within this chapter.
I just have the KJV in front of me (yech) but IIRC, the legislation regarded manslaughter. רֹצֵ×—ַ refers to the manslaughterer.
So does the commandment read "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter"? That seems a bit silly.
One to ponder, I guess.
Okay, since evolution came up: I'm in the majority camp among scientists that feels that real scientists debating creationists only legitimizes their arguments so I'll put in my one comment and be done. You can poke me with a stick as much as you want in subsequent comments but this is my only word on the issue.
ReplyDeleteCommon descent and evolution by natural selection is not about worldview, it's about science.
Creationists like to imagine that Darwin published the Origin in 1859 and then stepped back for people to argue about it for the last 150 years with scientists just taking his theory on faith. In actuality Darwin, Wallace et al., in putting these ideas forward, laid the foundation of modern biology. Since that time, hundreds of thousands of scientific discoveries have built upon Darwin's theory, each confirming its validity, improving upon it and advancing our understanding of biology.
This is what Theodosius Dobzhansky (biologist/Christian) meant when he said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
The ideas encompassed by the theory of evolution have been critical to extremely valuable developments in areas like ecology, bioengineering and human health. This body of work is itself the key testament to the theory's veracity and value, as none of it would have been possible were the tenets of the evolutionary model erroneous. This is certainly true for those of us who do molecular biology, where the insights of the evolutionary model allow us to use things like degree of sequence conservation between various coding and non-coding domains in the genome to identify distinct functional elements of biological molecules. This greatly accelerates our ability to better understand the way our body works in health and disease.
The evolutionary model is like a ladder that allows us to get high up enough to address difficult problems. You can certainly stand on the ground shouting about how the ladder doesn't exist, but understand that it all sounds a bit ridiculous to those of us up on the ladder changing light bulbs for you.
If evolution challenges your worldview, you can certainly respond with "Well, I believe in miracles." You can say "evolution doesn't make sense to me." It's not expected that everyone will understand it. But to say "I don't believe in evolution" is meaningless, as science doesn't ask for belief. Rather it lays out our best understanding of things based on the empirical evidence, an understanding that is constantly evolving, and never claims metaphysical certainty. Don't pretend that science actually says the opposite. There is not a conspiracy among scientists to protect a precious theory that we dogmatically cling to. Science is the opposite of dogma, it thrives on new evidence modifying old ideas. The evidence for evolution has been laid out in easily understandable forms countless times by numerous scientists and is quite accessible for anyone who earnestly wants to understand it.
You can, by all means, argue that water does not have the capacity to extinguish fire. Just don't go throwing rocks at the firefighters using it to save my burning house.
@Vt Teacher,
ReplyDelete"I agree with Dave's thoughts that stories from many cultures talking about a global flood doesn't mean they're referring to the same one. But if they were, wouldn't that refute the Bible since it would make it seem that people from different areas survived the flood rather than just Noah's family and the animals he gathered?"
Not really. Two things i think of.
There were only 8 people that survived the flood (Genesis 8:18). So say the boys had kids and they are all sitting around a fire one night. One asks, "hey dad while we were out tending the sheep we were wondering why we are the only people around." Well Son Shem probably said, it's time we tell you more about the great flood. And so he tells the story how their grandfather was instructed by God to build the ark. And how before the flood animals did not eat other animals (Genesis 1:30). However as we left the ark God told your grandfather that the fear of man would be upon every beast of the earth, etc. (Genesis 9:2,3). So that's why we have problems with animals attacking our sheep. Closing with, remember these things son, and teach them to thy children, so a greater punishment won't come upon them.
So man multiplies and the story continues, Noah teaches them and passes it on as well as his sons. Being of one language made this easy(Genesis 11:1) Now man rebels again (Genesis 11:4) and won't replenish the earth as God instructed (Genesis 9:1), so he confuses their language (Genesis 11:7). So with them already having the story of the flood, and being scattered abroad on the face of all the earth(Genesis 11:8), it's with this that i understand how the stories got around, and have keep major similarities.
If this meant only a local flood, then Genesis 9:12-17 would definitely be a lie. And anyone writing it would know people would pick that out as a lie. Just ask the recent residence of New Orleans, and in the 1900 there was the Galveson Hurricane. And that is just two items from earths tragic history. And as someone mentioned in a previous post floods happen all over the place.
"it's hard to imagine Moses didn't murder repeatedly."
ReplyDeleteI take it you are referring to the Numbers 31:14-19 incident. If it is, why is it you say it's wrong? By what grounds do we have to judge right/wrong?
What i do know is: This to me is the start of a military campaign. So we don't take any prisoners. However they did didn't they? Why and what kind of prisoner.(just using prisoner because it's what i think of in war). Well they were the women that did not have sex with man. In Numbers 31:18 it talks about a plague coming from the counsel of Balaam and these people. (Numbers 25:3). This plague came about because they ate the dead? (Psalms 106:28) Well Matthew Henry gives some more insight.
(MHC)
They were guilty of a great sin in the matter of Peor; and this was the sin of the new generation, when they were within a step of Canaan (28): They joined themselves to Baal-peor, and so were entangled both in idolatry and in adultery, in corporeal and in spiritual whoredom, Num. 25:1-3. Those that did often partake of the altar of the living God now ate the sacrifices of the dead, of the idols of Moab (that were dead images, or dead men canonized or deified), or sacrifices to the infernal deities on the behalf of their dead friends.
... God testified his displeasure at this, (1.) By sending a plague among them, which in a little time swept away 24,000 of those impudent sinners.
I believe personally that people have a tendency to judge from the lazyboy, however if you are the guy with the boots on the ground in a war, you have a very different perspective.
I think of the events that happened in Operation Iraqi Freedom. U.S. Marines were pressing forward so fast and the Iraqi soldiers were just surrendering. Not having the man power to take prisoners, they told them to just keep walking and a rear group would process them. However the Iraqis would wait for the Marines to pass then attack from the rear. Granted the Marines learn quick and destroyed tanks and weapons that could be used to attack them. (I have the book in a box i remember this from (don't trust my memory, that's why i write so much stuff down, and this historical account was before i started to write stuff down. :-D), if you want the name i will get it. It's one of the 3-4 so it should not be that hard to find. :-D)
I see this as Moses saying listen these people caused you problems before they will do it again. And when i give an order carry it out.
Since i only have the information that the people caused problems before, and knowing the condition of mans heart(Jeremiah 17:9), they would do it again. I can only say Moses made this decision to save the Hebrews from future problems. We may not agree with it, and view the actions as murder, however we're not there.
@BHitt,
ReplyDeleteI see you mean #6. Thanks.
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteI am enjoying the conversations going on here, however can we get this flight in the air again? Seeing your from Chicago and travel your probably use to layovers. :-D
As an aside to the conversation about the flood novelist David Maine wrote a book a few years ago called The Preservationist that is about Noah and his family and the flood. It is quite an imagined count of that time.
ReplyDelete@Edward & other believers:
ReplyDeleteI know that the appropriate thing to do here is address your original post, and to the thread of comments that it spawned, but I just gotta get this off my chest.
I appreciate the effort you put into defending your faith. I'm willing to be polite about it, as well - for I was once nominally Christian, and was once born-again. But, to be truthful, I don't admire it. Constructing a stupendous mental Gordian knot for whatever purpose - especially for holding onto beliefs that have no evidentiary support or rational justification - doesn't make the world a better place. If it keeps you happy and healthy, fine. There are any number of other strategies that are equally or better suited to the task, and I encourage you to sincerely explore them.
The one general set of strategies that have worked for me - for nearly 35 years now - are these:
1) Make a determined and sincere effort to be mentally and physically healthy. This is my first priority, since I cannot carry out any other strategy without mental and physical health.
2) Make a determined and sincere effort to treat my loved ones, family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and community with patience, respect and compassion.
3) Do no harm, except when in defense of my loved ones, family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and community.
4) Give more to the world than I take.
5) Know what I can understand and can't understand, but never give up trying to understand.
6) Know what I can do and can't do, but never give up trying new things, or old things in new ways.
7) Accept the uncertainty in life, but know how and when to be more certain or less certain - and live accordingly.
Believing in supernatural beings, and believing in the Bible were not helpful in getting my life in order, nor in treating my loved ones, family, neighbors, co-workers and community with the patience, compassion, and respect that they deserve, and of which I would like to be accorded in return.
The idea that people really think that a supernatural being is talking to them - physically or otherwise - is (honestly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful here) bizarre. The idea that billions of people do, in varying degrees, hold similar beliefs is almost unimaginable. I know that it's possible however, because I've done it, and I see evidence that it is done throughout the world. That doesn't mean that it's plausible, defensible, or worthy of respect.
I didn't "lose" my faith - I unshackled myself from it. Faith is an uncritical acceptance of things in the absence of evidence. It may be benign, it may be sinister. In my book, faith is to be avoided at all cost. In its stead, reasonable expectations based on evidence and sound logic is preferable, and allows a rational ordering of one's life.
But don't forget to party!
Edward, not wanting to engage in a long argument here, but i think your list below tends to muddle things up, rather than clarifying anything:
ReplyDelete"1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
2.Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
6. Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”. "
First, the word "evolution" simply means "change" and change is happening around us all the time. So for clarity let's sort out how scientists actually refer to these different fields of study.
Number 1, 2 and 3 are the purview of Cosmology and Astronomy. I would not use the phrase "chemical evolution" since that implies that this subject is dealing with chemistry, when it's really nuclear physics. I'd describe your number 1 as Cosmology, number 3 as part of Astronomy, and your number 2 as a process that is going on all the time in stellar cores, so is another part of Astronomy.
Number 4 is "Abiogenesis" and that's where the chemistry comes into it. The origin of self-replicating molecules is a field that we have just begun to study, and what we have discovered so far is fascinating, and there it much still to learn. But don't pounce on biologists with questions on this, because it's not their field.
Your numbers 5 and 6 are referring to the origin of new species through Natural Selection, but 5 and 6 are not different things. Large scale changes in organisms are nothing more than the accumulation of a lot of small scale changes over a long time. No Biologist uses the "macro" and "micro" terminology when referring to the evolution of new forms of life through Natural Selection, only creationists use those terms. When a creationist is objecting to "evolution", usually it's Natural Selection they are referring to, not any of that other stuff.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteI feel like you kind of made a cop out so I might repeat bits I didn't think were answered. I agree that we can't truly know and that war is war. But that being said, they take slaves because it's mentioned many times and they even take slaves in this case. They killed the men during battle and brought back the women and children. They then killed every woman that they deemed had had sex. They justified this because God had already punished the Israelites and it was up to them to carry out the rest of God's punishment. I find it hard to justify why a woman that had sex only with her husband should be killed but a virgin should be saved if they were really doing this for God but I won't argue that point here. What I want to know is why a twelve year-old virgin girl should live but a 2-month old boy should be killed and how can you kill a baby (that was already rounded up and taken away from the battle so I assume he was no longer an immediate threat)and not say that's murder?!?!? This is not collateral damage during the battle. There have been many instances in the Bible when they kill everyone in a town and I'll allow for that to be part of war.
The Bible explained why the older women were killed. I would think they were a bigger threat than a baby and the Bible didn't give that as the reason. So taking into account Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV)
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall ...the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. " how do you justify that Moses ordered the killing of babies and that we don't have enough information to decide if he's a murderer?
If you want, I can answer your question about how can we judge right/wrong but does killing babies and raping girls away from the battle really fall into a gray area morally?
@Edward
ReplyDelete1. What are the unique differences between humans and the other animals?
I actually see no 'unique' difference here. I see less differences between a dog and a person than a dog and a fish. The only differences I can see is that: 1) we are really really clever (and can theorize about religion) and 2) I am a member of this 'species' human. Its what started making me skeptical about my modern Christian upbringing; the idea that man is 'special' in God's eye. I could only see that coming about from 1) and 2) as an egotistical idea. A dog's sentience is as quantify-able to me as another person's. I should note that I am vegan. Nobody roll their eyes or I will start rambling about speciesism. :D
2. What caused a particular line of primate to evolve into humans? Evolution still says monkey to man right?
I was going to write a short response to this but VtTeacher covered this with the common ancestry thing. Also I think that time is a fundamental principle of how micro evolution becomes macro evolution. Ignore time and macro evolution definitely doesn't work. Put someone in the middle of a football field and tell them to step in a random direction every second and after a second they won't have moved far but after an hour they are probably in a totally different place. For minor variations per generation to eventuate into major variations, you need lots of generations I.e: time! I learnt a bunch about evolution (micro and macro) in my computer science education. We used the principles of evolution to find optimal solutions to multivariable equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm I was going to explain that but after reading the wiki it's all in there. Other than being really damn useful, it demonstrates (on a small and controlled scale) how evolution works. I am not saying it's proof that species definitely came about that way - just that it's a damn elegant explanation. It's shows that applying time to everything we currently know about reproduction and survival causes an evolutionary process to occur. Notice I managed to bring it back to software engineering - nerd to nerd :)
3. What does the word human mean?
I don't know where you are going for sure with this. One of the things that surprises me is that Christians go straight into the argument about whether or not evolution formed species but there is one thing that i think evolution can never explain about the way we are: sentience. I'm not a solipsist so I am guessing you all know what I am talking about. :P I can see how macro evolution can make a well adjusted robot, but that's all. Anyone else have insight here? When I think about explaining sentience my logic brain capsized. Explanations like 'God created everything' seems almost plausible besides that it just leads to further questions about where did God's sentience come from. Stupid causality.
"You think if man knew there was a God and they would have to answer to Him upon leaving this world that would change their view of these laws?"
One of the things that bothers me with this rationale is that even if I knew that I would spend eternity in complete torture if I didn't worship God, I am not sure if I would still want to. If God created all the earth and its inhabitants then yeah maybe he deserves worship, it's sometimes fucked up but, all in all, pretty cool. But if God makes everyone that doesn't worship him spend eternity in complete torture, then no, that's not cool. I don't think he deserves my worship. That's just mean and repulses me to my very being. I'm not going to be bullied into worshiping a bully even if it will really really really suck later.
Sorry, I know this is meant to just be about scripture but... I didn't start it!
@Vt Teacher: The way I read it, I think the authors in their cultural context wouldn't have seen the killing of babies here as murder, but perhaps as a sacrifice to Yahweh as his part of the spoils of war. Some passages certainly indicate that Yahweh expects his cut for the role he plays in Israel's military victories (Numbers 31:25-29 comes to mind). No less horrifying to read, just trying to see it in its ancient context.
ReplyDelete@Vt Teacher
ReplyDelete"I feel like you kind of made a cop out so I might repeat bits I didn't think were answered."
No i don't mean to come across as copping out, however i just have this voice in my head saying "Objection your honour, what he is saying is nothing more than just speculation." So i just end up refraining from saying things, because i am sure someone would say objection, and point out that my defence which i am presenting is just speculation. Now with that said.
The Hebrews had a custom to circumcise their children eight days after their birth (Genesis 17:10-12). So i could imagine that these people had a custom that they keep and did something with their sons. Some people worshipped Molech and had their seed pass through the fire (Leviticus 18:21;Deuteronomy 18:10). So killing the male child could have been seen as purging the people from what God forbid them doing and those that had been used in such a manner. And seeing that Moses and the Hebrews had a run in with these people before, i can be sure Moses knew what was going on and with that knowledge that is why he issued his command to kill them.
Another thing, these people were not to come back from the war, the order was specific kill them. (Numbers 31:14) "And Moses was wroth with the officers" Moses was ticked that they even came back.
This may still seem like a cop out to you, if so, let it then be. I cannot make stuff up, i can only defend and speak to what i know. Moses wrote the law, he knows personally what God expects from man. He has went contrary to God before and suffered for it. I cannot see him going against the commandment of God here and no mention at all to a punishment for doing such. What he did he must have had no question in his mind or heart that it was going against what God had commanded.
@Ubi Dubium,
ReplyDelete"Edward, not wanting to engage in a long argument here"
No argument, just trying to understand other peoples worldview and how they defend it.
"but i think your list below tends to muddle things up"
Yes it does seem to make things harder. :-D Yes we all see micro-evolution, and all agree, and it's easier for some to just admit the others into the party without scrutinizing them.
It just may be the way i am thinking of this, however you messed 1-3 up when saying that "2 as a process that is going on all the time in stellar cores"
Well you need to explain how number #1 works and got started, because if you don't have it you don't have the rest. Also it would be on my part necessary to know if you are a part of the Big Bang camp, i have heard a speaker say that some evolutionist have separated themselves from that camp. It was on a video a friend showed me. Or do you believe that the universe is eternal. The un-caused cause? Now that brings in other problems that i see as well.
"we have discovered so far is fascinating"
Ya like this stuff is super complex and even harder to explain how it got started. Machines so complex that you need all the parts at the same time in order for it to work at all. I just got a laugh off of the talk origins article on Darwin's Black Box. This is about the mouse trap. So they hand the board back because why, well i replaced the board with the floor. Hu! What? I think they missed the point of the exercise. Or maybe it's just me. It's can you make a functioning mouse trap without a base, or missing any of the other parts. Granted they try to save the experiment, however i think they are grasping here. I'm still laughing. :-)
"Large scale changes in organisms are nothing more than the accumulation of a lot of small scale changes over a long time."
Since some were having problems with that they came up with the model of Punctuated equilibrium. Question: How would they know to move away so they were not wiped out?
"No Biologist uses the "macro" and "micro" terminology when referring to the evolution of new forms of life through Natural Selection, only creationists use those terms."
So would you say this site at Berkeley needs to be taken down? Because macro and micro are mentioned and even explained. They even have pictures of the tree. Nice. Anyway i see on the macroevolution page they mention the secret sauce i mentioned in an earlier comment "can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time". Sweet. :-D
I don't think what i presented muddled things up, i think it helps show what each "phase" would need to happen before the next. With doing that it shows how complex the situation is. Granted it may be complex to me. :-p
@Skepticali,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I have a few observations about your comment.
"especially for holding onto beliefs that have no evidentiary support or rational justification"
If i had this evidence that you would require, i would not need faith. Also people have been looking for signs for a long time (Luke 11:29).
However what i do have gives me great confidence that the faith i have is sound and the only way for life. One piece of evidence that i think of is the early church. Stephen being killed by stoning (Acts 7:59), all the disciples except John were martyred. Even Saul (Acts 9:4) who became Paul suffered great (II Corinthians 11:21-28) and was martyred for this faith. I mention them here because they are unique, in that they knew what they were going to die for was true and they personally knew Jesus Christ in His earthly ministry and Paul after it. Men do not die willingly if they know they have been deceived. The followers of Jim Jones (the people who knew he was a fraud) tried to escape Jonestown. There were some that knew he was an imposter and that he had mixed up some nice Kool-aid, ran and hid in the jungle. Others that tried to escape were shot. Yet the disciples of Jesus Christ went to their death believing what they were preaching. The Christian faith started with just one man, Jesus Christ, and people followed Him. When Jesus was resurrected he spent 40 days (Acts 1:3) with the people. I believe that they did die because they knew He was who He claimed He was, and had seen Him alive after His crucifixion and burial. This is not blind faith based on no evidence that i have. I have studied and continue to study to learn more about the Christian Faith and what i have found strengthens my conviction that Jesus Christ is the only way.
"There are any number of other strategies that are equally or better suited to the task, and I encourage you to sincerely explore them."
Thanks for the tip, i just need to ask: Why? Why would i go explore anything else? Like Simon Peter answered Jesus, "to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68). Jesus Christ is eternal life. Why would i go look somewhere else? What you are suggesting for me to do is go seek out corruption.(Galatians 6:8) Thanks but i am confident in what i believe, no need for me seek anything else. I just want to know what would i gain? Do i sound miserable to you? Like the Christian faith is a heavy yoke on my shoulder?
Your guidelines for life are good, however like the mouse trap i mentioned in an earlier comment, it has no base. Your guide was developed by you and it's neither eternal, universal, nor transcendent. And as you being it's chief author i am sure subject to change when necessary. Now i am not trying to say you are some evil person, that's me (I Timothy 1:15). However in your view, you decide what is good and bad, right? No one else would know your code of conduct because it is unique just to you. However in my belief i know God has written His law on every ones heart. (Romans 2:15) Some have just learned over time how to suppress said law. I will be judged one day for the things that i did. I know in Jesus Christ i have forgiveness, and by Him i am reconciled to God. And the words i want to hear on my day of judgement is "Well done thou good and faithful servant."(Matthew 25:21)
"sound logic"
I tend to think without God you wouldn't have any logic. What would be the basis for logic?
Question: (this is for anyone that wants to answer) From what you know, What in life would you have to give up if you become a Christian?
@Edward "No argument, just trying to understand other peoples worldview and how they defend it."
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, then may I suggest you stop getting your information from Creationist sites. Your 6 "phases" easily gives away where you got that understanding, as Ubi said its only ever creationists who use those terms. There are those who try to reach out and help creationists understand evolution, and in so doing they use the terms creationists are and try to fit them together. All it causes is more confusion.
Evolution is about the diversity of life we find on our planet. It has nothing to do with the big bang, with the formation of the heavier elements, nor even with the origin of life. The theory describes the processes of mutation and natural selection that mold species over time. Also the division of populations that can and does give rise to separate species given time and change as provided through mutation and natural selection. For you to equate the big bang with evolution confuses the issue and shows your lack of understanding. If you truly wish to understand, ask questions and stop making assertions about what our "worldview" is.
That said, Evolution is not a "worldview," it is one of the most well supported and successful theories in science, even more so than the Theory of Gravitation. "Nothing in modern biology makes sense except in light of Evolution."
There is also no need for me to defend Evolution. The evidence is there, and it speaks for itself. It does not require any acceptance, belief, nor worship. It simply is, either one understands it or they do not.
"From what you know, What in life would you have to give up if you become a Christian?"
To accept that what the Bible asserts is true, I would require evidence, which would not be giving anything up so much as acquiring greater knowledge and understanding. But in finding out that it was true, I would then know that there was a tyrant out there that demanded my obedience on threat of eternal torture. For me to accept this tyrants terms I would have to give up my liberty, my voice, my values (truth, justice, and the American way), and my sanity.
Question: (this is for anyone that wants to answer) From what you know, What in life would you have to give up if you become a Christian?
ReplyDeleteMy ability to think for myself.
@Edward
ReplyDelete1. What are the unique differences between humans and the other animals?
I actually see no 'unique' difference here. I see less differences between a dog and a person than a dog and a fish. The only differences I can see is that: 1) we are really really clever (and can theorize about religion) and 2) I am a member of this 'species' human. Its what started making me skeptical about my modern Christian upbringing; the idea that man is 'special' in God's eye. I could only see that coming about from 1) and 2) as an egotistical idea. A dog's sentience is as quantify-able to me as another person's. I should note that I am vegan. Nobody roll their eyes or I will start rambling about speciesism. :D
2. What caused a particular line of primate to evolve into humans? Evolution still says monkey to man right?
I was going to write a short response to this but VtTeacher covered this with the common ancestry thing. Also I think that time is a fundamental principle of how micro evolution becomes macro evolution. Ignore time and macro evolution definitely doesn't work. Put someone in the middle of a football field and tell them to step in a random direction every second and after a second they won't have moved far but after an hour they are probably in a totally different place. For minor variations per generation to eventuate into major variations, you need lots of generations I.e: time! I learnt a bunch about evolution (micro and macro) in my computer science education. We used the principles of evolution to find optimal solutions to multivariable equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm I was going to explain that but after reading the wiki it's all in there. Other than being really damn useful, it demonstrates (on a small and controlled scale) how evolution works. I am not saying it's proof that species definitely came about that way - just that it's a damn elegant explanation. It's shows that applying time to everything we currently know about reproduction and survival causes an evolutionary process to occur. Notice I managed to bring it back to software engineering - nerd to nerd :)
3. What does the word human mean?
I don't know where you are going for sure with this. One of the things that surprises me is that Christians go straight into the argument about whether or not evolution formed species but there is one thing that i think evolution can never explain about the way we are: sentience. I'm not a solipsist so I am guessing you all know what I am talking about. :P I can see how macro evolution can make a well adjusted robot, but that's all. Anyone else have insight here? When I think about explaining sentience my logic brain capsized. Explanations like 'God created everything' seems almost plausible besides that it just leads to further questions about where did God's sentience come from. Stupid causality.
"You think if man knew there was a God and they would have to answer to Him upon leaving this world that would change their view of these laws?"
One of the things that bothers me with this rationale is that even if I knew that I would spend eternity in complete torture if I didn't worship God, I am not sure if I would still want to. If God created all the earth and its inhabitants then yeah maybe he deserves worship, it's sometimes fucked up but, all in all, pretty cool. But if God makes everyone that doesn't worship him spend eternity in complete torture, then no, that's not cool. I don't think he deserves my worship. That's just mean and repulses me to my very being. I'm not going to be bullied into worshiping a bully even if it will really really really suck later.
Sorry, I know this is meant to just be about scripture but... I didn't start it!
"From what you know, What in life would you have to give up if you become a Christian?"
ReplyDeleteI would have to give up part of my compassion. E.g: I would have to consider the love between homosexuals as sinning and be against them marrying. I would hate other people to see the love between my wife and I in a similar light. I would have to view animals as resources. I have cringed more than once when a pastor has joked about killing animals for fun.
@Edward,
ReplyDeleteA few comments and questions in no particular order.
1. Do you really think Humans are more closely related to mice then other primates? Please provide us with some documentation.
2. You justify all the killing that Moses and the Israelites commit by saying that they were doing it keep they're covenant with God (I'm paraphrasing). But what does that say about God that he would demand the killing of innocents? Nothing can justify the killing of children, or men and women outside war except bloodlust. This is murder.
3. Denial of Evolution. This as been pretty well covered by others very well. But it kinda loosely leads me to my next point.
4. You stated earlier in a response to Skepticali, "Why would i go explore anything else? " This says everything to me regarding your desire to expand your understanding of life, the universe and everything. I have an unrelenting thirst for knowledge and information. I love to learn about new things. And I love to see how new information modifies or renders moot our previous understanding of something. This to me is something that makes humans unique. By exploring the unknown we learn and grow and yes, evolve. ;-)
@Confused,
ReplyDelete"If this is true, then may I suggest you stop getting your information from Creationist sites. Your 6 "phases" easily gives away where you got that understanding"
I won't need to do number 5,6 so i will just do the first four. So did creationists make this stuff up? I just did some googling and found some links. I don't think these are creationist sites. It does provide me with some good info. I will be loading them into my reference book. :-D If these are creationists please point it out to me.
1. Cosmic evolution source 1, source 2, source 3 src3 i have not finished reading yet it's a pdf book.
2.Chemical evolution source 1, source 2, source 3 src3 is a whole research group for this subject.
3. Stellar evolution: source 1, source 2, source 3.
4. Organic evolution: source 1, source 2, source 3 src 3 is just for fun.
I am glad you called me out on this. I see that there is even more material for me to read over, and that it is more than just creationists that use these terms.
"There are those who try to reach out and help creationists understand evolution, and in so doing they use the terms creationists are and try to fit them together."
After finding what i did, i highly doubt that.
"That said, Evolution is not a "worldview," it is one of the most well supported and successful theories in science,"
"The evolutionary worldview that emerges from an understanding of our role in the new phase has the potential to transform the nature of human existence." src
I would say some people do. I am not saying you agree with them, however your belief in evolution builds your worldview.
part 1 of 2
@Confused,
ReplyDeletepart 2 of 2
"The evidence is there, and it speaks for itself."
I tend to think that if the evidence was there you would present something to me other than micro-evolution, which i have already told you i agree with. That, until you provide some evidence otherwise, is the only type of evolution that does happen. Give me something to go study that supports your claim.
"But in finding out that it was true, I would then know that there was a tyrant out there that demanded my obedience on threat of eternal torture. For me to accept this tyrants terms I would have to give up my liberty, my voice, my values (truth, justice, and the American way), and my sanity."
This reads like your evidence for evolution. Vague.
How is it that God is a tyrant? What is it that He would demand of you that you would not like? If God created this place, and wrote the rules, don't you expect He can do what He wants to those that break them?
And what's this torture business? How about a warning? and a way out of it. God knows we can't pay the price for our sin, so He did it Himself. What kind of tyrant pays your fine for you?(Romans 6:23; Philippians 2:8) It sounds like someone told you about God and had it all wrong.
What liberty? What voice? What values?
So what you are saying is, become a Christian and lose all your ability to do anything? The thing i see is you become a Christian you should have a larger voice (Ephesians 6:19-20 "bonds of prison"). You don't lose your values, they change (John 14:21). And liberty is something that you get, not lose (Galatians 5:1 "sin") You should become more critical(Acts 17:11), and study a whole lot more.(II Timothy 2:15) And simply, people don't have anything to base their truth and justice on without God. Granted they could say "I am the basis", and like i said before this is not eternal, transcendent, because you believe it does not require others to as well. The American way, again vague.
I would like to that you for writing your comment. I know it takes time to organize your thoughts and to present them to the world. You have challenged me to dig deeper and learn more. And that is what i enjoy most about this project, individuals such as yourself that take the time to read and comment back. I know this project is moving again, so hopefully we can have other dialogue as the year goes on.
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteLate nite for me. :-D
1. New Scientist Sorry they want to pay to read the whole thing. I found the link however i learned about it in the book Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow pp. 305 also he quoted a Alison Abbot article, i found it on nature
2. I don't have anything more to add to this, i have went over it enough for now. Maybe later in the year i will know more to say something else.
3. Denial of anything else other than micro-evolution. Because the others don't have any scientific proof, and what we do know about the natural universe violates many of the ideas in the different theories. Test, observe, repeat.
4. I took the invite from Skepticali as a religious suggestion, not as truth,knowledge, and information. I must have read it wrong. I tend to think that i do study many different things, such as this whole topic of evolution, other religions, political ideas, recipes for my wife to cook for me? ;-). This is not counting the stuff i study for my job. And what have you evolved into? Your still human right? Also i'm married, i know allot about being moot! :-)
I will be honest i have run into this myself, which is letting go of my old "understanding". I think that is something everyone at sometime or another has struggled with. However i could be wrong and it's just me.
@fug laro,
ReplyDeleteI see you have two posts, must have hit the comment size limit. I do that allot. :-D
1. Because i don't know where you live. I will say just look at the computer you are using. Man has an ability to design something like that. Not to mention all the other advancements in medicine, mechanics, agriculture. And what have dogs done? And you don't see much difference?
2. Evolutionary Algorithm requires an intelligent agent to get it started. And i am sure, that agent will tweak things as the program runs.
I like to be referred to as a geek.
3. "God's sentience (the state or quality of being sentient; awareness):" God is the un-caused cause. He always was, before time, He was. If you start talking about God before time, then you are not talking about God.
"But if God makes everyone that doesn't worship him spend eternity in complete torture, then no, that's not cool."
Where should you go then? He does not make anyone worship Him, it's a free choice. You choose not to worship Him, you are aware of the consequences, as you have stated, so it's you that have committed yourself to an eternity in complete torture. Something that i have pulled from your comment is your view that God is a tyrant, someone else mentioned that as well. This is not some slavish ritualistic worship. Well in the OT it was very involved. Yet the relationship that Christ wants with us is very personal. It's a very intimate friendship(John 15:13-15). Because God is Holy and Just, He has Laws, we, and some angels have violated those laws. Hell was not designed for man, it was, as i believe, originally designed for the angles that rebelled with Satan and Satan himself. However man fell into sin as well and was on the road to damnation. Yet God shewing love to us made a way for us to escape eternal damnation. Like i have said before, He paid our debt. All we have to do is believe and repent (John 3:16; Acts 2:38).
"Sorry, I know this is meant to just be about scripture but... I didn't start it!"
ReplyDeleteYou are perfectly fine, this project, as i believe, was started to explore critical thinking, so let it fly.
"I would have to consider the love between homosexuals as sinning and be against them marrying."
Man this one was a powder-keg that went off before. :-D This is something that someone was talking to me about just two days ago. No matter how you want to justify or view it, it still sin. I only believe they were born that way because we were all born in a sinful state (Psalms 51:5). In Romans 7:20-25 Paul lays out the battle we all have with sin. It's a choice, and trying to equate it to the civil rights movement and the plight of the minorities, as i have heard some try to do, is just stupid. Not that you have done that, i just want to point that out. Another question if they were born that way, like color, why have there been people that have left that lifestyle? Leaving that lifestyle and Jesus Christ seem to go together. Not everyone, yet just looking it up showed allot of Christian sites on the subject. As for how the Christians should respond, from the reviews i have read, i think Chris Plekenpol is leading by example. I still need to get this book to read it. I have read his other two books, they were good.
"I would have to view animals as resources."
Did you get this from scripture? If so where? And yes i get ticked as well. Don't kill just to kill, that's just being an idiot, and shows how wicked man really can be. However i have had to terminate different animals because they were out of control. I tried what i could to deter them from doing what they were doing, yet sometimes my best efforts failed.
Yet i do hunt and enjoy steak. Well i have hunted in the past. Going to start again this year... well that's what i said last year. :-D
@fug laro: Sentience/ self-awareness is a frequent sticking point in discussions about dualism vs. materialism. I'll submit this just as something to think about. Consider what happens to self-awareness under general anesthesia, which alters brain function in a way that abolishes the brain waves associated with consciousness. The subjective experience is as if one didn't exist during that period.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, many of the components often attributed to the immutable "self" such as personality, memories, beliefs, and connection to reality can be altered by brain injury, pathological conditions, or even pharmacological agents. An early and salient insight into this was the case of Phineas Gage, which I think most people are familiar with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
@Bruce: Mouse genomics is a huge digression from the Bible, but I think it's cool. I use mouse models to study human genes/proteins. Corresponding genes in mice and humans are indeed quite similar; On average there is about 85% sequence similarity. This varies from gene to gene. In sequences encoding functional elements critical to survival, the sequences are nearly identical (pretty much in all mammals), while in less critical regions more variation has been allowed by natural selection.
The average sequence similarities between humans and great apes (chimp, gorilla, orang) is between 95% and 98%. In fact, because of sex (X,Y) chromosomes, there is more genetic similarity between humans and chimps of the same sex as between male and female humans or male and female chimps. Cool, huh? I haven't read any comparative genomics between humans and monkeys but I suspect the degree of similarity is intermediate between apes and mice. Comparative genomics typically follows what you would expect from morphology but has revealed some unexpected and fascinating things about the evolutionary history of life on earth.
@Edward,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I have to vent.
You stated "It's a choice, and trying to equate it to the civil rights movement and the plight of the minorities, as i have heard some try to do, is just stupid."
I'm sorry to be so uncivil, but by stating that homosexuality is a choice, you have set my anger meter to 11. You obviously do not have any friends who are gay. And if you did, they wouldn't be your friends for long if you said this to them.
I have many gay friends (My wife and I live in "boy's town" on the north side of Chicago) and every single one of them have suffered in their life because of their "choice" in sexual preference. Many have been beaten up, disowned by their "Christian" families, discriminated against when trying to buy a house, etc. Do you really think that someone would choose this life?
All my friends (who were born this way as evil science will tell you) want is to be treated equally in a country that states in it's constitution that all men are created equal. They want the same rights and privileges as you and I. They want to be accepted in homes and jobs and to be able to walk the streets holding hands like any other couple in America.
This IS a civil rights issue for them those of us that support them.
As for people leaving that lifestyle, they may have done so but that doesn't change their attraction to the same sex. It just means that they're probably repressing their true feeling in order to be accepted by the people that oppose homosexuality. It's sad that it isn't the other way around. I can't site a source but several people who have gone through those de-gaying workshops have committed suicide when the conflict became to great. And that would double-damn them to your God's Hell wouldn't it?
I often wonder if those that insist that homosexuality is a choice realize what they are saying about their own sexuality. The way I see it, a straight man that feels that homosexuals do not have intrinsically different sexual attractions than himself but rather choose the lifestyle is saying that he would love to have sex with men, he just chooses to do the right thing and only have sex with women. Alternatively, some concede that there is an intrinsic difference, the choice is in acting on the feelings. This essentially boils down to those that have the misfortune of being gay can either live a life devoid of romantic fulfillment or face hellfire. Either way, anti-gay sentiment is just one of many manifestations of fear and dislike for what you don't understand. Some just dress it up in pious attire.
ReplyDelete@Bruce: Boystown? We're neighbors.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteYou do know that the word evolution does mean change over time, right? We use the word regularly, but that does not mean we are equating the changes the universe has gone through with the processes of biological evolution.
Given the conversation we are currently having I assume Van Eby was talking about The Theory of Evolution by which he meant the diversification of life on our planet. If he meant otherwise he'll have to clarify on his own.
Asking for clarification is the right thing for you to do given the ease by which this can become confusing from an outsiders point of view. You'll have to forgive us, but if you are going to reach a better understanding you really need to disabuse yourself specifically of the terms micro and macro evolution. You say you accept micro evolution, but that you don't accept macro evolution. We don't see any difference between the two, and so to us its like your saying "I accept evolution, but I don't." Your understanding is inherently flawed, and it arises from those terms that allow you the understanding that you have. Your understanding is simply wrong. You accept that change happens, but you limit that change to small changes.
Take a population of a specific species, split it and place both species in different environments. You accept that those species will adapt to their environments with little changes. What you need to allow is that those changes will build upon themselves. Given enough time and change if you were to bring the populations together, they would not be able to breed because they are too different. This is speciation, the point at which one species has become two different species. You might conflate speciation with macro evolution, but we all know that you'd respond saying, but they're still ... whatever.
We have not said that this has changed. And this is where you need to understand the concept of common ancestry. We are not saying that a dog gave birth to a cat. What we are saying is that dogs and cats had a common ancestor. A species whose population split, and one population acquired changes to make them the cats we know today, while the other population acquired changes to make them the dogs we know today. They are in essence, cousins of each other.
Do you at least recognize that both dogs and cats are mammals?
"How is it that God is a tyrant?"
ReplyDeleteHe demands our obedience on pain of eternal torture. Nothing else matters after than, he could be as benign a tyrant as any could want, but that does not change that he is a tyrant.
"If God created this place, and wrote the rules, don't you expect He can do what He wants to those that break them?"
No, I don't. I am a sentience being, created or not. God does not have the right, however his ability, to do with me as he pleases.
"God knows we can't pay the price for our sin, so He did it Himself."
If God knows we can't live up to his rules, why does he make those rules? So he can torture us for breaking them. As for paying the price, if God was so merciful, why not change the rules? Would that not be easier? No, instead he creates a scape goat, he punishes an innocent on behalf of the guilty. That is immoral in the extreme. I am a moral person, the last thing I would want is someone else punished for my crimes.
"What kind of tyrant pays your fine for you?"
The kind of tyrant that wants me to think I am in debt to him.
"It sounds like someone told you about God and had it all wrong."
Then you might want to speak to the authors of the bible, after all I got all this straight from their work.
"What liberty? What voice? What values?"
My liberty to pursue happiness and fulfillment, to do as I will so long as it harms no other. My voice to express myself as I see fit to speak out against those I deem wrong. My values are my own, those things I enjoy and find meaningful.
"So what you are saying is, become a Christian and lose all your ability to do anything?"
Yes, becoming a Christian is to become a slave of their deity. This is true of most religions, though few understand it.
"The thing i see is you become a Christian you should have a larger voice"
Blasphemy laws are a violation of free speech. Being a slave to your tyrant deity means he speaks for me, and that I don't speak for myself.
"You don't lose your values, they change"
My values are very different from those of your deity. Your deities laws restrict and violate my values. My values would be lost to me.
"liberty is something that you get, not lose"
I have liberty now, were I to bow my head to your deity I would lose it.
"You should become more critical, and study a whole lot more."
Says the creationist who doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.
"people don't have anything to base their truth and justice on without God."
Is something true because your god says its true, or does your god say its true because its true? If the former, truth is arbitrary, if the later, why do you need your god?
"The American way, again vague."
While I was referencing Superman with my comment, in saying the American way I am including those values upon which our government, our nation was built. A Democratic Republic that was built to protect our liberties rather than to legislate them.
@Edward
ReplyDelete1. Yes! I just think we are more clever than other species. Looking at the computer I am using doesn't make me think anything differently. It's all from lots of little discoveries and inventions that have built up to form some cool things but there is a limit. We are still trying to make a material as strong as spiderweb.
2. Argh, I am sorry. I always put my foot in my mouth with the nerd/geek difference. I would not call myself a nerd like an American thinks of it either. I have seen the teen movies :). Oh an about evolution. If you have a decent fitness function and algorithm, you can start off with a random generation and end up with some awesomely optimal solutions without tweaking. You can also end up with completely different optimal results. And about the requirement for an intelligent agent to get it started: I think you have been dealing with too many Atheists and are confusing me for one. I never said I didn't think evolution was started by an intelligent agent. :). I just think that if there is a God, the champ made the initial state as the nature of the universe and had all these nicely tuned physical laws set the stage for the foundation of life and then had evolution (a byproduct of these finely tunes laws) do all the work of creating all the species. I would find that more amazing then him just making everything one week on whim.
3. Hmm when you start talking about God as the uncaused cause then this just sounds the same as how the Atheists talk about the big bang. I find both of these unsatisfying.
"...it's free choice..."
Yeah, I guess. But if someone walked up to me and told me to worship them or else they would cut my fingers off, I would do one of two things. I'm not sure which. One would be not to worship them. The other would be to worship them but because of the way they sought out my worship, it would be fake and put on. I would not be able to earnestly worship them since I had seen their true nature. This is how I feel with the God/Heaven/Hell thing. Also there is another thing which I did not mention because it was not relevant before. For Heaven to be Heaven to me, it must be somewhere where everyone I love goes. If its not its not Heaven. I believe that I should love my neighbor. True Heaven, to me can only be true Heaven if it is somewhere where everyone goes. That is why I believe Heaven can't exist if there is a Hell.
@BHitt
I find all of that stuff so interesting. Its as if our 'selves' are a series of continuous states of sentience unified by nothing more than a consistent nature to the sentience and memory. It seems you can muck with both of these: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing. Even sleep and having a few too many beers shows how our sentience is completely tied to our physical selves. Even with that obvious connection its still an inexplicable miracle. At what point does a complex but ordered set of chemical reactions become aware? And how?
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteMost of what you said i would just repeat from an earlier post. micro-evolution is a term scientist use. If you don't agree go read up on the references i gave. With the content of your post i don't even think you have read the material that i referenced. I use micro-evolution because it's a term i thought you would know about. I believe in variations within the kinds. With limits.
Do you know of new information arising? Site a source.
Anyway. If you are going to say something is out of the Bible can you please reference said place?
So because you cannot live up to God's standard, He should bring them down? Nice.
James Madison Federalist Paper #10
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democratic Republic. The founding fathers wanted to avoid democracy. John Adams is quoted as saying "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Also in the US Constitution it says in Article IV, Section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
Grab the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and Federalist papers while your at it. I got a pocket version of the Declaration of Independence and the the Constitution of the United States of America, it's handy to have on hand when people make comments like that one, and one other that i know of. :-D
Also quote from Benjamin Franklin upon leaving the Constitutional Convention a woman asked him what kind of government he and his fellow delegates had given them, Dr. Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it"
Find a place in our founding documents that say we are a Democratic Republic.
Even our Pledge of Allegiance says "and to the Republic for which it stands"
To me our government is changing into a democratic form. Which is a great tragedy. People are learning and becoming aware of what is going on. I hope to see this restoration of our limited republican form of government that has served our country for many years be restored before the end of my lifetime.
@fug laro,
ReplyDelete1. Ok, i want to know why are we the only ones? Why just Homo sapiens? I guess i have seen to much sci-fi. :-D
2. David Hull(non-Christian) wrote "The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologian is the sort of god that a Darwinian version of evolution implies ...the evolutionary process is rife with happen stance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror ...Whatever the god implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The god of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God whom anyone would be inclined to pray."
My God does not work that way. When He speaks things are. He even talks to things that aren't as thou they were (Romans 4:17).
3. With the Big Bang we can see things wearing down. So we know it cannot be eternal. Now if it is and things change, that is even more frightening. The laws we have one day we should not expect to be the same the next, we would hope they would be, however the universe at any random time might go into another change. Does that make sense? With God, because i am a Christian and trust in the validity of scripture, it says God is the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1:8) He was before all things, and holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). I find it a challenge to wrap my mind around an eternal being.
"But if someone walked up to me and told me to worship them or else they would cut my fingers off,"
How about looking at it this way. A guy, say me, comes up to you and says, the Great Governor of this universe has laws, and you have violated them. The sentence for your trespass is death. The authorities are on their way to take you to be judged. You are probably wanting to know what you can do to pay of the fine, and how much it is. To pay this fine off you must be executed. The King requires perfection and since you have violated the law, you cannot claim perfection (Romans 3:23). Ya the outcome does not look good, it didn't for me either, i was a really wretched man(Romans 7:24). However i know the Kings Son, He loves everyone and wants mercy (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13). If you repent to Him and trust in Him, He will pay your fine, and you can go free(Galatians 3:13). He will be executed in your stead. It's a free gift (Romans 5:18), He cares much for you as well as i do. The choice is yours. You can't and don't have enough time to fix things before you repent to Him, or judgement visits us, just repent and trust. He will help fix things. See Job 40:2-14.
That's how i see it. People rail on God because of the things that happen in this world, which i see as a result of sin and the curse, the other option we have been talking about is evolution, so everything that happens is just random processes. There is no moral absolute so man is free in that worldview to do what they want. Without God what gives us the right to condemn anything or anyone?
part 1 of 2
part 2 of 2
ReplyDelete"true Heaven if it is somewhere where everyone goes"
Would you think over that again? If everyone is allowed then Mao Zedong who killed some sixty-five million in China would be there, Bolshevist and Stalinist Russia leaders who killed a minimum of twenty-five million would also be there. You would also run into Pol Pot who in Cambodia killed two million. I won't even mention the others that are more commonly known. And you want to spend eternity with them? If they then got into Heaven and realized there was no judgement for their wicked acts, what do you think Heaven would be like? Let me answer that, Hell. The rules to gain access to eternal life in Heaven were set by a Perfect, Holy, and Just Being. When we want to rebel against Him we should not expect any preferential treatment. God is not a respecter of persons (II Chronicles 19:7;Acts 10:34;Romans 2:11).
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteYes i do have gay friends, and they know how i view the lifestyle. However i don't treat them with any disrespect, or hatred. It's not the way i am to behave.
"who were born this way as evil science will tell you"
i think this is called pseudo-science. Like in the 1800's when Drapetomania was described by Samuel A. Cartwright to the illness to slaves running away. The remedy was "to whip the devil out of them". I seem to recall that they came up with something similar why blacks could not fly in WWII. Cannot remember what it was called. What i am trying to say is you can get "science" to say what you want. Most people won't know any better.
I don't say what i did to sound arrogant or judgemental, like i am some holier that thou, i am a lowly publican (Luke 18:10-13). I have my own vices as well. It's because of this vice i have that pushed me to seek out an answer. The friends that i have that are gay, i relate to them. I am not gay nor have i ever been, however i have something that is just as damaging to my life, something that i know is being removed daily from me. The ones that want out of the lifestyle and are struggling to leave it i have compassion for. The ones that don't and think it's just fine. I don't wish them any harm, i'm just not going to support their cause. It's a choice, you think about it, it becomes a harder temptation to resist.
And at what point do we draw the line? I think, from talking to many people, that we all have a certain vice in our life that challenges us to obey God's law. I have come to think of mine as my "Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil". And i lived for a long while where that tree didn't have much fruit on it.
I know that this yoke of sin can be removed (Matthew 11:28-30). What i learned in myself was that i had to choose in my heart i wanted it removed. And for a long time i didn't. I went so far as to tell God i did not want it gone, that i liked it to much to let go. Yet as i grew in my relationship with Christ, i reached a point where i wanted it gone. I can remember praying many times for it to just be removed in an instant. Yet it's this willingness to resist and to guard myself that is the evidence for my commitment to Christ. If it were to be taken away in an instant where would the evidence for my obedience to God be? He knows my heart, and how i struggle and want it gone. I just need to remember that He gives me strength to resist(Philippians 4:13). I keep fighting, one day it's going to be totally gone. I can't wait. :-)
I cannot throw stones at these people, for i am a sinner myself(John 8:7).
They should be treated with respect, however i will not support the legalization of their lifestyle nor the forced education of it upon others. It violates a tenet of the moral law God has given us.
I am glad you vented, you can always tell me how you really feel. Like i said before, one needs to have a tough hide to be in this line of work.
And i appreciate your comments Bruce. I can see how you would get pissed at my statement. There are so many people claiming to be "Christian" in the media that give a false witness to how Christians ought to behave. If you feel at any time i am doing such call me out on it. God forbid i ever behave like the WBC. I wish their church was Canaan, and i was Joshua. If you know what i mean. Another area i am working on. :-D
@Edward
ReplyDeleteJust when I think that I would chock it up to difference in belief, I get sucked back in. ;)
Why isn't Mao Zedong in heaven? Maybe God was telling him to do the things that he did (which you've already stated allows for killing off large groups of people) or maybe he said he loves and accepts Jesus at the end of his life. So he easily could be in heaven, right?
This God may be against a man loving another man but he doesn't seem to be too adverse to killing. I know it's in the commandments but I'm starting to think it's the same way prayer and worship is in the commandments which is to say that He seems to want a lot of it but only if He agrees with it.
I have to agree with those talking about how much of a factor our physical selves have on our sentience and personality. I know that I've changed a lot through my life (including a time when I was very religious as a kid) and thinks this happens to everyone before we even get into those who have head injuries, dementia, or later onset mental illnesses like schizophrenia. It's hard to imagine there's an soul that encompasses all of this and shows itself afterwards.
I feel like we'll be able to have more Biblical debates about your beliefs when we've finally reached the New Testament and I look forward to it.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteMicro-Evolution is a creationist term. The only time scientists are forced to use it is in any effort to help creationists. Among biologists, they do not use that term, it is meaningless.
What exactly is a kind? This is another meaningless term.
New information: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information
I reference the whole Bible, I suggest you read it. That said we happen to have a blog here dedicated to just such readings, as the specific passages come up I can only hope they'll get pointed out to you as I'm not always the greatest at keeping up. Since we're at it, allow me to reference the deities testing of Abraham as an example of his tyranny. The point of the test was to make sure Abraham was obedient, it didn't matter that your god stopped the test before completion. This is the kind of obedience your god expects.
If your god is the architect of this world, then I expect his standards to fall in line with his creation. If he knows that we cannot live up to them then either he should lower his standards, or fashion us to be able to live up to his standards. Leaving us unable to live up to his standards and not adjusting said standards can mean only that he expects us to fail so that he can punish us for doing so. If he does not want to punish us, he can simply do away with the standards and the punishment, instead he creates a scape goat so as to place us in his debt. The whole thing is convoluted, either the creation of justifications in the minds of men, or your god is mad.
Not to mention, the concept of forgiveness as Christians hold, is that your god will forgive us our sins if only we accept obedience to him. He will allow anyone of any disposition, of any crime, into heaven as long as they accept him as Lord and Jesus as savior. He cares more about our obedience than he does our crimes. In such a system the only true crime becomes not accepting his lordship.
You do understand that our senators and representatives are a Democratic notion right? That our ability to vote on issues, on our representation, and on our president is democratic. Now, I will agree that our forefathers did not want a purely democratic government because that becomes rule of the majority and is simply a form of oligarchy. The basis of our republic extends as far as protecting the minority from the majority. You do recognize however that we can change the law on majority vote right? The Constitution is provisioned to be changed, by majority vote. That's democracy pure and simple.
The basis of a democracy is the peoples voice in their government, which is what we have. You can point out as many quotes as you want, you cannot escape this basic truth.
@V
ReplyDelete"So he easily could be in heaven, right?"
That is the matter of the heart. If he repented in his heart it would be possible (Luke 23:42). However do you really think someone that thinks they are so great would repent?
"I was very religious"
I think religion is a problem today. Many people live the Christian life as religion, and not relationship. Having a relationship with us is why God created us in the first place. Well that's what i believe. He wants us to have relations with Him and with others. It's really how we are designed. That is why i think being an outcast is so damaging to individuals. Because we are designed for relationships. Now i know i am an outcast in some circles, however i have learned because of my relationship with Jesus Christ it's to be expected(John 16:2-4).
I look forward to the NT as well. Many people don't realize how much of the OT is in the NT. :-D
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteYou really want me to repeat myself don't you?
"Micro-Evolution is a creationist term."
Is this Berkeley site for creationists, that's Evolution 101 right? Maybe you mean evolutionist don't use the -, just microevolution as one word.
"What exactly is a kind? This is another meaningless term."
They are working on it, it's called Baraminology. Thanks for asking that question, i need to go read up on that again. :-D
"New information"
The example at the top of the page is using information that is already there and changing the sequence. Nothing new was added. I can give you Red, Green, and Blue. You can make all kinds of new colours, and you are not adding any new information, just mixing what you have in different ways.
"I reference the whole Bible, I suggest you read it."
There is something to be said about context. :-D
"The story is told of a lady who had an unusual mode of Bible study which she later had to abandon. She, in early mornings, after quickly flipping through pages of the Bible with her eyes closed, would bring her finger down on a verse. She would then open her eyes, and that verse supposedly was her special God-given inspiration and exhortation for that day. One morning as she brought her finger down on a verse, it said, "Judas went out and hanged himself." She didn't particularly like that verse, so she thought God would add further instructions if she tried again. The next time her finger hit the verse, "Go thou and do likewise." She now being very perplexed on what to do, tries again. The next placement said, "What thou doest, do quickly." Thus, she now had her God given exhortation for that day: Judas went out and hanged himself. Go and do likewise! Do it quickly!"
:-D
"If your god is the architect of this world, then I expect his standards to fall in line with his creation."
The creation did line up to His standards (Genesis 1:31). Man decided to rebel(Genesis 3:6), and the ground was cursed because of it(Genesis 3:17).
"If he knows that we cannot live up to them then either he should lower his standards, or fashion us to be able to live up to his standards."
ReplyDeleteUm ya, that would be just great. I have the unfortunate experience to purchase software, if it, which many times it has, does not meet my standard do i lower my standard? No, i either return the stuff, or i get the producer to fix it, sometimes i write my own. I know bad analogy. Yet God has given us a way to live up to His standard (Philippians 4:13). You just don't like it. You enjoy being able to write the rules yourself, right?
If you were to come over to my house there are some rules. No pissing on the floor or furniture is one of them, use the loo. However if you did this at your house, pissing on the floor, i am not saying you have, one just needs to know about evicted people from the projects to understand this i guess, why would i expect you would not do the same thing in my home? I appreciate what little i have, so i don't want someone destroying it. However since you want to write the rules i should just lower my standard and let you in. Not a chance! Our sin is as repulsive to God as someone pissing all over our home is to us. God won't let us in with the stench of sin on us. While we rejected the free bath to was it away(Acts 22:16).
"You do understand that our senators and representatives are a Democratic notion right?"
I think here we are not talking of the same thing, and you have eluded to that in your post. I am talking about a democratic form of government, not a Democratic party. However i could be wrong. There are differences from a democratic form of government and a republic form of government. They are subtle, yet they are different, and when a republic goes to a democratic form, destruction ensues. See Rome, they were once a Constitutional republic as well. Americas recent actions look like an encore. The differences of republic vs. democratic for of government is mentioned in Federalist Paper #10.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteAs I already said, "The only time scientists are forced to use it is in any effort to help creationists." Your link is nothing more than a website used to help the population understand evolution. "Among biologists, they do not use that term, it is meaningless." What I said still stands.
"Baraminology may be defined as a taxonomy based upon the created kinds"
Again I must ask, what exactly is a "kind?"
"I can give you Red, Green, and Blue." By your example everything can be reduced to zero's and ones, and despite all our effort to recombine them into new orders and patterns no new information can ever be made. Yet new games come out every year, every month, every week, your example is simply foolish. Recombining letters forms new words that were not present before hand. A new word allows us to express ourselves in ways we were not previously able. That's new information any way you look at it.
"There is something to be said about context."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
"The creation did line up"
So your god, being omniscient, knew beforehand that Eve and then Adam would each eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yet he still allowed it to happen, and its our fault?
If you have a set bear trap in your backyard, and you don't want your child to step into it, are you going to tell your child no and leave it at that, or are you going to do something about the bear trap?
"i either return the stuff, or i get the producer to fix it"
Right, your god has a failed creation on his hands, a creation he made. Instead of fixing it, he is blaming his creation for its failure. Its not a bad analogy, its a great analogy. As I have already asked before, when the clock fails to work as expected, do you blame the clock or the clock maker?
"Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
The democrat and republican parties make up our elected representatives that allow us to have an equal voice in our government, this is democracy.
How disappointing, I responded earlier today and now I'm not seeing the response I posted. We've been having internet problems so I'm not going to place blame, I'm just disappointed that I'll have to repost.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the Berkeley site you linked, is a link to a sight used to help explain Evolution to a populace that has a high % of creationists. What I said, that micro and macro evolution is only used in addressing creationists still stands. Among Biologists micro and macro evolution has no meaning.
"Baraminology may be defined as a taxonomy based upon the created kinds" again I am forced to ask, what exactly is a kind?
"I can give you Red, Green, and Blue." We have 26 letters in the English language, and every time we combine them differently we come up with new words that allow us to express ourselves in new ways. That's new information any way you look at it.
"There is something to be said about context."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
"The creation did line up to His standards"
If a clock does not work as it is expected to work, do you blame the clock or the clock maker? Your deity has created a world that according to you is not living up to his standards. He is holding the creation guilty rather than taking responsibility for what he has created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
"Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests."
We vote on issues, and the idea is that in so doing we all take part in making legislation. That makes the United States a Democracy.
But since you brought up Rome, may I remind you that Rome fell after becoming a Christian Theocracy.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteYou should write the owners of talkorigns.org and have them change the words on the site. I will quote here:
"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"
Did you design your clock to know right from wrong? Did you write a moral law on it to know that? How about give it a conscious to trouble it when it starts to do wrong. Not that it would last long, some people do evil so much their conscious is seared with a hot iron.
About your letters, someone would need to know what the combinations of letters meant. Now we can combine letters and say this is pronounced in this way. However i highly doubt that the machine combining the genetic letters can do the same thing.
Now about my colours example, i did miss one thing. There was more information added to it. It was the information of the agent mixing the colours. He must know what to mix to get the colour he desires. This would work to your advantage. He could keep mixing the colours to get the one he wants. However where this would fall down is that he only has 1 maybe 2 tries to get the colour that he requires. If he does not make it by then he's dead. Not much going to happen when your dead right?
"He is holding the creation guilty rather than taking responsibility for what he has created."
That is a problem i have had time to time and have noticed in other people. That is, not wanting to take responsibility for their own screw-ups. Some always want to blame it on someone else. I don't like it when people blame me for their shortcomings, i wouldn't expect anyone else to like it either, especially God.
Democracy:
Did you even take the time to look up republic? Since you trust wikipedia, i will use them. Something you are familiar with and maybe can edit to get to say what you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.
And this is how Americas government was initially designed to function. The founding fathers wanted to keep the control of the government close to the people. It is changing over into a democracy, probably why you are so animate that it is a democracy.
I pray that the people will steer this ship back to it's original course.
Rome:
Okay Nero.
:-D
I'll take your link under advisement for now. But you still haven't answered my question, what exactly is a kind?
ReplyDeleteAccording to you, your god created this world, created us, and created his standards knowing we could not live up to them. And then he blames us for not living up to his standards, when he created us that way. I definitely don't like to be blamed for being the way I was created to be. On the other hand I do accept responsibility for my screw ups when I make them, why can't your god?
Your analogies are flawed, machines are not organic, they do not reproduce. The alphabet is a tool invented by man. Combining colors would be intentional. Your flaw is in assuming that biological processes are intentional, created, mechanical. The processes of life are chemical, and while its reactions can be mechanical in nature, they are not specifically so. The information we can get from DNA has more to do with us understanding these processes than what the DNA alone tells us. Like tree rings.
You were linking to Wikipedia before I started responding, why do you suddenly question their accuracy with me?
I never denied that this was a republic. Being a republic meant not being ruled by a monarch or single head of state. Today we often refer to a republic as "The rule of law." So sure, fine I agree that we are a republic. The people rule. But how do the people rule? Through Democracy, with equal voice by elected official. This is why we are properly called a Democratic Republic, which I have already said. This is its original course, its never deviated.
Speaking of Nero, from wikipedia:
"He is also infamously known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned", and as an early persecutor of Christians." His birth and death are listed as December 37 - June 68.
But when we look up the Decline of the Roman Empire:
"This slow decline occurred over a period of approximately 320 years, culminating on September 4, 476"
476 - 320 gives us the year 156, after Nero died. Which gives the entire rise of the Christian Roman Empire, and its fall.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteblogspot has some serious issues with their posting system. Try number 2. :-D
Kind: Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind." Some say created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry.
There is a difference between "can't" and "won't". See we can obey God, however many times we decide that we won't. You ever tell a lie? You know you are lying and that you can tell the truth, however you won't so you just lie. God created Adam and us with the ability to do what is right. However Adam decided not to. And we decide not to at times as well.
"Your analogies are flawed, machines are not organic,"
Yes these machines are, and DNA is a language. Please review this video, you may be able to point out flaws.
Wikipedia, sorry internal joke. I have grown to not trust wikipedia. I should not have written that.
"This is why we are properly called a Democratic Republic, which I have already said. This is its original course, its never deviated."
I have asked before, can you provide me a reference to any Founding Document that asserts that we are a democratic republic? I have mentioned the Federalist Papers that argue against your position. And those papers were written by some of the founding fathers.
As for the reference to Nero i was trying to say you are blaming the downfall of Rome on the Christians. You are right? If so where did you get the information or how did you come to this conclusion?
So is a Lynx the same "Kind" as a Bobcat?
ReplyDeleteIf your God is all knowing and all powerful, then when he created us he created us knowing what we would choose, and he could have created us to choose otherwise. If he's so all powerful and all knowing, he must have created us to choose what we have. The only logical conclusion is that he created us so that he could punish us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
In fact, I recommend you watch most of his (cdk007) videos, you might learn a lot.
That said, evolution works by selecting out undesirable traits and selecting for desirable traits. Start out with 6 dice. It is highly unlikely any one roll will give us a strait 1-6 order. But, if we select out any dice that does not roll what we want it to roll, keeping those dice that have rolled the desired result. It takes increadibly fewer rerolls to get the desired outcome. This is how evolution works, its not all random chance.
http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html
Interesting reading. Very well, I yield to you this understanding and I do so through my own research. That said, I still think things are better now with Democracy, and I don't see it as being in any way evil or wrong. The founding fathers created a government that was capable of change because they knew they could not possible conceive of every difficulty our government would face during its lifetime. Allowing the government the ability to change gave it the flexibility to be what we needed it to be.
You alluded to the fall of Rome as being the fault of democracy. My "blaming" the downfall of Rome on the Christians is just as supported, which is to say both accusations are circumstantial at best. The fact is the Roman Empire fell for many reasons, not any one specific reason. Pure democracy is mob rule, I agree, which is why I support the rule of law that we do have. But Rome didn't fall just because of mob rule or dominant religion, nor is democracy necessarily a bad thing.
@Confused,
ReplyDelete"So is a Lynx the same "Kind" as a Bobcat?"
I guess they could be. However i have been wrong before.
In Berlin, a female wolf and (large!) male poodle were mated. The pups looked fairly similar to each other and nothing special, with genetic information from both parents. But the inbred ‘grand-pups’ were very different from each other: one was like its grandmother wolf in appearance and killer instincts, while the other looked clearly ‘poodle’ and still others were mixtures
"he could have created us to choose otherwise."
Then would we be able to choose to love God if He programmed us to always choose right? Freewill would be gone, we would have none, therefore we would not be able to show any kind of love freely. Yet God gave us the ability to choose freely, and it's with that free choice that we can either love or hate Him. The choice is up to us only.
Nice video i went and read up on bacteria feeding nylon. To me the video presentation now sounds even less convincing than when i started watching it. In the video it mentioned sickle cell, so i present this, hopefully we are talking abut the same sickle cell: Felix Konotey-Ahulu one of the world's leading authorities on sickel-cell anemia cautions "Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that 'upward evolution' is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a proof of evolution." He pointed out that "the sickle-cell gene is still a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for".
You link about democracy was good, yet it said exactly what i have been saying. America was founded as a republic not a democracy. However it's conclusion is flawed. This is the ending i got from it. The founding fathers knew they could not account for everything in their republic form of government, so they left it to future generations to convert it over to a democracy where it could flourish. Now that is what i got from it. Ignorance is leading us to a democracy, many people don't know the difference between a true republic form of government and a democratic form of government.
Also i don't think the founding fathers were power grabbing, money hungry, land stealing men that he portrays. Obviously he selects the history he wants to read. I say this because some of the founding fathers died poor. They gave all they had to fight off the British. And why would you go to war if you wanted to have money and power here? You were not sure 1. You would win to have that money and power 2. You would be in any condition to enjoy anything if you had won. 3. Would you even live till the end of the war to enjoy anything? And they went up against the super-power of their time. Ya let's pick a fight with the largest military on the planet. It's like you and i going up against a small detachment of U.S. Marines. We would be dead seconds into the fight, if we could call it such.
Like i have said before, it's easy for people to judge from the comfort of a lazyboy. They knew when they signed the Declaration of Independence they were signing their death warrant.
No the fall of Rome, as i understand it, was that it went from rule of law: protect the rights of the man, to rule of mob: who cares about the man, give me what i want (i.e. government officials). :-D
Democracy as a form of government is a horrible thing. Just need to know the difference between the two. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
Would you agree that bobcats and lynx have a common ancestor?
ReplyDeleteIf god knew the choices we would make before he created us, and he knew that creating us in the way he did would lead to those choices, and he knew that he could have created us differently in order for us to make different choices... what is free will?
Would you agree that sickle cell is proof of mutation?
My link confirmed what you were saying yes, perhaps he put it in a way I could understand. In either case, I yielded the point to you baring better understanding. In either case our system has changed as they allowed it to do so, and I still think things have changed for the better. Democracy is not inherently bad.
As for Rome, you can drill your point all you want, you can't conclusively state that government changes were the only cause of its fall. In either case may I also remind you that the Christian rise was a top down change of power, it was the emperor and the government who became Christian that allowed the new religion acceptance. We may as well say that Christian Theocracy led to the fall of Rome.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteWork has been keeping me busy and my brain fried. Sorry i did not reply yesterday.
"what is free will
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice or “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
I don't think it was possible for God to have created us differently, granted all things are possible with God (Mark 10:27), however i believe God in doing so would have violated Himself, God is love (I John 4:8). For Him to create us with no ability to choose, then could we show Him love? That would be impossible for us, because we would be pre-programmed to behave in a specific way. You cannot enjoy "love" from someone when they have no choice but to "love" you. As it is written; Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: (Genesis 1:26) I hope that makes sense.
"Would you agree that bobcats and lynx have a common ancestor?"
Yes, i had to do some digging on the internet, because i don't know much about cats, and what i have found is information leading to that they could have a common ancestor. A cat. :-D I don't agree with the ages in the article.
"Would you agree that sickle cell is proof of mutation?"
Yes it is a mutation/defect, it has added no new information.
"Democracy is not inherently bad."
Democracy on paper is not bad, democracy executed by evil men is always bad. It's like our Health Care Reform. In a republic, as in our US Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to force it's citizens to purchase anything, in a democracy that law is binding upon it's citizens, because politicians can make up laws that benefit the people as they see fit.
Ya for Rome, i won't argue it because i don't know much. It very well could have been the "Christians". However since this discussion i know i need to go read up some more on it.
What was the rise of America?
Don't worry about it, this is the first time I've checked in since Friday. The nice thing about the internet is that things don't go anywhere unless a moderator deletes it.
ReplyDelete"I don't think it was possible for God to have created us differently, granted all things are possible with God"
How does that make any sense whatsoever? Either your god is capable of having done things differently or he is not; both cannot be true.
"then could we show Him love?" We could show him what he "programmed" us to show him. And assuming he was all powerful as you claim him to be, he could even "program" us to actually feel that love, to actually believe we chose it. Its funny how limited you make your god out to be while simultaneously claiming that your deity has no limits. Is your god capable of committing evil?
Here's another question, if your god is all knowing, and presumably he knows what we will choose before he makes us, how could we choose differently?
So you would agree that bobcats and lynx's have a common ancestor, and you would fit them both into the same "kind." Do you understand that they are now different species?
You agree that sickle cell is a mutation, that it did not exist previously, yet you don't agree that it is new information? BTW, mutation does not necessarily equate defect. In Italy there is a family who carries a mutation in their genetic code that offers them a greater resilience to heart disease.
Anything executed by bad men is going to turn out bad. We're talking about Democracy, not bad people. Democracy as an idea is about equality for all people, freedom of expression, and open conversation. As a government model its about the people having equal say in the government, but without the rule of law it can quickly become mob rule (the rule of law prevents the majority from taking away the rights of the minority). So I agree that there needs to be limits, but I will not accept that Democracy is inherently bad.
"What was the rise of America?"
To what end? A great many things contributed to America's rise in many areas. But I would say that the free exploration of ideas (Democracy) had a great deal to do with much of what we hold valuable today.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteEither your god is capable of having done things differently or he is not; both cannot be true.
God can do it, however He has chosen not to. It is possible for God to do anything, however He also has free will and can, and has chosen not to do specific things.
We could show him what he "programmed" us to show him.
Yes that could happen, however since God is love He knows what true love would be, and this would not be it. I can write software to sing my praises all day long, however i know it's just a program and i gave it the instructions on what it should say. I would feel as much true love and feelings from that application as God would feel from someone that He programmed to love Him, none. It doesn't matter what the program is programmed to accept as truth, as much as the programmer to know what the truth is. And the truth would be, i programmed this to act within specific parameters and gave it no other choices. Therefore whatever output the program gives me is what i should expected and only that. I know it's not true feelings. The same is with God programming us.
how could we choose differently?
What would prevent you from choosing differently? You have free will don't you?
Do you understand that they are now different species?
Please define species.
You take this as evidence for evolution, however does it really give evidence for evolution? I would say no. Because if you read the article i referenced you would see the opposite is true. Each variety of cat, resulting from reproductive isolation, has a smaller gene pool than the original cats and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result as i see it: extinction. And this is what i have read about some of these cats.
You agree that sickle cell is a mutation, that it did not exist previously, yet you don't agree that it is new information?
Here's one, cut off your feet, now you cannot get athletes foot, is that an addition of information?
Anything executed by bad men is going to turn out bad. We're talking about Democracy, not bad people.
All men are evil, except one.
So I agree that there needs to be limits,
Yet you don't understand that in a truly democratic government that the only limit is to what the people voted in office limit themselves, and once they get in they can change it so they don't have to leave.
Another thing; what makes you believe that a republic form of government does not allow freedom of expression, equality for all people, and open conversation? And when do you consider one a person that has these rights?
"What was the rise of America?"
Now what did i mean by that? :-D
Anyway, at what point did "democracy" help to this rise in your view? I just see it that as democracy has crept into government it has become a morbidly obese glutton that has no respect for anyone outside it's own small world. Such as government spending (See U.S Debt), handouts, that now account for 1/3rd of Americas salaries and wages, forced health care coverage (yes you can opt not to get coverage, yet you will be penalized for doing such), excess taxing(state as well as federal). I will probably think of more after i hit post. :-D
These actions and others happen via democracy because these people don't have any constraints such as a true Constitutional Republic would provide, as we were founded to be. If people knew about how our government was designed to work, as a constitutional republic, this would not be allowed to happen. And it's because people are so ignorant that these things do happen. However i am reading and hearing more and more people are starting to learn the truth.
I didn't ask about whether or not your god has done something, but about whether or not he is capable of something. Let us be clear on this. To that end I notice you failed to answer one of my questions: Is your god capable of committing evil?
ReplyDelete"The same is with God programming us."
You have just defined a limit to your unlimited god.
"What would prevent you from choosing differently?"
Not having free will. This is the point of my questioning, what reason do you have to think that we have free will?
A separate species is generally defined as non-interbreeding. Horses and donkeys are considered separate species, not because they can't interbreed, but because generally they don't, and when they do their offspring (mules) are generally infertile. Non-interbreeding can occur for many reasons including geographical, so its not specifically genetic incompatibility. In the case of Lynx's and Bobcats, normally they don't interbreed. However on occasion they have, the result being named a Blynx. It is extremely rare and as far as I know only one blynx was confirmed fertile, a female.
"Each variety of cat... has a smaller gene pool"
That's not true at all. The vast majority of species of feline have a healthy gene pool, with rare exception; Cheetahs do have an extremely small gene pool that suggests that every cat of the species is related as close as cousins. This suggests a bottleneck in their history, as well as poor chances for their future.
And yes, this is evidence of evolution, because each species of cat has adapted to better survive in their particular environment. Their genes are mutating and nature is selecting for better genes. In most cases those changes mean that the different species are genetically incompatible where once they were not. They are diversifying and changing, this is Evolution.
"Cut off your feet..."
Well now I would be a footless self. Not only can I not get athletes foot, I can also no longer have ingrown toenails, nor can I stub my toes. None of this would have been true before hand, this is all new information for my self.
"All men are evil"
Your religion teaches that, and your religion is not unique in this teaching. I do not accept your religion as true, nor do I accept this statement as true. I also don't appreciate your accusations on my character, unless you can prove I've done something wrong lets not assume I'm anything.
"Yet you don't understand"
No, I do understand that, which is why I agree there needs to be limits.
"what makes you believe that a republic form of government does not allow"
When did I say a republic form of government doesn't allow those things?
I'm not going to sit here and say that our government is perfect, certainly I agree that things need to change. But I will not agree that any of these problems are solely the cause of our government becoming more Democratic. As I said before, Democracy is not purely a governmental construct. Democracy is about everyone taking free part in the conversation. The conversation moves forward by agreement, but without free speech new ideas cannot be introduced, which is why free speech and free expression are so important to a true democratic society.
ReplyDeleteNew ideas will always be a minority. Having the rule of law protects the minority voice from the exclusion of the majority, it is an important part in keeping the democracy true to itself. Our government becoming more democratic means that it now includes those who were once excluded. Where once the vote was only male white landowners, now everyone can take part in government and we're better off for it, we're a more moral society for it.
The problems of spending, and taxing, and forced purchase of health care are not specifically the result of everyone being allowed to take part. Those same problems would just as likely have occurred under a purely male while landowner vote. In fact such a vote would likely be worse because they could enact special provisions taxing women and minorities worse and those minorities would not have anyone to speak up in their defense.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteThe problems of spending, and taxing, and forced purchase of health care are not specifically the result of everyone being allowed to take part. Those same problems would just as likely have occurred under a purely male while landowner vote.
You switching from a democracy to a white male landowner. I thought we were talking about the difference between a republic and democratic form of government. The taxing,forced purchase are symptoms of being a more democratic government. In a republic they would need to amend the constitution to do it. That would require approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
I ask again "When did I say a republic form of government doesn't allow those things?" You talk about freedom of speech and free expression, did not the Constitution of the United States via Amendments provide "Freedom of Speech"?
Amendment #1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These Amendments, to me, are evidence that the Founding Fathers knew their government was not perfect and would need changes. So they provided a way for people to change them. And it was not by converting into a democratic government. You probably already know this, however for someone reading this that may not, the first 10 Amendments are know as the Bill of Rights.
What have you read to learn about republic and democratic or other forms of government? I want to really know how you came to learn that a democratic government was good.
I really have to wonder if you even know what your talking about. A Democratic form of government is a form of government in which everyone has equal voice when it comes to determining policy. When you say this is bad, you are saying that it is better to limit policy to a subset of the whole.
ReplyDeleteWhen our government was formed, which I now recognize was accurately not a full Democracy, women were not allowed a voice(via vote), and non-whites were not allowed a voice. We had to change our government in order to give them a voice, and in so doing turned the government into a more Democratic form by giving everyone equal voice.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is a bad thing to allow everyone equal say in our nations policy? Do you understand where the accusations of racism and sexism come from as concerns not allowing women and minorities to vote?
Being more Democratic, allowing everyone equal say in their governments policy is more moral, is better, than limiting policy to be determined by the few for the whole.
"You talk about freedom of speech and free expression, did not the Constitution of the United States via Amendments provide "Freedom of Speech"?"
Yes it did, and still does, and thats what makes our government a republic, the rule of law. Those protections serve to protect Democracy by protecting the peoples right to express themselves, it protects their voice. That's why the US is now properly considered a Democratic Republic, everyone now has a voice, and no one is allowed to take away those rights from others. The Rule of Law reigns supreme, and we are all allowed to take equal part in our Government.
@Confused,
ReplyDelete"I really have to wonder if you even know what your talking about."
Really? Sometimes i wonder that myself, because i probably am not explaining myself well enough. :-D
Since i have asked you before, i will ask you again. I will try to be more clear.
You said:
"Are you seriously suggesting that this is a bad thing to allow everyone equal say in our nations policy?"
And i have responded to your assertions like the one mentioned above with:
"When did I say a republic form of government doesn't allow those things?"
Which you have never answered.
Being more Democratic, allowing everyone equal say in their governments policy is more moral, is better, than limiting policy to be determined by the few for the whole.
Before i go on, who decides what is morally good or bad?
Where in a republic form of government does everyone not have equal say? Now granted i want to clarify that when i say equal say, we have the right to voice our opinions in a republic form of government. However does everyone else need to agree with my opinion and enact laws to suite my opinion? Nope! And if they had to, then who protects the majority from the minority?
Because women were allowed to vote via the 19th Amendment, was it because of democracy? No it's because the government as a Constitutional Republic was designed to allow for these types of changes via Amendments. Remember the first amendment, and Article 5?
As for women not voting, i have come to view it in part this way.
In Exodus 20:9-11 read it and see if you catch what's missing. Then read Federalist paper #2, the ?fifth? paragraph With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.emphasis mine
So i can see the reason women did not vote was because of the religion of the time. Was this bad, no i don't think so. The reason i say this is because as a Christian would think, the husband and wife are one (Genesis 2:24). They should be in agreement as to who they would vote for. Now granted times change and you don't have people living to these principles so an Amendment was required to allow for women to vote. And i think it's a good thing, granted i would rather have the country all living the Christian principles for life. Now i am aware of several arguments that can be brought up on this view and how bad it is, however it is a view that i think explains the system and people at the time of its writing, and i'm to lazy to type the ones i do know out.
And as you have noted i probably don't know what i am talking about, yet can i ask, do you?.
As for others voting, i have heard of some references that i want to read before i say anything more on that topic. That i will admit i don't know much about... for now. :-D
I should point out that the amendment required that adult female citizens have the right to vote no matter what the States wanted. Several states already allowed women to vote (and Jeanette Rankin was elected to the US House of Representatives and voting there in 1917 several years before the 19th amendment passed) and in Wyoming women had the vote starting in 1869.
ReplyDeleteBTW those old times were terrible for women widowed or otherwise single, or married to bad husbands. I'm glad coverture is gone even if the last remnants in the US only vanished in my lifetime. I'm glad that rape within marriage is a crime (again something that has only recently become true in the US).
"Which you have never answered."
ReplyDeleteActually Edward, you asked me "what makes you believe that a republic form of government does not allow freedom of expression, equality for all people, and open conversation?"
My response was to ask you "When did I say a republic form of government doesn't allow those things?"
"Before i go on, who decides what is morally good or bad?"
We do, who else can?
"Where in a republic form of government does everyone not have equal say?"
Depends on what the law actually says. Our republic defines a law that protects the freedom of speech and expression. But that particular law is not what makes our government a republic. What makes our government a republic is the fact that that law applies to everyone, that no one is above the law.
"Because women were allowed to vote via the 19th Amendment, was it because of democracy?"
No, but in allowing women to vote we became more democratic.
Marriage aside, what about single women? I don't necessarily agree that being wed to another means both have to agree on everything, that's an impossible and absurd standard. But if you give two people one vote, and one person one vote, and one other person no vote, you have an imbalance of voice in government. By giving all women equal vote, you have two votes for two people, one vote for one person, and one vote for another person. Each voice is now equalized and the government becomes more democratic.
Every discussion gives me a better understanding of what I am talking about. I won't claim I've got the best understanding, but I'm fairly certain I have a good grasp.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteWow many comments and you are right, so i will answer, sorry for that.
""When did I say a republic form of government doesn't allow those things?"
By implying that we needed to become more democratic to gain rights for people.
Allowing the government the ability to change gave it the flexibility to be what we needed it to be.
Which you have lead me to believe is not the Constitutional Republic we were founded as, but a Democratic Republic.
about morality
"We do, who else can?"
God does, His morality is immutable, transcendent, unchanging, perfect and objectively true.
So how can man decide what is morally acceptable? Where is mans basis for knowing what is good or bad? Their personal feelings? Is that something that is transcendent? Will everyone feel the same way? Can you really decry the atrocities done in previous generations or even today? Would you not have to say, well they thought it was morally acceptable, so who am i to judge them? Was it wrong for others to fight against them? Or do only the winners get to decide what is morally acceptable?
"No, but in allowing women to vote we became more democratic."
How is that, you allow someone to vote, by using the processes to Amend the Constitution and now you are more democratic? They would have been more democratic if they would have just passed a law saying women could vote, and not amending the constitution. To me your are attributing benefits to being more democratic, when they were their the whole time as a Constitutional Republic offered.
"Marriage aside, what about single women?"
That is a good question, and it's one of the arguments that one could raise. And it is something that as i learn more about the era when the Constitution was accepted i hope will allow me to give a good answer to that and the other arguments. My shot from the hip thought is that the women were not like today, they stayed at home with the father/mother and he (Father) was the head of the house (yes i know what if dad died during the war.). It all goes back to the Christian way of thinking and of upbringing. The husband/father is the head of the home, he is the voice of the family. People may not like it and think it is backwards, yet that is how it is to the God fearing Christian.
"Each voice is now equalized and the government becomes more democratic."
Bull! My 9 year old daughter can't vote, so we should allow everyone to vote so we can be an absolute democratic government and have equalized voices? I don't really think she knows much about the debt this government has and is racking up that will fall on her generation to deal with. Every person in this country does not have the right to vote. So we still have an imbalance of voice in government. If it were perfect it would be you can read and write English, you can vote. Would that be good? I know this sounds so cynical, and in a way it is. You write like we have a balanced voice in the affairs of our government, we don't. So why is it that they limit the voice of minors? I think there was a Florida man that was suing the government because he wanted to run for president, yet was to young. He said that was discrimination. That wouldn't happen to be you would it? :-D
And here is another one:
States can disenfranchise felons, because of how the Supreme Court reads section 2 of the 14th Amendment. So as of what i know now 48 states prohibit current inmates from voting, 36 keep parolees from the polls, 31 exclude probationers, and only 2, being Vermont and Maine, allow inmates to vote. Vermont and Main info is reportedly to have come from the Sentencing Project.
I agree with you we are becoming more democratic in our government. You take it as a good thing, i'll go with history, it's a terrible thing.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteWe might need to re-establish what it is we are talking about. I think we have covered allot and might be confusing each other.
"By implying that we needed to become more democratic to gain rights for people. "
ReplyDeleteWe do; anything less than a full democracy, where everyone has equal voice in government, is tyranny.
"God does"
Firstly you must demonstrate that god exists, without that I have no reason to think your deity is anything more than a fairy tale. Secondly, given what is found in the bible, I find your deities morality anything but. Thirdly, if your god were moral, he could take part in the conversation, but to dictate to us is tyranny.
"Where is mans basis for knowing what is good or bad?"
Do you wish to be harmed in any way? Do you wish your hard work to be broken on a whim, or your things taken? Do you wish your friends and family harm in any way, or for their things to be taken or works to be broken? I would find you somewhat psychotic were you to answer yes. You can be quite sure that the vast majority of people would answer these questions the same way. It is a simple matter to offer the benefit of your own desires to others by not harming them or breaking their works or taking their things. This does not require divine revelation.
"They would have been more democratic if they would have just passed a law saying women could vote, and not amending the constitution."
In passing a law, we amend the constitution. In amending the law so that others have equal voice, we become more democratic. If these rights were there the whole time, the constitution would not have needed to be amended.
"My shot from the hip thought is that the women were not like today, they stayed at home with the father/mother"
Just because that was the way does not mean the women liked it or wanted it. They stayed home because that was the view of how they should be, it did not take into account of how they wanted to be, nor did it make it right.
"The husband/father is the head of the home, he is the voice of the family."
Which is not democratic, and not moral. Each member should be allowed to speak for themselves, in as much as we can expect them to maturely do so.
"God fearing Christian."
If your deity is moral, why should he be feared?
"why is it that they limit the voice of minors?"
We can't expect minors to be mature enough to make mature decisions. I do agree that age does not determine maturity, but as of right now that's what we have, if you can suggest a better method I'd be happy to hear it. Minor's cant vote, but the government also cannot call on them to serve (be drafted). So no, its not a pure democracy, and I never claimed it was, nor did I claim it should be.
Felons on the other hand are people who have been proven by the courts to have shown no respect for the law. Setting aside whether or not the law is right, if a person cannot respect the law they have no right to take part in society. So we remove them from society until they can be reformed.
What in history shows equal voice in government to be a bad thing? You have only made generalized claims that democracy brought down Rome, but I've already shown how you can't make that argument definitively. History does not support your assertions, in point of fact anything other than democracy is tyranny and history is full of examples in which tyranny failed spectacularly. So it would seem that History in fact proves you wrong.
But fine, you don't want democracy, whose voice should we take out of government? And why shouldn't we instead simply take your voice out of the government?
Actually, let me return to your comment:
ReplyDelete"By implying that we needed to become more democratic to gain rights for people."
This was in response to me asking you "When did I say a republic form of government doesn't allow those things?"
We need to return to the definitions of Republic and Democracy, because I think you're a bit confused.
My understanding is that a Republic means only that the government authority is not a dictator, not an empire, nor a monarchy. As such today we refer to a republic as the rule of law, because no one is above the law. This does not say anything about what the law actually says. The law can be just as oppressive as any human authority depending on what the law states.
What our founding fathers did was create a law that limits our governments powers. The Bill of Rights that you refer to does just this, it limits what laws we can and cannot make. We cannot make any law with respect to religion, not to enforce one nor to limit any. We cannot make any law that limits free speech or expression. This is the rule of law that makes our government a republic.
A Democracy is a government in which the people have equal voice. Given no limits the majority can tyrannize the minority simply by voting away the minorities voting rights, but in so doing you no longer have a democracy.
Our government, being a republic, denies that ability. But that does not prevent the people from having equal voice, in point of fact by creating the law which prevents the majority from taking away the voice of the minority, our republic actually encourages democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive, and becoming more democratic by allowing women and minorities to vote does not in any way threaten the republic. In point of fact by giving them voice in the government we are living up to the bill of rights by granting equal speech to everyone.
Giving the people the right to speak up on government matters has no bearing on what the people do with it. Just because everyone has a voice, does not mean the people will use that voice to destroy America. Its certainly possible, but there is no logical path that determines the destruction of America simply because everyone has a voice in its governance.
If we were to revert to the way things were, we would be taking away the voice of women and minorities. That leaves white males alone with a voice in government, and they are just as capable of destroying America alone without the help of anyone else. Your assertions that becoming more democratic is leading to the downfall of America is plainly unfounded.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteYes definition. Your definition is different than mine. And that would be why i seem to come across as confused. :-D
Democracy: A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. — Atwood.
The above is from Training Manual No. TM 2000-25 on Citizenship, U.S. History and the Constitution This manual was compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, to teach our young men in the services the fundamental principles upon which our Government was founded.
If we were to revert to the way things were, we would be taking away the voice of women and minorities.
Can you point out in the Constitution where it limits the rights of women and minorities to vote?
My assertions that becoming more democratic is leading to the downfall of America is truly founded. Because what you believe is democracy you see is the benefit, however what a true democracy is is a horrible thing.
Must i repeat it again Federalist Paper #10 ?Eleventh? paragraph
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Your definition however nice, does not match up with reality. And where did you ever come up with that understanding? What books have you read? I really want to know how people defend that position.
"Democracy: A government of the masses."
ReplyDeleteWrong, Democracy only means everyone has equal voice in the government, it does not necessarily mean that the majority gets to do whatever they want.
"Authority is derived through the election by the people"
Wrong again, a republic only means that the head of state is not a monarch, this leaves the law as the authority. How that law is made and what it says is a completely separate issue. The people electing officials in order to establish law is a democratic notion.
"Can you point out in the Constitution where it limits the rights of women and minorities to vote? "
The constitution was not wrote with women and minority voting rights established at all. We had to amend the constitution to allow them voting rights, before that they were not allowed to do so.
Your assertions remain unfounded.
"Hence it is that such democracies..." That such democracies, not generically all democracies. The author is referring to specific examples.
My definition is pure, and matches reality. What books have I read? Many, may I suggest you start with a dictionary.
"Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."
"A republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch."
I notice you failed to answer my question:
Fine, you don't want democracy, whose voice should we take out of government? And why shouldn't we instead simply take your voice out of the government?
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteI missed you had two posts back to back. So i will start with the earlier one.
We do; anything less than a full democracy, where everyone has equal voice in government, is tyranny.
Your not consistent in your writings because at the end you say
So no, its not a pure democracy, and I never claimed it was, nor did I claim it should be.
Firstly you must demonstrate that god exists.
So you can prove that God does not exist? Right?
In passing a law, we amend the constitution.
Now you are really irritating me, you claim to know much yet you are clearly demonstrating the opposite.
There are two ways to Amend the Constitution.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
If these rights were there the whole time, the constitution would not have needed to be amended.
Then the founding fathers would have thought of everything. Do you really think they could have? So they did what was the best method, allow for the Constitution to be Amended.
Which is not democratic, and not moral.
Who says it's not moral? In my family the father is the head and the rest of us follow him. Ya we may not like the decisions at times, yet he is the leader. And what makes this amoral? I have a map that shows us the route we should be taking and am leading a group of people in your democracy, and everyone has a equal say, who decides which way we go? Who is the leader? If we are told to stick to the map, in your democracy we wouldn't need to obey the map. Would we, because if we had to listen to one person that would not be moral right?
If your deity is moral, why should he be feared?
There is a fear of terror, not what i am talking about with the Christian. Then there is the fear of respect, which is what i am talking about. It's the same respect people have with explosives. Do they fear it? Well not if they are in control of it, yet they do have a respectful fear for it, because they know if they mishandle it bad things would happen.
What in history shows equal voice in government to be a bad thing?
First what do you mean by equal voice? I think i remember going over this before.
You and i have a equal voice where our vote counts the same. Your vote is one, my vote is one. That i say is equal. However i think your equal would mean that since i am a minor my vote counts for 2 or 3, and yours still only counts as one. Please correct me if i am wrong.
With that said on the topic of democracy i am relying on the writings of those that founded this nation and their study of other governments that came before them. Like i said before i am learning more as i go along, and what i still see is that a democratic government is a disaster.
So it would seem that History in fact proves you wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt would only seem so if you had your head in the sand. Come on, you have not pointed me to one source or reference that helps support your assertions. I'm sorry i wasn't trained to just believe what someone tells me (especially on the internet). I want to know the truth and i will study and research to find it to the best of my ability. Now i don't have all the time in the world, yet i do make a hearty effort.
But fine, you don't want democracy, whose voice should we take out of government?
Are you a one hit wonder or what? Why are you stuck on this voice topic. I was told to shut up allot as a child, you have similar experience? :-D Why do you think i want to remove peoples voice?
And why shouldn't we instead simply take your voice out of the government?
I am a Christian, it is something that is being worked on. Like in states where they teach alternative lifestyles. The Christian does not have a voice to remove their children from the class.
So is that morally right? And who decides what is morally right?
I will answer your second post tomorrow.
How am I inconsistent with my writings? Anything less than full democracy is tyranny. We tyrannize the young and the criminal, when did I say differently?
ReplyDelete"So you can prove that God does not exist? Right?"
I don't have to prove that he doesn't exist. It is up to you to prove that he does since you're the one making the claim. If you can't do that I'm well within reason to dismiss your claim.
"There are two ways to Amend the Constitution."
Your point being? When a bill is passed, it is made law, it amends the constitution. How are you missing this?
"So they did what was the best method, allow for the Constitution to be Amended. "
Which is what I have already said, your the one complaining about us taking advantage of this to make the government better by giving everyone equal voice in government.
"Who says it's not moral?"
I say its not moral. Just because your father is the leader does not mean he's right. What if you know of a better way than what is on the map? What if you know the map is false and leads everyone in to danger? Blindly following his lead can get everyone killed. You must be allowed to speak up, you must be allowed to present your case, anything less is folly.
"...if they mishandle it bad things would happen."
You make your deity sound unstable, why would you worship this?
"First what do you mean by equal voice?"
What I am saying is one vote per person. Thats democratic. Historically women were not allowed a vote, and slaves were given 2/5ths of a vote. That is unequal voice, which we corrected by amending the constitution. Now the vote is more equalized, and things are more democratic, with one vote per person with no regard for social standing or gender.
"i am relying on the writings of those that founded..."
You are relying upon authority, which you keep aiming for when you ask for the things I've read. More likely than not you simply want to discredit the authors or the writings to which I refer. Stop relying upon who or what either of us read and think for yourself. You are coloring you're understanding based upon the biases of the authors you read.
I continually agree that democracy without limits can lead to mob rule. What you need to understand is that once it becomes mob rule you no longer have a democracy. Democracy only means that everyone has equal voice in the matter. Anything less than that means that some one, or some group of people, are tyrannizing everyone else because they have more say, more influence in matters of governance. This is precisely what happens in mob rule, the majority stripping away the rights of the minority.
The republic that our founding fathers created, set up rules that said these are the rights of the people, you can't take those rights away. This foundation is what makes us a republic, and becoming more democratic has not in any way threatened this. Those rights included freedom of speech and expression, which is a democratic right because it gives everyone a voice. But the constitution that they set up did not give everyone equal vote. Amending that, and you are the one that brought up the 19th amendment, equalized the vote by denying discrimination based upon gender. This equalizes the vote of the people who are governed, making our government more democratic and more moral.
"Why do you think i want to remove peoples voice?"
ReplyDeleteWhen you deny democracy, you are saying that you want unequal vote, that more likely than not you want your vote to count more than someone elses. To do that you have to take away someone elses voice in government, their vote. That is mob rule, the very thing the founding fathers despised.
"The Christian does not have a voice to remove their children from the class."
Wrong, homeschooling is always an option, in fact many Christian families make a big deal about how much better they are for having home-schooled their kids. I know of no law that forces us to send our kids to school.
"So is that morally right?"
Is what morally right? Being able to take your kids out of school? Having the option is morally right, but you can be sure that I'd say you'd be doing your kids a disservice.
"And who decides what is morally right?"
We do, who else can?
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteI concede. As the old saying goes "He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face." Benjamin Franklin
I also need to follow what scripture instructs Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7
I was going to reply to an earlier post, however i see it will just be a waste of time.
Please leave your closing remarks for anyone else that will stumble upon this. Thanks for the time, it has been interesting.
Damn Edward, don't stop now! This thread is just a few comments short of 100! You two have made this the most commented on post by far.
ReplyDeleteJust a few more rounds, PLEASE! ;-)
"He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face." Yea, my brother learned that one the hard way, good memories.
ReplyDeleteI won't be so crass as to insinuate that you're a fool, but I do hope you stick to your own suggestion that you'll be reading and studying more. May I suggest you update your reading list with more modern authors. Historical documents are important certainly, but those authors did not have the benefit of knowledge and understanding that we have today. The conversations have long since moved on from what and when they wrote.