Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!

I'm not trying to thump anyone with the Bible. If love does not have truth it is meaningless. I love and care for all people. But I just cannot say for example, "thats fine you believe in being a homosexual so I will not say anything." I'm not going to say, "Hey! Your going to hell!" Thats not place because I'm not the judge. But I believe part of God's holiness is that that is sin to Him and He condemns it. And we see what fruit that has brought forth with the AIDS epedemic for example. But being free from those things can only be done in a surrending of our life to Christ. I hated people for a long time and didn't care about absolutes. But now I see the justice of why God has commandments because He is righteous. Because without moral absolutes there is destruction. If you believe that that is not true well I cannot help that. I hope that people would consider what Jesus Christ is offering them. If they do not receive I cannot help it. When I say something like man loves darkness thats because thats what He said. And they nailed Him to a cross. Its hard for people to believe there is a loving God but at the same time its hard for people to be willing to repent and turn away from sin and turn to Him.

AdminPamboli,Okay I'll work on it. Do you still want to talk about prophecy?

Thanks drummachine - I really want you to be able to take part in this forum in a positive manner. I know you have it in you!Do open a new prophecy thread if you want to continue on that subject. There are quite a few participants with an interest in this.[This message has been edited by AdminPamboli, 04-11-2003]

I disagree. Humans instinctively fear darkness. Humans who force themselves into nocturnal lifestyles suffer ill health. By any measure we're built for daytime activity. I "believe" life came from non-life because the evidence points that way. How you can extrapolate a position of immorality is beyond my understanding. If your morals depend on a fairy tale being true, you might wish to base them on something a little stronger. For instance, I base my morals on that which can reasonably be demonsrated to ensure the best quality of life for the most people. I don't need a sky-man to tell me what that is. America, the most prosperous nation on Earth? America, where we live longer than anyone else (or would if we would cut back on the cheeseburgers)? America, the first nation to have truly participatory government on a grand scale? The only way your statement makes sense is if you interpret "destruction" to mean "adoption of moral codes different from your own." I for one think we continue to improve as a nation, in part because of the widespread rejection of literalist interpretations of the bible.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

What would you call it when in the middle of a discussion on evolutionary topics you suddenly issue three lengthy Biblical quotes? I just quote this as another example of you going way off topic. We were originally talking about C14 dating, but you couldn't stay on that topic and instead posted some stumpers from Creationist websites, and now you can't stay with those issues but instead are right back to God and the Bible.Do you ever have conversations where your religious beliefs don't come up? Maybe with your mechanic?As I've said a couple times now, you're the perfect subject of study for this thread. I'd like to understand why you introduce your religious beliefs into every evolutionary discussion. There's nothing to fear in examining the evidence for evolution. Understanding how science interprets the evidence doesn't mean you have to accept it, and it would leave you much better equipped in discussion.--Percy

quote:

---

in part because of the widespread rejection of literalist interpretations of the bible.

---

It is fortunate that the majority (it's about 80/20 I think) do reject literalist interpretations of the bible. However, without having good statisitcs (so this is suspect) I would suggest that the US is the most "literalist" and religious of all the western/developed nations (witht the possible exception of the "Catholic" countries.This is bad given the damage it does to young minds (the literalist aspect) but those who think religion is s force for good in society would expect that it will save America from "destruction". I would wonder which societies that drum thinks will survive the destruction? The muslim world? Catholic southern Europe? Or none at all?

Hi Percy,I agree with your opinion that Drummachine is an ideal subject of study for this topic, I couldn’t ask for a more suitable example. I am sure he is a very nice and genuine guy, but his inability or unwillingness to accept concrete facts makes me wonder if he is genuinely interested in furthering his knowledge of the real world.I read some interesting comments in an anthropology book I was reading during the week the authors state that ‘A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.’(From ‘When Prophecy Fails’ by Leon Festinger, Henry W Riecken and Stanley Schachter, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1956, p.3)The authors also argue that even when a believer is faced with unequivocal and undeniable evidence they will frequently emerge not only unshaken but also even more convinced of the truth of their belief than they were before. The authors present five conditions that they expect to observe following the disconfirmation of the belief, and of these I think that one in particular relates perfectly to inerrantists.‘The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.’ (p.4)This is why idiots like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Carl Baugh, and Ron Wyatt, amongst others, are so resistant to the facts of science, history, and archaeology. They have their armchair science and theology applauded by people who have very little knowledge of these topics and are so desperate for validation of their faith that they latch onto their poor scholarship and this perpetuates the garbage they spout.It is quite easy to support this. You just have to recall how many times that the same arguments appear here, like the marine fossils on mountain tops, the 14C dating or the ‘if humans evolved form apes why are there still apes’ and if I hear that archaeology confirms the Bible time and time again I will scream!I think that a great example of believer supporting another believer’s delusions is manifesting itself as we speak on another thread (I’ll let you guess which one).

I'd say you're right about America being the most literalist. I think this is a reason why the creationist movement is a specifically American thing. (Interestingly enough, the movement started in California, according to one of my professors...)I don't believe Catholicism leads to biblical literalism. Surprisingly they hold to the bible to a minimum. They do think the Pope is divinely infallible, after all. Who needs the bible if you have a pope?

crashfrog,Darkness meaning sin.What evidence points to a design without a designer?Spiritual and physical destruction. Abortion, homosexuality, lawlessness, pornography, rape, murder, drugs, drunkeness, etc.Over 40 million babies only in America murdered in the womb. Yet they say it's not living. Billions of dollars are spent in killing ourselves with tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Billions of dollars are spent on pornography. Murders everyday all over the world. Gay-pride parades. You see "God Bless America" displayed at strip bars.When were taught evolution there is no accountability to the Sovereign Creator. Not some "sky-man". So man does what he feels is right. That's why the world is corrupt. We have all broken His law so even though it breaks His heart He has to judge justly. But because of His love His Son paid the penalty to free us and give us a new life and eternal life. What a deceptive tragedy it is to reject His love and choose the things of this world and when we know He says it will cost us eternity to pay for our own sins.

quote:

---

When were taught evolution there is no accountability to the Sovereign Creator. Not some "sky-man". So man does what he feels is right. That's why the world is corrupt.

---

So before Darwin there was no corruption? It is worse in places with less religiousity? The religious don't do what they "feel is right" both in spite of and because of what they precieve their religion to be saying?

"Sin" meaing those activites you don't agree with. I fail to see your point. In the absence of your initial assumptions - a god exists who sets moral codes - what does sin mean?the answer is, it's meaningless. Does that mean I advocate no morals? to the contrary. By considering what does the most good for the most people, I can establish moral imperatives without recourse to supernatural entities. Well, of course you can't have design without a designer. That would be a contradiction in terms. But there's plenty of evidence for function without design, for instance genetic programming techniques. Function and design aren't the same. It is possible to have function without design, just as you can have designs with no function. If they're in the womb, they're not, by definition, babies. Prior to exposure to language, I'm not even sure they're human. (of course, what constitutes "human" is a very open-ended question.) Nobody says they're not alive. But killing living things isn't always wrong (I assume you use soap and disinfectants?) Humans have a right to mess with their bodies because bodies are property. (Your own property, of course.) Pornography isn't wrong. It serves a very human purpose. Murders happen, which sucks. Some gay people are proud of the advances their community has made in securing basic human rights for themselves, so they're entitled to celebrate their victory. Strip bars have a First Amendment right to exist. If they're thankful for that right, why shouldn't they say so?All these things sound bad to you, but that's your own opinion, not a universal truth. Otherwise why would so many people disagree with you? I guarantee you, this has never appeared in any scientific textbook at any school or university. No one has ever been taught this. if they reached this conclusion, they did so on their own, not as part of some brainwashing. If it's a rational conclusion to reach from the evidence, however, maybe that says something about your god?

quote:

---

If they're in the womb, they're not, by definition, babies. Prior to exposure to language, I'm not even sure they're human. (of course, what constitutes "human" is a very open-ended question.)

---

A physical anthropologist/forensic anthropologist (Dr. David Glassman, Southwest Texas State University) where I went the school, put it this way ( paraphrasing ) "If you look at the electrical patterns in the brain of a fetus prior to 7 or 8 months old, they look nothing like the patterns of a newborn or of a adult. Prior to that, the patterns are mush. If an adult were to be injured and consequently had those same mushlike brain patterns, we'd pull the plug." I really should look this up, but for now, take it fr what it is-- my memory of a statement made in an anthropology class.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

When were taught evolution there is no accountability to the Sovereign Creator.

---

Quite the opposite, perhaps. If we were created, then our flaws, potential or realized, and the natural evils of our situation, potential or realized, are the direct result of a knowing act of will by another.Perhaps God, in such a case, would rightly be accountable to us, for making us so, or for condemning us all on the account of one minor act which any loving father could forgive - and what loving father has not forgiven disobedience in his children?Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I complain to thee; yet I would plead my case before thee. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-25-2003]

Hi MP This, in my opinion, is one of the major flaws in Christian theology. A relatively minor act of eating a fruit results in the eternal torment of billions of people.The most common excuse I have heard from Christians is something along the lines of 'don't you punish your children if they are naughty? They suggest that a punishment can be a good thing because it stops them making the same mistake. One Christian I spoke to equates it with smacking a child that goes too close to hot stove, it is for their own good!However, if God created a perfect world then that world would have no experience of right or wrong, so how would telling Adam and Eve that it is wrong to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil mean anything to them?They wouldn't know what 'wrong' was until after they ate the fruit.As you say, what type of father punishes so severly for such a minor act of disobedience, and will only forgive them AFTER they torture and murder his son, then accept that he rose from the dead, and then believe in their heart that the son is their lord and saviour.It is pretty cringable because essentially God has made the error, he then blames us for that error, and to forgive the error we need to torture and murder his son, all this is God's will, HE decided that we had to murder his son, he could have made the criteria for forgiveness anything he wanted to.It is amazing what people can justify to themselves in order to validate their worldview.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

I agree pretty much entirely. I guess what saddens me is that, taken as a symbolic myth of the nature of sin and suffering, the relationship of self-awareness to sin and suffering, and the relationship of human wrongdoing and "natural" evils, and how all this works in to morality, it is an astonishingly rich and moving parable. I personally find much of value in it. But taken literally, to require a literal personality who can knowingly condemn countless generations to suffering, it's just nonsense.