Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In His own image .....
drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 98 (38076)
04-25-2003 7:13 PM


What exactly did he say that was false? I don't even know what teaching it was. Please give me the name and I will listen to it. I know it was Dr. Mark Eastman but what particular lecture was it? I'm not trying to avoid this.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 04-25-2003 8:03 PM drummachine has not replied
 Message 48 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-25-2003 8:06 PM drummachine has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 98 (38088)
04-25-2003 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by drummachine
04-25-2003 7:13 PM


Drum writes:
What exactly did he say that was false? I don't even know what teaching it was. Please give me the name and I will listen to it. I know it was Dr. Mark Eastman but what particular lecture was it? I'm not trying to avoid this.
The discussion has become confused. Here's the history:
  1. You opened a thread called Evidence For God with no discussion, just a link to a website: marshill.org. Because of the absence of any introductory discussion the thread was closed.
  2. You opened a new thread a few hours later called What would be the resume for evidence of a creator? in which you introduced a couple arguments from that website, but failed to reference the website. NosyNed listened to the MP3 from that website that mentioned the arguments you had just introduced, and that's where he brought up the statement about calling Denton an evolutionist. You haven't responded to this thread since this past Monday.
  3. Since you didn't respond in the other thread, I raised the issue here when the opportunity arose.
Hopefully this is enough information for you to now understand the question about Denton. The website you cited quoted Denton words from his anti-evolutionist days and then called him an evolutionist. What do you think of sources that misrepresent or distort information?
If it helps, the audio portion of the website is at Home / Mars Hill. I haven't listened to them and so don't know which one contains the Denton reference, but you and NosyNed should know which one it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by drummachine, posted 04-25-2003 7:13 PM drummachine has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 48 of 98 (38090)
04-25-2003 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by drummachine
04-25-2003 7:13 PM


Home / Mars Hill :
This "catch 22" has been noted by evolutionist and molecular biologist Michael Denton
In 1985 evolutionist Michael Denton made this astonishing admission
This latter statement is quite simply a falsehood. Denton published his anti-evolutionist book "Evolution: a theory in crisis" in 1986 - a year after this "quotation." He later became an evolutionist and published a defence of evolutionary theory "Nature's Destiny" in 1998.
Eastman, quite simply, could not have read "Evolution: a theory in crisis" without understanding that Denton was writing as an anti-evolutionist.
Now, you know what really saddens me in this? It took me less than 2 minutes to find these quotes on a website I had never previously visited. Admittedly I'm experienced on the web, but the quotes were there for anyone to find with relatively little effort - especially someone who had posted the original links.
You have procrastinated and evaded this question for almost two weeks. It speaks volumes for your personal attitude to the integrity of your sources that you have not shown one iota of commitment to addressing this issue.
Now, one more time, what do you make of web sites that present falsehoods of this sort?
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by drummachine, posted 04-25-2003 7:13 PM drummachine has not replied

  
stevo3890
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 98 (42529)
06-10-2003 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike Holland
04-07-2003 6:05 AM


in his own image
Hi, God's own image is Free will. we are free to do what ever we want and because of this we are in "his image".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike Holland, posted 04-07-2003 6:05 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by compmage, posted 06-11-2003 3:17 AM stevo3890 has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 50 of 98 (42535)
06-11-2003 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by stevo3890
06-10-2003 11:55 PM


Re: in his own image
stevo3890 writes:
Hi, God's own image is Free will. we are free to do what ever we want and because of this we are in "his image".
So why can't I exercise this free will and by just snapping my fingers have every rapist, murderer and child molestor die right where they stand?
Because that goes against their free will? Well the actions that made them rapists, murderers and child molestors also violated someones free will.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by stevo3890, posted 06-10-2003 11:55 PM stevo3890 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 1:03 PM compmage has not replied

  
stevo3890
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 98 (42568)
06-11-2003 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by compmage
06-11-2003 3:17 AM


Re: in his own image
Free will does not imply you can do what ever you want. It is just that you are free to make your own decisions on what you want to do, not an instinct.
People are free to do whatever they want even if it infringes upon somebody elses free will. God gave us free will, but what we do with it is our own choice.
if i missed your point tell me and i will try to address it properly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by compmage, posted 06-11-2003 3:17 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 1:39 PM stevo3890 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 98 (42577)
06-11-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by stevo3890
06-11-2003 1:03 PM


Re: in his own image
I think his point was that the optimum way for god to maximise free will is not a hands-off policy, but to intervene occasionally because some human actions prevent the excercise of free will by other humans. For instance, a murderer may be excercising free will by firing a gun at me, but what about my free will? I can't use my free will if I'm dead. Therefore if god was really concerned about free will god would let the gun fire but stop the bullet, preserving my life so that I could still have free will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 1:03 PM stevo3890 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 1:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
stevo3890
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 98 (42581)
06-11-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-11-2003 1:39 PM


Re: in his own image
Yes that would be the best way to allow you your free will but if God stopped his bullet he would be denying the killer his free will, either way somebody will have his free will denied and well, that defeats the purpose of giving a free will in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 1:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:13 PM stevo3890 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 98 (42584)
06-11-2003 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by stevo3890
06-11-2003 1:55 PM


Re: in his own image
Yes that would be the best way to allow you your free will but if God stopped his bullet he would be denying the killer his free will,
No, he still has free will. He still made the choice, pulled the trigger, fired the bullet. He can still go to jail for attempted murder.
That's what free will is, right? Making choices? His ability to choose was not impared. He made the choice to pull the trigger. But the consequences of that action were interrupted. Free will doesn't mean you get to control the consequences, only the choices you yourself make. As you said, free will doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. It just means you get to make whatever choices you want to - the consequences of those choices are not under your control.
Anyway, why does a killer deserve to have his free will protected over an innocent victim's?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 1:55 PM stevo3890 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-11-2003 2:17 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 56 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 2:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 98 (42585)
06-11-2003 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
06-11-2003 2:13 PM


Re: in his own image
quote:
That's what free will is, right? Making choices? His ability to choose was not impared. He made the choice to pull the trigger. But the consequences of that action were interrupted.
The first time, yes. But if God keeps doing it, that's another story. After a while it gets out that God is stopping bullets, and murder is effectively impossible. Suddenly everyone knows they can't choose murder, because God won't let it happen. For all intents and purposes, the decision to kill someone is out of our hands.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:33 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
stevo3890
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 98 (42586)
06-11-2003 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
06-11-2003 2:13 PM


Re: in his own image
By stopping bullets God is undermining the killers decision, and impeding on his free will.
About a killer having his will protected over the innocent, I thought that God loved all creation equally... so I guess the killer's free will is just as importent as the innocent's will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:35 PM stevo3890 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 98 (42587)
06-11-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dan Carroll
06-11-2003 2:17 PM


Re: in his own image
For all intents and purposes, the decision to kill someone is out of our hands.
And that's bad how, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-11-2003 2:17 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-11-2003 2:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 98 (42588)
06-11-2003 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by stevo3890
06-11-2003 2:27 PM


Re: in his own image
so I guess the killer's free will is just as importent as the innocent's will.
no, it's more important, apparently - God won't intervene to protect my free will, but he'll allow the killer's free will to run rampant.
Isn't it much more likely - logical, even - to assume that there is no god at all? That avoids all these ridiculous cirumlocutions about "free will" and divine intervention. We have free will because there is no being who can intercede. Makes much more sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 2:27 PM stevo3890 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 2:46 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 61 by stevo3890, posted 06-11-2003 3:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 98 (42589)
06-11-2003 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
06-11-2003 2:33 PM


Re: in his own image
quote:
And that's bad how, exactly?
Well... I can wax on about how the decision to do good means nothing if the possibility of doing bad isn't there, etc etc. But I'm sure you've heard it before. My only point was that recurring interference by God would impede free will. Whether that would be good or bad is a whole other ball of wax.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
stevo3890
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 98 (42590)
06-11-2003 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
06-11-2003 2:35 PM


Re: in his own image
First, Why would God give free will only to intercede on it? It kind of defeats the purpose of allowing us to operate independently of him.
Second, how do you qoute like you just did?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2003 3:20 PM stevo3890 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024