What if creationism's 7 days weren't on the same astrological calendar as we are today? What if 1 day to God is 1 million years to us? It may have just been said as 7 days because at the time we couldn't truly comprehend such a large number. Both ideas can coincide.
@reece, I do not "watch" any news. I usually read it. I use websites such as Fox, Breitbart, RT, the Daily Wire, National Review, and various others. I mostly read from conservative outposts, yes, but they do not typically report on creation v. Evolution.
"It may have just been said as 7 days because at the time we couldn't truly comprehend such a large number."
If it took God millions of years to create the Earth, 'He' is not omnipotent. If God were truly omnipotent, 'He' could have created the world in one day. One minute, even.
Think about this for a second: Why does the Bible not mention the rest of the universe? Mars? Jupiter? Dwarf stars? Black holes?
Because the writers of the Bible had no clue these things even existed. If the Bible truly was the word of God, surely 'He' would wish to tell the world about the entire universe he created instead of fussing over who someone sticks their genitals into?
HAwoman, The focus of the Bible is not the rest of the Universe and the wonders that were created there. The focus is on Jesus and the events that lead up to His life, then the events in the first century that were the result of His life, death, and resurrection. "Who someone sticks their genitals into" is simply part of the story that helps us to understand who God is, and what He expects from us. Humanity has not changed in 6000 years, and neither has God.
As evidenced by the history of humanity depicted in the Bible, we still have the same problems that existed 6000 years ago (selfishness, lust, envy, deceit, etc, etc.). Morality is not a "sliding scale". There are things that are right and things that are wrong in and of themselves. "Situational ethics" is a misnomer. If a thing is right, it is right no matter what the situation is. If a thing is wrong, it is wrong, again no matter what the situation.
Yes, the people in the Bible used to stone people for being Gay, because God commanded them to destroy evil when they found it. He commanded this to prevent evil in any form from spreading and dragging them further away from God. If you allow any evil to exist unpunished, you give strength to evil of every form, which fertilizes the environment for other evil to grow. The best way to keep a nation firmly focused on proper ideals is to quickly and firmly stamp out every evil as it happens.
@JonHouser Yes, morality is a "sliding scale". What matters is to what extent selfishness, lust, envy, deceit, etc, etc. is acceptable. Morality by definition is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad.
No, morality is not a sliding scale. If it were, then I could say that, because I have not had sex in a long time, it is OK for me to rape your sister. Now, how long is long enough for that to be OK? One year? One month? One week? One hour? And who gets to say how long "a long time" is? Me? Your sister? There is no amount of deprivation on my part that makes my rape of your sister right. There is never a time when me raping your sister would be a good thing. Therefore there is a solid anchor for a moral scale. There are other things that are never OK. Murder, theft, assault, homosexuality, envy, greed, and many others. These things are spelled out in the owner's manual written by the Manufacturer.
"If it were, then I could say that, because I have not had sex in a long time, it is OK for me to rape your sister." This makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. Of course there are certain things which do not change. Rape is always wrong - there is no circumstance under which rape would lead to the greater good. This is different to something such as lying. You can tell a lie for the greater good; you cannot rape for the greater good. The same goes for murder. You're blinded by absolutist ethics, and the fact that you mentioned homosexuality in the same list as murder and assault shows what sort of cruel person you are. Being gay is in NO way comparable to being a murderer.
The fact that you will kill someone if I fail to rape someone else does not make me committing rape right. Nor does it make me responsible for the deaths of the people you kill for my failure to do evil. You cannot excuse evil by playing it off in some kind of hostage situation.
@reece, I know we have gotten way off track with this line of thought, but if everyone else will forgive us, I would like to follow it out with you. Please explain your last two comments, and how I am wrong in my last comment. Thank you.
@JonHouser The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?
@reece, your trolley problem is simple, pull the lever and save the five vs saving just the one. Given this scenario, someone is going to die, and I have the option of saving one or saving five. There is nothing immoral about pulling the lever. However, this is not in any way related to the my previous argument. In my previous argument, I said that committing an immoral act (like raping someone) in order to prevent someone else from killing a bunch of people would still be wrong. There is no reason or circumstance when committing an immoral act becomes a moral act.
And the "greater good" is a fallacy. The greater good never out-weighs individual rights. For instance, you are in a cave with fifty people. The cave is filling up with water and everyone will die if you don't get out through a small hole. However, the first person through the hole is fat, and he gets stuck in the hole. The only way to get him out is to kill him. Is it morally right to murder this person to save yourself and the other 48 people in the cave? I say no. It doesn't matter that all 50 of us will die, Murdering this one person is still wrong, even though he will die with us when the cave floods.
@Mharman I think most people pull the lever. What if instead of a lever, you're up high on a balcony with someone obese. You have an option to push him/her off to stop the trolley. Would you? Most people say no.
@reece, If it is a question of everyone dying by accident, circumstance, or someone else's actions, or me killing one person to save everyone else. Then I will let everyone die. I believe that there is a fixed scale on morality, and wrong is wrong no matter what situation you try to put on it to excuse it.
@reece, No, I am not against the death penalty. The execution of a criminal is not murder. There must be severe consequences to crimes committed, and a criminal has forfeited his rights when he decided to take away the rights of his victims.
Because from what I have seen, it has been proven that they were guilty of massive crimes against "humanity" when they were the leaders of their respective countries. If I were in a position of authority over their trial, I would have no problem executing them.
Either. I carry a firearm on my person at all times. I hope and pray I never have to use it, but if I ever am in a situation where a criminal is victimizing someone else, I will take actions to stop the criminal. But if I am unable to stop them myself, I will testify against them and make sure that they are punished for the crimes they committed. I would recommend you read "Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html. I am a sheepdog!
You are combining two different situations. In the cave where there is no criminal element causing the threat, I would not murder the man stuck in the opening to save everyone else (to do so would make me a "wolf"). In an active shooter situation, I would take action against the criminal element to defend the lives of the "sheep" that are being threatened. These are very different situations, and my positions are not contradictory.
NO! Murder is wrong no matter what situation you are in, but not all killing is murder. Self-defense is not murder, defending the innocent is not murder, executing a criminal is not murder. Killing the man in the cave would be murder.
Not true. The Bible, the user's manual written by the manufacturer of the world, defines what is good, what is evil, and (in this case) what murder is and is not. God, through the Bible, sets the standard for what murder is and is not. He is the judge, not "society". Society has legalized abortion and said it is "right", but that doesn't change the fact that it is still murder, and therefore wrong. To abort a pregnancy is to kill the most innocent, most defenseless of humans. That is murder according to the Bible.
@JonHouser “may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” Please tell me how this is out of context.
@reece, this is comical. It is as I feared. You have misread the Bible and put your own bias into It. First, this passage has nothing to do with abortion. It is about testing a woman who a man believes to have been unfaithful to their marriage. The water with dust in it is not poisonous. It is just dirty water. If the woman has been faithful, then the water will taste sweet, and she will be unharmed. However, if the woman has been unfaithful, she will be cursed BY GOD to have miscarriages and not bare children. This would be devastating to a woman in that time, because in that culture, her value to her husband was very much wrapped up in her ability to give him many children. (I am not saying this is the way it should be today, but it is the way it was then.) So you see, it is not the man who is doing harm to the woman, it is the woman who (in this case) did harm to herself (by being unfaithful to her husband), and God who is administering the punishment for the crime.
I would ask that you take a step back, clear all preconceptions away, and read the full chapter for yourself. What does it say? I had never focused on that passage before, so I had to reread it to understand the context. In what way does understanding the context and meaning of this passage mean that I "drank the cool-aid"?
In what way am I "in an abusive relationship with myself"? This passage of Scripture does not impact me in any way. First, this passage is part of the Old Covenant which was abolished when it was completed by Jesus. Second, when it was in effect, it was not there as a way to abort an unwanted child. It was there as a form of punishment, by God, if a man believed his wife had cheated on him. I am not sure what version of the Bible you are reading, but the language there has nothing to do with abortion.
From the NKJV it says, " then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; 22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”
@JonHouser You don't critically think. A lot or religious people self-project their own preconceived notions onto the bible and justify scripture how they see fit. You keep bringing up that I referred it to abortion, which I didn't. Read what I said again.
You said "You do realise the bible is "pro-choice" if you suspect your wife of cheating. It essentially tells you to poison her." "Pro-choice" is almost always a euphemism for abortion. And this passage never tells the husband to poison his wife. It says that if he suspects she has cheated, for the priest to have her drink water with dust in it. If she has cheated, then the water will poison her because of her sin. If she has not cheated, then there will be no harm. In what way did I misunderstand you or the Biblical passage?
@JonHouser There's a reason why I placed pro-choice in quotes: the husband can decide whether to poison his wife or not. Some people could interpret this to be pro-choice like they interpret everything else in the bible. So would you ask a priest to give your wife bitter water if you suspect her of cheating? If not, why?
The Bible is so Pro-Life that it has an allegory of God flooding the Earth, likely killing everyone except for Noah and his family. Children, babies, and pregnant women were killed. You can't get more Pro-Life than that!
Yes, but when your God is the cause of these deaths, that only makes the deaths seem so much worse. Did almost all of humanity have to die out? I'm certain that they didn't, but apparently your God believes so, showing that he fails to consider the importance and sacredness of human life. We are nothing but God's disposable playthings, if you even believe that there is a God.
Yes, humanity was deserving of death. Read Genesis 6:5: "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." God created life and has granted His elect with everlasting life. You and I, as sinners, are deserving of death right now. It is a mercy that we are living.
If I lived under that set of laws and I suspected my wife of cheating, yes, I would ask the priest to give her that bitter water. First, that was the law of the land in that time. Second, if she had cheated, then I would not want to share my bed with her anymore. If she had not cheated, it would confirm her loyalty to me.
@CosmoJarvis, LIFE to God means something different than it means to most people on Earth. Most people on Earth can only conceive of the life they have here on Earth. But God is more concerned with the life of your eternal soul. All the people that were killed in the Flood had already died spiritually. They were cut off from God by their sin, and were not penitent. Therefore, God took away their physical life to reflect their spiritual lack of life.
No, I would subject her to the punishment God decreed for an unfaithful wife. If I was wrong, and she had not been unfaithful, no harm would come to her. But if she had betrayed my with another man, then she had already poisoned herself, and I would not want her in my bed anymore anyway.
That still doesn't mean that your belief that, if it was accepted, poisoning your wife because you merely suspect them cheating is moral at all. It's pretty messed up, and even moreso after seeing what you've said regarding it. Horrific to say the least.
@JonHouser: Numbers 5:22 has been taken out of context. It has been twisted to mean the Bible was telling the Hebrew men to poison their wives for suspected unfaithfulness. As you have pointed out, this is not the case.
@subdeo, now I understand what you mean. Yes they are misinterpreting the passage by putting their bias and humanistic interpretation into the meaning. @reece, the context here is a people devoted to God, and living under His law. He commanded that if a woman sins by sleeping with another man, the inert water given to her by the priest will become poison (caused by God, not man). It is God's punishment for her sin, not the man's punishment. The man does not poison her. Her sin poisoned her before the man brought her to the priest, and the water testifies to her sin by making it visible to everyone due to the curse.
The water turns *poof* poison.
It's astounding to know that book written thousands of years ago by men who mistook natural occurrences for witchcraft and magic and by people who thought the world was flat could convince people that man was made from clay and women were made from a person's rib.
I've read a wee bit of the Bible and I've found that Satan is probably the most benevolent deity there. He was the one who gave Adam and Eve fruit from the tree of knowledge, he singlehandedly went against the tyrant God. God killed thousands and ignored "his children" when they needed him most. Where was he in the sacking of Constantinople? Where was he in the Black Plague? Where was he in World War One or Two? It was knowledge that helped us survive; the ability to evolve and create new solutions to problems. If anything, I'd rather be a Satanist, if I were to believe in the Bible. Heh.
CosmoJarvis, Just as you are free to say anything you want in America, but you are not free from the consequences of those words, you are free to believe anything you want to believe, but you are not free from the consequences of those beliefs. There is a God, and He will judge the world based on their beliefs and deeds. This will be my last post on this topic. While I have enjoyed seeing the way the minds of the people work on this topic, I recall a story about pearls that demands that if you want to continue to discuss this, you can message me directly.
It was all part of God's plan to create and then mass execute and torture millions of species. That's what you get from an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent sky daddy wizard. With great power, comes great responsibility.
That only applies if your sect of creationism is true. There are thousands of denominations. Hopefully, you guessed the right sect of religion. Otherwise, you've wasted your one life, and you're still going to the "bad" afterlife of the many other sects of religion you didn't believe in. So, I'll pick the facts over 1/1,000,000 gamble, because you have no way of knowing if you're right and Islam is wrong or Judaism or the many other sects of Christianity like Catholicism or Baptism or Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witness or Mormonism. Have fun on that chance; I'll be spending my time not going to church and wasting the one life I know I have to live.
Which one is used to expand our understanding of the natural world and does not contradict our background knowledge?
All fields of science, except pseudo science use theory of evolution. Every aspect of life and physical sciences supports and corroborates the theory of evolution.
Geology-- deep time and paleontology
Physics -- origins of universe
Biology -- all of the life sciences show evidence and support for the theory of evolution, but moreover do not make logical sense without this unifying theory.
There is no question about evolution's existence, but there is some academic debate about how evolution works mechanistically. Casual observers often mistake this for 'debating evolution' erroneously.
In reality there is no way to prove that the big bang happened. Science facts are based on facts; solid, tangible facts that can be tested. Someone; think of an experiment that can prove the big bang happened.There isn't a single experiment that can add credibility to it. Science evolved from philosophy. Philosophy is where they think up ideas to explain something, and the best idea must be TRUE. Then science came, and the could prove it through experiments, but science is slowly starting to become philosophy now, the best idea must be TRUE. The big bang theory is called a theory for a reason. They can't prove it, so stop teaching as a fact, and more as an idea. Finally show the other ideas that might be possible