Since it seems we are no longer taling about ol' chappy I figure I will give this debate my few cents, and I have very few.
I beleive that there is SOME form of devine being out there, somewhere, from which all was created and goes back too. I agree with Neilks argument that if there is no God, where do we come from. In regards to morals, morals emerge becasue of what we PERCEIVE to be right and wrong. If thing s had developed differently we might perceive rape and robbery to be right. It is through religions such as Christianity and Judaism that peacful morals emerge, and we as humans take those morals we are taught and apply them to our world.
A good example is stoning adultresses. For a time it was acceptable, then came a man who had a new set of thinking and morals who decided against it, and thus we no longer stone adultresses, just make them outcasts. My point is, we as humans have no true sense of direction, and I would like to beleive that we are given guidance by the divine as a means of shaping in God's image as were so long ago.
Iron_Maiden wrote:A good example is stoning adultresses. For a time it was acceptable, then came a man who had a new set of thinking and morals who decided against it, and thus we no longer stone adultresses, just make them outcasts.
I was under the impression Adultery wasn't an issue in secular society any more.
Please stop this argument, Clavin12 and HitchcockGreen. It goes nowhere, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and has the potential to create horrible disaster.
Last chance.
If it's all the same to you, I should like to continue the discussion, if Hitchcock is willing. I will agree to disagree if we come to a draw, and thus avert the "Horrible Disaster". This is the off topic board after all.
Back On Topic: It's a very good speech. Quite compelling.
I was raised hard-core Baptist by a very religious mother. Church most every Sunday. Bible classes, etc. I too made the critical mistakes that have been made in the early comments of this thread. That being I attempted to bring the sciences into the debate to convince ‘non-believers’ they are wrong.
But around the age of 19, I underwent a fairly intense depression from a flowering awareness that Christianity really had little chance against science and maybe, just maybe, a Christian god was probably not there. Not only not there, but pretty much not possible. . .based on the information that was available. . . primarily the bible.
My mother is even more hard-core religious now than she was when I underwent my transformation, so I have a much more mature and seasoned perspective on the rationalization and justification that pervades all of Christianity. If you corner a Christian on well known passages that CLEARLY must be violated, such as Exodus 21:17 or Exodus 35:2, you WILL get a justification/rationalization of some kind. And those rationalizations are all over the map, depending on the particular Christian dogma. But the point being, there is ALWAYS a justification to break from the bible’s teachings if that teaching cannot be adhered to in a modern society OR that individual's real wants and needs.
And by no means do I mean to pick on Clavin, he seems to be a great guy, but he provides a perfectly good example by violating Matthew 5:22, and I am imagine a justification/rationalization may be in a post ahead.
I found using science when I was a teen, physics, chemistry, geo-tech, physiology when trying to debate for the existence of God was always a huge mistake. We can look at example after example, Noah’s ark, water turns to blood, parting the Red sea, swallowed by a fish and surviving, the earth being 6000 years old, ‘Adam & Eve’, the Resurrection, etc. etc., believe me I could go on. All of these can me objectively, and other times, subjectively shown to be fables, and many Christians will say exactly that. However, there are a healthy percentage that literally believe in a few I mentioned. If you’re a Christian, it’s just a matter of picking through and tweaking the beliefs you can live with and are most comfortable.
I guess my main point here is never bring a faith-based belief system such as Christianity into a discussion involving science or what the bibles teaches. . . .you will always lose at a minimum, and possibly go as far as be humiliated and embarrassed.
I look at my mother now as being in a perfect faith-based win-win situation. If she’s wrong, she’ll never know and dies "knowing" she was right. If she IS right, she has a great chance of eternal life (whatever that entails). Bottom line, at this point in her life, I would never ever try to convince her she’s wrong. That would be entirely too cruel. However, for a much younger person, I really do think they should attempt to open their mind and see that religious dogma is no more than a safety blanket for the individual and the immediate society.
Psalm 53:1 (I understand this does not justify calling him a fool. However, I do submit that being an atheist his is not technically my brother)
It is not surprising that you cannot use science to describe God and his miracles. He is outside of the world, not of it. A lot of people assume that Christians pay no attention to science, and I just don't get it.
Clavin12 wrote:Psalm 53:1 (I understand this does not justify calling him a fool. However, I do submit that being an atheist his is not technically my brother)
It is not surprising that you cannot use science to describe God and his miracles. He is outside of the world, not of it. A lot of people assume that Christians pay no attention to science, and I just don't get it.
Not your Christian brother, anyway.
I'm not sure that you can't describe God and his "miracles." I suppose they would need some specific definition.
Clavin12 wrote:If it's all the same to you, I should like to continue the discussion, if Hitchcock is willing. I will agree to disagree if we come to a draw, and thus avert the "Horrible Disaster". This is the off topic board after all.
Fine by me. No hard feelings intended, and I certainly am not intending to be hostile or belligerent. Simply a discussion of ideas.
Clavin12 wrote:Back On Topic: It's a very good speech. Quite compelling.
Agree with you there.
I think I'd only ever seen his silent pictures.
HitchcockGreen wrote:
...
I'm not sure that you can't describe God and his "miracles." I suppose they would need some specific definition.
...
The parting of the red sea, some of the plagues, creation, and pretty much all of the works of Jesus, are miracles. God is God. He was there eternally before the world and will go on eternally after this world is gone. He is outside of this world and outside of time, because he created them. As such the rules of this world do not apply to him.
However, one thing that is not a miracle is the idea that the world is not billions of years old. Indeed, carbon dating may suggest that, but God being omnipotent could have easily built age into the world, just as he built age into Adam. Adam was not created a baby, and neither was the world. Frankly, I'm glad and Adam probably was too. If the young world is as science supposes it to be (broiling hot, volcanoes, lava, earthquakes, etc.) it would not be a very nice place to live.
In this case of miracles and omnipotent capabilities, an extreme set of "built age into the world" variables would have been exposed at LEAST as recently as 1860. And even more so, with such an extreme hyper development sequence from a mere 6000 orbits of the sun. If this is indeed the case, why do we not see scientists that are Christian (not Christian scientists) submit papers for review, addressing this ultra rapid period that is not observed in any way today. . . through ALL the disciplines of science? Should they not be addressing this, as well as rewriting all of plate tectonics science, epigenetics, carbon dating. . .etc, for the better understanding of the heavenly father?
My answer would be as I suggested above, those Christians working as researchers ALL across the various science-based fields, have cherry picked what they can live with spiritually as well as scientifically.
My point is, we as humans have no true sense of direction, and I would like to beleive that we are given guidance by the divine as a means of shaping in God's image as were so long ago.
