Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You need a covenant

Why? God can pretty much do whatever he wants. If he want's to forgive man his original sin, he doesn't need to do anything except say "I forgive them." He probably doesn't need to even say that... he just does what he wants to.

.. and every covenant needs a sacrafice. "and God so loved the world, He gave His only Son."

Don't know that I agree every covenant needs a sacrifice. If you and I make an agreement to rep eachother every third wednesday, we have made a covenant and there's no sacrifice involved. Here is the definition of Covenant, and I don't see anything (even 5, which speaks of the Bible) noting any requirement of a sacrifice to make an agreement a covenant.

but on a deeper level the Son is the active force on the mortal plane - a manifestation of the Spirit in human form. Christ wasn't immortal, His soul & spirit were, which is why He had to manifest Himself to human form, so that He may die. And God does violate his own laws, such as rising from the dead. To conquer death. But where in the bible did God outline natural laws, etc. We as humans assume these to be laws based off of little to no knowledge of the workings of the universe, based only off of human perception.

I don't entirely accept what you're saying here in the remainder, but that should be obvious from my other posts. But, I do like what you say about "God does violate his own laws, such as raising the dead" And "we humans assume these laws to be based of of a little to no knowledge of the workings of the universe...." It's not tortured reasoning, trying to make it "all right" or whatever... it's flat out fair and honest. And you appear willing to accept the world around you without feeling that your God is potentially voidable becaue of what the world around you reveals (via scientific discovery, among other things). That, I can certainly respect, even if I disagree with the particulars of your belief. I mean, hell, I doubt you accept the particulars of mine, so... I shouldn't expect you to believe my beliefs any more than I am willing to believe the whole of yours...... thus leading me to the problem of "the church" or organized religion.... exclusivity. Good news, indeed.

 

[CookyPuss]

Ok, ok, enough of the semantics guys. It's all H2O. Water is the common term for H2O. H2Os natural state is a liquid so the term "water" typically refers to the liquid form. BKB is technically correct here. When water freezes, it does not cease to be H2O, it simply becomes a solid and which we commonly refer to as ice. It would not be incorrect to call it frozen water. It's not uncommon to hear steam referred to as evaporated water. Please continue with your theological and creation/evolution debates.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I guess thats where my gut differs.. and i'll trust my gut over a book bound by corrupt men. I'm not slamming the bible, but at some point you have to look at the teachings of Christ and recognize that unconditional love is the way to enter the kingdom. The bible and how it was composed is another debate. But i hear you, and as i said used to subscribe to this view until something clicked and in my eyes, killing is not right. We forgive. What a world it would be if we all lived with love.. it would be, well eden.

What I find ironic about this comment is you worry about a book that is "bound by corrupt men", but then you base your belief on what you believe to be Christ's teachings. The only reason you know what Christ taught is from that book "bound by corrupt men". How is this not a contradiction?

And Jesus and his followers never taught that unconditional love is the way to enter the kingdom. Unconditional love, which is something we should strive for, has to do with living a righteous life, not entering the kingdom of heaven. Entrance to the kingdom only comes through justification due to Christ's actions on the cross and his subsequent resurrection because no one can live a righteous life.

In addition, there are plenty of examples in the Bible (again the same source as Jesus' teachings) to show you were righteous killing occurs. I would advise you to read the story of Phinehas in Numbers 25.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Ok, ok, enough of the semantics guys. It's all H2O. Water is the common term for H2O. H2Os natural state is a liquid so the term "water" typically refers to the liquid form. BKB is technically correct here. When water freezes, it does not cease to be H2O, it simply becomes a solid and which we commonly refer to as ice. It would not be incorrect to call it frozen water. It's not uncommon to hear steam referred to as evaporated water. Please continue with your theological and creation/evolution debates.

Link? :p

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What I find ironic about this comment is you worry about a book that is "bound by corrupt men", but then you base your belief on what you believe to be Christ's teachings. The only reason you know what Christ taught is from that book "bound by corrupt men". How is this not a contradiction?

And Jesus and his followers never taught that unconditional love is the way to enter the kingdom. Unconditional love, which is something we should strive for, has to do with living a righteous life, not entering the kingdom of heaven. Entrance to the kingdom only comes through justification due to Christ's actions on the cross and his subsequent resurrection because no one can live a righteous life.

In addition, there are plenty of examples in the Bible (again the same source as Jesus' teachings) to show you were righteous killing occurs. I would advise you to read the story of Phinehas in Numbers 25.

Bgrad - God gets mad and feels compelled to physically act (Or have Moses do it for him) in the world because the people began to commit whoredom with the Daughters of Moab Numbers 25:1 (KJV), and yet when it comes to evil dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and Pol Pot, he seems content to just let those guys go about their business. Why is that?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Read the posts on this thread, including your Nietzsche quote. If sans God we inevitably revert to might makes right or inherently sin, apparently without even having choice in the matter, that makes us shit in my book. As for redeemability, even shit has some value, as organic farmers will attest.

First, what Nietzsche argued is something different than how you phrase it. He said that if God does not exist, the only moral person is the one who accepts might makes right and lives for himself. He was critical of the non-believers who he felt were fooling themselves into believing that they should follow some other moral code. He felt most people without God would fall into the trap of following false moral codes that were built upon social norms rather than embracing true morality, which is all for me, screw everyone else.

Second, as for our nature as the Bible presents it, it does say we cannot help but sin, but it is because we become a slave to it. I used to fall in the camp that this makes us shit until I realized that some value, despite our fault, must exist in us; otherwise, God would have erased us long ago.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Second, as for our nature as the Bible presents it, it does say we cannot help but sin, but it is because we become a slave to it. I used to fall in the camp that this makes us shit until I realized that some value, despite our fault, must exist in us; otherwise, God would have erased us long ago.

Well, people are extremely entertaining, thats for sure. Maybe that's why he keeps us around.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Bgrad - God gets mad and feels compelled to physically act (Or have Moses do it for him) in the world because the people began to commit whoredom with the Daughters of Moab Numbers 25:1 (KJV), and yet when it comes to evil dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and Pol Pot, he seems content to just let those guys go about their business. Why is that?

This takes a somewhat broader view of what is going on among the Israelites and especially the tabernacle area, but essentially His holy presence was in the camp. Unrighteousness (acts and people) cannot be allowed to exist in his holy presence, hense the destruction.

On the other hand, in the instances you name, God's holy presence is not there and righteousness continues unabated at that moment. (This does not mean God does not know it is occurring, nor does it mean divine punishment will not occur at some point in time--though I suppose to God the punishment might be immediate since time has no meaning to God). The prophets tell us that God does not look upon evil, as in the case of Hitler et al., therefore since His holy presence was not among these individuals, there was no immediate act of destruction from our perspective.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Turtles first appeared in the Triassic (250 mya) but looked much different back then than modern turtles.

oh really?

turtle shells found in the White River badlands. supposedly from the Oligocene.

While the coelacanth order of fish have been around since the Cretaceous (145 mya),

living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.

what does that mean? there are fossils of them

Sabertooths only appeared in the fossil record about 33 million years ago and died out about 9,000 years ago when modern rabbits were certainly around.

all summed up, i see...

So you still haven't answered why Trilobites, Placoderms, Ammonites, Plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs fossils aren?t found with modern species.

trilobites are lower because they were aquatic bottom dwellers. why should be anywhere other than the bottom is that's where they lived? funny how they appear all over the world in deposits that are on dry land, though. i wonder how they got there. i do know that in 1968 in Utah a fossilized footprint was found with a crushed trilobite in the heel.

placoderms- i don't even know what the fuck a placoderm is. i would tend to think that the armor wa rather dense and would have weighed the fish down.

pleiosaurs- shit, for all i know, Nessie is still around... there are only 855 google hits for pleiosaur, so i'm guessing that no one knows very much about them. i know that scientists recently recovered a baby pleiosaur from Antarctica, and again i have to ask, what the fuck was a marine creature doing on land?

Ammonites- you mean the ancient tribe that the Children of Isreal warred against? i think the Isrealites extincted them. oh, you mean the nautilus? um... they're still around.

ichthyosaurs- hmm, they found fossils of those on land too...

Where did you get the idea that there are no transitional fossils? Read through this link that lists just some of the vertebrate transitional fossils that have been found:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ( Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.p.19-20)

"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." (ibid, p.20)

"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." (Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. p 50)

"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time."(ibid, p 57)

And as a quick and simple answer, current thought is that the Cambrian Explosure was a result of environmental and ecological changes and the development of complex genomes. But instead of continuously lobbing out new questions to change the topic, why don't you answer what I've previously asked?

i'm trying. you never addressed my post regarding liquification, and instead began lobbing questions back at me.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Bgrad - God gets mad and feels compelled to physically act (Or have Moses do it for him) in the world because the people began to commit whoredom with the Daughters of Moab Numbers 25:1 (KJV), and yet when it comes to evil dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and Pol Pot, he seems content to just let those guys go about their business. Why is that?

OT v NT. Law v Grace.

 

[Jagdaddy]

He was critical of the non-believers who he felt were fooling themselves into believing that they should follow some other moral code. He felt most people without God would fall into the trap of following false moral codes that were built upon social norms rather than embracing true morality, which is all for me, screw everyone else.

And that's what I'm not getting. Nietszche, if you have it right, says that without God most people avoid "all for me, screw everyone else," which seems like a pretty good thing IMO and also seems to be basically consistent with God's and Jesus' moral instructions as I understand them. I'm guessing he's not also saying that with God people embrace the true morality of "all for me, screw everybody else" since that seems basically inconsistent with God's and Jesus' moral instructions. So, presumably, people don't embrace true morality either with or without God, unless there's some other as-yet undescribed true morality of the believers that isn't "all for me, screw everybody else."

My theme throughout this thread has been that if people don't act all that differently in this world based on believer status, then God is not a necessary prerequisite for morality. I've yet to hear a non-tautological explanation or definition of morality (i.e., something other than "morality is what God wants," which necessarily requires the existence of God) to persuade me that I'm wrong.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How convenient, glad that's enough for you. It's not for me.

 

[Thump]

This has been a deep and interesting thread.

Please keep debunking lvbuckeye for my viewing pleasure.

 

[buckeyegrad]

How convenient, glad that's enough for you. It's not for me.

Well I gave you another reason other than OT v. NT, Law v. Grace (which by the way, I believe is an incorrect teaching of the Bible--has much more to do with Luther's theology than the writings of the apostles).

What do you think of my explanation?

 

[buckeyegrad]

And that's what I'm not getting. Nietszche, if you have it right, says that without God most people avoid "all for me, screw everyone else," which seems like a pretty good thing IMO and also seems to be basically consistent with God's and Jesus' moral instructions as I understand them. I'm guessing he's not also saying that with God people embrace the true morality of "all for me, screw everybody else" since that seems basically inconsistent with God's and Jesus' moral instructions. So, presumably, people don't embrace true morality either with or without God, unless there's some other as-yet undescribed true morality of the believers that isn't "all for me, screw everybody else."

Well, Nietzsche argued that both the believer and the non-believer is fooling themselves when it comes to morality. The believer is the fool because God does not exist. The non-believer is the fool because he still allows himself to be restricted by a false morality that is ultimately derived from the original morality claimed by the believers. Under such a situation, the only morality that exists is that of power.

My theme throughout this thread has been that if people don't act all that differently in this world based on believer status, then God is not a necessary prerequisite for morality. I've yet to hear a non-tautological explanation or definition of morality (i.e., something other than "morality is what God wants," which necessarily requires the existence of God) to persuade me that I'm wrong.

The fault of believers not acting differently lies with believers, not the message they believe. The validity of the message is its own internal logic and not the actions of those who subscribe to it since they can always fail to follow the message, whereas the message cannot fail itself unless it is self-contradicting.

From the Christian perspective, one cannot sin if they allow the Holy Spirit to direct their thought and actions. Unfortunately, even the most mature Christians struggle with surrendering themselves over the control of the Holy Spirit at all times.

As for a non-tautological definition of morality--I don't think one can exist. Morality is based upon who has power. We Christians claim God has that power. To assign it to anything else is to say morality does not exist or that it belongs simply to those who currently hold power (once again, getting to Neitzsche's point).