cbs poll on evolution vs. creationism

[LoneWolf16]

Irrespective of my opinion, I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say I thought the Framers wanted a separation of Church and State. What gives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep talking like that and you'll have Gromnir in here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God, no. :ph34r:

[Surreptishus]

Sacrificing a man to appease a vengeful god... sounds pretty pagan.

[Lucius]

Irrespective of my opinion, I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say I thought the Framers wanted a separation of Church and State. What gives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep talking like that and you'll have Gromnir in here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God, no. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the God(s) no!

[Blank]

Sacrificing a man to appease a vengeful god... sounds pretty pagan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

vengeful? i think it is actually just, considering that sin represents our rebellion toward God. But then of course, its not surprising that i would think of it that way...

I believe it was stated earlier, I don't remember who by, that Peter was crucified upside down. If true, that sounds a little worse than what Jesus went through. Who's the real hero?

Jesus lived His whole life in obedience to God, i.e. He did not sin throughout His whole life. God couldn't use Peter as a sacrifice because he sinned and needed forgiveness himself. Plus Peter wasn't the Son of God, and hadn't been prophecied about.

[Dark Moth]

Actually, it was I who said Peter was crucified upside-down. And the reason he did that was not to be heroic, but because he did not want to be crucified in the same manner as Jesus. He essentially did not feel himself worthy to be crucified in the same manner. Don't ask me why.

 

And as Blank said, Jesus was supposedly perfect, therefore he didn't even deserve to be punished in the first place. (and as WITHTEETH pointed out, he was God himself, after all) Peter was by no means sinless. In fact, he betrayed the one person whom he swore to follow to his death. (and yet, he was still forgiven)

 

And by the way Surreptishus, it's not vengeance that's the concept. It's justice. Would you call a judge sentencing a criminal to prison a vengeful judge? No. The same concept applies here.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[WITHTEETH]

vengeful? i think it is actually just, considering that sin represents our rebellion toward God. But then of course, its not surprising that i would think of it that way...

Thats one view of sin/evil. I tend to look at it most of the time as just the result of change and uncomfort. I as a atheist see good and evil not in black and white but all shades. Its not that easy to put Good and evil in polarities in my opinion, most of the time its hard to tell which it is, the line begins to blur right? People have justifications that might be acceptable. I don't like a theif but when one is hungry, one must steal. I think the concept of good and evil is alot of the time absurd, meaningless and most of the time relative.

 

There are many complications with absolutism and evil that many can not find to be logical, for example, you can create a finite amout of bad deeds on earth but spend an inifinte in hell? Thats bad math, many might say.

Jesus lived His whole life in obedience to God, i.e. He did not sin throughout His whole life. God couldn't use Peter as a sacrifice because he sinned and needed forgiveness himself. Plus Peter wasn't the Son of God, and hadn't been prophecied about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus is God, remember the trinity and the 3 forms of god. father, son and the holy spirit. Thus Jesus is God. Judaism recalls that the prophet must not be god, because God cannot be in imperfect human form with divine powers, only god has divine powers and can only be in perfect form.

[WITHTEETH]

And by the way Surreptishus, it's not vengeance that's the concept.  It's justice.  Would you call a judge sentencing a criminal to prison a vengeful judge?  No.  The same concept applies here. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true Mothman. Although the first instance God judges man with the eating of the fruit, I, and many others find injust.

 

God said "Do not eat the fruit inthe garden". This is easy to understand if you have a concept oif good and evil, but Adam and Eve were ignorant, innocent to good and evil. They simply did not know what was good and what was evil. They were to stupid. This is why literal Utopias are impossible. You have to have a concept of evil to prevent ourself from doing evil. God never taught them it.

 

So God condemned man from then on over this imperfect act of ignorance(not knowing). This is another problem of Evil people contemplate.

[Dark Moth]

Well, they were innocent. While they may have been ignorant, it's not much different from a child obeying a parent. You don't really have to have a concept of good and evil to do what you're told. God made it clear to them that they were not to eat from it. Before they ate the fruit, they were innocent, because they didn't know better.

 

You can't always punish someone if they don't know what's wrong and right in the first place. The reason why eating the fruit was so terrible was because as soon as they did it, they lost their innocence. They then knew what good and evil was, so anything they did from that point on would have to be punished. They then would lose their purity, and would no longer be able to live in the garden.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[WITHTEETH]

They then knew what good and evil was, so anything they did from that point on would have to be punished. They then would lose their purity, and would no longer be able to live in the garden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From this perspective i don't see how it is ever possible to get back in the garden. We were created imperfect, and If god sent us out of the garden because we were imperfect, then why would he aloow us back in after still being imperfect?

Edited November 6, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Colrom]

Someone earlier suggested that Judeo-Chritianity was inherently peaceful while Islam inherently violent, and they cited the holy books as evidence.

 

Anyway, here's what Bill Moyers had to say about that in his piece "9/11 and the Sport of God", an article based on a speach he gave at Union Theological Seminary in early September 2005.

 

First he spoke about Islamic violence. We are all familiar with that material.

 

Then he continued:

 

"The other side of the story:

 

Muslims have no monopoly on holy violence. As Jack Nelson-Pallmayer points out, God's violence in the sacred texts of both faiths reflect a deep and troubling pathology "so pervasive, vindictive, and destructive" that it contradicts and subverts the collective weight of other passages that exhort ethical behavior or testify to a loving God.

 

For days now we have watched those heart-breaking scenes on the Gulf Coast: the steaming, stinking, sweltering wreckage of cities and suburbs; the fleeing refugees; the floating corpses, hungry babies, and old people huddled together in death, the dogs gnawing at their feet; stranded children standing in water reeking of feces and garbage; families scattered; a mother holding her small child and an empty water jug, pleading for someone to fill it; a wife, pushing the body of her dead husband on a wooden plank down a flooded street; desperate people struggling desperately to survive.

 

Now transport those current scenes from our newspapers and television back to the first Book of the Bible - the Book of Genesis. They bring to life what we rarely imagine so graphically when we read of the great flood that devastated the known world. If you read the Bible as literally true, as fundamentalists do, this flood was ordered by God. "And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh... behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (6:5-13). "I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die." (6:17-19) Noah and his family are the only humans spared - they were, after all, God's chosen. But for everyone else: "... the waters prevailed so mightily... that all the high mountains....were covered....And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts...and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life, died...." (7:17-23).

 

The flood is merely Act One. Read on: This God first "hardens the heart of Pharaoh" to make sure the Egyptian ruler will not be moved by the plea of Moses to let his people go. Then because Pharaoh's heart is hardened, God turns the Nile into blood so people cannot drink its water and will suffer from thirst. Not satisfied with the results, God sends swarms of locusts and flies to torture them; rains hail and fire and thunder on them destroys the trees and plants of the field until nothing green remains; orders every first-born child to be slaughtered, from the first-born of Pharaoh right on down to "the first-born of the maidservant behind the mill." An equal-murderous God, you might say. The massacre continues until "there is not a house where one was not dead." While the Egyptian families mourn their dead, God orders Moses to loot from their houses all their gold and silver and clothing. Finally, God's thirst for blood is satisfied, God pauses to rest - and boasts: "I have made sport of the Egyptians."

 

Violence: the sport of God. God, the progenitor of shock and awe.

And that's just Act II. As the story unfolds women and children are hacked to death on God's order; unborn infants are ripped from their mother's wombs; cities are leveled - their women killed if they have had sex, the virgins taken at God's command for the pleasure of his holy warriors. When his holy warriors spare the lives of 50,000 captives God is furious and sends Moses back to rebuke them and tell them to finish the job. One tribe after another falls to God-ordered genocide: the Hittites, the Girga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites - names so ancient they have disappeared into the mists as fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren, infants in arms, shepherds, threshers, carpenters, merchants, housewives - living human beings, flesh and blood: "And when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them...(and) your eyes shall not pity them."

 

So it is written - in the Holy Bible.

 

Yes, I know: the early church fathers, trying to cover up the blood-soaked trail of God's sport, decreed that anything that disagrees with Christian dogma about the perfection of God is to be interpreted spiritually. Yes, I know: Edward Gibbon himself acknowledged that the literal Biblical sense of God "is repugnant to every principle of faith as well as reason" and that we must therefore read the scriptures through a veil of allegory. Yes, I know: we can go through the Bible and construct a God more pleasing to the better angels of our nature (as I have done.) Yes, I know: Christians claim the Old Testament God of wrath was supplanted by the Gospel's God of love [see The God of Evil , Allan Hawkins, Exlibris.]

I know these things; all of us know these things. But we also know that the "violence-of-God" tradition remains embedded deep in the DNA of monotheistic faith. We also know that fundamentalists the world over and at home consider the "sacred texts" to be literally God's word on all matters. Inside that logic you cannot read part of the Bible allegorically and the rest of it literally; if you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection, and the depiction of the Great Judgment at the end times you must also believe that God is sadistic, brutal, vengeful, callow, cruel and savage - that God slaughters.

Millions believe it."

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regarding the question of whether creationism or intelligent design should be taught or even mentioned, I already said that I find creationism to be bad science and even bad religion and don't think it should be taught in school or in even in church.

 

I find both the religious and the pseudo science arguments that are used to foster a belief in creationism truly wierd.

 

For example, I don't understand how a person can say that the evolution of man is too complicated to have been a product of God's creation.

 

On the other hand I agree that the convincing evidence of evolution can seriously test religious beliefs.

 

Scientists have in the past decorated their presentations about evolution with language derived from the religiously based concept of human superiority. But many scientists are leaving that language out these days. Oh my!

 

Drop the language of superiority and leave just the language of survival and folks may have visions that the ****roach might turn out to be "the fittest" and humans might turn out to be "inadaquate" and extinct. Not an acceptable vision for the future fate of creatures made in the image of God!

 

I think this is the real issue in the debate about evolution.

[Dark Moth]

Once again, no. The only times violence is permitted in the Bible is when God does it himself, or when he specifically comes to someone and orders for it to be done. But the Bible makes it clear we are not to go out and wage war on our own whims. The Quran, however, clearly states that believers are allowed (and are commanded to) go out and fight infidels wherever they are found. Unlike the Bible, Allah is addressing believers in general, not a specific person or group of persons, as in the Bible.

 

And God does not punish the innocent as well. If God punishes someone on Earth, he has a damn good reason for it. The whole reason for the flood was not because God just wanted to go and kill for the sport of it. The world at the time had become so perverse, unfaithful, and immoral, only a handful of people at the time were still faithful, namely Noah and his family. Things had gotten so bad God knew it would be impossible to bring humanity out of it. The only possible way was to start over, and that is what he had to do. But after it is done, God promises Noah and his family that he will never again destroy the world by flood.

 

As for Egypt, God had to do it to save his people. It's not just because they were Israelites, but because they were the people who were still preserving the faith at the time. He also had to make an example witht the Egyptians, so they would know who he was, and not try to bring Israel into subjugation again or try to mock God as they had done. The Egyptians were not innocent. They had done terrible things to the Israelites at the time. As for the plagues, they too were not just punishment, but to let the Egyptians know who he was, and too erase all doubt that the plagues were a coincidence, or the work of magicians.

 

The problem with the arguments presented by those Colrom quoted is that they look at the acts themselves, but not the motivations or reasons behind it. So it's easy to say: "Well, you're Bible shows God doing this, so it's inherently violent." Also, I'd urge you to quote the verses themselves in context instead of what someone else's interpretation of them. Doing that can lead to serious misconceptions.

 

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[Baley]

So god can be a violent vindictive bastard but man cannot?

 

...

 

I'll be in the corner with my pal Lucifer.

[WITHTEETH]

The problem with the arguments presented by those Colrom quoted is that they look at the acts themselves, but not the motivations or reasons behind it.  So it's easy to say: "Well, you're Bible shows God doing this, so it's inherently violent."  Also, I'd urge you to quote the verses themselves in context instead of what someone else's interpretation of them.  Doing that can lead to serious misconceptions. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This beckons my previous statement about good and evil. You mentioned motivations. Adam being ignorant had no evil motivations since he did not know evil. yet still, still punished. and we are still being punished for the sins of our fathers. That is, in the Christian worldview.

[Dark Moth]

The problem with the arguments presented by those Colrom quoted is that they look at the acts themselves, but not the motivations or reasons behind it.  So it's easy to say: "Well, you're Bible shows God doing this, so it's inherently violent."  Also, I'd urge you to quote the verses themselves in context instead of what someone else's interpretation of them.  Doing that can lead to serious misconceptions. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This beckons my previous statement about good and evil. You mentioned motivations. Adam being ignorant had no evil motivations since he did not know evil. yet still, still punished. and we are still being punished for the sins of our fathers. That is, in the Christian worldview.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Adam did not know about good and evil, but he did know he wasn't supposed to eat from the tree. That's why he was punished. Example: a parent may tell his child not to do something. The child does not understand why, but at the same time he must obey his parent. If the child does it anyway, then he still is liable to be punished because he deliberately disobeyed his parent.

[thepixiesrock]

Adam did not know about good and evil, but he did know he wasn't supposed to eat from the tree.  That's why he was punished.  Example: a parent may tell his child not to do something.  The child does not understand why, but at the same time he must obey his parent.  If the child does it anyway, then he still is liable to be punished because he deliberately disobeyed his parent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So we are just slaves then? Not to question anything?

[WITHTEETH]

So god can be a violent vindictive bastard but man cannot?

...

I'll be in the corner with my pal Lucifer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is satan, your adversary or Gods? Satan is Gods adversary, not yours. In satanism, satan tries to release you from Gods hand governeing you. He tries to set you free to do as you want without Gods rules. Its really not as crazy as people think.

[WITHTEETH]

Adam did not know about good and evil, but he did know he wasn't supposed to eat from the tree.  That's why he was punished.  Example: a parent may tell his child not to do something.  The child does not understand why, but at the same time he must obey his parent.  If the child does it anyway, then he still is liable to be punished because he deliberately disobeyed his parent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right. I thought God just asks for Faith, not perfection.

[Baley]

So god can be a violent vindictive bastard but man cannot?

...

I'll be in the corner with my pal Lucifer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is satan, your adversary or Gods? Satan is Gods adversary, not yours. In satanism, satan tries to release you from Gods hand governeing you. He tries to set you free to do as you want without Gods rules. Its really not as crazy as people think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why exactly did you quote me?

[WITHTEETH]

Hi Baley, I thought you were taking sides with satan/lucifer. So i just thought I would give a quick spin on satanism.

 

Just trying to be informative

[Dark Moth]

*sigh*

 

@pixies: No, of course not. But at the same time, we should be able to listen as well.

 

@withteeth: see the above. And besides, being able to obey one command makes us far from having to be perfect. Once again, according to the Bible, we were made to be perfect in the sense of being free from sin. Since supposedly humanity is not perfect, he doesn't demand perfection.

 

As for Satanism, that is a serious misconception. Don't forget Satan was the reason they ate the fruit in the first place. It was his fault humanity had to be punished. Remember it was he who came to Eve and tricked her into eating the fruit? So the guy isn't as nice as he seems, is he? ^_^

 

Have you even read about Satanic cults, anyway? Very sick and twisted, I tell you, what some of them had done and still do.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[thepixiesrock]

*sigh*

 

@pixies: No, of course not.  But at the same time, we should be able to listen as well. 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Sigh*

 

By listen, do you mean listen as in hearing something/someone, or like, listening aa in obeying?

 

There is a difference between listening and blind obedience. In the example you chose to show us, you want the child to do anything the parent says without question.

[Baley]

Hi Baley, I thought you were taking sides with satan/lucifer. So i just thought I would give a quick spin on satanism.

 

Just trying to be informative 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was only using Lucifer as a symbol.I don't believe in either him or the Christian deity.

 

And yes I have read on Satanism in the past.

 

Mothman:By tricking man,he offered him knowledge.I'd prefer it to blind obedience.

[WITHTEETH]

@withteeth: see the above.  And besides, being able to obey one command makes us far from having to be perfect. 

I still regress. God asks for simple faith, not perfection to enter the garden. Yet he exiled Adam and Eve not due to faith but due to imperfection.

 

As for Satanism, that is a serious misconception.  Don't forget Satan was the reason they ate the fruit in the first place.  It was his fault humanity had to be punished.  Remember it was he who came to Eve and tricked her into eating the fruit?  So the guy isn't as nice as he seems, is he?  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Subjective, its all in the perspective i guess. Anyway, i dont remember in those 7 days God created satan. Satan is just the flaw. satan is fugurative for the flaw. I don't think its meant to be personalized in to being an actaul being. This is also a perspective though too.

[Dark Moth]

Hi Baley, I thought you were taking sides with satan/lucifer. So i just thought I would give a quick spin on satanism.

 

Just trying to be informative 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was only using Lucifer as a symbol.I don't believe in either him or the Christian deity.

 

And yes I have read on Satanism in the past.

 

Mothman:By tricking man,he offered him knowledge.I'd prefer it to blind obedience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you'd take death and punishment as well for knowledge?

 

@pixies: it's a bit of both, I think. Sometimes a parent knows a child won't understand why he or she is not allowed to do something, but must obey anyway for their own good. For instance, not to touch fire. A parent can tell the child that he/she will be burned, but the child won't really know why, and won't know for sure if the parent is telling the truth or not unless the child touches fire for him/herself. But if they did, they would still be burned.

 

God told Adam and Eve that some pretty nasty things would happen if they ate from the tree. And yet, they still did it, with a little help from Satan, of course.

 

BTW, WITHTEETH, the Bible makes it clear Satan/Lucifer is a real being, not an idea. Remember the snake in Genesis? That would be him.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[Baley]

Have you even read about Satanic cults, anyway?  Very sick and twisted, I tell you, what some of them had done and still do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop being such a hypocrite.Christian cults have performed "vile deeds" over the years as well.Or do we forget about them?

 

Christianity has more crimes under it's golden robe than Satanism ever will.