Slashdot Mirror

"Morality is not imparted nor defined by the creator." Please explain.

This leads directly to the Euthyphro Problem. The question that needs answering is, "Does the Good conform to God, or does God conform to the Good?"

If God can define 'good' and 'evil' however It likes, then of course there's no problem with God always being 'good' - 'good' is whatever God does by definition. Ordering people to kill babies isn't immoral if God does it (1 Samuel 15:3, Joshua 10:40). But now we simply have the ultimate case of "might makes right". There's no real difference between "Speed Limit 55" and "Thou shalt not kill" except that presumably God enforces Its rules better. In the end, the people who collaborated with the Nazis had the right idea, they just picked the wrong bully to submit to.

This isn't terribly satisfying to me and many others, though apparently some monotheists aren't bothered by it. So far as I can see, in this case the only difference between a 'good' action and an 'evil' one is God's arbitrary whim. Even if you assume that God can't change Its mind now, there's no reason why It couldn't have decided that torturing children was the greatest 'good'. God just didn't happen to have chosen that way.

If one asserts that something besides God's arbitrary whims guided the decision that torturing children is 'evil', then one has to ask, "What might that something be, that even God cannot change?" If some things just are 'good' and 'evil', regardless of God's assent, then 'good' and 'evil' exist apart from God, and are recognized, not created, by God. God conforms to 'good', not vice-versa.

Besides which, you can't claim that a creator has moral rights to a creation without a pre-existing moral foundation. I mean, on what authority does the principle that 'the creator of something owns it' rest? How is that justified? We're back to the Euthyphro Problem. If it's because God says so, we don't have any real authority at all beyond raw power, and God's just the biggest bully around.

"Morality is not imparted nor defined by the creator." Please explain.

This leads directly to the Euthyphro Problem. The question that needs answering is, "Does the Good conform to God, or does God conform to the Good?"

If God can define 'good' and 'evil' however It likes, then of course there's no problem with God always being 'good' - 'good' is whatever God does by definition. Ordering people to kill babies isn't immoral if God does it (1 Samuel 15:3, Joshua 10:40). But now we simply have the ultimate case of "might makes right". There's no real difference between "Speed Limit 55" and "Thou shalt not kill" except that presumably God enforces Its rules better. In the end, the people who collaborated with the Nazis had the right idea, they just picked the wrong bully to submit to.

This isn't terribly satisfying to me and many others, though apparently some monotheists aren't bothered by it. So far as I can see, in this case the only difference between a 'good' action and an 'evil' one is God's arbitrary whim. Even if you assume that God can't change Its mind now, there's no reason why It couldn't have decided that torturing children was the greatest 'good'. God just didn't happen to have chosen that way.

If one asserts that something besides God's arbitrary whims guided the decision that torturing children is 'evil', then one has to ask, "What might that something be, that even God cannot change?" If some things just are 'good' and 'evil', regardless of God's assent, then 'good' and 'evil' exist apart from God, and are recognized, not created, by God. God conforms to 'good', not vice-versa.

Besides which, you can't claim that a creator has moral rights to a creation without a pre-existing moral foundation. I mean, on what authority does the principle that 'the creator of something owns it' rest? How is that justified? We're back to the Euthyphro Problem. If it's because God says so, we don't have any real authority at all beyond raw power, and God's just the biggest bully around.

I understand, mind you, that treating the mind/soul as an emergent property of the brain is functionally simpler. Nonetheless, I believe that the soul exists, so I must reconcile its operation and relation to its physical manifestation.

Of course, this is... rather different from the contention that consciousness is an 'illusion' in the absence of a soul. To return to where we started, the existence of consciousness is demonstrable. (As I said, I personally know at least one conscious entity exists: myself. I can't absolutely disprove solipsism, of course, but I'm pretty sure everyone else is conscious, too.) So, we're back to Euthyphro. Is something good just because God says so, or are some things just inherently moral and other things not? Could God decree (or have at one point decreed) that killing children is a good thing?

If you say God could, then you're not alone, I guess, but you might understand why I wouldn't want you around me or my kids. How can I be sure you're not going to get a sudden revelation?

If you say God couldn't, then I guess you agree that something besides God gives content to morality.

I understand, mind you, that treating the mind/soul as an emergent property of the brain is functionally simpler. Nonetheless, I believe that the soul exists, so I must reconcile its operation and relation to its physical manifestation.

Of course, this is... rather different from the contention that consciousness is an 'illusion' in the absence of a soul. To return to where we started, the existence of consciousness is demonstrable. (As I said, I personally know at least one conscious entity exists: myself. I can't absolutely disprove solipsism, of course, but I'm pretty sure everyone else is conscious, too.) So, we're back to Euthyphro. Is something good just because God says so, or are some things just inherently moral and other things not? Could God decree (or have at one point decreed) that killing children is a good thing?

If you say God could, then you're not alone, I guess, but you might understand why I wouldn't want you around me or my kids. How can I be sure you're not going to get a sudden revelation?

If you say God couldn't, then I guess you agree that something besides God gives content to morality.

...the most-of-a-million words which a certain book has in it, which is the closest you'll get to a brief written record of people's interaction with said God, you'll discover that this abbreviation of said God has quite a bit to say about the workings of the universe. There's also what has been "written" on the universe itself. And what use are we while we're refusing to listen to any of this?

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/isroot/AIGUS/aig_produc ts/25-2-017.jpg

and perhaps this might be a reason for this "problem"

Do the people who plant IEDs have IED? Are these devices IED? Did they go to IED? I doubt they went to IED and I'm pretty sure they didn't attend the IED! I'm also fairly sure they didn't go to IED.

Acronyms are for lazy, stupid people. IMO. YMMV. HAND.

There's a religious talk show called steve brown etc., and Jack was on there last week. A caller called in though and challenged him on whether video games cause violence when statistically violence is going down (at least in the us). Thompson said something about how the caller was wrong about violence going down and talked about some news study that showed it was going up. The caller then said something like "I can't believe you'd be calling a news story more accurate than crime statistics from the US govt." It was pretty funny...thompson basically conceded and then made some lame statement that violence would be down even more if there weren't violent video games, which is obviously bs. So anyway, why don't all of us arm ourselves with statistics like that guy and call into every show he's on?

Oh and that show has an mp3, here's the link for it: http://media.gospelcom.net/kln/sbetc/050606sbe.mp3

What makes you say that? (Be specific.)

At least we can agree that you have no specific logic argument against the existance of a creator.

No, I just have specific logical reasons for believing that, if there were such a creator, it wasn't anything like the Judeo/Christaian/Islamic "God".

I think youmisunderstood about christian's meeting God's standard. The Christian belief does not contend that a Christian's flesh and bones, any aspect concerning their moral behavior, or any aspect of their thoughts or dreams will ever meet God's standard after becoming Christian.

A difference which makes no difference is no difference. But anyway...

You're back to the start - if God allegedly created this universe, then It created things which don't meet Its standards. Which, according to you, could never do so. Deliberately. And then punishes them for it. This isn't 'good' by any recognizable definition. Does kind of fit with 'insane' or 'abusive', though.

A freshman reply would be, "Well that means Christian's can be like Hitler, and still go to Heaven." The short reply is yes.

And, as already addressed on the page, this means that God's standards have nothing to do with anything humans would recognize as 'good' or 'evil'. To quote:

But now we simply have the ultimate case of "might makes right". There's no real difference between "Speed Limit 55" and "Thou shalt not kill" except that presumably God enforces Its rules better. In the end, the people who collaborated with the Nazis had the right idea, they just picked the wrong bully to submit to.

There's nothing special about God's rules, then. It could just has easily have ordered you kill babies (oh, wait... It did: 1 Samuel 15:3, Joshua 10:40) and that would be perfectly 'good'.

What makes you say that? (Be specific.)

At least we can agree that you have no specific logic argument against the existance of a creator.

No, I just have specific logical reasons for believing that, if there were such a creator, it wasn't anything like the Judeo/Christaian/Islamic "God".

I think youmisunderstood about christian's meeting God's standard. The Christian belief does not contend that a Christian's flesh and bones, any aspect concerning their moral behavior, or any aspect of their thoughts or dreams will ever meet God's standard after becoming Christian.

A difference which makes no difference is no difference. But anyway...

You're back to the start - if God allegedly created this universe, then It created things which don't meet Its standards. Which, according to you, could never do so. Deliberately. And then punishes them for it. This isn't 'good' by any recognizable definition. Does kind of fit with 'insane' or 'abusive', though.

A freshman reply would be, "Well that means Christian's can be like Hitler, and still go to Heaven." The short reply is yes.

And, as already addressed on the page, this means that God's standards have nothing to do with anything humans would recognize as 'good' or 'evil'. To quote:

But now we simply have the ultimate case of "might makes right". There's no real difference between "Speed Limit 55" and "Thou shalt not kill" except that presumably God enforces Its rules better. In the end, the people who collaborated with the Nazis had the right idea, they just picked the wrong bully to submit to.

There's nothing special about God's rules, then. It could just has easily have ordered you kill babies (oh, wait... It did: 1 Samuel 15:3, Joshua 10:40) and that would be perfectly 'good'.

Nice, well reasoned comments.

Prophets generally didn't marry. In fact, I can think of one (Moses), if you consider him a prophet.

Hosea also married:
2 When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD." 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah"
How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.

Actually, I.D. is obfuscated religious belief. It does not start with a doubt, it creates a doubt in a science that contradicts the belief.

Evolution is a fact: The fossil record and the living record show it.
The theory of evolution explains how this came to be, the religious beliefs about a creator that made it that way on purpose are undermined by the better explanation, so they wage a war on the science, since it undermines their irrational beliefs.

These people putting stickers on textbooks are the same kind of people who wouldn't look into Gallileo's telescope. They don't want to see what the universe is really like, they want to believe that it is as they have been told.

There's also a fair bit of pride : They want to be special, they want to be above all other animals, they want to be godly. They don't want to be nothing more than clever apes.

Yet his work was taken seriously, scientifically reviewed and is taught in science classes even though some of it has no direct evidence.

Sigh. When Einstein first came up with his relativity theories, there was quite some debate and controversey over the theories. Indeed, this is why Einstein did not get his Nobel Prize for relativity (instead, he got it for the far less controversial and more obscure photoelectric effect). People did not suddenly say "Oh, this is a cool theory, let's believe it". It took scientific observations--the observation of Mercury's orbit; a careful look at a solar eclipse--confirming his theory before his theories started to get widespread scientific acceptance.

His theory was testable; scientists could have looked at Mercury's orbit, at that solar eclipse, and, if they had different observations, would have concluded that Einstein's theory was bunk. This is why the theory is scientific; you can set up an experiment to confirm or deny the theory.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory. It is not testable. It is nothing more than the rehash of the very old "watchmaker" argument. It is a step backwards in terms of scientific advance, not a step forward.

The reason I find ID objectionable is not because I have a problem with God. God created the universe--science is our way of finding out how. The reason I find ID objectionable is because the kinds of people who promote it aren't really Christians. Oh, they call themselves "Christians", and spend every Sunday morning going to churches to hang out with their clique, talk about the Bible (usually St. Paul's writings), and about how anyone who has a different worldview is somehow inferior (and certaintly damned to Hell). They are like the Pharisee in Luke 18 verses 11-12, assured of their self-rightous. The Bible says that salvation comes from what you do, not whether you believe in the literal flood. I wish the kinds of people promoting ID would actually read the Bible.

On that basis, morality is an individual thing and you have no right to calll your morality superior or expect others to follow it. There is no such tihng as truly goor or evil because everything is relative. The holocaust wasn't evil; Hitler just had a different morality. Pol Pot wasn't evil, he just defined morality differently to others. Stalin wasn't evil; he just thought that good and evil had different meanings to you.

Go to the top of the class! Right on all points. My understanding is that morality is a relative, individual thing - I take as evidence the fact that almost every culture in the world has a different definition of the word. I have absolutely no right to call my morality superior on general principles (although there are objective metrics - more on that later). The Holocaust, Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin weren't evil, their behaviour was just the product of different moralities.

However, whilst they can't be called objectively evil (of course it's fine to say "I consider their attitudes evil"), it seems fairly evident that they were, on the whole, rather stupid. If nothing else, creating an environment where killing is the norm puts even the leader at risk - if someone's spent the day killing Jews, why shouldn't they top Hitler (who had Jewish blood)? If you kill all the bureaucrats, starve the populace and ban technology, you shouldn't be surprised if your pseudocommunist regime doesn't have a long shelf life. If you create an atmosphere in which only the biggest bastards can survive, you're not going to be able to sleep at night without at least one eye open.

I mostly consider stupidity the best metric for morality. In my experience, sociopathy is far less effective than ethical behaviour in building the sort of environment I would want to live in, hence I go with the latter as a rule of thumb. It could be argued that the purpose of society is to create an environment where this is the state of affairs.

I give God his due honour by accepting that he is the one should should define morality, rather than a much lesser being such as myself, but I have a responsibility to follow it.

Why do you consider it God's "due honour" to define your morality for you? What does "lesser being" mean in this context? I'll accept that we're less powerful than God, and have less processing power and experience, but you'll need to talk me through why this should mean that His morality is necessarily superior to ours. For example, I doubt either of us have ever nuked a town - isn't that an immoral act by almost anyone's definition?

It's a lot harder to follow someone else' morality than one I make up, twist to suit my circumstances and which requires no accountability.

In my experience, it's easier to follow someone else's morality than come up with a self-consistent one of one's own. I know it took me several years of hard thought and debate before I was satisfied that I'd covered all the major bases. But this is a subjective issue and also somewhat irrelevant - the difficulty or otherwise of following a moral code doesn't indicate the value of that code.

One day I will be accountable before God.

So you follow His rules because one day He'll be in a position to punish/reward you based on this? Very moral :P

Baby Jesus grew up and died.
Baby Jesus has been supersceeded by the Great Spaghetti Monter.
Read about it here

How were they able to build such an item with the materials available in 323 BC? Nobody knows.

This, of course, is where the "Gods From Space" crowd chimes in. Works on TV, but in real life, there's a much more satisfying answer: people are [...] clever.

Yep, very; since shortly after they were created, in fact :)

Genesis 4:22

Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.

Ummm, violating copyright is not "wrong". It is simply illegal.

If you are a Christian (I am), then illegal is also wrong.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Romans 13:1-2

Just to complete the picture, you do not obey the governing authorities if they want you do something that God calls a sin.

If you aren't a Christian, you can define your own morality.

Ever read Ezekiel chapter 1?. Ezekiel sees something very strange, involving not rings, but wheels.

"In appearance their form was that of a man, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved." ...

"15 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16 This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. 17 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about [d] as the creatures went. 18 Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around."

"19 When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. 20 Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21 When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels."

Please enjoy this meaty passage (my favourite, especially the last sentence, somehow the BDSM enthusiast in me rejoices :-P ) I took it from the "New International Version" on http://biblegateway.com/, see this link, too: http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Deutero nomy%2028,%2015-68;&version=31;

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [a] 21 The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror and an object of scorn and ridicule to all the nations where the LORD will drive you.

38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultiv

So what? ... What learning are you talking of? There's no learning in religion. You have some book written by ancient people, and you're supposed to just believe it. That's it. What more is there to learn?

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Your original question was "what's wrong with anti-religious sentiments?". I was providing one reason. Actually, I left it open to either you learning from them (which you don't seem to think is possible) or them learning from you. Either way, we can agree that mutual understanding can only benefit those involved, right?

By the way, there's no "you're supposed to just believe it" command in the Bible (the opposite, in fact: Acts 17:11, Proverbs 23:23, 1 Peter 3:15), and I'm pretty sure there isn't in most major religions, although I don't claim to be an expert in the subject. But this sort of learning is what I'm talking about: understanding that your idea of religion might not be what religion actually is (This is important because many disagreements are due to this fact, combined with the fact that others have an idea about science which differs from what science actually is).

What more is there? Well, just because the Bible (which is actually a collection of writings from some 40 different people who lived in different eras spanning some 1500 years, as well as from different areas all over the middle east, and in different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's completely worthless. Even if you don't agree with the theology, I'm sure you can agree with much of the wisdom (e.g. Do to others as you would have them do to you). It's because they were written for humans, and we're still human. It's not all about abracadabra and hocus-pocus.

So what? ... What learning are you talking of? There's no learning in religion. You have some book written by ancient people, and you're supposed to just believe it. That's it. What more is there to learn?

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Your original question was "what's wrong with anti-religious sentiments?". I was providing one reason. Actually, I left it open to either you learning from them (which you don't seem to think is possible) or them learning from you. Either way, we can agree that mutual understanding can only benefit those involved, right?

By the way, there's no "you're supposed to just believe it" command in the Bible (the opposite, in fact: Acts 17:11, Proverbs 23:23, 1 Peter 3:15), and I'm pretty sure there isn't in most major religions, although I don't claim to be an expert in the subject. But this sort of learning is what I'm talking about: understanding that your idea of religion might not be what religion actually is (This is important because many disagreements are due to this fact, combined with the fact that others have an idea about science which differs from what science actually is).

What more is there? Well, just because the Bible (which is actually a collection of writings from some 40 different people who lived in different eras spanning some 1500 years, as well as from different areas all over the middle east, and in different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's completely worthless. Even if you don't agree with the theology, I'm sure you can agree with much of the wisdom (e.g. Do to others as you would have them do to you). It's because they were written for humans, and we're still human. It's not all about abracadabra and hocus-pocus.

So what? ... What learning are you talking of? There's no learning in religion. You have some book written by ancient people, and you're supposed to just believe it. That's it. What more is there to learn?

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Your original question was "what's wrong with anti-religious sentiments?". I was providing one reason. Actually, I left it open to either you learning from them (which you don't seem to think is possible) or them learning from you. Either way, we can agree that mutual understanding can only benefit those involved, right?

By the way, there's no "you're supposed to just believe it" command in the Bible (the opposite, in fact: Acts 17:11, Proverbs 23:23, 1 Peter 3:15), and I'm pretty sure there isn't in most major religions, although I don't claim to be an expert in the subject. But this sort of learning is what I'm talking about: understanding that your idea of religion might not be what religion actually is (This is important because many disagreements are due to this fact, combined with the fact that others have an idea about science which differs from what science actually is).

What more is there? Well, just because the Bible (which is actually a collection of writings from some 40 different people who lived in different eras spanning some 1500 years, as well as from different areas all over the middle east, and in different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's completely worthless. Even if you don't agree with the theology, I'm sure you can agree with much of the wisdom (e.g. Do to others as you would have them do to you). It's because they were written for humans, and we're still human. It's not all about abracadabra and hocus-pocus.

So what? ... What learning are you talking of? There's no learning in religion. You have some book written by ancient people, and you're supposed to just believe it. That's it. What more is there to learn?

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Your original question was "what's wrong with anti-religious sentiments?". I was providing one reason. Actually, I left it open to either you learning from them (which you don't seem to think is possible) or them learning from you. Either way, we can agree that mutual understanding can only benefit those involved, right?

By the way, there's no "you're supposed to just believe it" command in the Bible (the opposite, in fact: Acts 17:11, Proverbs 23:23, 1 Peter 3:15), and I'm pretty sure there isn't in most major religions, although I don't claim to be an expert in the subject. But this sort of learning is what I'm talking about: understanding that your idea of religion might not be what religion actually is (This is important because many disagreements are due to this fact, combined with the fact that others have an idea about science which differs from what science actually is).

What more is there? Well, just because the Bible (which is actually a collection of writings from some 40 different people who lived in different eras spanning some 1500 years, as well as from different areas all over the middle east, and in different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's completely worthless. Even if you don't agree with the theology, I'm sure you can agree with much of the wisdom (e.g. Do to others as you would have them do to you). It's because they were written for humans, and we're still human. It's not all about abracadabra and hocus-pocus.

What if, oh say, Jesus was only nice to people who where nice to him? He wouldn't be very admire in that case.

"For a long time I leaned towards a young earth point of view. What has started to change my mind was that idea of a supernova. If a star is 20,000 light years away, and we see it colapsing, then it would have been created in-transit. That seems, at its core, a little disceptive, which I think is against God's nature."

I agree with you. However, I don't think you are looking at all of the possibilities. You are looking at it with the assumption that science currently has all the answers. This is not necessarily a contradiction. This problem is address very well here:

http://media.gospelcom.net/aig/Megaconference/05dr lisle.mp3

you are by default (as written in the Koran) an enemy Allah and must be killed

wtf is an enemy Allah? Allah == God, yeah?

And FYI. Islam comes from the root word of Aslama which translate to "to surrender, resign oneself" in arabic. In other words, you don't live your life for yourself. You live your live for the sole purpose to be directed and guided by Allah. In return for your unbridled loyalty, you are promised salvation.

From Luke 22:42: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

Surrendering is imho a fairly common concept in most religions.

James 2:14-26

The gist of it is that without works, faith is dead.

Why believe that I'm hiding something? My point is that God's description of acceptable behavior does not single out homosexual acts for the purpose of condemning homosexuals.

For what it's worth, I was quoting the NIV as hosted here: and that translation does not include effeminate. The NASB (another fine translation) does include it, but that word does not appear in the NIV, NKJV or the KJV.

As I'm not a Latin scholar, I can't comment on the translation. As you point out, the Latin is a translation from the Greek. I think it would be best to 'go to the Greek.' I'd have to pull out my interlinear translation to do that effectively, and since I'm at work, I don't have that handy.

Thanks for the comments.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

But take a look at this: The tree of knowlage was supposed to be DEADLY! So why didn't they die? Evolution.

That's an interesting interpretation. A simpler one is simply that god lied. After all, he feared that Adam and Eve would also eat of the Tree of Life and become a god like him and then kick his ass.

Here is a good discussion of the Galileo controversy.

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

"I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications."

The reason you don't see ID fossil research publications is that most people in the ID crowd have no problem with the standard interpretation of the fossil record. In additions, the methods of ID deal with systems, which are not present in fossils.

Creationists do deal with fossils. The creationists are few enough in number that they don't have highly specialized publications, but they do have publications that include fossil research. Two I am aware of are the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now just called TJ), and the Creation Research Society Quarterly, often abbreviated CRSQ. The Baraminology Study Group just finished having a conference, and, while not dealing very much with fossils, they are doing interesting work and the conference proceedings are online.

Answers in Genesis ministries actually spends a lot of time and money on Dinosaurs and their bones. In fact, they recently funded a trip to Alaska to search for bones, and I've heard they brought back 200 pounds worth. They are opening a museum in Kentucky, and have a very talented Dinosaur modeller working for them.

As far as how and where Dinosaurs lived, creationists actually do a lot of research on this, but secular scientists usually do not give it any credit, because it goes against what they assume to be true. Specifically, there are many historical accounts of Dinosaurs which the creationists often research. The Thunderbird of the Indians is exactly like a Pteradactyl, even to the crown on his head. There have been numerous accounts of Dinosaur activity throughout history, not just in fanciful tales of dragons, but in plain, direct reporting as well. In fact, John of Damascus was tired of all of the fanciful tales about these creatures going around, and in the 700s wrote a book about them, telling their biology and life-cycle and encouraging people not to believe the fanciful myths about them. Unfortunately, this work is only available in Latin and Russian at the time being.

An interesting account of ancient history with some reference to dinosaur reports throughout history is Bill Cooper's After the Flood.

If you're curious about creationist biology, I would encourage you to look at the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.

ifwm's ignorance about Christianity is surprising given that we've just seen the conviction of Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph.

Perhaps he should follow the advice of the Bible as given in Matthew 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Read the next verse, too.

While not in support of the unspeakable, I think that external control methods amount to cures worse than the disease. See http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans% 207;&version=9; v7-10.

Allusion to Peter in http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Matthew +14:22-33, plus the Great Commission at the end of Matthew.

Thats the King James version. For some reason when he translated it they put Corn instead of wheat. Corn was known at the time by King James. Here is the English Standard Version from http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Mark%20 2:23-25;&version=47; "3One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" 25And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:"

This from the maker of a Web browser that by default inflates IE's figures, by coming "out of the box" pre-configured to report itself--not as Opera-- but as Microsoft Internet Explorer!

Remove the plank from your own eye, Opera, before saying Firefox has a speck in its eye. Need help?

This is a heresy introduced into Christianity by Marcion. He is responsible for the insidious separation between "Old" and "New" "Testaments" and the contrived dichotomy of "Law vs. Grace." 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed," and the Tanakh makes clear that God has always shown grace to the humble.

Christian Origins

It is ironic that perhaps one of the most influential of figures in Church History is also one of the most reviled heretics: Marcion. [...] Marcion's teachings departed from traditional Christianity in a number of ways. Most dramatically, perhaps, Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. Up until then, the traditional Church had considered the Old Testament to be sacred and assumed that Christianity was a fulfillment or continuation of Judaism. Marcion's rejection of that idea affected many different doctrines and beliefs.

CenturyOne

"In the middle of the second century, the Hebrew foundations of Christian faith were attacked by the first great heresy that challenged the church. Some of the ideas of this heresy so permeated the church's corporate psyche that it has not yet fully recovered its spiritual and scriptural equilibrium.

Marcion, son of a bishop of Sinope in Pontus, (there is some question about this) joined the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo in Rome in developing a dualistic view of sacred history which postulated the existence of two gods, the good and gracious God (Christ) and the Demiurge (Jehovah of the Jews). Marcion taught an irreconcilable dualism between gospel and law, between Christianity and Judaism. The Demiurge and his religion were seen as harsh, severe, and unmerciful, and they were cast into Hades by Christ, the good God. Marcion invented a new canon of Holy Scripture which included only an abridged Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles, some of which he edited. He wrested the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17 to declare, 'I am not come to fulfil the law and the prophets, but to destroy them.' (Actual text of Mat. 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV) -superyooser)

In Marcion's view, Christianity had no connection whatever with the past, whether of the Jewish or the heathen world, but had fallen abruptly and magically from heaven. Jesus, too, was not born, nor did he die. His body was a phantom to reveal the good God, and his death was an illusion. This Christ was not the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament; he was a totally new and unforeseen manifestation of the good God of Greek dualism. Because the rest of the apostles were Judaizing corrupters of pure Christianity, Christ called Paul as the apostle to preach the truth of Marcion's extreme antinomianism and anti-Judaism. [(Context from first linked article:) Significantly, Marcion also took a scalpel to Paul's letters, eliminating as many positive references to Judaism or the Old Testament as possible. "Marcion dealt with the text of Paul's letters in the same way as with the text of Luke's gospel: anything which appeared inconsistent with what he believed to be authentic Pauline teaching was regarded as a corruption proceeding from an alien hand." See also the book Paul the Jewish Theologian - superyooser]

While the church officially denounced the heresy of Marcion (his own father excommunicated him) and affirmed monotheism, the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the deity, humanity, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus, Marcion's extreme antinomianism

• Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies

Do you know the exact text of the "oppressing christians" criterion for identifying "the" antichrist?

The main passage concerning this is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. As for the other passages, they could be interpreted differently (generally Daniel and Revelations). It depends on whether they are also referring to the same thing.

Of course, it's probably translated into English from Latin, and probably from Greek to that, and possibly even from Aramaic to that. And every step introduces a translator's chance for mistake/bias/relevance interpretation.

Not this again. I am embroiled in a long argument on this at the moment. The short answer is it is not 'possibly translated'. The modern translations we have are translated from their original language, Hebrew for the OT, Greek for the NT. I think that the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate translation (Greek -> Latin), and I know that the vulgate translation was flawed, but I do not consider the KJV to be a modern translation.

But I'd like to know what christians *today*, who would be the oppressed, are prepared to expect from such a character. Specifically, whether the oppression would be exclusive to christians, and whether defined by their christianity, or a necessary correlate to it.

See 2 Thess 2.

Moreover, I believe (at least one) antichrist prophecy predicts that some christians would recognize "the" antichrist before the unmistakable havoc they cause, while some would recognize it later - and others would not at all, christian or otherwise. Do you know if that is consistent with the prophecy? And whether there are christians who might agree with me that Bush fits these prophecies? For example, I've read reports suggesting that the last Pope thought Bush could be "the Antichrist". I wonder how widespread is that belief. Because these characters, and their effect on the world, is composed entirely of that belief, in the minds of the people at that time.

I'd go back to 2 Thess 2 for the prophecies. The Daniel and Revelation things might be referring to something else. I guess that it would be possible for other people to see the Antichrist.

I've got to say that I don't know as much about this area as I would like, but I just wanted to point out that there was a primary characteristic that was missing.

I agree that Bush & Co are terrible at running the country. I agree that they have behaved amorally in defending and strengthening their power. It does appear that your administration is one of the more morally corrupt administrations, certainly more morally corrupt than any that I have studied (I have studied some US history: 1880s-1945). I also agree that they have abused their position of power in many ways.

I just don't agree that he fits the criteria of the antichrist.

I also feel that we need to try to keep a sense of proportion in this. Bush is not as bad as say, Mugabe in Zimbabwae. He has more power, and is therefore more dangerous, but he isn't as bad. I don't think that demonising the guy is particularly helpful.

Either Jesus was wrong, or your father's book is wrong (or both, I suppose). Certainly, they can't both be right.

You can suit yourself, but I'll believe Jesus.

The bible holds both that God is sovereign and that man has free will. You have grasped one and not the other.

God being sovereign means that nothing happens with God knowing that it was going to happen or standing behind it. This includes things that go wrong in this world.

Man having free will means that he chooses what he wants to do.

The bible holds both of these as true and as not being in tension or opposition.

I do not understand how this works, and indeed we cannot understand how this works, at least not now. But we can see this in operation. See Romans 9 for some details. In fact Paul asks the very same question you ask: Is God unjust?

Being omnipotent does not mean he fixes our destiny. That conflicts with free will.

God does clearly fix our destiny. Eph 1. Note the frequent use of the word predestined. God is soveriegn over our destiny also.

This is not to say that we do not have free will, merely that somehow they both work hand in hand. This is one of the great mysteries of the world.

This is what I mean.

Job 40:8
"Do you presume to tell me what I'm doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint?

he didn't know that the Morning Star was undermining his commandments, and he didn't put the blame only on him,

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Mods: If you mod me Offtopic, do us a favor and mod the parent poster Offtopic as well.

Good enough for Solomon, good enough for me

FYI, the obvious sources of error are:

• Possibly measuring from the outside "from rim to rim" and measuring the inside of the circle (or any variation on this). Someone who didn't know what the ratio was "supposed" to be could easily make an error of this sort.
  
• Assuming it's an exact circle - the more elliptical it gets, the more the inferred value of pi nears 2.0.
  
• A cubit is NOT an exact measurement.
  
• It's really difficult to measure a circular object with a straight measure, especially if you're using your arm.
  

The only people this might bother are those who believe the Bible is inerrant in its every word, which is actually a very small number of Christians. I'd be surprised if there were any left - that the general readership of Slashdot hasn't driven away with snarky comments like the parent.