A Compromise about ID in Biology Classes - Page 7

#61 10-04-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then have that teacher systematically show how wrong and ill conceived that 95% is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine (I'm assuming they'll get the non-sequitur), as long as they also teach that if God tells someone to, then it's OK to commit genocide or stone someone to death for picking up sticks on Sunday (or Saturday, depending which Sabbath day you adhere to).

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?...mp;version=31;
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?...mp;version=31;

(There are lots of other examples of God telling people to do things that we would consider highly immoral. But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

NotReady · #62 10-04-2005, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

RJT · #63 10-04-2005, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no such things as "abolute moral standards" without a context of a God. Period.

If there is no God there are no moral standards. Period

This does not mean there must be a God. It only says that there are no absolute moral standards without one.

If you disagree, fine, prove it. I'll even take a few examples of any.

lehighguy · #64 10-05-2005, 01:00 AM

Popularity doesn't equal truth.

Look at the hands people play in poker.

#65 10-05-2005, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you think it's OK to kill an entire population of people -- women, children, and all? And, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday is OK? Really?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no such things as "abolute moral standards" without a context of a God. Period.

If there is no God there are no moral standards. Period

This does not mean there must be a God. It only says that there are no absolute moral standards without one.

If you disagree, fine, prove it. I'll even take a few examples of any.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sarcasm.

NotReady · #66 10-05-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So, you think it's OK to kill an entire population of people -- women, children, and all? And, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday is OK? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. For God.

#67 10-05-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, you think it's OK to kill an entire population of people -- women, children, and all? And, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday is OK? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. For God.

[/ QUOTE ]

And flying airplanes into towers seems about right, too, I suppose.

RJT · #68 10-05-2005, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood the sarcasm. I was just pointing out there is no moral authority without a context of a God. If there are moral absolutes there has to be a God.

If there are moral absolutes and therefore from a God he has to be right, yup.

The problem with the sarcasm was that it was in the context of “There are lots of other examples of God telling people to do things that we would consider highly immoral”.

Your statement either assumes God said such things instead of assuming than man got wrong what He said; or that God did indeed say such things (I doubt this is the case) and you can’t see the possible reason He would say such things - the reasoning behind it is incomplete or unclear.

NotReady · #69 10-05-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

the reasoning behind it is incomplete or unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is very clear. Do a google of Amalekites. As to the Sabbath violation, the Ten Commandments devote more words to this than any of the others. In this passage the man was openly and obviously violating a direct command of God. There is nothing inherently wrong about gathering wood. There is nothing inherently wrong about eating fruit. But both were flagrant and public rebellions against God. He chose for His reasons to make an example in this case. Compare that with how Jesus healed on the Sabbath, was accused by the Pharisees, and justified His actions by stating that He is the Lord of the Sabbath.

NotReady · #70 10-05-2005, 01:37 PM

I just had some more thoughts on this. The verses just before the ones about the Sabbath breaking state:

22 " 'Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the LORD gave Moses- 23 any of the LORD's commands to you through him, from the day the LORD gave them and continuing through the generations to come- 24 and if this is done unintentionally without the community being aware of it, then the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, along with its prescribed grain offering and drink offering, and a male goat for a sin offering. 25 The priest is to make atonement for the whole Israelite community, and they will be forgiven, for it was not intentional and they have brought to the LORD for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering. 26 The whole Israelite community and the aliens living among them will be forgiven, because all the people were involved in the unintentional wrong.

27 " 'But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven. 29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

30 " 'But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. 31 Because he has despised the LORD's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.' "

Clearly God is allowing for lenience for unintentional sin but requiring the death penalty for open and public defiance. Furthermore, the Israelites did not immediately move to execute the man but held him in custody. They obviously wanted direction for God on the matter. Since they were basically asking God for His decision, God affirmed what He had already said, thus emphasizing that He means His Word and His commandments are not frivolous. I seriously doubt very many Sabbath violations since then have drawn capital punishment. God is far more lenient and patient that He is vengeful and strict.