Jump to content


Photo

What Are The Moral Pillars Of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#41 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:48 PM

You claim morality can only come from Christianity.  I guess that why the ancient Greek civilization which existed for 1000 years before the advent of Christianity had no morals.  They had no time to develop the concepts of fairness in law, or democracy.  It was all just running around raping, stealing from your neighbor, and eating babies.

Some things are almost too silly to comment on.   :rolleyes:

View Post

Jesus understood the Dilemma and articulated it quite well, in person and by His Spirit:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus acknowledged that even evil people are still capable of performing good deeds...

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The whole concept of morality can be exercised by unbelievers in varying degrees and to some success. The problem is that; it is not a product of a naturalist's or humanist's worldview framework. It comes from somewhere else which makes the social structure of evolution (survival of the fittest) at odds with the practiced morality of those who believe the former.

Morality is an illusory and convenient byproduct of social pressure that has no intrinsic worth, foundation, or unalienable reality. It's merely the product of popular opinion and cultural or oligarchical force. That is, of course, if philosophical naturalism and evolution are true.

Basically, you borrow morality from perceived tradition, or made up pretend, because it is not transcendent, just a fluke of nature really.

Is abortion right or wrong? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.

Is it okay to proselytize people and share your religious ideas in public? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.

Is it okay to pray in public? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.

Should we take from the rich by force and give to the needy? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.

You can be an atheist and be ever so benevolent and kind in your behavior but where does it come from and what determines that it has merit and value over the guy who decides his time is better spent pillaging and raping other complex chunks of conscious matter and devising how not to get caught. How do we then affirm right from wrong for the person who disagrees with the social contract?

What if this pillaging rapist holds the highest office in the land and has no rule over themselves based on this framework, are they still morally wrong? If so, why?

What if a person just disagrees with the social contract and their only crime is not participating in it. Do they forfeit their rights since their rights flow from the social contract?

We aren't talking about unheard of circumstances. Just turn on the news or read a history book. It's filled with people doing those things that are right in their own eye. Are they actually and truly wrong for the crimes they commit or is it just relative to the climate of the culture they live in?

#42 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:55 PM

In fact God has instilled a basic conscience in everyone.  That is the foundation for all general concepts of right and wrong. 

Then you admit that a belief in Christianity is not needed for moral behavior. Even the most isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea who have never heard of Christianity can still behave morally.

In contrast, the Christian conception of what is good is clear and easily stated.  Goodness is what conforms to the character of God and is expressed in his commands.  It doesn't change.

But the interpretations of what conforms and what is expressed change almost daily, and there are as many interpretations as people.

Take for instance "thou shalt not kill". Seems pretty clear cut, right? But what about killing in self defense? If a homicidal maniac came at your wife and children with a machete, and your only way to stop him was to shoot him dead, is that good or bad? What about assisted suicide, where a terminally ill cancer patient in excruciating pain begs to have help ending her own life? "Good" is not so clear then, eh?

Every last side in every last war that I can think of has claimed God on their side, and that by killing the enemy they were doing a good deed. They both can't be right, but they both sure can be wrong.

Bottom line is, "good" is not absolute but is relative to the situation, and to the person doing the judging.

#43 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:35 PM

Take for instance "thou shalt not kill".  Seems pretty clear cut, right?  But what about killing in self defense?  If a homicidal maniac came at your wife and children with a machete, and your only way to stop him was to shoot him dead, is that good or bad?  What about assisted suicide, where a terminally ill cancer patient in excruciating pain begs to have help ending her own life? "Good" is not so clear then, eh?

The better translation is "You shall not murder". Since the law prescribes death as the proper penalty for various crimes, it would be silly to claim a blanket ban on killing. As far as I can see, self-defence or the proper defence of another is fine, as is killing in war if someone is serving as a soldier.

Terminal illnesses are another case, which I would rather handle on an individual basis. There's an old saying that hard cases make bad law. If it is I that suffer in the future I think I will ask God for healing and endure if he doesn't grant it. Traditionally suicide is considered wrong; but that to my mind is more because it is an act of despair, which is the ultimate expression of unbelief, than because it is self-killing.

If someone asks for relief from pain in death, and he is not a believer, my assisting him will mean helping him go from temporary and potentially relievable suffering now to permanent, unrelievable punishment in hell for ever. That doesn't seem such a good choice.

Every last side in every last war that I can think of has claimed God on their side, and that by killing the enemy they were doing a good deed. They both can't be right, but they both sure can be wrong.

Bottom line is, "good" is not absolute but is relative to the situation, and to the person doing the judging.

View Post

You must have a limited knowledge of history. You think that the Russian armies in WWII were saying God was on their side? or Mao's troops in the long march? or the SS? How about Pol Pot's gang? In most pagan cultures it was assumed that their gods would be on their side, if they hadn't got their noses out of joint about something. It was hoped that they would be stronger than the other side's gods.

War is the penalty on both sides for sin, often enough. A Christian who has to kill as a soldier would not be thinking that killing is good, merely that it is an evil that he must nevertheless do. A number of Christians have felt that they should refuse to serve in armies for that reason.

#44 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:52 PM

The better translation is "You shall not murder".  Since the law prescribes death as the proper penalty for various crimes, it would be silly to claim a blanket ban on killing.  As far as I can see, self-defence or the proper defence of another is fine, as is killing in war if someone is serving as a soldier.


But the Commandment doesn't say "thou shalt not murder". It says "thou shalt not kill". Period.

You are adding your own personal interpretation to justify your actions, which is exactly what I pointed out.

Terminal illnesses are another case, which I would rather handle on an individual basis.  There's an old saying that hard cases make bad law.  If it is I that suffer in the future I think I will ask God for healing and endure if he doesn't grant it.  Traditionally suicide is considered wrong; but that to my mind is more because it is an act of despair, which is the ultimate expression of unbelief, than because it is self-killing.

If someone asks for relief from pain in death, and he is not a believer, my assisting him will mean helping him go from temporary and potentially relievable suffering now to permanent, unrelievable punishment in hell for ever.  That doesn't seem such a good choice.

More justification based solely on your personal interpretation. Just as I said.

It's not bad or wrong to personally interpret based on circumstances. I actually agree with you that it's a good thing. Just don't go around claiming any absolute "good".

You must have a limited knowledge of history.  You think that the Russian armies in WWII were saying God was on their side?  or Mao's troops in the long march?  or the SS?

Most Russians in WW2 were extremely religious members of the Russian Orthodox Church. Mao's foot soldiers were a mixture of religions; Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. But as far as the Nazis go...

German WW2 standard issue belt buckle:

Posted Image

"Gott Mit Uns", or "God is with us".

Now do lecture some more about not knowing history. :rolleyes:

#45 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 03:05 PM

The writers assumed evolution therefore they thought there must be a progression, so they ordered the specimens according to their theory.

I just see a collection of specimens that someone has ordered by certain features.  Since they all got buried within a year of each other, that ordering is not relevant in proving any kind of descent.  They were designed with similar features, is all.

View Post

Right. "God designed them all that way" is wonderful one-size-fits-all explanation. Cuts out the need for all that time consuming investigation and thinking. :rolleyes:

But just by some magic coincidence all those specimens weren't jumbled together in the Flood but each species ended up its own specific geologic layer, and they just happened to fall into a temporal order that shows a distinct morphological transition in their skulls, limbs, pelvic girdles, and ear bones.

Maybe God was just playing a big joke on the paleontologists, arranging the fossils and the evidence that way to make it look like evolution took place. Man, that God sure is a mischievous deity! :lol:

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:04 PM

"Gott Mit Uns", or "God is with us".

Now do lecture some more about not knowing history.  :rolleyes:

View Post

Hey Assist,

If your neighbor tells you that he loves and cherishes his wife but every time you see them together she's skiddish around him and there are mysterious new bruises on her. Do you go off of what you see or what he says?

#47 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:24 PM


"Gott Mit Uns", or "God is with us".

Now do lecture some more about not knowing history.


Hey Assist,

If your neighbor tells you that he loves and cherishes his wife but every time you see them together she's skiddish around him and there are mysterious new bruises on her. Do you go off of what you see or what he says?

View Post

Yeah Adam, I'm sure the Nazis put that on all their belt buckles just as a ruse to confuse the Allies. :rolleyes:

#48 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:29 PM

But the Commandment doesn't say "thou shalt not murder".  It says "thou shalt not kill".  Period.

View Post


No, actually, you are incorrect. The Hebrew word is רצח [râtsach] which is translated: to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

You are adding your own personal interpretation to justify your actions, which is exactly what I pointed out.
More justification based solely on your personal interpretation.  Just as I said.

View Post


You are misquoting and/or mistranslating. Therefore you are adding your own personal interpretation to justify your actions.

You should probably do better research and studies before posting out-of-context, misleading or ignorant-of-the facts postings to these threads.

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:48 PM

Yeah Adam, I'm sure the Nazis put that on all their belt buckles just as a ruse to confuse the Allies.  :rolleyes:

View Post

How about answering a simple question instead of dodging it?

#50 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:59 PM

Some find dodging much easier then answering. Or answering with faith filled hope in the Darwinists dream. Either way, the question doesn’t get answered…

#51 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 06:50 PM

Some find dodging much easier then answering. Or answering with faith filled hope in the Darwinists dream. Either way, the question doesn’t get answered…

View Post


Speaking of dodging questions:

<Edit by Adam_777: Questions deleted>
<Warning: This is a discussion forum not an argument from spam forum. Stick to the topic.>



#52 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 07:04 PM

No, actually, you are incorrect.  The Hebrew word is רצח  [râtsach] which is translated: to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).
You are misquoting and/or mistranslating. Therefore you are adding your own personal interpretation to justify your actions.

I freely admit I have my own interpretation of when it's OK to kill. Thing is, at least I'm honest enough to admit it.

You should probably do better research and studies before posting out-of-context, misleading or ignorant-of-the facts postings to these threads.

:rolleyes: :lol: ;) ;) :)
Posted Image

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 07:28 PM

Okay, this thread is reopened. Please stay on topic.

#54 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 27 March 2009 - 05:35 AM

Honesty would be your admittance of incorrectness on your mistranslation of the word written:

“No, actually, you are incorrect. The Hebrew word is רצח [râtsach] which is translated: to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).”

Instead, you skirted the issue by saying you can come up with your own personal translation by interjecting your own personal interpretation to justify your actions. Is this how you approach scholarship? It explains much about how some can be in denial of the truth.

#55 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 27 March 2009 - 07:20 AM

Honesty would be your admittance of incorrectness on your mistranslation of the word written:

“No, actually, you are incorrect. The Hebrew word is רצח [râtsach] which is translated: to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).”

Instead, you skirted the issue by saying you can come up with your own personal translation by interjecting your own personal interpretation to justify your actions. Is this how you approach scholarship? It explains much about how some can be in denial of the truth.

Man, you're hilarious!

You own definition doesn't say murder exclusively, if gives murder as one of several meanings. It also says slay, see? and dash to pieces.

"The Hebrew word is רצח [râtsach] which is translated: to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).”


Slay doesn't have to mean murder. If just means take the life of.

So if you slay the machete wielding attacker threatening your family, you have broken God's word.

You picked one of several definitions as your own personal interpretation. Just like I said.

All that twisting and squirming you do can't be good for your back. Hate to see you end up in traction.

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 March 2009 - 08:26 AM

You do understand that words with multiple meanings don't carry all those meanings at once, right?

If I say I was lying on the ground. Would you tell people I was being deceitful?

#57 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 27 March 2009 - 08:38 AM

Man, you're hilarious!
You own definition doesn't say murder exclusively, if gives murder as one of several meanings.  It also says slay, see?  and dash to pieces.
Slay doesn't have to mean murder.  If just means take the life of.
So if you slay the machete wielding attacker threatening your family, you have broken God's word.
You picked one of several definitions as your own personal interpretation.  Just like I said.
All that twisting and squirming you do can't be good for your back.  Hate to see you end up in traction.

View Post


I see your problem here assist… You are assuming that it was my definition, and that is understandable considering the massive amounts of assumption you’ve built into all of your posts so far. So, rest assured, that isn’t my definition, it is a scholarly definition which is far above your simplistic and self-serving attempts at translation of the text you misquoted.

Context is your next problem assist. If you had the first clue of contextual meaning, you would understand the meaning (or the attributes that lead to the meaning) of the text you misquoted. And this renders your posts moot due to your lack of understanding…

#58 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 27 March 2009 - 08:40 AM

You do understand that words with multiple meanings don't carry all those meanings at once, right?

If I say I was lying on the ground. Would you tell people I was being deceitful?

View Post

That's exactly my point Adam.

The interpretation of the meaning of the word is context dependent, and different people will use their own personal judgment to come up with different interpretations, like when it's OK to kill.

de_skudd seems to think the meaning of the word is absolute and not open to interpretation, even though multiple meanings are given in the definition.

You seem to agree with me.

#59 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 27 March 2009 - 08:44 AM

I see your problem here assist… You are assuming that it was my definition, and that is understandable considering the massive amounts of assumption you’ve built into all of your posts so far. So, rest assured, that isn’t my definition, it is a scholarly definition which is far above your simplistic and self-serving attempts at translation of the text you misquoted.

Context is your next problem assist. If you had the first clue of contextual meaning, you would understand the meaning (or the attributes that lead to the meaning) of the text you misquoted. And this renders your posts moot due to your lack of understanding…

View Post

Your scholarly source gave multiple meanings.

You arbitrarily picked one based on your own personal biases.

Other people can pick equally valid ones different from your interpretation.

You hollering "my opinion is the only right one!!" doesn't make it so.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 March 2009 - 08:57 AM

You seem to agree with me.

View Post

I don't think so.

de_skudd, is showing quite relevantly that the Jews understood what God was saying and they obviously understood the context. If they didn't they would have been up in arms when the state of Israel exercised justice and God's command through the Prophets and the Judges which sometimes meant taking life.

You see the context is clarified by God Himself when judgment was exercised through the hands of the sons of Israel. Now you say they were contradicting themselves but context and meaning must be levied based on the best definition that fits the text, right?

I see a tendency towards being pedantic in your assessment because you refuse to allow the best meaning to fit the context, when it is available. Do you desire a contradiction and not necessarily understanding?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users