The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

No I have not. I have no such interest. I only like to read books and study since I was 9. Also watching sky, trees, stars, birds etc. None of that involved fighting for things like cookies. Fighting, spite, anger... such silly things to waste time on. I studied the stars till I could locate thousands, watched the birds till I could identify them with their calls, I could tell rain from sun by sensing the wind and how insects behaved. Much better pursuits no?
I don't remember acting against my conscience even before 11. But memory of earlier times is spotty. So I have less confidence.

You'll pardon me, but I also have somewhat regular accountability with others for morals/religion. I know some people very much in touch with Christ who sin--daily. I no of no person apart from Jesus Christ who is free from coveting/lusting and willfulness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, you are free to interpret it how you want, and I am free to find your interpretation entirely lacking. It's not that "God doesn't make the world as I would," it's that "God doesn't make the world with love of humans in mind the way it is told." And I find no good reason to give my loyalty to a "leader" who does not have my best interests, or the best interests of my wife and kids, in mind. I don't just give of my loyalties freely - and God has done absolutely nothing to earn them.


I don't know how you can be so sure that "God knows what He is doing." By the evidence - the many multiple religions in the world, the many multiple denominations/sects of even the same religion, the general confusion that permeates EVERYONE's mind at one time or another regarding spiritual matters. If you were trying to run a tight ship because you cared for the safety of every crew member on your vessel, would you leave SO MUCH to chance? Would you allow a whopping TON of interpretations of your orders? If so... why in the hell would you do that? You simply can't have a good reason. And to my mind, neither does God.


This is sort of dodging the question, and likely because it is difficult for you to admit. Here's the original question: does a human being NEED to have the ability to procreate in order to have free-will? Is that a requirement? If so... then would you say that people who can't have children for whatever reason also no longer have "free-will?" When I had my vasectomy - did I suddenly lose my free-will? And if the answer is "no" - that a human needn't have the ability to procreate in order to have free-will... well then I just solved God's problems in this area! He can easily, magically sterilize anyone who is bound to abuse or kill their children, and it doesn't interfere with their free-will. Why not? Really think about this now... what would stop Him? Considering people exist who cannot procreate - and yet have free-will (do they not?!) - I really can't see a drawback to this.


That "women cuddle their children seconds after they are born, lovingly" is, I think, missing the point. The mother (who loves the child, and is the knowledgeable one in the situation) undergoing pain would be what, in comparison to the scenario of a child experiencing pain on Earth? Besides that obvious lack of correlation to the God-child dynamic, there is also the fact that a mother understands the good to be had out of the situation - and the child in an abusive home that leads to death has absolutely no good to look forward to or attain out of the situation, unless "heaven" exists, AND they are slated to go there - for let's not forget, the sins of the fathers shall be punished into posterity according to "The Good Book."


Agreed. Talking over when it is permissible to destroy a living human fetus and when it isn't is an entirely sterile, disconnected process that is simply not ever going to reflect well on the moral understanding of the parties doing the talking in my opinion.

If it's okay, I don't want to be assumptive, but rather than get into the woods with some of your points, I'd say:

1) There are other religions/false religions because people since the Garden have "been doing their own thing"
2) There is a Satan and minions who deceive millions
3) Asexual people or people who have been sterilized do have free will--everyone has free will
4) The pain of children held me back from trusting in Jesus, before I weighed eternity against briefer time spans

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1) There are other religions/false religions because people since the Garden have "been doing their own thing"

Has God made it clear which one is absolutely correct? And which teaching/sect/denomination might that be? If I ask that same question to someone else - let's say an LDS member, or JW - will they have the same answer as you?

2) There is a Satan and minions who deceive millions

Not according to me there isn't.

3) Asexual people or people who have been sterilized do have free will--everyone has free will

Good, then it's settled, God has no reason not to sterilize people who are going to abuse/kill their children.

4) The pain of children held me back from trusting in Jesus, before I weighed eternity against briefer time spans

Which is precisely why I reminded you that there is another version of "eternity" to consider - the one that ain't so pretty.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please, no conspiracy theory nonsense. Where is the supposed evidence for your claims?

And you appear to be against affirming rights, life, and good health

I don't understand. You want evidence that abortion hurts mothers, because you affirm life, but you do not affirm life for babies. Do you see the contradiction?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Has God made it clear which one is absolutely correct? And which teaching/sect/denomination might that be? If I ask that same question to someone else - let's say an LDS member, or JW - will they have the same answer as you?
Not according to me there isn't.
Good, then it's settled, God has no reason not to sterilize people who are going to abuse/kill their children.
Which is precisely why I reminded you that there is another version of "eternity" to consider - the one that ain't so pretty.

You raise a good issue--with many sects, isn't it true that each says the others are wrong? They do, but does that mean that none of them are right, regarding correct Bible interpretation?

JWs say the Bible does not teach the divinity of Christ. Either it does or doesn't.

Roman Catholics say Jesus needs our help to save us, our own works. Either the Bible teaches a free gift or not. The Bible does say in Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Sects argue but I don't use this fact to say, "I give up. we can make the bible say anything," because we cannot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand. You want evidence that abortion hurts mothers, because you affirm life, but you do not affirm life for babies. Do you see the contradiction?

But fetuses are not babies. That you have to use the term indicates that you do not feel they are "alive" in the same sense that the pregnant women is alive either. You would harm the health and life of pregnant women. And you would be foisting unwanted babies on the already overcrowded world.

Do you oppose Planned Parenthood? If you do you can't really claim to be "prof-life" or even anti-abortion for that matter. Planned Parenthood does much more work in distributing birth control which prevents abortion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You raise a good issue--with many sects, isn't it true that each says the others are wrong? They do, but does that mean that none of them are right, regarding correct Bible interpretation?

So what is the solution to figuring out which points are gotten right and by whom? Can't go back to ask the original authors. Asking God, by all appearances, seems to produce mixed results. Scholars are sometimes thought to be to pedantic in their approach, and a lot of the different "sides" have their own, so even that is fragmented. Some may have some parts "right" according to original intentions, and others may have other parts "right." Meaning that there could be many who are right and wrong all at the same time.

Sects argue but I don't use this fact to say, "I give up. we can make the bible say anything," because we cannot.

I use that fact to say "The Bible is obviously not a definitive source of knowledge on the subject it is espoused to, therefore I will ignore it."

 

[Astrophile]

However, I do not want to make heroin abuse, homosexuality, atheism or many other things "safer and easier for those who'd do them regardless of law or Bible doctrine", as I'm not an enabler.

Why do you not want to make atheism 'safer and easier for those who would do it'? Do you want to go back to a time when anybody who denied the existence of a god was put to death with various cruel and unusual punishments?

 

[Skwim]

You raise a good issue--with many sects, isn't it true that each says the others are wrong? They do, but does that mean that none of them are right, regarding correct Bible interpretation?

JWs say the Bible does not teach the divinity of Christ. Either it does or doesn't.

Roman Catholics say Jesus needs our help to save us, our own works. Either the Bible teaches a free gift or not. The Bible does say in Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sects argue but I don't use this fact to say, "I give up. we can make the bible say anything," because we cannot.

And it isn't only sects, but denominations as well. Makes one wonder why god has permitted it all: some 900 different English versions of his "Word." My guess is that it's for his entertainment.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But fetuses are not babies. That you have to use the term indicates that you do not feel they are "alive" in the same sense that the pregnant women is alive either. You would harm the health and life of pregnant women. And you would be foisting unwanted babies on the already overcrowded world.

Do you oppose Planned Parenthood? If you do you can't really claim to be "prof-life" or even anti-abortion for that matter. Planned Parenthood does much more work in distributing birth control which prevents abortion.

I oppose PP because birth control can be distributed sans pressures to have abortions.

At what time is a fetus a baby? Would you set the time on what science says is a viable fetus or . . . ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So what is the solution to figuring out which points are gotten right and by whom? Can't go back to ask the original authors. Asking God, by all appearances, seems to produce mixed results. Scholars are sometimes thought to be to pedantic in their approach, and a lot of the different "sides" have their own, so even that is fragmented. Some may have some parts "right" according to original intentions, and others may have other parts "right." Meaning that there could be many who are right and wrong all at the same time.


I use that fact to say "The Bible is obviously not a definitive source of knowledge on the subject it is espoused to, therefore I will ignore it."

We cannot interview the authors re: their intent, but archaeology verifies that we have the Bible as it was shared back then. I find the Bible univocal on all major and minor doctrines. And interpretations are usually binary only:

1) Keep salvation or lose it?
2) Jesus died for all or for some?
3) Jesus saves those who haven't heard or no?

Etc. It's fairly easy to interpret the Bible by taking the authors at face value instead of looking for hidden meanings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you not want to make atheism 'safer and easier for those who would do it'? Do you want to go back to a time when anybody who denied the existence of a god was put to death with various cruel and unusual punishments?

1) The Bible asks for reasonable punishment, not "cruel and unusual punishment", from which the framers used that very phrase.

2) Atheism is self-punishing and comes with consequences apart from government intervention. It does not, however, need Christians to make it easier. We intervene when commandments are stripped from buildings because we're trying to help the country as a whole and atheists in particular.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And it isn't only sects, but denominations as well. Makes one wonder why god has permitted it all: some 900 different English versions of his "Word." My guess is that it's for his entertainment.

.

Unlike the Noble Qu'ran, which "must be in Arabic to be real/accurate", God's Word saves across translations and cultures. The many English Bibles allow us to compare translations and affirm the basics.

IN ALL 900 English versions, people are saved via trusting what Christ did on the cross for us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I oppose PP because birth control can be distributed sans pressures to have abortions.

At what time is a fetus a baby? Would you set the time on what science says is a viable fetus or . . . ?

So you are not pro-life you are just anti-abortion.

There is a big difference between "can be" and "is". Plus there is no pressure to have an abortion. When you have to strawman an argument you acknowledge the weakness of your beliefs.

I do not know when a fetus is a baby. I will not tell someone what they cannot do based upon an "I don't know".

 

[Subduction Zone]

1) The Bible asks for reasonable punishment, not "cruel and unusual punishment", from which the framers used that very phrase.

2) Atheism is self-punishing and comes with consequences apart from government intervention. It does not, however, need Christians to make it easier. We intervene when commandments are stripped from buildings because we're trying to help the country as a whole and atheists in particular.

You do realize that the commandments being on a building is almost always because they were put up illegally, don't you? They are taken down because putting them up was unconstitutional in the first place.

 

[ecco]

At what time is a fetus a baby? Would you set the time on what science says is a viable fetus or . . . ?

In this Country it was determined by SCOTUS using past religious and secular doctrine.

In your Theocracy it can be anything you want it to be.

 

[ecco]

It does not, however, need Christians to make it easier. We intervene when commandments are stripped from buildings because we're trying to help the country as a whole and atheists in particular.

How does having the Ten Commandments posted on public buildings help atheists? Do you think we should base or morals on the words of a genocidal god?
How does having the Ten Commandments posted on public buildings help the Country as a whole. Isn't Thou shalt have no other gods before me offensive to people of other religions?




I hope you never travel to an Islamic country and get arrested and put on trial. I'm sure you'd feel very uncomfortable standing before a judge behind whom is large "In Allah we Trust".

Who knows, with all this desire for religious liberty expressed by Christians like you, perhaps in the near future Detroit will allow Sharia courtrooms. I guess you wouldn't want to go to Detroit then either, would you.

 

[Skwim]

At what time is a fetus a baby? Would you set the time on what science says is a viable fetus or . . . ?

After it is born.

"An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless") is the more formal or specialised synonym for "baby", the very young offspring of a human. The term may also be used to refer to juveniles of other organisms."
Source: Wikipedia​

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you are not pro-life you are just anti-abortion.

There is a big difference between "can be" and "is". Plus there is no pressure to have an abortion. When you have to strawman an argument you acknowledge the weakness of your beliefs.

I do not know when a fetus is a baby. I will not tell someone what they cannot do based upon an "I don't know".

Then why take a chance? Why take a chance on killing a child?

I am both pro-life and anti-abortion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do realize that the commandments being on a building is almost always because they were put up illegally, don't you? They are taken down because putting them up was unconstitutional in the first place.

LOL. Someone should have told the framers and all the ones who built so many buildings with scriptures and biblical sculptures and friezes and . . . poppycock!