Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[RogerB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by ZroKewl
So you are bragging about being able to insult people? Jesus would be proud.

--ZK

Look who's trying to be a cop for Christ.

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

bmyers,

you ask:

"A more interesting question, though, would be: "Is it POSSIBLE for God to change in his righteousness and moral attributes?" "

and state:

"If this is not possible, then this would imply that there is a standard of morality separate from, and independent of, God (since God would be contrained by it, rather than the other way around). "

Isn't that the very same question that Zakath asked? Bob addressed it in his post. And as an aside why would something that is independent of God...constrain Him?

Another example would be "time". Was "time" created? No. I think time is independent of God...but God is not subject to the effects of time. People often say that God is outside of time or that there is no time in heaven. I believe this to be unbiblical.

God is "in time", but is not subject to its effects...such as age and entropy. This brings up another point about what Aussie said earlier about "God can do anything". I believe that God cannot travel back in time.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by ZroKewl
So you are bragging about being able to insult people? Jesus would be proud.

I dunno -- God's insults were a lot better than mine. I particularly like the time He inflicted the Philistines with hemorrhoids. Talk about adding insult to injury... Ouch!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
Another example would be "time". Was "time" created? No. I think time is independent of God...but God is not subject to the effects of time. People often say that God is outside of time or that there is no time in heaven. I believe this to be unbiblical.

God is "in time", but is not subject to its effects...such as age and entropy. This brings up another point about what Aussie said earlier about "God can do anything". I believe that God cannot travel back in time.

When do the believers fix up their mind about this issue?

Perhaps if they did, we can finally discuss then the existence of God.

As long as the believers may choose the definition of God based on the counter arguments they get, it is more like a sort of "kiekeboe" game.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
bmyers,

you ask:

"A more interesting question, though, would be: "Is it POSSIBLE for God to change in his righteousness and moral attributes?" "

and state:

"If this is not possible, then this would imply that there is a standard of morality separate from, and independent of, God (since God would be contrained by it, rather than the other way around). "

Isn't that the very same question that Zakath asked? Bob addressed it in his post. And as an aside why would something that is independent of God...constrain Him?

It IS much the same question, and clearly, I didn't find Bob Enyart's response very satisfying. To answer your aside, it is not the fact that the standard of morality would be independent of God (in that second case) that would be the source of the constraint - the "constraint" is implicit in the alternative being considered. Once more, with a slightly different presentation:

The statement "God is always good" is true in either of the following two cases:

1. God DECIDES what is good.

2. "Good" is determined by something OTHER THAN a decision made by God, AND God is always "good" because that's the nature of God.

(If you can see a third possibility, please present it.)

In the first case, God IS the standard for morality. But being capable of defining "good" implies the ability to make a conscious decision - for example, we could imagine God going down a list of possible actions, and determining that THIS action is "good" while THAT action is "bad". But this means that God also MUST retain the ability to make a DIFFERENT choice (otherwise, the notion of "deciding" is meaningless), which is the same as saying that "goodness" is not necessarily absolute - the standard could be changed by God at any time, on a whim, WHETHER OR NOT such a change has ever actually been made.

In the second case, God doesn't determine what is "good" solely by choice. But if "good" and "bad" truly exist, and God doesn't decide them, then something else clearly must - in short, a univeral, objective standard of "good" and "bad" exists APART from God (whether or not this standard "predates" God brings up the whole question of time, which is another issue altogether). But if such an "outside" standard exists, then one of two things must be true - either God IS constrained to follow this standard (i.e., God MUST be "good" - he has no choice in the matter), or God is NOT "always good".

Do you see any other possibilities here? If so, please present them.

A related question: is it possible for God to make an "honest mistake"? (I.e., an error which is not done out of malice.)

Another example would be "time". Was "time" created? No. I think time is independent of God...but God is not subject to the effects of time. People often say that God is outside of time or that there is no time in heaven. I believe this to be unbiblical.

Question: do you accept the notion of space/time duality (i.e., that space and time are actually two aspects of the same thing)? If so, then "time was not created" would be exactly equivalent to saying that "space was not created", and you will have then removed God from the role of creator of the universe. But if space and time ARE independent, you are then left with the problem of determining just what time IS in a way that does not involve a reliance on spacelike expressions or measurements.

And if God is "in time", we're left with the pesky problem of the origin of God within the space/time continuum, unless you can resolve the problem that comes up in the second part of the above paragraph.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by Spartin
I also see that the fish has taken the bait.

Well, I figured that's the least I could do after you cried about it not working the last time you tried to bait me...

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
This was just one such "creation".

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2002/ScisCreate12.htm

Man the only known creator strikes again

Thanks for the link. 2 points stand out immediately though
1) From the article:
"The scientists constructed the virus using its genome sequence".
So this was not a random process (which is the evolutionary position isn't it) rather it is a deliberate and controlled creation action predicated by huge amounts of knowledge. Aren't you in fact arguing the position that life was not created?

2) Virus' to my understanding are not the same as 'life', and hence your claim that life has been created is still unsubstantiated in my mostly uniformed opinion (I majored in physics, not biology ).

 

[tenkeeper]

what an 'odd' statement, saying that 'i believe
that God cannot travel back in time'.

Isa. 38:8
Behold, I will bring again the shadow
of degrees, which is gone down in the
sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.
So the sun returned ten degrees by which
degrees it was gone down.

 

[Spartin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Well, I figured that's the least I could do after you cried about it not working the last time you tried to bait me...

Here is the thing though, I didn't follow through with a scathing remark like you. I was just wondering about a certain character trait and I wasn't too far off. Nothing more than that.


Spartin

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by heusdens
Hitler certainly appeared at times to be a theist, and claimed to be a Christian:

Originally posted by Turbo
So does Clinton. So do a lot of non-Christians, particularly those in government. Has it ever occured to you that Hitler might have been a liar? Jesus warned that there would be many who falsely call upon His name. He also said you will know them by their fruits.

Hitler's agenda was inline with Darwinian racism, and his actions cannot be condemned by that belief system. However, the Bible teaches that we are all of one blood, and clearly condemns those who kill the innocent.

Originally posted by heusdens
You can state that, but I can state the opposite.

There is nothing that refers to evolution that would make a concept of "forced extinction" of a species a viable concept.
Species or variations of it go extinct by natural causes, because they are not adapted to the natural environment.

According to evolutionists, humans are just another animal. Being killed by an animal is a natural cause of death, is it not? If a breed of fish is killed off by another breed of fish, is the cause of extinction not natural? Are the predatory fish not part of the “natural environment?”

Further, it is the Biblical and theistic interpretation that there was a creation of 'static' species. The nazi's have used that concept, to distinguish between the 'better' and the 'worse' species (Uebermensch und Untermensch).

As I stated in my previous post, “the Bible teaches that we are all of one blood, and clearly condemns those who kill the innocent.” Are you suggesting that the Bible does not teach that:

1. all humans are descendents of Adam.
2. intentionally killing the innocent is criminal.

If so, please back up your assertions with actual Bible passages.

However, according to evolution theory any species is as developed and as adapted as any other species, there is no 'better' or 'worse' species.

According to evolution the human race (yes! blacks and whites can make babies as can any other humans!) is one species: the home sapiens, the human race.

The full title for Darwin’s book: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

In his 1871 book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin wrote:
“The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

The Bible gives raise to racial differences when black people are considered.

Care to back up that claim? I’ve already refuted it in my last post, and I could elaborate. But I’d like to know what part of the Bible leads you to such a conclusion.

Secondly: you may call Hitler I liar (and he probably is), but subjective notions don't suffice here. Please have a look inside history itself, and see the role of Catholic institutions.

Even assuming this is true, how is this relevant? What a certain group of Catholics believe does not necessarily reflect what the Bible teaches. The Roman Catholic Church currently stands against executing murderers, but they have supported it in the past, and the Bible certainly commands that governments execute murderers. Many Catholics today embrace evolution. Of course that doesn’t mean the Bible teaches evolution. Surely even you can recognize that.

...What they however COULD or SHOULD have done is offering resistance against the criminal nazi persecutions and application of criminal laws against communists, socialists, jews and many others.

Why? According to what standard? Christianity’s? Evolution’s? Yours?

If Hitler was the anti-Christ...[.QUOTE]Where do you get this idea?

[Hitler] mainly targeted against the left-wing opposition of communists and socialists.

Hitler was most certainly a left-winger and a socialist. A “nazi” is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nazi

The communists offered in all countries resistance against the nazi's, which costed the lives of a great part of the members of the communist party, and the Red army lead by Stalin has defeated nazism when they took over Berlin.
It costed the Soviet-Union more then 20 million people what the nazi's did when they invaded the Soviet-Union.

The people in Europe thank their lives and their freedom to the brave resistance of communists as well as Stalin,

Could you please clarify: Do you support Stalin generally? Are you pro-communism?

 

[bmyers]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by Turbo
According to evolutionists, humans are just another animal. Being killed by an animal is a natural cause of death, is it not? If a breed of fish is killed off by another breed of fish, is the cause of extinction not natural? Are the predatory fish not part of the “natural environment?”

So from this, you conclude that it is impossible to simultaneously accept the current evolutionary model in biology, and subscribe to a fairly typical moral code? That's quite a stretch, I think, and I would very much like to see the line of reasoning that would result in that conclusion.

Are you suggesting that the Bible does not teach that:

1. all humans are descendents of Adam.
2. intentionally killing the innocent is criminal.

If so, please back up your assertions with actual Bible passages.

Actually, it is not quite clear that the Bible DOES teach the first item. Adam and Eve are the first humans MENTIONED in the Bible by name, but there is certainly room to doubt that they were necessarily the "first people". There is the nagging question of just where Cain's wife came from, for one thing, and the following passage is also troublesome:


From Genesis 1:

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Note that these verses precede the entire Adam and Eve story, and imply that both men and women were created at the same time, and sent forth to "subdue the earth". One possible interpretation, then, is that Adam and Eve were simply created to tend the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2). It has always been a problem that Genesis 1 and 2 describe two separate creation stories, with somewhat different sequences of events. That they refer to the exact same events is merely one human interpretation, and certainly open to question.

The full title for Darwin’s book: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

In his 1871 book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin wrote:
“The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

And this shows what, exactly? There is little doubt that Darwin was a man of his times, just as any figure from history is. A single book penned by him in 1871 should hardly be taken as representing the current state of scientific thought.

Even assuming this is true, how is this relevant? What a certain group of Catholics believe does not necessarily reflect what the Bible teaches. The Roman Catholic Church currently stands against executing murderers, but they have supported it in the past, and the Bible certainly commands that governments execute murderers. Many Catholics today embrace evolution. Of course that doesn’t mean the Bible teaches evolution. Surely even you can recognize that.

Of course, a very large number of Protestants "embrace evolution" as well. Strict "creationism" hardly seems to be required for one to be a Christian, and in fact appears to be held by only a rather small minority within the Christian faith.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by Spartin
Here is the thing though, I didn't follow through with a scathing remark like you.

That's because I didn't give you a chance. Call it a pre-emptive strike, if you will. I know a setup when I see one.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by bmyers
Actually, it is not quite clear that the Bible DOES teach the first item. Adam and Eve are the first humans MENTIONED in the Bible by name, but there is certainly room to doubt that they were necessarily the "first people".

The Bible says Eve is the 'mother of all living.' That doesn't leave much room for doubt.

There is the nagging question of just where Cain's wife came from, for one thing,

Same place Cain came from -- Eve's womb.

and the following passage is also troublesome:


From Genesis 1:

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Note that these verses precede the entire Adam and Eve story, and imply that both men and women were created at the same time, and sent forth to "subdue the earth".

That's because chapter one gives an overview of creation week -- including the creation of man, and chapter two goes into more detail concerning the creation of man and the garden of Eden on the sixth day.

One possible interpretation, then, is that Adam and Eve were simply created to tend the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2).

The Garden of Eden didn't need to be tended. The fact that we now have to tend our crops is due to Adam's sin.

It has always been a problem that Genesis 1 and 2 describe two separate creation stories, with somewhat different sequences of events.

No they don't -- see above.

That they refer to the exact same events is merely one human interpretation, and certainly open to question.

Well, I hope I've laid your question to rest. I get the feeling I haven't though, and I have little doubt you'll bring up the same argument again to some other creationist.

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

tenkeeper,

you say:

"what an 'odd' statement, saying that 'i believe
that God cannot travel back in time'.

Isa. 38:8
Behold, I will bring again the shadow
of degrees, which is gone down in the
sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.
So the sun returned ten degrees by which
degrees it was gone down."

I am not sure what the sun returning ten degrees has to do with God traveling back in time. Can God travel back in time right now and communicate with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden again? No.

Adam and Eve are dead and the garden of Eden is no more.

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

Tenkeeper,

More on the travel in time thing. Remember that superman movie where lois lane died in her car and superman flew around the world so fast causing it to reverse its rotation? Duing so "reveresed" time and then superman rescued her.

If God were to suddenly spin the earth in its opposite direction...would that be traveling back in time as you seem to indicate with the sun moving ten degrees back? Of course not.

Time would still be moving forward...but the earth would ust be spinning opposite as it does now. NOT going back in time...just spinning backwards...as time move forwards. Not spinning back in time.

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by RogerB
Look who's trying to be a cop for Christ.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the supposed followers of Jesus is my speciality.

--ZK

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by cthoma11
1) From the article:
"The scientists constructed the virus using its genome sequence".
So this was not a random process (which is the evolutionary position isn't it) rather it is a deliberate and controlled creation action predicated by huge amounts of knowledge. Aren't you in fact arguing the position that life was not created?

Life was created. By natural causes. Not supernatural. Humans are natural. If they can create life, then life can be created by natural processes. It doesn't require God, in other words.

--ZK

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The Bible says Eve is the 'mother of all living.' That doesn't leave much room for doubt.

Yeah, it says that. But what does it mean? For starters, you interpreted "all the living" as humans. But, it didn't say "all the humans" -- it said "all the living". That leaves room for doubt.

Further, even though it says "all the living", even if we assume that to just be humans, clearly it can't include Adam. So, if there were really no room for doubt, it would have said something like: "mother of all the humans except Adam". But, it didn't. Thus, there is room for doubt -- even among the fundamental literal interpretationalists -- even more so among the more educated critical interpretationalists.

--ZK

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Yeah, it says that. But what does it mean? For starters, you interpreted "all the living" as humans. But, it didn't say "all the humans" -- it said "all the living". That leaves room for doubt.

And the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean we should not kill bugs. Of course, it is implied in both cases that God is speaking of humans. It couldn't mean anything else, unless you think God likes to contradict Himself.

Further, even though it says "all the living", even if we assume that to just be humans, clearly it can't include Adam.

When that was written, Adam was not among the living.

So, if there were really no room for doubt, it would have said something like: "mother of all the humans except Adam". But, it didn't. Thus, there is room for doubt --

Only for those who like to deliberately misunderstand and twist the meaning of the Scriptures.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Turbo,

Only for those who like to deliberately misunderstand and twist the meaning of the Scriptures.

Actually it is you theists who constantly interpret scripture. You have to or it wouldn’t make sense.

I love that when scripture doesn’t make sense.. you interpret.. otherwise it is all literate. It must be wonderful to have it both ways.. is it the unadulterated word of God or not ?

It says Eve was the Mother of all living….

Including flies.. or is it just humans.. if so wasn’t Adam living then too.. The Bible is so full of ambiguity like this you have to wonder if God inspired it was he a moron or just deliberately misleading ?

Fortunately there are plenty of sensible Christians who treat the Adam and Eve story as a myth used by primitive people to understand the start of humankind.