Page 9 of 34 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 675
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    To deny there is a God is to rid one's self of accountability.
    Atheists are more accountable because they don't blame things on the action of god. They are more inclined to actually do something instead of just hoping their prayers work (which doesn't mean I think atheists are better people by definition - but the opposite certainly isn't true either. Look at all the atrocities comminted in the name of religion).

    Besides, I hold you accountable for answering my question above in post 153 (http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=153) instead of evading it...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #162  
    Lets talk about sickle cell anemia shall we.

    This is a hematologic disease bore from a genetic mutation that is prevalent in Africa and the Middle East, manifests in people that receive a pair of mutated genes and causes a clinical disease that without modern medical care usually leads to premature death.

    Is interesting that people who carry only one mutated gene suffer from a "milder" form of the disease but their life expectancy is about average. The presence of this single gene causes sufficient changes in the red cell to cause an unintended consequence...the malaria parasite is unable to survive and reproduce normally in this people hence rendering them resistant to malaria, in the malaria infested regions of the world where this mutation occured and thrived.

    With my scientific mindset I take this as an example of human evolution (the occurance of the mutation) and natural selection (carriers have a better chance to survive).

    I fail to see a divine hand at work here but I am open to suggestions.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  3.    #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    You still haven't answered these questions. You said that your belief that earth is a few thousand years old is based on the Bible. But that is not correct. According to what you wrote, it is based on 11 generations from Adam to Noah, comprising about 1,556 years (Bible) AND the claim that the flood took place a few thousand years back (scientific or rather pseudo-scientific claim). While the first part of the argument is based on the bible, the second clearly is not. Do you agree that the Bible does NOT say earth is a few thousand years old?
    The Bible does not specifically state how old the earth is. Mainly because the Bible was not written as a single volume, but 66 individual books by multiple authors in multiple languages. We can add up the ages of the fathers in the lineage chapters (Genesis 5 & 11) and establish that 1,948 years passed between the creation of the world and the birth of Abram (Abraham). Another 100 years passed until his son Isaac was born, and at least another 40 years until Isaac's son Jacob was born. Jacob's son, Joseph was taken into slavery into Egypt during the 12th dynasty (around 1875 BC). So if we assume that Jacob was born when Isaac was around 60 (since his wife was barren for some time, and when Isaac blessed his sons later in their life his eyesight was failing), and that Joseph served for 40 years before his famly joined him in Egypt, we come up with approximately 4,023 years from the creation of Adam and Eve to 0 A.D. add on the years A.D. (or CE for you who are politcally correct) and we get 6,030 years from the creation of Adam to present day.
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #164  
    Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    My own belief is that Adam was created first. God saw he was lonely, so he made Eve. No other humans were created.

    I know where this is going, so I'll go ahead and explain. I will also say that most of what I am about to say is my own opinion, based only on what I can infer from the scripture.

    Yes, in those days brothers and sisters married. When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. Thier DNA was perfect. When they sinned, immediately they begin to degenrate. Their children's DNA was less perfect than their own, but was still perfect enough to not have birth defects as an effect of inbreeding.
    Who is accountable for the incestuous nature of man's procreation per God's designed plan, according to your earlier response? Who, within God's Word, is accountable for incest being judged a sin? Is God a hypocrite?
  5.    #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Interesting...lets see, I don't believe in gods, ferries, goblins, gremlins, witches/wizzards, ghosts, devils, angels...I know I'm forgetting a few more.

    Inspite of this I find myself accontable to my wife, children, clients, business partners, neighbors, government...and most importantly to myself.

    I honestly fail to see the validity of your statement.
    Then what is right? Do you determine what is right? What if what you determine to be right is not right for everyone? Are you then wrong? Or are they wrong? Can there be more than one definition of "right"?

    What is truth? Do you determine truth? What if someone's version of truth is different than yours? Are you then wrong? Or are they wrong? Can there be more than one definition of truth?

    Take for example a blind person. To them, there is no light. They have never seen light. They have been told that light exists, but there is no way for them to quantitatively prove that there is indeed light. Does that mean that light does not exist?
  6.    #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Who is accountable for the incestuous nature of man's procreation per God's designed plan, according to your earlier response? Who, within God's Word, is accountable for incest being judged a sin? Is God a hypocrite?
    God did not set down His laws until after the Exodus from Egypt. We find those laws in the book of Leviticus 18:6-18. Until then he trusted man to make his own decisions (free will) since they had the knowledge between good and evil. After freeing the Israelites from Egypt, He decided to put in writing everything he expected from His people. When God created Adam and Eve, he did not tell them "multiply and have your children multiply" he told them to multiply and fill the earth.
  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Then what is right? Do you determine what is right? What if what you determine to be right is not right for everyone? Are you then wrong? Or are they wrong? Can there be more than one definition of "right"?

    What is truth? Do you determine truth? What if someone's version of truth is different than yours? Are you then wrong? Or are they wrong? Can there be more than one definition of truth?

    Take for example a blind person. To them, there is no light. They have never seen light. They have been told that light exists, but there is no way for them to quantitatively prove that there is indeed light. Does that mean that light does not exist?
    Those are excellent questions, if your implication is that the Bible provides a frame of reference from which to define morality and ethics I agree with you. Other sacred and not-sacred books also assist in the definition of what is ethically and morally good behavior.

    On the other hand, the Bible is riddled by passages defining, encouraging and commanding behaviors that by today's standard are considered immoral, unethical, barbarian not to say illegal.

    Your implied point that without a belief in god we can't figure right from wrong is incorrect. Before cristianity became a dominant religion societies were already defining their own moral and ethical code of behaviors, some in line with modern standard and others not so.

    If I remember history correctly, the believe in Jesus failed to prevent the Church from torturing and killing people in the past considered out-of-the-faith. The same believe did not keep them from embracing slavery either, did it?...in fact slavery is condoned by the Bible...look it up!

    My point, ethic and moral boundaries are defined by society and are usually subject to change. Religion may play a roll in defining these but is not the absolute moral compass available.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    God did not set down His laws until after the Exodus from Egypt. We find those laws in the book of Leviticus 18:6-18. Until then he trusted man to make his own decisions (free will) since they had the knowledge between good and evil. After freeing the Israelites from Egypt, He decided to put in writing everything he expected from His people. When God created Adam and Eve, he did not tell them "multiply and have your children multiply" he told them to multiply and fill the earth.
    'Multiply and fill the earth' means what when there is a single family inhabiting it? Or, did God not have any designed plan 'In the Beginning', (ie just shootin' craps with this whole human experiment-thing)? How could man have chosen any direction other than incest in order to procreate? Beastiality?

    Or, are you stating that 'In the Beginning ...', God was cool with incest, but then changed his mind due to circumstances outside his control?
  9. #169  
    Can I ask nicely we not harass MusicMan247, as he seems to be a nice man, very devout and sincere in his beliefs, and I feel a bit sorry for him trying to defend them, as it must not be easy to do this.

    Surur
  10. #170  
    Amen to that.
  11. #171  
    I am a christian and I try to live good life and treat other people the way I would want to be treated. I went into the Army when I was 18 and would sacrafice my life so you can believe and talk about what you believe. I think we all should think this way. I would do it all over again if I had to.
    I grew up in the catholic church and thought that something was missing, and I was a bad kid and young adult. I did not come tofaith until I was 35 when I held my first child in my hands and thought to myself there has to be a GOD to have given me such a beautiful gift as my little girl because I sure did not deserve it with what I have done in my life to that point.
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #172  
    @ Surur - No intention of animosity to Musicman. I'm genuinely interested in how biblical literalists reconcile this dichotomy, and having opened this up for broader discussion yesterday, would welcome more input.

    My apologies to Musicman if this all came across improperly.
  13.    #173  
    The Matthew geneology is the geneology of Joseph, while the Luke geneology is that of Mary, Jesus' mother. Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage.
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    My apologies to Musicman if this all came across improperly.
    Not directed to anyone individually, but together it must feel rather like an onslaught of scoffers

    Surur
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    The Matthew geneology is the geneology of Joseph, while the Luke geneology is that of Mary, Jesus' mother. Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage.
    Thats just one in a list of many entries.

    Surur
  16.    #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    @ Surur - No intention of animosity to Musicman. I'm genuinely interested in how biblical literalists reconcile this dichotomy, and having opened this up for broader discussion yesterday, would welcome more input.

    My apologies to Musicman if this all came across improperly.
    No offense has been taken thus far. I have not been called any names, none of my arguements have been treated as ludicrus (yet). I feel fine in this conversation.

    I believe I have answered the question about incest, but there seems to be a question about what God inteded. Perhaps God intended for Adam and Eve to be father and mother of all humanity (since Eve means life, and was named that because she was "mother of all living" Gen 3:20), but their children had other thoughts.
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Then what is right? Do you determine what is right? What if what you determine to be right is not right for everyone? Are you then wrong? Or are they wrong? Can there be more than one definition of "right"?

    What is truth? Do you determine truth? What if someone's version of truth is different than yours? Are you then wrong? Or are they wrong? Can there be more than one definition of truth?

    Take for example a blind person. To them, there is no light. They have never seen light. They have been told that light exists, but there is no way for them to quantitatively prove that there is indeed light. Does that mean that light does not exist?
    IMO opinion we are held to a standard of morality because of our nature. We, by nature of who we are, are capable of abstract thought, self awareness, and an understanding of how we can effect and influence others. As such, because of this awareness, we are capable of understanding how our actions can influence other people, how other people may perceive or be affected by our actions. Since we are able to be aware of these things, and our self-awareness and empathy allows us to understand how others would react (because we know how we would react) we have an innate responsibility to modify our behavior.

    Someone who has no idea how their actions may affect others may not have this responsibility - after all, we don't punish a child for crying because it annoys us, because they don't KNOW it annoys us, they (the child) can only respond as they are capable, and during earliy development lack the empathy and awareness of the results of their actiosn that we gain later in life.

    And ultimately, IMO opinion we are accountable to ourselves and to others for how we behave. The accountability lies in two factors - the first being that we HAVE established some common laws which if we break, we are accountable to society. The second level is personal accountability - if someone does something that they feel is morally wrong, even if no one knows about it, they are accountable to themselves. Ever hear of guilt?

    Now, that implies an inherent sense of morality, and inherent sense of right and wrong - basically it is the "due unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule. It doesn't imply any sort of societal or community laws and rules that are decided on for the betterment of society and the preservation of our community (ie, speeding, etc).

    Now obviously culture can play a large role in the "what is right and wrong" discussion. As a society and culture, people can define a common set of rules and laws. In some cases, I do think some of those rules and laws are inherently wrong, because they go against the basic morality that I was discussing earlier (do unto others). Yet the cultural influence can be so strong that it can override this basic morality.

    Chris
  18.    #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Thats just one in a list of many entries.

    Surur
    It was the only one that you specifically addressed on this forum.
  19.    #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    IMO opinion we are held to a standard of morality because of our nature. We, by nature of who we are, are capable of abstract thought, self awareness, and an understanding of how we can effect and influence others. As such, because of this awareness, we are capable of understanding how our actions can influence other people, how other people may perceive or be affected by our actions. Since we are able to be aware of these things, and our self-awareness and empathy allows us to understand how others would react (because we know how we would react) we have an innate responsibility to modify our behavior.

    Someone who has no idea how their actions may affect others may not have this responsibility - after all, we don't punish a child for crying because it annoys us, because they don't KNOW it annoys us, they (the child) can only respond as they are capable, and during earliy development lack the empathy and awareness of the results of their actiosn that we gain later in life.

    And ultimately, IMO opinion we are accountable to ourselves and to others for how we behave. The accountability lies in two factors - the first being that we HAVE established some common laws which if we break, we are accountable to society. The second level is personal accountability - if someone does something that they feel is morally wrong, even if no one knows about it, they are accountable to themselves. Ever hear of guilt?

    Now, that implies an inherent sense of morality, and inherent sense of right and wrong - basically it is the "due unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule. It doesn't imply any sort of societal or community laws and rules that are decided on for the betterment of society and the preservation of our community (ie, speeding, etc).

    Now obviously culture can play a large role in the "what is right and wrong" discussion. As a society and culture, people can define a common set of rules and laws. In some cases, I do think some of those rules and laws are inherently wrong, because they go against the basic morality that I was discussing earlier (do unto others). Yet the cultural influence can be so strong that it can override this basic morality.

    Chris
    How can we be held accountable by our nature, if our nature comes from animals? Do other creatures know right from wrong? If so, explain. If not, then how did we come up with right and wrong?

    What about my statements about truth? Is there a common truth? And if so, who decides it, and where does it come from? Is there an absolute truth? Is there an absolute right and wrong?
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    How can we be held accountable by our nature, if our nature comes from animals? Do other creatures know right from wrong? If so, explain. If not, then how did we come up with right and wrong?

    What about my statements about truth? Is there a common truth? And if so, who decides it, and where does it come from? Is there an absolute truth? Is there an absolute right and wrong?
    Isnt that an anti-democratic argument? Why do we need a high ruler to tell us what is right or wrong. Cant we as a society decide for ourselves?

    Surur
Page 9 of 34 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions