A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2012, 12:38 AM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
(24-08-2012 06:28 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Bucky, this is seriously one of your best anti-apologetics posts I've read all the way through. Much more concise, while still providing supporting documentation, and much less snarkiness and condescending . Well stated, my insufferable know it all hero! Thumbsup

Oh, how disappointing. I will have to work on being more of a jerk. Tongue
Just kidding. Tanks. That means a lot, coming from the non-farting preacher.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 01:29 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 05:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What you "believe" is irrelevant, in terms of morality. We live in a free secular society. If you want to deny gay people their rights as a church body, that is your right. You cannot however deny a class of people the SAME rights you claim for yourself, under the constitution. There is simply no state interest which has been shown, (such as harm to the children), which would meet the legal standard, that was established in Loving v Virginia, (interracial marriage).

I think this is a hugely important point which deserves a separate quote. So many people fall into the trap of thinking "because I think X is wrong it's OK for me to make laws outlawing X"...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 04:02 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 05:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 01:03 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I would appreciate your views on the basis for moral decisions.

In the final instance, you would admit that upon an honest evaluation of all arguments on both "sides", no one can claim insurmountable proof for the existence/non existence of a deity/god/God.

What the heck is a "real" scholar ? How did you determine that ? Did you do a poll to come up with 99%. Let's see the data and the questions.

The idea that there is an immutable, "non-compromisable" position, which emanates from Biblical texts is simply erroneous, as is the idea, theologically, that revelation was accomplished, and completed at any one historical point in the past. We all know about the long convoluted, very human process of the evolution of your supposed "dogma". For example, "biblical marriage".

■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

■Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or sexual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.

■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).

■A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

■If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

■Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

■Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

■The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

■Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

■Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

■It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

Many of these biblical traditions and laws are considered barbaric (and even criminal) now, yet this is how the Bible defines marriage in its text.

YOUR conceptions about what is or is not moral HAVE changed, many many times, AND much of what your Bible says, is simply barbaric. So if YOU can say, YOU do not in any way contradict the bible, and kill your children when they are disobedient, tell me where you live, and the cops can start digging up your back yard.

The Biblical texts have been changed many times. A good example is the "finding of Deuteronomy", by King Josiah. There are many many other re-assembling, and re-writes known to scholars. I assume you did not attend an academic institution which promoted any sort of objectivity, with regard to this subject, and is thus, a priori, dishonest, about any intellectual inquiry. (I can PROVE you are biased. Will you accept the challenge ?)





Of course the Bible texts which were "used" from the many available are thought to be consistent with the teachings of your early cult. (in fact there are huge contradictions, including the fact that salvation is absent in Mark), but the question is, what came first...the chicken or the egg. The church fathers, who are self-admitted liars, used the texts which supported their views, and discarded the others. Of course you think they are consistent.

What you "believe" is irrelevant, in terms of morality. We live in a free secular society. If you want to deny gay people their rights as a church body, that is your right. You cannot however deny a class of people the SAME rights you claim for yourself, under the constitution. There is simply no state interest which has been shown, (such as harm to the children), which would meet the legal standard, that was established in Loving v Virginia, (interracial marriage).

And yes, the "idea" that same sex behaviors are "unnatural" has changed, in human history. The human idea of "sexual orientation" did not arise in human culture until the late 19th Century. The injunctions in your Bible, were for assumed STRAIGHT people, NOT for (an unknown), class of gay people. Like it or not, science advances.

You "moral relativism" bullshit, is just that. What is good for someone who is gay, is NOT good for someone who is straight. You assume that what is good for one, in one instance, is good for everyone, in every instance. That is simply false. It's based on the fallacy of "natural law". Natural law has been debunked, especially on this subject.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...122106.htm

Some things are right and wrong for most people. Some things are not. Even YOU agree that killing humans is not always wrong in every instance. There is no such thing as moral absolutism. If so, tell that to the military, and tell them to lay down their arms, and get rid of the police, and when someone attacks your wife tonight, say "sorry, god says it's wrong to kill you". Yeah right.

Your "what is pleasing to god" assumes your god exists and thinks and acts in a temporal dimension, and in fact requires spacetime for that mental activity to "happen".
The sin paradigm is built on a mistaken interpretation of the Sumerian Chaos myths, which were really about Choas and Order, not "sin and disobedience". Your Jesus never said anything about the salvation" paradigm. He was, if he even existed, (and he probably did not, but was a combo mythological character, cooked up by the followers of his cult), an Apocalyptic preacher, (one of at least 20 we know of), who thought, like your Dead Sea Scrolls, the end of the age was immanent. It simply did not happen.

As there is also no insurmountable evidence for the 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto, I also do not look for, or await evidence for gods. I live life rationally, on the evidence for what there is.

I actually have a very Biblical view of morality. I think Martin Buber, (Jewish Philosopher/Talmudic scholar) got it right, in part 2 of Good and Evil, (the REAL view espoused in Genesis), just as the famous Christian Theologian, Paul Tillich says in "The Courage To Be", ...."what is moral, is the choice(s) one makes which promotes one's 'authentic' self." (That assumes a "healthy personality"). However the fundie baloney of "unchanging", (which has obviously changed radically through the years), "moral absolutism", is not helpful, when looking for guidance.
This is a great post and I would like to respond to it - but as you raise a fair number of issues, it may not all be at once.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 05:30 AM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
(24-08-2012 06:28 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Bucky, this is seriously one of your best anti-apologetics posts I've read all the way through. Much more concise, while still providing supporting documentation, and much less snarkiness and condescending . Well stated, my insufferable know it all hero! Thumbsup

But we'll never know which of BB's posts you're talking about because you didn't post this as a response to it. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-08-2012, 06:37 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 05:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What the heck is a "real" scholar ? How did you determine that ? Did you do a poll to come up with 99%. Let's see the data and the questions.
A real scholar would in my opinion be somebody that is very well acquainted with the material under discussion and would not be “one-eyed”, thus somebody that will openly recognise the merits of opposite views. But that is actually immaterial to the discussion and I trust we are not going to fall into the trap of raising irrelevant little points?
The 99% is a figure reported by Dr William Craig, who by all accounts will qualify as a scholar. According to him, the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy- i.e. the original wording of the NT is now established to about 99% accuracy, based on a comparison of thousands of documents.
An atheist (Luke Muehlhauser - Executive Director at the Singularity Institute) does not even dispute this. He may not be a true scholar in this field but it at least suggests that the views expressed are not limited to Christian scholars, and include fairly intelligent persons of persuasions other than Christian..
What is really interesting to note is the claim by another scholar.(J.P Moreland “Scaling the Secular City”) – “Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament”
Don Wallace, for instance states that Carl Barth in his analysis does not mention that 75% of the roughly 400000 textual variances are spelling differences, from between 20000 – 30000 manuscripts. Apart from this, there are over 1 million quotations from the church fathers. I am sure you can work out the mathematics and see the absolute minimal room there is for dispute over the contents – and none that affect doctrine
The verdict? One can accept the NT and more specific the teachings of the NT with a great deal of confidence and any one claiming different may not be altogether honest.
Quote: We all know about the long convoluted, very human process of the evolution of your supposed "dogma". For example, "biblical marriage".

■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Thanks for this (although the whole list seems to form part of a “copy and paste” exercise from source. ( possibilities include http://chicagoist.com/2012/08/02/cardina...ck-fi.php) / http://windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/LETT...38849.html )
Please indicate why this is regarded as a “moral” issue? We have monogamous marriages in Western culture. Is this morally superior and on what basis do you claim that? You imply that the Bible supposedly prescribe monogamous marriages. Please substantiate.
Quote:■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.
You have not researched this. Proof: Gen 24:58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.
Quote:■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).
Yes, that is true. Sexual purity is still a Christian value. So no difference there and no support for your claim.
Quote:Many of these biblical traditions and laws are considered barbaric (and even criminal) now, yet this is how the Bible defines marriage in its text.
That is irrelevant is there is no objective standard against which to judge other than what is the “flavour of the month” – in your own words “considered” – which means nothing.
Quote:YOUR conceptions about what is or is not moral HAVE changed, many many times, AND much of what your Bible says, is simply barbaric. So if YOU can say, YOU do not in any way contradict the bible, and kill your children when they are disobedient, tell me where you live, and the cops can start digging up your back yard.

The Biblical texts have been changed many times. A good example is the "finding of Deuteronomy", by King Josiah. There are many many other re-assembling, and re-writes known to scholars. I assume you did not attend an academic institution which promoted any sort of objectivity, with regard to this subject, and is thus, a priori, dishonest, about any intellectual inquiry. (I can PROVE you are biased. Will you accept the challenge ?)
You make statements about something that you cannot know (“YOUR conceptions about what is or is not moral HAVE changed, many many times”)
You misrepresent facts. You are challenged to provide any proof of your wild allegation/presentations that the Bible has been “rewritten” many times- implying that the contents differ (widely I suppose)
Please indicate what the original text was and what the new “compilations” were. (Please report those changes of any material difference, not spelling mistakes etc (called nonsense errors).
As you mention “many, many times”, I am sure you could humor me with at least say 20?
The Israelites often departed from/neglected following God’s law. This does not mean that God’s law changed. Faulty logic.
We are both biased, although my bias is based on trustworthy evidence and that stood the test of time.
Let me show you your bias. Your assessment of morals is based on your own valuation of a specific set of circumstances/conditions. That is a biased view.
You believe in evolution. What can be tested has not supported the theory – creation from nothing (even little men running around in the universe, seeding “life”- no indication of intelligence has ever been recorded from outer space, despite serious efforts), abiogenesis, no “transitional fossils” (despite “millions and millions of years” should have left at least a few fossils)
Apart from this, proven lies forms part of the history of evolution :Piltdown Man fraud –(human skull attached to jaw of an Urangutan), Nebraska man, Java man, archaeoraptor, brontosaurus, Haeckels embrios *( claimed one of the worst cases of scientific fraud)
Thus a biased view based on amongst others some proven lies and a massive hoax.
Quote:Of course the Bible texts which were "used" from the many available are thought to be consistent with the teachings of your early cult. (in fact there are huge contradictions, including the fact that salvation is absent in Mark), but the question is, what came first...the chicken or the egg. The church fathers, who are self-admitted liars, used the texts which supported their views, and discarded the others. Of course you think they are consistent.
Your generalizations amaze me for a person that claims objectivity and consideration of fact versus fantasy. You implying that the gospel of Mark counter any arguments elsewhere? The different gospels have different approaches- actually contributing towards their credibility, funny enough.
To claim church fathers liars? To prove your serious allegation, you would have to prove that somebody knows something not to be true, yet puts it forward as the truth. I look forward to your evidence, in absence of which we can accept your claim as false (not a lie as you are probably only misinformed).
Quote:What you "believe" is irrelevant, in terms of morality. We live in a free secular society. If you want to deny gay people their rights as a church body, that is your right. You cannot however deny a class of people the SAME rights you claim for yourself, under the constitution. There is simply no state interest which has been shown, (such as harm to the children), which would meet the legal standard, that was established in Loving v Virginia, (interracial marriage).
Please substantiate your claims that “gay” rights are diminished ( excluding the “right” to a Christian marriage – which is in any case funny if that is required as they repudiate the very teachings.)
Quote:And yes, the "idea" that same sex behaviors are "unnatural" has changed, in human history. The human idea of "sexual orientation" did not arise in human culture until the late 19th Century. The injunctions in your Bible, were for assumed STRAIGHT people, NOT for (an unknown), class of gay people. Like it or not, science advances.
Homosexual practices is not something new (See Genesis 19:5) - by whatever name you want to call it. That views have changed to be “politically correct” is obvious. Despite this, there is continuous discrimination against gays.
Quote:You "moral relativism" bullshit, is just that. What is good for someone who is gay, is NOT good for someone who is straight. You assume that what is good for one, in one instance, is good for everyone, in every instance. That is simply false. It's based on the fallacy of "natural law". Natural law has been debunked, especially on this subject.
You would disagree with the following definition? “Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people” (http://www.moralrelativism.info/) Now read your statement again “What is good for someone who is gay, is NOT good for someone who is straight"
So? You claim something and refute it in the same paragraph. Astonishing!
Quote:Some things are right and wrong for most people. Some things are not. Even YOU agree that killing humans is not always wrong in every instance. There is no such thing as moral absolutism. If so, tell that to the military, and tell them to lay down their arms, and get rid of the police, and when someone attacks your wife tonight, say "sorry, god says it's wrong to kill you". Yeah right.
Killing is still wrong – whatever the circumstance. In the case you mention, as in war, there will be killing involved –with severe emotional scars for the person killing another – whether in self-defense or not. Despite this, the Bible provides some guidelines that involves the obligation to protect life where it is threatened. However, even if it is deemed necessary, the mere act of shedding blood (even in a justified cause) is a sin. An example was David (a man after God’s heart) was prohibited from certain types of spiritual service as he spilled blood.
Quote:Your Jesus never said anything about the salvation" paradigm.
Luk 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Apart from this, it was prophesied:
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Quote:I actually have a very Biblical view of morality.
Please explain what you mean by “Biblical view of morality”
Quote:There is evidence, that morality is pre-programmed into us, genetically. Whether this is true or not, it has been proven that there is no such thing as free will, by Neuroscience. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will .
That will be very interesting to read as I have not had the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 06:45 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2012 06:49 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(29-08-2012 06:37 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  The 99% is a figure reported by Dr William Craig, who by all accounts will qualify as a scholar. According to him, the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy- i.e. the original wording of the NT is now established to about 99% accuracy, based on a comparison of thousands of documents.
(29-08-2012 06:37 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  You believe in evolution.
Don't you guys realize that his sources are completely valid and unbiased and what a reasonable person he is? Bangin

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(29-08-2012 06:45 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 06:37 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  The 99% is a figure reported by Dr William Craig, who by all accounts will qualify as a scholar. According to him, the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy- i.e. the original wording of the NT is now established to about 99% accuracy, based on a comparison of thousands of documents.
(29-08-2012 06:37 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  You believe in evolution.
Don't you guys realize that his sources are completely valid and unbiased and what a reasonable person he is? Bangin
Not unbiased (read the post carefully)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 06:56 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(29-08-2012 06:54 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  Not unbiased (read the post carefully)
Do you know what sarcasm is?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 06:58 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(29-08-2012 06:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 06:54 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  Not unbiased (read the post carefully)
Do you know what sarcasm is?
Yes, they say it is the lowest form of wit
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2012 07:19 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(29-08-2012 06:58 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 06:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Do you know what sarcasm is?
Yes, they say it is the lowest form of wit

Wit is wit, and it's better than all out stupid.

WLC regurgitates the same tired refuted arguments as if the last 60 years never happened. Some Christian apologists think he's the bees knees and buy everything he sells. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and it's derivatives are still first in his play book.

Now i'm just sick of hearing about it.

Just enter your sentence in Google: "<insert bullshit argument> refuted"

That should help you. Smartass

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: