Does anyone else find creationism insulting to God?

[Christian Soldier]

I have a problem with religions who say this, and I find it sad that people need this promise of a reward at the end to make it worth living a good life. I mean I guess it helps people get by, if you really believe in it then at least you're a good person, not killing anyone or anything. But its something I'd like to see humanity rise above.

This is the second time you've mentioned this in the thread, and you totally miss the point. Your saying that if I wasn't Christian, I would be killing, raping and stealing, etc? Your premise is completley flawed. Also, just because you try to walk in the path of Jesus, doesn't mean you will succeed, ie. all those stories you hear about priests raping children, etc.

Alpha: If you honestly have a change of heart (and only God can see this), and you repent (completely turn around), I think this is wonderful, even if you were a murderer, rapist, whatever. But I would imagine this is very rare and extremely hard. The deeper you go into Satan's world, the harder it is to climb back out.

 

[PGTips]

I have a problem with religions who say this, and I find it sad that people need this promise of a reward at the end to make it worth living a good life. I mean I guess it helps people get by, if you really believe in it then at least you're a good person, not killing anyone or anything. But its something I'd like to see humanity rise above.

I wasn't thinking so much of the reward part, but that a religion which says you don't have to be part of that religion to still get to their version of heaven has an inbuilt acceptance of other peoples point of view and because of this feels no need to try and actively convert people. Other religions (I use Christianity as an example since its the main religion where I live but I imagine others are similar) teach that since they are the only way it is the duty of its members to attempt to convert people, to save their soul. Some people see this as putting up posters for their Sunday surmon, others go knocking door to door giving out magazines. Others unfortunately see this as a reason to go to war over what is something force cannot instill into someone.

I agree, the idea of "you'll get a reward" when you die might be a bit like dangling a carrot infront of a donkey, but every religion has to have something to say about death I suppose. The ones which say "Eternal bliss" seem a little over the top to me. We live for 70 years (back 2000 years ago it was more like 40), is that really enough time to see if we deserve eternal pleasure or damnation?

Alpha: If you honestly have a change of heart (and only God can see this), and you repent (completely turn around), I think this is wonderful, even if you were a murderer, rapist, whatever. But I would imagine this is very rare and extremely hard. The deeper you go into Satan's world, the harder it is to climb back out.

An example I used was this :

Person A is a kind, helpful, loving person who has attempted to live his life as good as possible, giving the charity, volunteering with old people etc, but doesn't believe in God. Naturally he has what Christians would call "sinned" from time to time, humans do, but feels remorse for such times. Dies in his sleep ages 64.

Person B spent years being a notorious serial rapist and killer, was never caught. Is generally an all round embodyment of "evil", but in the last few months of his life finds Jesus, and becomes an honest Born again Christian. Dies in his sleep aged 64.

The logic of people I spoke to said Person B gets into Heaven, Person A doesn't. I asked at what point did Person B "pay" for his crimes? Repenting? Well Person A feels sorry too, just didn't say it to a priest. Person B is a twisted evil person for most of his life, but gets into Heaven due to repenting in the last few months. Person A goes to hell for not believing despite being someone who seems much more worthy of going to heaven. Personally I cannot see how that is just, and where Person B has been punished enough to deem he has paid his debts to be equal to person A. Is saying "I'm really sorry" enough to appease Jesus of Person B's sins? It would seem so if you mean it. But Person A's also truely sorry for any bad things he's done, he just didn't say sorry to Jesus, since he doesn't believe in Him.

Jesus sounds a little fickle to me, but (as I said) I was told it was because Jesus sees a bigger picture than me and somehow it all makes seen from his PoV.......

 

[elemenohpee]

This is the second time you've mentioned this in the thread, and you totally miss the point. Your saying that if I wasn't Christian, I would be killing, raping and stealing, etc? Your premise is completley flawed. Also, just because you try to walk in the path of Jesus, doesn't mean you will succeed, ie. all those stories you hear about priests raping children, etc.

Blah, this is all starting to run together. I thought it was important enough to mention again..yeah...thats why I repeated myself.8(
I'm not saying that anyone who isn;t a Christian is a murderer. I'm saying that if you truly are a Christian, then you aren't doing these things. If you feel you need God to tell you not to kill people, then go for it. I'd much rather see you lead a good, if misguided, life than be a murderer. Other people can not kill people just because they know it is wrong, but both ways get the same result. If you don;t believe in God, then you could be a moral person, or a criminal. If you do truly believe in Jesus's teachings, then you have to be a moral person. See what I'm saying? And those priests were not even attempting to walk in Jesus's shoes. It's not like "oops, I lost my temper and hit someone one time." These monsters abused their position in a sickening way. For a lot of people, priests are supposed to be a link between them and God, and they go and rape vulnerable little children? I would question their motives for even becoming a priest in the first place. In no way were they trying to follow Jesus.

Alpha: I see what you're saying now about the conflict this kind of thinking causes. It creates a feeling of superiority in these people, and then they think that gives them the right to go around starting wars to "save" us.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Alpha: He chose not to believe in God, there's nothing else I can say.

Mt 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

If you feel you need God to tell you not to kill people, then go for it.

elemeno: Sorry I can only skim your post, if I'm still misunderstanding you, just ignore this okay... Obviously I dont need God to tell me not to murder people, as I never murdered anyone before I was Christian.

Alpha: I see what you're saying now about the conflict this kind of thinking causes. It creates a feeling of superiority in these people, and then they think that gives them the right to go around starting wars to "save" us.

I think I have the right to go around starting wars to save you? I disagree.

Sorry guys I'm not going to keep posting in this thread, so please dont address any more questions to me unless it's in PM, I really only wanted to say what I said in my first post. If you honestly want to educate yourselves further about Christianity, there are much better resources then what I'll have the patience to post in this thread. I've learnt from experience on here that if I keep posting in these type of threads they will never end.

 

[zorn]

zorn, God said he made man from dust. i guess it takes a scientist in some lab to tell you that the human body is basically just water and dirt.

Isaiah 40:22 tells us the earth is not flat but a round sphere. The prophet states God “sits above the circle on the face of the earth.” The word for circle in Hebrew, is translated sphere or roundness. The Bible had refuted the flat earth theory long before scientists actually disproved it. The atmosphere is a terrestrial blanket making the earth inhabitable -- retaining heat, spreading light, providing air.(Job.26:10) Only someone who could see it from off the planet would be able to know this.

OK, let's assume for the moment Isaiah means what you say it does here. Let's do as you want to do and take these phrases as being precise, literal scientific descriptions. What else can we find that the Bible refutes? Well, Revelations 7:1 clearly tells us the Earth is not round but a flat square, saying there are "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth." Psalm 104:5 says that the Earth isn't just hanging in space and it certainly isn't moving around the sun: God "set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Plain enough, isn't it?

The problem is, obviously, these things are flat-out wrong, not to mention inconsistent with one another! So God clearly wasn't intending them to be interpreted as scientific claims -- right? But if these aren't meant as scientific claims, how do we know Isaiah 40 or Job 26 are? Is there any way you have of distinguihing which passages are meant to be interpreted as science lessons and which aren't? Aren't you just deciding that the the ones you "know" are scientifically correct are meant scientifically and the ones you "know" are scientifically wrong are meant some other way?

That's not having faith in the Bible and being guided by it, that's twisting the words of the Bible to suit what you decided to believe on your own -- isn't it? Being guided by the Bible means taking it consistently, and not reading your personal feelings about how God ought to have made the universe into it. You might think evolution sounds like a farfetched and probably wrong idea, but are you really so prideful as to presume to put your opinions in the mouth of God?

but i'm sure they wont be the right kind of examples, i'm sure they'll be flawed. cos like i have a deaf ear to evolution, y'all have a dear ear to creation. there will never be a meeting of the minds, and i'm content with that.

You know that's wrong -- just look at how people here have read and responded to (in detail) the stuff you've posted. They're listening to you & your arguments and explaining why they think differently. But you seem to be shutting your ears to anything you might disagree with. Of course this is why so many people don't accept evolution -- they decide it's wrong without knowing anything about it, and then refuse to listen to anything which might cause them to think differently.

 

[PGTips]

^ I missed that particular part of Cxcx's posts, and totally agree with you Zorn. He says "there will never be a meeting of the minds", which is true because we offer repeatable, independant counter examples to their claims, but they offer nothing. Not exactly meeting half way.

and i'm content with that.

Personally I find that deeply saddening, that you are content to sit on your hands (and ignorance) and ignore anything put infront of you. By the nature of science, if you put solid evidence infront of it, it evaluates it and incorporates into itself. Since you offer none of that, we cannot evaluate it. We offer evidence to you, you ignore us. Now which of us is not partaking in "a meeting of minds" ?

Alpha: He chose not to believe in God, there's nothing else I can say.

So "Yes I believe in Jesus but I was a very bad person all my life" gets you in, but "I don't believe in Jesus but otherwise I was a good as humanly possible" doesn't?

And people wonder why I question Christianity 8)

 

[Turbo Monk]

Originally posted by michael
oh, no doubt; however someone else 'on the fence' so to speak may read it and see how silly an idea creationism really is.

looks like somebody has an agenda

I find the idea that all life sprung forth by random chance with no intelligent, deliberate design not just silly, but also incredibly blind and hypocritical.

You guys imply your spontaneous generation worldview is so vastly complicated and us mere unintelligent people can't understand it.

What is there to understand?

Spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated to form living, breathing, functioning organisms with capacities for emotions. Yet you believe somehow, someway, that time is the magical factor that makes all things possible.

 

[PGTips]

Turbo Monk, we went over this in the "Fish turning into Land Animals" evolution thread, which incidentally you never replied to several posts. Do you still think that all mutations are bad? Perhaps http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=2932700#post2932700 might be worth your read, since you didn't reply to Zorn's question, instead accused someone of being an alter ego and left it at that.

 

[Turbo Monk]

^ yea I read that done-to-death post and zorn's reply regarding mutations, although well explained, in no way disproves intelligent, deliberate design

 

[monkeyjunky]

The thing i don't understand about people like turbo monk, sohi etc. is their instinctive volatile reaction to any notion of evolution. I don't want to get into yet another literal vs metaphorical interpretation of the bible argument again, but suffice to say, i think that anyone who really believes in a literal creation needs their head examined, or, needs to do some reading.
God and evolution are not diametrically opposed (unless one takes the literal interpretation of the bible), though, one could say that God is the less necessary of the two (i don't believe this in terms of fulfillment etc. but thats another matter). In fact, to ignore the evolutionary nature of life is, in my opinion, to ignore the single greatest and most beautiful aspect of the universe - and God created it - be proud. You make God less appealing, and less impressive by denying and ignoring this.

 

[monkeyjunky]

Mt 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Ok then, what of the billions of people who lived historically/geographically seperated from the gospel?
Also, people are different - we vary in size, intelligence (and i can understand this variation with respect to a creator) etc. - is it not also possible that we vary in terms of spiritual affinity i.e. the need we feel for a relationship with a God. Because i can't, won't and don't believe that people who are atheists all their lives are ever unhappy because of their atheism.

 

[michael]

looks like somebody has an agenda

as i have already posted in other threads, i indeed have an agenda against psuedoscience and other forms of quackery and claptrap. it's not something i hide.

 

[xxuxx]

I think organised religion and sanctioned politico-spiritual middle-men is insulting to God full stop.

What did Napoleon say when he reinstituted religious worship in his country..."In religion I do not perceive the mysteries of incarnation, but rather, the mysteries of social order."

 

[PGTips]

^ yea I read that done-to-death post and zorn's reply regarding mutations, although well explained, in no way disproves intelligent, deliberate design

It does not disprove ID, but it shows that at the very least there is a significant amount of evidence to show random development over time. Weather the initial creation of life was done by ID is another thing. I mentioned it in direct response to

but also incredibly blind and hypocritical.

Since there is quite clearly a lot of evidence for random mutations.

If you wish to continue banding around "OMG there is no evidence!!" then quite clearly you wish to ignore things infront of your face.

But then, unless your views and information have changed significantly since that thread, you've plenty of gaps in your logic as it is 8)

looks like somebody has an agenda

Forgive us for having the view that people should have access to repeatable, independant evidence for theories. Almost like we want people to think for themselves......

 

[kittyinthedark]

^ yea I read that done-to-death post and zorn's reply regarding mutations, although well explained, in no way disproves intelligent, deliberate design

Yeah, not disproving something doesn't prove it... I thought we'd covered that already. 8)

I'm sure I've said it before, and probably even in this thread, but this time i'll pose it in the form of a question:

Would you be willing to accept that evolution was God's design plan? God put the first single cell on Earth and left evolution to its merry way, and THAT was his creation method. I see no greater way to praise God than to believe that He came up with such a fuckin' ingenious design! (Not that I believe in a Christian god...)

Note: there is a correct answer to this question. Be careful.

 

[Turbo Monk]

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
random development over time.

that much I acknowledge, but to the degree and complexity these random developments lead is where we differ

But then, unless your views and information have changed significantly since that thread, you've plenty of gaps in your logic as it is

you accuse me of having gaps in my logic while you hold the view that random mutations account for all living, functioning organisms? 8)

Originally posted by KITD
Would you be willing to accept that evolution was God's design plan? God put the first single cell on Earth and left evolution to its merry way, and THAT was his creation method.

you're implying that life evolved as God created it?

 

[kittyinthedark]

No no no - God made the game board and the rules, and left "us" to play. He stuck the first single-celled organism on the planet, and just let it divide and grow and evolve into other stuff. He didn't actually sit there and create a human, the only work he did was stick that cell in the primordial ooze and let it go from there, allowing the rules of evolution to sort out what stuff would end up showing up and surviving.

It quite neatly handles the problem of spontaneous life creation - the only thing I really have issues with in the evolution theory.

 

[xxuxx]

But why create the first cell. Cells could have come about by other means. And why do you need a theory of God at all if he did nothing more than start the Big Bang. Its not like praying to him now could ever change anything. He won't interfere, which is another way of saying that his effects will never be detected in this universe in any way, which is another way of saying (positivistically) that he doesn't exist.

 

[kittyinthedark]

Setting off the big bang ain't like lighting a firecracker...

Besides, it's irrelevant - I don't believe in the Christian God.

 

[zorn]

I find the idea that all life sprung forth by random chance with no intelligent, deliberate design not just silly, but also incredibly blind and hypocritical.

OK. (Why "hypocritical" though?) But that's not part of the theory of evolution / common descent, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. Thinking that there was a divine guiding hand behind evolution isn't creationism (sometimes it's called "theistic evolution.") Nor is thinking that God designed the first life on Earth -- you might be surprised to know that you're echoing Charles Darwin himself there:

It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we may consider, by so much the arguments fall away in force. But some arguments of the greatest weight extend very far. . . I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

. . . It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. . . There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

The Origin of Species, ch 14

The belief that all (or most) of the species of the world are unrelated and were separately & spontaneously created by God X number of years ago -- that's what I consider creationism. It's demonstrably false to the point of being ridiculous in this day and age, much like the belief that the sun revolves around the Earth -- although, of course, if you don't know a fair bit of science it's not at all clear why we are so sure about these things.

You guys imply your spontaneous generation worldview is so vastly complicated and us mere unintelligent people can't understand it.

What is there to understand?

It's not that you guys are somehow too dumb to understand anything about evolutionary biology -- not at all! It's that so many creationists seem to just shut their minds without actually learning anything about evolution. I think largely because there's so much confusion and misperceptions about evolution around, they early on decide that evolution has got to be wrong and that they "don't believe" in it... before they know hardly anything about what it says, let alone enough to have any idea whether it makes sense or not.

I think if you forget about attacking or defending 'your' position and approach the theory of evolution with an open mind you will learn a lot. Scientists aren't morons, and the entire field of biology for the last 150 years hasn't just somehow been composed of idiots who can't add 2+2 without getting 5.

Spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated to form living, breathing, functioning organisms with capacities for emotions. Yet you believe somehow, someway, that time is the magical factor that makes all things possible.

Where did anyone say time is a magical factor that makes anything possible? As you obviously agree, that's a ridiculous argument.

Now suppose we have a hypothetical slow process which takes much much longer than a single lifetime. Clearly the fact that no one has ever seen this process take place is not an argument *against* its existence, since whether or not it existed it would be too slow for a human to really see. You agree? An example: no one has ever seen a river carve out a gigantic chasm through solid rock. But this is not a reason to think that the erosion theory of river canyon formation is wrong, since the theory doesn't predict that anyone will see such a thing b/c it takes millions of years. Of course it's not a reason to think the theory is right, either; but if there are other reasons to think river canyons formed by erosion, the fact that no one has seen it isn't a reason to think differently. Correct?