Common Creationist Arguments - Morality

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Morality.shtml ^

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Dynamo]

I'll pray for you too.

Your question, and this entire thread, assume as their basis that the Bible is not the perfect and inspired Word of God. Both also assume that Man's mind is capable of understanding, and perhaps even thinking more clearly, than the God who created him.

But this is a very uninformed position, and I'll tell you how even you can know this.

The Bible is actually a historical record that goes back many thousands of years. It contains many predictions, referred to as "prophecies," delivered throughout history by the chosen prophets of God.

Thousands of such predictions of what would happen in the future were (are!) given in the Bible.

Of the major Biblical prophecies, only four remain as yet un-fulfilled.

Every other one has come to be, just as the Bible predicted. Every single one. Jesus Christ Himself fulfilled over 2,000 of these prophecies in His lifetime alone.

Nobody is that good a "guesser." The Holy Word of God is perfect, and the imperfect creations who deign to "know better" are just as foolish as the Bible says they are.

I'll pray for both of us; me for my sins, and you for your hardened heart.

[Dynamo]

Thanks for the amazing insights into the individual who started this thread. When I read something so provocatively interesting, it makes me wonder about the soul who thought it all up.

Your reply to JediGirl (# 9) tells me all that I needed to know... and more. Thank you.

[Phaedrus]

Moreover, most of them are not even aware of the sheer extent of the violence and hatred in the Old Testament...

A tiresome and disingenuous argument. Godless Communism was responsible for upwards of 100 million deaths in the 20th Century, most of which were committed by the regimes upon subject populations. And how many fundamentalist Christian terrorist groups are you aware of?

"Secular Humanist" Darwinism was embraced by both Hitler and Stalin. Case closed.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You're right about Gustavus Adophus. The 30-years war started as a religious war but later changed into a more politically oriented conflict as varous groups changed sides. The contemporary estimates of 26 million dead seem too high. There may have been 26 million displaced, which is probably where the estimates came from. Many villages were erased during the war, but the populace may have just moved.

A more religiously oriented war would be the struggles under Elizabeth I. Before there were Catholics and Protestants in England. Later there were English who happened to be Catholic and English who happened to be Protestant. The Cromwell reign was also religious in nature includeing the destruction of much of the religious music of England.

[lsee]

all that I needed to know

But further exploration of the personal webpage also revealed a great deal of pain, which made my own actions seem petty to me...

[Gargantua]

"But further exploration of the personal webpage also revealed a great deal of pain..."

All the more reason why this lost lamb needs to find, and hear, the Word. Only Jesus can fill that empty, painful, broken heart with an enduring love which will never fail her.

[medved]

"Secular Humanist" Darwinism was embraced by both Hitler and Stalin. Case closed.

Not quite; it was also embraced by Jeffrey Dahmer, who said:

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

Thus a real evolutionist, i.e. somebody who actually lives his life according to darwinian precepts and the idea that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral law in nature, does not necessarily have to end up being a nazi or a communist: he might end up being a cannibal.

[ThinkPlease]

A tiresome and disingenuous argument.

You are right, it is a tiresome argument. So why did you make the same argument?

[JediGirl]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

I think you could use a couple of puffs on some wacky-backy...might help you think a little bit more clearly.

[JediGirl]

Thus a real evolutionist, i.e. somebody who actually lives his life according to darwinian precepts and the idea that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral law in nature, does not necessarily have to end up being a nazi or a communist: he might end up being a cannibal.

I like what Micheal Shermer says in his book "Why People Believe in Weird Things": Evolution is no more responsible for Americas' so called declining morals than the printing press is responsible for for Hitler's Mein Kampf or Mein Kampf is responsible for what people did with Hitler's ideology

[JediGirl]

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

See my above post...oh yeah, and Dahmer, I'm sure had such a profound understanding of evolution.

[JediGirl]

Rand (and many FR libertarians) reject God. As such, their moral reasoning cannot be supported by anything other than "because I said so."

As a libertarian, I don't reject God, I reject corrupt organized religion.

[JediGirl]

hm..............and the point of that was?

[Lurking Libertarian]

I object to your misleading thread title. As a (theistic) evolutionist, I agree with you that it is a fallacy to attack the theory of evolution on the ground that it leads to immorality. But barely two lines of your post have anything to do with the creation/evolution controversy; the rest is an attack on biblical religion per se. Make such an attack if you want, but don't give out the false impression that evolution and religion are incompatible. That is a creationist fallacy!

[AndrewC]

Interesting tactic -- it's called an ad hominem attack, and is logically worthless.

Remember that when you, Vade, Patrick Henry, JediGirl, etc etc etc. use another of those arrows from your limited quiver against medved, gore3000, Behe, ICR or any other of your targets. Argue the point not the person or institution. I do not post any examples because one cannot help but stumble over such an attack from those I have listed. In fairness to you, you have never done that to me. Further fairness requires me to mention that ad hominem in response to ad hominem is not unexpected.

[JediGirl]

heyyyy....i just posted the article. i didn't say I agreed with all of it. I too am a theistic evolutionist and see the existence of God and the truth of science to be perfectly compatible.

[The_Reader_David]

Yes, the version of Christianity you are falsely assuming is the only, or at least the original, strain was dreamt up by Anselm of Canterbury after the Patriarchate of Rome had split from the rest of the Church.

Incidentally "the God-Man" or "Theanthropos" predates Anselm, and is a usual description of Christ in the original version of Christianity, now usually called Eastern Orthodoxy.

[JediGirl]

heck, paste the content of my entire website if you'd like.....I've posted nothing i'm ashamed of.

[AndrewC]

hm..............and the point of that was?

I'm ignoring the items in the post that your answer addresses, but the answers I have seen you give in the threads on Free Republic have me wondering if I misunderstood a post from you written long ago. Do you consider yourself a Christian?