@kellyjay saidThe fact that norms and laws that govern human morality and interpersonal behaviour have been absorbed into, and codified by, various religious traditions is not necessarily evidence of supernatural causality and divine laws. Indeed, it seems to me to be evidence of the evolution and development of human conscience and communal consciousness in action.
Yes, and we have human sex trafficking, slavery, genocide taking place for the cleansing of either race, belief systems, gang territory as well where people are doing whatever is right in their own eyes. Without a standard that is higher than humanity, who is to say those things are not the way a man naturally behaves? Cheating on taxes, lying about sex, if these are all jus ...[text shortened]... t the exception why? No one is void of God if you acknowledge He has written His laws on our hearts.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt casts God in a "God-light", not a "human-light".
It doesn't even cast God in a good light.
If one believes in God, it's obvious who made whom. God created man, who then turned on God and now lives away from God. God's morality is consistent. Man's morality is consistently bad. Oh, there are some shining lights, but they are nearly lost in the raging river that is man's collective sin.
If one does not believe in God, it's equally obvious who made whom. Man made God, whom man then used to control other men.
But a created God is not the God we know. Yet often, even we cannot understand him, apparently.
Either way, the morality of man is generally questionable. Not so God (at least to believers - to unbelievers, they tend to mix God's morality with man's, because they judge God by man's morality, which is notoriously, historically bad, to describe a being that they do not even believe in).
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI understand evolution, and I believe that evolution still leaves room for a 'craftsman' God to tweak the results slightly over time to result in events having a higher chance of happening than chance would allow.
God was never 'on' the table. (Nor for that matter 'random accidents' which is merely the mutterings of a confused Christian who has a poor understanding of the evolutionary process).
I believe evolution was God's tool to bring speciation about, without sacrificing free will. There's a name for this theory, but it slips my mind right now.
Edit: Oh, I found it. Theistic Evolution. And yes, I realize this is dismissed by, well, both sides, really. I argued this with RJHinds for years here. YEC is a total dead-end, logically and scientifically, neither of which appeals to evangelicals.
@sonship saidMy cat has a better understanding of evolution than you do.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
All together now! "You don't understand Evolution."God was never 'on' the table. (Nor for that matter 'random accidents' which is merely the mutterings of a confused Christian who has a poor understanding of the evolutionary process).
Bluffing.
No, I don't think you understand evolution more than I do.
No, I don't thin ...[text shortened]... omness out of the occurrence of mutations (most of which are harmful) underlying natural selection.
@suzianne saidAs a decent human being (which you are) how can you 'not' question the morality of a deity who, for example, sends bears to rip children apart. (I'm honestly spoilt for choice when it comes to OT examples). The 'God's morality is consistent' argument really doesn't hold water. By 'His own standards' God often lets Himself down badly. He really does.
It casts God in a "God-light", not a "human-light".
If one believes in God, it's obvious who made whom. God created man, who then turned on God and now lives away from God. God's morality is consistent. Man's morality is consistently bad. Oh, there are some shining lights, but they are nearly lost in the raging river that is man's collective sin.
If one does not be ...[text shortened]... ity, which is notoriously, historically bad, to describe a being that they do not even believe in).
@suzianne saidI think it's great that you seek to marry evolution with God, though obviously do not put much stock myself in theistic evolution.
I understand evolution, and I believe that evolution still leaves room for a 'craftsman' God to tweak the results slightly over time to result in events having a higher chance of happening than chance would allow.
I believe evolution was God's tool to bring speciation about, without sacrificing free will. There's a name for this theory, but it slips my mind right now.
...[text shortened]... e. YEC is a total dead-end, logically and scientifically, neither of which appeals to evangelicals.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou should read all scripture instead of cherry picking them to get the whole picture.
As a decent human being (which you are) how can you 'not' question the morality of a deity who, for example, sends bears to rip children apart. (I'm honestly spoilt for choice when it comes to OT examples). The 'God's morality is consistent' argument really doesn't hold water. By 'His own standards' God often lets Himself down badly. He really does.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt takes more faith to believe in a total materialistic view of the universe than God creating it all.
I think it's great that you seek to marry evolution with God, though obviously do not put much stock myself in theistic evolution.
@kellyjay saidFaith. Belief. Superstitious views v Materialistic views. "God". "Creation". More faith. Less faith. Certainty. Credibility. Earnestness. It all falls squarely within the domain of subjectivity and personal opinions.
It takes more faith to believe in a total materialistic view of the universe than God creating it all.
3 edits
My cat has a better understanding of evolution than you do.
Your cat may know like everybody that animals change. And you use that general blanket excuse to say evolution occurs.
You just make the definition general enough to make you appear educated to argue that "Evolution happened."
2 edits
Folks how will macro evolution die as a theory? Not because old timers will lose face to admit insurmountable problems with it. But because they will just grow old and die off.
People like Richard Dawkins will just gradually all grow old and die.
That's how the 21rst century will learn to look for some replacement to Darwin's theory.
@kellyjay saidWhat does it 'matter?'
It takes more faith to believe in a total materialistic view of the universe than God creating it all.