It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
You are not a true Christian.
Are you? If you are then you are qualified to debate what a "true Christian" is or is not. If you are not one, then you have no basis to stand on.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by snusfanatic
In America--and only in America, let it be noted--the Christian faith has been hijacked by a group of refugees from real life who have not even read the book they insist on taking so literally. This is obvious because no-one who has actually read much of the Bible can possibly take it literally. Not in this day and age, at any rate.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
First, it implies that a perfected law would accord with modern ideas of individual liberty. This is anachronistic; you're taking the moral standards of your own society (or standards of your own making) to be universal. In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Second, it suggests that Jesus's silence on the subject of slavery implies that he supported it. That's assuming too much--does a slave's silence imply support for slavery? Perhaps you're getting Jesus confused with St. Paul, whose epistles suggest he thought slavery was perfectly okay.
Originally posted by Astyanax
But why believe anything in the Bible at all? The New Testament is just as full of errors and lies as the Old. Although one or two of its canonical texts date back to the first century AD, many are much newer; and the canon itself attained its final form only in and after the third century. Some texts as old as the canonical ones were rejected, mostly because they didn't fit with later Christian doctrine or contradicted events described in books of the canon. We may rest assured that very little of what the historical Jesus (if there was one) actually said, taught and did has been transmitted accurately.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by snusfanatic
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
The Bible explicitly states that every part of it is true in its literal interpretation.
The Bible says no such thing. While there are several verses that make the claim that the Bible is inspired by God the Bible never makes the claim that it should be taken literally. Not only does it not make this claim explicitly it doesn't make this claim implicitly either. And, in fact, there are parts to the Bible that cannot or obviously should not be taken literally (the poetic language of some of the Psalms, the parables of Christ, etc)
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
You are not a true Christian.
This statement is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. You cannot decide who is and isn't a Christian.
Originally posted by NorEaster
I see that you joined the board two days ago.
I've been on many Internet forums over the years, and most of them are all about aggressive assertions and being bold in how one depicts others in exchanges. It might be a good idea for you to allow the general atmosphere of each specific forum to reveal itself to you before you commit yourself to a participation temperment.
Originally posted by NorEaster
The subject of Origins and Creationism might be considered controversial, but it's not as immediately influential as Politics, and needn't be as personally vitriolic. This person may very well be a faithful Christian, and hold beliefs that the Catholic Church has recently adopted. After all, if not for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even know who Jesus was or have any idea what the term Christian means. As painful as that is for an American Evangelical to accept, this is the truth. The Catholic Church is responsible for the Bible, and for the Christian faith as we know it today.
Originally posted by NorEaster
And the Catholic Church sees no issue with the concept of Evolution.
Originally posted by NorEaster
That said, there are less offensive ways to present your point. It'd be nice to not see that kind of behavior in forums that deal with more sophisticated levels of debate.
A question, if I may: why do the fundamentalists believe that the universe was created in 7 days and that Noah really built the boat? Do they take these parts literally and others not literally?
Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
Originally posted by Astyanax
In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.
The notion that there exist no moral truths is false.
The question of how to maximize the well-being of humans is ultimately a scientific question with objective answers.
Thus far, we can be fairly confident that prescriptions against murder, slavery, and adultery reliably increase our collective well-being.
The social scientists think that we are more nurture than nature and this is simply not so (in more matters than just morals).
Jesus was allegedly the son of God who, as the OP stated, came to "perfect the laws"--if he took issue with slavery, he should have said something about it given his lofty credentials.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
Originally posted by Astyanax
In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.
The notion that there exist no moral truths is false.
That is not what I said.
Originally posted by Astyanax
The question of how to maximize the well-being of humans is ultimately a scientific question with objective answers.
Answers that science does not, as yet, have, so your statement is one based on faith. I thought you didn't do faith.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Thus far, we can be fairly confident that prescriptions against murder, slavery, and adultery reliably increase our collective well-being.
Adultery? Really?
Originally posted by Astyanax
The social scientists think that we are more nurture than nature and this is simply not so (in more matters than just morals).
I am not a social scientist. Why don't you stop flailing at false assumptions and argue with me instead?--if, that is, you really think we have anything to argue about.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Jesus was allegedly the son of God who, as the OP stated, came to "perfect the laws"--if he took issue with slavery, he should have said something about it given his lofty credentials.
Maybe God doesn't think slavery is wrong. He seems to care little about human suffering, on the whole.
Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
This means that if we compare the moral standards of modern American society (though it has its faults) with that of the ancient Incas, for example, we can objectively state that one moral system is superior to the other.
There are no modern societies, to my knowledge, that still accept the institution of slavery
...or allow murder to go unpunished.
Your implicit premise is that no moral universals exist.
We could debate all day long about adultery - I'm not advocating that we directly punish adulterers.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Which of my assumptions are false?
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
This means that if we compare the moral standards of modern American society (though it has its faults) with that of the ancient Incas, for example, we can objectively state that one moral system is superior to the other.
By whose standards?
Originally posted by Astyanax
There are no modern societies, to my knowledge, that still accept the institution of slavery
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
The United Arab Emirates
The Sultanate of Oman
Want more?
Originally posted by Astyanax
...or allow murder to go unpunished.
Would you like to come and spend a few weeks as my guest here in my native country? Or in any modern kleptocracy or petty despotism? Want a list of countries where extrajudicial murder is a weapon of statecraft?
Originally posted by Astyanax
Your implicit premise is that no moral universals exist.
No.
Originally posted by Astyanax
I suggest you view my exchange with the OP on this thread: Absolute Morality: Does it Exist? I think you'll find the whole thread interesting, actually, and may well be moved to participate in it.
Originally posted by Astyanax
We could debate all day long about adultery - I'm not advocating that we directly punish adulterers.
Adultery is often both a source of happiness and a palliative for misery. It is also something that is genetically hardwired into both human sexes. I'm not interesting in debating its 'moral' aspects either.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Which of my assumptions are false?
Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
It is interesting that exceedingly few non-Muslim women choose to convert to Islam and submit to Sharia law. On the other hand, a great many Muslim women flee the abuses sanctioned by Islam.
Is slavery specifically sanctioned in the laws of these countries?
"Extrajudicial" is the key word.
Adultery can also be a source of misery for the other partner, depending on the circumstances. Murder is also genetically hardwired into humans.
You believe that abolishment of slavery is not necessarily a moral universal. If this is the case, then Jesus's lack of action on the matter is perfectly acceptable. If, however, abolishment of slavery *is* a moral universal, then Jesus is at fault for not denouncing it.
Originally posted by snusfanatic
Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!
I am a Christian. I believe that God spoke the universe, and all life in it, into existence - in whatever manner it is that God speaks. I believe that natural world, its four dimensions of space and time, was a designed one - planned out in the mind's-eyes of an all powerful being. This is why I plea to my fellow Christians, legislators, and religious leaders: Keep my religion out of the Science Classroom!
I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy. Organized groups, which I'm ashamed to say, share my same faith are working today to pass off my holy-scripture as a science textbook. They seek to influence leaders and school boards to teach (usually only the Christian version of) creationism as an alternative to evolution. This is not only a possible violation, a subversion, of the Establishment Clause of our constitution but, I believe a detriment to my faith.
That's right, I argue this, not for the sake and benefit of science but for the sake and benefit of religion.
Here are my 2 reasons, presented as questions to my fellow Christians.
1. Who do you trust to teach your child theology?
Do you trust a minister, yourself, or a government employed science teacher? If you feel that our religion is important enough to be taught, then surely you feel that it is important enough to be taught correctly. In a theology classroom, a teacher who has devoted a large part of their education to serious thought and study about our faith speaks to students who have come to learn. What do you imagine it is like in a science classroom? I received a short lesson on creationism in my ninth-grade biology class and, let me tell you, it's not pretty....
The teacher was disinterested and flippant. He taught the basics of Genesis all wrong and turned every question by students into a joke. I kept my mouth shut. How could I be angry at this teacher? How could I expect him to understand a faith that's not his own, or even if he did understand, to teach it fairly? The truth is, you can't expect such things. Which leads me to my greater questions.
2. Do you want your belief in an all powerful creator to hinge, in the eyes of every public school student, on the validity or invalidity or Evolution?
Christianity has changed over time, it has accepted new scientific and social insights and incorporated them into its world-view. I ask you, did Galileo have to be a black eye on the history of Christianity when his findings were eventually accepted and incorporated into our religion anyways? Of course not.
When Creationism is taught in school, it is taught as the "alternative" to evolution. Disgusting. Christianity is not the "alternative" to any science. Many Christians claim to believe in both creation and evolution (as I do), yet (unlike me) say that is all the more reason to give the two ideas "equal time" in the science classroom...
Equal Time? As if the two ideas are political candidates vying for your one, binary, vote? If you believe in both evolution and creationism then the question is not binary at all, and therefore there is no reason to call for 'equal time.' When you call for equal time and the teaching of our theology as an alternative to science, you hinge the validity of our theology on the invalidity of science. If you choose to go down this path, first remember Galileo, and then be prepared for 1,000 more black eyes to our faith!
You will have an entire generation of children thinking that the answer to existence is either one, or the other. That if they choose to accept the evidence science presents, then there is no room for God left in their life. You are driving God out of lives! Is that not the opposite of what you are commanded to do by your own scripture? So, I conclude by synthesizing point one and two...
IMAGINE, for a moment, a world where each child is to be receive daily education from a secular, government employee, disinterested in your faith. This employee's job is to teach your child what measure of science he knows, with the full weight of text books and his college education behind him. He is then to present a warped and demeaning version of your religion to the children. He resent this and takes every opportunity to deride it while he does so. Finally, at the end of each lecture he tells the children that these are "alternatives" that they must pick one or the other; the silly-superstition or science. For many students this is their first view of Christianity, as ugly, simple and the exact-opposite of enlightenment.
This is the world you ask for when you try to put our theology in schools.
Be Careful What You Pray For,
Snusfanatic