It sure has been quiet after some time the Phoenix Mars Lander landed, performing the tests to find water and a "habitable zone" for life to exist. They aren't searching for life, like humans, to exist but any life would do such as microbial life. I believe the Lander landed May 26th 2008 and all has been quite since.We all know that the news of life on another planet would be plastered all over the world, without rest, for months even years to come.
They did find what they were looking for but a certain 'U2' song comes to mind for some reason.
One important question would be, Why would we spend many, many millions of dollars trying to prove life exists knowing that the planet is inhospitable? Mars has an average temperature of -50° to -80°F compared to earth's average of 57°F. Mar's atmosphere contains 96% Co2 and only .2% of Oxygen in stark contrast to earth's .04% Co2 and 20% Oxygen. There is nothing on Mars in comparison with earth's sustaining life's atmospheric attributes. Mars's radiation alone is so intense on the surface that it would suffice to destroy the very molecules of life. (This is why they are trying to dig deeper to find life.)
Plainly reading Genesis we understand the life is on earth only. Earth is uniquely constructed to support life. It has been proven to have a well designed, flourishing atmosphere and planetary complexion that is just right for life. So why all the fuss about Mars?
Darwin published 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859 and within a short period of time the evolution revolution began. All academicians began teaching that all life originated from nature, not God. They eventually thought that, since we have a huge universe, the odds would be great that there actually could be life on other planets. After all, they felt life is spontaneous through natural occurrences, right?
Our good friend Mr. Thomas at ICR said "Evolutionary scientists will keep looking for extraterrestrial life because their theory predicts that it should exist. But why is there such a conspicuous lack of evidence for it? The Genesis account of creation remains consistent with what we observe and is the only satisfactory explanation for the presence of life…on earth."
Well said Mr. Thomas, I agree.
But why is there such a conspicuous lack of evidence for [extra-terrestrial life]? The Genesis account of creation remains consistent with what we observe and is the only satisfactory explanation for the presence of life... on earth.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you applaud such an ignorant, and stupid, statement?
We've been able to identify extrasolar planets for, what, sixteen years? That is a conspicuous lack of evidence?
The statement that "the Genesis account remains consistent with what we observe" begs the question concerning the prevailing theory -- which remains consistent not only with the observation of life on this planet, but with the age of the universe, the formation of our solar system, etc.
Sure, we don't quite have the process of abiogenesis quite figured out, but there are promising ideas out there, and none of them are inconsistent with the measured age of the solar system, the universe in general, or the earth specifically.
Rather than boast that no signs of life have been found on Mars (as though the search thus far is in any way conclusive), why not just let out a sigh of relief? What will you do if a mission to Europa finds aquatic life beneath its surface of ice?
Rather than boast that the lack of evidence is conspicuous, why not quiver with the recognition that in our own solar system, there exist no fewer than four solid candidates for the possible development of life?
No, you're probably right. If life is discovered on Mars, or any of the moons of our resident gas giants, Christians will probably do as they always do: adjust their interpretations of the bible to accommodate. One can only imagine what the Christian community would do if SETI were to encounter a verifiable alien signal.
Until then, we'll have to just relax at Ludicrous Speed, content with the fact that we're surrounded by Assholes.
(Since we've been tossing movie references back and forth...)
--
Stan
"What will you do if a mission to Europa finds aquatic life beneath its surface of ice?"
ReplyDeleteThen I will eat my Bible.
"Christians will probably do as they always do: adjust their interpretations of the bible to accommodate."
That is hilarious and untrue. Christianity (The Bible) has remained constant and consistent for 2000 + years, it's man (religion or science) that adjusts their interpretations. They formed false denominations and injected "truth" only to find out later that it was wrong like LDS. Look at the Doctors/scientists who used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life.
Your statements are ridicules.
One can only imagine what the Christian community would do if SETI were to encounter a verifiable alien signal.
I would eat your Bible.
Ludicrous Speed> "They've gone to plaid" Space Balls was the very first DVD I ever purchased, dare I say classic.
Then I will eat my Bible.
ReplyDeleteI will happily supply ketchup.
Christianity (The Bible) has remained constant and consistent for 2000 + years, it's man (religion or science) that adjusts their interpretations.
That is hilarious and untrue.
Fixed.
The text of the bible has remained constant, I'll grant you, but the interpretation of it has changed from discovery to discovery, and that cannot be reasonably denied.
Sure, your current interpretation is relatively constant, but 200 years ago you'd sing a different tune, just as 200 year before that, ad nauseum.
This is precisely why Socrates was given the hemlock, why Galileo was subjected to house arrest, why the use of a telescope to gaze at stars was forbidden, why Copernicus' heliocentric solar system was declared to be heresy, etc.
To take such obscure statements as "blood is life" from Leviticus as somehow meaning that these ancient peasants had some innate knowledge of the cardiovascular system it preposterous. Blood is life, they said, but they also said it's permissible to beat your slave half to death, as long as he gets up a day or two later.
"Blood is life"? Yes, but the clot that was generated in that beaten slave's brain will take at least a week to cause a fatal stroke.
You can't argue for the scientific outlook in the bible without also accepting the non-scientific statements as well. Supposed miracles notwithstanding, the bible makes various claims that have no scientific basis whatsoever.
There is no truly good reason, for instance, that Jews were forbidden to eat of pork. Sure, you may argue that this rule prevented disease from trichinosis, but this begs two questions:
1) Why, then, did virtually every other Mesopotamian culture eat of pork, yet live? Archaeologists can easily identify Jewish settlements by the lack of pork bones, versus non-Jewish settlements, in which they abound. If the reason for the ban on pork products were medical, then why didn't they die off as well?
2) Why, then, wasn't there a similar ban on beef, chicken, or seafood? E. coli and Salmonella are equally dangerous if ingested, and the problem is with undercooking, so are we to assume that the Jews therefore had beef, poultry, and fish thermometers, but none for pork?
The statement about trichinosis is also an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The knowledge of trichinosis came well after the ban. You may assert that god knew of trichinosis, but if so he didn't tell anyone (he didn't even mention that eating pork could be dangerous, so far as I am aware). Mentioning the dangers of eating undercooked meat in general might've been a better rule, if avoiding gastrointestinal illness was the goal...
Obviously, one's interpretation of the bible will depend on one's location in spacetime, and you again make the mistake of special pleading by bringing up denominations. Whether you call yourself a member of a particular denomination or not, you do indeed hold to a particular Christian paradigm. This identifies you as one of a group of like-thinking Christians, which group is appropriately termed a denomination.
Thus, as you admit, humans interpret the bible, humans record those interpretations into doctrines, and those doctrines become the basis for a denomonation. Denominations are man-made, absolutely. Your interpretation is man-made as well, necessarily.
Recall, your position is the more difficult to defend. You maintain that the bible is inerrant, through a "plain reading of the text". You point to hermeneutics, which is fine, but in order to maintain your original claim, you must insert new assumptions constantly in order to keep up with new discoveries, or new modes of thinking.
For my own position, I can show how the bible is scientifically inaccurate, how the bible explicitly endorses immoral acts, how the bible makes logically inconsistent statements or requirements, and any number of other illustrations of biblical errancy.
Any one error in the bible brings your whole system crashing down. Further, you have pinned your claims to extra-biblical assumptions, as with the one that there cannot be life of any kind on any other planet (or anywhere save earth, I gather).
The bible makes no such claim. Surely, there is room in your many assumptions regarding a "plain reading" for non-sentient life forms -- even microbes or very primitive plants -- on some other planet, yes? I guarantee you that if/when such a discovery is made, Christian thinkers worldwide will claim that this, too, was always admitted in the bible.
If fish of any kind are discovered in the subglacial oceans of Europa, for instance, this would allow for a possible explanation of Job's leviathan. If any such creatures or plants were found to utilize DNA, then this, too, would bolster the argument from design, would it not?
These are clearly hypotheticals, but it is a fact that bible-believing, self-professing, biblical inerrantist Christians have altered their interpretations of scripture in line with scientific discovery. Your own recommendation of watching "The Great Debate" (that title is a bit pretentious, don't you think? "A Great Debate", perhaps, but "The"?) showed how Christian thinkers are coping with the facts of the age of the universe, the order in which celestial objects were formed, and the fact of descent with modification from a common ancestor.
As I said, I'll provide ketchup.
As to the first DVD you purchased, I don't know what movie you're referring to. The first DVD I purchased (true story), was Spaceballs: The Movie.
I see that your Schwartz is as big as mine.
--
Stan
Refering back to the OP:
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons america is spending rediculous amounts of money trying to determine whether extinct life on mars is a possibility. Firstly, the temperature estimates you gave are only accurate now: Evidence indicates that it used to have running water, and an atmosphere.
I do agree with you though: it's way too much money to spend when in all likelihood there's nothing there.
I personally think the chances are terrible that there is life on other bodies in our solar system, but given that there are billions of other solar systems out there with trillians of other planets, I'm fairly certain we're not alone.
Why is there such a conspicuous absence of it?
Because, and you may not have noticed this, the universe is pretty big. If there isn't life on a body in our solar system, we have no way of looking for it: it's simply too far away.
"Spaceballs: The Movie" I stand corrected. It's very strange to me how many things in our lives are parallel, Stan. Are you my alter ego or something? Your freaking me out, dude.
ReplyDeleteQuasar: "Because, and you may not have noticed this, the universe is pretty big. If there isn't life on a body in our solar system, we have no way of looking for it: it's simply too far away. " Oh I have noticed and to add some fascinating info: Take the very fastest thing we can possibly make with our current technology, chemically propelled rockets, going as fast as we ever have achieved. It would still take 50,000 years to arrive at the closest star. We are very small in a vast universe. We are alone here for a purpose and when that purpose is fulfilled, we will all understand.
Need to feed the kids, talk to ya later.
Ah, ya' ruined the sarcasm!
ReplyDeleteBut how do you know that we are alone if you have no way of demonstrating that the billions of trillions of other solar systems, each of which could easily have earth-like planets, have no life?
Given that there is (at least) 1 planet in this system with life, and 4 others which might have or might have had life (well, Okay, I can only think of Titan, Europa and Mars. What's the 4th, Stan?), I think the chances are in my favor that there is life somewhere else in the universe.
And thoroughly reading the scientific information on abiogenesis makes it even more plausable.
But I still don't think there's any in our solar system... but I'd absolutely love there to be.
"But I still don't think there's any in our solar system... but I'd absolutely love there to be."
ReplyDeleteSure you would! That would justify your reasoning and beliefs. Your presuppositions would be validated and your disbelief in a Creator would be justified.
I can confidently say to you that will never, ever happen to you in your life...Ever! Live with that for the rest of your life. That will never be revealed as truth and the disbelievers of God will be punished, not for their disbelief but because that Day of Judgement they will stand alone with their sins and face that Holy God who will have no choice but to punish the wicked for their transgression of the Law. God nor I want that though. God provided a way so you wouldn't have to face Him on Judgement Day. Do you know what God did so you wouldn't have to go to hell?
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteSure you would! That would justify your reasoning and beliefs. Your presuppositions would be validated and your disbelief in a Creator would be justified.
No, actually. I'm just a very curious person, and love learning new things. My astonishment and subsequent interest would be a result of this, not anything to do with presuppositions.
Indeed, I never believed that life elsewhere in the universe was inconsistant with the bible. The bible speaks about one planet: it doesn't say anything about others. Statements about being "alone" in the universe can easily be take metaphorically, or to mean intelligent life, not merely life.
I believe that other things, such as the impossibility of God having 'created' each species individually when the fossil record and natural morphology of living creatures clearly states otherwise, are inconsistant with the bible. But not extra-terrestrial life.
"I believe that other things, such as the impossibility of God having 'created' each species individually when the fossil record and natural morphology of living creatures clearly states otherwise, are [inconsistent] with the bible. But not extra-terrestrial life. "
ReplyDeleteNot true. The Bible says things are made from their own kind. 'Kinds' are probably best represented today by the classification 'families'
For example, the horse family. Equidae, includes horses, zebras, donkeys, and extinct horses. Horses and zebras can be breed with each other and produce "zorses", and donkeys and horses can be breed to produce mules and hinnies. This indicates that they are probably from the same created kind. You could make the same argument for Cats also: lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, and house cats all from the same family. Canine also, but canine and cats don't breed and cannot mutate. You cannot breed man with monkeys thus renders the evolution hypothesis void. The information is there if you just would look at it from a Biblical perspective. It fits without a problem with logic. Evolution on the other hand wants me to believe fish kept going ashore and dying until they grew lungs over millions of years, a concept that is illogical.
"Evolution on the other hand wants me to believe fish kept going ashore and dying until they grew lungs over millions of years, a concept that is illogical."
ReplyDeleteThese intermediaries even exist today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Further, we now have rich intermediaries in the fossil record, for instance Tiktaalik. I know that reading about science is a "sin", but I would suggest you read Neil Shubin's book "Our Inner Fish". It should help explain a little evolutionary biology to you.
"You cannot breed man with monkeys thus renders the evolution hypothesis void."
the theory DOESN'T predict this. Darwin suggested that new species would form-species being those unable to interbreed. The examples you gave are sterile after 1 generation.
Also, to claim that the genesis account is "consistent" with what we see is absurd. The life we find 3.3 billion years ago is NOTHING like what we have today. We see patterns of diversity followed by mass extinction followed by rapid speciation followed by extinction. The pattern we find changes with time, those organisms extant today are different from what we find in the fossil record. If creation occurred, then it was all microbes "in the beginning" and stayed that way for a LONG time before forming soft-bodies organisms, and so on. Human evolution, despite what AIG and other creationist sources say, only starts a few million years ago. We just arrived. Genesis does not say this.
Welcome Clostridiophile,
ReplyDeleteCompelling argument/story linking lungfish to the Tiktaalik but do you have any proof?
If truly many millions of years, the fossil record should have literally millions of recorded fossils of this transition and beyond.
In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhat the authors are saying is that the evolutionary process has been mistakenly viewed as a principle of 'progress' where one form turns into another in a single linear strand. This gave rise to the whole cartoon of "the march of progress" showing an ape becoming more human in a deceptively linear process. What we actually see is more like a bushing, in which nodes split giving rise to two or more populations, many of which die off. Therefore, when we find "missing links" in terms of fish to amphibians, we are probably not seeing a single progression of a fish giving rise to intermediate A which gives rise to B and to C in a linear progression. We might have a fish that gives rise to A and B, A gives rise to A1 and A2, A1 goes extinct, A2 gives rise to A3 and A4, both go extinct. B gives rise to B1 and B2, which gives rise to B3/4 and B4/5, respectively. It is likely that this "experiment" was tried by several fish species. I am not saying the lungfish gave rise to Tiktaalik, this is a totally unrelated branch.
I recommend you read Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life about the Burgess Shale. Basically, if you look at the evidence, most of what we see today is due simply to chance. Afterall, if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out by a catastrophe...what would life look like today? If you replay the tape of life, Gould argues, the results will almost certainly change each time you wind the tape back. He points out that no matter how adapted a fish is to it's environment, it will not survive if the lake dries up in a season. We see several instances of mass extinction followed by rapid diversification of the surviving lineages, followed again by catastrophe. If you look objectively at the data, humans could not have been intended.
Oh, by the way, Gould's postulate of 'historical contingency' has been tested with E. coli recently and has been confirmed. I can explain...
I understood the articles meaning and that is why I referred to it as a refutation of your point of the Tiktaalik link to lungfish, but this is where both of our presuppositions get in the way. I will have to bow out and refer you to my newest post in an attempt to help you. It's between you and God. First Timothy is coming to mind when I talk to you.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteGo back and read what I actually wrote. I said that similar organisms (intermediates) exist today, such as the lungfish, which can leave the water for periods of time and break molecule oxygen.
I then went on, that is what "further" means. I was going from what we see today to what you creationists demand in the fossil record-transitional forms. I chose Tiktaalik as an example.
Also, given what I have seen you write on evolution, I am nearly certain that you didn't understand what the article was saying; the message was subtle, and requires some background in paleontology. Although, I will give you the benefit of the doubt-afterall, I will have a chance to test your knowledge in future discussions.
Also, isn't it a bit presumptive to think you are going to help me, rather than the other way around? I mean, up until this point, I have seen what I have seen a thousand times: a religious person who has no rational reason for holding a particular belief, claiming to hold it rationally, but in the end appealing to faith or fear. I am working on a rebuttal to several of your points.
Clostridiophile,
ReplyDelete"Also, isn't it a bit presumptive to think you are going to help me, rather than the other way around?"
If I am right you are going to burn in hell forever. All I am trying to do is stop you before you fall off that cliff of life that the bulldozer called time is pushing us towards daily. Wait a minute are you here to talk me out of Christianity to your religion of secular humanism? If that is you point and intention please do us both a favor please refrain.
"Also, given what I have seen you write on evolution...I am working on a rebuttal to several of your points."
I will list many more points in future posts, stay tuned.
"If I am right you are going to burn in hell forever. All I am trying to do is stop you before you fall off that cliff of life that the bulldozer called time is pushing us towards daily. Wait a minute are you here to talk me out of Christianity to your religion of secular humanism? If that is you point and intention please do us both a favor please refrain."
ReplyDeleteDan,
If I am correct, I will be saving you from wasting the only time you have got. You may point out that I am wasting my time...but it is time that free-thinkers tell a different story than what is popularly heard. You don't need religion to be moral, and why would I need to believe in your god if there isn't any evidence? You are pushing fear. Read your statement. Hell is not justice and your god cannot be loving if this is his invention. What is more likely, that hell exists, or that clever people made it up as a threat that nobody could possibly falsify? It's a good mechanism for filling the pews and ensuring donations. But this is asinine and sad. I preoccupy myself with friends and family, nature and reading, teaching and learning. You are telling me that I will bake for eternity because I don't accept a human written book about some extraordinary events, many of which have been claimed in the past and present, which I could never determine to be true or false?? Not only that, but it must be TRUE belief...not bet-hedging. You can't force yourself to believe something that you find unconvincing. I don't believe it, and you admit you have no way to demonstrate that these events occurred, so you might as well reject them youself...WHY DON'T YOU?
Also, in regards to the evolution points, I will look forward to this.
Clostridiophile,
ReplyDeleteIf I am correct, I will be saving you from wasting the only time you have got.
Really? That is why you are here? To save me time? Wow! Are you being judgmental on how people spend their time? Do you really seek to save people...some time?
Are you sure aren't just pushing your religion?
Hell is not justice Sure it is, wicked child molesting priests and rapists need a home and I can't think of a better place. Now going to hell just because you lied once in your life is hard to understand but breaking the law is breaking the law. You have options that you are choosing not to take.
You have the right to remain silent you have to right to be forgiven through the blood of Christ, if you give up this right then everything you do and/or say will be used against you. Do you understand your rights?
"Really? That is why you are here? To save me time? Wow! Are you being judgmental on how people spend their time? Do you really seek to save people...some time?"
ReplyDeleteHow much time do you spend praying, worrying that your thoughts are being read...preaching to others? Spend your time how you want, but don't pretend not to be judgemental yourself mr. "atheist debunker".
"Are you sure aren't just pushing your religion?"
Atheism...a religion? How the hell do you figure that?
"Hell is not justice Sure it is, wicked child molesting priests and rapists need a home and I can't think of a better place. Now going to hell just because you lied once in your life is hard to understand but breaking the law is breaking the law. You have options that you are choosing not to take."
Oh, so spitting on the sidewalk and murder both deserve the death penalty? Hell, crime is crime, so if you are caught speeding, the cop should just shoot you, right? Also, these "options" you speak of are not the same as breaking the law. See, I live in reality. I know cops exist, I know judges exist, I know that there are volumes of books with the laws written down, inspired by people I know exist. They don't require me to believe anything ridiculous just cause.
"You have the right to remain silent you have to right to be forgiven through the blood of Christ, if you give up this right then everything you do and/or say will be used against you. Do you understand your rights?"
So god had himself killed so he could forgive us for something he had foreknowledge of? Oh...
"So god had himself killed so he could forgive us for [something] he had foreknowledge of? "
ReplyDeleteNow you are getting it, he loved you so much he wanted to save you from your sinning. He knew you would be guilty for breaking God's Law. He offered to take your punishment for you that's all. You don't have to take the gift but it is yours freely to take.
"He knew you would be guilty for breaking God's Law. He offered to take your punishment for you that's all."
ReplyDeleteHey Dan, are you sure that's accurate?
Sure, Jesus died a painful death on the cross, but if he truly "took our punishment for us", shouldn't he be burning in hell for all eternity?
Unless you mean He offered to take our punishment from us, in which case I don't understand the point of the whole cross thing: God could have done that without having his son tortured to death.
Quasar,
ReplyDelete"God could have done that without having his son tortured to death."
Now it is you who is suggesting to the judge to be corrupt. Set criminals free huh? That might work in your universe but not in this one of Law, justice, and righteousness. Someone had to be punished for your transgression of God's Law. God loved you enough to take your punishment. He just wants to be thanked by letting Him lead your life, that's all.
"Now it is you who is suggesting to the judge to be corrupt. Set criminals free huh? That might work in your universe but not in this one of Law, justice, and righteousness. Someone had to be punished for your transgression of God's Law. God loved you enough to take your punishment. He just wants to be thanked by letting Him lead your life, that's all."
ReplyDeleteDan,
You are missing the point. This completely takes away personal responsibility. He didn't pay for anything...he just had us kill him. Quasar is saying that he would have to had gone to hell for us to serve out our sentence. Otherwise, why not just forgive us without all the blood? You speak about this as if it makes rational sense, but you haven't spelled it out-how you make sense of it.
Clostridiophile,
ReplyDeleteThink of it this way... Imagine you're in a courtroom; you're guilty of many serious crimes. The judge says, "It's a fine of $500,000, or prison." You don't have anywhere near that amount of money, so the bailiff begins to walk you out of the courtroom when someone you don't even know appears. He runs up to the judge with a check and says, "I've paid the fine for you." Now that the fine has been paid, the law no longer has any hold on you. You're free -- because of the gift you were given. Wouldn't you feel grateful for that kind of kindness?
If you will repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus, God says he will forgive all your sins and grant you the gift of everlasting life. Just like the court case, if you repent (that means to confess and forsake your sins) and put your trust in Jesus, then you will not have to suffer God's justice in Hell because the payment for your crimes was made by Jesus on the cross.
"He runs up to the judge with a check and says, "I've paid the fine for you." Now that the fine has been paid, the law no longer has any hold on you. You're free -- because of the gift you were given. Wouldn't you feel grateful for that kind of kindness?"
ReplyDeleteThat's why there is no fine you can pay to get out of murder or rape, say. You can't have your brother get the death penalty for you. Paying a fine is different from absolving my personal responsibility. If I murder someone, would the family of the person I murdered feel like justice had been served if the judge kills himself? No. This is absurd.
"Paying a fine is different from absolving my personal responsibility."
ReplyDeleteIf the Fine was 500,000 and someone, anyone, paid it then Justice would be satisfied. There is a price to pay for breaking the law. Same is true for sinning. Your fine has been paid already but you are telling the judge (God) that you don't accept the payment.
"If I murder someone, would the family of the person I murdered feel like justice had been served if the judge kills himself? No. This is absurd."
I agree that would be absurd. But if the fine was $500,000 and someone paid it then it doesn't matter what the family thinks, the fine was paid the "Law" was satisfied. Holding grudges has no value for that family, although understandable, but they need to forgive.
"I agree that would be absurd. But if the fine was $500,000 and someone paid it then it doesn't matter what the family thinks, the fine was paid the "Law" was satisfied. Holding grudges has no value for that family, although understandable, but they need to forgive."
ReplyDelete"They need to forgive?". So the judge is putting a price on murder or rape? So the judge says, "ok, you murdered the children of this couple, that will be $500,000." Is this morality? The judge adds, "Now you NEED to forgive!". Isn't that up to the family?? How does anyone "paying" for a crime require forgiveness on the part of the victims? Your example fails for this reason: the judge in your example is also the dictator in charge, not only of the law, but also everything else. This suggests that the "law" and "payment" can change at will or can be completely capricious. You act as though Jesus had to die, as if he had no choice in the matter. If this is the supreme designer of the universe, why would he have to pay for anything? He could just forgive-particularly since he saw it all coming before designing it. Again, even if this is Jesus' fiat, how does this make right the actions of the murderer or rapist since it was the victims who were principally offended...you claim they just have to forgive an action. What if they won't? What if they can't? Jesus killing himself doesn't make things right.
Clostridiophile,
ReplyDeleteIs this morality?
I even have a hard time believing that claim I made.
"What if they won't? What if they can't? Jesus killing himself doesn't make things right.
Even if my wife gets raped God wants me to let Him fight my battles. I would struggle with forgiveness my entire life, but God still wants me to love that person. Only through His strength can this be accomplished, otherwise my personality would scream for vigilante actions.
I don't know how God will correct the victims in heaven. To right all the wrongs. How a child, after being molested for years by a priest or an uncle, grows resentful towards God and goes to hell, does not seem like justice. Do all victims go to heaven? I hope so, but I don't believe that is Biblical. It will be one of the first question that I will ask though when I am in front of him.
The hope and justice that is in God is a much better viewpoint then some priest or family member just getting away with it. An atheistic viewpoint is that murderers and rapists sometimes get away with it and that is just life, a flawed universe. A Christians viewpoint is that you cannot run away from God and he will punish the wicked so severely that there would be no question that the penalty fit the crime, a flawless universe. Rape a child in this life, burn for eternity...sounds fair to me. Now flip it, a man rapes 57 children in his lifetime and the last 10 years of his life he truly sees his errors, he truly is repentant and pleads Jesus to save Him. Will God forgive and save that man? I believe so.
What about all those victims that have a hard life because of what happened? What if a few turn to atheism because they are resentful towards God for what happened to them, will God send them to hell. I believe so. Does that seem fair? .......I just don't know.
trust God to do the right thing for all of us though.
I trust God to do the right thing for all of us though.
ReplyDelete"An atheistic viewpoint is that murderers and rapists sometimes get away with it and that is just life, a flawed universe. A Christians viewpoint is that you cannot run away from God and he will punish the wicked so severely that there would be no question that the penalty fit the crime, a flawless universe. Rape a child in this life, burn for eternity...sounds fair to me. Now flip it, a man rapes 57 children in his lifetime and the last 10 years of his life he truly sees his errors, he truly is repentant and pleads Jesus to save Him. Will God forgive and save that man? I believe so."
ReplyDeleteThis, to me is immoral. How an all knowing, all powerful, all loving being could let children be raped is beyond rational justification. To me this is fatal to the "loving" god hypothesis. The atheist view is the view of things as we actually see them. I have no reason to believe what I have been taught since I was a child, that there is these two places people go after death. I don't believe it, and if it turns out to be true, Christians and indeed the Bible tells me that I will go to hell, but the repenting serial rapist will go to heaven. That is crap.
Clostridiophile,
ReplyDelete"I don't believe it, and if it turns out to be true, Christians and indeed the Bible tells me that I will go to hell, but the repenting serial rapist will go to heaven. That is crap."
I will admit that is understandable. But you have to look at it from His point of view. We are all his children and the ones that get saved is the ones who by faith believe that He saved them with that gift. The hard hearts that are 'unrepentant' or not sorry for their wickedness will be punished severely. Let's just say you tell your child not to do something and he says "I don't have to listen to you" and he then does the exact thing you told him not to. Would you punish him? Of course of good parent would.
Now tell his sibling not to do the same thing and that child says that he already did it but this child is crying and really sorry for what he did. He apologized honestly and promises to try harder. My question is, would you punish the second child with the same severity as the first child?
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Unrepentant for the wickedness that you have done is no way to approach God. Someone who has a real change of heart and stops the bad thing that he was doing. Though the punishment still must satisfy the Law, the forgiveness is a little easier.
I have to go but just think about those points I made. I will talk to you later.
"Let's just say you tell your child not to do something and he says "I don't have to listen to you" and he then does the exact thing you told him not to. Would you punish him? Of course of good parent would.
ReplyDeleteNow tell his sibling not to do the same thing and that child says that he already did it but this child is crying and really sorry for what he did. He apologized honestly and promises to try harder. My question is, would you punish the second child with the same severity as the first child?"
Of course the child has no doubt the parent exists. I have no reason to believe that the god you believe in is real.