Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[atrib]

Ken Ham might say that the ten commandments should be followed because they are from God, and whether they are seen by sinful humans as "good" or original is irrelevant.

Based on the Bible and Genesis, Ken Ham would think it is pretty clear that the Bible speaks against pornography (lust), homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, abortion, public nudity and revealing clothing, etc.

Yes, certain people have said that God wants us to do such-and-such, and never to do so-and-so. But there's no reliable way for us to know that these are actually the thoughts and desires of God. What do we do when other people say that God actually desires something completely different?

Well Christians disagree a lot but they try to do the best they can to understand "God's word"...

What Ham thinks is irrelevant. Do you endorse Ham's beliefs on these subjects? If so, why? And why the fuck are you acting as a shill promoting Ham's ideas if you don't agree with them, if that is the case?

 

[atrib]

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

What is this supposed to mean? In-between what? Well established science versus religious dogma? How can one be in-between these ideas that are so fundamentally contradictory? Do you find the claims of Biblical creation credible?

How do you define morality? Do you agree with the Bible that slavery is ok and homosexuals should be killed? If yes, how do you justify your ideas with anything other than "the Bible says so"?

 

[excreationist]

No kidding. And animals have already shown ‘anything goes’ isn’t a natural state for social communities. They managed it without god.

My point is that "anything goes" can sometimes happen like innocent(?) slave girls being fed to lions for entertainment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No kidding. And animals have already shown ‘anything goes’ isn’t a natural state for social communities. They managed it without god.

My point...

Point?

...is that "anything goes" can sometimes happen like innocent(?) slave girls being fed to lions for entertainment.

Those people believed in gods too.

 

[excreationist]

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

What is this supposed to mean? In-between what? Well established science versus religious dogma?

See:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21819-A-God-without-compelling-evidence
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...e-vs-design-(including-a-designed-simulation)
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?22758-Chameleons-and-guided-evolution

Basically I believe I'm probably in a simulation and there is an intelligent force that isn't obvious and I'm unable to convince skeptics of its existence.

How can one be in-between these ideas that are so fundamentally contradictory?

Well millions of years of naturalistic evolution appears to be true but I believe that most simulations didn't explicitly simulate the past from the start (the big bang) to the end but rather generated a plausible past based on various things.

Do you find the claims of Biblical creation credible?

I think most of the things in the Bible never happened. I think Genesis 1 is poetry - see option 2:
https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php

How do you define morality?

Well I'm a fan of Kohlbergs stages of moral development.

Do you agree with the Bible that slavery is ok and homosexuals should be killed?

No

If yes, how do you justify your ideas with anything other than "the Bible says so"?

I believe external intelligent forces exist. I don't think I can really know anything about them... as the Bible says "Satan can appear as an angel of light" (I find it a relevant concept)

 

[excreationist]

Point?

...is that "anything goes" can sometimes happen like innocent(?) slave girls being fed to lions for entertainment.

Those people believed in gods too.

Ken Ham is talking about a particular God and Christians didn't worship the Roman gods including Caesar...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Point?

...is that "anything goes" can sometimes happen like innocent(?) slave girls being fed to lions for entertainment.

Those people believed in gods too.

Ken Ham is talking about a particular God and Christians didn't worship the Roman gods including Caesar...

You don't say. So the position is only one god had anything to do with moral standards. Just add that to the heap of YEC BS.

 

[excreationist]

Ken Ham is talking about a particular God and Christians didn't worship the Roman gods including Caesar...

You don't say. So the position is only one god had anything to do with moral standards. Just add that to the heap of YEC BS.

Yeah the other gods are false gods perhaps from demons or Satan himself.... (apparently)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Social communities evolved into existence and they require an anti-anything goes set of rules to be sustainable. That happened without a god well before there was a god. Heck communal animals exhibit this level of restraint.

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

This is a myth about ancient Rome. The reason Christianity has the moral values it does is because it's a product of the Roman empire. Christian morals are Roman morals. The Bible is basically Judaism shoehorned into a Stoic box.

Both Epicureanism and Stoicism teach the same thing as would later pop up in Christianity. Don't give into carnal pleasures. Be disciplined. Don't be overly emotional. Be frugal. Don't waste money. Honour your family. Be dutiful, etc etc. These two philosophical/religious school were totally dominant in the period when Christianity was formed.

The reason why we know so much about Roman decadence is because the Romans themselves were horrified about decadent Romans, and wrote about it. These authors were then copied and kept alive by Christian monks. As a way to prove how Rome had been decadent and fallen and now with Christianity it was now a moral place. In spite of nothing much changing. It was the same place before and after the conversion to Christianity.

Juvenal was a pagan Roman author and playwrite writing satires where he mercilessly mocks decadent Romans. He comes across as any later Christian. His moral values are indistinguishable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal

The main difference between Christian and pre-Christian Rome was one of free speech. But it wasn't Christianity that created this culture. It was Augustus, who destroyed free speech in order to destroy the Roman republic and make himself dictator.

When Nero singled out Christians as horrendous and an evil conspiracy and persecuted them. Nobody bought into his bullshit. For this mobs stormed his palace and forced him out of power. These weren't Christians. These were pagans. Everybody thought the way he treated Christians was immoral. And above all, everybody thought the way Nero was behaving, ie a life of orgies and sex, was immoral.

I suggest reading about the pre-Christian pagan cult of Isis. It's basically Christianity. It's exactly the same ideas and faith. Just with other symbols. Born in Egypt around 300 BC and spread throughout the Roman empire. Roman's were really into Christian style moral values long before Jesus was ever born. It goes all the way back to the foundation of the Roman Republic (510 BC) and probably even further back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysteries_of_Isis

The Roman gladiatorial games have at this point become largely mythic activities. Gladiators were basically WWF style wrestlers. It was all staged for entertainment and gladiators rarely died. Baked into the numbers of those dead in the gladiatorial games were condemned prisoners. Those sentenced to death got executed in the arena. No, they didn't get to fight as gladiators. They were just killed. Just like Europe continued to do after Rome became Christian. The Roman gladiatorial games was mostly just stage shows to celebrate various significant events. Comparable to us today going to the movies.

Christians criticizing the immorality and decadence of Rome is stupid. Because they are basically criticizing themselves.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

In between what?

Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive. If you're nice and have a lot of friends you are more likely to survive and spread your genes.

Creation teaches us that God is powerful, we are not, if we aren't nice to each other he will torture us for eternity.

In both models the threat of death encourages us to be kind to each other. The result is the same.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No kidding. And animals have already shown ‘anything goes’ isn’t a natural state for social communities. They managed it without god.

My point is that "anything goes" can sometimes happen like innocent(?) slave girls being fed to lions for entertainment.

When the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire, the lions were not set free. The games continued under new management.
The Christains just started throwing Pagans to them.
Because morality, i guess...?

 

[excreationist]

Social communities evolved into existence and they require an anti-anything goes set of rules to be sustainable. That happened without a god well before there was a god. Heck communal animals exhibit this level of restraint.

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

This is a myth about ancient Rome. The reason Christianity has the moral values it does is because it's a product of the Roman empire.

If I wasn't clear I didn't intend that post to be about Christianity.... Alan Watts is interested in Eastern thought and doesn't seem to be a Christian. I'm curious about what you know about his example of slave girls being fed to lions - I assume it is true.
I think it is significant for emperors to declare themselves to be a god though I'm mainly just interested in the slave girls (see about 7 minutes in).

 

[excreationist]

When the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire, the lions were not set free. The games continued under new management.
The Christains just started throwing Pagans to them.
Because morality, i guess...?

I didn't know that....

 

[excreationist]

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

In between what?

Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive. If you're nice and have a lot of friends you are more likely to survive and spread your genes.

Creation teaches us that God is powerful, we are not, if we aren't nice to each other he will torture us for eternity.

In both models the threat of death encourages us to be kind to each other. The result is the same.

I don't think I'm alone but on the other hand it isn't clear what the intelligent force wants of me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is a myth about ancient Rome. The reason Christianity has the moral values it does is because it's a product of the Roman empire.

If I wasn't clear I didn't intend that post to be about Christianity.... Alan Watts is interested in Eastern thought and doesn't seem to be a Christian. I'm curious about what you know about his example of slave girls being fed to lions - I assume it is true.
I think it is significant for emperors to declare themselves to be a god though I'm mainly just interested in the slave girls (see about 7 minutes in).

The reason Alan Watts brings up the decadent antics of Nero and his absurdly extravagant games was because it horrified contemporary Romans. That's why he is so famously reviled. Apart from their views on slavery Roman morals weren't all that different from ours.

Yeah, it's horrible. Nero thought he could buy the love from his people by going over the top with extravagance and shows. But he grossly misread the Roman tastes and desires. And it cost him his life. Nero was almost universally reviled during and after his rule. He managed to become even less popular than Caligula. And that's quite a feat.

I agree with both Allan Watts and the Roman people. Feeding slave girls to lions isn't cool.

Being a god and getting deified in Rome doesn't mean what it came to mean later when we became Christian. All it means is that they wanted to be revered and deserved respect. It's no different than USA going on and on about their founding fathers. It's the same thing. Or to put it differently, being a god in Christianity is a really really big deal. Being god in paganism is only a big deal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

In between what?

Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive. If you're nice and have a lot of friends you are more likely to survive and spread your genes.

Creation teaches us that God is powerful, we are not, if we aren't nice to each other he will torture us for eternity.

In both models the threat of death encourages us to be kind to each other. The result is the same.

I don't think I'm alone but on the other hand it isn't clear what the intelligent force wants of me.

If you don't know what the intelligent force wants of you, you're in the same position as if there was no intelligent force. In practice you're in the same boat as atheists.

I think that's a great first step into any deep understanding of life. I'm not going to talk you into becoming an atheist. Because I don't think it matters. But I think it's important for anybody to understand, if they're ever going to be fully adult, that there are no ready made answers out there. Nobody really knows wtf is going on. We're all just guessing.

The correct answers is that there's no way for you to know what the universe wants from you. So you can stop trying to figure it out.

The Nietzschean solution is what philosophers later called "affirmative Nihilism". Basically, invent a God and follow it. Or join an existing religion. It doesn't really matter.

My current girlfriend is Christian. One day when she was going to church I joined her. Now I go to church on Sundays. I'm an atheist. I can follow any religion. I'm cool with it. To me God is just a metaphor. The good news is that there's no way to fuck it up. With "it" I mean life. No matter what you do you'll fail or succeed at the same rate

 

[ideologyhunter]

Again, why should we give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? His nonsense has been debunked over and over, and one doesn't have to look very far to find good rebuttals to most of Ham's opinions. If you find his claims to be credible, make your case, don't just link to the garbage he puts out.

I think Ken is the main source of the whole morality based on evolution vs creation concept that's why I quote him when I can.
Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

Just curious -- and obviously, you have no burden to respond -- but have you read such works as (the online title) God Is Imaginary...or Paine's Age of Reason...or Dawkins' The God Delusion...or any of the many Ingersoll collections? Did they make compelling arguments? When you weigh such writers against Ken Ham, who seems more substantial and who speaks more powerfully to your experience?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think Ken is the main source of the whole morality based on evolution vs creation concept that's why I quote him when I can.

Ken's a late-comer to the whole idea that we can only have morality if it's bible-based and god-breathed. This was among the initial reactions to the theory of evolution, that it viewed Genesis as allegory at best, God as unnecessary, and man as merely an animal. Thus we'd be cast adrift without any objective morality.

Ken's just loud about it. And a bit more scholarly than Ray Comfort. A teeny bit more rational than Kent Hovind. Less froth-at-the-mouth than Jack Chick.

Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

I don't think he convinces anyone to change their mind to creationism. He's one of a bunch or charlatans that convince already-believing Theists that their views are correct and science doesn't disprove them.
As mentioned above, his arguments are isolated ones, and only deal with one claim at a time, so as a whole the creationist model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[excreationist]

Just curious -- and obviously, you have no burden to respond -- but have you read such works as (the online title) God Is Imaginary...or Paine's Age of Reason...or Dawkins' The God Delusion...or any of the many Ingersoll collections? Did they make compelling arguments? When you weigh such writers against Ken Ham, who seems more substantial and who speaks more powerfully to your experience?

Well I don't believe that most of the Bible is historical or scientific and a lot isn't moral - I see it as a kind of test:
https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
Some readers of the Bible would think that "God is perfectly just and loving, even if most people are going to hell, perhaps forever".
I believe in an intelligent force so I disagree with that aspect of atheist books.

 

[excreationist]

Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

I don't think he convinces anyone to change their mind to creationism. He's one of a bunch or charlatans that convince already-believing Theists that their views are correct and science doesn't disprove them.
As mentioned above, his arguments are isolated ones, and only deal with one claim at a time, so as a whole the creationist model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If he never converts Christians to YEC then I wonder why he is now the CEO of Answers in Genesis and helped create the multi-million dollar Creation Museum and Ark Encounter... he also published many volumes of The Answers Book which has answers for common answers/objections...