• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
From Ken Ham's "The Genesis Solution" - Two Castles - the opposition is attacking the literalist Creationist view while the church is attacking the issues like pornography and homosexuality or attacking each other....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1509s

castle-1986.gif


In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

So promoting Creationism can have moral reasons so that you have a strong foundation when trying to promote Biblical values like being against homosexuality, and men being the spiritual head of the family. So that gives Christians more reasons to support Creation science....

Though of course modern day slavery is still wrong - or it is ok under certain circumstances in Bible times....
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/bible-questions/kids-feedback-does-the-bible-promote-slavery/
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

Updated pictures:
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/maturing-the-message/

castle-1987.gif


castle-2010.gif


About clothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1010s
"What did God do? He gave them coats - the first blood sacrifices are covering for their sin - beautiful picture of something to come wasn't it?"
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
From Ken Ham's "The Genesis Solution" - Two Castles - the opposition is attacking the literalist Creationist view while the church is attacking the issues like pornography and homosexuality or attacking each other....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1509s

castle-1986.gif


In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

So promoting Creationism can have moral reasons so that you have a strong foundation when trying to promote Biblical values like being against homosexuality, and men being the spiritual head of the family. So that gives Christians more reasons to support Creation science....

Though of course modern day slavery is still wrong - or it is ok under certain circumstances in Bible times....
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/bible-questions/kids-feedback-does-the-bible-promote-slavery/
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

Updated pictures:
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/maturing-the-message/

castle-1987.gif


castle-2010.gif


About clothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1010s
"What did God do? He gave them coats - the first blood sacrifices are covering for their sin - beautiful picture of something to come wasn't it?"

What does it mean to "be against homosexuality"? There are gay people. How do I "go against" them? What should I attack? That they are what they are? It's bizarre. Sorry, but I'm not going to go against anyone. I'm so glad that I don't have to live a life according to an ancient flawed Jewish handbook in order to appease an invisible god who won't show himself.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
If polling about Christianity in the US is accurate, the folks in the castle on the right reached their high water mark in the 1980s. That doesn't mean their zeal, lack of coherence, or delusions are lessening. Expect that, as they feel more benighted, they'll be even nuttier, very much like their overlapping brotherhood of Trump's angry old white folks.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
What does it mean to "be against homosexuality"? There are gay people. How do I "go against" them? What should I attack?
Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is, especially if the person acts on their desires. Going against it would involve speaking out against it and discouraging it. In more recent versions of the picture this has become "gay marriage" and this would involve fighting the laws, chuches, etc.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Religion and morality have as much to do with each other and eyesight and eye color.
What about the ten commandments, etc? Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.
 

James Brown

Veteran Member
Religion and morality have as much to do with each other and eyesight and eye color.
What about the ten commandments, etc?

The Ten Commandments are a good and original set of laws. Unfortunately, the Commandments that are good are not original, and the Commandments that are original are not good.

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that A) God exists, and that B) he's deeply concerned about the morality of humans, and thus C) there is such a thing as "Objective Morality", there is no way that we Subjective humans can ever know what it is.

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?

All we can do is use the tools that we have available (or if you insist, the tools that God gave us) to determine how to maximize human well-being. Tools like Reason, and Empathy, and Evidence-Based Thinking.

That "religious people" have found that certain behaviors are more desirous than others does not mean that Faith or Religion provides some special insights unavailable to the rest of us. All cultures will prohibit murder for as long as the majority of citizens object to being murdered.

C.S. Lewis was fond of arguing that most people agree on basic rules of decency and fair play, and that is evidence that God exists. Well, arguing that God exists because most people are moral is like arguing that Cupid exists because most people fall in love.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Morality is always man-made and group-made and is the rebuttal, by man, of 'anything goes'. It is the social contract, imperfect as that is and imperfectly followed, as it obviously is. One guy washed up on a deserted island? No need for a moral code. A second person washes up? A code will exist before they know it, whether it's explicitly stated or not. Morality = the rules of group living. Requires no gods, priests, angels, devils, sons of gods, et al. If they intrude on the picture, it's pure pixie dust.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
The Ten Commandments are a good and original set of laws. Unfortunately, the Commandments that are good are not original, and the Commandments that are original are not good.
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.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that A) God exists, and that B) he's deeply concerned about the morality of humans, and thus C) there is such a thing as "Objective Morality", there is no way that we Subjective humans can ever know what it is.
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"...
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Morality is always man-made and group-made and is the rebuttal, by man, of 'anything goes'. It is the social contract, imperfect as that is and imperfectly followed, as it obviously is. One guy washed up on a deserted island? No need for a moral code. A second person washes up? A code will exist before they know it, whether it's explicitly stated or not. Morality = the rules of group living. Requires no gods, priests, angels, devils, sons of gods, et al. If they intrude on the picture, it's pure pixie dust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=70s
If you believe in creation what does that mean? Doesn't it mean there's a creator? The creator owns you, he sets the rules. It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong. He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us. On the other hand if you believe you're a product of chance random processes who owns you? You do. Who sets the rules? You do. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.

Also:
https://youtu.be/KQg30zvvEgI?t=30
Ken: You want to write your own rules about life?
Student: Yes
Ken: Can I write my own rules about life?
Student: Sure sir, everyone can write their own rules
Ken: All right well one of my rules is going to be types like you are dangerous - if I find enough to agree with me we're going to eliminate you from society
Student: You can't do that sir
Ken: Why not?
Student: It's not right
Ken: Why isn't it right?
Student: It's wrong
Ken: Why is it wrong?
Student: It's not right

Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Religion and morality have as much to do with each other and eyesight and eye color.
What about the ten commandments, etc? Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.
The "absolute foundation" is a belief, like believing I'm superior to you. It's dopey juvenalia.

Hambone doesn't really have a god. If he did he wouldn't be jumping through so many hoops. He must be a lot like Joseph Smith. The Hammer could just show us his god, he doesn't even have a fake god. He's a Taliban born in the wrong place so he can't fulfill his dreams.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Ken Ham is not a scholar, not much of an ethicist, and he's truly on the fringe as an extreme Biblical literalist. He has set up, on huge patches of asphalt, two monuments to fairy tales. His morality accepts genocide from a pissed-off god who hasn't yet created the Love God alias. As some standup comedian once quipped, The Flintstones is a documentary to people like Ken.
Do you really want to suggest a god of genocide and chattel slavery as an avatar of morality?
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Morality is always man-made and group-made and is the rebuttal, by man, of 'anything goes'. It is the social contract, imperfect as that is and imperfectly followed, as it obviously is. One guy washed up on a deserted island? No need for a moral code. A second person washes up? A code will exist before they know it, whether it's explicitly stated or not. Morality = the rules of group living. Requires no gods, priests, angels, devils, sons of gods, et al. If they intrude on the picture, it's pure pixie dust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=70s
If you believe in creation what does that mean? Doesn't it mean there's a creator? The creator owns you, he sets the rules. It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong. He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us. On the other hand if you believe you're a product of chance random processes who owns you? You do. Who sets the rules? You do. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.

Also:
https://youtu.be/KQg30zvvEgI?t=30
Ken: You want to write your own rules about life?
Student: Yes
Ken: Can I write my own rules about life?
Student: Sure sir, everyone can write their own rules
Ken: All right well one of my rules is going to be types like you are dangerous - if I find enough to agree with me we're going to eliminate you from society
Student: You can't do that sir
Ken: Why not?
Student: It's not right
Ken: Why isn't it right?
Student: It's wrong
Ken: Why is it wrong?
Student: It's not right

Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....

How about this:

"FUCK YOU KEN!"

Does that help? Because it's as well founded, logical and applicable to human endeavor and divine morality as anything Hammie can pull out of the bible or his ass.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Morality is always man-made and group-made and is the rebuttal, by man, of 'anything goes'. It is the social contract, imperfect as that is and imperfectly followed, as it obviously is. One guy washed up on a deserted island? No need for a moral code. A second person washes up? A code will exist before they know it, whether it's explicitly stated or not. Morality = the rules of group living. Requires no gods, priests, angels, devils, sons of gods, et al. If they intrude on the picture, it's pure pixie dust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=70s
If you believe in creation what does that mean? Doesn't it mean there's a creator? The creator owns you, he sets the rules. It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong. He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us. On the other hand if you believe you're a product of chance random processes who owns you? You do. Who sets the rules? You do. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.

Also:
https://youtu.be/KQg30zvvEgI?t=30
Ken: You want to write your own rules about life?
Student: Yes
Ken: Can I write my own rules about life?
Student: Sure sir, everyone can write their own rules
Ken: All right well one of my rules is going to be types like you are dangerous - if I find enough to agree with me we're going to eliminate you from society
Student: You can't do that sir
Ken: Why not?
Student: It's not right
Ken: Why isn't it right?
Student: It's wrong
Ken: Why is it wrong?
Student: It's not right

Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....

Odd how the world literally has established hundreds of legal codes that delve deeply into what is and isn’t allowed, several setups for determining guilt, and many different ways of applying sentences.

All well in excess of whatever the bible instructed. The idea it can’t happen when it has happened repeatedly is laughable. And because it isn’t absolute, it can adapt and change.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Do you really think that morality without god is based on "anything goes"?
Well Ken Ham was saying that if enough people agreed that the student should be killed then that could be a moral thing to do....

It is difficult to imagine a scenario where every type of killing is acceptable but I think that is theoretically possible.

"Anything goes" would at least involve things like homosexuality, pornography, divorce, racism, etc.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
.....he's truly on the fringe as an extreme Biblical literalist.....
It could be worse - he could have been a Flat Earther - it seems like there isn't a single Bible verse that conflicts with the idea of a flat earth but many that conflict with a globe.
Do you really want to suggest a god of genocide and chattel slavery as an avatar of morality?
I think it's a test to see if the believer truly believes that God is the basis of morality or not.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
.....he's truly on the fringe as an extreme Biblical literalist.....
It could be worse - he could have been a Flat Earther - it seems like there isn't a single Bible verse that conflicts with the idea of a flat earth but many that conflict with a globe.
Do you really want to suggest a god of genocide and chattel slavery as an avatar of morality?
I think it's a test to see if the believer truly believes that God is the basis of morality or not.
So, abuse by god is just a moral test?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Do you really think that morality without god is based on "anything goes"?
Well Ken Ham was saying that if enough people agreed that the student should be killed then that could be a moral thing to do....

It is difficult to imagine a scenario where every type of killing is acceptable but I think that is theoretically possible.

"Anything goes" would at least involve things like homosexuality, pornography, divorce, racism, etc.

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.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
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....
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
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....

No, it isn’t a good example when communal colonies exist across different species of animals.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
From Ken Ham's "The Genesis Solution" - Two Castles - the opposition is attacking the literalist Creationist view while the church is attacking the issues like pornography and homosexuality or attacking each other....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1509s

castle-1986.gif


In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

So promoting Creationism can have moral reasons so that you have a strong foundation when trying to promote Biblical values like being against homosexuality, and men being the spiritual head of the family. So that gives Christians more reasons to support Creation science....

Though of course modern day slavery is still wrong - or it is ok under certain circumstances in Bible times....
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/bible-questions/kids-feedback-does-the-bible-promote-slavery/
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

Updated pictures:
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/maturing-the-message/

castle-1987.gif


castle-2010.gif


About clothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1010s
"What did God do? He gave them coats - the first blood sacrifices are covering for their sin - beautiful picture of something to come wasn't it?"

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.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
From Ken Ham's "The Genesis Solution" - .......

Why should anyone give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? Has he ever said or done anything that would make a debate about his opinions worthwhile? Do you find Ham's arguments credible (the ones you referenced)? If so, why?
 

atrib

Veteran Member
What does it mean to "be against homosexuality"? There are gay people. How do I "go against" them? What should I attack?
Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is, especially if the person acts on their desires. Going against it would involve speaking out against it and discouraging it. In more recent versions of the picture this has become "gay marriage" and this would involve fighting the laws, chuches, etc.

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.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Also, based on these re-posts, Ham ain't nearly as much fun as the old Jack Chick comic book tracts. At least Chick had the sinners covered with skin lesions and roasting in the hellfire. Long live Jack Chick, except he's dead, and maybe in heaven. Or just growing mold underground.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
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....

No, it isn’t a good example when communal colonies exist across different species of animals.
It is about "anything goes"
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
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.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
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.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Also, based on these re-posts, Ham ain't nearly as much fun as the old Jack Chick comic book tracts. At least Chick had the sinners covered with skin lesions and roasting in the hellfire. Long live Jack Chick, except he's dead, and maybe in heaven. Or just growing mold underground.
BTW here's a creation vs evolution Chick tract:
https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0055
It encourages YEC students to argue with their lecturers....
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
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.

If you believe that slavery is wrong or that stoning someone for picking up sticks on a saturday are wrong; then the choice should be easy between the two. Secular Humanism (treating someone as you'd want to be treated and etc.) is far more moral than the morals found in the bible.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Also, based on these re-posts, Ham ain't nearly as much fun as the old Jack Chick comic book tracts. At least Chick had the sinners covered with skin lesions and roasting in the hellfire. Long live Jack Chick, except he's dead, and maybe in heaven. Or just growing mold underground.
BTW here's a creation vs evolution Chick tract:
https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0055
It encourages YEC students to argue with their lecturers....

It teaches them to lie to their lecturers.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
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....

No, it isn’t a good example when communal colonies exist across different species of animals.
It is about "anything goes"

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

atrib

Veteran Member
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.

Again, which arguments of Ham's do you find convincing? And why? I don't care what "a lot of Christians" believe because they are not here to debate the issue. And people believe all kinds of nonsense. You seem to be advocating for Ham's ideas, so what is it that you find convincing about these arguments? Can you spell out your position so we can discuss?
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Religion and morality have as much to do with each other and eyesight and eye color.
What about the ten commandments, etc? Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

The Bible was written by humans, and the text reflects their ideas. There is no evidence to suggest that the code of conduct mandated by the Bible is anything but the creation of human minds. To call it absolute and springing from the mind of an unseen supernatural entity for which no evidence exists is absurd.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

Married mouth-breather
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)
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
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.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
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

Contributor
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.
 
Top Bottom