I've previously written about whether science and faith can be reconciled - they can't. But, today in the HuffPo, I find someone trying to argue that only good Xians accept evolution.
What?
Apart from the obvious problems of reconciling the Bible with a naturalistic account of the origin of the universe and then subsequently with the origin of species...
Wait, what?
Apparently Mr. Dudley's claim is that Xianity has always embraced science, so standing in the way of science now is un-Xian.
In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
This, of course, only tells half the story. Sure, Xians have always embraced science, so long as they were in control of what it said and they could easily fit it into their pre-conceived notions of how the world was supposed to work. IOW, as long as they could control the content so that it only said what they wanted, they were all for it. Look at what happened the moment scientists started to speak out and show that long-held "truths" of the church were not actually true. Galileo anyone? And, that's just one example. A more modern example is the creationist movement that attempts to hijack science classrooms and force their beliefs down everyone's throats.
But, even when Xians were supposedly supportive of science, they really were not. They were attempting to force the facts to fit their pre-determined conclusions. It was anti-scientific from the get-go. That is because science in its essence is the eschewing of faith, while religion relies on faith.
Not that everything Dudley says is bad:
Because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
Yes, exactly. Evolution explains the data, creationism is sadly lacking. But, then he goes back to claiming that it's un-Xian, and even says that those who reject the data ought to rip pages out of their Bibles:
Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles. Because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.
The only way to "reconcile" the Bible with the natural world is to ignore the data. It's not the creationists that should be ripping out pages, it's Dudley. He's engaging in post-hoc rationalizations in order to shoehorn his Bible into the scientific knowledge of the day and greatly distorting it in the process - it would be better for him to simply jettison the superstitious mythology known as Xianity. It would be great if he were correct and we could maybe convince Xians to stop ignoring the scientific data and even actively fighting against it, but it wouldn't be true.
36 comments:
"But what is scientific and what is faith?"
Faith is the belief in things despite the evidence or lack of it. Science is the process of following the scientific method to objectively come to learn about the world. They are not even close to equivalent.
"He said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing."
And he was wrong. We understand nothing by faith. If that were true, then we could say that all kinds of crazy and contradictory things are true...much like Xianity tries to do (as do all other religions out there).
"However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith."
No, this is a false equivalence. The (tentative) conclusions of science are born from the physical/empirical evidence that we have. It's not like someone simply decided to declare that the big bang happened out of the blue and scientists said, "Yes, this man is a prophet, therefore we will believe this."
"We cannot prove the foundation of the evolution theory, the big bang and spontaneous generation, in a laboratory: they are based on faith in the minds of people."
Um, the foundation of evolution is well evidenced as is the foundation of the big bang. No one claims spontaneous generation, however.
"As a matter of fact, many so-called scientific issues are based on faith like is the spiritual life and faith in the supernatural God."
Not even close.
"The question is which of the alternatives we deem more realistic – the belief in the haphazard origin or creation – because neither of them cannot be properly proven afterwards."
Again, not even close. It's not a 50/50 choice between science and faith. Science is built upon empirical foundations with actual evidence. Faith is built upon made up tales with no evidence. These are not equivalent and it's not simply a case of which you like better.
"In this issue one should use his common sense because in that way it is possible to proceed at least a little."
Indeed, perhaps if people did use common sense they might realize that people making up tall tales of what they wish were true does not carry the same weight as empirical evidence. Besides, how do you differentiate your faith from the faith of those of other religions? How can you possibly tell that your faith is true and gives accurate accounting of the world and their's does not? Answer: You can't.
Faith is confidence in the conviction of the truth of anything. It is the belief in what has not been observed by the senses- Hebrews 11:1.
We understand everything by faith because in order to reason logically, a person must believe in the laws of logic. However, laws of logic are immaterial and therefore cannot be observed by the senses. So, belief in laws of logic is a type of faith. This is only rational in a Christian worldview because it is a reflection of who God is and how He thinks.
For example: The Law of Identity-
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Ex. 3:14
Science is based on the biblical worldview; it requires predictability in nature which is only made by possible by the fact that God upholds the universe in a consistent way.
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. Genesis 8:22
Such predictability would not make sense in a "chance" universe. Why would it adhere to any laws? Understandably, it is something other worldviews recognize, but it is taken for granted that the future will be like the past, in order to make a systematic approach to testing, observing, and repeatable experiments possible.
The Big Bang certainly cannot account for the law of nature regarding information. Only matter and energy were said to be created at the point of this big explosion; however these are material entities. Something material cannot create something non-material such as information and consciousness. Therefore, a universe composed of solely matter and energy is false.
What evidence is there for evolution? If one believes that life originated from pond scum, then that violates the law of biogenesis- only life can produce life. Also, it cannot account for the preconditions intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality, why would pond scum senses be reliable? As far as the claim that we originated from common ancestors, what is the basis for this reasoning? There have been no intermediate links found that would lead to this conclusion.
Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute, stated: "There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys.... He appeared SUDDENLY and in substantially the same form as he is today.... There are no such things as missing links."
He also said, "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists appear to have the best of the argument. There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR GROUPS AROSE FROM ANY OTHER. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation." (Meldau, Fred John, Witness Against Evolution, Christian Victory Publishing Co., Denver, Colo., 1953, page 39, 40, 73).
"We understand everything by faith because in order to reason logically, a person must believe in the laws of logic."
This is what is commonly known as equivocation. The "faith" that you describe that is used to believe in religious myths is not at all the same as the "belief" that one has based on evidence and reason.
"This is only rational in a Christian worldview because it is a reflection of who God is and how He thinks."
Incorrect. It is rational because we can empirically show that the universe behaves in certain ways. Throw in an omni-god into the mix and we have no assurance that this god will not intervene and change things at any given time (a la miracles for instance). IOW, Xianity destroys the concept of orderliness and rationality.
"Science is based on the biblical worldview..."
Wrong again. Science is based on a method that utilizes empirical study. There need not be any assumption of Biblical anything. In fact, making Biblical assumptions undermines science.
"The Big Bang certainly cannot account for the law of nature regarding information. Only matter and energy were said to be created at the point of this big explosion; however these are material entities."
Are you going to demonstrate that you don't actually understand what is meant by information now? Information as a buzzword by creationists is not used properly. Information, in the proper sense is not a deterrent to science or accounts of the universe that are well supported by the empirical evidence.
"Something material cannot create something non-material such as information and consciousness."
This is simply false. Let's take a favorite of the creationists when they argue that mutations in the DNA reduce information. Sometimes a point mutation can occur where one base will mutate into another. The creationists will claim that this is a loss of information. Yet, sometimes in the next generation that same base will mutate back to what it previously was. Is this still a loss of information or was information gained?
"What evidence is there for evolution?"
Really? Pick up a modern textbook sometime. There's fossils, DNA, medicine, homology, etc. Perhaps you should look at this.
"If one believes that life originated from pond scum, then that violates the law of biogenesis- only life can produce life."
The "law of biogenesis" was a criticism of spontaneous generation, which is quite different from the theories of abiogenesis that you so blithely and incorrectly sum up as life "originat[ing] from pond scum."
"Also, it cannot account for the preconditions intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality, why would pond scum senses be reliable?"
You are rather confused about what evolution is and says. Evolution has nothing to do with the "laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality." The first one is an empirical result, the second is an emergent result of the formation of the universe (we don't know why, but as I explained above, the idea of god throws a monkey wrench into the works), and the third is most likely not something that actually exists.
"As far as the claim that we originated from common ancestors, what is the basis for this reasoning?"
See the link I provided above.
"There have been no intermediate links found that would lead to this conclusion."
Perhaps you've never heard of Tiktallik, the chromosomal fusion in hominids from other apes, the hominid fossil lines, the fossil lines of horses or whales, etc? I'm sure you haven't.
"Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute, stated..."
The guy who died back in the 1950's? Not only is he demonstrably wrong, but he was wrong back then too, as the scientific community had already come to the conclusion that he was wrong.
Exactly, "Evolution has nothing to do with the "laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality." Since that is the case, you've proven that you cannot "know" anything at all, seeing as though you have given up all claims to rationality. Without the "abstract" laws of logic, no one could prove anything at all. The fact that you are trying to make an argument proves that you and evolution are wrong.
Scientific study is based on the uniformity of nature. The laws of nature do not arbitrarily change with time and space. Otherwise, how could scientists experiment and make predictions if physical laws didn’t operate consistently? But, you're right, evolution has nothing to do with this.
If evolution were true, the brain is just the outworkings of random-chemical processes; a collection of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
I've already shown your inconsistencies regarding morality, so that's case closed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/check-this-out/evolution-refuted
http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
"Exactly, "Evolution has nothing to do with the "laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality." Since that is the case, you've proven that you cannot "know" anything at all, seeing as though you have given up all claims to rationality."
What in the world are you talking about? Evolution does not cause any of those things, and when I state that I'm giving up on rationality? If you want to talk rationality, perhaps you could start by using it?
"Without the "abstract" laws of logic, no one could prove anything at all."
Incorrect. The "laws of logic" are themselves generalizations made from observation of real phenomena. Do you actually think that someone plucked the law of appeal to inappropriate authority out of thin air and it became binding upon the universe? It was something that people noticed and the codified as a guide to how the universe works, not the other way round.
"The fact that you are trying to make an argument proves that you and evolution are wrong."
Wow, you are really reaching here.
"Scientific study is based on the uniformity of nature."
No, it is based on the scientific method. That nature tends to conform to certain behaviors is greatly beneficial to us.
"The laws of nature do not arbitrarily change with time and space."
Except when god arbitrarily changes them, right?
"But, you're right, evolution has nothing to do with this."
No, I'm right about what I said. You claimed that evolution should account for these things and does not. It does not. Evolution is the theory of how life develops and diversifies, not how things like logic are developed. You're either confused about what you, yourself, wrote, or are trying to muddy the waters and poison the well.
"If evolution were true, the brain is just the outworkings of random-chemical processes; a collection of chemistry acting over time."
As far as we can tell, that seems to be what the brain is.
"Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry. "
This is a non-sequitor.
"Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science."
Again, this is a non-sequitor. It literally does not follow.
"I've already shown your inconsistencies regarding morality, so that's case closed."
No, you haven't. You've made bad and confused assertions that show you really don't have much idea what you are talking about. You may be trying to crib from some creationist website, but you seem to understand the material even less than they do.
I do agree that the case is closed, however, and it's been closed for a while in evolution's favor. Creationism has not one speck of evidence in its favor, while evolution has mountains of evidence. It's a walk-over as there's really only one choice in the running.
"http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/check-this-out/evolution-refuted"
Wow, that is really bad - but I expect no less from AiG - an organization that outright states that nothing can contradict the Bible, so all empirical observations that do contradict it are wrong from the get-go. Ya know, because deciding on your outcomes before you start is so scientific and all.
"Fact 1: There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."
Really? I've already given an example of point mutations reversing in a previous comment on this thread which puts the lie to this. And, that's just one example. The real process is mutation. We've already observed it add function to organisms as the link I provided will point out.
Their "Fact 2" is just Pasteur's law of biogenesis again, which I've already dealt with and is no impediment to evolution (it commits the fallacy of equivocating evolution with abiogenesis showing that the videographers don't actually know what evolution entails - they just think it's wrong regardless of what it actually says).
"http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm"
Misrepresentations abound - I'm not going into all of them. Additionally, we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. Even if god put the first replicating life forms on the planet, evolution took over from there as has been conclusively demonstrated.
"http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp"
Again, this is about abiogenesis. Bergman is a clueless idiot as well (amply demonstrated many times by PZ Myers). His probabilistic arguments are based on straw man interpretations. He is claiming to show the probability that all pieces of a specific piece will all spontaneously appear and join together all at the same time from an infinite set of possibilities and rightly calls that impossible. But, it's an argument against something that no one is suggesting (I figured you don't know what a straw man argument actually is).
God created science! Yes He did and everything created is a miracle including yourself. God is something else. I know because He let me know but I can't say this because you would think I was crazy but I am saying this even though you may think I am. I am not crazy and do not talk about religion. But please know God is actually real. He really is.
Yup, the universe is unchanging so that science can study it, except when god does miracle stuff, which violates science, but it's only because we have a god that can violate the regularity of the universe that we can consider a regular universe at all.
Whenever people use this argument, it always makes me laugh.
You've figured out nothing at all, especially not about me and the extent of what I know. Nonetheless, I am able to bypass your emotional language and say that my God loves science and he wants you by faith to accept his word and empirically prove it for yourself; not through and by other people who can lie, misunderstand evidence, or purposely seek to deceive you so that you don't obtain knowledge and life.
In seeking the truth of a matter a clear interpretation is needed as well as an understanding of its context. Misrepresenting words such as faith and making false statements about biblical teaching, discounting historical evidence with bias, dismissing important subjects such as laws especially of thought (which is the seat of all reasoning and knowledge), or failing to do just a little more research about the true definition of science or what it has revealed about the body, mind, spirit, is a big deal. It will lead you the wrong way every time.
A being/substance proves the truth of any claim about itself and what it is not. It is self-evident (first principle of thought/reason- Law of Identity). It is governed by it's natural instincts or the way it would act with no prior knowledge and has specific attributes. Therefore, it is definable and recognizable, so it exists. We add to them symbolic designation, i.e. God.
Just as we afford every other Being the luxury of believing their word is bond by accepting will and testaments or other forms of testimony; the same is said for the testimonies in the Bible. One step further, the principles in it can be empirically observed and tested, showing proof what it speaks the truth and gives knowledge to the experimenter. By the way, science in the bible means mind, thought, place of knowledge, so faith in God and science cannot be opposition because revering God brings knowledge.
You "hate" Jesus because of fear. He represents what you don't understand or refuse to comprehend. Jesus is the example, not people who can be just as influenced by wrong things as you can. Jesus never did anything or anyone wrong. People, even Christians (especially those just sporting the name), hurt people. This is why God is not interested in religion, but a relationship with believers. That way they aren't just going through the motions, but actually getting to know him so much that try and always act the right way.
Long comment, tried to make it short. Seek his word and prove it for yourself, if you love science, you'll love it once you understand how it reads. It can be proved time and time again by your physical senses and your experiences in life.
"You've figured out nothing at all, especially not about me and the extent of what I know. "
Incorrect. It's quite apparent that you're confused about a great many things, especially science.
"Nonetheless, I am able to bypass your emotional language..."
???
"...my God loves science and he wants you by faith to accept his word and empirically prove it for yourself..."
This sounds like a testable claim. If you claim to have empirical ways of proving god, I expect you to present them.
"...not through and by other people who can lie, misunderstand evidence, or purposely seek to deceive you so that you don't obtain knowledge and life."
Are you actually suggesting that there are people out there who believe in god but are purposely lying about it and trying to mislead others away from belief in god?
"Misrepresenting words such as faith..."
You're the one who tried to conflate the meaning of the word.
"...making false statements about biblical teaching..."
No one has done that on this thread that I'm aware of.
"...discounting historical evidence with bias..."
Do you mean discounting biased historical evidence? If so, then why shouldn't we, or at least understand the bias and take the "evidence" with a grain of salt. Or, did you mean discounting evidence because of bias, which is what you do when you discount evidence for evolution?
"...dismissing important subjects such as laws especially of thought..."
Only your straw men have done this...well maybe you're doing it too by making such horribly bad statements about logic...
"...or failing to do just a little more research about the true definition of science..."
You don't understand science and yet you feel the right to chastise me over what science is and means?
"We add to them symbolic designation, i.e. God."
That's an unjustified leap of logic. To assert that a god exists, you need evidence. You claimed that you had empirical proof - where is it?
"Just as we afford every other Being the luxury of believing their word is bond by accepting will and testaments or other forms of testimony..."
No we don't. Where did you get this idea from? You certainly don't accept the testaments of gods other than the one you believe in, do you?
"...the same is said for the testimonies in the Bible."
The "testimonies" in the Bible are written well after the fact by non-witnesses, cribbed from each other, wildly disagree with each other, and are wholly unreliable.
"One step further, the principles in it can be empirically observed and tested, showing proof what it speaks the truth and gives knowledge to the experimenter."
Again, if you make a claim like this, I expect you to back it up. Where is the empirical backing for the Bible and your belief in god?
"By the way, science in the bible means mind, thought, place of knowledge, so faith in God and science cannot be opposition because revering God brings knowledge."
You don't get to redefine words. Further, I don't even think the word "science" is used in the Bible. Lastly, faith in god and science are in opposition because science is the process of eliminating assumptions and not using faith.
"You "hate" Jesus because of fear."
Actually, the title of the blog is hyperbole and I didn't even pick it (I inherited this blog). One can not actually hate a fictional character.
"He represents what you don't understand or refuse to comprehend."
I understand Xianity quite well, thank you, and I reject it's barbarous nature and ridiculous beliefs.
"Jesus never did anything or anyone wrong."
He used physical violence against the traders in the temple, he preached thought crime, and he invented the concept of torture in hell (if we are to believe the tales of him in the Bible). Those are all wrong.
"This is why God is not interested in religion, but a relationship with believers."
Sigh. You're not one of those people who think you're not part of a religion because you have a personal relationship with god are you?
"Seek his word and prove it for yourself..."
What is the secret empirical test that you claim one can do, but so far have yet to present?
"...if you love science, you'll love it once you understand how it reads."
This is a nonsensical statement.
"It can be proved time and time again by your physical senses and your experiences in life."
What can be proved? god can be proved? Then do so, or tell me how one goes about doing it. I don't think you can, however, and are once again speaking out of your backside. But, prove me wrong by presenting your empirical test that proves god.
All I know is that Jesus saved my life. Not through wishful thinking or self help books, JESUS saved my life. I won't exchange big words with you or try to out wit you with scripture that you will twist and contort. I only have this...Every knee shall bend every head will bow every tongue shall confess, Jesus Christ is Lord. What argument will you have before the God who created you when u die. I pray the Lord opens your eyes before you have an eternity of regret. You may hate him, but he still loves u.
Jesus is a mythical figure and couldn't save your life even if you really wanted him to. What really happened either came from within or came from someone else and you are misattributing it to Jesus. It's a common thing and something that does bug me.
Secondly, 'Jesus loves us and you better beware or else!' It amazes me how much people can throw this argument around and not even recognize the contradiction in a supposedly loving god that is hanging the threat of torture over our heads.
And, no I don't actually hate Jesus, since it's a fictional character.
your 'scientific evidence' is irrelevant if it is incorrect. exemplia gratia: the bones in a whale thay you incorrectly believe are 'leg bones' or whatever such nonsense are used during reproduction. furthermore the remains of a human tail is not remains of anything, you use it everyday as there are muscles attached to it that hold in your shit... apparently yours isn't working. I could go on but I know it won't make a difference, so I'll simply wish you all the best in your ignorant endeavors to destroy religion.
"your 'scientific evidence' is irrelevant if it is incorrect."
Evolution rests upon a mountain of evidence (literally in some cases). Even if one instance here or there is wrong, evolution is still standing. Creationism, OTOH, has no evidence and no standing.
"exemplia gratia: the bones in a whale thay you incorrectly believe are 'leg bones' or whatever such nonsense are used during reproduction."
Even if this is true, it does not mean that the bones were not first used for legs. Re-purposing of parts is very much within the scope of evolution, and we've pretty well seen that whales were indeed land creatures that went back into the water. It fits the fossil record, it fits the lineage (why they are mammals), and it fits with the other lines of evidence we have.
"furthermore the remains of a human tail is not remains of anything, you use it everyday as there are muscles attached to it that hold in your shit... apparently yours isn't working."
Nice ad hominem, but incorrect. The tail bone is in fact vestigial. I'd suggest you actually learn what that word means before you embarrass yourself further.
"I could go on but I know it won't make a difference, so I'll simply wish you all the best in your ignorant endeavors to destroy religion."
Couple things here:
1. It would make a difference if you actually had some evidence for your proposed solution, but you don't.
2. It would make a difference if you knew what you were talking about, but instead you are making irrelevant claims that don't defeat evolution.
3. Funny how you claim I am ignorant when it is you that deem to claim that evolution is wrong while being very ignorant about the very basis and facts of it.
you need Jesus in your life! Without Him there is no happiness...
I'm plenty happy without Jesus, so no thanks.
Friend, you can spend your whole life without Jesus, but please do not die without him...
Why not? Because your god of love will then torture me for eternity? You gotta love the implicit threat involved.
The Lord Jesus loves you very much, and He wants anyone to go to hell, but those who do not accept Him as Savior can not live forever with Him in glory ... Repent while there is time! Jesus loves you and wants to save you!
---"The Lord Jesus loves you very much, and He wants anyone to go to hell . . . "
How does that make any sense? He loves people, but He wants them tortured?
Is Lord Jesus psychopathic? Schizophrenic?
Is the "Lamb of God" Hannibal Lecter?
---"Do you hear the screaming of the lambs, Clarice?"
Anonymous, please explain.
Did you mean to say: Lord Jesus DOES NOT want anyone to go to Hell?
Because, as almighty God, if that's what He wants, isn't that what He gets?
He wants everyone to be saved. but people are not doing to deserve
So, we are created to be flawed, sinful beings.
And then, if we fall short of perfection, we deserve to be tortured.
Is that it?
Sado-Masochism.
What Tigerboy said...
I'll also add that you can't accept Jesus as savior if you don't believe he exists. There's some serious problems in your theology because of that.
God created man perfect, but the man who would not follow his orders, he would not obey him, but God loves us anyway, so he sent Jesus, that He might forgive our errors. My friend, I will not argue with you, but please think about it.
I can not speak English, so I always put the google translator to speak with you, because I'm from Brazil. Please friend, read John 3:16. is very important, please do so.
Friend, please think about this:
In your theology, your God created EVERYTHING exactly as He wished it to be. If we "sin," it is because that is how He created us to behave. We did not design ourselves. God designed us and then turned on the power switch.
How are we responsible for a flawed design?
How are we deserving of torture for incorrect behavior?
We didn't create "temptation," or "sin," or ANY part of the desire to succumb to either.
Where does Satan fit in to this scenario? Is he not, also, a creation of your all-powerful creator? He didn't create himself!
ALL is the work of your God.
To torture powerless, flawed beings for a failure to measure-up to a preordained LACK of perfection is vicious, sado-masochistic cruelty! There is no way around it!
Good thing it is just so much FOOLISHNESS. There is no evidence for it, whatsoever. None.
Why should any intelligent person believe it? They shouldn't.
Why does god need a human sacrifice in order to forgive?
Please do not harden your heart to the Word of God ... because it is Satan who puts thoughts in the mind of man that are not pleasing to God ...
You didn't answer the question.
"Why does God need a human sacrifice in order to forgive?"
Think about it.
How does the killing of one being erase the wrongdoing of another?
The term "scapegoat" has its origins in the traditional Jewish feast of Yom Kippur, in which the transgressions of the people were ceremonially transferred by the high priest onto the head of a sacrificial goat which was then banished into the wilderness, or killed.
Jesus is a human scapegoat.
Barbarism.
Are we not more civilized than this?
Science is a truly explanation of how the life works. Why the hell do you still blind people's minds by telling them those human created stories?
Post a Comment