nice post, bennie.

dan, it's not clear to which posts you're referring. i think, like a number of others here, i've been working hard to try to find and clarify the common ground, and i intended no insult to anyone. but i have no doubt that if i stick around, my intentions will change and be unambiguous.

goodthief, csteele, and davidf thank-you very much. i very much enjoyed and appreciated the conversation. hope to see you on a future thread.

michael2, i think you may have gotten your wish

Bushbasher, you said, “I'm sure if you wait around, there'll be a silly anti-evolution article along soon.”

However, I’m not so sure.

Has there ever been an article published on OLO from a creationist perspective? Perhaps there has, but I’ve never seen one.

It’s part of the nature of the creation/evolution debate that creationists rarely get to argue their case on a level playing field. These and other forums are filled with posts arguing their position, for or against creationism, but when do the creationists themselves get to put their case, a decent length article, in their own words, in secular forums?

(Attention, Graham, or whoever else may have a say in this matter! If it’s good for the goose…!)

What I would appreciate is to see an article from a qualified creationist, that is, a qualified scientist who accepts the account of Genesis as straight narrative, and the best explanation for the origin of life on this planet.

I’m willing to take a bet that I won’t see this on OLO, but I am also quite happy to be proven wrong in this regard.

(I think its more likely I’ll get responses from those who say creationists don’t ‘deserve’ the right of reply, or equal time in debate.)

Dan S de Merengue wrote:

"I also tire of the intended insult that I often read in these posts, referring to Christians acting upon ‘whispers in their head’. This only shows a lack of understanding and even lack of will to understand the faith and the propositional truths contained in Scripture."

I wrote about a man willing to kill because he heard a voice telling him to sacrifice his son. It was no Christian but Abraham, a Jew, who, according to the Bible, heard the voice. This was long before Christianity was invented. The 9/11 fanatics probably thought they were following God's will. Timothy McVeigh was executed for the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which claimed 168 lives and remains the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in the United States. He contended that his bombing of the Murrah building was a justifiable response to what he believed were the crimes of the U.S. government at Waco, Texas, during the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian complex that resulted in the death of 76 Branch Davidian members. McVeigh and the 9/11 murderers followed the precedent of Abraham. They were willing to commit atrocities to demonstrate their faith. I am afraid of what people with faith do to demonstrate their faith.

Such pathology is not limited to Christians, and I do not single out Christians. The problem is unreasoning faith whether it is in religion or ideology with a shorter shelf time than religion. There are believers in both the eventual Marxist classless society and the Second Coming. Both belief systems accept the myth of the millennium. The problem is broader than Christianity and religion. The problem is faith in unprovable propositions.

I understand religious faith because I have had such a faith. It was only after questioning and long deliberation that I abandoned it. Scripture with its ambiguities and an inconsistent deity is an inadequate guide for life. I am tired of religionists confusing faith and truth.

I think questioning, looking at the evidence and reason are far better guides for human knowledge and action than faith.

bushbasher, Yes, I’m essentially a) type – because I distinguish between what is and what should be, and believe we need authoritative guidance on the latter. My thinking is not “God is good” but “goodness is Godly”. I start with God and proceed from there: anything that accords with His nature and will is “good”. Doesn’t mean God exists, just means the belief in God is a basis for attributing/recognising value.

david f, Thank you for your candour. I’m sorry if it seemed I presumed to know your personal history. I was only trying to track your thoughts “back” to the assumption. My point is that empirically minded people have chosen to be so, they didn’t have to be. The assumption was chosen. You could have chosen otherwise – eg a wider base, not limited to evidence. Empiricism tends to close God out. The possibility of God, I mean. So, if ever there was any risk that you might [again] believe in God, your demand for evidence has securely locked that possibility out. Okay if there is no God. Very sad if there is.

For what it’s worth, I think I understand the bemusement or repugnance one can feel at some biblical episodes and how that reaction might influence your large decisions. For myself, because I already love God very dearly, the bemusement is something I try to reconcile with the very loving God I am (or imagine myself to be?) acquainted with. I may wrestle with such episodes, or study them (they’re usually not as bad as they first appear) or just put them aside till I can deal with them.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but a precocious one. Your quotes are a good example: the Hebrew scriptures didn’t link the two ideas you refer to. Jesus took it upon himself to coalesce them into a single Commandment. No Jewish rabbi would have dared take such a liberty (and expect to retain any credibility).

“six foot two, eyes of blue”: the Western co-opting of Jesus is natural, I suppose, but unfortunate. I imagine it piques Him occasionally.

Pax,

csteele, You say, “I have a faith in the human race. I believe that given a chance most humans want to live in peace and harmony.” You seem to be saying that humans are a source of value. I only have a bunch of questions:

i) Why – evolution, our track record?

ii) People disagree about a lot of moral questions, so how do we glean something authoritative?

iii) “Most” – majority rule? Can’t the majority be wrong?

iv) What’s good about peace and harmony? I see the practical advantages to humanity, but why “should” humanity be advantaged? This goes back to GP’s original question.

The hardening of Pharoah’s heart. I lack expertise here. What I can say is that most difficult and troubling passages of the Old Testament tend to be difficult and troubling when read literally. The scary religious people are the literalist adherents to the text. The Jewish and Christian scriptures, especially the former, are varied, layered and usually not straight narrative. Atheist critics of scripture also tend to read it literally. They can’t all be scientists, can they, so why do they/you approach the text in this unsophisticated way? In the case of people like Dawkins, I think if is for polemical convenience. As far as I’m concerned the reference to the hardening of Pharoah’s heart is simply an acknowledgement that God is ultimately in control.

My starting point with scripture is totally different: I love God and regard God as essentially loving. I do this because of the Jesus exercise in sacrificial love. I view scripture from this standpoint. In addition, the scholarly examination (actually very inquisitive and rigorous) of the Old and New Testaments is slowly helping explain what is meant.

Dan S de Merengue and david f, “Whispers in the dead”. I think we’re slightly at cross purposes. People like me believe God really exists – so that means He exists for everyone and finds a way of connecting with everyone. EG by “whispering” into every individual’s conscience. I know it’s annoying to say so, but how could I believe otherwise?

Pax,

Goodthief wrote:

"Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but a precocious one. Your quotes are a good example: the Hebrew scriptures didn’t link the two ideas you refer to. Jesus took it upon himself to coalesce them into a single Commandment. No Jewish rabbi would have dared take such a liberty (and expect to retain any credibility)."

“six foot two, eyes of blue”: the Western co-opting of Jesus is natural, I suppose, but unfortunate. I imagine it piques Him occasionally."

What do you mean by "No Jewish rabbi would have dared take such a liberty (and expect to retain any credibility)."

Jews connect loving God and loving one's fellow man. In the NT is the saying that only through me can you enter the kingdom of heaven. Judaism is not so narrow. A non-Jew is considered righteous if the person lives a righteous life regardless of whether that person accepts the Jewish beliefs. Living a righteous life includes concern for social justice. Jews accept converts but send no missionaries as one does not need to be a Jew to be a righteous person.

In Israel there is a monument to the Righteous Gentiles and accompanying recognition of particular individuals who opposed the Nazi horrors. To the best of my knowledge there is no similar monument to righteous Jews anywhere in Christendom.

Jews are not a race. In Jewish tradition the messiah will be a descendent of David. According to the Bible David was a descendent of Ruth who was a gentile and became a Jew. According to Jewish tradition David had red hair and blue eyes. Jesus, if David was his ancestor, could have inherited those blue eyes.

Jews come in all colours. I am a blond and blue-eyed Jew at least I was before my hair turned white. I also belong to a synagogue and participate in many of the social and cultural activities. Beliefs are not emphasised in most of Judaism although some Jews do emphasise beliefs. It is what one does and how one lives that is important.

Learn more before you pontificate about Jews.