Genetic testing...achondroplasia

[avenir001]

I agree with Vogue as well.

I didn't think I'd find any support for my position on evolution from the forum scientists , so I sure am pleased to know there are still some of us out there who find the explanations provided by the evolutionary theory a bit far-fetched.

[JewelLeigh]

I always figured there would be a negative correlation between education and faith, as one learns and understands more one has less need to fall back on: "Gee, I dunno, I guess God made it!"

Yikes! Thank goodness this is not true for many/most of the Christians I know! You make it sound like people of faith are dumb hicks!

[The Law]

Great post vogue. I think it's important that people remember that believing in evolution does not mean you are denying the existence of God(s - whatever you believe, or not believe). Why can't evolution be the tool that God used to create the diverse speciation we see now? For people to completely deny evolution is foolishness since we know for sure that speciation does occur!! I think to think that God created every species on earth is wrong because new species do arise, and it's clear that their must be a mechanism that is causing them to appear. I am a believer in God, but also a believer in evolution. I think I read someone post this, people who are Christians will only have a problem with evolution if they choose to interpret the Bible literally. The universe is so complex, and I don't think that God would literally create everything.... but have the essence and mechanisms in place to make things happen!

 

Also, for people who do believe in evolution - we do know that there is a missing "key" to the puzzle of life. It would be silly to completely deny the possibility that it was God who provided that spark (ensured the pieces of the puzzle could form in the right way).

[drcave]

LMAO I guess I can see what the answer to my question was. Will I be the only athiest in medical school? Are there any other athiests out there? I need my heathen support group!

 

You know, A recent US court case ruled the Intelligent design was religion and not science and thus can't be taught in schools. The reason? ID research does not meet the standards of good science. ID is religious pseudoscience.

 

Oh yeah, if life is so complex that that the only possible explanation for its existence is God, then God must be even more complex than life. So why is logical to accept that super-complicated life cannot create itself but super-complicated God can?

[Devari]

lol once again I disagree. The Bible is perfect not because it was written by men, but because it was divinely inspired by God. Yes there are definitely translation issues and more understanding can be gained by looking back at the original texts and studying the literal Hebrew and Greek meanings. All in all I believe the English translations sufficiently portray what God originally intended. The Bible must be studied, not superficially skimmed.

 

Also God IS perfect and He created all of nature perfect. Humankind was intended to be the caretakers of God's creation. Free will is a perfect design created by a perfect God for a perfect man. Free will means choice and man chose to use that free will against his Creator. This fact does not preclude the original perfection of man. I can assure you that when a perfect God says His original creation was 'very good' He is not speaking as a fallible man...what may be perfect to you or me is not necessarily perfect to Him. Anything that originates from God is perfect because He is perfect. If God had originally created us with a heap of mutations, I doubt that would have qualified as 'very good' to Him, in fact it would imply that He was incapable of a perfect creation.

 

You're getting into a meaningless circular argument here that has no rational basis. The idea that "God is perfect and therefore anything He creates is automatically perfect" is simply ludicrous. First, let's start with the idea that God is perfect. If this is true, then that how can anything that is less then God be perfect? We know from the bible that God is greater then humans so humans therefore can't be perfect.

 

Secondly, why can't God choose to create something with imperfections? In fact, choosing to create something with imperfections is the only conceivable reason for God to create anything. If God created something truly perfect then such a creation wouldn't be distinct from God Himself. God would literally be duplicating himself and wouldn't really have created anything.

 

I agree that the bible should be used as the basis for understanding God but you need to realize that the bible is an inherently imperfect document produced by inherently imperfect humans. Our spiritual separation from God prevents us from having a full understanding of His will. If we don't fully understand God then how could we possibly create a perfect description of His will in written form? And even if we did understand God, the written word can never fully convey every nuance of meaning and would therefore be an imperfect expression of God's will. This doesn't mean that the bible doesn't contain truth about God's will, it simply means that a perfect understanding of God and His creation can never come from the bible alone.

[drcave]

Some interesting bible quotes:

 

Leviticus 21:9

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

 

More Leviticus (God says no cripples in church please!)

Leviticus 21:16

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

21:17

Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

21:18

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

21:19

Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

21:20

Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21:21

No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

21:22

He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

21:23

Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

21:24

And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

 

 

God says "Kill the dude who gathered firewood on Sabbath"

Numbers

15:32

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

15:33

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

15:34

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

15:35

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

15:36

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

[The Law]

Some interesting bible quotes:

 

 

 

More Leviticus (God says no cripples in church please!)

 

 

 

God says "Kill the dude who gathered firewood on Sabbath"

 

It's easy to take things out of context like that. You have to remember the timeframe that was written in.

[The Law]

Oh yeah, if life is so complex that that the only possible explanation for its existence is God, then God must be even more complex than life. So why is logical to accept that super-complicated life cannot create itself but super-complicated God can?

 

What seems more likely? That everything in the universe "created itself" or that something set them in motion? If life created itself, then did the whole universe create itself? For something to create itself, it must be omnipresent... which would make it God... No matter how you look at it, there needs to be a start to the chain of events. That start of the chain must be God. What is more parsimonious, that everything in the universe created itself or that an omnipresent being set them in motion?

 

Let's talk logic then, courtesy of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Aquinas’ first proof is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less then the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself. A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God.

 

The second proof follows closely with the first and expounds the principle of causality. St. Thomas explains that in the world of sense there is an order of causes and effects. There is a cause for all things such as the existence of a clock. And nothing can cause itself into existence. A clock cannot will itself into existence, it must be created and caused into existence by something else. A clockmaker creates a clock and causes its existence, and yet the material of the clock and the clockmaker did not cause themselves to exist. Something else must have caused their existence. All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God.

 

Aquinas next explains that things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be "possible to be and possible not to be". Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. However, as was already explained in his second proof, there must have been a first cause that was not of transitory nature that could have generated the beginning of nature.

 

In his fourth point Aquinas notes that there is a certain gradation in all things. For instance we can group things that are hot according to varying degrees of the amount of heat perceptible in that object. In classifying objects there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. Thus universal qualities in man such as justice and goodness must attribute their varying qualities to God; the source of maximum and perfect justice and goodness.

 

Finally, Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe. We cannot say that chance creates order in the universe. If you drop a cup on the floor it shatters into bits and has become disordered. But if you were to drop bits of the cup, they would not assemble together into a cup. This is an example of the inherent disorder prevalent in the universe when things are left to chance. The existence of order and natural laws presupposes a divine intelligence who authored the universe into being.

 

Now, all these things show evidence to support the idea of God. However, God is so complex we can never fully understand Him/Her/It, this is where some faith (based on reason) takes place.

[Devari]

Some interesting bible quotes:

 

More Leviticus (God says no cripples in church please!)

 

God says "Kill the dude who gathered firewood on Sabbath"

 

One limitation with understanding some biblical commandments is that to a certain extent they need to be viewed in the context in which they were given. Having an understanding of the human society that existed at the time often makes it much easier to understand these passages.

 

For example, people with disfigurments or disabilities would have been looked on as being of lower status in biblical times. In that sense it's much easier to understand why certain religious duties would need to be performed by an able-bodied person. That society would have attribued a certain importance to the task depening on who was carrying the task out. Sending someone who is fit and able-bodied would therefore be necessary to address the task correctly. In that sense certain biblical commandments that may seem harsh can often be understood more easily due to the nature of human society at the time.

[drcave]

It's easy to take things out of context like that. You have to remember the timeframe that was written in.

 

 

But this is the book you base you faith upon and live your life by. So the laws of god no longer apply. The bible is the word of god right?

It is important to understand that by definition, creation is also a belief about the past which describes the way in which the evidence in the present came to be. The difference is that we base our understanding of creation upon a book which claims to be the Word of One who knows everything there is to know about everything-who was there and who is able to tell us what happened.

 

It's funny how Christians claim the bible is the great word of god and then when someone like me quotes some of the absurdities that are the word of god then their tune changes to: "Oh well the word of god then doesn't apply now." Pretty arbitrary if you ask me.

 

If we are factoring in the time frame and society then why not consider that society at the time was ignorant of scientific laws that govern the world around them and sought to explain it through God.

[vogue]

You're getting into a meaningless circular argument here that has no rational basis. The idea that "God is perfect and therefore anything He creates is automatically perfect" is simply ludicrous. First, let's start with the idea that God is perfect. If this is true, then that how can anything that is less then God be perfect? We know from the bible that God is greater then humans so humans therefore can't be perfect.

 

Secondly, why can't God choose to create something with imperfections? In fact, choosing to create something with imperfections is the only conceivable reason for God to create anything. If God created something truly perfect then such a creation wouldn't be distinct from God Himself. God would literally be duplicating himself and wouldn't really have created anything.

 

I agree that the bible should be used as the basis for understanding God but you need to realize that the bible is an inherently imperfect document produced by inherently imperfect humans. Our spiritual separation from God prevents us from having a full understanding of His will. If we don't fully understand God then how could we possibly create a perfect description of His will in written form? And even if we did understand God, the written word can never fully convey every nuance of meaning and would therefore be an imperfect expression of God's will. This doesn't mean that the bible doesn't contain truth about God's will, it simply means that a perfect understanding of God and His creation can never come from the bible alone.

 

You seem to lack knowledge of basic biblical theology. Gen 1:26 says ‘then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” What is the image of God in man? The traditional view is that God’s image is certain moral, ethical, and intellectual abilities. A more recent view, based on Hebrew grammar and the knowledge of the ancient Middle East, interprets the phrase as meaning “Let us make man as our image. In ancient times an emperor might command statues of himself to be placed in remote parts of his empire. These symbols would declare that these areas were under his power and reign. So God placed humankind as living symbols of Himself on earth to represent his reign. The phrase “according to Our likeness” draws attention to the preceding figure of speech. Since God is Spirit (John 4:24), there can be no “image” or “likeness” of Him in the normal sense of these words. In fact image making was later strongly prohibited because of the clear association it has with idolatry (Ex 20:4-6). We may not make images of God because he has already done so! We are His images; we are in His likeness. This is why God values people so much. We were and are made to reflect his majesty, grandeur, and perfection on earth. We were given the earth to rule it as God would rule it. Therefore, to suggest that God intentionally made imperfect images of Himself is ludicrous. If you could hire the best man for the job wouldn’t you do so? If you could create that perfect worker wouldn’t you do so? Or would you sabotage a delicate work by intentionally hiring a less competent individual? This is not rocket science. In the same way, you may have that perfect worker, but he has a free will and may choose to disobey your orders. This is what mankind did. Free will is NOT an imperfection but it CAN be abused! Of course sin could have been prevented if we had been created as robots. But a robot can not truly experience and enjoy a perfect (or imperfect) world. God knew that. A robot can not have a real relationship with God or any other person for that matter. God knew that and it’s not what he wanted for us.

 

In the book of Genesis we read that God created a perfect world—that is, a world that did not know death, suffering or any kind of evil. But it was Adam’s initial sin that led to our fall from grace, our fall from perfection. Yes our world is not perfect—in fact, it’s very broken. If God withdrew His sustaining power COMPLETELY from the world, it would cease to exist (Heb 1:3). God IS paying attention and is actively involved in His creation, but He doesn’t always protect us (humankind) from our own actions. Even the earth itself was cursed after the first sin. Because a perfect God can not commune with a sinful (imperfect) world, we have become separated from God. God took sin so seriously that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty for mankind’s sin, restore our lost relationship with Him and offer forgiveness to all. If God were not perfect he would not care that we have become imperfect. But He does! God has promised everything will be made right again. He will wipe away every tear and death, pain and suffering will be no more. The ENTIRE Bible alludes to the utter perfection of God.

 

I agree that the Bible, in its few short pages cannot encompass the full majesty of God. Yet the Bible is sufficient for us to know His perfect will for our lives on earth. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “all scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (us) may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The phrase “given by inspiration” from Greek is translated literally “God-breathed”. God was actively involved in the revelation of His truth to the apostles and prophets, who wrote it down. So, the Author of the Bible is God Himself. The scripture is true in all that it affirms and is completely authoritative (1 Pet. 1:20-21). Jesus himself as well as the apostles and prophets repeatedly drew from the scriptures when teaching. Jesus in particular lived by the scriptures to the T. He would not have done so if they were mere words of men because men are not perfect.

Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains: poetry, parables, prophecy, letters, biographies, and authentic historical facts. Thus, the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content.

 

I realise that these are Christian views and have only gone into this detail because you alluded to the Bible in your remarks.

[vogue]

Oh yeah, if life is so complex that that the only possible explanation for its existence is God, then God must be even more complex than life. So why is logical to accept that super-complicated life cannot create itself but super-complicated God can?

 

 

drcave, I'm glad you asked that question because as a Christian and a student of science I personally struggled with that question. Over the years I believe I have gained more insight into it. One of the articles I've that enlightened me a little was written by Jonathan Sarfati. This is the article:

 

 

If God created the universe, then who created God?

Answering the Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

 

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

 

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

 

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1

The universe has a beginning.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

 

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

 

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

 

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

 

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

 

In Summary

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

 

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

 

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

 

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

 

Objections

There are only two ways to refute an argument:

 

Show that it is logically invalid

 

Show that at least one of the premises is false.

 

a) Is the argument valid?

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby **** is a whale; therefore Moby **** has a backbone. So the only hope for the sceptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

 

Are the premises true?

1) Does the universe have a beginning?

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

 

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.

 

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’ Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.8

 

2) Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

 

… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

 

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

 

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

 

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.

 

Is creation by God rational?

A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

 

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.

 

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

 

Further Reading

More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural ‘big bang’ theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.

 

Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction,Chicago: Moody.

 

Craig, W.L. online article The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.

 

Geisler, N.L, 1976. Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker).

[The Law]

But this is the book you base you faith upon and live your life by. So the laws of god no longer apply. The bible is the word of god right?

 

It's funny how Christians claim the bible is the great word of god and then when someone like me quotes some of the absurdities that are the word of god then their tune changes to: "Oh well the word of god then doesn't apply now." Pretty arbitrary if you ask me.

 

If we are factoring in the time frame and society then why not consider that society at the time was ignorant of scientific laws that govern the world around them and sought to explain it through God.

 

Because it's not to be taken literally, there are many great lessons found within the Bible. You must remember the Bible is a historical book (written by humans!) so some of the things do sound weird. However, as a Catholic my faith is strongly based on the new testament and I dare you to find passages like that in it.

 

I also never said "it is the 'word of God'"... you shouldn't equivocate all denominations of Christianity. The Bible is the human understanding of God.

[The Law]

is is why God values people so much. We were and are made to reflect his majesty, grandeur, and perfection on earth. We were given the earth to rule it as God would rule it. Therefore, to suggest that God intentionally made imperfect images of Himself is ludicrous.

 

So you're saying that humans are perfect?

[vogue]

So you're saying that humans are perfect?

 

I don't think you read my whole post otherwise you would know that I did not say that.

[The Law]

I don't think you read my whole post otherwise you would know that I did not say that.

 

I understand your argument about "freedom," however I wouldn't argue that God created perfect human beings. Rather, he created imperfect human beings who should strive for perfection.

 

Anyway, I don't believe God literally created human beings. Just the universe.

 

And I think we've beaten this issue to death now lol, what's next hahaha.

[AMmd]

I understand your argument about "freedom," however I wouldn't argue that God created perfect human beings. Rather, he created imperfect human beings who should strive for perfection.

 

Anyway, I don't believe God literally created human beings. Just the universe.

 

And I think we've beaten this issue to death now lol, what's next hahaha.

 

no no.. i beleive God did create perfect humans, but thru sin we became unperfect ....

[The Law]

no no.. i beleive God did create perfect humans, but thru sin we became unperfect ....

 

If we were perfect, I don't think we would have sinned in the first place.

[AMmd]

If we were perfect, I don't think we would have sinned in the first place.

 

but we have free will...

 

haha that reminds me of that movie... free willy

[The Law]

but we have free will...

 

haha that reminds me of that movie... free willy

 

lmao, free willy had free will! and he died

[Devari]

You seem to lack knowledge of basic biblical theology.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong here. Some of the statements that you're trying to make simply aren't supported by the bible.

 

In the book of Genesis we read that God created a perfect world—that is, a world that did not know death, suffering or any kind of evil.

 

The bible never claims that God's creation is "perfect". Both life and death were a part of God's creation even before humans existed. In Genesis the creatures God created were commanded to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Genesis 1:22, NIV) How could the creatures have done this without living, breeding and dying? They must have killed each other for food as part of this process. Although sin entered the world when humanity chose to turn away from God, life and death were both present as part of God's creation at a very early stage even before humans were created.

 

I agree that the Bible, in its few short pages cannot encompass the full majesty of God. Yet the Bible is sufficient for us to know His perfect will for our lives on earth.

 

No, the bible does not contain all of the knowledge we need to know about God. The bible is an essential guideline and, whenever possible, a Christian should strive to adhere to it's commandments and teachings. However, prayer and reason are two essential elements of a relationship with God that also need to be present in order to understand and follow God's will.

 

Jesus in particular lived by the scriptures to the T.

 

No, Jesus did not follow the scriptures 100% of the time. In fact, Jesus clearly demonstrated that the scriptures are a starting point in developing a relationship with God. A clear example of this is when Jesus was asked:

 

"Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" (John 8:4-8:5, NIV)

 

Jesus replied:

 

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7, NIV)

 

And then, speaking to the woman:

 

"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:10-8:11, NIV)

 

This is a clear example of a situation where Jesus did not specifically follow the commandments given in scripture.

 

He would not have done so if they were mere words of men because men are not perfect.

 

The reason Jesus did not always follow the scriptures 100% of the time isn't because the scriptures weren't derived from God. In fact, in the bible Jesus clearly acknowledges them as God's commandments. The reason Jesus didn't always adhere rigidly to scriptures is because those commandments were given from God to imperfect humans who would not always understand the basis for those commandments and would sometimes try to apply them without necessarily following God's intentions. In the example above Jesus clearly indicated that adultery was sinful even though he did not follow the written commandment from God to stone adulterers.

 

Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains: poetry, parables, prophecy, letters, biographies, and authentic historical facts. Thus, the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content.

 

If you can accept that the bible can't always be taken literally then why is it so difficult for you to accept that evolution can be viewed as a "tool" that was used by God as part of His creation?

[Devari]

However, as a Catholic

 

I'm a practicing Catholic and I can say with certainty that some of the views that you've expressed on these forums directly conflict with fundamental Catholic teachings. In another thread you stated:

 

Fetuses are not human beings.

 

According to the Catholic Church fetuses are human beings and have all the corresponding human rights. Abortion is therefore murder and if a Catholic obtains or assists with an abortion they are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the official Catholic teachings from the Vatican and states the following:

 

Abortion

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

 

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.

 

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

 

You're entitled to hold whatever opinions you wish but if you refuse to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church then you simply can't refer to yourself as a Catholic.

[The Law]

I'm a practicing Catholic and I can say with certainty that some of the views that you've expressed on these forums directly conflict with fundamental Catholic teachings.

 

I don't believe everything the church teaches.

 

A while back it was against the law to say that the sun was the centre of the solar system (resulted in the E word - excommunication).

That's not to say the church is useless, just that I like to think for myself.

 

Oh, and I initially posted that just to see if I'd get a huge response debating abortion. lol which did indeed happen.

 

OH and another thing, if that was true... that not believing in some of the church doctrines meant you couldn't be a Catholic... there would be a huge exodus from the Church worldwide.

As for where I stand on my religion, I don't need to justify my religious beliefs to you or anyone else on the forum.

[Devari]

I don't believe everything the church teaches.

 

We're talking about a fundamental aspect of the Catholic faith that simply isn't open to interpretation. Did you even read the information I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It states explicitly that:

 

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

 

This issue is so important that it is one of the few acts that the Catholic Church will automatically excommunicate someone for. A person who participates in an abortion automatically ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church. How do you not understand this?

 

A while back it was against the law to say that the sun was the centre of the solar system (resulted in the E word - excommunication).

 

That issue was simply a consequence of a lack of scientific understanding. There's no difficulty at all with understanding abortion.

 

That's not to say the church is useless, just that I like to think for myself.

 

If you refuse to accept the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church then calling yourself a Catholic is not only untrue it is also ethically wrong.

 

Oh, and I initially posted that just to see if I'd get a huge response debating abortion. lol

 

So you were simply trolling then?

 

which did indeed happen.

 

No, a significant debate didn't get started at all. You simply made a statement that was incorrect and I corrected you.

 

OH and another thing, if that was true... that not believing in some of the church doctrines meant you couldn't be a Catholic... there would be a huge exodus from the Church worldwide.

 

We aren't talking about Church traditions that can change over time without conflicting with the bible. Whether the mass is said in Latin or English, for example, is simply a Church tradition that has changed over time. The Church's teaching that abortion is morally wrong specifically cannot change because it is based on fundamental moral principles that derive directly from the bible.

 

As for where I stand on my religion, I don't need to justify my religious beliefs to you or anyone else on the forum.

 

If you claim to be a member of a certain religion and then turn around and profess completely opposite beliefs then you should expect other members of that religion to call you on it. Someone who refuses to believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church simply has no business referring to themselves as a Catholic.

[The Law]

Devari, you know, it's not only me... but a lot of people are sick of your attitude. I wasn't trolling, I am just sick of debating with someone who doesn't keep an open mind or at least acknowledge the other sides of an argument.

 

but you know what, have fun keeping on...

 

oh and have fun dealing with the real world, where most things are not black and white.