So if morality does not come from God and is a inherant idea that has come from generation to generation of tradition and culture. Example, in the animal kingdom, male sharks forcably mate with female sharks but is not called rape. Animals of a multitude of breeds copulate within family trees but is not called incest. So if there is no God, and moralsand values do not come from him and we are but another monkey biting a banana so to speak, why is it wrong for humans to behave in a way that is traditionally offensive? If we are just an ape in the animal kingdom, responding to instinct then how can war be "bad" we see chimps have tribal warfar and it isn't characterized as bad. We see this also happen with ant colonies but that isn't "bad".....so if we are just an animal in the evolutionary process how can we say that acting on our impulses is bad?
We see humans having tribal warfare that is not 'bad'.
We see primates doing 'adultery' which again is not 'bad' but the perpetrator will have to pay with his life if he is caught by the alpha.
So your point?
So my point is if we are another animal where does this idea of "bad" and "good" come from? These animals don't see these actions as anything other than natural. So where did humans get the notion?
How do you know what these animals see?
We too don't see it as anything other than natural, a part of being a social animal. The simple motion is you harm me, I harm you, we both lose as we are society. In evolutionary terms those societies that don't follow these rule perish, while those follow survive.
"The simple motion is you harm me, I harm you, we both lose as we are society. In evolutionary terms those societies that don't follow these rule perish, while those follow survive."
Would the Germans be a good example of that notion?
Seems they started a world war, lost it, but now rule Europe and have the highest prosperity!
Yes, they tried it with a leader who was committing atrocities in the name of God, but now they're doing it to help each other. Good example!
Is it the same people?
Was their anything in common other than they are Germans?
Gobbledegook, the Germans defy your statement:
"In evolutionary terms those societies that don't follow these rule perish, while those follow survive."
The Germans did not follow the rules, they have 'evolved' into the most prosperous country in Europe.
The English did follow the rules, they are now in a bad shape, they have 'devolved' from being the rulers of most of the world down to a small island nation.
TM (not worth a separate reply) Hitler was never working in the 'name of God' he was working in the name of Germany and himself, and was also a satanist.
Reading Hitlers own words would refute you. He specifically wrote in his own book why he was doing what he was doing. He was no different than any other believer who committed atrocities in the name of God. That's what religion does to people.
Religion also keeps people in states of denial.
Whether he said he was working in the name of God (which is debatable) the literature Hitler wrote suggests he thought of himself as God. He certainly was never known to adhere to any particular branch of Christianity. Quit slandering the Christian faith! Also quit slandering Germans. Hitler carried 12% of the popular vote. Germany didn't 'choose' hitler; Germany failed to put in place a fail-safe to keep demigogs like hitler from gaining power. Many German citizens risked life and limb to help the Jews escape hitler's final solution. Many Germans today remain Christian, largely Catholic or Lutheran, or as they call themselves in Germany...Reformed.
At least, not known to you anyways. Debate what you will, but his own words would outweigh your debate.
Quit shoving it down our throats.
it is rather inconvenient for you, isn't it?
Whether or not you believe it to be the truth does not equate to having the right to shove it down our throats. Or, do you actually believe you have that right?
Evolution does not occur in one generation. Germans are a society, rather a closed society, and if Germans were fighting against each other(as individuals) while the rest of humanity is helping each other, Germans will perish.You need a have a little more understanding about evolution, at the least to know it takes many many generations.
Sounds more like Claire, who ever approves you is god's people, and who ever goes contrary is a satanist. Delusion, I say.
Jomine, If I started having sex with my kids it would be seen as evil but if this happens in a "lesser" animal's sociaty it is seen as nature being nature. Where is the distinction that seperates what a human does verses animals?
If there is no sense of right and wrong other than what we personally feel than it isn't that far a stretch to say that Hitler did nothing wrong, the rapest is just doing what is in his nature, that a man who risks his life to save another isn't actually heroic, he was just being a human animal.
A dog that is hungry sees nothing wrong with fighting another dog over a scrap of meat. Other dogs around don't have an issue with this either. Yet when we see starving people fighting for food we cry out, "Feed the children! Feed the children!" Why? Accourding to Mischeviousme the starving of babies amounts to nothing more than population control and should be allowed to happen as to not upset the delicate balance of nature.
That's taking what I said out of context, though without death, life would not exist.
Do you know Pharaoh Ramses II married 2 of his daughters. Some present societies, it is not a "bad" thing either. In some parts of India, girls marry their uncle and cousins, which is considered the norm.
Hitler was not considered wrong by a good many of his contemporaries. We learn as we go, so right and wrong changes, there is no hard and fast rule.
A dog gives its puppies food. The rest is a learned behavior.There was a time when one tribe of humans feel no compunction in killing another tribes children, or selling them as slaves. Indeed if you read the bible Joshua even killed animals of other tribe.
@Mischeviousme, didn't mean to take it out of context. I just applied what you said with the situation. It seemed to fit and still does in my understanding of what you said. I apologize if I painted you in a bad light. Didn't mean to.
Jomine, still my point is this we have an idea of what right and wrong are no matter what point on the lattitude, longitude of the globe you are on. It may be ok to marry your niece but harm a cow and you're in hot water. To us in America this sounds rediculous......or redonkulous depending on how old you are in America.
Plenty of moral controversy in the bible, that's for sure! But how does Morality matter in the grand scale then? If it differs from person to person and culture to culture, is there any real value in it?
Only to the individual that accepts it...
Are we saying the same thing?
There is no absolute right or absolute wrong, that is, there is no right that can be universally applied. We define right and wrong and it changes over time. 100 years before slavery was a right in america, but now it is not.
Animals also have the same. Lions in a pride know, not to attack each other.
So the acts of Ted Bundy, Gacy, Adolf so one and so forth did nothing wrong by any standard because there is no absolute right and wrong, morally. Slavery was ok because of the time period? I am trying to understand what you are saying, I am not trying to be difficult. I just want to be clear as to what it is you're saying.
Yes, morality evolves just like any other thing, some things that we call morality came from natural selection, the main force behind evolution, like don't breed with siblings, we call it incest, in species that procreate through sex it is very important to have a diverse genetic code that's why males in a familiar group when in proper age they travel to find another group and procreate there.
Incest was accept in many civilizations throughout history, it was specially used in elites, like royalty, to maintain a "pure bloodline" if you ever study the British royalty history you can see the problems in this kind of breeding, it is given as example in study of genetics.
Pharaohs usually had children with practically everyone, there mothers, there sisters, anyone, and this was morally accepted, not for the common peasant but for that small elite.
As you sure know, the bible has many things that are morally wrong and illegal nowadays that were law in the time it was written, like acceptance of slavery, stoning women who have sex before marriage, cutting women hands if they accidentally touch a men's private parts and many other horror stuff.
Morality evolves as we evolve socially, nowadays we try to have a system that is just and fair to everyone, the golden rule is a great moral standard.
So then let us say that we are neighbors. I like your house, car....stuff and one day I come over with a bat and smash your face, bury you in the backyard and assume your property as my own. You don't think that there is anything wrong with that?
Sure i do! And neither i nor you need a book to understand that murder and robbery are morally wrong, but somewhere in history you will find that that kind of behavior was accepted, when Europeans invaded, actually we call it conquer, the American continent, they were not invaders, murders of entire civilizations and land thieves, they were conquistadores (conquers).
Morality is always evolving, changing, for better or for worse...
I have really enjoyed this! I have to completely and totally disagree with you though. Slavery was never ok. Neither was murder or robbery or any other suchthings born of malice and hate and greed.
I think that your view on how morality changes is only looking at half the situation. Slavery for instance was ok for the time period in the eyes of the owners. I can garentee you if you spoke with the slaves they would have a different opinion than the ones who owned them.
Well, couldn't agree more, that's why i defend the golden rule as a great moral standard.
Take this example, a big issue in many civilized countries nowadays is gay marriage, many people claim that it is morally wrong and they use that argument to deny the same rights to gay people that straight people have, do you thing that it is fair for gay people? Do gay people think homosexuality is morally wrong and marring with the person they love is wrong? Of course not, but for many people it is...
What is morally right or wrong changes not only from generation to generation in history but it also doesn't generates a complete consensus nowadays.
I don't think that gay marriage is a moral issue rather than a religous issue. The only gay moral issue that I have is the pride parade that comes through my city every year with guys in thongs grinding on everyone and chicks walking downtown with their tops off. They cry for equality but then seperate themselves with the parade, flag and everything else they can think of. Marriage is whatever, I don't care. Moraly speaking, they need to keep their clothes on if they want to be taken seriously.
In my social circle, i don't know anyone religious, only atheists, agnostics and non-religious theists, and the people i know that are against gay marriage are atheists, i know this is not a good sample group, and i do understand that discrimination against homosexuals comes mainly from religious people, but what i see with this is that people think that homosexuality is morally wrong, and it transcends the religious circle.
Can I ask how homosexuality is morally wrong? That is interesting to me.
That is not my opinion, i think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
What i get from those people is things like, "marriage is between a man and a woman, that is the tradition", "in nature you don't see males with males", "if everyone becomes homosexual the human specie dies", things like this, usually if i argued and dispute and destroy their arguments it all comes to pure homophobia, there is no rational or valid argument, they don't admit they are wrong and claim it's their "personal belief".
The difference in animals and Human animals is that Humans have reasoning abilities and the ability to put themselves in another man's/woman's shoes.
Morality is our way of preserving the species, a technique we developed for survival. What we consider to be immoral ie; murder, rape and genocide, is natures way of controlling an exploding population. A disease is natural, for a time though, people believed it was the wrath of God, it was population control. When a species of animal overpopulates (such as rats or whatnot) or grows beyond natural limmits, disease whipes out a good chunk. The mutations that preserve the few individuals, is a natural preservation mechanism, maintaining a ballance.
Morality is not our way of preserving the specie since it is relitive to each person.
Each idea is like that of flowers, same thing, different petals.
So hitler and mother tereasa were infact doing the same work just in different methods?
Mother Teresa also committed some evils in her religious quests. Didn't you know that?
Sure she only helped those that were catholic. This is actually cutting to my point but we arn't there yet.
Wow, I didn't know anything about that. I was referring to the piece that Penn and Teller did on their show Bull$hit. Have you seen that show? Great show, love those guys!
I'm currently watching that show, i think i've seen maybe 70% of it, and it always amazes me to find things like the bullshit around dolphins, that was really amazing, people will always find ways to scam other people.
The most amusing episodes for me were about New Age Medicine and Alternative Medicine, they don't even need to debunk that stuff just letting those scammers talk is enough, and very funny.
I strongly recommend that show!
I've been watching them for twenty years and still are not tired of them! Do you ever listen to Penn's radio show? It's pretty good.
Well, i'm Portuguese, i can only see or listen what i find over the internet, i've listen one or two radio shows i've found on Youtube, maybe when i finish watching Bullshit i'll seek more on Youtube. Is his radio show similar to Bullshit?
Abit, yes it's less censored as far as topics go. It's not a ratings driven show so he says whatever and does whatever. But I like it. you can find his show on youtube actually. I just listened to his interview with Richard Dawkins yesterday on youtube.
Evolution. Human and other species of animal have the ability to see what harms them or what is good for them and tradition changes. For example, past civilizations thought it was beneficial to sacrifice. Now, since certain types of killing are frowned upon, it is not acceptable to sacrifice...unless it is an animal and for certain religions.
How is an action proved on a genetic level where evolution is observed?
Evolution is physical, a change in behavior is mental.
Not necessarily...what's learning? At one point I didn't know math, but I learned, and now I do. Evolving has to do with change.
the words are opposed to each other...duh..iametrically!
There you go, this should help:
And also check:
Yet again Evolution gives the answers.
At this point, I'd rather converse with the atheists. The believers are a little too zealous for my taste, not overall, but a good majority.
I was for a long time, a hardcore christian. Then for a time, a closet christian. One day I found a series of truths that I could not refute and they were all mine to find. I created my truths through experience, it could not be handed to me. There is no salvation in a can, if you don't have to work for it, then it isn't worth while. Like a cheap pair of shoes, sooner or later, I'll have to buy some new shoes.
Evolution might give an answer if it wasn't shot full of holes, but you people cant even find the 10,000,000 missing links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archa … ographica_(Berlin_specimen).jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No file by this name exists.
Yeah bit crap isn't it tht the link doesn't work. That'll teach me for trying to use an iPad to post a photo. It'll just take far to long to boot up my netbook as it runs Windows bloat-ware. Ho hum. Maybe another time.
Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
1 Peter 2:1-3 NASB
There you go:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Archaeo … hographica(Berlin_specimen).jpg&hl=pt-PT&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=DJVGT8XpGsry8QPdmsSpDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CA0Q_AUoAQ&biw=1156&bih=601
If it still doesn't work just type Archaeopteryx_lithographica(Berlin_specimen).jpg on Google Images and you will find it, nothing like a little of rational and intelligent thinking to unveil mysteries...
1. This site does not address my statement regarding the (lack of) proof regarding the so called missing link that would irrefutably prove the evolution THEORY! In-betweenie species existed simultaneously with the species they purportedly evolved from and to. All it proves is a larger variety among co-existing species. I believe in intelligent design. I believe rationale has its place in all serious discussion, but it falls short of any definitive proof. I am quite sure that my opinion about the origin of species eminates from a (my) mind far more open than yours, because I am willing to consider the possibility of an uncreated creator, and you are not.
Well, you claim you need proof in order to believe (for your information, the fossil record is just a portion of evidence for evolution), and yet you prefer to BELIEVE (i highlighted believe because i don't want to believe, i want to know, to learn, to understand, no faith required, just rational thinking) in something that has 0 proof, that contradicts what we know about the universe, about the laws of nature, and requires you to BELIEVE without any proof or evidence, can there be bigger hypocrisy then this?
Deblevey, I am a Christ believing man. I just try to look at both sides of the coin. Usually people are confused with my forums because they never know where I actually stand on the issue exept my buddy A Troubled Man
Anyway, I have a quesiton for you. The bible says that when God created the animals of the earth that he created them male and female so they could populate the earth right? So what defines a male and female? There is such diversity in nature that it is hard to pin point exactly what is male and what is female. Besides that it there are A sexual creatures out there and are neither male or female or male and female depending on how you want to word it. Sea Slugs for instance both have penis's and actually stab at eachother in an almost sword fight like display when mating. Who ever makes the "kill shot" impregnants the other. I point this out because not everything is spelled out in the bible as you and I would like to believe. I think it is important to remember that the bible is not a book of science but a book of culture and history.
Ya know the first half of the bible is the Jewish scripture and they don't believe that Genesis is literal so why should the Christians?
Did Adam and Eve have tummy buttons?
because at conception the embryos of mammals are all female, gender assignment occurs later in the process. Although I have no direct message from God on this, i theorize that He created the higher species with the potentiality to develop the ability to nurse their young, without regards to gender. SCIENCE has already demonstrated that given the right set of circumstances, a male mammal (humans included) can use its fully functional mammary glands to produce milk.
Very well, and you don't see here an evolutionary accident? You just prefer to see some bad design, right?
It's nice to see you using what science has demonstrated to backup your "theorized" hypothesis and discard other things that science have already demonstrated simple because you personally believe it.
I have not ever claimed to need proof in order to believe something, i rather am under the impression that you darwinists claim to have proof. I am simply stateing that you do not...have proof. Neither have I claimed to be a 'literalist' as you call me. While I do believe the Bible, all 66 books of it to be the Word of God, I further state that His Scriptures are not either literal or subjusctive, they are both literal AND subjective. Which is to say things happened the way God said they did, however our limited human understanding may have confused the narrative somewhat. Therefore it is not fully understood by us. Belief in a 6 day creation and belief in the the big bang are not excluseive of each other. IT IS possible to believe both.
Well, that is the big difference between you and me, i need proof in order to believe, and as someone wise once said, extraordinaire claims demand extraordinaire evidence.
I don't understand why you keep saying there is no proof for Evolution, it is really tiring keep saying the same thing, it is not the first or second or 30th time that i have this kind of discussion, do you know what a theory in science is? Do you understand the consensus that the Theory of Evolution generates in the scientific community? Did you ever look at the proof? Do you even understand Natural Selection?
Well, if you do and you prefer to ignore it, and cherry pick what science as demonstrate only when it is useful for backing your "personal theories" i have no will to argue with you, if you are going to deny science at least be consistent, never touch a computer again, don't use the Internet, don't use a cell phone, a microwave oven, a car, medicine, don't watch TV or listen to the radio, you get the point, well, go live with the Amish or with some lost tribe in Africa or in the Amazon forest. You cannot do with science, specially with peer reviewed works and proven theories what you do with the bible, you cannot cherry pick what you personally like and discard the rest.
And sure you can believe in Big Bang and the 6 day creation, here's how i do it:
I believe the Big Bang Theory is currently the best theory to explain the formation of the Universe.
I believe the 6 day creation story to be the result of the imagination of some guy a few millenia ago in an attempt to explain the origin of the Universe.
See, i believe in both stories too.
Try to stqay with mne...this explanation may be a little complicated for you. God exists outside of time. He didn't create time as we understand it until the third day as we understand days. Therefore what we call a day may have been experienced by a human mind (at that point of the narrative) as thousands, millions, even kajillions of years. The word of genesis are tre. do not add anything to them. For example someone quoted ... male and female he created them ... the statememt informs that God created all things, and He created males and females. It does not say that He created all things male and female. So don't say that it does. Don't add your own assumption to what is written in black and white. Don't read between the lines.
We've got enough of a challenge to understand what is written, we really have no business assuming things that are NOT written, or trying to comprehend information that was not given.
Ok, now stay with me, no one can speak of anything that lives outside the time, our best science don't has anything like that, any hypothesis you can find about something like that is purely theoretical or speculation.
The Christian Creation Myth contradicts what we know about the Universe, here are some points:
First day: Light is commanded to appear ("Let there be light!") The light is divided from the darkness, and they are named "day" and "night"[Gen 1:3]
This is ok, the big explosion generated light, what doesn't makes sense is the "day" and "night" because you have to be in a planet in order to have day and night.
Second day: God makes a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies".[Gen 1:6–7]
Apparently there were some waters to be divided, this is pure nonsense.
Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command)."earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).[Gen 1:9–10]
Ok, here the earth already exists, and plants are created.
Fourth day: God puts lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made to appear (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.[Gen 1:14–15]
Now here is the really outrageous stuff, the sun the moon and all other stars are created after the earth and the plants on earth, in your attempt to conciliate this story with the Big Bang Theory you are willing to accept that the earth was somehow alone in space for millions of years or so, with living plants in total darkness, and before the stars were born and the heavy elements were produced earth was already here with living plants.
Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command) He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.[Gen 1:20–21]
We know that life started in the oceans and flourished in the oceans before expanded to land, makes no sense saying that first there were plants and then there were creatures in the ocean...
Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."[Gen 1:26–28]
Now the reptiles are created, after the birds!!! Really?
Well, the human creation is purely anthropocentric, somehow we are special, we are an image of god, and in likeliness of god, without any of god characteristics, we don't "live outside of time", whatever that means, we aren't immortal, we do not have any special power, we are just like any other animal.
As you can see, this creation myth has nothing of reality, it is pure fantasy, you have to make a lot of effort trying to fit this story in what we know from the formation of the universe and the origin and development of life on earth.
Another thing, i was raised Catholic and was a believer till my 14 or 15 years old, never in all those years someone tried to sell me the Christian Creation Myth as true, as literal, the Vatican supports the Evolution Theory, it was a huge surprise for me when i discovered a few years ago that people in the USA believe this to be true, i could understand if it came from some poor and uneducated third world country, not from USA, and i learned about creation in my biology class when i was 16, i already knew the Genesis story but i never thought that it was something that people believed to be serious.
Don't want to be a preacher, and this post is getting very long and i'm writing it for half hour, but you are putting to much credit in a book written by some anonymous guys some really long time ago, and you are assuming that those anonymous guys were being honest, and the guys who claim that god spoke to them were not really schizophrenic and the voices in their head was just their delusion. Well those are some pretty big assumptions.
Have you forgotten that Einstein proved time to be relative? You can't quantify it, much as you would like it. The transcribers of the Bible are not anonymous.You like to pick and choose the facts you =use and claim there are no facts except the ones you use. All i'm saying is this...there is an explanation that makes both scenerios plausible. Just because we haven't heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, many secular scientists raise many questions regarding the 'old earth' theory, postulating that the earth may be far younger than originally theorized. These speculations are based on geological evidence and the inherent flaws in the systems science has been using to date the earth, the universe, beyond. You can't prove sh***. Don't accuse me of insanity because I choose to believe in another theory that can't be proven.
Just as you can't explain who you are without name, title, job or position. St Augustus of Hippo said "I know what time is but when you ask me, I do not". The christians, muslims, the jewish all have an idea of what God is, but when you ask, they do not. As soon as you put words to it, the intended meaning is lost.
Yet again you are trying to use science to prove a point, do you even understand relativity? Do you know that the Big Bang was discovered because of relativity? Do you know it was a Catholic priest who discovered it?
Please name the authors of the bible, lets start with Genesis...
What i use is not my personal opinion, are verified facts.
"there is an explanation that makes both scenerios plausible. Just because we haven't heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
I'll wait to hear it then, and then i'll wait for it to be peer reviewed.
"Meanwhile, many secular scientists raise many questions regarding the 'old earth' theory, postulating that the earth may be far younger than originally theorized. These speculations are based on geological evidence and the inherent flaws in the systems science has been using to date the earth, the universe, beyond. You can't prove sh***."
How much younger? 100 million years, ok that's fine...
Please name the scientists and their papers, i'de like to read their work.
Dating earth and dating the universe are completely different sciences.
"Don't accuse me of insanity because I choose to believe in another theory that can't be proven."
I'm not accusing you of insanity, i just think that it is naive, and dangerous, depending on what it is, to believe in things that can't be proven and many times contradict the common sense.
MOSES, IS HE THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH?
"Most so-called liberal theologians and commentators, along with not a few conservatives, have followed the theory that a number of unknown writers and editors, during the period of Israel's history from about the time of King Hezekiah to that of Ezra the Scribe, compiled and edited several old legends and traditions, verbally transmitted not only by their own Israeli ancestors but also by the Egyptians, Babylonians, and others, into the Book of Genesis. Presumably they then allowed the story to be circulated that these had come down from Moses, in order to invest them with the authority of their great Lawgiver. This is the 'Documentary Hypothesis,' and has been applied not only to Genesis but also to the other books of the Pentateuch and to Joshua, and in a lesser degree to many of the other books of the Old Testament. It is also called the 'J, E, D, P Hypothesis,' the letters standing for the supposed writers of the respective portions. The 'Jehovist Document,' supposedly dated about 850 B.C., was marked by the use of the divine name Jehovah; the 'Elohish Document,' about 750 B.C., was marked by use of the name Elohim; the 'Deuteronomist Document,' was supposed to be a further editorial emendation of the first two, dated about 620 B.C., containing especially most of the Book of Deuteronomy; and, finally, the 'Priestly Document,' represents supposed editorial revisions by a group of Jewish priests around 500 B.C."
[Evidence, cont., p. 476]:
"Archeology has recently provided us with two powerful supports for the early dating of the priestly writings. Kitchen describes the first find: 'Certain difficult expressions and passages in Leviticus could be solved only with cuneiform data of the eighteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C.... These were archaic and obscure by the postexilic period.' (Kitchen, AOOT, 129).The Ras Shamra tablets (1400 B.C.), which contain a large amount of Ugaritic literature, render the Wellhausen post-exilic concept void. Many of the technical sacrificial terms of Leviticus were discovered in far removed Canaanite-speaking Ugarit (1400 B.C.). [Such as]1) ishsheh - "offering made by fire"2) kalil - "whole burnt offering"3) shelamin - "peace offering"4) asham - "guilt offering"Archer is correct in concluding that "these terms were already current in Palestine at the time of Moses and the conquest, and that the whole line of reasoning which made out the terminology of the Levitical cultus to be late is devoid of foundation."]
II) INTERNAL EVIDENCE
A) WITNESS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Josh McDowell states, (EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Vol II, Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, Ca., 1981, pp. 95-116):
"The Pentateuch itself clearly states that these portions of its contents were written by Moses:'''
1) THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT:
a) [EX 24:4, 7]:
"And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel...Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!'
2) RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT
a) [Ex 34:27 referring to Exodus 34:10-26]:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.' "
3) DEUTERONOMIC CODE,
The Deuteronomic code comprises the bulk of Deuteronomy 5-30.
a) [Dt 31:9]:
"So Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel."
b) [Dt 31:24-26]:
"And it came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 'Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD...' "
4) GOD'S JUDGMENT OF AMALEK
a) [Ex 17:14]:
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.' "
5) ITINERARY OF ISRAELITES FROM RAMSES TO MOAB
a) [Nu 33:2]:
"And Moses recorded their starting places according to their journeys by the command of the LORD, and these are their journeys according to their starting places."
6) THE SONG OF MOSES IN DEUTERONOMY 32
"Now therefore write this song for yourselves, and teach it to the sons of Israel; put it on the lips, in order that this song may be a witness for Me against the sons of Israel.
"For when I bring them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and are satisfied and become prosperous, then they will turn to other gods and serve them, and spurn Me and break My covenant.
"Then it shall come about when many evils and troubles have come upon them, that this song will testify before them as a witness (for it shall not be forgotten from the lips of their descendants); for I know their intent which they are developing today, before I have brought them into the land which I swore."
B) THE TERM 'HAVING WRITTEN' SIGNIFIES AUTHORSHIP AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN ONE HAS ACTUALLY PENNED THE WORDS
...When we speak of Moses as having "written" the Pentateuch or being its "author," it should be noted as has previously been pointed out, that quite in accord with ancient Mesopotamian practice, this does not necessarily mean he himself wrote the words with his own hand, although such may have been the case. It is quite possible that the bulk of the Pentateuch was, like Hammurabi's Law Code, dictated to scribes. This in no way undermines the essential Mosaic authorship of the contents of the Pentataeuch.
C) THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN THESE PASSAGES ATTRIBUTE THEIR AUTHORSHIP TO MOSES IN EITHER THE SUPERSCRIPTION OR SUBSCRIPTION:
Exodus - 12:1-28; 20-24, 25-31, 34
Leviticus - 1-7, 8, 13, 16, 17-26, 27
Numbers - 1, 2, 4, 6:1-21, 8:1-4, 8:5-22, 15, 19, 27:6-23, 28, 29, 30, 35
Deuteronomy - 1-33
D) MOSES CERTAINLY WAS IN A POSITION TO WRITE THE PENTATEUCH
He grew up in Pharoah's house and was, as Stephen said,
a) [Acts 7:22]:
"Learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians"
All now agree that his learning would have included the knowledge of writing.
Moses had the information necessary for the project. It is likely that records of pre-Mosaic history existed; and had they been in the possession of the Hebrews, they would have certainly become accessible to Moses, the champion of his people. Had they been kept in the Egyptian archives from Joseph's time, they would have likewise been available to Moses during his early adulthood.
Moses also had the time to record this history. He spent 40 years in Egypt and 40 years in Midian, and there was plenty of time in both of these periods to author Genesis. 53/93, 94
2) MOSES' QUALIFICATIONS
That Moses was pre-eminently prepared to author a work such as the Pentateuch is witnessed by the following qualifications:
Education - he was trained in the royal Egyptian court in their highly developed academic disciplines. This without a doubt included a knowledge of writing, for even the women's toilet articles of the time were inscribed.
Tradition - he undoubtedly received the Hebrew traditions of their early history and encounters with God.
c) GEOGRAPHICAL FAMILIARITY
Geographical familiarity - Moses possessed an intimate knowledge of the climate and geography of Egypt and Sinai as displayed in the Pentateuch.
Motivation - as the founder of the Commonwealth of Israel, he had more than adequate incentive to provide the nation with concrete moral and religious foundations.
Time - 40 long years of wandering in the Sinai wilderness easily allowed ample opportunity to write this work.
At a time when even uneducated slaves working at the Egyptian turquoise mines were inscribing their records on the tunnel walls, it is inconceivable that a man of Moses' background would fail to record the details of one of history's most significant epochs.
Kurt Sethe, one of the greatest authorities of this century on ancient Egypt, in attempting to find the father of one of the greatest contributions to the literary progress of civilization, the North Semitic script, mentions Moses as a possibility [Vom Bilde Zum Buchstaben, (1939), p. 56]. 46/23.
B) WITNESS OF THE OTHER OLD TESTAMENT BOOK
Really, you are using the bible to prove that it was written by Moses "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible". Really?
This backs up my point, you wrote this:
"When we speak of Moses as having "written" the Pentateuch or being its "author," it should be noted as has previously been pointed out, that quite in accord with ancient Mesopotamian practice, this does not necessarily mean he himself wrote the words with his own hand"
"Kurt Sethe, one of the greatest authorities of this century on ancient Egypt, in attempting to find the father of one of the greatest contributions to the literary progress of civilization, the North Semitic script, mentions Moses as a possibility [Vom Bilde Zum Buchstaben, (1939), p. 56]. 46/23."
The existence of Moses does not generate consensus, there is no record of Jews at that time in Egypt, and also no record of those 40 years in the desert.
That is pseudohistory!
More about Moses and the Torah:
"Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE; Christian tradition has tended to assume an earlier date."
"Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Torah does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.
From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BCE)."
As you can see, even if Moses really has existed he lived many years before any recorded stories.
Next book please, and now don't put the things that prove my point in your post, at least make me find them...
And here is a bonus:
"Besides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined."
Whatever Einstein said about time does not equate to your assessment of it, far from it.
I never denied science...i only take it as far as it goes. Einstein said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". My personal philosophy values both, in their place. But science does not replace my need for a Holy Creator any more than religion replaces my need for reason. I do not have blind faith...it is tempered by scientific inquiry and a few other mental disciplines as well. You would do well to remember that Isaac Newton, the father of scientific inquiry, was a deeply religious man. But there are many examples of science avowing this or that supposition to be true, only to later humbly admit, hat in hand that science was wrong...the evidence for darwinism is far from comprehensive...spotty at best. Do not err in the false assumption that we of faith are childish, churlish, or or delusional. Unless, of course, you want us to make you look like fools.
That explains it. Its YOUR need, not reason or logic.
Faith by definition is blind.
I suspect you need a new dictionary:
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Nothing blind there, except perhaps your determined resistance to anything regarding Christ.
I think you need to understand what is written, instead of cutting and pasting. A belief is the confidence we have that something(a statement) is true, with or without reason and faith is the belief without reason/logic.
"faith is the belief without reason/logic"
Well that's OK then, because having experienced the Holy Spirit, given to us by Christ, I have good reason to accept that God does speak and guide those who are willing to listen to His 'voice', so logically I would be insane to deny what I know to be truth.
Come to that, anybody who refuses to experience the Holy Spirit of God because they will not accept His existence until they have evidence, yet will not agree to explore how to gain the evidence, must be insane (IMO).
Experiencing and hearing nonexisting entities is called hallucination, which is mostly a psychiatric disease (can occur in organic brain disease too).
I told you this before, evidence is subjective. There are so many people in the asylum who see or experience so many imaginary beings, what merit your claim has got, over theirs?
I bolded some relevant parts of Einsteins quote that is always devoid from the very same believers explanations who would use this quote in their defense of those explanations.
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
So, you'll accept Newton's science because he was a man of faith but...
... you won't accept Darwin's science because he wasn't a man of faith?
It is no assumption, it is evident. And, you are free to make anyone look the fool if you wish.
Belief in a giant lizard that sneezed the universe into existence is also possible to believe. Understanding the Big Bang and other theories is quite another story altogether.
Nothing to do with lizards ATM:
Jatravartids are small blue creatures of the planet Viltvodle VI with more than fifty arms each. They are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
Many races believe that the Universe was created by some sort of god or in the Big Bang. The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief" (their version of the End of the Universe). The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ra … travartids
We all read Adams... great writer with a wonderful imagination, I smoked the same stuff and never wrote anything like him!
Hang on, wouldn't a creature with 50 arms be able to appear as if by majik in multiple forums at the same time, spewing confusing but inane posts to all and sundry.... HaHa, me thinks I am understanding what goes on here....
Which apparently looks like a giant lizard.
A stunning assessment of evolution that is far removed from an understanding of evolution.
So @pedrog i have it on good authority that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Then Joshua wrote Joshua, Samuel wrote Judges, Ruth, and so on...Nathan wrote portions, Solomon wrote portions, David wrote portions...but this really isn't the place for a post-secondary class on the authorship of the Bible, is it????? Biblical scholars have good historical evidence for every claim they make regarding every author of every book of the bible. Just because the secular community says we don't, don't make it so...
@pedrog, the text I provided does not argue that anyone but moses wrote the pentateuch, it merely states there are others who claim that he did not, and further lists those claims made. The article further states with authority that Moses is the most likely author of the pentateuch, and why. There are historical documents from that era...written by the Jews. most of them happen to be part of holy writ. That doesn't make them untrue.
Quit trying to muddy the water in my glass just because your water came from the sewer.,
Is this for me?
If it is i can take this as personal attack, that is not proper etiquette on the forums...
"Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE; Christian tradition has tended to assume an earlier date."
"Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Torah does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.
From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BCE)."
As you can see, even if Moses really has existed he lived many years before any recorded stories.
If this information is false, be free to correct it, it's Wikipedia.
Now can you point me to some source where i can read about the documents cited here: "There are historical documents from that era...written by the Jews. most of them happen to be part of holy writ"
Or do i have to take your word, i'm not a man of faith, i need proof remember?
Holy Crap people. It's like a big circle, who cares who wrote it and when. It's written, just look at what it says and come to terms with whether or not you agree with it.
Amen, especially as in reality, God dictated it, so who cares who the scribes were!
Well, this kind of details are important to me, and people should give more importance to them too.
Getting back to the topic, the bible and specially those 5 books supposedly attributed to Moses are the worst moral code ever in history, just something from Numbers:
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
12-13Then they returned to their own camp in the hills of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho, where Moses, Eleazar, and the other Israelite leaders met the troops outside camp.
14Moses became angry with the army commanders 15and said, " I can't believe you let the women live! 16They are the ones who followed Balaam's advice and invited our people to worship the god Baal Peor. That's why the LORD punished us by killing so many of our people. 17You must put to death every boy and all the women who have ever had sex. 18But do not kill the young women who have never had sex. You may keep them for yourselves."
see, now we know alittle more about what is said in the text! *inhales* I feel better, what about you?
Walking taller just knowing that pedrog is watching our back and chasing down those pesky OT verses that concern him so much, and just sooooo very glad that we live in the words of Christ, not Moses, or whoever it was that actually wrote down Gods words.
Still Gods words for that time.
Deb said something that I came to terms with years ago that, "Scriptures are not either literal or subjective, they are both literal AND subjective." Not everything is literal, some things are a just a picture and others are meant to be taken word for word. I do my best not to get into these types of conversations because mostly they go nowhere.
I believe in Christ first and foremost. Anyone who reads my hubs and is with me in my life could tell you that. I also believe that there is nothing that science could ever prove that could dismiss God and in fact see God ever more clearly with everything that is discovered.
Who'd a thunk it, a post about evolution would end up in a battle of "is the bible legit" shows my optimism I guess.
Shows all things eventually turn around God as well.... just saying!
I quit this web site due to its discrimination against anyone who believes in God. I have deleted every hub I ever wrote and my profile. To anyone who believes in God you should leave this site before they discriminate against you as well. Let the Godless own this place and watch them fall as cursed people.
Yes, because that was Jesus' message. That's why he kept to the churched people of his time and stayed away from people that doubted him.
WOW, your hubs are being taken down because you talk about religion, that is a serious accusation, Hubpages is a USA company you should take them to court, i think it's illegal to discriminate based on religious beliefs in the USA...
On the other hand if you are talking about other users on this website that don't buy your religious crap and challenge your beliefs, that is called a debate not discrimination...
So you turn tail and run? I don't want to make you feel bad or belittle you or anything but look. IF you are going to leave hubpages just do it but don't say, "They hurt my feelings and don't charish my words so I'm leaving" OF course people are going to be rude to you. Everyone is, just get over it. But don't act like Christ needs your or my protection. I hope you don't leave though. I have never read your stuff and never seen you before on here but Hubpages is a great public forum in which you can learn and can inpart wisdom. There are some great people here. Besides even if you're not posting about Christ, it's a good place to look up movie reviews
This is not running this is defiance. There is no profit to be made on here and my greatest argument is one of free will and respecting the sanctuary of others. The first thing I learned as a child is that common sense does not exist. You can not solve a problem that avoids the problem in the first place. Its not only those who believe in God that die in apathy but every American that allows the criminals who rule our lives to exist. If every level of life is robbed, eventually you have no where left to live. A person of no belief has no principals in which to give their lives to something greater. Is it low pay to a master you never see and unrewarded as if your life does not demand both success and failure in order to learn that we are only human with out others. We die alone not because we choose to, but because no one takes notice of a truth that we are more powerful when we stand together in defiance.
"no one takes notice of a truth that we are more powerful when we stand together in defiance." Actually it is more like the 'powers that be' don't allow it.
My point exactly, powers that do not allow what? Argument, based on truth, not on personal reasons. I do not argue scripture based on the perceptions of others but question the word and why it is written. I believe that their is a reason not based on anyone's perception, but why it is written beyond my intelligence. This does not mean that their are not exceptions or other reasons why but it means that their is a goal for all to follow. How could I be a member of all religions false or true and not be a believer in Gods plan to learn?
And you should belief in nothing for an Earthly existence of rotting flesh when you die should bring satisfaction in a world consumed of Earthly purpose in which most of us have been excluded from.
And your point proves what? nothing but a continued bias towards your own damnation, enjoy. What am I suppose to be, some happy God believing person kissing your butt, hoping you might believe. Here is my cheek hit it! Prove any point but you have no point at all. Damn how I wish I had anyone of any intelligence to speak to. I love to be wrong but I have nothing at this point but worthless conversation. Did you offer anything in your hate for God and his believers? WE know you hate us let it all come out, we and God want to hear what you have to say.
We should not bring God into the debate on what constitutes moral or immoral. We are human beings and not animals, we have distinct personalities and we are aware of it. We have our own definitions of goodness and evil and we have created values to regulate ourselves. This is all for maintaining discipline and order in the society. We cant allow friction and dissonance in the society arising out of mindless self promotion. Morality is a good contraption to take the human race haead in terms of intellectual and civilizational growth.
Here's a thought...we cannot have a discussion about morality without bringing up God, because in truth, that is where true morality ultimately comes from. (OMG she's going back to the Bible again...) What may have once been moral for Jews became immoral because God said so...incest, for example. We have no word on this until the laws given to Moses. Many have speculated that Cain and Seth married blood relatives. there may be some truth in this, I don't know. We do know close cousins were marrying each other , uncles once removed were marrying nieces, and so on...as late as Abraham's day. It didn't become a big deal until God said it was a big deal...this is probably because genetically it wasn't a problem until time and original sin had its way with the gene pool, and mating with close relatives became a biological game of russian roulette. (sic?) satyaswarup, you are correct in some of your assertions about morality, but you're still missing the point. We are human, ultimately because God made us so, after His own image. This is why we strive to be moral. because God is moral. (I know I'm gonna hear some neg. feedback from this one, but it is true.) We are merciful because God is merciful. We are not nearly as good at practicing these characteristics as we should be, but hopefully as individuals and as a species, we keep trying.
Even when people had morals long before the Bible or God came along.
Yes, making up nonsense in the name of god is quite popular amongst believers.
You mean spiteful, jealous, petty and vengeful?
Believers practice it all the time and they are very good at it. Please stop trying.
speak English much?
My experience has demonstrated otherwise.
On all counts.
My goodness, the intelligence of believers is actually increasing to the point of being childish.
I'm aghast at how clever you are, aquasilver. Could you possibly focus on me personally more? Does that make you feel superior somehow? Is it the best you can muster on a public forum?
Well done, sir. From a kindergarten playground perspective, of course.
Is he calling you John Conner? This lego scene reminds me of T2 where he and his buddy rip off the ATM
John Conner was the leader of the human race in that story BTW.......I wouldn't take it as an offense!
The point is that he is focusing on me personally rather than the subject matter, which apparently is frowned upon according to the TOS. And, the fact that he is focusing on me rather than the subject matter shows more about him and his level of intelligence than anything else.
Are you defending folks who make jokes about userids? Is that why you're here?
Think about it.
I think for a man who irrefutably the antagonist of Hubpages it's a little amusing to see you being the one getting bent out of shape. Look I don't support him offending you and I'm sorry that I made it seem that way. I was trying to keep it light. But how can you be surprised at his reaction. You belittle peoples beliefs constantly. Like on every post practically.
People identify more with their beliefs than they do their own families. You can't post whatever you want under the guise of, "I'm not commenting on you, just your beliefs, intelligence and understanding on the matter" and expect no one to say anything back at you.
Nothing personal, just an observation.
That's funny, the only antagonists here are the ones who tell you to believe in Jesus/Allah, or else.
Once again, I'm not offended. That post was laughable in the sense of laughing at someone acting childishly.
And, that is precisely what is wrong with religious beliefs and precisely the reason nonbelievers comment on them. That is utterly ridiculous and irrational to identify with medieval beliefs than your own family. It is very much what is wrong with the world we reside.
They are free to respond to my posts and criticize my reasoning all they want, but they need to stick to the subject matter and not focus on me personally. Do you understand?
That's just a result of religious indoctrination, not having the capacity to think things through.
"You mean spiteful, jealous, petty and vengeful?"
"Yeah, sure. "
" That's not easy to do with selfish, disrespectful, dishonest and ignorant Christians."
"How can you trust those who are blatantly dishonest?"
"No, it proves your dishonesty."
"More gobbledegook you have just made up. More dishonesty."
"If you don't care about being smart, at the very least, try to be honest."
"That is a lie and you know it."
"What about childish myths? Why do you still cling to them?"
"Remove the surgically implanted Bible from your eyes, first."
"Keep making false statements. "
None of these quotes are personal of course?
y is it you think everything is about you? Somewhat self-centered, don't you think?
Here's what I love about Deb, she doesn't back down. I would have to argue her point as well. I belive that the moral base comes from God. Not nessacerily the bible since morals were set befor the first page of the book was written.
It would seem that you are claiming that cultures and peoples that don't subscribe to a belief in your God have either no morals or at best morals that are deficient.
The average Chinese or Indian, for example. Or African or South American tribes that have never been exposed to Christianity. Even the majority of Europe - Christianity seems to be fading fast there.
There are enormous numbers of people in this world that have never heard of your God, yet I could not make the claim they have no morals.
And yet if a culture's morals come from God (and presumably only your God) and they don't know God then they cannot, by definition, have an acceptable moral structure.
In addition, any culture that does not conform to your concept of morals, based on your getting them from God, has no morals. Even if they are superior to yours and come from their God.
This would seem to be a contradictory claim; that morals come only from God, but that peoples that have no knowledge of God can also have good morals.
Morality is something that is in every person. I didn't say you had to know God, my God, to have morals, I simply stated that morality comes from God.
But, it doesn't, quite the contrary, in fact.
From which I deduce that you believe your god (for all others are false, or just imagination) instills the "proper" morality in everyone, whether they acknowledge Him as God or not.
Or, in other words, correct morality is something that all people are born with. This, of course, is completely false - small children have almost no morals at all. They will lie and steal at the drop of a hat (they don't even understand ownership for goodness sake) and they will hit other children every time they turn around. It is only through parental controls and teaching that they learn better.
So who taught their parents how to behave?
Heck, I'll say it...God gives you stuff whether you believe in Him or not.
we all have some sense of morality not quite innate, but not all learned behavior either. teaching reinforces it. but some of it is there in the first place. catch a kid taking a toy from another kid. ask what he's doing...he'll probably lie...cus he knows it's wrong to steal, n wants to avoid punishment. that happens without teaching. how did the kid know it was wrong...human instinct which aids in development of morals.
??? How can you possibly say he lies to avoid punishment while also claiming it happens without teaching? Punishment IS teaching! Negative consequences of our actions is the single biggest learning "tool" there is.
And no, when kids get large enough to begin taking toys from other kids we don't punish them - we recognize that they don't know better and our first lessons to them are correspondingly gentle. As time goes on we begin to punish, to the point the kids will lie about it. Whereupon we start the morality lessons about lying.
It all comes from learning, not from instinct instilled by God.
So you are saying then that we have a built in morality?
Where do 'we' (the parents) gain that insight?
It must have started somewhere....
From my post you replied to: "It all comes from learning, not from instinct instilled by God". Why would you twist that to the complete opposite, that we DO have a built in instinct for morality?
We learn from our parents, from society at large, and from interactions with other people. If you are cruel and rude to others you will find that you won't like the results. You have learned not to do that.
Society, too, learns from the past (sometimes). For instance, society has learned that it is valuable to treat women as real people instead of slaves of their husbands - it results in a much healthier and more productive culture.
Or are you asking me to provide the name and location of the first parent to instruct their children on morality, much like demanding that the anthropologist produce fossils of every minute change in every organism to show evolution? If so I would suggest talking to Lucy as a starting point.
Who is Lucy?
Anyway, my point is that if morality comes from parental guidance, where did that first spark of 'This is not right behaviour" come from?
Someone in history developed a 'morality' and as morality is hardly a natural thing to want to adhere to (hence the child steals, lies and needs correction, sorry, does that sound like we are naturally inclined to 'original sin'?) then at some point 'society' had to decide what was moral and what was not.
I would imagine that if we are not born with an 'instinct' to at least know inwardly what is right, trying to sell the idea of morality would be a hard sell (sure is today).
What sparked that moral decision?
Obviously nobody could name the first parent to chastise their progeny to live by a moral code, probably easier to identify the first parents to stop teaching a moral code, (about 1965 I should think) but my interest is where you think any morality sprung from?
If not from an inbuilt 'instinct' then from what?
The answer to that was already given in this thread, here you go:
"There you go, this should help:
And also check:
Yet again Evolution gives the answers."
And here's Lucy:
Sorry - "Lucy" is/was a very early ancestor of mankind, an Australopithecus that lived about 3 million years ago. Even animals often have a moral code of sorts (don't eat your babies) and it's probably safe to assume that Lucy did, too, even though not human.
I'll try once more. Morals begin primarily as a "tool" if you will, to gain what we want or to improve society in general.
Example: you're right, a child lies and must be taught not to. Who first discovered that lying is not productive and doesn't produce desired results? Anyone that is an inveterate liar will soon find that no one believes them; not a particularly desirable outcome. Over time and hundreds or thousands of individuals all finding this same result society begins to realize that lying is usually counter-productive and a general feeling arises that it should not be done. Wanting their child to be liked and accepted, parents teach the child not to lie. Eventually it becomes a moral code that nearly everyone (politicians excepted) agree with.
A child steals, too. Society has found that thieves are counterproductive to the health of the economy and few people want to be victims of a thief. Society thus punishes thieves, and over time that, too, becomes a moral accepted by most people: don't steal. This one ends up much stronger than the lying moral because of the actual punishment - society will teach you the moral whether you like it or not.
Eventually these concepts are so common and so strong that they become "right" and "wrong": morals.
Eventually someone realizes that most morals come down to the golden rule and formally advocates it. Society in general accepts it, and has for millenia.
Now, religion has for centuries has tried to force morals (rules for behavior) on people that have nothing to do with this golden rule (Love God, Pray daily, don't have a "wardrobe malfunction" and all the other demands strictly from and about the church). These are far from universally accepted, are not a part of the golden rule, and do not carry nearly the weight of morals that have come about from experience and learned activities.
So in fact, you maintain that despite 'millions' of years of trying to teach children morality, they are still born with a natural 'instinct' to lie, cheat and steal?
But I assume you reject the concept of 'original sin'?
I live with many Asian folk, they hold great stead in what is called 'face' which in effect means that you should not cause someone else to lose 'face' because that would make them look and feel inferior.
This results in them lying a whole lot, in order to NOT make those they deal with feel inferior or stupid.
Where does that fit into an 'evolutionary' moral code?
Why has their 'evolutionary development' led them to lie as a good and moral deed?
I think it is insufficiently evidenced (by rational standards) to say that 'Lucy' had a moral code.
OK, you reject the 10 commandments, mainly because they mention God:
I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
Maybe you would go with the last five?
But we were also given the Noahide commandments:
Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Sexual immorality
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
Establishment of courts of law
There were originally six, the seventh was added later, do you reject those as well?
Or do you accept the New World Order 10 commandments, the supposed peak of humanitarian thought?
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.
I would imagine those may fit your perspective better, but I apologise if I am wrong.
Yes folk may have realised that we needed a moral code, and without doubt the original ten commandments form the basis of most of the worlds legal and morality systems, mainly because we Brits took them with us when we had an Empire that covered most of the globe.
I just think it's simplistic to think that humanity devised them all by their own-some and that they sprung up 'just like that' but then again I also find it tricky to believe that humanity is just one big accidental occurrence that turned up 'just like that'
Off yo bed now, nearly 2am here and now.
That different cultures have different morals is an excellent example of why morals cannot be considered to be instilled by God, or even as instinctual matters. Were either one true we could reasonably expect all peoples to have the same moral code. Instead, most people familiar with other cultures recognize that morals differ, and that there are many morals that work quite well for one culture but not for another.
Morals of Lucy (if any) - yes this is a stretch, and meant at least half facetiously and half to indicate that our morals began long ago.
Whether I personally reject the first 4 commandments is immaterial; the point is that a very large percentage of humanity rejects them. They thus cannot be universal morals, either given by God or concepts we were born with. Some of the others are very common, while some are not. Adultery is (sadly) so prevalent in America today that it cannot be claimed to be morally wrong in that country and no one would find it wrong to covet your neighbors house so badly that you paid him twice what it was worth to own it.
The Noahide commands are much the same; some are almost universally accepted (stealing, killing, courts) but the others are not. Some cultures eat live animals, many if not most worship idols, and sexual mores differ so radically among the cultures of earth as to be nearly meaningless. Again, they cannot be instinctual or given from God.
The New Word Order commandments sound like a fine ideal for societies (as opposed to individuals for the most part) to exist by, but they have not been accepted by anywhere near the number of cultures as to be termed morally right or wrong. At this point in the evolution of world morals it is like the prohibition against adultery; fine and admirable until we decide we want our neighbors wife.
I would disagree (with no evidence) that the 10 commandments are the basis of the worlds moral structure because Brits spread them when they colonized. Some are not even recognized (religious ones again) most places, and many others I'm sure predate Moses' trip up the mountain. Of the 10 commandments that are accepted where Britain "colonized" already occupied lands I would bet that they were mostly in place before the Brits took over.
What's really silly is hearing from believers who are baffled by evolution because they never took the time to understand it is the fact they expect "sparks" to fly whenever an explanation is required to satisfy their curiosity. They simply cannot comprehend past magical thinking and that everything suddenly comes into existence with the wave of a magic hand.
Whereas you have no problem accepting that the whole thing was just one great big accident that happened to create the ideal environment for life to exist, one in trillions of planets, just far enough from the Sun, in fact just about perfect.
Change our format 1% and all life would be impossible, yeah, that's real easy to buy, especially if someone wished to avoid accepting that God exists.
That is not true. The conditions on earth alone vary far more than 1% from the desert to the high mountains to the arctic to the depths of the ocean and even deep underground, yet life exists in all these places.
You confuse life as being the reason the earth is where it is; in actuality life is the way it is because the earth is where and what it is.
Not confusing that at all, you are correct, life only exists because out of trillions of possible planets, this one alone (to our best knowledge, despite searching hard with SETI for 40 years)is in exactly the right place and formation to support our existence.
I was not talking about world variables on earth, I was referring to the fact that we exist because the earth is exactly where it is in the universe.
Now you can believe that was a total accident if you wish, but I don't.
Sure you can do the Math, even if the probability for a planet like Earth to exist is 0.000001% the vastness of the Universe is in favor.
And the Earth don't exist for we to exist, we exist because the conditions on Earth are favorable for that.
About SETI you may want to read this:
No, I don't accept YOUR misinformed perception of scientific theories.
That is pure nonsense. If any of the physical laws were different, it would only mean different types of lifeforms would exist.
Accepting your irrational beliefs about gods has nothing to do with it.
I just want to say that I acknowledge the above argument really sucks, and I haven't quite figured out what the right apology would be at this point, but I will...and yeah, this argument stinks.
but i know my own kids, and i know there's been times they've done wrong, and knew it, without being told, and that for me proves it.
There are certain things that are always wrong and we've always known it...killing. I killed a bird once as a kid, didn't mean to kill it, was trying to scare it away was shooting at the branch it sat on with a BB gun, but I hit the bird instead. It was an oriole, and it had a mate. I killed it, and immediately filled with terrible remorse, way beyond, 'oh I shouldn't have killed this bird." I had taken the life out of that beautiful bird, and that life wasn't mine to take. No one taught me that. I was born knowing that.
Their parents, of course. In addition, society will also give lessons, often the hard way. In neither case is it some kind of built in instinct from God.
You might also look around at different cultures - they very often have nearly opposite views on some morality issues. If God instilled them, you would think that everyone would have the same concept of moral behavior.
I wouldn't expect to see it everywhere. Look at Cain and Able, perfect example of how Man's morals are vs. God's.
"What's really silly is hearing from believers who are baffled by evolution because they never took the time to understand it is the fact they expect "sparks" to fly whenever an explanation is required to satisfy their curiosity. "
Hey troubled guy speak for yourself, you'r not speakin for me...I have no trouble with the concept,,,i just don't buy it cuz there's not enough proof. Cuz in light of what we do know, there's no way i came from the same branch of the animal tree as a chimp, or a lemur or whatever. There may have been some sharing of mitochondrial dna with neandertalis, who was also human. Lucy was not human. Hominoid as in like a human, but not human. I am actually more willing to go with the 'alien' theories than I am with evolutionary theory. Even Darwin said his theory was ' whack.'
You just contradicted yourself.
Spend some time learning something about evolution before you dismiss it out of hand based on what you don't know about it.
And, aliens were created by God? Or, did they evolve?
More lies to support irrational religious beliefs.
No, i did not. Lucy is not an example of neandertalis. Neither did I say that I believed in aliens. I said I could believe in aliens before i could believe Darwinism. First of all, there's more evidence...secondly it would explain religious diversity...i could go on. I do not, in fact, believe we were put here by aliens. I believe we were created in some divine process I could never begin to fathom with my human mind. I believe in the work physicists are now doing attempting to isolate the "God" particle, which they believe offers a plausible explanation for the 'big bang.' There are elements in the Darwinian theory that have merit; as a whole, I dismiss the theory as every bit as fantastical and magical as you claim my faith to be...perhaps even more so. The only lies being told are the ones you tell yourself. There will be a reckoning...good luck with that.
In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature “in between” ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):
“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been”.2
Oxnard’s firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”2
I do not understand this at all - it sounds like a noted biologist is complaining that Lucy is not descended from one of the Great Ape species after all.
That was never proposed; Lucy's ancestors far predate any member of modern great apes. She did not descend from gorillas, chimpanzees, humans or bonobo's - rather all of these great apes descended from her and/or her ancestors.
It is thus not possible, and was never proposed to be possible, that Lucy is "in between" any of the great apes and home sapiens. Either Lucy and/or her immediate cousins gave rise to all of that taxonomic family or her ancestors did. In any case, she was not a descendent of any of the modern great apes and thus cannot be in between any of them.
Yes I know, you believe in things that have never been shown to exist, but deny that which has hard evidence.
What evidence do you have for the existence of aliens? No need to go on if you can't even get started.
Obviously, you know nothing about his theories, you have already made that evident, hence you merely dismiss it out of hand.
*queue empty threat of eternal damnation*
Are you trying to reply to me? Check out the chronological view and then "reply" if you are...
No, she wasn't. Lucy was a hominid, just as all the great apes (including humans) are.
i was in error...it happens like, at least twice a year.
Lucy was Australopithicus Aferensis; AL-288 -1
That is correct. A precursor to homo sapiens and some think possibly other of the great apes, notably the gorilla.
Whether or not she gave rise to any of the apes besides humanity, she most definitely is not a stage between any other ape and humanity. Between our common ancestor and humanity, yes, but nothing more.
AGAIN I SAY homo sapiens sapiens has more in common with a chimpanzee (, which is another species from which homo sapiens sapiens does not ascend ) than in common with Australopithicus Aferensis. We are not related to that branch of homonids, or any other.
Even the anthropologists agree on this point
We are a hominid, not just related to them. We belong to the family hominidae (hominid) which all the great apes do. Just as we are also all primates and all mammals.
You're missing the point here - we have more in common with a chimp because we are closer to them. Somewhere between us and Lucy we and chimps took different roads. The tree split after Lucy died, making us closer to chimps.
And no, most anthropologists agree that Lucy was our ancestor. Without absolute, positive proof (not possible at this distance in time) you will always find disagreement, but the large majority find Australopithicus to be our ancestor.
Our oldest ancestor to date is ardipithecus ramidus or ground ape... Many fossils of this species were discovered in Ethiopia in 1994, carbon dated to circa 7,000,000 years ago.
there is no definitive proof that we descended from any other species. The dna argument is weak at best. We share 80% genetic information with all mammals. All that suggests is is that we were created out of the same basic material. We share more characteristics with dolphins than with any ardipithecus species
Didn't God create us all out of the same material? How does the Bible explain genetics?
We also have junk DNA, of which we share a large percentage with everything else, even the "lowest" organisms. We have the Dna marker to grow wings like that of a fly, to grow back limbs, to grow fur and so on. Their inactive DNA molecules. So then, why are they there?
The question of morality realy has nothing to do with any of it, on that side of the issue.
The question is not about the issue of atheism or religion, creationism or evolution, the question is:
"Do you have a moral standard and how do you apply it to yourself"?
What we call morals are just simple rules for ensuring the growth of a society through ensuring that we don't cause conflict between ourselves or interbreed to cause recessive genes and other problems to surface.. If everyone stayed faithful and looked after their families, respected their elders, never stole etc then many of the crimes and problems that plague our society would vanish and people would actually get along better!
The use of "because god says so and you will burn in hell if you don't follow the rules" was a good way to enforce those rules and the rules become more than just common sense ways to prevent conflict but become rules from on high! A great way to get people to follow them without questioning the leaders!
You are telling the truth, but who wants to hear?
I don't use or follow the '"because god says so and you will burn in hell if you don't follow the rules" line of reasoning and haven't since grammar school. I do adhere to the idea that we were designed to follow a set pattern of behavior which, when followed, permits the greatest amount of fulfillment and self actualization, and when not followed creates any number of problems within our society, our self image and our personal relationships. I am a happier person when I live as I was designed to live, with thought towards the needs and wants of others, etc... or in other words when I strive to 'love God with my heart, mind soul and strength' & 'love (my) neighbor as (my) self.' I believe that to be true for every human being that ever has, does or will exist(ed.)
Then, I can only conclude that you're still in grammar school.
And I can only conclude that you are delusional. As I said, I do not conform to a 'crime and punishment' scenerio; rather to a 'cause and effect' reality. If you put your hand into an open flame, you will get burned, even if you don't believe in the flame. If you live life in a way that is contrary to your purpose and design, you will experience consequences you might not find as pleasant as those you'd experience if you'd live according to the 'rules' of human behavior.
God doesn't say 'do it this way because i said so,' rather 'do it this way if you want the best outcome.'
That would be another contradiction.
Flames can actually be seen, unlike your God.
*queue eternal damnation threat*
Here's one of those 'contrary' actions you might want to try since you don't believe in xconsequences...go smoke some meth in front of a police officer and see what happens.
Now that would indeed make me laugh...but only it it was you...anyone else I'd urge to seek treatment.
Will I find your God then? Seems one of the ways to "see" what isn't there is to get really stoned.
And, didn't you just say you don't conform to the "crime and punishment scenarios" and I said that would be a contradiction.
I was merely responding to your feeble attempts to find humor...
My guess is you wouldn't be punished right away, merely arrested and charged, which would be a consequence. Another consequence would be punishment. Thats a consequence I don't have to worry about because I've already figured out life is much more pleasant when I adhere to the 'rules.'
by A Thousand Words4 years ago
Now, this is not really an "attack" on Christianity. My goal is instead to ask an important question. According to many Christians, homosexuality and anything that is different from what they consider to be...
by jcnasia5 years ago
I saw in another forum a good discussion on 10 questions that someone wanted to ask a Christian, so I came up with a few questions that I want to ask an evolutionary naturalist.1. Since naturalism can be logically...
by buddhaanalysis3 years ago
something special and more worthy. So called homo sapiens fight with each other for the issues of castes,mate and material things. We are just like other animals . I don't think that human have developed some...
by CH Elijah Sadaphal10 months ago
Recently, while reading The Magic of Reality (2012) by Richard Dawkins, I came upon this interesting proclamation in the chapter titled, “Why Do Bad Things Happen?”:"Bad things happen because things happen....
by marinealways247 years ago
I would like to make the comparison to how animals live to how humans live. I think animals follow boundaries of nature almost like they are pre-programmed while humans programs are written as they age and grow. While...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
Most zoologists and animal behaviourists have long contended that our tendency to apply human interpretation/invocation to the behaviour of various animal specie (be they domestic or wild)...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.