Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cadetak

What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

627 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

* For a believer of the bible, time references mean whatever makes the bible sound less irrational at the time. If we find out the universe is actually 7 trillion years old, they'll start saying 1 day = 1 trillion years. If we find out the universe is 7,000 years old, they'll start saying 1 day = 1,000 years.

* For a believer of the bible, the bible is allegorical, poetic, or historical depending on what sounds less irrational at the time. When it becomes obvious through science that a species can't survive if you only have 2 individuals, they start saying that part was poetic/allegorical. If we invent a machine to see the past and find out there never was a historical Jesus, they'll start saying that was poetry as well.

* For a believer of the bible, whenever a contradictory/inconsistent piece of information appears, they think, "well the bible is correct, so how am I interpreting this wrong? How do I interpret this correctly?" They'll either re-interpret the passages or re-interpret their concept of reality - just don't change the words.

Given those facts, the OP's question is moot.

PS: yes, it was "thou shall not murder", so go ahead and kill all the people you want in the name of a godly cause. You're good to go.

And if there are a hundred thousand universes and time is a curve, a circle, or a field rather than a one dimensional line, scientists will actually deserve technical scrutiny because, gulp, science is actually technical.

For an historian, the Bible is allegorical, poetic and historical too, depending on what the history is at the time. Just don't change the words to make it agree with science or the state, because it's not a technical manual, not a scientific survey, and not a challenger of state authority.

We certainly don't have to pick squabbles between views on the dinosaur because a Christian's view of the dinosaur is most likely no different than an atheist's.

It's a feat to find someone in the room more anti-statist than I am and yet even I'm not fool enough to join some self-endowed anarchist and throw the state out with the bathwater despite the many imperfections of government.

Based on the criticism people have with Christianity here, the problems lie with the Torah. Can we have Christianity without the Torah? I can. Perhaps someone who lived 1700 years ago couldn't. But I have to believe that even people who lived when the Canon was chosen marveled at the obvious irreconcilability between what was old and what replaced it. We know it is an historical fact that men chose the Canon so why are the little scientists blaming belief in God for the contents? How are the little scientists playing councilors at Carthage telling me what not to believe any better than the councilors at Carthage? Were the councilors at Carthage so enlightened that they chose everything I need to believe and nothing I don't? I don't presume to put such halos on their heads, nor is it relevant to my faith in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm sure the little bullies will find a Christian/Muslim/Jew? where that's not the case and duly drub her for it.

If Christians want to believe the Bible represents the infallible word of God, if Catholics want to believe the Pope represents the infallible will of God, if atheists want to believe whatever moral code they pulled out of their rear ends represents the infallible word of themselves, that doesn't challenge my belief. What does are questions like "What is the color of right?" and "Why are we here?" and "What is my best purpose?" Uninjured people too eager to ingratiate themselves by baiting and goading others for the same process of belief they might have investigated better themselves are just as foolish as their counterparts they bully.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I do not deny that we need to eat meat; I will clarify that eating meat is not utterly needed to live. Meat however, is a very efficient and useful means of sustenance, for many reasons; thus, it can be seen as an important aspect of our diet. That is all I meant. I don't absolutely believe that killing anything is wrong; I meant only that one must weigh the pros and cons of adhering to the Golden Rule or alternatively respect the needs of one's own body. It is very complex, and again, I digress. How did a discussion about the Christian view of the dinosaurs drift off into a bizarre debate about whether or not any particular ethical system is perfect or not?

Go back and review the posts and there is your answer. It started with you cutting in with something that had absolutely nothing to do with dinosaurs.

We don't need to eat meat, and Vegans prove it. You should eat your own cooking. If I was going to eat your cooking, I'd have to think that you shouldn't argue with scientific facts or believe your way around them like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

"One must weigh the pros and cons of adhering to the Golden Rule", the "morality" that's found the world swimming in blood for thousands of years. How enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Go back and review the posts and there is your answer. It started with you cutting in with something that had absolutely nothing to do with dinosaurs.

We don't need to eat meat, and Vegans prove it. You should eat your own cooking. If I was going to eat your cooking, I'd have to think that you shouldn't argue with scientific facts or believe your way around them like that.

I simply cut in because I felt that I should note a few points on morality you didn't seem to have considered. In any case, again, I didn't say that we absolutely need meat, but it is an important dietary element; that is all I said. Anyway, I digress yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

"One must weigh the pros and cons of adhering to the Golden Rule", the "morality" that's found the world swimming in blood for thousands of years. How enlightening.

Oh, wow. Thank you for quote-mining that, and leaving out the second half of the sentence; it makes me trust you so much more.

I said that the Golden Rule is not necessarily an absolute morality: if the benefits of adhering to it are low, and the cost is high, while an alternative option will provide a greater well-being for the person or group at large, then it is advisable to set aside the Golden Rule for just long enough to gain the benefits of an alternate ethic method. For instance, if I said that "killing any living thing is wrong", I would, on the level of the Golden Rule, perhaps agree with the statement; however, being a heterotrophic creature, it is necessary for me to eat other life-forms, and thus, on a practical level, the Golden Rule is not necessarily the optimum moral standard in this scenario.

In any case... I digress yet again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Oh, wow. Thank you for quote-mining that, and leaving out the second half of the sentence; it makes me trust you so much more.

I said that the Golden Rule is not necessarily an absolute morality: if the benefits of adhering to it are low, and the cost is high, while an alternative option will provide a greater well-being for the person or group at large, then it is advisable to set aside the Golden Rule for just long enough to gain the benefits of an alternate ethic method. For instance, if I said that "killing any living thing is wrong", I would, on the level of the Golden Rule, perhaps agree with the statement; however, being a heterotrophic creature, it is necessary for me to eat other life-forms, and thus, on a practical level, the Golden Rule is not necessarily the optimum moral standard in this scenario.

In any case... I digress yet again...

LOL You've been hemming and hawing on the only moral principle you've introduced yet. That doesn't save you from the criticism that your standard of "morality" is what makes the world bleed.

There are infinite justifications for violating a moral principle I'm sure, some better than others. If your rhetorical and humanist analog is the smartest excuse ever formulated by man (and diet was the thing worthy of moral exclusion of all things) then how fantastic you are to enjoy such special powers of fetal morality and quadruple digression. It's this kind of convenient self-assuredness you try to pull off on others as "morality" that raises the importance of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

LOL You've been hemming and hawing on the only moral principle you've introduced yet. That doesn't save you from the criticism that your standard of "morality" is what makes the world bleed.

There are infinite justifications for violating a moral principle I'm sure, some better than others. If your rhetorical and humanist analog is the smartest excuse ever formulated by man (and diet was the thing worthy of moral exclusion of all things) then how fantastic you are to enjoy such special powers of fetal morality and quadruple digression. It's this kind of convenient self-assuredness you try to pull off on others as "morality" that raises the importance of religion.

I will say, the morality of religion is traditionally very poor, I find. I don't want to continue having to repeat myself. I digress.

This is perhaps a good point to note the fact that I am a Hindu; an atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/humanist, to be a bit more elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I will say, the morality of religion is traditionally very poor, I find. I don't want to continue having to repeat myself. I digress.

This is perhaps a good point to note the fact that I am a Hindu; an atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/humanist, to be a bit more elaborate.

I got my morality from religion and I don't find mine any poorer than yours, to put it mildly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

I got my morality from religion and I don't find mine any poorer than yours, to put it mildly.

Which religion? Might I ask?

Edited by Arbitran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Which religion? Might I ask?

The one I was referring to when you showed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

The one I was referring to when you showed up.

Christianity I take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

I hope what you said is one sick joke. Because it is so wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

Why is it wrong?

Ask the millions of people who have lost family members that have been killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

And if there are a hundred thousand universes and time is a curve, a circle, or a field rather than a one dimensional line, scientists will actually deserve technical scrutiny because, gulp, science is actually technical.

Not sure what's your point here

For an historian, the Bible is allegorical, poetic and historical too, depending on what the history is at the time. Just don't change the words to make it agree with science or the state, because it's not a technical manual, not a scientific survey, and not a challenger of state authority.

Exactly the point. A Christian thinks, "given that the bible is correct, how do we change our concept of reality to make it work?" Reality doesn't change their religion.

We certainly don't have to pick squabbles between views on the dinosaur because a Christian's view of the dinosaur is most likely no different than an atheist's.

true, since the Christian's view is arbitrary, anything can be reconciled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

Ask the millions of people who have lost family members that have been killed.

Does the number matter? The words say, though shall not murder. If the killings were not murder, it doesn't matter how many there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

Does the number matter? The words say, though shall not murder. If the killings were not murder, it doesn't matter how many there are.

I classify killing someone (or something) the same as murder. I'm sure alot people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

I classify killing someone (or something) the same as murder. I'm sure alot people do.

I'm sure a lot of people don't. Is every Allied soldier who killed someone while on duty at the middle east a murderer? Is everyone who killed someone in self-defense a murderer? Is a cop who kills a madman who wants to set off a bomb in a school yard a murderer? Was Moses in the bible a mass murderer since he was told by the bible god to wipe out whole villages? If you answer to a higher power than a petty human government, and that power tells you to kill people, are you a murderer? For a religious believer, where do you draw the line?

PS: what's with the "(or something)"? Is killing a rock murder? An ant? a rat? where do you draw the line?

Edited by ranrod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

I'm sure a lot of people don't. Is every Allied soldier who killed someone while on duty at the middle east a murderer? Is everyone who killed someone in self-defense a murderer? Is a cop who kills a madman who wants to set off a bomb in a school yard a murderer? Was Moses in the bible a mass murderer since he was told by the bible god to wipe out whole villages? If you answer to a higher power than a petty human government, and that power tells you to kill people, are you a murderer? For a religious believer, where do you draw the line?

PS: what's with the "(or something)"? Is killing a rock murder? An ant? a rat? where do you draw the line?

Killing in self defense is one thing, but it is possible to capture without killing.

Moses is a madman.

Ever hear of a show called whale wars? That is a perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawkins

If the Jews don't kill, they will be the first to be wiped out in history. The Egyptians killed the children of the Jews rampantly simply because the Jews got over-populated. That's how cruel humans were back in those days. The Jews were just as bad and brutal as their enemies. And at that time a policy called "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" was adapted. And the human war practice was if you lost the war, you'll be killed with your everything (absolutely everything including your kids and wife) would be owned by the winner.

On the other hand God had to spent 40 years in order just to teach them what faith and obedience is. It's only after entering Canaan and under the education through Mosaic Law that they started to become good people. Before that they were just as bad as their enemies or else they wouldn't have survived the history to carry forward God's message of salvation. God just chose the bad from the worse as the Jews are good message carriers. God allows free will to be fully exercised including human brutality. He just chose one of these brutal human branches to be His message carrier. While the Jews are the only ethnic group with nearly 2000 years of exile without a nation to belong to but still faithfully keeping their culture and religion.

Edited by Hawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Based on the criticism people have with Christianity here, the problems lie with the Torah. Can we have Christianity without the Torah? I can.

Just quoting this part of your post to mention that while you may be able to, I cannot. I cannot imagine a Christianity without the Torah. Many Christians think in terms of "New Testament Christianity", but I argue I am of the opinion that it is impossible to properly understand what Christianity is without a solid understanding of the Old Testament. That's just my opinion there...

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Just quoting this part of your post to mention that while you may be able to, I cannot. I cannot imagine a Christianity without the Torah. Many Christians think in terms of "New Testament Christianity", but I argue I am of the opinion that it is impossible to properly understand what Christianity is without a solid understanding of the Old Testament. That's just my opinion there...

~ PA

Which is the standard view in Christianity, as I have observed it. But that does raise some interesting problems... most of the mitzvot are brutal tribal laws. What place in the 21st Century do Bronze Age superstitions and tribalism have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Which is the standard view in Christianity, as I have observed it. But that does raise some interesting problems... most of the mitzvot are brutal tribal laws. What place in the 21st Century do Bronze Age superstitions and tribalism have?

It depends which part of the laws you are referring to. Some of it is addressed in the New Testament, so for those parts I see them as covered already. For the parts that the New Testament doesn't really address, the way I look at it is to find out why a particular rule was set down to begin with. What function did it serve to that society and how did it help that society to thrive in their situation. Obviously most people in today's world do not live tribal lifestyles, so a law that is beneficial to a tribal lifestyle may not be beneficial to a community as we know it today. But if we know the reason why a law was written in the first place then we can discern the intentions of the law and thus begin to understand how to apply that intention to our society today.

Without citing specific examples I guess this is the most complete answer I can suggest. If you have a rule or two you want to ask me about, I'll look into it and see if I can get you an answer as soon as possible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

It depends which part of the laws you are referring to. Some of it is addressed in the New Testament, so for those parts I see them as covered already. For the parts that the New Testament doesn't really address, the way I look at it is to find out why a particular rule was set down to begin with. What function did it serve to that society and how did it help that society to thrive in their situation. Obviously most people in today's world do not live tribal lifestyles, so a law that is beneficial to a tribal lifestyle may not be beneficial to a community as we know it today. But if we know the reason why a law was written in the first place then we can discern the intentions of the law and thus begin to understand how to apply that intention to our society today.

Without citing specific examples I guess this is the most complete answer I can suggest. If you have a rule or two you want to ask me about, I'll look into it and see if I can get you an answer as soon as possible!

Alright:

  • Guidelines as to sell your daughter as a sex-slave
  • Kill homosexuals (male; women aren't mentioned, of course)
  • Set your Jewish slaves free after seven years (unless you buy them a wife), but keep non-Jewish slaves forever
  • Don't wear mixed fabrics
  • Don't eat shellfish
  • Don't eat pork
  • Kill "witches"
  • If you get into a fight, and your wife interferes, and grabs the testicles of your opponent, cut your wife's hand off
  • Stone unruly children to death
  • Cure leprosy by slaughtering pigeons and splashing their blood about
  • Menstruating women are "unclean"
  • Pregnant women are "unclean"
  • Force a rape victim to marry her rapist
  • Don't work on Saturday (under pain of death by stoning)

These are a few that I find questionable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Just quoting this part of your post to mention that while you may be able to, I cannot. I cannot imagine a Christianity without the Torah. Many Christians think in terms of "New Testament Christianity", but I argue I am of the opinion that it is impossible to properly understand what Christianity is without a solid understanding of the Old Testament. That's just my opinion there...

~ PA

Imagining is one thing; living is quite another. If you're not casting stones you're not stoning homosexuals (or whatever other problem from the dirty laundry list people want to snip about your solid understanding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Not sure what's your point here

Exactly the point. A Christian thinks, "given that the bible is correct, how do we change our concept of reality to make it work?" Reality doesn't change their religion.

true, since the Christian's view is arbitrary, anything can be reconciled

Reality changes my religion. You've twisted up the question. It's given that reality is correct, how do we change our concept of religion to make it work? This happened thousands of years ago and it's still happening today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.