• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

606 Excellent


About Bonky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,549 profile views
  1. If that's all it truly was then I'm not sure there would be an issue. What about the slaves that weren't of Hebrew origin and were allowed to owned for life? Who makes sure that they weren't taken advantage of and placed on the "market"? People who were kidnapped and put onto the market? This is one of those moments why I sometimes cringe when someone points to the Bible as the source of morality. If God is no better than "that's just what they did back then", I fail to see why God amounts to anything better than we are.
  2. So something as bad as slavery can be "regulated" and tolerated. God did a pretty good job not "regulating" murder or theft. I'm not buying what you're selling.
  3. I truly appreciate your input Ted, but the thread seemed to be talking about "works" and "sin", ie are humans generally "good" beings. I didn't read the whole thread however so that may be part of the issue.
  4. I'm really not wanting to make this political but I can't ignore the obvious response that keeps bouncing around in my mind. It seems to me that the Bible stresses how horrible sin is and those that follow the Bible nod in agreement. I just don't see this play out in real life. The last election season bore this out very plainly. I didn't see many evangelicals saying "Oh gosh I can't stand Trump but I just can't bring myself to vote for Hillary". I saw "YES!! This guys is awesome!! We're going to make America great again!". We all know Trump is not exactly a model citizen when it comes to behavior. The things that he's said and done are pretty low brow. I listened to a podcast where Sam Harris was interviewing Scott Adams [Dilbert author] who is a Trump supporter. Over the course of this discussion it was very clear that essentially Scott feels that "Yes, Trump has some serious warts, but he's going to be very handy getting some things done that his supporters want". I have a friend who's been a Pastor for about 20 years, a very very dedicated Christian and he is not shy about supporting Trump. So I think the Bible portrays this idea that even little sins, like being rude, is enough to burn all of humanity forever. I think in reality, we know that there's a big difference between being a little rude and genocide. I wanted to add this to be clear. I don't think anything horrible of Scott Adams or anyone who voted for Trump. I just find it odd that someone can claim to care so much about sin but toss all that aside when they find someone who is powerful and useful.
  5. The writer is engaging in what we would call [or I would call anyway] 'cognitive dissonance'. I sense that the writer here is trying to defend something that we would normally clearly say "no this isn't good", and here's my thought process in defense. I think we would agree that slavery isn't just bad when it's done due to racism. Slavery is bad because it allows for the view that some humans can be put into a position where they are a piece of property. If you're looking to foster a happy, healthy, free society then you don't want slavery. So responding with what amounts to "Well at least the slavery wasn't based on racism", that's not going to cut it if you ALSO claim that the author is the source of ultimately perfect morality. I would also encourage the writer/readers to know that even though "racism" may not have been the common reason for slavery, there were absolutely different rules depending on where the slave came from. If the slave was a Hebrew, you were not able to be as harsh to them if they were from a pagan nation for example. I wanted to add, that yes we can find moments in the Bible where the slave/master relationship wasn't horrible. The problem is that the Bible does not emphatically reject slavery like we do today. We know that with slavery comes a lot of risk that people are going to suffer. I still think that this is a valid question today that is unanswered in my mind.
  6. No you're not. You're not engaging in discussion, you're looking for bickering arguments. Find it somewhere else, I tried.
  7. I believe in black holes and neutrinos and yet I don't know the first thing about the calculations or the data behind the discoveries. I trust the experts, not with unending unbreakable confidence. That would be religion. I'm personally convinced that evolutionary biology provides rational answers for the development of biological life. Is it unshakable? No. That would be religion. Am I a biologist? No. Can I defend evolution at a high level...NO. From what reading I have done on the subject, it makes sense to me. Are there questions and uncertainties? Yes. The fact that historically there have been different philosophies on how to make scientific progress. Ever heard of Karl Popper? There isn't even one exact standard for the "scientific method"!! You put science in a tiny box, and I think I know why. You boned it up again. Reading comprehension, look into it. My quote: Bonky: "I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research."--- I don't say ANYTHING about the scientists being right about evolution!!!!! I state that I find it hard to believe that they are that stupid in their field of expertise, that they are ignoring or ignorant of the fact that there is gaping holes in their theory and they just don't face it. Now read that 5 times slowly. I can give you examples, I never said I have no reasons for what I believe. I said I can only defend it so much, I'm not an expert. Once again you struggle to read and comprehend what someone is saying. I don't have this issue with anyone here on the entire board. Your statements assumed that my position is that there can't be an intelligent creator behind the scenes. I don't feel that way, there very well may be. Therefore you were trying to argue a position i don't hold. Checkmate.
  8. Questions better asked to a biologist who studies evolution. This is why I agreed with Agrosy that I am not a stalwart defender of evolution because I'm not properly educated in it. I also think that you have a very narrow view of scientific investigation. Not everything we learned came from a beaker with chemicals and a microscope in a lab. If you want a discussion with me I would be delighted. You're going to have to start listening to what I'm saying and stop looking for "gotcha" moments. I didn't even come close to the fallacy you're asserting. I never said "Evolution is true because X number of Biologist says so". I was merely stating to Agrosy that I doubt that trained biologists are ignoring or ignorant of these gaping holes that Agrosy is asserting are there. I also spend about a half hour researching some of the things that Agrosy was saying so that I could "engage" him in this discussion. I didn't just post flippant counter posts. Well we can look that term up and find out. The term was brought up by Agrosy btw, not me. Another example where you don't seem to be listening to me and really being invested in a conversation. You actually committed a fallacy here which is very ironic [strawman]. I don't argue against some being tinkering with life or some being who tinkered with biology on earth. You seem to think that if someone supports evolution they, by definition, are a hard atheist. I also am puzzled as to how dna can arrive into being. If you were paying attention, Agrosy and I weren't debating whether some powerful agent/being was involved. We were merely addressing whether evolution happened at all. So if you want to discuss things with me, I'm ok with that. I'm going to need you to amp down the rhetoric and slow down enough to read what I'm saying and try to process it.
  9. I think the discussion goes quite a bit deeper than what we're going to be able to sort out here. Just doing some quick research I'm finding documents/articles etc that refer to creatures such as the ones in the clade Cynodonts and also [for example] Therapsids. I also have not noticed that these fossils are just showing up in Turkey or Egypt. In fact, I don't recall seeing either of those areas as common places to find such fossils. I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all. I have my own questions and things I don't understand. I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research. I'm also going to guess in advance that any example that is brought up as a possible transitional animal will be rejected [no matter what it is] and I'll hear, "that's just another creature God made". I'll also add, it wasn't the fossils that convinced me of evolution it was the genetic evidence.
  10. What exactly do you feel is missing from the "fossil trail"? You make it sound like there is nothing but a complete void in the fossil record and we're left with nothing. Not sure that's really accurate or fair to be honest. I actually agree with your advice early on in your statements above, but I feel the inverse is needed as well. Criticizing biological evolution with disproportionate levels of criticism and education. I doubt you're a biologist that studies evolution.
  11. Do I believe in the power of the Holy Ghost? No. My reason for saying that is because I see way too much inconsistency with what Christians think the scriptures are saying. I also don't see a consistent difference between Christians and non-Christians with regard to how they live their lives. I don't necessarily mean smoking and drinking but how they treat other people. I don't see a supernatural advantage for Christians who claim to leverage supernatural power.
  12. When you say the Bible makes scientific claims, I think it needs to be a bit more specific than the examples you tend to provide. I don't see this as remotely scientific. So "scientifically" the verse is wrong, the Earth DOES "hang" from something....gravity. Also, feel free to check the commentary from Matthew Henry, John Gill etc on these verses and you'll see that the interpretation from them is something quite different than what you're offering.
  13. And the Earth is supported by one or more of these?
  14. A standard of right and wrong with regard to what?
  15. I don't need that, I'd rather refer to reality. It would be morality proper/right to lie to a Nazi to protect Jews rather than turn them in correct?