Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906082300.M94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> [ Data: 2002-09-05 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who worshipped > the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. The god of death was > stronger than the god of life, and those who worshipped the god of life > were jealous, and the jealousy became a part of the persona of the god of > life, to excuse the hatered of others who worshipped stronger gods, and > over time, the jealousy caused them to annex the attributes of the god of > death, into the god of life. From there, Jahweh/... as known today (and > iirc, as the god of life was known then), Judaism was born after ages > passed, and from there, we end up with Christianity these days. It would > be more correct to say that Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are > forgetting that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism. > > And of course they made it up, it fulfills a number of low-level desires > of the human psyche. Juli, Interesting theory, as psychological arguments go. Not that I totally reject psychological arguments, Paul uses a kind of psychological argument in Romans 1 when he tells us that man by nature suppresses the truth he knows about his Creator. Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote his doctorol dissertation on this very subject, the phenomena of self-deception. He wrote a boiled down version of it for the Westminster Theological Journal in 1995 which can be read online at: http://66.216.78.115/articles/pa207.htm Having said all that, psychological arguments can't really stand on their own without some supporting arguments. The reason for this is that I can just come back and say that your theory is just a rationalization in an attempt to deny your creator. And not only that, it fits in quite nicely with what Paul says in Romans 1! Isn't it nice how that works? Now what have I just done here? What I've done is completely reversed the argument on you, so what we are left with is psychologizing each other, which isn't very productive. So what is the answer? Who's right and who's wrong? It's possible that we're both wrong. This is why I said that some supporting arguments are necessary. If you've been following the thread, the kind of arguments I've been primarily relying on are transcendental arguments, that is, arguments which attempt to show what the preconditions of rationality, science, logic, human dignity, freedom, and ethics are. These are all things which we all take for granted every day. This form of argument can backfire of course, if the person you are arguing against rejects those things. Dave is a perfect example of this. From an apologetical standpoint, however, the Christian has won the day, since the purpose of Christian apologetics is not to get him to cry uncle, but to silence his objections by reducing his position to absurdity. That doesn't mean he will stop talking, of course, but from an apologetical standpoint, the Christian is in a good position when someone concedes that the choices are irrationality or Christianity. This is all the Christian was trying to show in the first place. > > Not that I'm not a religious person myself, it's just important to remember > that all of this came from tribal traditions and warring, and that all of > Wicca came from a lecherous old man who decided to take from Celtic and > old European religions throughout the ages, and that Jesus was a man, and > a great man, and a man who said great things. > > That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Just because one "makes something up" > doesn't mean it's false. It could be inherent in-born knowledge. > > I prefer to believe that all beliefs are valid, most are probably somewhat > right, and none are "wrong". People have a tendency to develop beliefs that approximate the truth. This is because, though they try to suppress their knowledge of God, they can never completely erase that knowledge, for to do so would require giving up everything they take for granted, and that is impossible to do short of suicide. But then, in the end, this really isn't an escape either. 8-) > It's all about people and perception. Unfortunately, this universe seems > built with the intentions to get people to look beyond perception - things > have inherent beauty and structure at levels below what the eye can see, > people are not always what they appear to be, and enjoying it is what really > matters, to me. This is all a Christian is asking for, that people would see "the God who is there," as Francis Schaeffer would put it. Cheers! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020906082300.M94577-100000>