Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[excreationist]

So, abuse by god is just a moral test?

I think abuse done in the name of God is a test to see whether the person thinks it wasn't actually God’s will or whether they will rationalize it as being just and loving.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you really think that morality without god is based on "anything goes"?

Well Ken Ham was saying that if enough people agreed that the student should be killed then that could be a moral thing to do....

It is difficult to imagine a scenario where every type of killing is acceptable but I think that is theoretically possible.

"Anything goes" would at least involve things like homosexuality, pornography, divorce, racism, etc.

Social communities evolved into existence and they require an anti-anything goes set of rules to be sustainable. That happened without a god well before there was a god. Heck communal animals exhibit this level of restraint.

 

[excreationist]

Social communities evolved into existence and they require an anti-anything goes set of rules to be sustainable. That happened without a god well before there was a god. Heck communal animals exhibit this level of restraint.

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Social communities evolved into existence and they require an anti-anything goes set of rules to be sustainable. That happened without a god well before there was a god. Heck communal animals exhibit this level of restraint.

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

No, it isn’t a good example when communal colonies exist across different species of animals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

From Ken Ham's "The Genesis Solution" - Two Castles - the opposition is attacking the literalist Creationist view while the church is attacking the issues like pornography and homosexuality or attacking each other....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1509s

In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

So promoting Creationism can have moral reasons so that you have a strong foundation when trying to promote Biblical values like being against homosexuality, and men being the spiritual head of the family. So that gives Christians more reasons to support Creation science....

Though of course modern day slavery is still wrong - or it is ok under certain circumstances in Bible times....
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/bible-questions/kids-feedback-does-the-bible-promote-slavery/
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

Updated pictures:
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/maturing-the-message/

About clothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQg30zvvEgI&t=1010s

"What did God do? He gave them coats - the first blood sacrifices are covering for their sin - beautiful picture of something to come wasn't it?"​

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

excreationist seems to like posting a lot about stuff they allegedly don't believe, but allegedly find 'compelling'.

 

[atrib]

From Ken Ham's "The Genesis Solution" - .......

Why should anyone give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? Has he ever said or done anything that would make a debate about his opinions worthwhile? Do you find Ham's arguments credible (the ones you referenced)? If so, why?

 

[atrib]

What does it mean to "be against homosexuality"? There are gay people. How do I "go against" them? What should I attack?

Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is, especially if the person acts on their desires. Going against it would involve speaking out against it and discouraging it. In more recent versions of the picture this has become "gay marriage" and this would involve fighting the laws, chuches, etc.

Again, why should we give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? His nonsense has been debunked over and over, and one doesn't have to look very far to find good rebuttals to most of Ham's opinions. If you find his claims to be credible, make your case, don't just link to the garbage he puts out.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Also, based on these re-posts, Ham ain't nearly as much fun as the old Jack Chick comic book tracts. At least Chick had the sinners covered with skin lesions and roasting in the hellfire. Long live Jack Chick, except he's dead, and maybe in heaven. Or just growing mold underground.

 

[excreationist]

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

No, it isn’t a good example when communal colonies exist across different species of animals.

It is about "anything goes"

 

[excreationist]

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

 

[excreationist]

Again, why should we give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? His nonsense has been debunked over and over, and one doesn't have to look very far to find good rebuttals to most of Ham's opinions. If you find his claims to be credible, make your case, don't just link to the garbage he puts out.

I think Ken is the main source of the whole morality based on evolution vs creation concept that's why I quote him when I can.
Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

 

[excreationist]

Also, based on these re-posts, Ham ain't nearly as much fun as the old Jack Chick comic book tracts. At least Chick had the sinners covered with skin lesions and roasting in the hellfire. Long live Jack Chick, except he's dead, and maybe in heaven. Or just growing mold underground.

BTW here's a creation vs evolution Chick tract:
https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0055
It encourages YEC students to argue with their lecturers....

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

If you believe that slavery is wrong or that stoning someone for picking up sticks on a saturday are wrong; then the choice should be easy between the two. Secular Humanism (treating someone as you'd want to be treated and etc.) is far more moral than the morals found in the bible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also, based on these re-posts, Ham ain't nearly as much fun as the old Jack Chick comic book tracts. At least Chick had the sinners covered with skin lesions and roasting in the hellfire. Long live Jack Chick, except he's dead, and maybe in heaven. Or just growing mold underground.

BTW here's a creation vs evolution Chick tract:
https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0055
It encourages YEC students to argue with their lecturers....

It teaches them to lie to their lecturers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't understand why you posted this? What's your position on this? My personal view is that Ken Ham is a loony and about as interesting as Ronald McDonald. For the same reasons.

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

We are all very familiar with the material. We don’t need a middle man for the muddled material.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

No, it isn’t a good example when communal colonies exist across different species of animals.

It is about "anything goes"

No kidding. And animals have already shown ‘anything goes’ isn’t a natural state for social communities. They managed it without god.

 

[atrib]

Again, why should we give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? His nonsense has been debunked over and over, and one doesn't have to look very far to find good rebuttals to most of Ham's opinions. If you find his claims to be credible, make your case, don't just link to the garbage he puts out.

I think Ken is the main source of the whole morality based on evolution vs creation concept that's why I quote him when I can.
Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

Again, which arguments of Ham's do you find convincing? And why? I don't care what "a lot of Christians" believe because they are not here to debate the issue. And people believe all kinds of nonsense. You seem to be advocating for Ham's ideas, so what is it that you find convincing about these arguments? Can you spell out your position so we can discuss?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is about "anything goes"

No kidding. And animals have already shown ‘anything goes’ isn’t a natural state for social communities. They managed it without god.

And Hambone doesn't think of himself as an animal. Most morons probably don't think of themselves as animals either, so maybe Hammer is onto something.

 

[atrib]

Religion and morality have as much to do with each other and eyesight and eye color.

What about the ten commandments, etc? Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

The Bible was written by humans, and the text reflects their ideas. There is no evidence to suggest that the code of conduct mandated by the Bible is anything but the creation of human minds. To call it absolute and springing from the mind of an unseen supernatural entity for which no evidence exists is absurd.