Being the young blood, I can rather sympathize and empathize. It''s a sin with deep hooks and large amounts of guilt and shame. Thank God for his mercy to forgive and cleanse when we confess and repent. That he would forgive the prodigal is amazing. Thank him for his power to be overcomers as we struggle against the old self to die to it and work out what He worked in. Praise him!
I'm always perplexed when it comes to American legislation. As a Christian, I could never support the morally wrong laws passed. But, to be consistent, I know that the freedoms that allowed Christians to build Christian monuments and post 10 commandments or what not are equally extended towards those who aren't Christian. The framework has been the same since the beginning. What has changed are men's hearts. It's like the satanist monument news article the other day. I feel like if we are going to be consistent in allowing religious expression, then well, they should be allowed to put it up. Both or neither I suppose. Of course, that's why the most effective change will never come through policy making, though we support good legislation, but the widespread changing of heart's by God's manifold grace. We cannot make them worship The Lord in out governmentsl policies, only point them to Him, and oppose what we know is wrong, even if only on religious grounds. (Which are grounds enough, no other reasons are required for something be wrong that when God says so, but there are often extra reasons such as higher HIV or depression rates and children who face problems in broken homes.)
Your welcome Neil. And I appreciate the responses as well. Speaking of atheist ethics, I was speaking with an atheist friend at school. His policy is basically majority rule. It got the point where I asked him "so, if some remote island tribes decides its ok to eat each other, is it?" He said yes and was not the least bothered. It was rather disturbing, as I wasn't expecting him to be so brazen with that question.
But yes, you are right, the problem is not that atheists are automatically immoral, it is that they are usually inconsistent, thankfully I might add.
I suppose to succinctly express my last statement would be. Patterns of fatherless homes, or darwinism, or some other behaviors, when seen in a large number of examples (large is a bit relative term I admit) then we can at least suppose that this pattern of behavior may have some significant influence even if it does not dictate causation.
It does appear you have had a much more formal and strict studying approach to the the matters. I will admit that causation is hard or near impossible to determine, undoubtedly, with the variables of a human and his experiences. Throw in spiritual battles and it gets all the more muddled. Far as hasty generalization, well, not with a formal understanding, I just think that that means using too few examples to make a big statement or generalization about many.
Now, here is what I do still maintain. We can logically see that Darwinism when consistently followed to its ends, leads to racism, eugenics, and violence. We see this being consistent in a large number of eugenicists, dictators, and tyrants. Does that mean that their crimes were necessarily caused by this shared belief? No. But I do find it alarming and peculiar when all these people share a common view? Could it be a major factor into causation? Maybe, we of course cannot know for sure, but is it really that wrong to posit an educated guess that this common denominator plays a major role in their actions? I personally think not, but I could be wrong.
Not sure if that first point is replying to me or not Neil, but I agree that correlation does not prove causation. However, we can see coin threads and speculate, and upon further examination of individuals (the greatest murderers in history for instance) we can see a pattern of correlation amongst many individuals that would suggest causation or at least the rational grounds of causation.
Man, for those who don't believe, that first century Jewish rabbi sure had a lot of clout, wonder why? To answer in catechism style today, maybe because he was who he said he was and did what he said he did. He isn't just the king of history, he is the king of all eternity!
Go ahead, and I'll laugh the day it ends up with head cut off like the statue of Dagon in the OT. (On a side note, I do have to say that to be consistent with displays of the 10 commandments, they really should be allowed to place the monument. Both or neither is fair here. But hey, the statue will provide a wonderful teaching opportunity and we definitely know who needs some prayer when they construct a satanic monument.)
Cont... by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
Thanks Christopher. And yes, Romans 1 tells us that they are willfully ignorant. This isn't to say that they are not extremely smart people often or that the theory is not well developed, but they are ignorant and wrong simply. Thing is, both sides of this important arguments makes good sounding arguments and can sound correct. So, both sides approach with a prior ideology. However, Christians admit their prior view in interpreting facts, evolutionists pretend that the facts told them. Yeah, as if those fossils came with dates.
I think you'll appreciate this Richard lewontin quote that he admitted.
â€˜Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a pri