Richard Dawkins Writes About Human Responsibility In Light of Darwinian Evolution

EDGE -- World Question Center ^ | Richard Dawkins

[r9etb]

If the best solution is to kill the animal, what's the problem? I don't get this whole debate.

Just as Basil Fawlty beat the hell out of his car, Dawkins is beating the hell out of his strawman. There's no real debate here -- Dawkins is just angling for attention.

[LiteKeeper]

For what it's worth, there is growing evidence that Adam wrote what we now call Gen 2:5 - 5:1, Noah wrote 5:2 - 6:9, and that Noah's son, Shem, probably wrote 6:10 - 10:1. Moses later edited the tablets.

Google "toledoth" and "Tablet Theory". Also, "P. J. Wiseman"

[Just mythoughts]

Don't you think reference would have been made that Noah had with him on the ark any writings of Adam? I am doubtful that Adam penned any of Genesis simply because of what is said, although the English translations do not quite capture the whole story.

Noah may well have wrote I have no evidence to say otherwise, but everything I have studied seems to point to Moses being inspired to pen those first five books, especially with what Christ said about Moses. Also I have read that it is believed that Moses also penned the book of Job. Makes sense to me that Moses would have penned the book of Job considering how the story of Job does as much as any other book to explain Genesis and the players in time.

But I add I do not have a closed mind on the matter.

[MeanFreePath]

http://solagratia.org/Articles/New_Covenant_Theology_and_the_Mosaic_Law.aspx

I'm not smart enough to post this as a real hyperlink, so cut and paste into your address bar (if you're interested...)

[WKB]

(if you're interested...)


I'm not interested because I am saved to do good works
not by doing good works



Eph. 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

[MeanFreePath]

"I'm not interested because I am saved to do good works
not by doing good works"

- which is not inconsistent with this author's view of Christ's fulfillment of the law...

[WKB]

which is not inconsistent with this author's view of Christ's fulfillment of the law..


GOOD

[RightWhale]

Dawkins fails to define his terms

Sure he defines his terms. However, he has taken different definitions than some do and not told anybody what they are. If something he says leads to ludicrous conclusions it is likely that he has not been understood. Doesn't mean he is right or wrong. He is probably wrong about most everything and misunderstood on top of that so nobody even knows where he is wrong.

[WKB]

(if you're interested...)


Before I log off for the rest of the day.
I am going to fess up.
When I saw the word "sola" in the link
my mind said "Catholic". I have had and seen enough
discussions here on FR about "Grace" and "works"
that did not feel the need to even open the link.
I will however when time permits read the article.
Thanks for the link.
PS
You have Freepmail.
God Bless

[Tench_Coxe]

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." - Euripides

I was expecting the whooshing sound of wings as a horde of winged monkeys descended on this thread to defend the author, the article being so obvious in scientific foundation. And how dare anyone criticise the material of the article--only those determined to understand science or the scientific method should be able to criticize it. And, following the line of thought, those who understand science or the scientific method would find no criticism to hold against the author.

What an embarrassment. Dawkins has clearly gone off into the weeds--actually, past the weeds into the pond beyond. This guy holds the chair for the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.

[Dumb_Ox]

Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers?

When a public scientist writes a bad essay and makes bad arguments, is he really reponsible for his errors?

Dawkins has laid the foundation for pre-empting any and all criticism. No wonder he's so shrill.

[metmom]

There's ALWAYS moral implications. It's just a matter of what authority you appeal to to support them.

[Natural Law]

I liked him on Family Fued.

[metmom]

Acts 10:9-16 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11. and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12. and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" 14. But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15. Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." 16. This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

The rest of Acts 10 and part of Acts 11 continues with the account.

[LiteKeeper]

I have been studying the Book of Genesis intensely for 4 years. My studies have led me to conclude what I wrote below. If you are interested in more information, drop me a line.

[Maeve]

Richard Dawkins' brain is a font of sewage, same as it ever was.

[editor-surveyor]

"many Christians claim the *law* was fulfilled but they are wrong."

The law lacks any provision requiring "fulfillment." The law is an accusation against sin; as long as we remain in sin, the law remains in effect. We can rise above the law only by rising out of our sinful condition.

[editor-surveyor]

"Richard Dawkins, in a recent poll of the Brits"

Nuff said!

[editor-surveyor]

BB, where are you? This seems to be right up your alley.

[Dan Evans]

Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution.

I wouldn't have said retribution. The purpose isn't revenge, it is deterrence. Punishment 1) Serves as an example to others who may be considering criminal activity. 2) Puts criminals away so they can't commit crimes.