In her essay, Elizabeth Anderson uses the most violent verses of the bible to refute divine command theory. Group three has covered this argument in a previous post, but she brings up a new argument used by biblical literalist that I haven’t heard yet. It is a tradition called “hard sayings”. She explains it here; “It imagines some elaborate context in which, for instance, it would be all right for God to command Abraham to sacrifice his son, or for God to inflict unspeakable suffering on His servant Job, and then insist that that was the context in which God actually acted.” This is another example of a pathetic rescue attempt by the religious on behalf of a God. Theories like these are a big reason why I have a hard time thinking that anyone that looks at religion’s logical inconsistencies with an open mind can come out siding with God. What do you guys think? Can arguments like this be constructed by someone that is willing to follow their reason, no matter where it takes them? in my case i believe that, in theory, a sufficient amount of evidence could be produced and these discoveries would not allow me to deny the existence of God. I cant imagine what evidence would necessitate this, but if god is all powerful it seems that it would take little effort on his part. This is not the same for religion. It is a constantly evolving un-falsifiable claim. For many religious people, there is no amount of evidence, argument, or polite dialog that will shake even their most morally puzzling beliefs.
Fact Q: What Christian museum displays “The Tree of Evolutionism”? this tree claims that everything evil stems from the teaching of the theory of evolution. Including: pornography, racism, sex education, feminism, drug abuse, Nazism, and humanism, etc.
A: The Institute for Creation Research Museum in Santee, California