Well perfect means without a defect, so obviously a perfect being cannot act imperfectly. We can't create our flaws, we are born with them, they are God given (this is using what I imagine would be your definition of flawed, I don't believe we're flawed at all). Therefore God created a flawed being and was angered by our being flawed (?)
No, God created a perfect being (man) and gave him free choice. Acting on that free choice, man decided to disobey God by consciously doing something He told them not to do. Therefore, man, by his own sinful decision, is the creator of his own demise. Just as one makes a choice to partake in drunkenness, drugs, etc. They create their own flaws and problems. This is basic Christian theology, that when debating, one should know. Otherwise, it seems like you're arrogantly promoting something you know nothing about, which comes across nonsensical.
Salvation is distinct from morality? Isn't your idea of salvation acting in a moral way to your neighbor? How can you be immoral and be truly Christian? (again, we disagree on what's moral, but I'm using your definition)
Again, you don't understand the basics of Christian theology. Salvation is being redeemed from sin. Jesus dying on the cross, being punished in our place, is salvation. It is being freely cleared of sin -- it is payment. Now, morality is a byproduct of loving God. I'm not moral because it earns me Heaven, I am moral because I am motivated by what God has done for us. We aren't under the law from a Christian standpoint, instead, we are under Grace. Christianity is not motivated by morality (as you had purported), it is motivated by forgiveness.
In fact, the definition of salvation (redemption, same thing) is "the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil." Is that not morality?
No, it's not morality, it's forgiveness -- a payment of sin. Morality is acting a certain way, whereas salvation is paying for something. Very different, and obviously so. You can look at it like this; I jump out of an airplane, and the only way for me to land safely without perishing is to pull the parachute. Morality is, again, secondary because we are already in a lost state. The motivation is finding a way out of this disconnected state, and that is through Jesus.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with morals. Evolution is a scientific theory which explains life's diversity on Earth. Period. It's as if you're telling me that the theory of a spherical earth is a religious doctrine.
Evolution has a very moralistic element to it. If you view human beings as mere animals, with no special disconnect from them, then you are going to have a vastly different perception of morality than those who believe they are disconnected from them. Why should the inferior live on? Why should we try to save a cancer victim if evolution is simply weeding this person out of existence? Whereas Christian doctrine (and other religions, admittedly) says we value human life as sacred and to be saved, evolutionism would say something vastly different. In essence, evolution is a philosophy that encompasses A LOT about morality. To claim it is nothing more than a scientific fact like a spherical earth is to say you haven't thought much about the real implications of evolutionary doctrine.
Evolution has an almost universal scientific consensus.
Scientists feel obligated to come to a conclusion about something naturalistically. They are taught to do so. If they can't find the answer, they will come up with the best explanation they have. If design is the best answer, it won't be considered because it involves God (and God isn't "scientific") But just because you remove God and design from the equation doesn't make your next theory more scientific just because God is removed. Many believe science means that human beings must have all the answers, and if they don't have them, they will fill in the gaps by their best deductions apart from God.
You only want to attack science because it clashes with your religious beliefs, but that's no good (I think).
I don't want to attack science. In fact, I love using computers, driving cars, watching television, etc. I love what science has done to advance society. But this science was done via EMPIRICAL means, which means with experimental material to work with. Evolution is a historical science that deals with circumstantial evidence that can be easily interpreted of the past. Much of the theory is predicated on the fact that all life is organically similar -- but this makes sense through design if all life is going to live in the same organic world, with all organisms eating the same food, breathing the same air, etc.
Science is dictated by experimental, operational development, evolution is a philosophical DEDUCTION of current facts. It is not conventionally "scientific."
I know when you decide that the Bible is all you need you just want to shut your eyes and cover your ears, but scientists don't just support willy nilly theories. There's so much evidence that has piled up and it all points one way and it just so happens it's not toward creationism. If there is ever evidence pointing to creationism, you can bet that scientists will reevaluate, but so far none exists. If God wants evolution to go away, then he needs to stop giving scientists so much overwhelming evidence for it.
Evidence is the same for creation and evolutionism. It's just the way one interprets it that matters. Philosophical deduction. Scientists will never accept intelligent design, because as I said earlier, that would mean having to look to a Higher intelligence for the answer, and they believe science means that human beings must have all the answers. They are "willingly ignorant" of God's design, as the Bible would put it.
The evolutionary usefulness of eyes and not killing other people is a no brainer. Imagine trying to send a group of blind people to hunt down a mastodon. Imagine what the population of our species would be if everyone killed other people for no particular reason. These two things work so well that many many species share (and shared long before we were around)the same features.
I'm not talking about how evolutionarily it would be useful, I'm talking about the mechanism that it would take for the eye to develop. The eye has so many interworking parts, and complicated sensory networks, that an evolutionary mechanism is really unattainable for this. We would NEVER be able to replicate, on a computer or otherwise, how mutations and natural selection formulated such amazing systems such as eyes. It MUST be taken on FAITH.
If a tribe willfully decides to reject outside contact, it's immoral to force your culture on to them.
Didn't you even READ my last post. I told you you that it isn't about forcing your culture on them, it's about CONFORMING to their culture, and allowing them to retain it. But God doesn't require people to leave their culture to come to Him. They preach God in the CONTEXT of their culture.
They may have been living there happily for hundreds of years, it's not our place to tell them that they can't have their own beliefs, even if you don't agree with them.
No, it's about preaching God to them, in their own culture, and allowing them to hear the Gospel of Christ. No one is forcing them to do anything.
Missionaries do do a lot of good around the World, but in the past there have been instances of the destroying of people's culture because they were happy with the way they were.
Really, where do you get your info? Missionaries do good work in the name of Christ, and they preach the Gospel. They aren't destroying anything.
