Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Necrosis on February 28, 2010, 10:42:44 AM
-
not sure if this has been done,but any ridiculous or funny verses can be put here.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
This had me rofling
We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)
"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)
even infants? the animals, wtf?
"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)
why does he hate innocent kids?
-
not sure if this has been done,but any ridiculous or funny verses can be put here.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
This had me rofling
We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)
"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)
even infants? the animals, wtf?
"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)
why does he hate innocent kids?
It's been done ad nauseum (Of course, you fail to mention exactly WHY this sentence was put on Amalek, or that Amalek had plenty of time to repent and be spared such fate). Come up with some new material, please.
-
It's been done ad nauseum (Of course, you fail to mention exactly WHY this sentence was put on Amalek, or that Amalek had plenty of time to repent and be spared such fate). Come up with some new material, please.
i answered my own question, god creates evil.
A Christian wrote: "God did not create evil. Evil is simply the state where God is not present."
If "God did not create evil" then what of the following?
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Joshua 23:15
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things.
Judges 9:23
Then God sent an evil spirit
1 Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
2 Samuel 12:11
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house
1 Kings 9:9
...therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil.
-
It's been done ad nauseum (Of course, you fail to mention exactly WHY this sentence was put on Amalek, or that Amalek had plenty of time to repent and be spared such fate). Come up with some new material, please.
Hi Mcway!
;)
-
It's been done ad nauseum (Of course, you fail to mention exactly WHY this sentence was put on Amalek, or that Amalek had plenty of time to repent and be spared such fate). Come up with some new material, please.
OMG, same exact reaction! This is like dealing with a room full of ROMPER ROOM delinquents! This has been answered, BEFORE the complete Bible was even published!
Government_Controlled/AGENT
-
OMG, same exact reaction! This is like dealing with a room full of ROMPER ROOM delinquents! This has been answered, BEFORE the complete Bible was even published!
Government_Controlled/AGENT
ya no need to defend them, they have been discussed. Killing children is fine, you're right.
-
book written and edited by people over the years. what do you expect
-
book written and edited by people over the years. what do you expect
exactly what i would find. I predict that if the bible was writtten by primitive man it would have just the sort of things it does include. If a supreme all knowing being wrote the book i would imagine it would be more perfect, more intelligent, contain esoteric knowledge.
-
exactly what i would find. I predict that if the bible was writtten by primitive man it would have just the sort of things it does include. If a supreme all knowing being wrote the book i would imagine it would be more perfect, more intelligent, contain esoteric knowledge.
"Exactly", Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaa aaasssssssssssseeeeeeeee ee!
What do you know about the Bible? You already admitted NOTHING. *lol*. EXACTLY!. STOP trying to be a Bible, scholar. You don't even know the basics. And you are trying to defend/offend it? You need Bible 101 first, Necrosis. With your "genius" status, you should at least realize that! This is ridiculous! This is like trying to discuss the eccentrics of a cam, contained within a AB DICK 360, WITH an shoe sale man! Craaap! I can't believe this. McWay, how have you tolerated such idiocy!
Government_Controlled/DEA_AGENT
-
ya no need to defend them, they have been discussed. Killing children is fine, you're right.
So, what do you with them. You whack the adults; then what, leave the Amalekite kiddies to starve and die, with no parents to care for them?
-
Hi Mcway!
;)
If you say "Amalek", he will come.....LIKE CLOCKWORK!!
Howdy, Ozmo!!!
;D
-
"Exactly", Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaa aaasssssssssssseeeeeeeee ee!
What do you know about the Bible? You already admitted NOTHING. *lol*. EXACTLY!. STOP trying to be a Bible, scholar. You don't even know the basics. And you are trying to defend/offend it? You need Bible 101 first, Necrosis. With your "genius" status, you should at least realize that! This is ridiculous! This is like trying to discuss the eccentrics of a cam, contained within a AB DICK 360, WITH an shoe sale man! Craaap! I can't believe this. McWay, how have you tolerated such idiocy!
Government_Controlled/DEA_AGENT
another fail, you don't need to be a bible scholar to point out hypocrisy or understand it's writing. It clearly states god created evil, simple as that. Also, by your logic you should stop commenting on the bible along with mcway as neither of you are biblical scholars, fail much? I do not know alot about the bible, i have read and been read much of it however, i have done several religion courses, however, i cannot site passages nor do i believe i know as much as mcway. I have also forgotten alot about the bible, as i do not see the point in reading it.
-
So, what do you with them. You whack the adults; then what, leave the Amalekite kiddies to starve and die, with no parents to care for them?
ya because taking care of them is to humane, i mean the kids in haiti whos parents just died should have been killed to right? incredible the sickness you guys come up with to justify your beliefs. I had a longer post written but i think it's enough to let you sit with this sick comment and let it fester. I don't know, help the kids, teach the kids, love the kids, raise them as your own, provide for them and bring some peace into the world? Its honestly sick that you would justify the killing of kids on the basis of them having no parents. For one mass genocide is sick also, fuck, grow a brain the killing of an entire people is wrong, re habilitation, democrecy, diplomatic solutions, treaties etc.. this is how you know the bible is written by primitive men, kill them all just like the jews huh.
if you endorse genocide and infanticide then you need mental help. When you wrote that did you feel and dissonance? at all? seriously.
-
ya because taking care of them is to humane, i mean the kids in haiti whos parents just died should have been killed to right? incredible the sickness you guys come up with to justify your beliefs. I had a longer post written but i think it's enough to let you sit with this sick comment and let it fester. I don't know, help the kids, teach the kids, love the kids, raise them as your own, provide for them and bring some peace into the world? Its honestly sick that you would justify the killing of kids on the basis of them having no parents. For one mass genocide is sick also, fuck, grow a brain the killing of an entire people is wrong, re habilitation, democrecy, diplomatic solutions, treaties etc.. this is how you know the bible is written by primitive men, kill them all just like the jews huh.
if you endorse genocide and infanticide then you need mental help. When you wrote that did you feel and dissonance? at all? seriously.
Israel did have rules for assimilating the remnants of their enemies. Of course, whenever I bring that up, a certain poster starts wailing about "slavery" (you know who you are ;D ).
Besides, didn't you just post the verse about young girls being spared and integrated into Israelite society?
As explained several times before now, the reason the edict came down on the Amalekites is simple. For over three centuries, starting just after the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, they assaulted the Israelites, targeting their women and children and (at certain times) nearly driving them into starvation.
Every time Israel fended off Amalek, the same thing happened. When their number grew again, the Amalekites resumed their attacks on Israel (not to mention other societies).
So, the judgment came. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, sheep, goat, cow, chicken, gold, silver, etc. NOTHING was to be left.
What got King Saul in trouble, ultimately costing him the throne of Israel is that, while he defeated the Amalekites, he kept the choice livestock and treasure and spared the king.
As for what you just mentioned, democracy, diplomatic solutions, treaties, etc. WERE ALL TRIED with the Amalekites, FOR OVER 300 YEARS. THEY DID NOT WORK!!
Your people keep getting attacked. And all of the aforementioned items you cited have had NO effect. So now what? Do you keep letting your people get whacked (especially if you're sworn to protect them), OR do you lay the smackdown on them, once and for all?
Fast-forward to today; look at IRAN. How many sanctions and "diplomatic solutions" have been used on them? Far too many to count!! Have they stopped amassing the means to make nukes? NOPE!! Have they stopped their threats to blow Israel (and eventually US in America) off the face of the Earth? NOPE!!
If you're willing to stand idly by and let an enemy KEEP ATTACKING YOU, until they wipe you out, I'd suggest that you may need the mental help, FAR more than I.
-
Israel did have rules for assimilating the remnants of their enemies. Of course, whenever I bring that up, a certain poster starts wailing about "slavery" (you know who you are ;D ).
Besides, didn't you just post the verse about young girls being spared and integrated into Israelite society?
As explained several times before now, the reason the edict came down on the Amalekites is simple. For over three centuries, starting just after the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, they assaulted the Israelites, targeting their women and children and (at certain times) nearly driving them into starvation.
Every time Israel fended off Amalek, the same thing happened. When their number grew again, the Amalekites resumed their attacks on Israel (not to mention other societies).
So, the judgment came. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, sheep, goat, cow, chicken, gold, silver, etc. NOTHING was to be left.
What got King Saul in trouble, ultimately costing him the throne of Israel is that, while he defeated the Amalekites, he kept the choice livestock and treasure and spared the king.
As for what you just mentioned, democracy, diplomatic solutions, treaties, etc. WERE ALL TRIED with the Amalekites, FOR OVER 300 YEARS. THEY DID NOT WORK!!
Your people keep getting attacked. And all of the aforementioned items you cited have had NO effect. So now what? Do you keep letting your people get whacked (especially if you're sworn to protect them), OR do you lay the smackdown on them, once and for all?
Fast-forward to today; look at IRAN. How many sanctions and "diplomatic solutions" have been used on them? Far too many to count!! Have they stopped amassing the means to make nukes? NOPE!! Have they stopped their threats to blow Israel (and eventually US in America) off the face of the Earth? NOPE!!
If you're willing to stand idly by and let an enemy KEEP ATTACKING YOU, until they wipe you out, I'd suggest that you may need the mental help, FAR more than I.
I don't believe genocide is ever right, nor is the infantacide your god proposed. Killing the animals is just plain fucked up, why would you do that? i mean if i was a murderer and sentenced to death would you kill my dog to? just some sick shit.
-
I don't believe genocide is ever right, nor is the infantacide your god proposed. Killing the animals is just plain fucked up, why would you do that? i mean if i was a murderer and sentenced to death would you kill my dog to? just some sick shit.
And what supposed to happen to them? Do they get left in the desert to starve to death?
You still didn't answer the question at hand. For over three centuries, every type of "diplomatic solutions" was used with Amalekites to no avail. They kept assaulting Israel, with the intent of destroying them completely.
What is to be done about the situation, especially considering that, every time you spare them, they resume their attacked once their numbers are replenished?
-
And what supposed to happen to them? Do they get left in the desert to starve to death?
You still didn't answer the question at hand. For over three centuries, every type of "diplomatic solutions" was used with Amalekites to no avail. They kept assaulting Israel, with the intent of destroying them completely.
What is to be done about the situation, especially considering that, every time you spare them, they resume their attacked once their numbers are replenished?
so again taking in the animals, using the animals, allowing some of the animals that live naturally in that habitat to rome from is not a better solution. You are defending infantacide and genocide, this leads to hitler thinking.
well lets post the whole story and see if that was the case, those bad amalekites, israel im sure did nothing wrong, ever, so rightfully so all the race was extinguished ::)
You are defending a sick stance my friend, killing of innocent children is SICKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.
-
so again taking in the animals, using the animals, allowing some of the animals that live naturally in that habitat to rome from is not a better solution. You are defending infantacide and genocide, this leads to hitler thinking.
well lets post the whole story and see if that was the case, those bad amalekites, israel im sure did nothing wrong, ever, so rightfully so all the race was extinguished ::)
You are defending a sick stance my friend, killing of innocent children is SICKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.
I can't believe you are going to defend them. They ATTACKED and SLAUGHTERED God's people first, unprovoked. Women, children, livestock, etc. They were even given chances to stop. So they didn't deserve this? Sounds like some of that "zanies" logic, to me.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
so again taking in the animals, using the animals, allowing some of the animals that live naturally in that habitat to rome from is not a better solution. You are defending infantacide and genocide, this leads to hitler thinking.
For what purpose?
The instructions were NOT to use the animals, but to destroy them. That would leave one to believe that Israel didn't need them. Amalek was to be completely destroyed.
well lets post the whole story and see if that was the case, those bad amalekites, israel im sure did nothing wrong, ever, so rightfully so all the race was extinguished ::)
That's been done several times before. Besides, YOU'RE THE ONE who brought this back up. You simply took a handful of verses, without reading the rest or citing the context involved in the situation, just for the sake of complaining.
Israel's misgivings are well-documented, as are the punishments that the Israelites suffered as a result.
You STILL haven't answered the question: What is to be done about the Amalekites? Your "diplomatic solutions" spiel was tried for over three centuries WITH NO RESULTS.
You are defending a sick stance my friend, killing of innocent children is SICKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.
So, what's to be done with them? Again, you just got finished complaining about the girls that were spared of the Midianites, which means you have a problem also with folks being assimilated into Israelite culture.
Make up your mind here. Do you assimilate them, leave them to starve and die, or destroy them?
-
For what purpose?
The instructions were NOT to use the animals, but to destroy them. That would leave one to believe that Israel didn't need them. Amalek was to be completely destroyed.
That's been done several times before. Besides, YOU'RE THE ONE who brought this back up. You simply took a handful of verses, without reading the rest or citing the context involved in the situation, just for the sake of complaining.
Israel's misgivings are well-documented, as are the punishments that the Israelites suffered as a result.
You STILL haven't answered the question: What is to be done about the Amalekites? Your "diplomatic solutions" spiel was tried for over three centuries WITH NO RESULTS.
So, what's to be done with them? Again, you just got finished complaining about the girls that were spared of the Midianites, which means you have a problem also with folks being assimilated into Israelite culture.
Make up your mind here. Do you assimilate them, leave them to starve and die, or destroy them?
what i gave you the answer from above. Obviously you would have to be a fool to believe that all the amalekites were bad,clearly extermination was wrong, genocide cannot be defended, because you have way to many variables to make one generalization and sentence all to death. For example, so us has a war in iraq, from iraqs point of view do you kill all americans? do you think all americans support the war, do you think any would change their mind? etc etc etc... the same analogy fits with the amelakites.
I have no problem with assimilation, and increasing peace and taking care of the young. Your god ordered death to the infants=sick, sick sick sick.. how dont you get it?
answer my question, if god ordered you to kill your kids, would you do it?
-
what i gave you the answer from above. Obviously you would have to be a fool to believe that all the amalekites were bad,clearly extermination was wrong, genocide cannot be defended, because you have way to many variables to make one generalization and sentence all to death. For example, so us has a war in iraq, from iraqs point of view do you kill all americans? do you think all americans support the war, do you think any would change their mind? etc etc etc... the same analogy fits with the amelakites.
They had over three centuries (LONGER THAN THE USA HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE) to repent and make amends. Yet, for some strange reason that didn't happen. How much more time do you need? And how many of YOUR OWN PEOPLE ARE YOU going to let get destroyed, worrying about the welfare of those, hell-bent on destroying YOU?
As I've said before, the higher you are in authority, the more people under that authority suffer, when you do something wrong. Said another way, at certain levels, you aren't the only one who pays the price for YOUR sins.
Once again, what's to be done with the remnants of the Amalekite people, especially given their history of RESUMING THEIR ATTACKS ON ISRAEL, once their numbers get replenished?
I have no problem with assimilation, and increasing peace and taking care of the young. Your god ordered death to the infants=sick, sick sick sick.. how dont you get it?
Been there; done that. It didn't work, not with the Israelites. Besides, You COMPLAINED about the young Midianite girls being assimilated into Israel's culture, with your initial post. Now, all of a sudden, you don't have a problem with assimilation. Make up your mind here.
And why is killing infants sick, sick, sick, sick? You're the one with the floating morality compass.
answer my question, if god ordered you to kill your kids, would you do it?
When did you ask me this, prior to now? Besides, I've been asked this before. So, notwithstanding the fact that God would likely NEVER ordered me to do such (especially without explanation), and knowing that this is little but the standard "trap" question, I'm in the mood for some fun; so I'll make it short and sweet......YES!!
-
They had over three centuries (LONGER THAN THE USA HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE) to repent and make amends. Yet, for some strange reason that didn't happen. How much more time do you need? And how many of YOUR OWN PEOPLE ARE YOU going to let get destroyed, worrying about the welfare of those, hell-bent on destroying YOU?
As I've said before, the higher you are in authority, the more people under that authority suffer, when you do something wrong. Said another way, at certain levels, you aren't the only one who pays the price for YOUR sins.
Once again, what's to be done with the remnants of the Amalekite people, especially given their history of RESUMING THEIR ATTACKS ON ISRAEL, once their numbers get replenished?
Been there; done that. It didn't work, not with the Israelites. Besides, You COMPLAINED about the young Midianite girls being assimilated into Israel's culture, with your initial post. Now, all of a sudden, you don't have a problem with assimilation. Make up your mind here.
And why is killing infants sick, sick, sick, sick? You're the one with the floating morality compass.
When did you ask me this, prior to now? Besides, I've been asked this before. So, notwithstanding the fact that God would likely NEVER ordered me to do such (especially without explanation), and knowing that this is little but the standard "trap" question, I'm in the mood for some fun; so I'll make it short and sweet......YES!!
the fact that i deny the bibles morality and disagree with it proves im using a criterion not found in the bible, a criteria availible to everyone. I can't believe you answered yes to that question.
-
McWay!
Ah ah Ah
Never mind.
:)
-
the fact that i deny the bibles morality and disagree with it proves im using a criterion not found in the bible, a criteria availible to everyone. I can't believe you answered yes to that question.
And what exactly is that criterion? Who makes the rules as to what is "right" (per this criterion) and what is "wrong"?
-
And what exactly is that criterion? Who makes the rules as to what is "right" (per this criterion) and what is "wrong"?
why does anyone have to make the rules? why are you making that assumption. The very fact that i see things that god does in the bible as wrong indicates that i do not derive my morality from the bible. On top of that all atheists would agree, hence, millions and millions of people disagree with gods morality. I would say a multitude of things go into morality, or inborn nature to increase fitness and survive, or goals to progress as a society, how you would like to be treated etc. The old argument that it was once right to own slaves comes to mind.
morality is a construct and you are making the assumption (unfounded) that it has to come from someone, ie god is the only answer. This is not true and you haven't even provided evidence for your assumption. Civilization, altruism, grace etc.. are all constructs, based on your reasoning they would have to come from someone. Your mind is completely closed, god is the only answer to all questions, you have stopped thinking for yourself. Why don't you try thinking for yourself, if it doesn't work go back to god, he will forgive you after all, will he not?
-
why does anyone have to make the rules? why are you making that assumption. The very fact that i see things that god does in the bible as wrong indicates that i do not derive my morality from the bible. On top of that all atheists would agree, hence, millions and millions of people disagree with gods morality. I would say a multitude of things go into morality, or inborn nature to increase fitness and survive, or goals to progress as a society, how you would like to be treated etc. The old argument that it was once right to own slaves comes to mind.
For all your complaining, you've STILL HAVE YET to actually describe exactly what this criterion is and WHO is dictating what is "right" and "wrong". You said you were using " a criterion not found in the Bible". So.......WHAT IS IT?
morality is a construct and you are making the assumption (unfounded) that it has to come from someone, ie god is the only answer. This is not true and you haven't even provided evidence for your assumption. Civilization, altruism, grace etc.. are all constructs, based on your reasoning they would have to come from someone. Your mind is completely closed, god is the only answer to all questions, you have stopped thinking for yourself. Why don't you try thinking for yourself, if it doesn't work go back to god, he will forgive you after all, will he not?
Criterion doesn't just show up out of nowhere. A sentient being makes the rules and regulations, if you will.
And, you continue to duck the question. WHO IS MAKING THE RULES HERE as to what is right and wrong, since you swear up and down that it isn't God?
If you're not using His criterion, whose exactly are you using, since you said you were using such that didn't come from Scripture?
That's the point I'm making. All you keep doing is describing which standard you are NOT using, not which standard you actually ARE.
-
This had me rofling
We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=314911.0
-
For all your complaining, you've STILL HAVE YET to actually describe exactly what this criterion is and WHO is dictating what is "right" and "wrong". You said you were using " a criterion not found in the Bible". So.......WHAT IS IT?
Criterion doesn't just show up out of nowhere. A sentient being makes the rules and regulations, if you will.
And, you continue to duck the question. WHO IS MAKING THE RULES HERE as to what is right and wrong, since you swear up and down that it isn't God?
If you're not using His criterion, whose exactly are you using, since you said you were using such that didn't come from Scripture?
That's the point I'm making. All you keep doing is describing which standard you are NOT using, not which standard you actually ARE.
We use logic to decide what is moral and what is not.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
If one needs to be instructed as to what is moral and what is not by an outside source, without being able to conclude what is moral for themselves, then I would truly be wary of that individual.
-
We use logic to decide what is moral and what is not.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
If one needs to be instructed as to what is moral and what is not by an outside source, without being able to conclude what is moral for themselves, then I would truly be wary of that individual.
Once again, WHOSE logic are you using? If you're using your own, then that is the logic of man.
An Atheist can have any system of morality he or she wishes.
And, that's why I've often stated that atheism, for practical purposes, is simply man worshipping himself (effectively making atheists hardly different than the people of faith, whom they often criticize).
So, if an atheist can have ANY system of morality he wishes, why is Necrosis complaining about what happened to the Amalekites (although he is somewhat silent on the Amalekites' actions)?
If my morality says it's cool to beat you over the head and take your things, or rape your wife, then that's just kosher. Because, by the aforementioned logic, I am not beholden to "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery".
-
Once again, WHOSE logic are you using? If you're using your own, then that is the logic of man.
An Atheist can have any system of morality he or she wishes.
And, that's why I've often stated that atheism, for practical purposes, is simply man worshipping himself (effectively making atheists hardly different than the people of faith, whom they often criticize).
Your opinion, nothing more.
If my morality says it's cool to beat you over the head and take your things, or rape your wife, then that's just kosher. Because, by the aforementioned logic, I am not beholden to "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery".
No, that would merely make you a psychopath.
Would you commence raping and stealing if you weren't told that your shouldn't by religious texts? I should surely hope you could conclude on your own that it would be detrimental to your continued well being to not do so.
Perhaps you should read the article I posted before you comment again. It clearly explains why people don't go around raping each other wives etc.
-
Mcway, my point clearly articulates that i am not using scripture as my basis of morality, hence morality doesn't come from the bible. You keep adding the qualifier of who to your question, why is it a who? make makes you think that its a who? why is this construct different from all the other constructs we have in cognition?
they need no who. I realize you are trying to make god the starting point by doing this, but you haven't even explained why we need an external source for morality, then you you would have to prove it is your god,amongst the thousand others proposed.
regardless, morality is an evolutionary trait, monkeys display remedial forms of morality as do some other animals. Sharing, altruism etc..
-
Mcway, my point clearly articulates that i am not using scripture as my basis of morality, hence morality doesn't come from the bible. You keep adding the qualifier of who to your question, why is it a who? make makes you think that its a who? why is this construct different from all the other constructs we have in cognition?
they need no who. I realize you are trying to make god the starting point by doing this, but you haven't even explained why we need an external source for morality, then you you would have to prove it is your god,amongst the thousand others proposed.
regardless, morality is an evolutionary trait, monkeys display remedial forms of morality as do some other animals. Sharing, altruism etc..
You STILL have not identified the source of your moral compass. Instead, you’re playing semantics about “who” vs. “what”.
Either way, there’s no standard or standard-bearer, with regards to right and wrong.
If you assert that there is no “external” source, then it’s an internal source, by default. But, that plays RIGHT into what I’ve said from the start about atheism: Effectively, it’s man worshipping HIMSELF (a statement that doesn’t seem to sit well with you).
Either you are deriving your own morality, so to speak; or someone else is. If the former is true, then YOU CANNOT BEGRUDGE another for doing the same, EVEN IF his following his own moral code has adverse effects on you or another.
-
Your opinion, nothing more.
Oh, It's a lot more. Who's the most sentient being in the world/universe, God or man?
If it's man and it's man, whose "logic" and "reason" you revere above all else, then MAN is your object of worship.....bottom line.
No, that would merely make you a psychopath.
By whose standards? By my own standards, I’m doing what’s right; and, per atheistic rules, my morality can be whatever I WANT IT TO BE.
Would you commence raping and stealing if you weren't told that your shouldn't by religious texts? I should surely hope you could conclude on your own that it would be detrimental to your continued well being to not do so.
By this flimsy standard, the only thing stopping me is getting caught. In other words, as long as I can get away with it, I can easily justify and commence to doing such. Funny how people have a tendency of doing that. Ask a certain adultery-commiting golfer.
Perhaps you should read the article I posted before you comment again. It clearly explains why people don't go around raping each other wives etc.
I've read. Problem is that, if I don't feel like abiding by the "Golden Rule", per atheistic rules, there's nothing requiring me to do so.
And, as I've explained to Necrosis, people CAN VERY EASILY justify doing bad things to people, without wanting those things to happen to themselves. No rapist wants to get corn-holed in prison; no thief wants his stuff stolen from him; and no murderer wants to get shot.
"Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law."
If there's a universal law, there's a universal LAWMAKER. And, I know who that Lawmaker is. Human nature is about gratifiying SELF, first and foremost. So, that considering how my actions affect someone else hold little water, in that sense.
Due to my sinful nature, I DON'T CARE how my actions adversely affect someone else, as long as I get mine. And, other humans, when push comes to shove, feel the same way.
That's why I must hold myself to a standard, higher than that of man
-
Again, you don't understand statement written. You can't debate the subject if you don't understand the statement.
What you're doing is engaging in double-talk. You and Luke are making the claim that Christians are atheists, simply because they believe in Christ as a deity, to the exclusion of other deities.
That is rubbish. Atheism, by the definition you just listed, is the LACK OF BELIEF in a deity. That means, IF YOU BELIEVE IN A DEITY (no matter how many other deities in which you possess no belief), you are NOT an atheist.
If there are, as Luke claims, 10,000 deities, you must lack belief in ALL OF THEM to be an atheist. It's an all-or-nothing deal. If you believe in any one, you ain't an atheist, period.
Secondly. If you believe there is evidence; published and peer reviewed, reproducible evidence supporting a claim for supernatural entities then the burden of proof is on you to support your claim. Every single claim by people attempting to prove a supernatural entity has been refuted and debunked or invalidated.
Sorry, but the burden-of-proof game doesn't work here. A Christian can just as easily state that the burden of proof LIES ON YOU, to support your claims of there not being a God.
And, your "every single claim" spiel is quite laughable. If that were actually the case, atheists would NOT continually display their frustration in their inability to destroy faith or religion (as is their often-expressed intent).
-
Sorry, but the burden-of-proof game doesn't work here. A Christian can just as easily state that the burden of proof LIES ON YOU, to support your claims of there not being a God.
And, your "every single claim" spiel is quite laughable. If that were actually the case, atheists would NOT continually display their frustration in their inability to destroy faith or religion (as is their often-expressed intent).
You said there is proof of god exists. Now you are backtracking again refuse to supply said proofs.
Not one claim of supernatural entities has ever been proven to be true.
(http://www.mjstewart.biz/religion-demotivational-poster-1216727967.jpg)
-
You said there is proof of god exists. Now you are backtracking again refuse to supply said proofs.
Not one claim of supernatural entities has ever been proven to be true.
(http://www.mjstewart.biz/religion-demotivational-poster-1216727967.jpg)
I didn't backtrack. What I said is that the burden-of-proof routine game skeptics like to play doesn't cut it, in this discussion.
Your claims about Christians being atheistic are quite off the mark. You cited the definition of atheism, a LACK of belief in a deity. Christians DO NOT FIT that category. Why? THEY BELIEVE in a deity. It doesn't matter how many others they dismiss. They need only believe in ONE.
Plus, you've still have yet to address why, if morality is fluid and, per atheistic rules, it's what I want it to be, why stealing or committing adultery is wrong (especially if one can easily justify doing such, even if he doesn't want the same happening to him).
-
Your claims about Christians being atheistic are quite off the mark. You cited the definition of atheism, a LACK of belief in a deity. Christians DO NOT FIT that category. Why? THEY BELIEVE in a deity. It doesn't matter how many others they dismiss. They need only believe in ONE.
You're missing the entire point. Christians don't believe in other gods than there own for absolutely no good reason. What you term this position is moot. There is no justification for this other than the fact people were indoctrinated (brain washed), for the most part, at an early age. Geographic location plays a large part in the development of religious leanings as well. Were you born in another part of the world, dominated by another religion it is almost a certainty you would be worshiping another deity.
This has little to do with the meaning of this argument, but there are many types of atheism, and it could be termed weak atheism for that matter. It's moot and utterly ridiculous to argue as it has nothing to do with the intent of the argument.
Scroll down to 'definitions of Atheism', and this is by no means the most comprehensive source for information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Plus, you've still have yet to address why, if morality is fluid and, per atheistic rules, it's what I want it to be, why stealing or committing adultery is wrong (especially if one can easily justify doing such, even if he doesn't want the same happening to him).
Society could not/would not exist in the manner it does if humans had not been able to develop a sense of morals innately. Individuals are only able to come together and co-exist in groups if there is agreement as to what is a common good for the betterment of the individual and the community as a whole, otherwise communities and civilization would collapse. Were one to kill all his neighbours, it's highly unlikely one would survive long alone. The success of the human race is due, in no small part, directly to the fact that humans can form groups for mutual benefit. This is an incredibly simple thing to understand, even animals have been shown to have morals.
You can do the research and find out for yourself that this is the case as there is data to support these findings.
-
You're missing the entire point. Christians don't believe in other gods than there own for absolutely no good reason. What you term this position is moot. There is no justification for this other than the fact people were indoctrinated (brain washed), for the most part, at an early age. Geographic location plays a large part in the development of religious leanings as well. Were you born in another part of the world, dominated by another religion it is almost a certainty you would be worshiping another deity.
No, YOU'RE MISSING the entire point. Your claims about people being atheists, just because they believe in a certain deity, even to the exclusion of others, makes absolutely NO SENSE, especially given the definiton of atheism that you just cited.
And, the tired geographical argument holds no water either, especially in light of what I said earlier. The only difference between you and a Christian is the entity being worshipped.
This has little to do with the meaning of this argument, but there are many types of atheism, and it could be termed weak atheism for that matter. It's moot and utterly ridiculous to argue as it has nothing to do with the intent of the argument.
Scroll down to 'definitions of Atheism', and this is by no means the most comprehensive source for information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Society could not/would not exist in the manner it does if humans had not been able to develop a sense of morals innately. Individuals are only able to come together and co-exist in groups if there is agreement as to what is a common good for the betterment of the individual and the community as a whole, otherwise communities and civilization would collapse. Were one to kill all his neighbours, it's highly unlikely one would survive long alone. The success of the human race is due, in no small part, directly to the fact that humans can form groups for mutual benefit. This is an incredibly simple thing to understand, even animals have been shown to have morals.
You can do the research and find out for yourself that this is the case as there is data to support these findings.
Oh really?? Many societies existed, that were NOTORIOUS for committing some of the very things I mentioned earlier. Nazi Germany existed, yet it engaged in the Holocaust. Other societies exist today in which adultery, rape, abuse of women, etc. not only are rampant but (in some cases) codified BY LAW.
So, based on the floating definition of morality, who are you (or any other atheist, for that matter) to claim that the way women are treated in certain Muslim countries are wrong?
What about homosexuals? In many societies, they are put to death (especially in the aforementioned Muslim countries; Uganda is about to up the ante, to make homosexuality a capital offense). Many atheists wail against such laws existing. But, why can’t the morality of those leaders be used to justify executing them, especially if it's deemed that they serve no significant benefit to “society”?
That's the point you keep missing. As long as you can have a fluid morality (per atheistic rules), you are in NO POSITION to complain, even when someone exercsies such fluid morality at YOUR EXPENSE.
-
No, YOU'RE MISSING the entire point. Your claims about people being atheists, just because they believe in a certain deity, even to the exclusion of others, makes absolutely NO SENSE, especially given the definiton of atheism that you just cited.
And, the tired geographical argument holds no water either, especially in light of what I said earlier. The only difference between you and a Christian is the entity being worshipped.
This has little to do with the meaning of this argument, but there are many types of atheism, and it could be termed weak atheism for that matter. It's moot and utterly ridiculous to argue as it has nothing to do with the intent of the argument.
Scroll down to 'definitions of Atheism', and this is by no means the most comprehensive source for information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Oh really?? Many societies existed, that were NOTORIOUS for committing some of the very things I mentioned earlier. Nazi Germany existed, yet it engaged in the Holocaust. Other societies exist today in which adultery, rape, abuse of women, etc. not only are rampant but (in some cases) codified BY LAW.
So, based on the floating definition of morality, who are you (or any other atheist, for that matter) to claim that the way women are treated in certain Muslim countries are wrong?
What about homosexuals? In many societies, they are put to death (especially in the aforementioned Muslim countries; Uganda is about to up the ante, to make homosexuality a capital offense). Many atheists wail against such laws existing. But, why can’t the morality of those leaders be used to justify executing them, especially if it's deemed that they serve no significant benefit to “society”?
That's the point you keep missing. As long as you can have a fluid morality (per atheistic rules), you are in NO POSITION to complain, even when someone exercsies such fluid morality at YOUR EXPENSE.
Your merely nitpicking one of the definitions of a word without addressing the meaning of the statement. Why is only one religion correct and all others are incorrect. Use whichever terminology you prefer to describe this non-belief in the other religions.
None of these arguments are 'flimsy' or 'weak' or 'tired' as you say. They have all been well documented and studied.
http://www.google.ca/ <----- here ya go
If you choose not understand that's up to you.
Mr. Dawkins can, of course, explain morality better than I.
Gotta fly dude. I'm spending time doing this instead of my studies and that's not good. lol
Have a good one man.
-
Your merely nitpicking one of the definitions of a word without addressing the meaning of the statement. Why is only one religion correct and all others are incorrect. Use whichever terminology you prefer to describe this non-belief in the other religions.
None of these arguments are 'flimsy' or 'weak' or 'tired' as you say. They have all been well documented and studied.
http://www.google.ca/ <----- here ya go
If you choose not understand that's up to you.
Mr. Dawkins can, of course, explain morality better than I.
Gotta fly dude. I'm spending time doing this instead of my studies and that's not good. lol
Have a good one man.
I can’t check Dawkins’ video at the moment. But, based on his past statements, he’s in no position to talk, either, especially since he subscribes to the whole fluid or floating morality deal. Since that’s the case, he shouldn’t be hollering about how allegedly “misogynistic” or “homophobic” God is.
Notice that Dawkins never complains about how misogynistic Molech and Baal were; I guess he missed that whole “passing daughters through the fire” and temple prostitution stuff. Those practices were outlawed by the Lord.
-
I can’t check Dawkins’ video at the moment. But, based on his past statements, he’s in no position to talk, either, especially since he subscribes to the whole fluid or floating morality deal. Since that’s the case, he shouldn’t be hollering about how allegedly “misogynistic” or “homophobic” God is.
Notice that Dawkins never complains about how misogynistic Molech and Baal were; I guess he missed that whole “passing daughters through the fire” and temple prostitution stuff. Those practices were outlawed by the Lord.
dude give it a break already, you cherry pick arguments like there is no tomorrow. Dawkins provided sound logical arguments for morality, evidence to back it up and it is common knowledge. He picks on your god because of prevelance, i'm sure if we asked him he would disagree with all the immoral practices of all gods, but stating it once should be a enough, no?
Morality is not a thing all people have equal amounts of. You seem to miss this fact, it is a construct of evolution, just like many other constructs certain individuals can lack certain aspects. Sociopaths for example are a good group, people with syphilis like hitler ::) which affects cognitive functions, neurosyphilis ftw, are examples of people who lack morals. It is an evolving thing, hence why some things were accepted until more and more people realized the immorality of these practices. If my morality was derived from the bible i would agree with all the practices. I do not, i do not think any moral person would unless they were brainwashed. If you derive your morals from god, then the only thing stopping you from shooting someone is god, you may be mentally ill.
Wtf is with the who vs what, who is implying a person which requires and explanation. It's not semantics, provide evidence that there needs to be an external source for morals and that morality is different from all other cognitive constructs. Passing on of genes that code for morality is how it gains strength, some lack some dont. The more moral a person, the better they would be in relationships and within civilization pretty straight forward concept.
-
dude give it a break already, you cherry pick arguments like there is no tomorrow. Dawkins provided sound logical arguments for morality, evidence to back it up and it is common knowledge. He picks on your god because of prevelance, i'm sure if we asked him he would disagree with all the immoral practices of all gods, but stating it once should be a enough, no?
Morality is not a thing all people have equal amounts of. You seem to miss this fact, it is a construct of evolution, just like many other constructs certain individuals can lack certain aspects. Sociopaths for example are a good group, people with syphilis like hitler ::) which affects cognitive functions, neurosyphilis ftw, are examples of people who lack morals. It is an evolving thing, hence why some things were accepted until more and more people realized the immorality of these practices. If my morality was derived from the bible i would agree with all the practices. I do not, i do not think any moral person would unless they were brainwashed. If you derive your morals from god, then the only thing stopping you from shooting someone is god, you may be mentally ill.
Wtf is with the who vs what, who is implying a person which requires and explanation. It's not semantics, provide evidence that there needs to be an external source for morals and that morality is different from all other cognitive constructs. Passing on of genes that code for morality is how it gains strength, some lack some dont. The more moral a person, the better they would be in relationships and within civilization pretty straight forward concept.
And therein lies your fatal flaw. What happend when morals "evolve" to the point, when all those actions about which you complain become standard fare?
Hitler's morals "evolved" into the Holocaust. We all know how far Stalin's morals "evolved". Both of them had societies as well.
Dawkins provides little but the usual skeptic fare, that has been torn asunder, more times than I care to count. And, now he's trying to blame Hitler's actions on an STD.
So what did Stalin have, the clap? Did Mao have crabs or something?
Even by Dawkins' standards, this is pitiful.
-
And therein lies your fatal flaw. What happend when morals "evolve" to the point, when all those actions about which you complain become standard fare?
Hitler's morals "evolved" into the Holocaust. We all know how far Stalin's morals "evolved". Both of them had societies as well.
Dawkins provides little but the usual skeptic fare, that has been torn asunder, more times than I care to count. And, now he's trying to blame Hitler's actions on an STD.
So what did Stalin have, the clap? Did Mao have crabs or something?
Even by Dawkins' standards, this is pitiful.
dawkins never stated what i stated ftr. However, you again do not know what you are talking about, those people are considered by the majority and moral deliquents. These were narcissitic, sociopathic individuals.
again your logic fails you if god instills morals in us wouldnt stalin and hitler know right from wrong? They should. However, based on evolutionary theory it fits perfectly, with your theory not so much.
-
And therein lies your fatal flaw. What happend when morals "evolve" to the point, when all those actions about which you complain become standard fare?
Hitler's morals "evolved" into the Holocaust. We all know how far Stalin's morals "evolved". Both of them had societies as well.
Dawkins provides little but the usual skeptic fare, that has been torn asunder, more times than I care to count. And, now he's trying to blame Hitler's actions on an STD.
So what did Stalin have, the clap? Did Mao have crabs or something?
Even by Dawkins' standards, this is pitiful.
GEEZ i didnt even realize that you have no understanding of evolution, do you think bad traits persist in nature? do you think something can evolve to function worse in it's environment?
Seriously, your whole statement is ridiculous.
-
Seriously, your whole statement is ridiculous.
Welcome to the world of Christian logic. Please leave Reality at the door.
-
GEEZ i didnt even realize that you have no understanding of evolution, do you think bad traits persist in nature? do you think something can evolve to function worse in it's environment?
Seriously, your whole statement is ridiculous.
You blame Hitler's actions on VD. And I'm the one whose statement is ridiculous?
-
You blame Hitler's actions on VD. And I'm the one whose statement is ridiculous?
um no, he obviously is a sociopath, antisocial psychotic. Add to that he had a disease known to affect the brain at the later stages. I dont blame hitlers action on anything other then him being a crazy fuck. You think he evoled into this mindset showing your ignorance of evolution.
we have provided links showing the evidence for morality, how it is define and accoutned for, how it occurs in nature and why god is not needed, what do you have left?