Bitcoin Forum

Exodus 21

These are the ordinances that you shall set before them:

2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person’, 6then his master shall bring him before God.* He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.* 11And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.  

Those fucking Christians am I right? :P

Those fucking Christians am I right? :P

Perhaps you wanted to blame the jews as the Exodus been written by Moses for the benefit of the jew community...about 1200 years earlier than the first christians turned up :).

LOL somebody got pricked hard and starts bitching.

You people are too easy.

Those fucking Christians am I right? :P

LOL somebody got pricked hard and starts bitching.

You people are too easy.

That is why,in the christian bible there are 2 books New Testament and Old Testament.The Old Testament describes how God made the world ,Adam and Eva and what happened to the chosen people till the day that Jesus was born.The New Testament describes the life of Jesus and the new rules that are given to the chosen people....so the Christians must respect the New Testament were is no slavery and Jesus says  to turn the other chick when some one slap your face.

Is pricked your new nonsense word that you're going to keep spouting now like it actually means something? Waiting for the day you get tired of your own bullshit or at least drown in it.


Lol, what has that got to do with this? How does having two books relate to this or your point?

It seems you're too easy too given as these threads always get your goat. I guess a lot of people must've pricked you hard too. Lethn, Muslims, Chinese, anyone who isn't a white American.

Right, becaus I am a white american....LOL

Bitches gotta bitch.

What are you then? Maybe you should enlighten us, but obviously you just like to BS and try skirt round answering these questions so people can't hold them against you. Like you seem to love telling everybody how great America is and throw a bitch fit when people criticize Christianity but oh no you're not a white American. Maybe a black one?  ;D

Those fucking Christians am I right? :P

There are thousands of different religions in the world, and in the vast majority of cases people follow the dominant faith of the culture they were born into. Is it not arrogant and self-centred to think that your faith is the "true" one and all the others are false?

That is why,in the christian bible there are 2 books New Testament and Old Testament.The Old Testament describes how God made the world ,Adam and Eva and what happened to the chosen people till the day that Jesus was born.The New Testament describes the life of Jesus and the new rules that are given to the chosen people....so the Christians must respect the New Testament were is no slavery and Jesus says  to turn the other chick when some one slap your face.

Just because it’s descriptive and contains stories of murder, rape, and incest does not mean the Bible is prescriptive in encouraging such atrocities. Such things were wrong then and they’re wrong now

But they seemed to be OK then, according to the bible, and are even given as examples of good behavior (like attempting to murder your child if the voice in your head tells you to).

Just because it’s descriptive and contains stories of murder, rape, and incest does not mean the Bible is prescriptive in encouraging such atrocities. Such things were wrong then and they’re wrong now

 Proverbs 23:13-14New International Version (NIV)
Saying 13

13 Do not withhold discipline from a child;
    if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.
14 Punish them with the rod
    and save them from death.

This is common knowledge, Christians always deny it though, by saying "Oh but that's the Old Testament. Read the latest edition by God."

Which is where you come in and quote Jesus at them:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5, 17-18

I always find it funny how one side argues that their god is so righteous and almighty and another the same, clearly neither is true for surely the most powerful and mighty would have subjugated the other way before meer mortals had to fight the cause on their behalf. :P

All mind control for psychopathic tyrants to parasitize others 

Oh and don't forget the fact that they advocate child abuse.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+23%3A13-14


This one I've bolded particularly makes me laugh, lets see them worm out of this quote.

That's not the first pedophilic reference

Pedophilic has a sexual connotation. You should look back your definitions.

Numbers 31:16-17 is about God telling the barbaric savages (Christians) to plunder and rape, massacring all the children, and the non-virgin girls, but to save all the virgin little girls for yourself.

You are obviously pulling conclusion and twisting contexts. Can you share us the socio-military-politico context of these nations so we can understand better the situation?

Your emotional responses doesn't give you any credibility and show that you are not interested to understand precisely what were the motivations.

Numbers 31

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

all religions is based on fear. believe or hellfire

Your red quotes didn't give any more context to understand the motivations. Maybe I should teach you something about critical thoughts? To understand the context and motivations I would be interested to know what exactly were those Balaam's advice. Was it to kill all Israelites and rape their childrens while they were peacefully living side by side?  Was the red quote's a response to a direct threat to their own existence?

But my guess is that you are not interested to understand something but just proving your emotive point.

Are you really trying to justify that barbarianism?

Ignorant claim is ignorant. Maybe that's why you fear religions?  ::)

Christianity is based on fear :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcgAfkljeQI

That guy is very credible. No doubts.

If Christians are to be moral because of their love of God and not out of fear, then why are curses for disobedience and prophecies of punishment found so frequently in the OT, and why does Jesus mention hell so often in the NT?

If Christians are to be moral because of their love of God and not out of fear, then why are curses for disobedience and prophecies of punishment found so frequently in the OT, and why does Jesus mention hell so often in the NT?

Because Jesus loves you so much, he created a special place for those who don't love him back, a place where they burn for eternity.

And that makes him a psychopath. You can't force someone to love you, it comes naturally.

Do you have some link that demonstrate such claims? Your conclusions seem to become more and more idiotic.

I'm trying to understand, don't you? If I were a direct threat to your life, would it be OK for you to kill me first? Or maybe you would just tell me "Kill me first because I am not a barbar!"

^ See my earlier comments about Christianity and slavery and the oppression of women ;)

Put a proper reference, there have got to be over a hundred posts on this thread alone

Arnaud-Amaury, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, thirty years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."—"Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."

This story from the massacre of the Cathars in Europe sums up really well why religion is a problem.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Massacre

Those fucking Christians am I right? :P

Anyone who follows the Bible literally is an idiot because you have cultural relativism into play.  All of those teachings while relevant in the respective society that was taught in, should not be viewed literally in contemporary society. 

I agree, anybody who follows the Bible today is literally an idiot

You have to remember who wrote the testaments as well.

The bible is God's words written by man.  As we know even the most righteous man is not perfect and may have not written His words correctly, didn't understand, applied His words to the time or possibly used their position to self-promote.  Maybe the man who wrote the bit about stoning cheating women to death had a wife cheat on him and was bias?  Maybe God ment buy them a bag of weed and wish them luck.  Unlikely but I'm just saying the bit was written so many years ago the only way we'll know for sure is the apocalypse or we invent a time machine.

I believe in God, I believe there was a man named Jesus and that he was a child of God just like the rest of us.  I believe Jesus was a  good man with an overall good message.  I don't associate myself with the organized christian religion but really.. kinda what I am.

Problem is, from a purely cultural standpoint, nobody knows that the God of the Bible is not real. And nobody knows that He is not the force behind the Bible being what it is today. If He is real, you are in big trouble if you mess with His Bible.

From a scientific standpoint - not the popular political science propaganda, rather real science - the God of the Bible has virtually been proven to exist. But if you listen to all the interpretations of science made by jokers who want to expel God from their lives, you won't get true science.

:)

Look, one that beleves in Allah says that Katholics are bad, vica-versa.
Fact is that they all did bad  things, and that will remain forever, people form they'r religions in a shape or form that fits them best.

In the case of the religion of ancient Israel - the one that is the foundation for all Christianity - God formed the religion for the people. The Bible is record of both, the religion that God formed, and how the people reacted to it over the ages (about 1,500 years).

People are people. We see people from all over the world reacting to God's religion in all the same ways that the ancient Israel people did.

:)

Nice try, Israel wasn't around until 1948

Oh, you're just trying to instigate some kind of word battle here.   :-* :-* :-*

This was originally written by Moses about 3,500 years ago. At the time, the common laws of all of the the lands included these things, things like slavery. People all over that area of the world (the Middle East) followed these basic laws and others.

The laws that Moses set up on the orders of God, were designed to be something that the people were familiar with, and were set up to form a theocracy type of government for Israel. It was also a government of family. The people of Israel at that time were very family minded, generally.

Throughout the centuries, people did as people do. Some of them followed the laws Moses set down. Some disobeyed. There is a strong common core of Jewish people who obey the laws Moses set down today. Note, there was/is no requirement to have slaves.

Thirty-five hundred years later, the basic laws of the world have changed so that slavery is formally outlawed. Yet, there are a lot of Arabs, especially in the Northwestern part of Africa, who still have slaves. Even the governments there condone it, but not officially, because of world views.

The word "slave" as written in many parts of the Old Testament was the word that we would use for "employee" or maybe "indentured servant." If a single man, today, had a female employee who lived at his house, he would not be required to marry her. In those ancient days, the honorable thing to do was to marry her... and it might be the honorable thing, now, if we were an honorable people.

If, back then, a female employee who was a wife got a different job, the husband might have to let her go as his employee. So, how do you treat a wife who was just an employee, but you were married to her (in name only) because it was the common law of the land and of the people? The laws Moses set up were a good way to assure that things were done fairly.

:)

Age of Aries
(1800 B.C. - 360 AD)
The preceding Age of Taurus was a very matriarchal and feminine Age in which fertility cults flourished, humanity began to master agriculture and survival needs, freeing up time and energy to pursue beauty and the creation of cities and civilizations. Some form of Bull worship emerged throughout most of the cultures on the planet, and can be found in various mythologies. Slowly things begin to change, the Bull was slain, and a new archetypal symbol and pattern begins to surface: The Ram of Aries.
The Age of Aries was an Age of incredible change. Astrologically and archetypally, Aries has to do with the development of identity via the ego, the “I am” that each of us carries within. As we assess the changes that evolved during this Age, remember that whenever a new archetypal pattern begins to download into our planetary chakra system, it begins to transform us at a first chakra, tribal level first. So a new quest for individuality became urgent around 1800 BC, rendering humanity with the impulse to find a "tribal ego" in our first attempts to break free of the more "earthy" psychic fusion of the Age of Taurus.  
To identify with a singular, tribal affiliation and enact this, humans had to first consolidate their gods. Out of this impulse, monotheism was born. We see a single, dominant god emerge in most cultures--a god usually associated in some way with the Sun--and a shifting of the collective from matriarchal to patriarchal orientation in regard to issues of power and daily life. Tribal egos were born, making war a major theme of this Age–Aries is ruled by Mars, God of war, after all. (Aggressive assertion of the will is often required to break free from the past and become an individual, so perhaps this was a necessary step forward in our overall collective evolution.)
Harnessing the will became a focal point of humanity’s evolution and during this Age the "warrior of individuation" was born through many myths of the Mortal Hero.  The Mortal Hero takes it upon himself to individuate from the feminine pull of the Mother (Earth-Taurus) and venture out to discover his identity through trials of courage and ego development (all Aries themes!)
During this Age, the Greeks gave us the likes of Homer, Hesiod, and Aeschylus with their solar myths of individuation, filled with mortal heroes like Achilles, Hercules, Jason (who sought the Golden Fleece!), Theseus (a bona-fide bull-slayer!) and Odysseus.  Let’s also not forget Alexander the Great who, inspired by Homer, conquered most of the known world during this Age and was an embodiment of Aries’ drive, ambition, courage, will to power, pioneering spirit, and mythic vision.
To reintroduce the concept that each Astrological Age also manifests its opposite zodiacal sign as a balance (and key to the evolutionary phase at hand) let’s look at this concept shown clearly by our next mortal hero, Moses.
Moses is a Mortal Hero who is highly symbolic of the ego itself.  Like Moses, the ego can liberate us from enslavement--to our past and our unconscious fusion to the mass psyche. It can birth an identity that brings us to the very edge of the “Promised Land” of the soul. But at the end of the journey, the ego cannot enter this Promised Land (a hint at the next Age, Pisces.) The Soul can indeed enter the ego, (a hint at the Age of Aquarius) and therein we find both the limitations, and ultimate fulfillment of ego development.
Still, Moses did much more than just liberate his people from Egypt. Like Alexander the Great, in his heroic quest, Moses was the Aries’ epitome of courage, loyalty, vision, determination, leadership, and faith in his unseen one god: Yahweh (Self).  In condemning the worship of the golden calf (Taurus), he symbolically declared a new age had begun. An age that needed something to guide human ego development, something besides aggression and war – in which he gave the balance and polar opposite to Aries, the Libran law of the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, Moses also gave instructions in the building of the Ark of the Covenant that included a covering for the tabernacle made of ram’s skin, and a new altar with four horns at its corners.
As the Age of Aries progressed, and ego development began to move from tribal to individual, people became more cognizant of their own power and capacity to "reason" that perhaps war and aggression weren’t the best ways to engage with the development of individual identity. After all, what good was establishing an identity (Aries) if we couldn't relate it to others (Libra) without getting killed! We were in dire need of the archetypal energy of Libra, which deals in part with relating peacefully in a spirit of equanimity with each other.

Look, one that beleves in Allah says that Katholics are bad, vica-versa.
Fact is that they all did bad  things, and that will remain forever, people form they'r religions in a shape or form that fits them best.

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

Anyone who follows the Bible literally is an idiot because you have cultural relativism into play.  All of those teachings while relevant in the respective society that was taught in, should not be viewed literally in contemporary society. 

So if we can figure out what's more moral than what god tells us, and are rejecting his version of morality already, then why do we need god?

Why is that a paradox? Or rather, what is the paradox?

That's basically saying that things that were written into the bible were considered moral by the people they were written, even if they were "inspired by god." But with time, we as people realized ourselves that those things are not actually moral, despite the bible and "god" telling us they are. So if we can figure out what's more moral than what god tells us, and are rejecting his version of morality already, then why do we need god?

Look at the profound thoughts of Lethn in all their glory. Next think you know he'll be walking on water, while simultaneously turning it to wine.

Fortunately, unlike Jesus, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can ignore the laws of physics.

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.

-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT.

In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.

But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?

What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?

What I got out of it recently was that He died so that no one else would have to necessarily die like He did for Man to change the lives around us  in as meaningful a way as He was written to do, i.e. because He died(/lived)for us, we too now know how to be/live/die like Jesus. I haven't read the Book of John yet but I was told that Jesus's true mission is explained therein.

I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?

Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of

But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?

What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?

It's hard enough keeping the Word pure when translating into different languages. We are blessed that God guided a lot of honest scholars to keep all that "junk" from being added to the Scriptures.

:)

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.

-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Christianity isn't Christianity like it was 2000 years ago because, as secularism has spread, politics has become the replacement. and money/power is God.

Seriously.  The parallels between religious and secular/political dominion, governance, and worship are astonishing.  All of the dogma is the same, just wrapped in a different package.  It's pretty hard to keep a populous in squalor for 2,000 years by keeping them gleeful by telling them the more poor they are the easier it will be to find salvation.  It's much easier to let people spend themselves silly into squalor.

Good post.  Mine is just a tangential comment.

Real Christianity has to do with following the ways of Jesus... especially the part about believing and accepting Him for salvation in the resurrection.

Secular Christianity involves all the things that you say. True Christianity involves my previous paragraph. Both can be active in a person, but the more he becomes spiritually involved with true Christianity, the more secular Christianity will fade from his life.

:)

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan. :D

Part of that "rule-set" is to kill your son if he is caught listening to hip hop

Most Bible Old Testament law was for Israel/Jews only.

Love for God above all things, and love for your fellow human being as yourself is for everyone.

The rules for non-Israel/non-Jews are:
1. abstain from food polluted by idols;
2. abstain from sexual immorality;
3. abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals;
4. abstain from eating blood.

Your choice is one of the 2 positions above... be a Jew or don't be one.

If you don't follow loving God above all things, and your fellow human being as yourself, you are lost. If you die without changing, you will be lost permanently. If you accept being a Jew, follow all the Jewish laws. If you don't want to be a Jew, then follow the 4 that are listed.

Everyone is required to love God above all things, and to love fellow human beings as himself/herself.

All this stuff about how God is requiring ridiculous stuff from everyone, is itself ridiculous. Follow what I have written here, and you will be just fine. The only other thing for eternal life is to believe in Jesus, that He will raise you from the dead to life.

Get off all this nonsensical bickering about how bad Jewish laws were for the Jews. If you are not a Jew, they don't apply to you, no matter what the churches say. Remember, church leaders go into training. And a lot of the training is in what the Jews believed. So, they can't help it when they tell you to do like Jews even though you are not Jews.

:)

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

Incest is not love, even though it might seem very loving depending on the partners.  :)

The place in the Acts of the Apostles that listed the 4 rules for Gentile converts to Christianity also says wording to the effect of, "for the law is preached every sabbath in all the synagogs."

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

That doesn't answer my question

Why wreck good stones?  :)

Why wreck good stones?  :)

Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing.

Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends.

Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives.

:)

No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being.  Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption.  Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child.  

You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect.  

You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children.  It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result.  God's children -- Born to Hate.

You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.

If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there.

Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them.

The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?

:)

Why are you still arguing with him? lol :P it's obvious he's a psychopath.

I do too, but it's not worth it if they're not even intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying.

Actually...

...but irrelevant.


So what if it produces offspring?  There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good.  For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. 


Which is it?  Unnatural or natural?  You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). 

If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed."  Um, no, you can't do that.

I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't).  Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad."  If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself).


This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would.

The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids.

Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children.

:)

Ah, the old 'kid' attack :P pretending he's more of an adult by trying to belittle the people he's arguing with after being defeated by logic and reason.

The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids.

Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children.

:)

No problem!  That's why they invented the BJ ;)

Nobody would argue that a BJ is not designed for having kids.  And in fact they usually feel about 130-190% better.

Phrase it as a deductive argument, smarty-pants.  You are asserting premises and conclusion(s), so you have all the ingredients you need to construct a good, deductive argument.

So show me!  This is your opportunity to organize your points in a way that is Universally recognizable, according to the very same rules of logic and reason that your creator endowed you with.

Go ahead. Make my day ;)

Edit:

Here, I'll get you started.

Premise 1:  (Insert here)
Premise 2:  (Insert here)
Premises 3, 4, 5, etc., or however many you need: (Insert here)
Therefore:  Homosexuality is unnatural and bad.

All you need to do choose your premises and fill them in!  :)  Shouldn't take you long.

Easy to do. In fact, I have already done it. Simply go back and read what I have written in my previous posts in this thread.

:)

I think the bible needs to be updated... It was written as guidlines on how to live 2000 years ago ~~ People following this book with 100% heart are very stupid.

No -- see, that's the thing; I already read them.  However, as you know, I've already asserted that I believe your arguments don't make sense because I believe they are unsound, and I've told you why, point-by-point.  You also know that I understand what your conclusion is, but I believe your premises not only do not lead to your conclusion, but also are untrue unto themselves.  Therefore, I believe your argument is not only unsound, but completely invalid.

So, because we both know what your conclusion is, and we have both read your premises, I am simply asking you to restate them in a way that soundly leads to your conclusion that homosexuality is bad and unnatural.  If you can do that, then I *must* concede to a superior argument.  I'm just waiting for you to do that.  This is your chance to prove once and for all that I am wrong, and since you seem so confident in your knowledge of the topic, it should be easy for you.  You know this like the back of your hand, right?

However, if you will not, I (and anyone that understands how deductive arguments work) will assume that you cannot, and thus also will assume you concede to my superior argument.  That might give you just enough time left to work on changing some things so you can live with your conscience.

Sexual process is for procreation.

there is not only no need for same-sex sex, but it is perverted against nature, at best useless.

If you approve of homosexuality, perhaps it is because you have so hardened your conscience to what is right :)

Okay. I will restate briefly, talking about people.

Sexual process is for procreation.

Same-sex sexual process has no procreation in it.

Same-sex friendship can be almost as intimate as opposite-sex sexual process, but without having same-sex sexual process.

Because of the above, there is not only no need for same-sex sex, but it is perverted against nature, at best useless.

I don't necessarily concede to anything that you have to say. However, I wouldn't want to deprive you of your right to assume anything.

If you approve of homosexuality, perhaps it is because you have so hardened your conscience to what is right that you don't feel it any longer.

:)

I think the bible needs to be updated... It was written as guidlines on how to live 2000 years ago ~~ People following this book with 100% heart are very stupid.

Using money is very unnatural. So anyone who thinks we shouldn't do unnatural things, please stop using bitcoin and leave this forum, lest you keep being tempted to do things that are unnatural and not in god's design.

what human civilizations have not organically arised a money medium of trade no matter how geographically separated?

A better question is where in nature is there anything like money used? All of nature depends on real resources, and whenever trade happens, real resources are traded. So things like money, and cars, glasses, computers, space rockets, etc are all unnatural. If you are going to complain about something being unnatural, make sure to abstain from all unnatural things. Unless you are some sort of a hypocrite.

No problem!  That's why they invented the BJ ;)

I think the bible needs to be updated... It was written as guidlines on how to live 2000 years ago ~~ People following this book with 100% heart are very stupid.

what human civilizations have not organically arised a money medium of trade no matter how geographically separated?

Just give it up.
The religious retards dont know what evolution is and refuses to read up on it.

Refuse*

Damn, I hate it when people use the word "retard" to describe someone else with terrible grammar.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/god-is-not-a-magician-pope-says-christians-should-believe-in-evolution-and-big-bang/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/god-is-not-a-magician-pope-says-christians-should-believe-in-evolution-and-big-bang/

I think the extreme versions of both Christians and Atheists are both a little odd. I can't understand the logic in either direction and usually find myself somewhere in between. Atheists like to point to the fact that Christians really don't know anything but what the Bible supposedly says happened and do so using Science as their weapon. "Real" Christians seem to think anyone not following the Bible word for word is a lost soul and needs to be saved using the Bible as their weapon.

Atheists believe their master, Science.
Christians believe their master, God.

I believe God(s) exists but I can't bring myself to believe, word for word, a collection of books & writings that has been compiled starting sometime  3,500 years ago (or however many years it is speculated) has somehow made it to modern times intact with the same information it was attempting to relay.... Let alone whether the information was even started off accurately or was passed between people multiple times before it was written into the book we call the Bible. I guess I don't have that much faith in us as humans?

Is there a religion that resembles Buddhism that is ok with sex and alcohol?   I think that's where I would fit best  :-\


EDIT: Scratch that - I'm not sure I fit in any religion  :(     I feel like I should just create my own.

Is there a religion that resembles Buddhism that is ok with sex and alcohol?   I think that's where I would fit best  :-\


EDIT: Scratch that - I'm not sure I fit in any religion  :(     I feel like I should just create my own.

Christians are often confused with Catholics though. There are so much things about christianity that should be embraced by everyone (like many other religions), but catholicism adds nothing good to the society.

The word Church comes from the Greek Goddess of deception Circe, who lured men into her lair and transformed them into pigs. The word Amen used at the end of prayer by Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews comes from the Pharaoh Amenhotep and the Egyptian God AmenRa. Amen was known as “the hidden one” in Egyptian beliefs and could change into other Gods like Osiris and Set at will.

The origin of the word "church" is from kuriakon or kyriakon in Greek, but it is known in Scotland as "kirk," in Germany as "Kirche," and in the Netherlands as "kerk." It means a building (the house of Kurios, or house of the Lord), in which in 1 Corinthians 8:5 it says that there are many lords, in which the custom of the Pagans was the worship of Sun Gods and reverence of them as being Lords. So refering to the church as the house of the Lord, is not denoting what Lord, because the meaning never did, so the people today have no idea they referring to an idol god. The word Kirche is similar to the Hebrew word (kikkar) Rkk, meaning a disk or cicle thus meaning Sun Worship. The Sun was worshipped as Baal or Lord by a full circle of pagans, which is why pagans worshipped on the first day of the week, Sun-day, as those claiming to be christians are doing today unaware that they are actually pagans.

Another origin of the word Church is found in the Anglo Saxon root word Circe, which stems from the Greek name of the goddess "Circe", who was the daughter of the Sun God worshipped as "Christos Helios", from whom the name Christ is derived from who was a Roman Sun god. The proper Hebrew word is Aqhal (Ihq) which means Assembly, Company, Congregation, called out as an organized body. So as you can see by the etymology of the word "Church", it is clearly of Pagan origin, and has nothing to do with the Most High nor his people, but has everything to do with those who worship the Sun as god on Sun-day, in their Roman Pantheon known as a Church. See what most people in these religious institutions don't know is that, Roman Emperor Constantine The Great in 321 AD, legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios. Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun.

Church comes from the Anglo-Saxon root word "circe," and stems from the Greek name of the goddess "Circe," the daughter of "Helios," the Roman Sun-god adopted from Greek mythology. So today, these people in these religious institutions throughout the world, have been deceived into worshipping Helios in his daughter's name Church, and are really Pagans in every form shape and fashion. Most churches you see estaablished today, are State controlled 501-C (3) Corporations. A Church that is formed under the permission of the State and thereby accepts State offered benefits for doing so, is no longer under the "headship" of Messiah, but has instead placed it's self under the sole authority of the State. A 501-C (3) Church or any Church formed by State permission under any "Corporate form" will no longer be permitted to discuss the affairs that may counter or oppose the rules or laws established by the State, for they are at the complete mercy of the State in all matters. This is why you will never see your TD Snakes, and Eddie Money Long, and Creflo Got Your Dollar or Create A Flow Dollar, Joel Oscheme, ever speak out agains't the government, because they have signed their soul over to the State.

Acts 5:29 states - Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. So if the Most High as he has done with everyone of his servants the prophets, and his Son, move on them to prophesy against the nation and governments of the earth, these religious sold out State flunkies, have to disobey the Most High and obey man who pays their salary, or else be dealt with by the State and then Jewish Elite who controls the American government. The Son of Man and his disciples went to the people to teach, they didn't have no church setup for the people to come and hear them to get knowledge, the Pharisees and the hypocrites had churches, aka temples and synagogues. The Son of Man and his disciples were in the streets were the sick and blind and lepers were, in the streets is where the word of the Most High is needed, not in some Pagan temple.

...

The seeding/original intention of an institution, I think, has a pervading effect upon its future. Just an opinion though. The point is not to be ruled by man, but by God, and churches (rather, church leaders) can blur the lines between the two in a way that we might fall prey be to like a god personified, which to me is different than us personifying God through our beings.

"As above, so below" concept, etc.

The Old Testament tells us that God doesn't change. The New Testament tells us that Jesus doesn't change, and that He is God along with His Father. The New Testament also tells us that we are found in Jesus, and He in God. So, when you put this together, we have been around forever, in Jesus. This is part of the reason that God allowed the world to exist after sin had been found in it. God is giving us the chance to remain in Jesus. Many folks have used their God-power to remove themselves from God, through their denial of Him, thereby causing their own destruction.

God is simplicity, yet God is complexity at the same time. Explaining how and why the above fits together won't be easy. Perhaps it isn't entirely possible for us in our human condition to explain.

:)

I can dig that :)

Atheists believe their master, Science.
Christians believe their master, God.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I think the claim towards the existence of an all-powerful super-being qualifies as extraordinary.

What about human DNA?

YES!

. . .the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

If nature put this life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

You have just asserted something you have no business asserting because it is based solely on your lack of intelligence/education.

Add, then, the untold actions and interactions of temperatures and pressures and forces and elements that combine over this time to create the building blocks of biological life.

It didn't need to go from zero-to-superhero, it need only be an incremental series of advances. Which is exactly what is observed and understood about the process.

the ONLY correct answer is:

Any answer that satisfies the Origin of Life Prize.

If God designed us, why did he do such a shitty job? There are all sorts of ways to improve our bodies and all sorts of parts that are far inferior to our human technology.

God designed us well. He designed us with "God qualities." When we decided to follow the advice of the devil and destroy ourselves, our God-qualities allowed us to do it, at the same time they didn't allow us to do it.

If you ask me, an incremental series of advances culminating in DNA-life seems quite extraordinary from the materialist perspective.

Let's weigh up the two side of the argument then:

1 - Any explanation that utilises temperatures, pressures and forces that are part of our Universe

2 - An explanation that invokes the paranormal and is centred around an omnipotent super-being who functions outside the laws of nature


Hmmmm, tough one. Do we consider your inability to comprehend the rational explanation as justification for you to cling on to your conditioned-response that binds your thoughts within a cage designed to fear rational explanation, or do we just roll our eyes and sigh about the epic lengths theists will go to in order to maintain their intellectually dishonest magic-man belief?

I accept that explanations involving forces and elements which actually exist in this [meaning physical] reality are at least rational, even if they are incorrect.

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.

your inability to comprehend the rational explanation as justification for you to cling

1) getting only homochiral monomers,
2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids),
3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of well over 80 that were probably common in a prebiotic environment),
4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize,
5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space,
6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc.

Then your understandings should also account for the observation that the overall prevalence of polyamino acid sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold is only one in 10^77.

YES!

The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature put this life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

:)

My role in this debate is not to have to walk your through every scientific theory, my role is to point out that at least every scientific theory is based in reality, whether it be correct or not.

an incremental series of advances. Which is exactly what is observed and understood about the process.

1) getting only homochiral monomers,
2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids),
3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of well over 80 that were probably common in a prebiotic environment),
4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize,
5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space,
6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc.

Then your understandings should also account for the observation that the overall prevalence of polyamino acid sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold is only one in 10^77.

What do you mean human DNA is an 'extraordinary claim'? You don't think it exists?

Oh I see, yes well you can see how the brainwashed theist will ignore rational examples that show their thinking to be grossly flawed, so I don't think we're going to be able to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Look at how dishonest their responses are. When presented with the fact that science, whether correct or incorrect, is based in reasoned reality, while theism invokes magical thinking about paranormal super-deities, they ignore the point being made and simply throw questions at you that require their own discussion topic to expand upon in the hope that they can invoke their god-of-the-gaps somewhere along the way.

Because that makes sense, you know, "Not sure about that yet, therefore, God"

It is infantile.

No mind --> no Universe.  Empiricists tend to struggle with this concept, and this is evidenced by their tendency to describe the Universe as if all observers could be removed from it.  Yet, they fail to realize that a Universe without observers can't be a Universe at all, for there is no metric by which the Universe can be stated to exist.

"But...but...there would still be something!"   Actually, no, you don't have the authority to say anything about such a Universe at all.

If science ever became sufficiently knowledgeable that they virtually proved God to exist, would the men of science ever admit it?

So, does the universe exist as an imperial system of feet and pounds? Or metric system of meters and kilograms?

For this empiricist, there is no struggle. The universe exists whether there are observers or not. Observers just use their own arbitrary metrics to observe and measure it with, but the fact that there are so many different metrics proves that they are nothing but observer created arbitrary units, not something that the universe depends on for existence.

You probably have some specific definition on observe I'm not aware of. How do you explain universe actions that are happening while we are not observing them?

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

I'm honestly not sure what point you were trying to make here.  Could you elaborate upon the relationship between "absurdities of dogma" and what I said?

It is a dogma to claim that the universe is independent of observation. Einstein thought as much, but when Tagore denied his dogma, Einstein said "then I am more religious than you!". Reference the link on my profile for this discussion.
I will post the link here as well:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/einstein_tagore.htm

The problem is that it's wrong.  Positivism has been known to be a logical impossibility for thousands of years.  It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena.  Accordingly, the scientific method is founded upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  We just need to remember to disregard it before diving into metaphysics. 

Wow! I couldn't have said the reason for the idea of Evolution being wrong any better than this. Especially, "It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena."

Thanks.

:)

Here's what you need to remember, though -- evolution is both regarded and explained in terms of isolated phenomena in the scientific community, and it never tries to extend beyond the scope of isolated phenomena.  This basically that means that in an empirical context evolution is more-or-less correct.  If we recognize the scope of evolutionary theory, we can utilize its benefits (and there are many) at the same time that we can also understand there must exist broader, more comprehensive explanations. 

The scope of all life on earth is an isolated phenomena. It doesn't extend to any of the far stars.

The scope and benefits of evolution ideals has to do with methods to subvert people for political reasons, by those who would control everything. Are there benefits in testing and learning methods for controlling masses of people through deception? Obviously some people think that there are, or evolution would have died long ago as the sci-fi that it is.

The point? Evolution is correct within the isolated phenomena of itself. In the reality of real life in the world, it is not.

:)

Evolution is correct within the isolated phenomena of itself. In the reality of real life in the world, it is not.

This is perhaps the most illogical post of yours, and there was plenty of competition there. Belief in evolution may be optional, but participation is certainly mandatory, and I believe we have all seen why now  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh, and I see you're quoting a young Earth creationist site. Might as well come out and say the Earth is flat, like church morals.

Newton's 3rd Law suggests otherwise. Remember, this law is a law. It isn't a theory. Everything that attempts to overcome Newton's 3rd Law is a theory or less... at least so far as we understand.

Newton's 3rd law with regard to free will works something like this.

Imagine that you make a free-will choice. To make this choice, almost countless numbers of electrons move in your brain. There are all kinds of additional chemical and bio-electrical stimuli at work in your brain, as well.

Now, focus on one electron in a firing synapse in you brain... one of the firings that is working with your decision-making process in the free-will choice we are discussing. This electron moves because it was bumped by a different electron = cause and effect. When it moves, it runs into another electron, stalling its own motion somewhat, and causing the other electron to move = cause and effect.

Your whole brain is full of actions and reactions, causes and effects, of all kinds of chemicals, that make synapses fire the way they do, and cause you to make what you think is a free-will choice one way or another. Your "free-will" choice is the effect of this causation process, and NOT free will after all.

All of this cause and effect goes back to what you had for supper last night, the cup of coffee you drank this morning, the sip of water you had at your desk, the perfume that beautiful co-worker of yours is wearing, etc., because the chemicals of all these affect you in some way. And all this in influenced by multitudes of things that affected the food you ate as it was growing, the chemicals in the water, the way the perfume was distilled. And all of this was caused to be the way it was by many other things... all the way back to the Beginning when God set the cause-and-effect process up to act out the earth's future history the way it did.

I agree with you that there is partial free will. But according to scientific laws that we know, there isn't any free will. And the free will that we have is something entirely different than what we think it is. Entirely different.

8)

I agree with you that there is partial free will. But according to scientific laws that we know, there isn't any free will. And the free will that we have is something entirely different than what we think it is. Entirely different.

That's a next level discussion opener right there. I would say that, simultaneously, we have both free will, and at the same time, no free will at all (according to physics). I am talking about a psycho-social, spiritual level here. From a materialistic perspective, we are all going to die and there really is nothing deeper than that.

I would have to disagree with that one, because nothing in the world is established to be a "fact". The ideas we recognize as scientifically accurate today may nor may not hold true tomorrow. However, there is universal truth, ideas like "Everyone is equal" which would hold true regardless of what the beliefs of a person's time are.

I will also add a quote by Voltaire here:

“Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time.”

Now you are talking philosophy.

Newton didn't formulate his 3rd law because nobody else had seen it in action. All people since the beginning have used it, and many have understood it. Newton simply was making a base for scientific study when he formulated it.

Newton's 3rd Law is fact.

Saying that it might not be fact, is philosophy or religion... or maybe simply stupidity.

8)

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated biological populations evolve to become distinct species.

1 Modes of speciation
    1.1 Allopatric
    1.2 Peripatric
    1.3 Parapatric
    1.4 Sympatric
        1.4.1 Example: Hawthorn fly
        1.4.2 Example: Three-spined sticklebacks
    1.5 Reinforcement
    1.6 Ecological and parallel speciation
    1.7 Sexual selection
2 Artificial speciation
3 Genetics
    3.1 Speciation via polyploidization
    3.2 Hybrid speciation
    3.3 Gene transposition
4 Historical background
    4.1 Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist?
    4.2 The effect of sexual reproduction on species formation
5 Rates of speciation
    5.1 Punctuated evolution

Things that are known to science:
Evolution is a fact

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg/640px-CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg/368px-Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)



Things that are not known to science:
God

Well, great post. But, you need to specify which God we are talking about here. Zeus? Odin? Dionysis? Allah? Jesus? Some Gods are known to science, for example, the gods of whoever worships nature.

All gods...

Science has never found any evidence of any god ever

Things that are known to science:
Evolution is a fact

Things that are not known to science:
God

Probability math shows that evolution is impossible. The thing that science calls evolution is simply complex cause and effect... programming of the universe and life.

Actually, the myth that Adam and Eve incestuously copulated and led to our current population today in just a matter of 6,000 years is what is mathematically impossible.

Adam live to be substantially older than 900. While we don't know how old Eve was when she died, people were healthy to live as long as they did. When you are healthy, sex is fun. Eve probably had 400 years of fun sex child bearing time. That's 400 kids+.

This kind of thing lasted the 1,600 years or so before the Flood, and for a time, after the Flood.

Like all the women were having this great fun.

The question is, why is the population so small?

Wars do you think?

8)

Even the great Flood was mathematically impossible. Thanks for reminding me. At some point within those 6,000 years, life had to start all over again, this time, Noah had to incestuously copulate with his family, as well as the other animals in the ark in an attempt to recreate civilization. It does say "all the species", so where did they store the parasites?

It has been found that there is more water locked up in the mantle of the earth than all the oceans combined.

We don't like the idea of incest, and biblically it is commanded not to be done. But when you live for hundreds of years like Noah, his sons, and many people through several hundred years after the flood, the health to do this - incest - overcomes the health disadvantages of incest. In addition, the no-incest command was given at the exodus, hundreds of years after Noah.

Since Noah wasn't an animal, the "other animals" wording implies wrong thinking.

Well, where do you keep your parasites?

The fossil record shows at least 3 times the number of species back "then" as there are alive today. Noah took on board all the species he was commanded to take by God.

No Christian BS here. Simply lack of understanding or worse on the part of the secular world.

8)

Those laws are from exodus, those are moses times. The new laws are during christ time. Its the spiritual laws that matters now and not the physical laws just as in the ten commandments are not valid ainymore.

The change or priesthood will also change the governing laws.

Those laws are from exodus, those are moses times. The new laws are during christ time. Its the spiritual laws that matters now and not the physical laws just as in the ten commandments are not valid ainymore.

The change or priesthood will also change the governing laws.

If I had to refute all your BS point by point, it would be a very long post, definitely not worth it. I have bolded the part where you acknowledge "incest for the greater good of mankind" though! You know what else the fossil record proves? That's right, evolution.

So, you get to pick and choose what parts of the OT are still relevant, like the ten commandments?

Alright, then. The ten commandments still do not prohibit incest in any way. You wanna show me where in the NT incest is forbidden?

This topic smells like a butthurt liberal sjw crap  :)

This topic smells like a butthurt liberal sjw crap  :)

The awkward moment when you believe in a book that is okay with you selling your daughter into sexual slavery as the word of God, and deem it less offensive than those "butthurt liberal sjws".

BADecker, you still haven't shown me the verse.

Based on love, if it is more beneficial for your daughter to sell her into slavery than not, why wouldn't you want to do it, even today?

What verse?

8)

The verse that prohibits incest in the Bible

The Ten Commandments are the best basic form for showing love. Love was the important thing in the O.T., like it is the important thing now. So, just like love is valid now, the TC are valid now.

The things that are not valid now are the Jewish ceremonial laws - not valid because the Messiah came and fulfilled them - and the governmental laws designed for the government of Israel - which was very free for individual people of the time. Of course, any nation can decide it wants the governing law of Israel, but in the Bible, they were only for ancient Israel.

8)

So your source mentions Leviticus 18:6-18, but I was talking about the NT. Where in the New Testament is incest forbidden? Since you don't believe in the OT laws.

You can Google something like "incest in the New Testament" just as easily as I, right? You don't even seem to understand that I believe in the O.T. laws way more than the average Christian. So, why would you want me to do your research for you?

Of course, what one means when he says, "believe in the OT laws," might be uncertain without more explanation. After all, James in the N.T. says regarding belief in God, "even demons believe, and shudder."

8)

That's the point. Christianity is so contradictory, you would think that for someone who claims to be omnipotent and benevolent, he would clarify and be more specific just so he doesn't have to send 99% of the population to a place full of fire, and smoke, and torture where you will live forever till the end of time (Christianity is elitism, I believe that). Oh wait, he has already committed genocide against the unborn, so it's not really a benevolent God after all. But he loves you?

Incest was allowed during those time because god said so and the population ain't that huge compare today.
There were even a time that abraham was permitted by god to have sex with sarah the slave of her wife just so they can have son.

Wow, so glad we are having this discussion here. All the Christians are finally coming out and admitting that their God is not so moral after all. From allowing sexual slavery of your underage daughters to allowing incest. Real Godly.

I believe the sun shines every day and thats my god.

Christianity is so contradictory

+1

Christians are simply unwilling to take the time to think about what they are reading in the bible, if at all.

+1

Christians are simply unwilling to take the time to think about what they are reading in the bible, if at all.

LOL... Christians don't actually read their bible... if they read it, they would become Atheists

LOL!

That's why there are Bible classes in churches all around the world

Exactly my point... Christians need cherry picked verses read to them...

They do not read it themselves, cover to cover... or they would become atheists

When in doubt... ask google:
https://www.google.com/#q=the+fastest+way+to+become+an+atheist (https://www.google.com/#q=the+fastest+way+to+become+an+atheist)

Agree. I didn't really care when I was younger. A friend of mine went to a few hallelujah meetings and was "born again"
He asked me to read the bible and I did. The book is really disgusting. I have been an atheist ever since.
I talked to my friend and told him to read the book. He is also an atheist after he did it.
The things he was told about the bible in church turned out to be lies

Exactly my point... Christians need cherry picked verses read to them...

They do not read it themselves, cover to cover... or they would become atheists

When in doubt... ask google:
https://www.google.com/#q=the+fastest+way+to+become+an+atheist (https://www.google.com/#q=the+fastest+way+to+become+an+atheist)

They also tend to skip over the gruesome, blood thirsty, vengeful, violent, pornographic, misogynistic, homophobic verses when reading verses out loud. If Christians read their Bible, they would know that God is not pro-life, so it makes no sense to oppose abortion. There is a verse in Hosea where he commands the blood thirsty warriors of God to rip pregnant women open with swords, dashing their unborn into pieces.

Agree. I didn't really care when I was younger. A friend of mine went to a few hallelujah meetings and was "born again"
He asked me to read the bible and I did. The book is really disgusting. I have been an atheist ever since.
I talked to my friend and told him to read the book. He is also an atheist after he did it.
The things he was told about the bible in church turned out to be lies

You are especially blessed to have me here to tell you how important the Bible is for your salvation. Your friends, obviously, didn't have the proper urging. But you can be saved, because I am helping you if you will only accept it.

Like your friends, if you reject, you will not be saved.

8)

Usually when someone claims that you need "saving" from something that cannot be proven, they are trying to sell you something. Psychiatry is a great example of this. Religion is another.

I should report you for scamming (Just kidding).

So your God is the solar messiah? Christians do worship on Sunday after all. It's not a coincidence.

Right. Death is not proven. It is only obvious.    8)

no just the sun itself. i go out in the morning to have sunlight that's just it. nothing more nothing less. whatever that sun is.

I do read the bible and seem fun to read how they turn out and how exactly the people are back then and today. 


They're all meant for businesses. you could earn millions if you are a psychotic and be a mortician as well.

I think the Christians in this thread need a warm congratulations from us all.
Giving us such a real deep in-depth demonstration of the BS they speak, has been a real eye-opener for the rest of us and must be quite fatiguing for them to constantly keep their BS levels high.

Thanks.  :)

Lol, ain't it brilliant??

Among the greatest miracles of the Bible include the ability to spew out even the most absurd of claims, and still have otherwise reasonably intelligent Christians suffer from cognitive dissonance as they attempt to explain how something so mundane can be correct, like God creating plants before the Sun.

The explanation is in the word "God." And the clarification of it is in "God Almighty." There can't be an explanation for God almighty because He is way beyond us in everything He does.

8)

The Lord works in mysterious ways indeed. For example, he will kill some guy for picking up sticks on Saturday, but let another get drunk and impregnate his daughters (shortly after turning his wife into a pillar of salt for turning her neck, that is).

And again. It appears like this to us because we don't know what was in the hearts of those people, nor the circumstances of the situations... except maybe in general. However, God protects His own. In addition, God protects all people by letting them die when living is something that is extremely unbearable for them. I mean, why live an extra hundred years after you are so pathetically worn out that living is a daily pain?

Another example. Some unbeliever might die at 25, while a believer might die at 75. The believer dies so much older because God is allowing him to rack up points in Heaven for the evangelizing he is doing while alive. But God is allowing the younger person to die, because He sees that the guy will never turn to God, and God is protecting him from the Hell punishment for additional sinning that he might do if he lived longer.

Not really so mysterious.

8)

I have bolded out the Orwellian parts that will help you see why you sound like a fascist eugenicist. "God protects his own"? That's Nationalism. "God protects all people by letting them die?" That's Orwellian. "Why live an extra hundred years after you are so pathetically worn out that living is a daily pain"? That's eugenics.

1 In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep.

2 So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologersdto tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king,

3 he said to them, “I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.”

24 Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him.”

25 Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means.”

26 The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”

27 Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about,

28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these:

29 “As you were lying there, O king, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen.

30 As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.

31 “You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance.

32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze,

33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay.

34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.

35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth."

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king.

37 You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory;

38 in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air.

Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 “After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth.

40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.

41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay.

42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.

43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy.”

I am a very swift reader, and I could have easily gone through your entire post in just fifteen seconds. Yet, I merely chose to skim through it. Don't try to preach to me over the internet, and on Bitcointalk out of all places.

I love how a topic I made back in 2014 is still managing to piss people off :D

Not people, just BADecker. Most of the pages of this thread are just full of BADecker preaching so he doesn't have to burn eternally after death (Isn't God so loving?)

Not people, just BADecker. Most of the pages of this thread are just full of BADecker preaching so he doesn't have to burn eternally after death (Isn't God so loving?)

He clearly has nothing better to do all day, so he has to get his jollies from trolling forums

I wonder if I am doing you a disfavor by presenting God to you on a regular basis. I mean, God, Himself, says that those who don't have as much opportunity to be saved, will be punished less than those who have great opportunity to be saved, and yet aren't saved.

I guess all that I am doing is helping you to lock yourself into everlasting punishment a bit more firmly. But, if your attitude doesn't change, who in the world would want you in Heaven, anyway?

8)

I dare you to go on any other subsection and do them the "favor" of "presenting God on a daily basis", they won't tolerate you for even five posts.

I dare you to go on any other subsection and do them the "favor" of "presenting God on a daily basis", they won't tolerate you for even five posts.

The problem with christians like BADlogic is...

He thinks he's doing us a favor by being an asshat...

When in reality, he's a selfish jackass... (his motivation is to brown-nose to god... which he thinks will make god reward him... entirely selfish)

Any god worth his salt would hate BADlogic for being such a worthless troll

Rather than spread lies and propaganda all day... wouldn't god like it better if you volunteered at a homeless shelter or food bank?

Some more of your anti-God faulty thinking.

Did you ever stop to think, "What would god want me to do?"

I can't imagine an immortal being would want his followers to sing songs and tell lies that are contradictory to science and logic...

Or pretend they are better than people who don't sing songs and tell fairy tales...

Exactly!

God doesn't want any of his creatures to tell lies or promote fairy tales as reality. Yet you, one of God's creatures, are doing this every time you suggest that God doesn't exist.

8)

The awkward moment when "An invisible sky fairy created everything over the course of six days, but despite being omnipotent and all powerful, still needed to "rest" on the seventh day, and created plants before making the Sun" is considered "reality", but disbelief in such absurdity is considered a fairy tale.