^^^ You're so full of crap, you make assumptions like heliocentrism, pretend evolution is a fact and make ludicrous claims about the age of the earth. Your god gravity has to be taken on faith as its unproven, without it geology and thus evolution is just not possible.
Dr. Kevorkian can help you with that sick feeling you've got.
How much do you weigh? Less than your mother. I asked you a serious question. How much do you think you weigh in lbs? And why do you think you weigh anything at all? I don't care what your actual weight is. The question was to start you thinking why you have weight at all. Why does your body exert a force on Earth? (i.e. a person) that's more dense than the medium (the atmosphere) it's displacing gets pushed down, alternatively an object that's less dense (a helium balloon for e.g.) will get pushed up. Ok, lets follow your logic, when you are standing on the ground what causes the air to push you down? There's an electric field between the dome and the ground that acts on the atmosphere, this field also defines up and down. So the forces of the electric field between the dome and the ground are pushing on you to keep you at the ground level? There is no scientific model for any of the bullshit you just wrote, I can't even begin to imagine how fucked up your brain is to even come up with this bullshit in the first place |
|
|
|
I was a Christian and I always thought the rules in the bible were shit and stupid for the most part. ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19''
''Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27'
''"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11''
Divinely inspired LOL
A Christian is a believer. You were never a Christian.  I know it bothers you really hard but I was, when I was a kid I truly believed, why wouldn't I. When I needed proof god didn't give it to me so here we are. However the rules of the bible are still idiotic, examples above. |
|
|
|
You already showed how little you understand by trying to debunk evolution with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and failed miserably, so stop.
You already showed how little you understand by thinking that I am trying to debunk evolution with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You did, tho, you used entropy many times to say evolution is impossible and I proved you wrong everytime. Don't lie now. |
|
|
|
''and has evidence for it'' Not really, though. You also claim to have evidence for god's existence and I debunked that several times, you were unable to even respond. As has been noted several times, since you don't understand any supposed debunking you did, and since you can't say it in simple language, your debunking only debunks itself. Saying that only proves my point, you can't refute anything because you don't have arguments and you copy paste the same thing over and over again. Your proof debunks itself since you can't say it in simple language. Except for one major detail. I wrote the things in my links. I could simply repeat the writing, but anyone can go to the links. You, on the other hand, copied and pasted what you wrote, not really understanding much of any of it. When are you going to make a point, in your own words, that is actual science that talks about my science? I mean, you might be going to school and learning all about this stuff, so that you can actually say something worthwhile in your own words. You already showed how little you understand by trying to debunk evolution with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and failed miserably, so stop. |
|
|
|
But you yourself said that the laws in the old testament are no longer applicable, if they are the best, they should, no?
Nope. I didn't post that. They are totally applicable. But, they are not given to us. There is not one living person on earth to whom they have been given. Why? Because there is no ancient Israel person alive any longer. What we have exists in two parts: 1. The laws written in the heart and mind of all people, but flawed in their visibility and application; 2. The Holy Spirit's guidance in the hearts and minds of the Christians so that they know the laws in the best way. The Christians are guided by the HS to do what is right according to "love your neighbor as yourself," the way God wants it to be done. The "secularitards" simply use pieces of the law in their hearts and minds to erroneously formulate laws that they think are better. Become a Christian, and get the best instructions for living from God, Himself. ''Become a Christian, and get the best instructions for living from God, Himself.'' If you hear voices you might be mentally ill, get checked. God's Spirit to your spirit doesn't happen to you - yes, you. But if it did, you wouldn't necessarily hear voices. I was a Christian and I always thought the rules in the bible were shit and stupid for the most part. ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19'' ''Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27' ''"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11'' Divinely inspired LOL |
|
|
|
There you go, doing the exact thing that you claim I am doing. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, if nothing else. That isn't me. It is standard science. Entropy is standard science and is visible everywhere. Complexity is standard science and is visible everywhere. I can't help it you are too biased against science to understand that these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God. Now, don't misunderstand. The God of the universe is not being described by science very much. Perhaps even the word "God" is an improper word to use. If you feel that way, use other terms, like "Almighty, Divine Intelligence." or "The great First Cause," or "The Father of All," or any other words that describe God more accurately. But don't go on ignoring standard science which is all around you. ''these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God.'' You are saying those 3 things exist and they do but you are not proving how they all together prove god. How do you know they can't exist without a god? They prove God in the way they exist, scientifically. You can't have cause and effect, with complexity as it is, without a beginning as shown by entropy, all without God. The science of these three things prove it. No, ''The science of these three things prove it.'' The science of those things prove they exist, science has never said those 3 things combined prove god. ''all without God'' How do you know, what's the evidence? |
|
|
|
But you yourself said that the laws in the old testament are no longer applicable, if they are the best, they should, no?
Nope. I didn't post that. They are totally applicable. But, they are not given to us. There is not one living person on earth to whom they have been given. Why? Because there is no ancient Israel person alive any longer. What we have exists in two parts: 1. The laws written in the heart and mind of all people, but flawed in their visibility and application; 2. The Holy Spirit's guidance in the hearts and minds of the Christians so that they know the laws in the best way. The Christians are guided by the HS to do what is right according to "love your neighbor as yourself," the way God wants it to be done. The "secularitards" simply use pieces of the law in their hearts and minds to erroneously formulate laws that they think are better. Become a Christian, and get the best instructions for living from God, Himself. ''Become a Christian, and get the best instructions for living from God, Himself.'' If you hear voices you might be mentally ill, get checked. |
|
|
|
More like you like to over complicate things using pseudo science bullshit to try to make your point. ''Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct.'' Who cares? Civilizations, descendants, they are all meaningless to me, my purpose is not to reproduce and have children. My purpose is to live my life the best I can trying not to hurt anyone, my freedom ends where yours starts and all that. I couldn't care less about someone's sexual preferences as long as he/she is not taking someone else freedom away.
I understand that a farmer getting frisky with his sheep is immoral because there is no real way of knowing if the sheep is giving consent. However that obviously is not the case with humans. Now the punishment itself seems also quite strong, death penalty, why? Doesn't god want people to repent? How would anyone repent if you get killed immediately?
Cheating is wrong but is it worth it of a death penalty? Again, it's not. In fact in current era we don't even punish people for that.
The fact is that morals change because they were bad in the first place, we are trying to achieve ''perfect morality'' whether that is possible or not, the problem is that god would have known and knows what that is if it exists and yet you don't find it in the bible. If the bible is the only proof he leaves to convince me then he did a poor job.
But perfection is the important thing. Consider. There are countless actions and reactions between materials and energies, all operating perfectly, as evidenced by the non-destruction of the universe. Yet there is an appearance of imperfection in many things we do and think. How can we reconcile the idea of perfection necessary for existence with the imperfection that we are aware of? The answer is the torture and death of Jesus in taking the imperfection and... the resurrection of Jesus, in perfecting even imperfection itself. Jesus, having had enough power to take the punishment, and then having enough power to arise from the dead, shows that He has enough power to control everything. When we don't believe what He says, it's like we are asking for the destruction we would receive from having imperfection. This perfection of imperfection is only temporary time, before the time of the new order and the New Universe. It exists only for God to find the people who will believe in Him, and who will accept movement from this life to the New Universe. It's called Jesus salvation. I don't see how your answer has anything to do with what we were discussing, which is morals, homosexuality and punishments but go ahead, be delusional as always. You can't seem to understand that there is no use for homosexuality, and that it is therefore imperfection. People of the same sex can sleep together if it doesn't involve the sexual acts that heterosexual people do. They can be best of friends... even better friends than husband and wife... as long as they don't do the sexual acts that are to be done between heterosexuals only. It is the imperfection that is the problem. There is no use for me to play football or any other sport or any videogame either, so what? Should I be killed for it? Use for what exactly? If imperfection is the problem then everything is a sin. |
|
|
|
''and has evidence for it'' Not really, though. You also claim to have evidence for god's existence and I debunked that several times, you were unable to even respond. As has been noted several times, since you don't understand any supposed debunking you did, and since you can't say it in simple language, your debunking only debunks itself. Saying that only proves my point, you can't refute anything because you don't have arguments and you copy paste the same thing over and over again. Your proof debunks itself since you can't say it in simple language. |
|
|
|
SBB, Im bad mouthing you cos you are just too easy. Anything and everything you say is meant to prove that you are supposedly of such high intellect that only you can understand the science needed to prove your ridiculous god.
And so I stand by my previous statement: You are assuming things based on your beliefs and views. Your basic science is collective and coloured with YOUR opinion. I'm not badmouthing science, I love science. I refuse to refute your so called science purely because your putting your beliefs in certain scientific fields that YOU believe means god. Do you understand SBB? I have always been talking about the root cause of WHY and HOW you put your faith in your so called science-which-explains-god....not the actual science.
People could believe that the square root of the angle of the sun divided by the length of a bird's wings could mean god.....any of these things individually exists. Put them together and to THEM it means god. As does your collection of so called science mean god to YOU. None of these proves the scientific existence of god.
See SBB? Probably not....your prolly gonna come back with some witty comment about not talking science in a science thread when your JUST TOO DENSE to understand what I'm actually saying. Sorry I'm talking over your head, its that pesky cognitive dissonance again.
There you go, doing the exact thing that you claim I am doing. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, if nothing else. That isn't me. It is standard science. Entropy is standard science and is visible everywhere. Complexity is standard science and is visible everywhere. I can't help it you are too biased against science to understand that these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God. Now, don't misunderstand. The God of the universe is not being described by science very much. Perhaps even the word "God" is an improper word to use. If you feel that way, use other terms, like "Almighty, Divine Intelligence." or "The great First Cause," or "The Father of All," or any other words that describe God more accurately. But don't go on ignoring standard science which is all around you. ''these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God.'' You are saying those 3 things exist and they do but you are not proving how they all together prove god. How do you know they can't exist without a god? |
|
|
|
I agree that people should never think this life is irrelevant. However, I would argue you are misdiagnosing the fundamental problem. The true challenge is that the human power to do evil is growing much faster then our wisdom to not be evil. Islamic countries may be developing nuclear weapons now but with relentless technological development there will soon come a time when everyone even single individuals will be able to unleash that kind of devastation. Ridding the world of religion would not solve the actual problem it would worsen it. When any single disgruntled individual has the ability to destroy a city block or unleash a biological plague that can kill thousands what is the solution? I believe religion has a critical role to play in answering to that question as I argued in this earlier post. An Argument for GodProblem is that your proof is not scientific, it's pseudo-science. Using the godel theorem wrongfully is not a good justification for your beliefs. Your second claim is just as bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth#CriticismIt's no wonder you like jordan peterson, he talks in the same bullshit manner as you and while I agree with many of his points about sjw's, black lives matter and all the modern bullshit, I don't agree with his views on god or his ''life philosophy'' People have repeatedly pointed out Peterson's reliance on unfalsifiable, unscientific and indefensible psychoanalytic models, you do the same. The problem with your idea and your Wiki link is, nobody knows if it is your belief, or if you are only trying to get people to THINK that it is your belief. What I mean is, when someone presents an idea that he believes in ( Coincube), and someone else opposes that idea with a different belief (you), who knows if it is really a belief (that you have), or if it is simply an appearance of a belief, being used (by you) to discredit a person ( Coincube) in a subtle, ad hominem way? Coincube believes something, and has evidence for it. You claim to have an apposing belief, but you barely ever have evidence for it that can stand up even a little to Coincube's evidence. So, the question is, do you really believe what you say, or are you using it to direct the minds of readers certain in directions, for political purposes, rather than to clarify ideas specifically presented? In other words, your Wiki article that you linked doesn't apply, because you are not being critical of Coincube's ideas and evidence. Rather, you are being critical of Coincube to make him look bad so that people will not think his ideas are any good. What you are doing is standard political science. You don't "fight" Coincube on the points he makes. Rather you fight him by directing people towards the idea that he is a depraved or pitiful person, not worthy of the consideration of anyone. And, that is the only way you fight. You have nothing of real value other than political science - lies and deception. And you are getting really good at it. ''and has evidence for it'' Not really, though. You also claim to have evidence for god's existence and I debunked that several times, you were unable to even respond. |
|
|
|
What about if your neighbors are a gay couple who adopted two Christian boys and dressed them as girls. They also sublet to a group transvestites who go door to door to sell women's underwear and lipstick. One time you saw your gay neighbors make out right in front of your house. They also burned bunch of bibles in their backyard (they called the fire department to warn them about the yard garbage fire).
Your son goes to the same school as the two boys and fell in love with one of them. He told you that he will marry one of them.
They also have a nice statue of Jesus sitting on a massive cock made out of wood surrounded by the village people Apostles in their backyard.
Your other neighbor is a swinger couple who host swinger's parties in their backyard. They keep inviting you to their parties to bang some hot 20 year olds with massive boobs but you keep refusing, you dream about it, but instead you go and read the bible with your wife.
1. What does the Bible say how to deal with your neighbors?
2. What would the people in the ancient Israel do to your neighbors after reading the Bible?
All of those activities are now totally legal. Your scenario sadly becoming less far fetched by the day. The Bible says those things are wrong and sinful severe crimes which should be outlawed. The Bible, however, does not promote vigilante justice. In situations such as this it offers clear guidence. Move away, enroll your child in private school or home school and let your neighbors deal with the fallout of their own choices. See the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Biblical law does not promote vigilante justice. In ancient Israel the those suspected of capital crimes would be arrested and their would be a trial with strict standards of evidence including multiple eyewitness required for conviction. The question still remains would they be legal in the absence of our secular legal framework. What would happen if people used only Bible as the moral guidance? Think Islamic or Christian state devoid of secularism. What do you think would happen to BADecker's neighbors? At this point it's clear that they don't to admit that the morals that are taught in the bible are simply wrong, most of them at least, also contradictory. The punishments are also extremely hard or just stupid. |
|
|
|
More like you like to over complicate things using pseudo science bullshit to try to make your point. ''Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct.'' Who cares? Civilizations, descendants, they are all meaningless to me, my purpose is not to reproduce and have children. My purpose is to live my life the best I can trying not to hurt anyone, my freedom ends where yours starts and all that. I couldn't care less about someone's sexual preferences as long as he/she is not taking someone else freedom away.
I understand that a farmer getting frisky with his sheep is immoral because there is no real way of knowing if the sheep is giving consent. However that obviously is not the case with humans. Now the punishment itself seems also quite strong, death penalty, why? Doesn't god want people to repent? How would anyone repent if you get killed immediately?
Cheating is wrong but is it worth it of a death penalty? Again, it's not. In fact in current era we don't even punish people for that.
The fact is that morals change because they were bad in the first place, we are trying to achieve ''perfect morality'' whether that is possible or not, the problem is that god would have known and knows what that is if it exists and yet you don't find it in the bible. If the bible is the only proof he leaves to convince me then he did a poor job.
But perfection is the important thing. Consider. There are countless actions and reactions between materials and energies, all operating perfectly, as evidenced by the non-destruction of the universe. Yet there is an appearance of imperfection in many things we do and think. How can we reconcile the idea of perfection necessary for existence with the imperfection that we are aware of? The answer is the torture and death of Jesus in taking the imperfection and... the resurrection of Jesus, in perfecting even imperfection itself. Jesus, having had enough power to take the punishment, and then having enough power to arise from the dead, shows that He has enough power to control everything. When we don't believe what He says, it's like we are asking for the destruction we would receive from having imperfection. This perfection of imperfection is only temporary time, before the time of the new order and the New Universe. It exists only for God to find the people who will believe in Him, and who will accept movement from this life to the New Universe. It's called Jesus salvation. I don't see how your answer has anything to do with what we were discussing, which is morals, homosexuality and punishments but go ahead, be delusional as always. |
|
|
|
More like you like to over complicate things using pseudo science bullshit to try to make your point. ''Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct.'' Who cares? Civilizations, descendants, they are all meaningless to me, my purpose is not to reproduce and have children. My purpose is to live my life the best I can trying not to hurt anyone, my freedom ends where yours starts and all that. I couldn't care less about someone's sexual preferences as long as he/she is not taking someone else freedom away.
I understand that a farmer getting frisky with his sheep is immoral because there is no real way of knowing if the sheep is giving consent. However that obviously is not the case with humans. Now the punishment itself seems also quite strong, death penalty, why? Doesn't god want people to repent? How would anyone repent if you get killed immediately?
Cheating is wrong but is it worth it of a death penalty? Again, it's not. In fact in current era we don't even punish people for that.
The fact is that morals change because they were bad in the first place, we are trying to achieve ''perfect morality'' whether that is possible or not, the problem is that god would have known and knows what that is if it exists and yet you don't find it in the bible. If the bible is the only proof he leaves to convince me then he did a poor job.
But perfection is the important thing. Consider. There are countless actions and reactions between materials and energies, all operating perfectly, as evidenced by the non-destruction of the universe. Yet there is an appearance of imperfection in many things we do and think. How can we reconcile the idea of perfection necessary for existence with the imperfection that we are aware of? The answer is the torture and death of Jesus in taking the imperfection and... the resurrection of Jesus, in perfecting even imperfection itself. Jesus, having had enough power to take the punishment, and then having enough power to arise from the dead, shows that He has enough power to control everything. When we don't believe what He says, it's like we are asking for the destruction we would receive from having imperfection. This perfection of imperfection is only temporary time, before the time of the new order and the New Universe. It exists only for God to find the people who will believe in Him, and who will accept movement from this life to the New Universe. It's called Jesus salvation. But you yourself said that the laws in the old testament are no longer applicable, if they are the best, they should, no? |
|
|
|
More like you like to over complicate things using pseudo science bullshit to try to make your point. ''Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct.'' Who cares? Civilizations, descendants, they are all meaningless to me, my purpose is not to reproduce and have children. My purpose is to live my life the best I can trying not to hurt anyone...
The fact is that morals change because they were bad in the first place...
I don't think I am over complicating things at all. Quite the opposite actually. If you don't care about the future we are unlikely to agree on much at all. Personally I believe we have a duty to pass on a world to the next generation that is better then the one we inherited. That requires us to think about civilizations, and descendants even if we don't have children. If you don't care about maintaining your civilization you are hurting someone. You are hurting the unborn who will inherit the mess. The fact that those individuals don't exist yet does not mitigate the harm. In regards to changing morals over time please see my next post. Yeah, I know you believe many things, however that doesn't make them true. The future doesn't exist. There could be more harm if in the future a meteorite hits the earth and everyone dies, you don't know that, I don't know that, talking about the future is meaningless. ''It is entirely possible that Biblical law was the best possible set of rules that simultaneously moved a barbaric humanity closer to moral truth'' Maybe but even If we agree on that, the bible is still useless now and it's the only proof for god. God should in any case give us new laws, is he asleep? |
|
|
|
The problem, you knucklehead is that you are arguing that in ancient times god was there to help people, if we know those things were immoral now, god would have known then too and he would have done something about it not fucking help them with stupid laws that supported their immoral actions.
I think the real problem is that you are unwilling to look past the superficial. The overall moral message of the Bible in regards to human sexuality seems to be a pretty simple one. In the Bible any sexual activity outside of traditional marriage is immoral and prohibited period end of story. Like the challenge of sleeping with married women -> Death Penalty Farmer who gets frisky with his sheep -> Death Penalty Man who prefers men to women -> Death Penalty Rapist -> Death Penalty Even unmarried consensual sex leads to either the death penalty or a forced marriage depending on the specific circumstances. If you were serious about examining the morality of this you have to ask yourself not the specific question but the broad one. Is this strict prohibition of all sexual relations outside of marriage moral. Setting aside the traditional religious answer yes because God declared it this is not an easy question to answer. What if the functional alternative to such a restriction is cultural destruction and cessation. That appears to be the position of Rabbi Nachum Amsel above. Maybe it's simply not competitive. The historical record supports this. Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct. It was the puritanical ones that survived. We are currently running a real time experiment to find out if this holds true today. In Europe the loosening of the restraints on sexuality is quite advanced. https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwideIn Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden the majority of births now occur outside marriage, with government assistance typically provided to single mothers. Will European civilization continue or will it fall like so many decadent civilization throughout history have fallen when confronted with a culture that lacks this trait? More like you like to over complicate things using pseudo science bullshit to try to make your point. ''Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct.'' Who cares? Civilizations, descendants, they are all meaningless to me, my purpose is not to reproduce and have children. My purpose is to live my life the best I can trying not to hurt anyone, my freedom ends where yours starts and all that. I couldn't care less about someone's sexual preferences as long as he/she is not taking someone else freedom away. I understand that a farmer getting frisky with his sheep is immoral because there is no real way of knowing if the sheep is giving consent. However that obviously is not the case with humans. Now the punishment itself seems also quite strong, death penalty, why? Doesn't god want people to repent? How would anyone repent if you get killed immediately? Cheating is wrong but is it worth it of a death penalty? Again, it's not. In fact in current era we don't even punish people for that. The fact is that morals change because they were bad in the first place, we are trying to achieve ''perfect morality'' whether that is possible or not, the problem is that god would have known and knows what that is if it exists and yet you don't find it in the bible. If the bible is the only proof he leaves to convince me then he did a poor job. |
|
|
|
Because we live in a world with nuclear weapons, and we can't afford to have a global society where some people live their lives thinking that this life is irrelevant because the real prize is the afterlife.
All it takes is one suicidal religious zealot with a nuclear bomb, and a lot of innocent people are going to die. As a species, we needed to stop coddling religious belief when the atom bomb was invented. The stakes are too high now, and we can't afford the sort of nonsense that gets passed off as "religious wisdom" anymore.
I agree that people should never think this life is irrelevant. However, I would argue you are misdiagnosing the fundamental problem. The true challenge is that the human power to do evil is growing much faster then our wisdom to not be evil. Islamic countries may be developing nuclear weapons now but with relentless technological development there will soon come a time when everyone even single individuals will be able to unleash that kind of devastation. Ridding the world of religion would not solve the actual problem it would worsen it. When any single disgruntled individual has the ability to destroy a city block or unleash a biological plague that can kill thousands what is the solution? I believe religion has a critical role to play in answering to that question as I argued in this earlier post. An Argument for GodProblem is that your proof is not scientific, it's pseudo-science. Using the godel theorem wrongfully is not a good justification for your beliefs. Your second claim is just as bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth#CriticismIt's no wonder you like jordan peterson, he talks in the same bullshit manner as you and while I agree with many of his points about sjw's, black lives matter and all the modern bullshit, I don't agree with his views on god or his ''life philosophy'' People have repeatedly pointed out Peterson's reliance on unfalsifiable, unscientific and indefensible psychoanalytic models, you do the same. |
|
|
|
^^^ This is a prime example of cognitive dissonance. Their argument they claim is scientific, logical and intelligent but atheism fails these tests on all fronts and our disillusioned friends here are left with nothing but confusion and negative emotions.
Now he strikes at me with concern trolling, this is the low road folks.
Yeah... he is the example of cognitive dissonance, not you. Tell me, since you started believing in your retarded conspiracies, has your life changed? You are still here typing garbage in this forum, go expose the governments dude, be a superhero or something. |
|
|
|
Slavery is not moral because it causes harm to individuals. So the Bible moral code cannot be objective. If the morality is objective, how would you know that it was written somewhere? And why on Earth would you think that the ancient Jewish leaders figured out what the objective morality suppose to be. ... I don't think morality is objective because the environment, knowledge, customs change over time. Everything in the universe is constantly changing. Cells in your body are replaced every 7 years, so technically you are a different person every 7 years. Do you think having sex with a 9 year old is moral? It was few centuries ago, in some cultures. Moral objectivity can lead to ISIS style genocides. PS. Morality has to change as everything in the universe changes. Nothing stays the same. Life becomes more complex. Emergence is real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16W7c0mb-rEYou are not being logically consistent in your arguments. If you truly think morality is subjective then it shouldn't bother you that sex with 9 year olds occurred in ancient cultures. That's was moral by their standards so it should be totally ok with you. Different day different morals. Similarly you should have nothing to say about the holocaust or the mass starvation and purges of China's cultural revolution. The majority of Germans and Chinese supported the Nazi and Communist regimes respectively and those regimes considered their actions not only moral but necessary for "victory". If morality is subjective all you can say about these things is that you don't like them or don't agree with them. You can say that according to your own subjective standard that's not appropriate behavior but you cannot say your code is better then theirs. Both codes are meaningless social constructs totally arbitrary. The reality is that you are actually applying an objective moral standard to your arguments. You are taking the position that your rule "Do not unnecessarily harm other people or animals." Is objectively true and thus it can be used to judge the conduct of others and our predecessors. I agree with you. I think your rule is objectively true. I just don't think it is sufficient or complete. Cells in the body do change but the underlying truth of cells the code that guides them in that reproduction usually does not. When it does change it normally manifests as cancer and kills us. You have figured out something you feel is objectively true. Your casual dismissal of other possible objective truths from your predecessors many of whom spent their entire lives pondering that very issue is unwise. ISIS style genocides occur despite moral objectivity. It occurs because of a subjective warping and misunderstanding of objective reality. I agree that such evils represent a reason to be cautious in our interpretation of reality. However, our limitations are not a reason to embrace subjectivity. Moral subjectivity facilitates far greater horrors as history has demonstrated. Everything in the universe does change but it changes in an orderly fashion via a chain of cascading causal orderly interactions that ultimately trace back to a first cause. Emergence is indeed real. It's existence shaped and guided by that same overarching order. The fact that we have free choice in such a universe even if it is an illusion so perfect we cannot see through it is nothing short of miraculous. The problem, you knucklehead is that you are arguing that in ancient times god was there to help people, if we know those things were immoral now, god would have known then too and he would have done something about it not fucking help them with stupid laws that supported their immoral actions. |
|
|
|
Who says anything about no Ten Commandments? Haven't I been explaining about the Ten Commandments right along with the whole Old Testament? All you want to do is confuse things by saying this. Like Jesus after His resurrection, Saint Paul explains that we are to live by the Spirit if we are Christians. A Christian receives the Spirit of God, and doesn't follow the 10 by looking at them and following. Rather, the Holy Spirit directs the life of Christians in ways that they do the things of the Law, without literally following the Law. They do it all through love. And this love follows the pattern of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The fact that many Christians are mixed up in the way that they obey God, doesn't take away from the fact that they are Christians. Here is what I mean. "Christ" is the Greek word for the Jewish word "Messiah." Both, O.T and N.T. express the Messiah/Christ. The difference was that the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the masses of O.T. believers, because the payment for sins had not been made, yet. Jesus had not died on the cross to pay for sins. After Jesus paid the penalty, there was no more reason to keep the Holy Spirit away from believers. Do you think that this is crazy? Take a look at the whole universe. Such a small amount of it can be explained by anybody, that the whole universe is crazy in the same way. The universe is impossible. Yet it is here. Scientists who are waking up to a whole view of the universe are starting to talk about God from a scientific standpoint. They don't call Him God, but they are recognizing that some great and (at least partially) intelligent force penetrates everything that exists. This God is the One Who expresses Himself through the Bible. Why does He do so? Because scientists are too dumb to figure Him out except in very limited ways. And without figuring Him out and believing in Jesus salvation, there will only be destruction when the end of the universe comes. Consider. Scientists have found massive black holes in several parts of the universe. They see the BH light that supposedly was sent out thousands or millions or billions of years ago. But the thing that nobody knows is if the universe was not destroyed long ago by a gigantic BH. And the electromagnetic wave front of that BH is coming right behind the speed of light, and is almost on top of us. In other words, the destruction is propagated almost at the speed of light, and we will not see it until it is right on top of us. We are ignorant. The Bible expresses that the judgment is near, through the prophesies that it expresses. The whole starry sky that we see at night might be entirely gone. The only reason we see the stars is that the destruction is moving near the speed of light, following the light from the stars. You better double-think the things that you are believing in. They are not known to be true. It will probably be hard for you to do this, because you can't seem to hold more than about two points in your head at any one time. Your logic is inconsistent. You reject some rules and accept the others. All rules in the Old Testament were inspired by God and were specifically provided for the Jewish people. (Actually, it was the Jewish leaders who hired some scribes to write the scriptures, but those are the implementation details.) You accept the 10 commandments but not Leviticus 20:13. But that is ok, do your cherry picking. It doesn't matter in a grand scheme of things, your belief is based on nonsense (zombie myth), with cherry picking or without it. I just hope you start thinking what you believe and why? I know it is hard for you to abandon your carefully constructed bubble, it is uncomfortable and scary. I was brainwashed as a child so I know what you are going through. I have family members who are just like you. They cling to their belief as it is a matter of life and death. They think me, my wife and my kids are possessed by the devil, LOL. PS. If Leviticus 20:13 is an immoral rule, the God (Jewish leader) who recommended it was immoral. Here you are, bringing up a different subject. What's the matter? Can't figure any response to the things I said? And why do you think that I do or don't accept some of the O.T. laws but not others? As I have been telling you, the O.T. laws apply to people to whom they are meant for, one way or another. They are not immoral. How do you know what people think about you and your family? How many of them tell you what they think? But since you don't believe the laws they tell you about, why would you believe what they say they think about your family? Actually, it is you who have become brainwashed. Listen to your family. you have the chance to be saved. Stop throwing your very self "under the bus." If OT laws are not immoral, the Leviticus 20:13 is in the OT, so by your logic it is not immoral. So killing gays is ok then? Yes or no? He doesn't even know. His arguments are like a 5 year old, hurr durr my name is not in the bible therefore I don't have to do it. There are plenty of ridiculous laws and punishments in the new testament too. https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.htmlSo far badecker hasn't been able to argue why homosexuality is wrong or why should we kill them, he simply says, god said it, therefore must be right. A man who would do anything a book says is mentally ill. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
