he said let there be light so my children may see and there was light. the world was covered in lava he cooled it down and it was earth. Then, he filled the world with water and separated so there was enough land.then he created the sky idk how but i think he puled water from the ground and put it in the air then let the sun be able to do this. he said my children need a place to frolic and eat so he sprinkled seeds all over the earth and the earth and the water forced them to grow. then he said
@blakenorthman my children need to see at light so he made billions of stars but they would never equivalent to the day sun. he also created another thing to light the night he called it the moon then he said i need to name the sun so he did name it the sun. god made the first life the crawling bugs to dominant the ground and the soaring birds to dominate the sky. then he made the fish to dominate the sea he placed a man which was more close to god than angels. the man got tired of eating fruit
@blakenorthman so he placed thousands of mammals on earth for us to eat. but he only ate a few, adam watched the animals as they mated together he got jelous god didnt wont man to have envy so he put him into a deep sleep. he took out one of his ribs and created a being that could mate with him and they had sex daily and ate daily then eve grew bored so she wondered into the forest and saw a tree god had already notified them not to eat it. but she starred at it and then satan saw her he opened
@blakenorthman up the gates of hell then a pit in hell and broke loose he took a form to blend in with the earth creature, he thought of the most sinister animal he knew a snake was evil because of its venom. he walked up to eve and rested around he then he awakened and told eve that you can eat the apple god doesent want you to eat it because you will know to much and you will be as smart and powerful as him she said o.k. she took a small bit and she gained overwhelming knowledge. she new she w
@blakenorthman as naked. she quickly put clothes on and went back to the tree to eat more apples and so she did Adam found her eating the last few apples he said god told us not to eat those she said its o.k. it gets you smart after a half hour of her trickery she persuaded him to eat it he got knowledge and put clothes on but he only took a small bite then god came he sensed something was wrong satan was runing away and god stopped him and cut off his legs and made him be punished to slither on
@blakenorthman his belly as punnisment for going in the best garden without direct position satan was relieved god had not found out that he was satan he took his evil form and went back in hell god thought at that momment he wanted no evil in his garden so he cursed all snakes to slither on their bellies then he walked deeper in the forest he saw them and said why are you clothed my children ? because we dont need to see eachther naked they said he found out they ate the fruit he was angry they
@blakenorthman were immortal and smart (he created man immortal) he stripped them of their immortality and only let them live for thousands of years and then he bannished them from the garden he struck a sword in the earth that would strike anything with fire if it tried to come in and he erased it from exsistence of human plain then he set a few angels on the garden to watch over it. he bannished them outside of the garden over the years the humans began living for less and less until they
@blakenorthman lived till they only till their 30 jesus came he lived oddly longer than 30 and he did a bunch of stuff he died for all of our sins that we haven't commit (because if we sinned once god would banished us to the depths of hell yeah he was that mad with our insolence) then he arose from this cave that they imprisoined him in he proved he was gods child and yeah !
If mankind has been on earth over a million years, then why do the records of their activity only go back a few thousand years?
Ancient Historical Records - The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C.
Man, which have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?
@eric5335 During the ice age sea level was 300+' lower than it is today.Humans live on the coast and most of where they lived is under 200-400' of water. The melting of the ice caps caused a lot of floods over a long period of time. So much of our history is underwater. Humans did not learn to write until 5,000 years ago. There may be remains of older civilizations that have yet to be found.Man did not acquire instant knowledge. It took time to discover and acquire and was easily lost.
@larry43062 The Cambrian has invertebrate animals, such as trilobites and brachiopods. These are both very complex small animals. In addition, many of our modern animals and plants are in that lowest level, just above the Precambrian. How could such complex, multi celled creatures be there in the bottom of the Cambrian strata? Suddenly in the very lowest fossil stratum, complex plants and animals are found and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything lower.
@eric5335 There were no land animals and it was over 2 billion years ago. You are just arguing for the sake of it. The Earth is not 6,038 years old. BYE Bye.
@larry43062 Where can we get absolute and objective morality from? Evolution and nature doesn't really tell us what is right and wrong. First, since evolution is about evolving and changing how can we get morals which are constant and always apply objectively? And it also seems to depend on what is survival for the individual, family or community. But that may be different from situation to situation and location to location.
@eric5335 There is no absolute or objective morality. Quit beating a dead horse. You don't get it.You won't try. You are stuck in your religious loop. You are just wasting time.
@eric5335 We have the basis because we know it is wrong to do harm to another human being. Rape does tremendous psychological harm and sometimes even physical harm. We don't need an old book to tell us this.
@mjohanss1975 Well, that's nice that you say it's wrong because it harms the individual victim. But what about murder? Is causing harm always the basis for doing wrong? What if someone murders a lonely man living in the forest, with one shot so he barely recognises any pain because he dies in an instant? Would it still be wrong?
@eric5335 It would still be wrong to murder that lonely man. Individual people does not have the right to end another persons life just because "it seems useless". As a person born, he has the right to live and only he has the right to end his life if he so chooses. We don't get to decide the value of another man's life. Only that old man in the forest gets to decide what his own life is worth.
@mjohanss1975 Fine, but why? What is the foundation for such morality? How can we say the murder of that old man in the forest is wrong in murdering him? Where does such moral values come from? What is the foundation for it?
@eric5335 The foundation is humanity. Simple and pure humanity. I have no voice of God in me whatsoever. Yet there are parts within me telling me to try to make people happy, to treat people with respect and so on. The foundation comes from the basic goodness of human nature. We also have a savage side to our natures and far too many people let that side of them take control and that's why the world looks the way it does.
@mjohanss1975 "...We also have a savage side to our natures and far too many people let that side of them take control and that's why the world looks the way it does..."
Ok, but then why is the "savage" side wrong? Since we are just animals, what is wrong with acts of violence. I mean, it occurs in nature. That's what children are told in school today, that they are just some sort of advanced ape animal.
Also, then we would have to define what is good and bad. What then IS good and bad?
@eric5335 It's quite simple really. Good is whatever brings happiness into this world. When an act brings happiness to people, it is a good act. When it brings despair, sadness or any other negative feeling, it is a savage act. Humans have the ability to do good or bad simply because we are AWARE through our EQ (and to some extent IQ) of the impact of our actions. Animals have no such (or very low) awareness and therefore can be neither good nor bad. They simply are.
@mjohanss1975 But what is in the best interest of humanity? And how do we differentiate between what's best for humanity and what's best the individual? We would have to define that. The Eugenics Movement thought it was in the best interest of humanity to sterilize or even kill off "weak" people. But was that not really always best for the individual.
How do we define it and draw the lines? Where do we get the basis it? And why is maximizing wellbeing a good moral? Where does it come from?
@eric5335 I have already answered your question regarding the source of goodness and the foundation. I have answered it in full but you re-iterate your questions because the reply did not satisfy your need for the existance of God.
@mjohanss1975 Also, what is well-being? We would have to define that too, right? Is it natural well-being? Spiritual well-being? Subjective, mental, emotional, collective or individual well-being?
@eric5335 I think you have our roles confused here. You keep asking questions, which I have patiently answered, but you do this in the role of the prosecutor. But in this debate, you are not the prosecutor, you are the defendant. You are the one who would ask us to believe in a book filled with falseties and nonsensical statements. Maybe you should clean up the contradictions and impossibilites contained within the Bible before you question others so much.
@mjohanss1975 You believe the foundation for morality is humanity. That means, either individuals or collective groups define morality and since there are many individuals and many collective groups and cultures, with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is ‘correct’. So summing it up, you don't believe there is absolute morality, and therefore morality is defined by the individual or cultures making morality subjective.
@eric5335 My previous reply is the closest I want to get to a statement of absolute morality. Absolute morality is a ridiculous concept to begin with. An act is not wrong because it goes against some conceived notion of absolute morality. It is wrong because it causes pain. Is cheating wrong? Yes, in the western world, because it causes pain. No, in Greenland inuit culture, because it causes no pain. Believing in absolute morality is an act of evil by the way because it has caused immense pain.
@mjohanss1975 So no. You don't believe in absolute morality. So we can only get subjective and changing moral values. But then, we can't really decide what's right? So atheism DOES lead to moral relativism. Without that transcendent God, as Dostoevsky famously observed, everything is permissible.
Yet you DO seem to argue that maximizing well-being is a good and kind of absolute moral value that should be applied, right? The question is why? What is the basis for it?
@eric5335 No, everything is not permissable. And I really don't know why you would think that would be the conclusion of there not being a God. If you strike another person for no good reason at all, do you REALLY need to go to the Bible and/or pray to God in order to find out whether or not what you did was wrong? Of course not. You know it in your heart that what you did was wrong. We all would. We don't need God to tell us that in order to know it.
@eric5335 You, however, is arguing for absolute morality. That means that there is really only ONE true way of perceiving God, only ONE correct way to act, only ONE way to decide whether an action is good or bad etc etc. Following the notion of absolute morality to its logical conclusion there can be no other conclusion. So where do we find this absolute morality? How is it substantiated? How is it proven beyond all doubt (absolute morality requires absolute proof) to be the one and correct way?
@mjohanss1975 Again: (Romans 2:15). We have God's laws written in our hearts - a conscience! So you have just stated what the Bible says.
God’s image has been impressed upon humanity (Gen. 1:26-27) so that human beings instinctively know God’s moral law and what is right and wrong (Rom. 2:14-15). People don’t have to believe in God to know His moral law, but in denying Him, they lose the ability to ground an objective moral law in something than transcends the physical universe.
@mjohanss1975 There IS absolute morality. Some things appear to be absolutely wrong, for example torturing babies. We have a sense, that every sane person will reject that as being absolutely wrong. But the existence of such moral absolutes is highly significant. J.L. Mackie pointed out: "That there's a direct path from absolute morality to God". That is arguable, that if you have absolutes then that's a pathway to God.
@eric5335 Pol Pot believed in absolute morality. Stalin believed in absolute morality. The very people who put up as "one of mine" are really one of yours in that context. They believed in absolutes and that was what allowed them to commit the atrocities they became guilty of. Not their supposed atheism. You like to quote the bible though when it supports your theories. Are you equally happy to quote it when it competely contradicts everything which humanity perceives as right and true?
@mjohanss1975 "...Are you equally happy to quote it when it competely contradicts everything which humanity perceives as right and true?..."
So humanity comes up with morality, is what you're saying again? But then we never really know what's absolutely right, since people come up with different ideas on what's right and wrong. It's subjective, and relativistic. Either something is morally wrong absolutely or something is subjective, which means it can change all the time.
@eric5335 Many things will change in time. Is it wrong for a woman not to obey her husband? Not in my mind but perhaps in yours, if the bible truly is your guide-line. So some things change and are relative and subjective on a CULTURAL, NOT INDIVIDUAL level. Other things remains constant, like "torturing babies". Absolute morality can not exist. Even if it did exist, where would be find the guide-lines? Where would we even begin to look for such a guide? None has ever been presented so far.
@mjohanss1975 Absolute morality DOES exist. Like the "torturing babies" example. In really almost every sane culture and if you ask every sane individual, torturing babies seems to be wrong. So some absolute morality DOES exist.
"...Absolute morality can not exist. Even if it did exist, where would be find the guide-lines?..."
That's an interesting question. If there is no God, then does absolute morality exist? Or does everything become permissible?
@mjohanss1975 When the Eugenics Movement decided (and many believed it) it was good to sterilize "weak" people and even kill off handi-capped people, why would that be wrong since that's what they perceived as right and true? That's what they came up with.
@eric5335 What the Eugenics movement did was wrong because it caused harm. It caused pain. It caused distress. Do you really not understand the concept of a human being able to feel pain? The bible tells us to stone our sons if they raise their voices against us. Is this the absolute right and absolute morality that you are speaking of?
@mjohanss1975 Why equate human flourishing and human well-being with the good? What's the basis for that? Because since that's what we should base our moral compass on, doesn't that make it kind of an absolute and objective standard?
Where does the moral conscious come from? Aren't we just animals if there is no God?
@eric5335 Interesting how you keep asking questions that has already been answered while not responding to any of my questions. You say you believe in the bible. What parts of it? Which parts of the bible is part of the absolute morality of which you speak and which part do you consider to be complete nonsense? And how do you make these distinctions?
@mjohanss1975 That's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about where do we get morals from? You have given me: that human well-being should be what is considered good and right. That seems to be an absolute standard you suggest is the good. But the question is, where is the foundation for it? Is it science? Biology? Laws of the universe, or where does it come from? You have not really given a sufficient answer.
@eric5335 You do not get to dictate or direct this discussion. I have sufficiently answered your questions. I cannot be blamed for your inability to grasp these concepts. You, however, have not answered my questions, all of which have been completely on point. If you fail to grasp that they are on point then, again I can not be blamed for your preference for faith-based ideas rather than ideas based on logic.
But you haven't given me any reason why morality based on human well-being is good and should be applied. That's why atheism morally bankrupt and leads to moral relativism (everything is kind of permissible).
@eric5335 Do you deliberately let a moronic statement like the one I just made stand? I just said that Denmark has laid waste to entire regions, enslaved people and slaughtered entire countries in the past 50 years. By not contradicting me, are you actually saying that they did?
@mjohanss1975 No, but even if Denmark did, why would that be wrong? What if it actually turned out that it helped humanity overall, for some reason, except the individuals who were destroyed? If history would have shown that? Why would we say it was wrong? That's again, how is humanity the foundation for morality, as you somehow stated? Is morality what is best for overall humanity or for the individual?
@eric5335 Haha, you are quite talented at putting up strawman arguments and refuting them. Not quite as good in actually refuting the actual arguments, however, and simply completely useless when it comes to defending your own view points. You did not even flinch when I said Denmark is a warmongering country that is sending its armies out to enslave the world. Neither did you say as much as a word about the moral correctness of stoning my son to death just because he has a big mouth.
@mjohanss1975 Ok, that's nice. But isn't that just an opinion? And I agree, serving others even makes yourself happy, but this is not a question of what I think, because that's just subjective.
Doesn't joy have different meanings also, depending on who you ask? Wouldn't there also be a conflict if something makes a culture joyous but pains another? How would we determine what is good or bad?
@eric5335 If something brings one person joy but brings another person pain, then that action is not good. A serial killer derives joy from his acts but pain upon his victims. Same could be said about rapists and their victims. If your joy is at the expense of the pain of others then it is not good. That's how we determine what is good or bad.
@mjohanss1975 But then your statement: "...Good is what brings joy. Bad is what brings pain. Easy. Why do you find this so hard to grasp?..." Wouldn't be so valid.
@eric5335 Are you actually human or some kind of Christian, spamming program? Maybe you should see to your own, very rickety house before you set upon the path of finding minor faults and cracks in other peoples houses. There are cracks and minor holes, some larger holes in science, yes. But we are working on it. The holes in the Christian version of the nature of the universe, however, is riddled with enormous holes as big as space itself and stopped looking for answers millenia ago.
@mjohanss1975 Now you're just evading the questions. What if someone finds it joyous to beat up people and rob them? When we say, no, he should stop that, and he gets sad, wether he's acting or serious, then wouldn't it harm him in a psychological kind of way?
@eric5335 evading the questions? evading the questions? Seriously up to this point, I have been polite and patient. Logic is a very difficult concept for you religious types to grasp and I have taken that into consideration. But I have asked heaps of on-point questions, each of which you have categorically ignored.
@mjohanss1975 It's because you only ask me what I believe. It doesn't matter what I believe, because then it would just be subjective. But since morality is subjective and relativistic, by your own admition why would any of us be either right or wrong if right or wrong doesn't really exist?
@eric5335 Your beliefs is very much the issue since your beliefs would have me and the rest of the world submit to what you have decided is a morally objective book. And I ask you what, other than your own subjective beliefs, makes the bible morally objective in all times and in all cultures? If you cannot answer this then do not bother replying.
The Bible is written by 40 different authors over a space of 1600 years yet it is so consistent. It was written by more than forty men from every walk of life. For example, Moses, very intelligent man, educated by the Egyptians. Peter was a simple fisherman, Solomon was a king, Luke was a doctor, Amos was a shepherd, and Matthew was a tax collector.
@mjohanss1975 All the writers were of vastly different occupations and backgrounds. In addition to this, many of these people also wrote in many different places. The Bible was written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Moses wrote in the desert of Sinai, Paul wrote in a prison in Rome, Daniel wrote in exile in Babylon, and Ezra wrote in the ruined city of Jerusalem. The Bible covers hundreds of topics, yet it does not contradict itself. It remains united in its theme.
@eric5335 haha and now you have proven that you have no understanding of the bible whatsoever. Even I, an atheist, have far greater understanding of the bible. I should not have wasted all this time on you. You are beneath me. Good night.
@eric5335 in order for a higher source to be able to be that moral guide line, he would first have to set down his laws in some kind of book or scripture. Since no such scripture exists then how can we use his wishes as a guideline to morality?
@eric5335 I also notice that you are from Denmark. Interesting....Interesting considering Denmark is obviously one of the most warmongering countries in the world. In the past 50 years, the Danish people has conquered other countries, enslaved other peoples and laid waste to entire regions. Tell me, why has the Danish people been such bloodthirsty savages in the past 50 years and caused so much death and destruction around the world?
@mjohanss1975 "...Tell me, why has the Danish people been such bloodthirsty savages in the past 50 years and caused so much death and destruction around the world?..."
What?
My father is German/Danish and my mother is Polish, but we live in Denmark. What has that to do with it? Denmark is not quite a religious country (3rd most atheistic). But I'm not a Christian because I have been influenced by culture, if that's what you mean.
@mjohanss1975 But why even say that Denmark (or any other nation or culture, for that matter) is wrong in doing what they are doing? Why was Pol Pot wrong? Eugenics Movement? Why were the Crusades wrong? Since morality is based on consensus (which will be subjective) of a culture or community, why could we say they were wrong, since that's what they decided was right?
Ok, so it's based on what's best for humanity? If we take that position, we would have to come up with morals that are in the best interest of humanity. But couldn't that go against what's also best for the individual? I mean, Pol Pot thought it was good for his community/country to kill 1/3 of his own population. The gang member maybe would think it's best to rob from other gangs, in the best interest of his own community.
@eric5335 As for crime rates being up: Most crimes are committed by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist and Hindus. When do you ever see ateists implicated in crime? Hardly ever happens. Go to any prison...are they not ALL Christians? I've been in prison myself and I can assure you that I was the only man there that did not constantly talk about God. Took a few beatings for not believing in God as well. So yes, I am a victim of Christian-on-atheist crime.
@eric5335 Those were all communists and they were not crimes commited by individuals. They were crimes committed by a communist, totalitarian government on entire populations, not individual-on-individual.We are talking about regular crime here, not massive scale war crimes committed by organizations. If we were, then we would be bringing up all the atrocities of the crusades, the witch hunts, the genocide of pagan peoples but we are not, are we?
@eric5335 But do you really believe that they were atheists for the most part? The Khmer Rouges were communists but all of them were still buddhists in their hearts. And the examples you are using are all examples of would-be atheists who were not ready to be atheists. It takes strength to be an atheist. It takes resolve and determination and neither the Russians nor the Cambodians were ready because they were still theists in their hearts. Why bring this up without bringing up the crusades?
@mjohanss1975 No, you can't just say they were not atheists. Haven't you read the quotes from Karl Marx and former communist spy? And do you really believe Pol Pot killed 1/3 of his own pop. according to his buddhist morals? NO! He did not believe in religion.
Have you not read about communism and the philosophy?
I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country. - Pol Pot
@eric5335 Well maybe Pol Pot was an atheist. But his followers were not. I have spoken to many of them personally and I can tell you that they were buddhists all along. But 100 million people still isn't very much even if you DID manage to pin that on atheists. Not in comparison to the evils perpetrated in the name of religion through the Christianization of Europe, the colonization in the name of Jesus, the crusades, the Jihads, the witch hunts etc etc etc.
@mjohanss1975 No, you haven't answered the question. What is the basis for morality? You say it's humanity. But then, do you mean that we come up with morals ourselves?
But then absolute morality doesn't exist, does it? If not, moral standards come from an individual or a group/community or culture. Though. culture cannot be appealed to as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is ‘correct’.
@eric5335 Yes I have answered the questions. Basic humanity is the answer. Look at the San people. The oldest human remains found are very similar to modern-day San people. Very likely, we were all once San-like peoples. The San have no religion. They worship the spirits of nature and their ancestors. Yet violence is foreign to them. Striking another person in anger is unknown to them. Basic human goodness is still strong in them. Other cultures are different because they are more savage.
@mjohanss1975 No, the San people have some sort of religion too. The religion of the Khoisan people of Southern Africa draws from rituals, folk-tales and legends. The Khoisan are divided into two groups, the Khoikhoi and the San, and although each culture has its own religious tradition, there is overlap in their respective belief systems.
But that's not the point here. The point is, is there absolute morality when the foundation for morality is humanity as you say? No, it's subjective.
@mjohanss1975 So yes, an atheist can be moral, of course.
But the question is: If God does not exist, then is there such a thing as absolute morality? Or doesn't everything end up being relative? (Look at the post-modern phenomenon).
What is the basis for saying rape, for example is wrong? If we look at an outside perspective: Is a case of violent rape for example always wrong and absolutely wrong? What basis do we have to look at the case and say it's wrong?
@larry43062 Beginning with the very lowest of the fossil strata, the Cambrian, we find a wealth of fossil types. But each type (each species) of fossil in the Cambrian is different from the others. There is no blending between them. It requires evolving (blending across species) to produce evolution, but this never occurs today, and it never occurred earlier. If we look at the fossils found in the Cambrian: In the ancient world there were only distinct species.
The Earth is not big enough to accommodate a breeding population of all the species that exist today plus all the dinosaurs, walking whales, giant reptiles,all the megafauna, all the plant varieties, that have existed throughout time. And new fossil species are being discovered everyday. Ask anyone who works at a zoo, how many animals could fit on an Ark and live on it without light, fresh air or fresh food, not to mention the urine and feces.
The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger. The Hebrew word for cubit is “‘ammah”. As everybody’s arms are different in length this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters).
@eric5335 Argentosaurus alone was over 63 cubits in length. One would not have had enough room to turn around, let alone 2 and all the other animals that have existed. And what about the plants being underwater for months and salt water at that?
@larry43062 Helen Keller who is born deaf, blind and mute, when she learned to communicate she said that she had always believed in God even before anyone had communicated the idea to her or she was even bale to communicate.
So you know there is a higher supernatural being out there. It's just foolishnes to believe that all things magically came into existence before anything even existed. Where did it all come from? Where did atoms, chemicals, DNA and organisms come from?
@eric5335 God was an imaginary friend manufactured by her subconscious out of need from loneliness.Again, catch that NOVA program with Stephen Hawking.
Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet long. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet.
(If we take the smaller measurement, 17 inches, we end up with 1.278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that if the ark had only 1,518,750 cubic feet of free space, a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925, it could store up to 125,000 sheep-sized animals.
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.
@larry43062 Also, if the evolution theory is true and everything seems to only develop and evolve and get better (which is actually really impossible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics), then how would explain that we humans can only use some of our brain capacity and not all of it? What's with the rest of it? Why can't we use it when it's there?
@eric5335 Evolution is not a religion. There is no god "Sci". It is all peer reviewed and interwoven in the fabric of science as a whole. Go to a museum, and I don't mean the one in Oklahoma, or a college. Take a course so you can understand it. Your not stupid you can grasp the concept if you try.
@larry43062 "...Your not stupid you can grasp the concept if you try..."
I do grasp it, I believed in evolution all my life until recently, when I discovered that it CANNOT be proven, macro-evolution that is. Evolution IS like a religion, it needs faith and milliooooones of years to believe it. It's like a fairy tale, starting like this: "Milliooooones of years ago, there was..."
How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”
@eric5335 And then the genera(Biblical kind)evolved into other species? Sounds like evolution to me.And who the hell is Woodmorapple? The god of apple trees.
@larry43062 "...And then the genera(Biblical kind)evolved into other species? Sounds like evolution to me..."
It's called micro-evolution, which is really just variation inside one kind of animal. You know, like a dog changing into another dog, but it's still a dog. It's only using the already existing DNA, it's not adding. A Chihuahua may be at the end of the point in variation, you couldn't change Chihuahuas into German Shepherds without the latter
@larry43062 I believe micro-evolution happens (variation inside one kind of animal), but I don't believe macro-evolution. which has not even been observed and no fossils support the theory. A coyote, a wolf and a dog may have a common ancestor, it was a dog. The theory of evolution however says that if you just add time to it, somehow dogs can change into a cat. No, I don't believe that.
@larry43062 Sunday after the crucifiction of Jesus Christ, His tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers. And how can you explain the rise of Early Christianity? And why is the Bible still the most sold book today? And with that, why is Christianity still so important today? Also, why is Christianity the fastest growing (by number of converts) religion today?
@eric5335 Constantine's conversion to Christianity.and his Council of Nicaea, The Edict of Thessalonica gave Christianity more power and control over the Roman Empire. Then there was the oh so Christian Crusades and Inquisitions; talk about a holocaust. And then came colonization of the New World.Priest, missionaries and soldiers; killing savages devoid of souls or filling their heads with demons and hell or salvation and heaven.Illiterate people forced to convert to Christianity.It's a miracle!
@larry43062 I won't begin about the many dead and horrible things in the name of atheistic communism (Pol Pot) or of the theory of evolution: the killing of Aboriginies to collect their skulls, Ota Benga being put in a zoo with monkeys to show an example of evolution, the justification of racism based on evolution or just the fact of the increased crime (nearly a 1000%) since the Bible was taken out of schools, and the teaching of evolution and that man is an animal put into the schools.
@eric5335 What you mentioned pales in comparrison.Benga!What about slavery,women being chattel,Gay's being murdered.Look at the OT it's full of cruel murderous crap.Look up Giordano Bruno.The Church set science back centuries.People weren't just burned at the stake.They were burned with a small fire very slowly to maximize the pain, even taken off the stake to writhe in agony before being put back on to slowly die in hellish agony.We could have a cure for every disease by now if not for religion
@larry43062 And the Bible also mentions astronomy, Job 9:9 mentions Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades. Proverb 17:22 teaches that good health is directly linked to being happy. Psychiatrists offices are overflowing today with the stressed out people. Happiness can only come from being saved and living for the Truth of God's Word.
@eric5335 Did you look up Giordano Bruno or Galileo?Some rules of kosher work, washing hands, no pork, no trichinosis, others don't,eating shellfish an abomination, keeping milk and meat in separate storage, why?I'm happy when I play with my godless Golden Retriever. You sound miserably unhappy. Of course sick people are not happy, hence the need for universal health care and good foods. Some blood is sick and is replaced with transfusions.
@larry43062 The happiest people are those who have no sins standing between them and God. Can't you see the problems and misery in society today? All the crime, abortions, STD's (25% of the young people have some sort of, why is that?). Do you see nothing wrong with the moral breakdown, destruction of the family and dumbing down of children? More and more people take drugs. Yet psychology doesn't seem to find an answer to all these problems.
@eric5335 Atheists are happier. When the burden of religious b.s. was lifted from my shoulders. I became a much happier person. Abortions and STD's are prevalent because Religious nuts are telling horny teenagers to abstain from sex instead of educating them and giving them condoms and other forms of birth control. That's why babies end up in toilets and dumpsters.90% of post grads are atheists. It's the creationists who are dumbing down the population.
@larry43062 "...It's the creationists who are dumbing down the population..."
Oh yeah, I forgot, it's Christians who control the government paid school system. And the Bible wasnt taken out of the schools It's still there and kids are having prayer and Bible reading in schools and when they have physics they learn about the missing fossils which is a problem to the evolution theory. And when kids are home they read their Bible and play outside and don't watch any sex and violence on TV.
@eric5335 Most of the people in government are Christians.It's our founding fathers that set forth documents demanding separation of church and state. People came to America from Europe fleeing religious persecution. The Bible can be used as a piece of literature to be studied in our school system. Kids have all the religion their parents want to cram down their throats in; church, Sunday school, prayer meetings, etc.That's not enough?A lot of parents don't let their kids watch TV...
@larry43062 "...Kids have all the religion their parents want to cram down their throats in; church, Sunday school, prayer meetings, etc.That's not enough?A lot of parents don't let their kids watch TV......"
But many believing children leave their faith when they get taught that they are animals and evolution is true and they may end of thinking that the Bible must be untrue. That's what actually happens. And tax dollars are used for it.
@larry43062 Again, to your example, (I would like you to answer this): why is the person forcing a man to do the act wrong? How can we determine that person is wrong?
@larry43062 "...because Religious nuts are telling horny teenagers to abstain from sex instead of educating them..."
So you think teenagers and should just go ahead and have sex when they want to and it should be encouraged? There should be no constraints, if it feels good do it or what? That's what society has done actually since the 60's. And you think with all the money pumped into schools for sex education it would just help to pump even MORE money into it? No sir, the problem is SIN!
@larry43062 Sanitary practices such as washing hands were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health. Can you believe that? Read Leviticus 15:13.
God commanded to wash the infected skin in running water. God told to use running water. Before discovery of bacteria the doctors would use a basin of water to wash their hands. Science was over 3000 years behind.
@larry43062 These are just examples of many cases. About 60-100 million people died in communist countries, Pol Pot killed nearly a third of his the population in Cambodia, and look at North Korea with their state-sanctioned atheism.
@eric5335 Psychopaths often rise to power. Just because some are atheists, doesn't make all atheists Psychopaths. There are even good Christians. But Pol Pot did not do what he did in the name of atheism, the Church did it's evil in the name of God and Jesus Christ.
@larry43062 If doctors had read the Bible they would have not held to the "sick blood" method of thinking (you know that's what they did with George Washington, they let him bleed the "sick" blood out for his health). The Bible says "life is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).
@eric5335 You mentioned the Law of Thermodynamics, referring to the second law? Which only works in a closed system where no energy or matter enters or leaves. Earth receives heat and light from the sun, so Earth is not a closed system. What are the other Laws of Thermodynamics?
@larry43062 And look at our so advanced and evolved society today, we put poison in our bodies (drinking alcohol) and other unhealthy chemicals, with the advanced techonological advancements like the atomic bomb we could destroy ourselves, we stare into a TV like a hypnosis while family life is vanishing, we kill ourselves in crime and drug abuse. This all shows how sinful we are as humans and that's why we need God!
@eric5335 No we need to address these issues with better education and learning to share. Today's pro-gun, pro-war people are right wing "Christians" and Muslims who favor violence and greed.
@larry43062 The TEXTUS RECEPTUS, original Greek text from which the Authorized King James Bible was translated, has been the target of textual critics since 1611. Yet copies of it substantially exist today without error.
@larry43062 The Bible, though regarded as a Book, is a library of sixty-six volumes written by between thirty and forty different authors, in three languages on totally different topics and in different circumstances. One wrote history, another biography, one wrote on theology, another poetry, another prophecy, philosophy, jurisprudence, genealogy, ethnology, and narratives of wonderful journeys.
@larry43062 In the Bible we have them all, in one Book. The strangest thing of all is that, although their subjects are so diverse and difficult, and although it was impossible for the man who wrote the first pages to have the slightest knowledge what others would write 1500 years later, yet it is that this collection of writings is not only unified by men in one Book, but so unified by God, the Author, that we can never think of it today as anything else but one Book.
@eric5335 The Bible was canonized by men. The NT has a very long and complicated history, and "God" had nothing to do with it.Today the only people that "hear God's voice" are schizophrenic. Do you think there were no schizophrenics in ancient times?
@larry43062 "...Do you think there were no schizophrenics in ancient times?..."
So the many eye-witnesses suddenly all were schizophrenics or hallucinating? And they faced martyrdom. The ultimate test of credibility for these eye-witnesses was that many of them faced martyrdom for their eye-witness testimony.
@eric5335 Those who "heard" God's voice were schizophrenic not those who believed people like moses. People martyr themselves everyday(suicide bombers) it doesn't make them right or smart, just dead.
@larry43062 And again I ask you this, please answer: Are there absolute morals? Or: Is it always universally and absolutely wrong to for example rape?
@eric5335 You could write a fricking book trying to answer that one. Hurting people is bad but pulling a bad tooth is good even if it hurts. Killing someone is wrong, but ending their suffering may be good. Our courts go on a case by case basis.There is no simple absolute. Mankind is sick and God hasn't solved our problems, but science has solved many. It has cured mostly physical diseases and I think soon it will cure mental ones like psychopathy. If we don't all die from human overpopulation.
@larry43062 "...Killing someone is wrong, but ending their suffering may be good. Our courts go on a case by case basis.There is no simple absolute. Mankind is sick and God hasn't solved our problems,..."
Have you ever thought of that maybe we make the problems by not obeying God's laws? God is not going to "fix" things, if we don't care what He says. He has given us the Bible, even send His son to die for mankind, yet people don't want to hear about Him and His Holy Word.
@eric5335 You want to obey God's laws? You can start by stoning some politicians a lot of them are adulterers but don't stop there! Half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. You better stone them to death as well. Did you eat the shrimp? Better stone yourself. Wow! God's way really is happy, if you're a psychopath.And Jesus did favor a lot of harsh shit too.
@larry43062 "...Better stone yourself. Wow! God's way really is happy,.."
You are ignorant. These were Old Testament laws and were government laws. The death penalty was carried out if there were two or more witnesses in most cases for some of the crimes. So no Israelite would go around and play vigilante, crime would have to be brought to court and the penalties carried out after that. And with shrimp, please read the New Testament and especially Letter to the Hebrews to see the correlation.
@eric5335 Yet another example of the Bible contradicting itself. Adultery is still witnessed especially on the internet. Better gather up those stones and head for Iran.They still practice what's in the OT. Didn't you know? The OT is all God's word. So it must be true and it MUST be done.
@eric5335 Mark was the first book penned and Mark was not an eye witness to the events but a disciple of Peter. Second hand stories written 55 to 70 years after the fact.That would not hold up in court.
he said let there be light so my children may see and there was light. the world was covered in lava he cooled it down and it was earth. Then, he filled the world with water and separated so there was enough land.then he created the sky idk how but i think he puled water from the ground and put it in the air then let the sun be able to do this. he said my children need a place to frolic and eat so he sprinkled seeds all over the earth and the earth and the water forced them to grow. then he said
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman my children need to see at light so he made billions of stars but they would never equivalent to the day sun. he also created another thing to light the night he called it the moon then he said i need to name the sun so he did name it the sun. god made the first life the crawling bugs to dominant the ground and the soaring birds to dominate the sky. then he made the fish to dominate the sea he placed a man which was more close to god than angels. the man got tired of eating fruit
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman so he placed thousands of mammals on earth for us to eat. but he only ate a few, adam watched the animals as they mated together he got jelous god didnt wont man to have envy so he put him into a deep sleep. he took out one of his ribs and created a being that could mate with him and they had sex daily and ate daily then eve grew bored so she wondered into the forest and saw a tree god had already notified them not to eat it. but she starred at it and then satan saw her he opened
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman up the gates of hell then a pit in hell and broke loose he took a form to blend in with the earth creature, he thought of the most sinister animal he knew a snake was evil because of its venom. he walked up to eve and rested around he then he awakened and told eve that you can eat the apple god doesent want you to eat it because you will know to much and you will be as smart and powerful as him she said o.k. she took a small bit and she gained overwhelming knowledge. she new she w
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman as naked. she quickly put clothes on and went back to the tree to eat more apples and so she did Adam found her eating the last few apples he said god told us not to eat those she said its o.k. it gets you smart after a half hour of her trickery she persuaded him to eat it he got knowledge and put clothes on but he only took a small bite then god came he sensed something was wrong satan was runing away and god stopped him and cut off his legs and made him be punished to slither on
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman his belly as punnisment for going in the best garden without direct position satan was relieved god had not found out that he was satan he took his evil form and went back in hell god thought at that momment he wanted no evil in his garden so he cursed all snakes to slither on their bellies then he walked deeper in the forest he saw them and said why are you clothed my children ? because we dont need to see eachther naked they said he found out they ate the fruit he was angry they
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman were immortal and smart (he created man immortal) he stripped them of their immortality and only let them live for thousands of years and then he bannished them from the garden he struck a sword in the earth that would strike anything with fire if it tried to come in and he erased it from exsistence of human plain then he set a few angels on the garden to watch over it. he bannished them outside of the garden over the years the humans began living for less and less until they
blakenorthman 1 week ago
@blakenorthman lived till they only till their 30 jesus came he lived oddly longer than 30 and he did a bunch of stuff he died for all of our sins that we haven't commit (because if we sinned once god would banished us to the depths of hell yeah he was that mad with our insolence) then he arose from this cave that they imprisoined him in he proved he was gods child and yeah !
blakenorthman 1 week ago
the world was originaly intended as a playground before we came our original home was heaven but we had no physical bodies we were spirits
WINDTALKER300 1 week ago
god created the world so his children could incarnate into physical bodies and experience 3 dimensional form
WINDTALKER300 1 week ago
god doesn`t exist here im making example fuck you god
loksmith80 2 weeks ago
Disclaimer: This is what Christians actually believe.
TheRealNeato 3 weeks ago
If mankind has been on earth over a million years, then why do the records of their activity only go back a few thousand years?
Ancient Historical Records - The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C.
Man, which have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?
eric5335 3 weeks ago
@eric5335 During the ice age sea level was 300+' lower than it is today.Humans live on the coast and most of where they lived is under 200-400' of water. The melting of the ice caps caused a lot of floods over a long period of time. So much of our history is underwater. Humans did not learn to write until 5,000 years ago. There may be remains of older civilizations that have yet to be found.Man did not acquire instant knowledge. It took time to discover and acquire and was easily lost.
larry43062 3 weeks ago
@larry43062 The Cambrian has invertebrate animals, such as trilobites and brachiopods. These are both very complex small animals. In addition, many of our modern animals and plants are in that lowest level, just above the Precambrian. How could such complex, multi celled creatures be there in the bottom of the Cambrian strata? Suddenly in the very lowest fossil stratum, complex plants and animals are found and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything lower.
eric5335 3 weeks ago
@eric5335 There were no land animals and it was over 2 billion years ago. You are just arguing for the sake of it. The Earth is not 6,038 years old. BYE Bye.
larry43062 3 weeks ago
@larry43062 Where can we get absolute and objective morality from? Evolution and nature doesn't really tell us what is right and wrong. First, since evolution is about evolving and changing how can we get morals which are constant and always apply objectively? And it also seems to depend on what is survival for the individual, family or community. But that may be different from situation to situation and location to location.
eric5335 3 weeks ago
@eric5335 There is no absolute or objective morality. Quit beating a dead horse. You don't get it.You won't try. You are stuck in your religious loop. You are just wasting time.
larry43062 3 weeks ago
@eric5335 the end there should have been "while scripture is telling us the opposite".
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 We have the basis because we know it is wrong to do harm to another human being. Rape does tremendous psychological harm and sometimes even physical harm. We don't need an old book to tell us this.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Well, that's nice that you say it's wrong because it harms the individual victim. But what about murder? Is causing harm always the basis for doing wrong? What if someone murders a lonely man living in the forest, with one shot so he barely recognises any pain because he dies in an instant? Would it still be wrong?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 It would still be wrong to murder that lonely man. Individual people does not have the right to end another persons life just because "it seems useless". As a person born, he has the right to live and only he has the right to end his life if he so chooses. We don't get to decide the value of another man's life. Only that old man in the forest gets to decide what his own life is worth.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Fine, but why? What is the foundation for such morality? How can we say the murder of that old man in the forest is wrong in murdering him? Where does such moral values come from? What is the foundation for it?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 The foundation is humanity. Simple and pure humanity. I have no voice of God in me whatsoever. Yet there are parts within me telling me to try to make people happy, to treat people with respect and so on. The foundation comes from the basic goodness of human nature. We also have a savage side to our natures and far too many people let that side of them take control and that's why the world looks the way it does.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 "...We also have a savage side to our natures and far too many people let that side of them take control and that's why the world looks the way it does..."
Ok, but then why is the "savage" side wrong? Since we are just animals, what is wrong with acts of violence. I mean, it occurs in nature. That's what children are told in school today, that they are just some sort of advanced ape animal.
Also, then we would have to define what is good and bad. What then IS good and bad?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 It's quite simple really. Good is whatever brings happiness into this world. When an act brings happiness to people, it is a good act. When it brings despair, sadness or any other negative feeling, it is a savage act. Humans have the ability to do good or bad simply because we are AWARE through our EQ (and to some extent IQ) of the impact of our actions. Animals have no such (or very low) awareness and therefore can be neither good nor bad. They simply are.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 But what is in the best interest of humanity? And how do we differentiate between what's best for humanity and what's best the individual? We would have to define that. The Eugenics Movement thought it was in the best interest of humanity to sterilize or even kill off "weak" people. But was that not really always best for the individual.
How do we define it and draw the lines? Where do we get the basis it? And why is maximizing wellbeing a good moral? Where does it come from?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 I have already answered your question regarding the source of goodness and the foundation. I have answered it in full but you re-iterate your questions because the reply did not satisfy your need for the existance of God.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Also, what is well-being? We would have to define that too, right? Is it natural well-being? Spiritual well-being? Subjective, mental, emotional, collective or individual well-being?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 I think you have our roles confused here. You keep asking questions, which I have patiently answered, but you do this in the role of the prosecutor. But in this debate, you are not the prosecutor, you are the defendant. You are the one who would ask us to believe in a book filled with falseties and nonsensical statements. Maybe you should clean up the contradictions and impossibilites contained within the Bible before you question others so much.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 You believe the foundation for morality is humanity. That means, either individuals or collective groups define morality and since there are many individuals and many collective groups and cultures, with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is ‘correct’. So summing it up, you don't believe there is absolute morality, and therefore morality is defined by the individual or cultures making morality subjective.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 My previous reply is the closest I want to get to a statement of absolute morality. Absolute morality is a ridiculous concept to begin with. An act is not wrong because it goes against some conceived notion of absolute morality. It is wrong because it causes pain. Is cheating wrong? Yes, in the western world, because it causes pain. No, in Greenland inuit culture, because it causes no pain. Believing in absolute morality is an act of evil by the way because it has caused immense pain.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 So no. You don't believe in absolute morality. So we can only get subjective and changing moral values. But then, we can't really decide what's right? So atheism DOES lead to moral relativism. Without that transcendent God, as Dostoevsky famously observed, everything is permissible.
Yet you DO seem to argue that maximizing well-being is a good and kind of absolute moral value that should be applied, right? The question is why? What is the basis for it?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 No, everything is not permissable. And I really don't know why you would think that would be the conclusion of there not being a God. If you strike another person for no good reason at all, do you REALLY need to go to the Bible and/or pray to God in order to find out whether or not what you did was wrong? Of course not. You know it in your heart that what you did was wrong. We all would. We don't need God to tell us that in order to know it.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 You, however, is arguing for absolute morality. That means that there is really only ONE true way of perceiving God, only ONE correct way to act, only ONE way to decide whether an action is good or bad etc etc. Following the notion of absolute morality to its logical conclusion there can be no other conclusion. So where do we find this absolute morality? How is it substantiated? How is it proven beyond all doubt (absolute morality requires absolute proof) to be the one and correct way?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Again: (Romans 2:15). We have God's laws written in our hearts - a conscience! So you have just stated what the Bible says.
God’s image has been impressed upon humanity (Gen. 1:26-27) so that human beings instinctively know God’s moral law and what is right and wrong (Rom. 2:14-15). People don’t have to believe in God to know His moral law, but in denying Him, they lose the ability to ground an objective moral law in something than transcends the physical universe.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 There IS absolute morality. Some things appear to be absolutely wrong, for example torturing babies. We have a sense, that every sane person will reject that as being absolutely wrong. But the existence of such moral absolutes is highly significant. J.L. Mackie pointed out: "That there's a direct path from absolute morality to God". That is arguable, that if you have absolutes then that's a pathway to God.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Pol Pot believed in absolute morality. Stalin believed in absolute morality. The very people who put up as "one of mine" are really one of yours in that context. They believed in absolutes and that was what allowed them to commit the atrocities they became guilty of. Not their supposed atheism. You like to quote the bible though when it supports your theories. Are you equally happy to quote it when it competely contradicts everything which humanity perceives as right and true?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 "...Are you equally happy to quote it when it competely contradicts everything which humanity perceives as right and true?..."
So humanity comes up with morality, is what you're saying again? But then we never really know what's absolutely right, since people come up with different ideas on what's right and wrong. It's subjective, and relativistic. Either something is morally wrong absolutely or something is subjective, which means it can change all the time.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Many things will change in time. Is it wrong for a woman not to obey her husband? Not in my mind but perhaps in yours, if the bible truly is your guide-line. So some things change and are relative and subjective on a CULTURAL, NOT INDIVIDUAL level. Other things remains constant, like "torturing babies". Absolute morality can not exist. Even if it did exist, where would be find the guide-lines? Where would we even begin to look for such a guide? None has ever been presented so far.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjohanss1975 Absolute morality DOES exist. Like the "torturing babies" example. In really almost every sane culture and if you ask every sane individual, torturing babies seems to be wrong. So some absolute morality DOES exist.
"...Absolute morality can not exist. Even if it did exist, where would be find the guide-lines?..."
That's an interesting question. If there is no God, then does absolute morality exist? Or does everything become permissible?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 When the Eugenics Movement decided (and many believed it) it was good to sterilize "weak" people and even kill off handi-capped people, why would that be wrong since that's what they perceived as right and true? That's what they came up with.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 What the Eugenics movement did was wrong because it caused harm. It caused pain. It caused distress. Do you really not understand the concept of a human being able to feel pain? The bible tells us to stone our sons if they raise their voices against us. Is this the absolute right and absolute morality that you are speaking of?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Why equate human flourishing and human well-being with the good? What's the basis for that? Because since that's what we should base our moral compass on, doesn't that make it kind of an absolute and objective standard?
Where does the moral conscious come from? Aren't we just animals if there is no God?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Interesting how you keep asking questions that has already been answered while not responding to any of my questions. You say you believe in the bible. What parts of it? Which parts of the bible is part of the absolute morality of which you speak and which part do you consider to be complete nonsense? And how do you make these distinctions?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 That's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about where do we get morals from? You have given me: that human well-being should be what is considered good and right. That seems to be an absolute standard you suggest is the good. But the question is, where is the foundation for it? Is it science? Biology? Laws of the universe, or where does it come from? You have not really given a sufficient answer.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 You do not get to dictate or direct this discussion. I have sufficiently answered your questions. I cannot be blamed for your inability to grasp these concepts. You, however, have not answered my questions, all of which have been completely on point. If you fail to grasp that they are on point then, again I can not be blamed for your preference for faith-based ideas rather than ideas based on logic.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 To sum up your view of morality:
- subjective opinion, or
- just based on whatever is "best" for humanity
But you haven't given me any reason why morality based on human well-being is good and should be applied. That's why atheism morally bankrupt and leads to moral relativism (everything is kind of permissible).
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Do you deliberately let a moronic statement like the one I just made stand? I just said that Denmark has laid waste to entire regions, enslaved people and slaughtered entire countries in the past 50 years. By not contradicting me, are you actually saying that they did?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 No, but even if Denmark did, why would that be wrong? What if it actually turned out that it helped humanity overall, for some reason, except the individuals who were destroyed? If history would have shown that? Why would we say it was wrong? That's again, how is humanity the foundation for morality, as you somehow stated? Is morality what is best for overall humanity or for the individual?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Haha, you are quite talented at putting up strawman arguments and refuting them. Not quite as good in actually refuting the actual arguments, however, and simply completely useless when it comes to defending your own view points. You did not even flinch when I said Denmark is a warmongering country that is sending its armies out to enslave the world. Neither did you say as much as a word about the moral correctness of stoning my son to death just because he has a big mouth.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Again what is good or bad? With respect of what goal?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Good is what brings joy. Bad is what brings pain. Easy. Why do you find this so hard to grasp?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Ok, that's nice. But isn't that just an opinion? And I agree, serving others even makes yourself happy, but this is not a question of what I think, because that's just subjective.
Doesn't joy have different meanings also, depending on who you ask? Wouldn't there also be a conflict if something makes a culture joyous but pains another? How would we determine what is good or bad?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 If something brings one person joy but brings another person pain, then that action is not good. A serial killer derives joy from his acts but pain upon his victims. Same could be said about rapists and their victims. If your joy is at the expense of the pain of others then it is not good. That's how we determine what is good or bad.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjohanss1975 But then your statement: "...Good is what brings joy. Bad is what brings pain. Easy. Why do you find this so hard to grasp?..." Wouldn't be so valid.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Why does human flourishing have the moral dimension of goodness?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Are you actually human or some kind of Christian, spamming program? Maybe you should see to your own, very rickety house before you set upon the path of finding minor faults and cracks in other peoples houses. There are cracks and minor holes, some larger holes in science, yes. But we are working on it. The holes in the Christian version of the nature of the universe, however, is riddled with enormous holes as big as space itself and stopped looking for answers millenia ago.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Now you're just evading the questions. What if someone finds it joyous to beat up people and rob them? When we say, no, he should stop that, and he gets sad, wether he's acting or serious, then wouldn't it harm him in a psychological kind of way?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 evading the questions? evading the questions? Seriously up to this point, I have been polite and patient. Logic is a very difficult concept for you religious types to grasp and I have taken that into consideration. But I have asked heaps of on-point questions, each of which you have categorically ignored.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 It's because you only ask me what I believe. It doesn't matter what I believe, because then it would just be subjective. But since morality is subjective and relativistic, by your own admition why would any of us be either right or wrong if right or wrong doesn't really exist?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Your beliefs is very much the issue since your beliefs would have me and the rest of the world submit to what you have decided is a morally objective book. And I ask you what, other than your own subjective beliefs, makes the bible morally objective in all times and in all cultures? If you cannot answer this then do not bother replying.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 Don't expect any more replies today. I actually have a job to attend to, not some priestly theology class.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 That's another discussion.
The Bible is written by 40 different authors over a space of 1600 years yet it is so consistent. It was written by more than forty men from every walk of life. For example, Moses, very intelligent man, educated by the Egyptians. Peter was a simple fisherman, Solomon was a king, Luke was a doctor, Amos was a shepherd, and Matthew was a tax collector.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 All the writers were of vastly different occupations and backgrounds. In addition to this, many of these people also wrote in many different places. The Bible was written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Moses wrote in the desert of Sinai, Paul wrote in a prison in Rome, Daniel wrote in exile in Babylon, and Ezra wrote in the ruined city of Jerusalem. The Bible covers hundreds of topics, yet it does not contradict itself. It remains united in its theme.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 haha and now you have proven that you have no understanding of the bible whatsoever. Even I, an atheist, have far greater understanding of the bible. I should not have wasted all this time on you. You are beneath me. Good night.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 But ok for now. Have a good day.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 in order for a higher source to be able to be that moral guide line, he would first have to set down his laws in some kind of book or scripture. Since no such scripture exists then how can we use his wishes as a guideline to morality?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 I also notice that you are from Denmark. Interesting....Interesting considering Denmark is obviously one of the most warmongering countries in the world. In the past 50 years, the Danish people has conquered other countries, enslaved other peoples and laid waste to entire regions. Tell me, why has the Danish people been such bloodthirsty savages in the past 50 years and caused so much death and destruction around the world?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjohanss1975 "...Tell me, why has the Danish people been such bloodthirsty savages in the past 50 years and caused so much death and destruction around the world?..."
What?
My father is German/Danish and my mother is Polish, but we live in Denmark. What has that to do with it? Denmark is not quite a religious country (3rd most atheistic). But I'm not a Christian because I have been influenced by culture, if that's what you mean.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 But why even say that Denmark (or any other nation or culture, for that matter) is wrong in doing what they are doing? Why was Pol Pot wrong? Eugenics Movement? Why were the Crusades wrong? Since morality is based on consensus (which will be subjective) of a culture or community, why could we say they were wrong, since that's what they decided was right?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric5335 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjohanss1975 "...The foundation is humanity..."
Ok, so it's based on what's best for humanity? If we take that position, we would have to come up with morals that are in the best interest of humanity. But couldn't that go against what's also best for the individual? I mean, Pol Pot thought it was good for his community/country to kill 1/3 of his own population. The gang member maybe would think it's best to rob from other gangs, in the best interest of his own community.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 As for crime rates being up: Most crimes are committed by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist and Hindus. When do you ever see ateists implicated in crime? Hardly ever happens. Go to any prison...are they not ALL Christians? I've been in prison myself and I can assure you that I was the only man there that did not constantly talk about God. Took a few beatings for not believing in God as well. So yes, I am a victim of Christian-on-atheist crime.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 "...As for crime rates being up: Most crimes are committed by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist and Hindus..."
What about the communist atheist regimes in the last 100 years? Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.? Nearly 100 million people were murdered.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Those were all communists and they were not crimes commited by individuals. They were crimes committed by a communist, totalitarian government on entire populations, not individual-on-individual.We are talking about regular crime here, not massive scale war crimes committed by organizations. If we were, then we would be bringing up all the atrocities of the crusades, the witch hunts, the genocide of pagan peoples but we are not, are we?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 But you have to know that these regimes had something in common, a godless atheistic philosophy together with communism: It was atheism.
"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." - Karl Marx
It was Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist and Soviet spy, who said:
"The Communist vision is the vision of man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world."
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 But do you really believe that they were atheists for the most part? The Khmer Rouges were communists but all of them were still buddhists in their hearts. And the examples you are using are all examples of would-be atheists who were not ready to be atheists. It takes strength to be an atheist. It takes resolve and determination and neither the Russians nor the Cambodians were ready because they were still theists in their hearts. Why bring this up without bringing up the crusades?
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 No, you can't just say they were not atheists. Haven't you read the quotes from Karl Marx and former communist spy? And do you really believe Pol Pot killed 1/3 of his own pop. according to his buddhist morals? NO! He did not believe in religion.
Have you not read about communism and the philosophy?
I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country. - Pol Pot
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Well maybe Pol Pot was an atheist. But his followers were not. I have spoken to many of them personally and I can tell you that they were buddhists all along. But 100 million people still isn't very much even if you DID manage to pin that on atheists. Not in comparison to the evils perpetrated in the name of religion through the Christianization of Europe, the colonization in the name of Jesus, the crusades, the Jihads, the witch hunts etc etc etc.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 No, you haven't answered the question. What is the basis for morality? You say it's humanity. But then, do you mean that we come up with morals ourselves?
But then absolute morality doesn't exist, does it? If not, moral standards come from an individual or a group/community or culture. Though. culture cannot be appealed to as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is ‘correct’.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@eric5335 Yes I have answered the questions. Basic humanity is the answer. Look at the San people. The oldest human remains found are very similar to modern-day San people. Very likely, we were all once San-like peoples. The San have no religion. They worship the spirits of nature and their ancestors. Yet violence is foreign to them. Striking another person in anger is unknown to them. Basic human goodness is still strong in them. Other cultures are different because they are more savage.
mjohanss1975 2 weeks ago
@mjohanss1975 No, the San people have some sort of religion too. The religion of the Khoisan people of Southern Africa draws from rituals, folk-tales and legends. The Khoisan are divided into two groups, the Khoikhoi and the San, and although each culture has its own religious tradition, there is overlap in their respective belief systems.
But that's not the point here. The point is, is there absolute morality when the foundation for morality is humanity as you say? No, it's subjective.
eric5335 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjohanss1975 So yes, an atheist can be moral, of course.
But the question is: If God does not exist, then is there such a thing as absolute morality? Or doesn't everything end up being relative? (Look at the post-modern phenomenon).
What is the basis for saying rape, for example is wrong? If we look at an outside perspective: Is a case of violent rape for example always wrong and absolutely wrong? What basis do we have to look at the case and say it's wrong?
eric5335 2 weeks ago
@larry43062 Beginning with the very lowest of the fossil strata, the Cambrian, we find a wealth of fossil types. But each type (each species) of fossil in the Cambrian is different from the others. There is no blending between them. It requires evolving (blending across species) to produce evolution, but this never occurs today, and it never occurred earlier. If we look at the fossils found in the Cambrian: In the ancient world there were only distinct species.
eric5335 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric5335 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric5335 3 weeks ago
WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SNAKE???
malcolm8910 3 weeks ago
The Earth is not big enough to accommodate a breeding population of all the species that exist today plus all the dinosaurs, walking whales, giant reptiles,all the megafauna, all the plant varieties, that have existed throughout time. And new fossil species are being discovered everyday. Ask anyone who works at a zoo, how many animals could fit on an Ark and live on it without light, fresh air or fresh food, not to mention the urine and feces.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 Noah's Ark 1:
The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger. The Hebrew word for cubit is “‘ammah”. As everybody’s arms are different in length this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters).
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Argentosaurus alone was over 63 cubits in length. One would not have had enough room to turn around, let alone 2 and all the other animals that have existed. And what about the plants being underwater for months and salt water at that?
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 Have you ever thought of the idea, that Noah took small and even infant animals on the Ark?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 How did they get there and who raised them?
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 Helen Keller who is born deaf, blind and mute, when she learned to communicate she said that she had always believed in God even before anyone had communicated the idea to her or she was even bale to communicate.
So you know there is a higher supernatural being out there. It's just foolishnes to believe that all things magically came into existence before anything even existed. Where did it all come from? Where did atoms, chemicals, DNA and organisms come from?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 God was an imaginary friend manufactured by her subconscious out of need from loneliness.Again, catch that NOVA program with Stephen Hawking.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 Noah's Ark 2:
The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So let’s do the math…
300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660
6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.
Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet long. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 Noah's Ark 3:
(If we take the smaller measurement, 17 inches, we end up with 1.278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that if the ark had only 1,518,750 cubic feet of free space, a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925, it could store up to 125,000 sheep-sized animals.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 Noah's Ark 4:
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 15% by number not by mass.God may have? You ask for proof, so do I.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 Also, if the evolution theory is true and everything seems to only develop and evolve and get better (which is actually really impossible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics), then how would explain that we humans can only use some of our brain capacity and not all of it? What's with the rest of it? Why can't we use it when it's there?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Thermodynamics?What? And we do use all of our brain.
larry43062 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 "...Thermodynamics?What? And we do use all of our brain..."
No we DON'T! We have way more brain capacity yet we aren't able to use it. Disprove it with facts.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 No man, evolution is like a religion which needs quite some faith to believe. It's like a fairy tale for grown-ups.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Evolution is not a religion. There is no god "Sci". It is all peer reviewed and interwoven in the fabric of science as a whole. Go to a museum, and I don't mean the one in Oklahoma, or a college. Take a course so you can understand it. Your not stupid you can grasp the concept if you try.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...Your not stupid you can grasp the concept if you try..."
I do grasp it, I believed in evolution all my life until recently, when I discovered that it CANNOT be proven, macro-evolution that is. Evolution IS like a religion, it needs faith and milliooooones of years to believe it. It's like a fairy tale, starting like this: "Milliooooones of years ago, there was..."
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 How did you discover that? Go to a museum and a college. Evolution is proven fact. We covered this already! Don't waste my time.
larry43062 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 So let me ask you, is rape, for example always and absolutely wrong?
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 Noah's Ark 5:
How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 And then the genera(Biblical kind)evolved into other species? Sounds like evolution to me.And who the hell is Woodmorapple? The god of apple trees.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...And then the genera(Biblical kind)evolved into other species? Sounds like evolution to me..."
It's called micro-evolution, which is really just variation inside one kind of animal. You know, like a dog changing into another dog, but it's still a dog. It's only using the already existing DNA, it's not adding. A Chihuahua may be at the end of the point in variation, you couldn't change Chihuahuas into German Shepherds without the latter
No, it's called micro-evolution which
eric5335 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 "..And who the hell is Woodmorapple? The god of apple trees..."
lol, what?!
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 I believe micro-evolution happens (variation inside one kind of animal), but I don't believe macro-evolution. which has not even been observed and no fossils support the theory. A coyote, a wolf and a dog may have a common ancestor, it was a dog. The theory of evolution however says that if you just add time to it, somehow dogs can change into a cat. No, I don't believe that.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 And are you an atheist or an agnostic?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Yes. Of course.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 Sunday after the crucifiction of Jesus Christ, His tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers. And how can you explain the rise of Early Christianity? And why is the Bible still the most sold book today? And with that, why is Christianity still so important today? Also, why is Christianity the fastest growing (by number of converts) religion today?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Constantine's conversion to Christianity.and his Council of Nicaea, The Edict of Thessalonica gave Christianity more power and control over the Roman Empire. Then there was the oh so Christian Crusades and Inquisitions; talk about a holocaust. And then came colonization of the New World.Priest, missionaries and soldiers; killing savages devoid of souls or filling their heads with demons and hell or salvation and heaven.Illiterate people forced to convert to Christianity.It's a miracle!
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 I won't begin about the many dead and horrible things in the name of atheistic communism (Pol Pot) or of the theory of evolution: the killing of Aboriginies to collect their skulls, Ota Benga being put in a zoo with monkeys to show an example of evolution, the justification of racism based on evolution or just the fact of the increased crime (nearly a 1000%) since the Bible was taken out of schools, and the teaching of evolution and that man is an animal put into the schools.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 What you mentioned pales in comparrison.Benga!What about slavery,women being chattel,Gay's being murdered.Look at the OT it's full of cruel murderous crap.Look up Giordano Bruno.The Church set science back centuries.People weren't just burned at the stake.They were burned with a small fire very slowly to maximize the pain, even taken off the stake to writhe in agony before being put back on to slowly die in hellish agony.We could have a cure for every disease by now if not for religion
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...What you mentioned pales in comparrison.Benga!..."
Who were a big driving force for the abolitionist movement in the US? Christians!
And what about the early scientists like Kepler, Copernicus and Newton, were they all atheists? No! They were Christians.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 But you are still causing LGBT teenagers to commit suicide and by teaching hate against them.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 And the Bible also mentions astronomy, Job 9:9 mentions Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades. Proverb 17:22 teaches that good health is directly linked to being happy. Psychiatrists offices are overflowing today with the stressed out people. Happiness can only come from being saved and living for the Truth of God's Word.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Did you look up Giordano Bruno or Galileo?Some rules of kosher work, washing hands, no pork, no trichinosis, others don't,eating shellfish an abomination, keeping milk and meat in separate storage, why?I'm happy when I play with my godless Golden Retriever. You sound miserably unhappy. Of course sick people are not happy, hence the need for universal health care and good foods. Some blood is sick and is replaced with transfusions.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 The happiest people are those who have no sins standing between them and God. Can't you see the problems and misery in society today? All the crime, abortions, STD's (25% of the young people have some sort of, why is that?). Do you see nothing wrong with the moral breakdown, destruction of the family and dumbing down of children? More and more people take drugs. Yet psychology doesn't seem to find an answer to all these problems.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Atheists are happier. When the burden of religious b.s. was lifted from my shoulders. I became a much happier person. Abortions and STD's are prevalent because Religious nuts are telling horny teenagers to abstain from sex instead of educating them and giving them condoms and other forms of birth control. That's why babies end up in toilets and dumpsters.90% of post grads are atheists. It's the creationists who are dumbing down the population.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...It's the creationists who are dumbing down the population..."
Oh yeah, I forgot, it's Christians who control the government paid school system. And the Bible wasnt taken out of the schools It's still there and kids are having prayer and Bible reading in schools and when they have physics they learn about the missing fossils which is a problem to the evolution theory. And when kids are home they read their Bible and play outside and don't watch any sex and violence on TV.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Most of the people in government are Christians.It's our founding fathers that set forth documents demanding separation of church and state. People came to America from Europe fleeing religious persecution. The Bible can be used as a piece of literature to be studied in our school system. Kids have all the religion their parents want to cram down their throats in; church, Sunday school, prayer meetings, etc.That's not enough?A lot of parents don't let their kids watch TV...
larry43062 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 "...Kids have all the religion their parents want to cram down their throats in; church, Sunday school, prayer meetings, etc.That's not enough?A lot of parents don't let their kids watch TV......"
But many believing children leave their faith when they get taught that they are animals and evolution is true and they may end of thinking that the Bible must be untrue. That's what actually happens. And tax dollars are used for it.
eric5335 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 Again, to your example, why is the person forcing a man to do the act wrong? How can we determine that person is wrong?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Both atheist and Christian parents limit TV viewing with their children. What's your connection between physics and evolution?
larry43062 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 Again, to your example, (I would like you to answer this): why is the person forcing a man to do the act wrong? How can we determine that person is wrong?
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...because Religious nuts are telling horny teenagers to abstain from sex instead of educating them..."
So you think teenagers and should just go ahead and have sex when they want to and it should be encouraged? There should be no constraints, if it feels good do it or what? That's what society has done actually since the 60's. And you think with all the money pumped into schools for sex education it would just help to pump even MORE money into it? No sir, the problem is SIN!
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 I said they should be educated. They don't need encouragement. How did you get that from what I said?
larry43062 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larry43062 To your example, now: why is the person forcing a man to do the act of rape wrong? How can we determine that person is wrong?
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 Sanitary practices such as washing hands were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health. Can you believe that? Read Leviticus 15:13.
God commanded to wash the infected skin in running water. God told to use running water. Before discovery of bacteria the doctors would use a basin of water to wash their hands. Science was over 3000 years behind.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 These are just examples of many cases. About 60-100 million people died in communist countries, Pol Pot killed nearly a third of his the population in Cambodia, and look at North Korea with their state-sanctioned atheism.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Psychopaths often rise to power. Just because some are atheists, doesn't make all atheists Psychopaths. There are even good Christians. But Pol Pot did not do what he did in the name of atheism, the Church did it's evil in the name of God and Jesus Christ.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 If doctors had read the Bible they would have not held to the "sick blood" method of thinking (you know that's what they did with George Washington, they let him bleed the "sick" blood out for his health). The Bible says "life is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 You mentioned the Law of Thermodynamics, referring to the second law? Which only works in a closed system where no energy or matter enters or leaves. Earth receives heat and light from the sun, so Earth is not a closed system. What are the other Laws of Thermodynamics?
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 And look at our so advanced and evolved society today, we put poison in our bodies (drinking alcohol) and other unhealthy chemicals, with the advanced techonological advancements like the atomic bomb we could destroy ourselves, we stare into a TV like a hypnosis while family life is vanishing, we kill ourselves in crime and drug abuse. This all shows how sinful we are as humans and that's why we need God!
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 No we need to address these issues with better education and learning to share. Today's pro-gun, pro-war people are right wing "Christians" and Muslims who favor violence and greed.
larry43062 1 month ago
Comment removed
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 The TEXTUS RECEPTUS, original Greek text from which the Authorized King James Bible was translated, has been the target of textual critics since 1611. Yet copies of it substantially exist today without error.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 The Bible, though regarded as a Book, is a library of sixty-six volumes written by between thirty and forty different authors, in three languages on totally different topics and in different circumstances. One wrote history, another biography, one wrote on theology, another poetry, another prophecy, philosophy, jurisprudence, genealogy, ethnology, and narratives of wonderful journeys.
eric5335 1 month ago
@larry43062 In the Bible we have them all, in one Book. The strangest thing of all is that, although their subjects are so diverse and difficult, and although it was impossible for the man who wrote the first pages to have the slightest knowledge what others would write 1500 years later, yet it is that this collection of writings is not only unified by men in one Book, but so unified by God, the Author, that we can never think of it today as anything else but one Book.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 The Bible was canonized by men. The NT has a very long and complicated history, and "God" had nothing to do with it.Today the only people that "hear God's voice" are schizophrenic. Do you think there were no schizophrenics in ancient times?
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...Do you think there were no schizophrenics in ancient times?..."
So the many eye-witnesses suddenly all were schizophrenics or hallucinating? And they faced martyrdom. The ultimate test of credibility for these eye-witnesses was that many of them faced martyrdom for their eye-witness testimony.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Those who "heard" God's voice were schizophrenic not those who believed people like moses. People martyr themselves everyday(suicide bombers) it doesn't make them right or smart, just dead.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 And again I ask you this, please answer: Are there absolute morals? Or: Is it always universally and absolutely wrong to for example rape?
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 You could write a fricking book trying to answer that one. Hurting people is bad but pulling a bad tooth is good even if it hurts. Killing someone is wrong, but ending their suffering may be good. Our courts go on a case by case basis.There is no simple absolute. Mankind is sick and God hasn't solved our problems, but science has solved many. It has cured mostly physical diseases and I think soon it will cure mental ones like psychopathy. If we don't all die from human overpopulation.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...Killing someone is wrong, but ending their suffering may be good. Our courts go on a case by case basis.There is no simple absolute. Mankind is sick and God hasn't solved our problems,..."
Have you ever thought of that maybe we make the problems by not obeying God's laws? God is not going to "fix" things, if we don't care what He says. He has given us the Bible, even send His son to die for mankind, yet people don't want to hear about Him and His Holy Word.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 You want to obey God's laws? You can start by stoning some politicians a lot of them are adulterers but don't stop there! Half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. You better stone them to death as well. Did you eat the shrimp? Better stone yourself. Wow! God's way really is happy, if you're a psychopath.And Jesus did favor a lot of harsh shit too.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 "...Better stone yourself. Wow! God's way really is happy,.."
You are ignorant. These were Old Testament laws and were government laws. The death penalty was carried out if there were two or more witnesses in most cases for some of the crimes. So no Israelite would go around and play vigilante, crime would have to be brought to court and the penalties carried out after that. And with shrimp, please read the New Testament and especially Letter to the Hebrews to see the correlation.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Yet another example of the Bible contradicting itself. Adultery is still witnessed especially on the internet. Better gather up those stones and head for Iran.They still practice what's in the OT. Didn't you know? The OT is all God's word. So it must be true and it MUST be done.
larry43062 1 month ago
@larry43062 From the birth of Christ to 100 A.D. the original manuscripts were written in the Greek language.
The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.
by 170 A.D. -- 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians.
by 400 A.D. -- all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.
eric5335 1 month ago
@eric5335 Mark was the first book penned and Mark was not an eye witness to the events but a disciple of Peter. Second hand stories written 55 to 70 years after the fact.That would not hold up in court.
larry43062 1 month ago