on a last note: after asking our Lord and Savior for forgiveness, i felt this freedom and relief! vs. when i was sinning i felt trapped and in bondage with something i wasnt and didnt want to be. thankyou Jesus for freeing me.
i know the temptations will only get worse, but if you endure the devil WILL flee from you, not only in temptations will he flee but in many other ways that affect your life negatively. no sin is worst than the other, sin is sin. with that said we will have to endure until the day we die. we will always struggle in this fallen world, and will always be in a spiritual warfare. acknowledge everything around and seperate the good from the bad. God will slowly sculpt you into the person you are.
.......continuation: i immediately saw all the pornographic images for what they were, disgusting and a abomination. i was no longer attracted to the lustful images ,and soon after asked Jesus for forgiveness. dont feel like any sin is too bad to be forgiven! or dont feel like you cant be holy after living a sinful lifestyle! seek Jesus now! and ask for forgiveness and obey his commandments.
today i fell for sin:( ive been struggling the temptation to look at pornography for over 2 months now, and i fell for it today. one of the thoughts that came into my head was " not everyone who says lord,lord will enter my kingdom, i will tell them, depart from you who iniquity." i got an intense feeling that was me! i imagined my self in God's presence pleading with him of how i love and want to be with him, but i didnt endure enough to prefer him more than sin! after i committed my sin.....
The biggest SIN humans have committed was believing that we are separate from God, that we are separate from each other. That is a LIE. The real teachings of Christ were lost in the 4th century after Constantine hi-jacked Christianity. Your Bible is NOT reliable.
According to secular academic concensus, Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Galilean Jew of the Pharisaic school Who was baptized by John the baptist, fasted in the Judean desert for 40 day & nights, preached, teached, healed, & confronted the religious leadership of His day & place, was arrested & condemned on a charge of heresy & crucified on a charge of treason, & His tomb was found empty 3 days later.
According to the Bible, the first 300 yrs of Christianity, 2,012 yrs of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Galilean Jew of the Pharisaic school Who was baptized by John the baptist, fasted for 40 days & nights, preached, teached, healed, & confronted the religious leadership of His day & place, was arrested & condemned on a charge of heresy & crucified on a charge of treason, & His tomb was found empty 3 days later.
These cartoons are awesome. I know most Christians won't become atheists because they won't read their Bibles, but maybe you can deconvert a few with these simple cartoons. keep up the good work.
1.Well, I read my Bible every chance I get & I'm not an atheist yet.
2.The reason the cartoons are simple(IE straightforward)is because the message of the Bible is simple(IE straightforward) & even if the message weren't so it's still the best option on the table.
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Keep reading. There is a ridiculous part where they say this Jesus guy rose from the dead.
2. Bible is straightforward...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
3. Learn about it's origins.
4. The cartoons are laughably stupid precisely because they portray the events in a laughably stupid book. Seriously, read it straight through. Try not to tune out the parts where your imaginary friend character is a total dick.
1.The Resurrection; If He is Who He claimed to be transcending death is no problem.
2.The Bible's straightforwardness; Particularly in the original Hebrew & Greek texts. What I mean is they are written like a history book or synoptic article. Conversely myth, folklore, & legend are multiple contradictory stories of inegmatic origin.
1.According to secular academia's official concensus;
Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century CE Pharisaic Jew & Rabbi from Roman Judea baptized by John the immerser, spent 40 dys in the wilderness, & for 3-5 yrs went about preaching, teaching, & upsetting the religious status quo of His day & place, claimed to be God/the Son of God & the only way to God, was condemned as a heretic for it, & charged & executed for treason, & on the 3rd day His tomb was empty.
@EmetTalmudim6 "1.According to secular academia's official concensus;"
Let's just start here. Name one extrabiblical source. Study, the historicity of Jesus and get back to me. I'm sorry for calling you a liar. I can see now that you are just aparroting the lies that you have been told. Also, I don't how far this discussion can go, seeing that you did not dismiss the bible when reading it.
@EmetTalmudim6 not really, because some of the false statements that you have mede could easily be corrected, and yet you have failed to do that. First look up "historicity of jesus" and tell me what is wrong with what you claimed to be "secular acadamia's official consensus." Until you do this, we cannot continue. If you don't feel like it, that's OK, too, but I do like it when my fellow humans are able to overcome falsehoods they have been taught.
2.Then where are the scores of mainstream secular documentaries disproving the basic outline of the agreed upon points about Jesus of Nazareth; They don't exist. Secular academics may question if Jesus was Who He claimed to be but not the basic outline of His life as history.
@EmetTalmudim6 seriously, last chance...it's really easy...type "historicity of jesus" into a search engine, and get back to me. It seems you are unwilling to do this, so i understand why you keep typing misinformation. Also, you wrote, "I'm a Bible study course graduate." This was obviously not a Bible as literature class, so you need to unlearn all of that as well.
@trueleroix "Name one extrabiblical source"; The Talmud(begun by the same generation of Jewish religious leaders who condemned Jesus for heresy & called for His Roman execution for treason) Pliny the Elder(23CE-79CE) Flavius Josephus(37CE-100CE) Thallus(-52CE) Cornelius Tacitus(55CE-120CE) Pliny the Younger(61CE-112CE) Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus(69CE-130CE) Phlegon of Tralles(2nd cen CE) Celsus(2nd cen CE) Lucian of Samosata(2nd cen CE) Mara Bar-Serapion
• Deuteronomy 28:53/55/57: God is cursing you to eat the flesh of your own children.
• Luke 14:26: If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple - Jesus
• Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death- Jesus
1.What God has done & does is either in the interest of justice (in the case of punishishent) or to illustrate a principle or promise (as with the command to sacrifice Isaac etc.; demonstrating how God would work everything out even when Abraham couldn't see how at the time & as an illustration of God's own self sacrifice on our behalf).
2.God PERMITTING something is entirely different than God CONDONING something (polygamy & bon slavery etc.)
So...you're admitting that morality is subjective, but only in defense of your Bible.
"God PERMITTING something is entirely different than God CONDONING something (polygamy & bon slavery etc.)"
Not only did God condone slavery and genocide, he COMMANDED it, according to the Old Testament. Again, you're arguing that morality is subjective when it suits you, but arguing that it is absolute in any other context.
As with any truly JUST law code it is both at the same time; For example, To kill someone for any other reason than defence of self or others is murder, but to kill in self defence or to defend others isn't murder. The point is ACCORDING TO PAGANISM (NOT the Bible or me) their deities did what they did merely for kicks & all justice carried out inherantly by the universe is yin & yang with no grays. Whereas YHWH's Law is both absolute & subjective allowing for exceptions.
@EmetTalmudim6 Paganism is irrelevant to the discussion. We're discussing whether morality is objective or subjective. You originally claimed it was objective, now you're claiming it's subjective when confronted with biblical atrocities. You can't have it both ways. If it is objectively immoral to own slaves and commit genocide, and working with the assumption that your god is infinitely good and loving, explain why he would command these actions.
@TrevorBlack79 For sake of clarity I'll break it down. Logically, which sounds more ethical;
1.An impersonal distant god that might as well not exist (Brahmin/Darma)
2.fickle, spoiled gods unable to control their own labidoes, foresee their own future or save themselves or you, run the universe, or care about you seeing you only as a means for kicks
(paganism)
3.a deity who exists ONLY to be feared, worshipped, & served & cannot have a personal relationship with you nor you with him(Allah)
@EmetTalmudim6 Paganism is irrelevant to the discussion. We're discussing whether morality is objective or subjective. You originally claimed it was objective, now you're claiming it's subjective when confronted with biblical atrocities. You can't have it both ways. If it is objectively immoral to own slaves and commit genocide, and working with the assumption that your god is infinitely good and loving, explain why he would command these actions.
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
4.We drop, we're dirt, that's it, & the INEVITABLE consequences are; it doesn't matter 'cause there's no such thing as right & wrong, so nothing is right & wrong-INCLUDING genocide & slavery-(Atheism)
5.AN always was is & will be PERFECTLY, allknowing, allpowerful, everywhere at once, loving, merciful, gracious, forgiving, good, righteous, holy, & just God Who saw you & I before we were, knew we'd break His heart & loved us so much anyway He took the penalty we had coming?
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If morality were objective, no one would disagree on what is moral or what isn't. You haven't even made an effort to respond. I suspect it's because you can't.
@EmetTalmudim6 I believe you prefer cherry picking what is written in the bible.
• Leviticus 21:16-23: Handicapped people must not approach the altar.
• Deuteronomy 13:13-19: Here is what to do for non-believers, “you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God”
@EmetTalmudim6 I am way more morally ethical, more than What you bible states. Because I have a conscious mind, I believe stoning gays and non believers have NO morals. I am sure that you going to say you get you morals from the bible, but do you think stoning people based from the bible is morally ethical?
1.If God's truly perfectly just, righteous, holy, & good should He do any less than the agents who arrested McVay & the Unabomber, the police who arrest, & when necessary, shoot criminals, the Allies who fought WWII, & Lincoln who (indirectly) fought the Civil War & thereby ended racial slavery?
@EmetTalmudim6 I am way more morally ethical, more than What you bible states. Because I have a conscious mind, I believe stoning gays and non believers have NO morals. I am sure that you going to say you get you morals from the bible, but do you think stoning people based from the bible is morally ethical?
1.the agents who arrested McVay & the Unabomber were justified in their actions 'cause what the latter did was wrong, the arresters were protecting people & doing their job, & the arrested were guilty of treason?
2.police arrest or, necessarily, shoot for 3 out of 4 of the same reasons McVay & the Unabomber were arrested, & are therefore justified?
3. the Allies & 4.Lincoln did what had to be done (see 1 & 2 etc. etc. so on & so forth) & were therefore justified?
@llGemini Stoning (With the Agents in the Mcvay/Unabomber cases, the Role of Police,the WWII Allies, & Lincoln in the CW & that those they fought against were guilty of treason in mind);
1.Traitors in the Covenant were stoned (not nonbelivers)
2.That was the TEMPORARY role of Israel to illustrate an ETERNAL PRINCIPLE, Namely; Choices have consequences.
3.The Church's Role is;
A.to warn people
B.to Offer the better alternative to those choices; Mercy, undeserved favor, forgiveness, & love.
It wasn't until 1906 that Einstein found the correct interpretation for Brown's observation: the water molecules were in continuous random motion, and were colliding with the particle all the time, kicking it in random directions. After all the millennium of speculation about atoms, at last there was solid proof. Einstein's calculations dispelled all doubt, since he was able to make accurate predictions of things like the average distance traveled by the particle in a certain amount of time.
Wondering at first if the pollen he'd assumed to be dead was actually alive, he tried looking at particles of soot, and found that the soot particles also moved around. The same results would occur with any small grain or particle suspended in a liquid. The phenomenon came to be referred to as Brownian motion, and its existence was filed away as a quaint and thoroughly unimportant fact, really just a nuisance for the microscopist.
The smoking gun to prove atoms were more than mathematical abstractions came when some old, obscure observations were reexamined by an unknown Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein. A botanist named Brown, using a microscope that was state of the art in 1827, observed tiny grains of pollen in a drop of water on a microscope slide, and found that they jumped around randomly for no apparent reason.
@ Emet, in order to say your god is prefect, you first have to prove his existence. Honestly, no religion is not prefect because you need faith to believe. Yet, you know that god is not prefect, for there is too many gods to begin with. That is why your god exist, your came from past gods. You know that because you ignore beliefs that is not yours. If your god was prefect, there would be one religion. As long as your god remain a fairy tale, your god will forever be nonexistence.
@EmetTalmudim6 What you call evidence is faith, however, what you believe in something without evidence is called FAITH, please stop contradicting the definition of evidence with faith.
@llGemini you didn't ask for evidence, you asked about God's perfection. & you still haven't answered my question; Would you accept any evidence I gave you? More importantly that is the key issue. There's not a lot of point in providing evidence when you have no intention of having an open mind, now is there?
@EmetTalmudim6 Emet, again, you gave zero evidence. Maybe to you, its seems as evidence, but why do you really believe in something that have not shown any truth of existence. Again, you can not measure or investigate your god like Chupacabra
@EmetTalmudim6 Umm, Emet, you are a cool person, so you should know that you can test oxygen with balloons, you can rub your woolly sweater for static electricity, balloons goes up to and when it lose gas, it comes down like anything else that falls and you can feel the wind and see the balloon being push by the wind. I will get back with you about the atom. Either way, what you just prove is your fallacy (straw-man fallacy or weak argument defense)
The success of the kinetic theory of heat was taken as strong evidence that, in addition to the motion of any object as a whole, there is an invisible type of motion all around us: the random motion of atoms within each object. But many conservatives were not convinced that atoms really existed.
Nobody had ever seen one, after all. It wasn't until generations after the kinetic theory of heat was developed that it was demonstrated conclusively that atoms really existed and that they participated in continuous motion that never died out.
@llGemini but what I asked you was, Have YOU ever VISIBLY with your NAKED EYES SEEN;
Oxygen
Electricity
Gravity
An Atom
Wind?
Not the evidence they exist or their sideaffects. Ask any scientist & they will have to tell you, No. The bottom line is that doesn't mean those things don't exist.
@EmetTalmudim6 That is a Logical Fallacy, so just because I have not seen it, that means I can not confirm it, who are you FOOLING Emet?? Again, you can TEST what I told you but far as atoms goes, do you think they do not exist? Come on Emet, you do not see leprechauns and unicorns, does that means you have to see them as well as atoms? Think about the idea of atoms, they are TOOOOOO small to see them, so how the heck I suppose to see some so small? How about Fairies, have you seen a Fairy B4??
@llGemini true, you can test it (so too with God but that's up to you). The point is there is a great deal in this universe that to our naked human eye is invisible, but that doesn't make them any less real.
@EmetTalmudim6 Hmmmm, you can't see it with your "Naked Eye". You know, that is a very interesting concept. Yes, you can not see it, yet you keep saying their is a god, yet you know there is no way of seeing if he is a she or if he is Zeus, Horus and other identities. In fact, how do you know if there is a heaven if you have never seen it. See, what I am saying is that you have to be rational about the way you believe something that you know for sure if its their to begin with.
@EmetTalmudim6 I am a Humanist, do you know what that means? Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. In philosophy and social science, humanism is a perspective which affirms some notion of human nature.
@llGemini for sake of clarity let me explain why I asked if you'd consider yourself an ethically moral person; That being the case which sounds like the most ethical of these 3 to you (Note; These are only the anthropological facts, & are in no way personal);
1.Paganism;
deities who by their very nature ACCORDING TO THEIR DEVOTEES either
A.Didn't create the universe, see humanity only as a means for kicks, are at best a nuesence, & couldn't even predict or prevent their own fate?
@llGemini 3.A perfectly good just righteous holy loving merciful gracious & forgiving all powerul all knowing Being everywhere at once Who always was is & will be, Who in eternity past saw you & I before we were knew we'd break His heart & yet loved us so much that He took the bullet we deserved to rescue us all in-spite-of ourselves ?
@EmetTalmudim6 Your options are poorly represented, your question is obviously loaded (And unabashedly biased), and there are far more than three available perspectives regarding the existence of deities. Additionally, one's perspective regarding the existence of deities does not necessarily speak to their moral or ethical character - the two are completely unrelated concepts.
Please explain why you disagree with my claim regarding differing perspectives of morality.
@TrevorBlack79 "your question is obviously loaded" (I dare say it's loaded, but no less poinant) "Your options are poorly represented... And unabashedly biased" not at all;
1.Those are the options on the table according to all parties concerned(any other options are irrelavent).
2.Regarding paganisms they are the perspectives of its' devotees not my perspective(Thus, bias on my part isn't an option)
3.Those are the invetible consequences if atheism be true & if this is the case what of it?
@EmetTalmudim6 Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism contrasts with Religious Humanism, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.
1.For there to be truly reason, ethics, & justice there must be an absolute standard of reason, ethics, & justice; & for that to be the so there must be someone Who established that standard (Note; that rules out paganism's gods, who ACCORDING TO THE PAGANS, A.Didn't create the universe but were created by it B.didn't or couldn't care less about it or humanity except maybe as a means of kicks C.Were a nuesance).
2.So, as a humanist, you'd consider yourself morally ethical?
@EmetTalmudim6 "For there to be truly reason, ethics, & justice there must be an absolute standard of reason, ethics, & justice"
Incorrect. These concepts are created by humans. There is no such thing as "an absolute standard," or else there wouldn't be different standards dependent upon culture, belief system, and upbringing. The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are even capable of disagreeing on the subject.
@TrevorBlack79 then ANYTHING (including slavery & the Holocaust etc.) are justifiable, because the innevitable consequence of there being no such thing as an absolute standard is that NOTHING (no matter how heinous) is right or wrong & therefore justifiable.. Do you really believe that?
@EmetTalmudim6 "then ANYTHING (including slavery & the Holocaust etc.) are justifiable"
Was slavery not justified by slave owners? Was the holocaust not justified by the Nazi party? In the minds of these groups the actions and events were, indeed, justified.
I disagree, and am happy to live in a society that almost unanimously disagrees. We disagree largely because we have come to respect personal freedom and to abhor genocide. These shifting values are further proof of moral relativism.
@EmetTalmudim6 No, you respond, then I answer. I've requested you respond to this three times now, and I won't play games with you. Respond or be ignored.
@TrevorBlack79 I did; I just didn't give you any answer you were expecting & wanted; there's a difference. Any answer I give from here on out will depend on how you answer.
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
@TrevorBlack79 then ethics are merely a matter of opinion & racial slavery & genocide aren't really right or wrong & therefore justifiable (Note; I'm not talking about the perspective of slaveowners & Nazis but rather in actual FACT). That being the case who are either of us to be repulsed by the Holacaust or African American slavery? More to the point are you so devoted to atheism or agnosticism that you're willing to go that far?
@EmetTalmudim6 "Note; I'm not talking about the perspective of slaveowners & Nazis but rather in actual FACT"
If you had asked Nazis or slaveowners they would have regarded it as a FACT that they were within their rights to own slaves and commit genocide (As a side note, had I lived in Nazi Germany I would have been rounded up along with the rest of their victims).
1.I'm not asking slaveowners or Nazis, but you; Are racial slavery & genocide wrong because they are inherantly so or because it is a matter on concensus?
2.We would agree that all men are equal, with the right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, correct?
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
@EmetTalmudim6 "More to the point are you so devoted to atheism or agnosticism that you're willing to go that far?"
Atheism is the rejection of the claim "God or Gods exist," and as such cannot lead me to go any distance, let alone "that far." Ironically, you're ignoring that the perpetrators of the African slave trade and the Holocaust used Christianity and the Bible as their primary justifications.
You also didn't respond to the statement I've repeatedly asked you to respond to.
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
@EmetTalmudim6 Now, could you please attempt to refute this claim logically:
The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
@EmetTalmudim6 The adjectives used to describe a person who commits a particular action is irrelevant to the discussion of the morality of that action.
I say again:
The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
Honestly, this is getting old. Explain how morality can be absolute if there can be disagreement on moral issues.
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
@EmetTalmudim6 You've consistently dodged the issue I've asked you to respond to. You've sidestepped, claimed exception (Without explanation) for Biblical atrocity, and simply refused to explain your position. Clearly you aren't interested in an honest discussion.
For the record:
The speed of light in a vacuum is an objective constant. The force of gravity is an objective constant. E=mc2 is an objective constant. Moral opinions cannot be "proven," and are therefore not objective.
1.For ANYTHING (including the speed of light) to be objective there must be an absolute standard of objectivity & ergo an absolute establisher of that standard or it's just opinion.
2.I'm not side stepping at all.; because What you call sidestepping are merely straight forward comparative questions with very logical & obvious answers that you have yet to answer.
3.If you will not answer my comparative questions you won't be able to get any direct answer I give you.
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Wrong. Mathematical measurements are the standard in these examples. They can be measured, tested, and verified. This does not in any way necessitate "an absolute establisher."
2. Changing the subject is sidestepping. You've done it multiple times, and each time I've explained why it is irrelevant to the discussion.
3. Your "comparative" questions have no bearing on the discussion. Explain how an opinion can be an "absolute" or "objective" standard.
@TrevorBlack79 How can an opinion be an absolute standard; 2+2=4 Our atmosphere is blue If we jump off a building on earth Gravity dictates we'll fall & be hurt or die(depending on how high it is) The sun is at the center of our galaxy All are ABSOLUTE STANDARDS. So regardless of if we think; 2+2=7 Our planet's atmosphere white with red poccadots & green stripes These won't be the consequences of earth's gravity or Aristotle's notion of revolution our opinion has no bearing on reality.
And they can be proven as such. Failing to believe them does not change reality. If I believe I will not fall when I jump off a cliff, I die. If I believe 2+2=7, then I'm demonstrably wrong.
Since morality is EXCLUSIVELY a belief structure, it cannot have an "absolute standard." I invite you to prove otherwise. Hell, I've BEEN inviting you to prove otherwise for weeks, and you consistently refuse to even try.
@TrevorBlack79 "Failing to believe them does not change reality. If I believe I will not fall when I jump off a cliff, I die. If I believe 2+2=7, then I'm demonstratively wrong."
Bingo. But the point is, whether they can be proven or not, they're still true & absolute standards. For example, the fact that the sun, & not the earth, is at the galaxy's center wasn't changed either way from being true, only confirmed from our end. But if it hadn't been confirmed it still would've been true.
@EmetTalmudim6 Again, the sun is not at the center of our galaxy.
And again, I invite you to prove that morality - being EXCLUSIVELY a belief structure - can have objective standards.
You're still dodging. You're still refusing to respond to the actual issue. Explain how something that is exclusively an opinion can be an absolute or objective standard.
1.So far as revolution is concerned it is; If you're going to split hairs over something as trivial as exact measurements we're not going to get anywhere.
2.So far as morality is concerned; If you really believe that then why aren't you out trying to get Charles Manson, the Unabomber, the Son of Sam etc. etc. so on & so forth off the hook?
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Our sun is nowhere near the center of the galaxy. This isn't "splitting hairs," this is correcting an error comparable to claiming that Washington, D.C. is on Mars. I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the definition of the word "galaxy."
2. The people you listed pose a direct threat to society. This has nothing to do with whether morality can be objectively measured or if it's subjectively reasoned. If morality can be objectively measured, I invite you to demonstrate.
@EmetTalmudim6 And the sun is NOT at the center of our galaxy. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that and assume you meant to say the sun is at the center of our solar system.
1.Since you're more interested in specifics rather than the original point of our discussion; Granted, the sun is at the center of our solar system (not specifically our galaxy). Regardless, the truth is, it is the sun & not the earth at it's center, So-NO MATTER WHAT ONE BELIEVES TO THE CONTRARY; OR LACK OF EVIDENCE PRIOR TO OUR CONFIRMATION OF THAT FACT-It's a fact not due to evidence or its' confirmation but because it's a fact, & therefore absolute in & of itself.
2.I just did; But I didn't ask for your definition of WHY they're in prison, But why, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE MORALITY NOT TO BE ABSOLUTE, aren't out trying to get them off the hook?
@EmetTalmudim6 1. You're the one that keeps dodging the issue.
2. I'm not trying to get them "off the hook" because they present a danger to society. You asked me why I'm not trying to get them released, I answered the question. If you don't like the answer, that's your problem.
Last chance. The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
@EmetTalmudim6 I and the majority of society have decided that they represent a danger to society. Morality is derived from culture, upbringing, and personal experience. Since a majority agree that mass-murderers and terrorists represent a danger, society has made the determination that they must be segregated from the general population.
This is getting tiresome. You've consistently asserted that morality is absolute. Prove it or shut up already.
4. Quoting the bible does not prove the existence of a god.
We're done here. We've been at this for over a month and you still refuse to present evidence to support the claim that morality is absolute. Indeed, you've agreed that morality is subjective when confronted with atrocities in the bible, but only for those specific instances. You're deluding yourself, and I won't continue this with you.
@EmetTalmudim6 There is no god. There is no heaven. When you die, you're dead. We have one life, and one life ONLY. This is why I want to make the best of the life I have.
@EmetTalmudim6 "You never answered 1-3 of my last post."
lol irony. How many times now have you refused to answer the one point I keep presenting?
The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
@EmetTalmudim6 If your god were to deny my or anyone else's entrance to eternal paradise based solely on the failure to believe he exists as a result of the absent evidence for his existence, would that not make god immoral? Why would you worship an entity that's willing to punish people for failing to believe he exists when he's not made his existence known to us?
1.Would you (in this case God) marry someone (in this case you) who wanted nothing to do with you but instead would rather have an abusive alcoholic who isn't going to tell you the truth(in this case satan)?
2.Why do Christians go to Church?
3.You never answered my question; You'd call the police if your loved one[s] was/were the victim of a criminal like Manson, the Son of Sam, McVay or the Unabomber right?
@TrevorBlack79 "Clearly the culture of Nazi Germany had no issue with murder"; They did if you weren't a pure blood blue eyed blond haired Aryan. Bottom line ALL cultures have concluded; Do not steal, Do not murder,
Do not lie, Do not commit adultery.
You answered "Of course" If a loved one of yours was a victim of those criminals & their crimes you'd call the police. That being the case, Why?
@EmetTalmudim6 On theft: Different cultures disagree on what constitutes theft. Many American Indian tribes had no cultural concept of personal ownership - and the concept of "theft" didn't exist to them.
Many current Americans believe that the wealthy are stealing from the rest of the country through corporate and political cronyism and tax evasion. Many other Americans believe that the poor are stealing from the wealthy through welfare programs.
@EmetTalmudim6 On murder: Already covered this with the Nazis. Also, you could try reading your Bible, as there are countless murderous atrocities in the old testament directly commanded or acted out by your god.
There are tribes that still commit murder and cannibalism. There are countries that "execute" (Murder) women for being rape victims, or homosexuals for being homosexual.
Some nations believe execution is equivalent to murder - some do not. Objectively prove who is right.
@EmetTalmudim6 On lying: Everyone lies, be it gross misrepresentations of fact, "little white lies," or exaggerations. People's memories are extremely malleable, and frequently change to fit what a person would prefer to believe about a situation.
Tribes and nations lied to each other constantly. The United States was founded on lies, theft, and murder. If you disagree, read up on American history, the acquisition of the land from the American Indians, and the Trail of Tears.
@EmetTalmudim6 On adultery: Adultery is illegal in some places, not others. If it were universally agreed upon, it would be illegal everywhere.
Swingers exist - willing participants of "spouse swapping" with full consent of everyone involved. They believe their activities are perfectly acceptable and not intrinsically immoral. Some people believe that divorce and remarrying constitutes adultery. Some people believe that a widow remarrying constitutes adultery.
We may all differ as to WHAT CONSTITUTES Lying, Theft, Murder, Dissing your parents, & Adultery & as to WHAT & HOW SEVERE THE CONSEQUENCES SHOULD BE (& Whether they should be personal or civil) but ALL cultures have concluded;
@EmetTalmudim6 "We may all differ as to WHAT CONSTITUTES Lying, Theft, Murder, Dissing your parents, & Adultery"
This is the very definition of "subjective."
Last chance.
The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
If you refuse to respond to this again you have forfeited the discussion, and I will summarily ignore you from here on.
@EmetTalmudim6 No, they haven't. If they can't agree on what constitutes lying, theft, murder, adultery, rape, etc, then they can't agree that these things are wrong, nor can you claim that the conclusions are reached objectively. This is so painfully obvious I'm really wondering why you don't understand it.
And, since you refused to address the issue I've requested you reply to dozens of times now, I will be ignoring any future responses from you. You lose.
For example ALL agree murder is wrong but they disagree as to WHAT qualifies as murder & how to best punish it. But the bottom line is they agree murder is wrong. So too with lying, theft, dissing parents, * adultery.
A final thought; No matter what you've done, or what you do, or what you will do God loves you, & I love you as God loves you. I pray unceasinly for you.
@EmetTalmudim6 "You answered "Of course" If a loved one of yours was a victim of those criminals & their crimes you'd call the police. That being the case, Why?"
Because the criminal presents a danger to society. Because I would want to see justice (Also a subjective concept) served. Because I would be angry about the crime, as a product of my cultural conditioning and upbringing.
@TrevorBlack79 so a loved one of yours is a victim of a crime & you feel the criminal presents a danger to society, you desire justice, & you are angry-By the way, regardless of which culture, anyone'd feel the same way were they in your position. But then, if you're right, who are you or anyone else to say;
@EmetTalmudim6 Now, this is getting very old. You need to respond to this instead of constantly diverging into irrelevant tangents designed to distract from the fact that you can't prove morality is objective.
One last time:
The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
Either respond to this, or admit that you can't prove your assertion.
@EmetTalmudim6 ".I'm more than happy to produce evidence of my claim"
I seriously doubt that - you're unwilling to answer a simple question or explain your position regarding morality. If you have evidence substantiating the existence of a god, please present it. Keep in mind, quoting the bible isn't evidence. Also keep in mind, you have to explain why the evidence you present only applies to your god, and not Ra, Thor, Zeus, Brahman, and the thousands of other gods imagined up through history.
@EmetTalmudim6 1. If there were actual evidence of the existence of a god, I would believe it. The Bible is not evidence of the existence of a god any more than the Quran or the Vedas.
2a. The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
2b. What hypothetical questions? I've answered every question you've asked.
1.What I meant by me not claiming anything about other gods that their devotees haven't claimed was; According to THEM, not me, their gods are distant & imperssonal, if not fickle nuecences, & did not create the universe.
2&3.But THAT murder, theft, lying, adultery, & dissing your parents is considered wrong in ALL cultures is THE POINT; WHAT QUALIFIES as these is irrelavent to our discussion because in essence the above principles remain the same.
@TrevorBlack79 Just being polite & responding to your most recent post to me. God loves you & I love you as God loves you. I pray unceasingly for you..
@EmetTalmudim6 You had already responded to my most recent post to you. It was ignored, as I told you it would be. Your imaginary friend cannot love me, and if you love me in any capacity you will have the courtesy and respect to stop replying to me so that I don't have to keep deleting your messages from my inbox notification. You are doing nothing more than annoying me.
Ugh. What a load of horse shit. I cannot believe that anyone would even buy this. You have to repeatedly pummel it into childrens heads with propaganda like this to get them to believe it. Why? It defies even a child's simplest form of logic. The whole Christian mythology is so boring, poorly written, and filled with more holes than any other piece of crap fiction on this planet. I am consistently wondering how you don't believe in unicorns, fairies an dragons too.
@llGemini I do have an open mind, you may not think so, but what you do not understand is that faith is a placebo. You can live you live believing in something, next you believe with you heart. You can live your life searching for answers and understand intellectual question. You can believe that life will never ends and life is what you believe in. However, I do believe in life, reality, happiness and peace. I just do not need a deity telling me how to raise my child and myself.
on a last note: after asking our Lord and Savior for forgiveness, i felt this freedom and relief! vs. when i was sinning i felt trapped and in bondage with something i wasnt and didnt want to be. thankyou Jesus for freeing me.
solve809 6 days ago
i know the temptations will only get worse, but if you endure the devil WILL flee from you, not only in temptations will he flee but in many other ways that affect your life negatively. no sin is worst than the other, sin is sin. with that said we will have to endure until the day we die. we will always struggle in this fallen world, and will always be in a spiritual warfare. acknowledge everything around and seperate the good from the bad. God will slowly sculpt you into the person you are.
solve809 6 days ago
.......continuation: i immediately saw all the pornographic images for what they were, disgusting and a abomination. i was no longer attracted to the lustful images ,and soon after asked Jesus for forgiveness. dont feel like any sin is too bad to be forgiven! or dont feel like you cant be holy after living a sinful lifestyle! seek Jesus now! and ask for forgiveness and obey his commandments.
solve809 6 days ago
today i fell for sin:( ive been struggling the temptation to look at pornography for over 2 months now, and i fell for it today. one of the thoughts that came into my head was " not everyone who says lord,lord will enter my kingdom, i will tell them, depart from you who iniquity." i got an intense feeling that was me! i imagined my self in God's presence pleading with him of how i love and want to be with him, but i didnt endure enough to prefer him more than sin! after i committed my sin.....
solve809 6 days ago
@solve809 I pray for you unceasingly. May God bless, keep, guide, & be with you always?
EmetTalmudim6 6 days ago
@EmetTalmudim6 amen. Godbless
solve809 6 days ago
The biggest SIN humans have committed was believing that we are separate from God, that we are separate from each other. That is a LIE. The real teachings of Christ were lost in the 4th century after Constantine hi-jacked Christianity. Your Bible is NOT reliable.
greyswans 2 weeks ago
@greyswans
According to secular academic concensus, Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Galilean Jew of the Pharisaic school Who was baptized by John the baptist, fasted in the Judean desert for 40 day & nights, preached, teached, healed, & confronted the religious leadership of His day & place, was arrested & condemned on a charge of heresy & crucified on a charge of treason, & His tomb was found empty 3 days later.
EmetTalmudim6 1 week ago
@greyswans
According to the Bible, the first 300 yrs of Christianity, 2,012 yrs of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Galilean Jew of the Pharisaic school Who was baptized by John the baptist, fasted for 40 days & nights, preached, teached, healed, & confronted the religious leadership of His day & place, was arrested & condemned on a charge of heresy & crucified on a charge of treason, & His tomb was found empty 3 days later.
EmetTalmudim6 1 week ago
This is messed up... Skin faces! (I know it is supposed to not be specific charaters
Poodleinacan 2 months ago
These cartoons are awesome. I know most Christians won't become atheists because they won't read their Bibles, but maybe you can deconvert a few with these simple cartoons. keep up the good work.
trueleroix 3 months ago
@trueleroix
1.Well, I read my Bible every chance I get & I'm not an atheist yet.
2.The reason the cartoons are simple(IE straightforward)is because the message of the Bible is simple(IE straightforward) & even if the message weren't so it's still the best option on the table.
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Keep reading. There is a ridiculous part where they say this Jesus guy rose from the dead.
2. Bible is straightforward...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
3. Learn about it's origins.
4. The cartoons are laughably stupid precisely because they portray the events in a laughably stupid book. Seriously, read it straight through. Try not to tune out the parts where your imaginary friend character is a total dick.
trueleroix 2 months ago
@trueleroix
1.The Resurrection; If He is Who He claimed to be transcending death is no problem.
2.The Bible's straightforwardness; Particularly in the original Hebrew & Greek texts. What I mean is they are written like a history book or synoptic article. Conversely myth, folklore, & legend are multiple contradictory stories of inegmatic origin.
3.It's origins; Done
4.How so?
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6
1. How the heck would anybody know what a historical Jesus claimed?
2. Outright lies reflect on you poorly.
3. Your answer to #1 shows that you lie again here.
4. The fact that you must ask is further evidence that you lie when claiming to have read the bible.
Don't write me back until you can be honest.
trueleroix 2 months ago
@trueleroix
1.According to secular academia's official concensus;
Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century CE Pharisaic Jew & Rabbi from Roman Judea baptized by John the immerser, spent 40 dys in the wilderness, & for 3-5 yrs went about preaching, teaching, & upsetting the religious status quo of His day & place, claimed to be God/the Son of God & the only way to God, was condemned as a heretic for it, & charged & executed for treason, & on the 3rd day His tomb was empty.
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "1.According to secular academia's official concensus;"
Let's just start here. Name one extrabiblical source. Study, the historicity of Jesus and get back to me. I'm sorry for calling you a liar. I can see now that you are just aparroting the lies that you have been told. Also, I don't how far this discussion can go, seeing that you did not dismiss the bible when reading it.
trueleroix 2 months ago
@trueleroix More than happy to. But let me ask you something first;
Suppose I answer all your questions would you believe?
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 not really, because some of the false statements that you have mede could easily be corrected, and yet you have failed to do that. First look up "historicity of jesus" and tell me what is wrong with what you claimed to be "secular acadamia's official consensus." Until you do this, we cannot continue. If you don't feel like it, that's OK, too, but I do like it when my fellow humans are able to overcome falsehoods they have been taught.
trueleroix 2 months ago
@trueleroix
1.see answers 2-4
2.Then where are the scores of mainstream secular documentaries disproving the basic outline of the agreed upon points about Jesus of Nazareth; They don't exist. Secular academics may question if Jesus was Who He claimed to be but not the basic outline of His life as history.
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 seriously, last chance...it's really easy...type "historicity of jesus" into a search engine, and get back to me. It seems you are unwilling to do this, so i understand why you keep typing misinformation. Also, you wrote, "I'm a Bible study course graduate." This was obviously not a Bible as literature class, so you need to unlearn all of that as well.
trueleroix 2 months ago
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@trueleroix
2.Not at all. I'm being perfectly honest.
A.I'm a history buff; If something isn't a fact I'm not interested in it being presented as such or in presenting it so.
B.I'm a myth, folklore, & legend buff; So I've come to know the difference between them & history.
C.I'm a Bible study course graduate,
D.I give you my word of honor.
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@trueleroix
3.See 2A
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@trueleroix
4.Why; If what you claim is true you ought to be able to back it up, & asking you to isn't unreasonable is it?
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Is this FAMILY VALUES?
• Deuteronomy 28:53/55/57: God is cursing you to eat the flesh of your own children.
• Luke 14:26: If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple - Jesus
• Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death- Jesus
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini ah, but context is everything;
1.What God has done & does is either in the interest of justice (in the case of punishishent) or to illustrate a principle or promise (as with the command to sacrifice Isaac etc.; demonstrating how God would work everything out even when Abraham couldn't see how at the time & as an illustration of God's own self sacrifice on our behalf).
2.God PERMITTING something is entirely different than God CONDONING something (polygamy & bon slavery etc.)
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "ah, but context is everything;"
So...you're admitting that morality is subjective, but only in defense of your Bible.
"God PERMITTING something is entirely different than God CONDONING something (polygamy & bon slavery etc.)"
Not only did God condone slavery and genocide, he COMMANDED it, according to the Old Testament. Again, you're arguing that morality is subjective when it suits you, but arguing that it is absolute in any other context.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
As with any truly JUST law code it is both at the same time; For example, To kill someone for any other reason than defence of self or others is murder, but to kill in self defence or to defend others isn't murder. The point is ACCORDING TO PAGANISM (NOT the Bible or me) their deities did what they did merely for kicks & all justice carried out inherantly by the universe is yin & yang with no grays. Whereas YHWH's Law is both absolute & subjective allowing for exceptions.
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Paganism is irrelevant to the discussion. We're discussing whether morality is objective or subjective. You originally claimed it was objective, now you're claiming it's subjective when confronted with biblical atrocities. You can't have it both ways. If it is objectively immoral to own slaves and commit genocide, and working with the assumption that your god is infinitely good and loving, explain why he would command these actions.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 For sake of clarity I'll break it down. Logically, which sounds more ethical;
1.An impersonal distant god that might as well not exist (Brahmin/Darma)
2.fickle, spoiled gods unable to control their own labidoes, foresee their own future or save themselves or you, run the universe, or care about you seeing you only as a means for kicks
(paganism)
3.a deity who exists ONLY to be feared, worshipped, & served & cannot have a personal relationship with you nor you with him(Allah)
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Paganism is irrelevant to the discussion. We're discussing whether morality is objective or subjective. You originally claimed it was objective, now you're claiming it's subjective when confronted with biblical atrocities. You can't have it both ways. If it is objectively immoral to own slaves and commit genocide, and working with the assumption that your god is infinitely good and loving, explain why he would command these actions.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
Comment removed
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
4.We drop, we're dirt, that's it, & the INEVITABLE consequences are; it doesn't matter 'cause there's no such thing as right & wrong, so nothing is right & wrong-INCLUDING genocide & slavery-(Atheism)
5.AN always was is & will be PERFECTLY, allknowing, allpowerful, everywhere at once, loving, merciful, gracious, forgiving, good, righteous, holy, & just God Who saw you & I before we were, knew we'd break His heart & loved us so much anyway He took the penalty we had coming?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 You still haven't responded to this.
The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If morality were objective, no one would disagree on what is moral or what isn't. You haven't even made an effort to respond. I suspect it's because you can't.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 I believe you prefer cherry picking what is written in the bible.
• Leviticus 21:16-23: Handicapped people must not approach the altar.
• Deuteronomy 13:13-19: Here is what to do for non-believers, “you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God”
llGemini 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 I am way more morally ethical, more than What you bible states. Because I have a conscious mind, I believe stoning gays and non believers have NO morals. I am sure that you going to say you get you morals from the bible, but do you think stoning people based from the bible is morally ethical?
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini you're leaving out some key issues. To get what I'm saying, let me ask you;
1.Why were Timothy McVay & the Unibomber arrested & what crime(among others)were they guilty of?
2.Why do police officers arrest or, when necessary, gun down criminals? Why did the Allies fight WWII, or Lincoln the Civil War?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@llGemini you never answered my 4 fold question, Why(at the very least in principle);
1.wasTim McVay & the Unabomber were arrested (& what crime among others) were they guilty of?
2.do police officers arrest or, when necessary, gun down criminals?
3.did the Allies fight WWII?
4.did Lincoln fight the Civil War?
Answer those & I'll be able to adequately answer yours.
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@llGemini
1.If God's truly perfectly just, righteous, holy, & good should He do any less than the agents who arrested McVay & the Unabomber, the police who arrest, & when necessary, shoot criminals, the Allies who fought WWII, & Lincoln who (indirectly) fought the Civil War & thereby ended racial slavery?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 I am way more morally ethical, more than What you bible states. Because I have a conscious mind, I believe stoning gays and non believers have NO morals. I am sure that you going to say you get you morals from the bible, but do you think stoning people based from the bible is morally ethical?
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini So;
1.the agents who arrested McVay & the Unabomber were justified in their actions 'cause what the latter did was wrong, the arresters were protecting people & doing their job, & the arrested were guilty of treason?
2.police arrest or, necessarily, shoot for 3 out of 4 of the same reasons McVay & the Unabomber were arrested, & are therefore justified?
3. the Allies & 4.Lincoln did what had to be done (see 1 & 2 etc. etc. so on & so forth) & were therefore justified?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@llGemini Stoning (With the Agents in the Mcvay/Unabomber cases, the Role of Police,the WWII Allies, & Lincoln in the CW & that those they fought against were guilty of treason in mind);
1.Traitors in the Covenant were stoned (not nonbelivers)
2.That was the TEMPORARY role of Israel to illustrate an ETERNAL PRINCIPLE, Namely; Choices have consequences.
3.The Church's Role is;
A.to warn people
B.to Offer the better alternative to those choices; Mercy, undeserved favor, forgiveness, & love.
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@llGemini see my most recent post to TrevorBlack79
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 It's also interesting that you continue posting replies to someone who hasn't posted in weeks. Very odd.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
"If you don't sin - Jesus died for nothing"
yurity 5 months ago
It wasn't until 1906 that Einstein found the correct interpretation for Brown's observation: the water molecules were in continuous random motion, and were colliding with the particle all the time, kicking it in random directions. After all the millennium of speculation about atoms, at last there was solid proof. Einstein's calculations dispelled all doubt, since he was able to make accurate predictions of things like the average distance traveled by the particle in a certain amount of time.
llGemini 5 months ago
Wondering at first if the pollen he'd assumed to be dead was actually alive, he tried looking at particles of soot, and found that the soot particles also moved around. The same results would occur with any small grain or particle suspended in a liquid. The phenomenon came to be referred to as Brownian motion, and its existence was filed away as a quaint and thoroughly unimportant fact, really just a nuisance for the microscopist.
llGemini 5 months ago
The smoking gun to prove atoms were more than mathematical abstractions came when some old, obscure observations were reexamined by an unknown Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein. A botanist named Brown, using a microscope that was state of the art in 1827, observed tiny grains of pollen in a drop of water on a microscope slide, and found that they jumped around randomly for no apparent reason.
llGemini 5 months ago
Ugh... Yes the content is good but still lacking a lot of information.
The phrase casting pearls before swine comes to mind.....hint, hint
saythewords 5 months ago
@ Emet, in order to say your god is prefect, you first have to prove his existence. Honestly, no religion is not prefect because you need faith to believe. Yet, you know that god is not prefect, for there is too many gods to begin with. That is why your god exist, your came from past gods. You know that because you ignore beliefs that is not yours. If your god was prefect, there would be one religion. As long as your god remain a fairy tale, your god will forever be nonexistence.
llGemini 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 What you call evidence is faith, however, what you believe in something without evidence is called FAITH, please stop contradicting the definition of evidence with faith.
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini you didn't ask for evidence, you asked about God's perfection. & you still haven't answered my question; Would you accept any evidence I gave you? More importantly that is the key issue. There's not a lot of point in providing evidence when you have no intention of having an open mind, now is there?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 Emet, again, you gave zero evidence. Maybe to you, its seems as evidence, but why do you really believe in something that have not shown any truth of existence. Again, you can not measure or investigate your god like Chupacabra
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini have you ever VISIBLY with your NAKED EYES seen;
Oxygen
Electricity
Gravity
An Atom
wind?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Umm, Emet, you are a cool person, so you should know that you can test oxygen with balloons, you can rub your woolly sweater for static electricity, balloons goes up to and when it lose gas, it comes down like anything else that falls and you can feel the wind and see the balloon being push by the wind. I will get back with you about the atom. Either way, what you just prove is your fallacy (straw-man fallacy or weak argument defense)
llGemini 5 months ago 2
Direct proof that atoms existed
The success of the kinetic theory of heat was taken as strong evidence that, in addition to the motion of any object as a whole, there is an invisible type of motion all around us: the random motion of atoms within each object. But many conservatives were not convinced that atoms really existed.
llGemini 5 months ago
Nobody had ever seen one, after all. It wasn't until generations after the kinetic theory of heat was developed that it was demonstrated conclusively that atoms really existed and that they participated in continuous motion that never died out.
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini but what I asked you was, Have YOU ever VISIBLY with your NAKED EYES SEEN;
Oxygen
Electricity
Gravity
An Atom
Wind?
Not the evidence they exist or their sideaffects. Ask any scientist & they will have to tell you, No. The bottom line is that doesn't mean those things don't exist.
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 That is a Logical Fallacy, so just because I have not seen it, that means I can not confirm it, who are you FOOLING Emet?? Again, you can TEST what I told you but far as atoms goes, do you think they do not exist? Come on Emet, you do not see leprechauns and unicorns, does that means you have to see them as well as atoms? Think about the idea of atoms, they are TOOOOOO small to see them, so how the heck I suppose to see some so small? How about Fairies, have you seen a Fairy B4??
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini true, you can test it (so too with God but that's up to you). The point is there is a great deal in this universe that to our naked human eye is invisible, but that doesn't make them any less real.
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Hmmmm, you can't see it with your "Naked Eye". You know, that is a very interesting concept. Yes, you can not see it, yet you keep saying their is a god, yet you know there is no way of seeing if he is a she or if he is Zeus, Horus and other identities. In fact, how do you know if there is a heaven if you have never seen it. See, what I am saying is that you have to be rational about the way you believe something that you know for sure if its their to begin with.
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini it all depends; Just curious, would you consider yourself an ethically moral person?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 I am a Humanist, do you know what that means? Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. In philosophy and social science, humanism is a perspective which affirms some notion of human nature.
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini for sake of clarity let me explain why I asked if you'd consider yourself an ethically moral person; That being the case which sounds like the most ethical of these 3 to you (Note; These are only the anthropological facts, & are in no way personal);
1.Paganism;
deities who by their very nature ACCORDING TO THEIR DEVOTEES either
A.Didn't create the universe, see humanity only as a means for kicks, are at best a nuesence, & couldn't even predict or prevent their own fate?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@llGemini 1.Paganism (Hinduism, Buddahism, Janism, Sikhism)
a god who by its' very nature ACCORDING TO THEIR DEVOTEES
B.is distant & impersonal, & so didn't create the universe, is incapable of & so could care less about us.
Islam's Allah;
C.A god who exists only to be feared, served, & worshipped, & so with whom one CANNOT have a relationship
2.Atheism; when we we're dirt, & therefore all that matters is self at the expense of others, so NOTHING is truly good or evil & NOTHING matters.
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Your options are poorly represented, your question is obviously loaded (And unabashedly biased), and there are far more than three available perspectives regarding the existence of deities. Additionally, one's perspective regarding the existence of deities does not necessarily speak to their moral or ethical character - the two are completely unrelated concepts.
Please explain why you disagree with my claim regarding differing perspectives of morality.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 "your question is obviously loaded" (I dare say it's loaded, but no less poinant) "Your options are poorly represented... And unabashedly biased" not at all;
1.Those are the options on the table according to all parties concerned(any other options are irrelavent).
2.Regarding paganisms they are the perspectives of its' devotees not my perspective(Thus, bias on my part isn't an option)
3.Those are the invetible consequences if atheism be true & if this is the case what of it?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@llGemini ?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism contrasts with Religious Humanism, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.
llGemini 5 months ago
@llGemini
1.For there to be truly reason, ethics, & justice there must be an absolute standard of reason, ethics, & justice; & for that to be the so there must be someone Who established that standard (Note; that rules out paganism's gods, who ACCORDING TO THE PAGANS, A.Didn't create the universe but were created by it B.didn't or couldn't care less about it or humanity except maybe as a means of kicks C.Were a nuesance).
2.So, as a humanist, you'd consider yourself morally ethical?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "For there to be truly reason, ethics, & justice there must be an absolute standard of reason, ethics, & justice"
Incorrect. These concepts are created by humans. There is no such thing as "an absolute standard," or else there wouldn't be different standards dependent upon culture, belief system, and upbringing. The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are even capable of disagreeing on the subject.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago 32
@TrevorBlack79 then ANYTHING (including slavery & the Holocaust etc.) are justifiable, because the innevitable consequence of there being no such thing as an absolute standard is that NOTHING (no matter how heinous) is right or wrong & therefore justifiable.. Do you really believe that?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "then ANYTHING (including slavery & the Holocaust etc.) are justifiable"
Was slavery not justified by slave owners? Was the holocaust not justified by the Nazi party? In the minds of these groups the actions and events were, indeed, justified.
I disagree, and am happy to live in a society that almost unanimously disagrees. We disagree largely because we have come to respect personal freedom and to abhor genocide. These shifting values are further proof of moral relativism.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrevorBlack79 That's not what I'm asking you & you know it.
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 for sake of clarity; Were African slavery & the Holocaust wrong
1.because of societal concensus?
or
2.because racial slavery & genocide are inherantly wrong?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Make an effort to logically refute my previous claim and I'll respond to your question.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 precisely what I'm doing; The ball's in your corner. Think carefully before you answer?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 No, you respond, then I answer. I've requested you respond to this three times now, and I won't play games with you. Respond or be ignored.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 I did; I just didn't give you any answer you were expecting & wanted; there's a difference. Any answer I give from here on out will depend on how you answer.
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 then ethics are merely a matter of opinion & racial slavery & genocide aren't really right or wrong & therefore justifiable (Note; I'm not talking about the perspective of slaveowners & Nazis but rather in actual FACT). That being the case who are either of us to be repulsed by the Holacaust or African American slavery? More to the point are you so devoted to atheism or agnosticism that you're willing to go that far?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "Note; I'm not talking about the perspective of slaveowners & Nazis but rather in actual FACT"
If you had asked Nazis or slaveowners they would have regarded it as a FACT that they were within their rights to own slaves and commit genocide (As a side note, had I lived in Nazi Germany I would have been rounded up along with the rest of their victims).
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.I'm not asking slaveowners or Nazis, but you; Are racial slavery & genocide wrong because they are inherantly so or because it is a matter on concensus?
2.We would agree that all men are equal, with the right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, correct?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "More to the point are you so devoted to atheism or agnosticism that you're willing to go that far?"
Atheism is the rejection of the claim "God or Gods exist," and as such cannot lead me to go any distance, let alone "that far." Ironically, you're ignoring that the perpetrators of the African slave trade and the Holocaust used Christianity and the Bible as their primary justifications.
You also didn't respond to the statement I've repeatedly asked you to respond to.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 Now, could you please attempt to refute this claim logically:
The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 if I;
Steal from you
lie to you
murder you
cheat with your spouce on you
what's that make me?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 The adjectives used to describe a person who commits a particular action is irrelevant to the discussion of the morality of that action.
I say again:
The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
Honestly, this is getting old. Explain how morality can be absolute if there can be disagreement on moral issues.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 not at all, but I'll get to that in a moment. Let me put it to you this way;
If I stole from you, lied to you, & or murdered a loved one of yours you'd call the police at the very least, correct?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 The very notion of absolutes in the context of morality is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject.
If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 ?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
Comment removed
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 You've consistently dodged the issue I've asked you to respond to. You've sidestepped, claimed exception (Without explanation) for Biblical atrocity, and simply refused to explain your position. Clearly you aren't interested in an honest discussion.
For the record:
The speed of light in a vacuum is an objective constant. The force of gravity is an objective constant. E=mc2 is an objective constant. Moral opinions cannot be "proven," and are therefore not objective.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.For ANYTHING (including the speed of light) to be objective there must be an absolute standard of objectivity & ergo an absolute establisher of that standard or it's just opinion.
2.I'm not side stepping at all.; because What you call sidestepping are merely straight forward comparative questions with very logical & obvious answers that you have yet to answer.
3.If you will not answer my comparative questions you won't be able to get any direct answer I give you.
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Wrong. Mathematical measurements are the standard in these examples. They can be measured, tested, and verified. This does not in any way necessitate "an absolute establisher."
2. Changing the subject is sidestepping. You've done it multiple times, and each time I've explained why it is irrelevant to the discussion.
3. Your "comparative" questions have no bearing on the discussion. Explain how an opinion can be an "absolute" or "objective" standard.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
"Mathematical meassurements are the standard" says who?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "says who?"
Anyone who has the knowledge and tools to take the measurements for verification.
Answer the fucking question already. How can an opinion be an "absolute" or "objective" standard?
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
Comment removed
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrevorBlack79 I am;
& where did their brains
get the capability to process that knowledge
the capability to learn & know how to use those tools
& the capability to learn & know how to take those measurements?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "All are ABSOLUTE STANDARDS."
And they can be proven as such. Failing to believe them does not change reality. If I believe I will not fall when I jump off a cliff, I die. If I believe 2+2=7, then I'm demonstrably wrong.
Since morality is EXCLUSIVELY a belief structure, it cannot have an "absolute standard." I invite you to prove otherwise. Hell, I've BEEN inviting you to prove otherwise for weeks, and you consistently refuse to even try.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 "Failing to believe them does not change reality. If I believe I will not fall when I jump off a cliff, I die. If I believe 2+2=7, then I'm demonstratively wrong."
Bingo. But the point is, whether they can be proven or not, they're still true & absolute standards. For example, the fact that the sun, & not the earth, is at the galaxy's center wasn't changed either way from being true, only confirmed from our end. But if it hadn't been confirmed it still would've been true.
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Again, the sun is not at the center of our galaxy.
And again, I invite you to prove that morality - being EXCLUSIVELY a belief structure - can have objective standards.
You're still dodging. You're still refusing to respond to the actual issue. Explain how something that is exclusively an opinion can be an absolute or objective standard.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.So far as revolution is concerned it is; If you're going to split hairs over something as trivial as exact measurements we're not going to get anywhere.
2.So far as morality is concerned; If you really believe that then why aren't you out trying to get Charles Manson, the Unabomber, the Son of Sam etc. etc. so on & so forth off the hook?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Our sun is nowhere near the center of the galaxy. This isn't "splitting hairs," this is correcting an error comparable to claiming that Washington, D.C. is on Mars. I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the definition of the word "galaxy."
2. The people you listed pose a direct threat to society. This has nothing to do with whether morality can be objectively measured or if it's subjectively reasoned. If morality can be objectively measured, I invite you to demonstrate.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 And the sun is NOT at the center of our galaxy. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that and assume you meant to say the sun is at the center of our solar system.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
Comment removed
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.Since you're more interested in specifics rather than the original point of our discussion; Granted, the sun is at the center of our solar system (not specifically our galaxy). Regardless, the truth is, it is the sun & not the earth at it's center, So-NO MATTER WHAT ONE BELIEVES TO THE CONTRARY; OR LACK OF EVIDENCE PRIOR TO OUR CONFIRMATION OF THAT FACT-It's a fact not due to evidence or its' confirmation but because it's a fact, & therefore absolute in & of itself.
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
2.I just did; But I didn't ask for your definition of WHY they're in prison, But why, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE MORALITY NOT TO BE ABSOLUTE, aren't out trying to get them off the hook?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 1. You're the one that keeps dodging the issue.
2. I'm not trying to get them "off the hook" because they present a danger to society. You asked me why I'm not trying to get them released, I answered the question. If you don't like the answer, that's your problem.
Last chance. The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 if there is truly no such thing as absolute morality then who are you-or anyone-to say they present a danger to society?
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 I and the majority of society have decided that they represent a danger to society. Morality is derived from culture, upbringing, and personal experience. Since a majority agree that mass-murderers and terrorists represent a danger, society has made the determination that they must be segregated from the general population.
This is getting tiresome. You've consistently asserted that morality is absolute. Prove it or shut up already.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 A final thought, Remember when you & I agreed that;
our atmosphere is blue, the sun is at the center of our solar system & not the earth, 2+2=4,
& earth's gravity dictates if we jump off a very tall building we'll die are all ABSOLUTE STANDARDS?
You said "And they can be proven as such." (IE confirmed)
So too with God;
Deuteronomy 11;26 & 30;19
Psalm 34;8
Jeremiah 21;8
Malachi 3;10
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 I'm getting there. Bare with me PLEASE? I'm honestly not dodging just leading up to a LOGICAL point;
1.And Who gave humanity a brain & senses to conclude they present a danger to society?
2.If morality is merely cultural & not absolute why have & do ALL cultures agree on;
Do not steal
Do not murder
Do not lie
Do not commit adultery?
3.I doubt seriously that'd be your conclusion if a loved one of yours was among those criminal's victims.
EmetTalmudim6 4 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 1. Evolution.
2. Not all cultures agree on those points.
3. What?
4. Quoting the bible does not prove the existence of a god.
We're done here. We've been at this for over a month and you still refuse to present evidence to support the claim that morality is absolute. Indeed, you've agreed that morality is subjective when confronted with atrocities in the bible, but only for those specific instances. You're deluding yourself, and I won't continue this with you.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.Nobody+Nothing=Everythning is a mathematical impossability (IE 0+0=0).
2.Well I haven't yet come across a culture that hasn't; And I'm fascinated by all cultures.
3.If a loved one of yours was a victim of those criminals & their crimes you'd call the police right?
4.I'm more than happy to produce evidence of my claim; But if you're unwilling to accept any evidence there's not a lot of point in producing it.
5.Because when I get to heaven God & I want to see both of you there.
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 There is no god. There is no heaven. When you die, you're dead. We have one life, and one life ONLY. This is why I want to make the best of the life I have.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1."There is no God There is no heaven. When you die, you're dead.";
Have you heard of Bill & Gloria Gaither?
2.You never answered 1-3 of my last post.
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "You never answered 1-3 of my last post."
lol irony. How many times now have you refused to answer the one point I keep presenting?
The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 If your god were to deny my or anyone else's entrance to eternal paradise based solely on the failure to believe he exists as a result of the absent evidence for his existence, would that not make god immoral? Why would you worship an entity that's willing to punish people for failing to believe he exists when he's not made his existence known to us?
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.Would you (in this case God) marry someone (in this case you) who wanted nothing to do with you but instead would rather have an abusive alcoholic who isn't going to tell you the truth(in this case satan)?
2.Why do Christians go to Church?
3.You never answered my question; You'd call the police if your loved one[s] was/were the victim of a criminal like Manson, the Son of Sam, McVay or the Unabomber right?
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 "Well I haven't yet come across a culture that hasn't; And I'm fascinated by all cultures."
This is a lie. You mentioned the holocaust yourself. Clearly, the culture of Nazi germany had no issue with murder.
"If a loved one of yours was a victim of those criminals & their crimes you'd call the police right?"
Of course. This has nothing to do with proving whether an action is moral or immoral.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 "Clearly the culture of Nazi Germany had no issue with murder"; They did if you weren't a pure blood blue eyed blond haired Aryan. Bottom line ALL cultures have concluded; Do not steal, Do not murder,
Do not lie, Do not commit adultery.
You answered "Of course" If a loved one of yours was a victim of those criminals & their crimes you'd call the police. That being the case, Why?
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 On theft: Different cultures disagree on what constitutes theft. Many American Indian tribes had no cultural concept of personal ownership - and the concept of "theft" didn't exist to them.
Many current Americans believe that the wealthy are stealing from the rest of the country through corporate and political cronyism and tax evasion. Many other Americans believe that the poor are stealing from the wealthy through welfare programs.
Objectively prove who is right.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 On murder: Already covered this with the Nazis. Also, you could try reading your Bible, as there are countless murderous atrocities in the old testament directly commanded or acted out by your god.
There are tribes that still commit murder and cannibalism. There are countries that "execute" (Murder) women for being rape victims, or homosexuals for being homosexual.
Some nations believe execution is equivalent to murder - some do not. Objectively prove who is right.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 On lying: Everyone lies, be it gross misrepresentations of fact, "little white lies," or exaggerations. People's memories are extremely malleable, and frequently change to fit what a person would prefer to believe about a situation.
Tribes and nations lied to each other constantly. The United States was founded on lies, theft, and murder. If you disagree, read up on American history, the acquisition of the land from the American Indians, and the Trail of Tears.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 On adultery: Adultery is illegal in some places, not others. If it were universally agreed upon, it would be illegal everywhere.
Swingers exist - willing participants of "spouse swapping" with full consent of everyone involved. They believe their activities are perfectly acceptable and not intrinsically immoral. Some people believe that divorce and remarrying constitutes adultery. Some people believe that a widow remarrying constitutes adultery.
Objectively prove who is right.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 you just proved my point;
We may all differ as to WHAT CONSTITUTES Lying, Theft, Murder, Dissing your parents, & Adultery & as to WHAT & HOW SEVERE THE CONSEQUENCES SHOULD BE (& Whether they should be personal or civil) but ALL cultures have concluded;
Lying
Theft
Murder
Dissing parents
& adultery
are wrong.
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "We may all differ as to WHAT CONSTITUTES Lying, Theft, Murder, Dissing your parents, & Adultery"
This is the very definition of "subjective."
Last chance.
The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
If you refuse to respond to this again you have forfeited the discussion, and I will summarily ignore you from here on.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 read the whole post if you're going to call it in to question;
"...but all cultures have concluded; Lying, Theft, Murder, Dissing parents, & adultery are wrong." That's all that matters.
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 No, they haven't. If they can't agree on what constitutes lying, theft, murder, adultery, rape, etc, then they can't agree that these things are wrong, nor can you claim that the conclusions are reached objectively. This is so painfully obvious I'm really wondering why you don't understand it.
And, since you refused to address the issue I've requested you reply to dozens of times now, I will be ignoring any future responses from you. You lose.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Not at all;
For example ALL agree murder is wrong but they disagree as to WHAT qualifies as murder & how to best punish it. But the bottom line is they agree murder is wrong. So too with lying, theft, dissing parents, * adultery.
A final thought; No matter what you've done, or what you do, or what you will do God loves you, & I love you as God loves you. I pray unceasinly for you.
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "You answered "Of course" If a loved one of yours was a victim of those criminals & their crimes you'd call the police. That being the case, Why?"
Because the criminal presents a danger to society. Because I would want to see justice (Also a subjective concept) served. Because I would be angry about the crime, as a product of my cultural conditioning and upbringing.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 so a loved one of yours is a victim of a crime & you feel the criminal presents a danger to society, you desire justice, & you are angry-By the way, regardless of which culture, anyone'd feel the same way were they in your position. But then, if you're right, who are you or anyone else to say;
the criminal presented a danger to society
what justice is
to have a right to be angry?
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 "who are you or anyone else to say;
the criminal presented a danger to society"
Already explained this.
"what justice is"
And this.
"to have a right to be angry?"
Everyone has a right to feel however they feel. You cannot dictate what emotions a person has.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 Now, this is getting very old. You need to respond to this instead of constantly diverging into irrelevant tangents designed to distract from the fact that you can't prove morality is objective.
One last time:
The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
Either respond to this, or admit that you can't prove your assertion.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 ".I'm more than happy to produce evidence of my claim"
I seriously doubt that - you're unwilling to answer a simple question or explain your position regarding morality. If you have evidence substantiating the existence of a god, please present it. Keep in mind, quoting the bible isn't evidence. Also keep in mind, you have to explain why the evidence you present only applies to your god, and not Ra, Thor, Zeus, Brahman, and the thousands of other gods imagined up through history.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.But the point is what point is there in me providing the evidence if you refuse to believe it?
2.What question haven't I answered? On the otherhand the answers to my Hypothetical questions are obvious; Yet you refuse to answer them.
3.I claim nothing about those other gods that their devotees don't claim about them.
EmetTalmudim6 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmetTalmudim6 1. If there were actual evidence of the existence of a god, I would believe it. The Bible is not evidence of the existence of a god any more than the Quran or the Vedas.
2a. The very notion of absolutes in this context is self-refuting with even cursory examination of the fact that you and I are capable of disagreeing on the subject. If you disagree, please explain why.
2b. What hypothetical questions? I've answered every question you've asked.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 3. So you claim that Thor, Ra, Brahman, Zeus, and every other god that humanity has dreamed up actually exists?
"They did if you weren't a pure blood blue eyed blond haired Aryan."
Conditional. SUBJECTIVE.
"Bottom line ALL cultures have concluded; Do not steal, Do not murder, Do not lie, Do not commit adultery."
You don't pay much attention to differing cultures if you believe this.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
1.What I meant by me not claiming anything about other gods that their devotees haven't claimed was; According to THEM, not me, their gods are distant & imperssonal, if not fickle nuecences, & did not create the universe.
2&3.But THAT murder, theft, lying, adultery, & dissing your parents is considered wrong in ALL cultures is THE POINT; WHAT QUALIFIES as these is irrelavent to our discussion because in essence the above principles remain the same.
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 Why are you still replying to me? Please stop.
TrevorBlack79 2 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Just being polite & responding to your most recent post to me. God loves you & I love you as God loves you. I pray unceasingly for you..
EmetTalmudim6 2 months ago
@EmetTalmudim6 You had already responded to my most recent post to you. It was ignored, as I told you it would be. Your imaginary friend cannot love me, and if you love me in any capacity you will have the courtesy and respect to stop replying to me so that I don't have to keep deleting your messages from my inbox notification. You are doing nothing more than annoying me.
TrevorBlack79 2 months ago
Ugh. What a load of horse shit. I cannot believe that anyone would even buy this. You have to repeatedly pummel it into childrens heads with propaganda like this to get them to believe it. Why? It defies even a child's simplest form of logic. The whole Christian mythology is so boring, poorly written, and filled with more holes than any other piece of crap fiction on this planet. I am consistently wondering how you don't believe in unicorns, fairies an dragons too.
stephenheger 6 months ago 27
@stephenheger "Ugh. What a load of $#O7..."
Prove it?
EmetTalmudim6 5 months ago
You know only in a cartoon you can have faith to walk on air...because faith is a separation of reality.
llGemini 6 months ago
@llGemini PLEASE keep an open mind & more importantly an open heart; See ALL my posts on this video?
Forysan 6 months ago
Comment removed
llGemini 6 months ago
@llGemini I do have an open mind, you may not think so, but what you do not understand is that faith is a placebo. You can live you live believing in something, next you believe with you heart. You can live your life searching for answers and understand intellectual question. You can believe that life will never ends and life is what you believe in. However, I do believe in life, reality, happiness and peace. I just do not need a deity telling me how to raise my child and myself.
llGemini 6 months ago
@llGemini so you're perfect?
Forysan 6 months ago
@Forysan I just have a personal relationship with reality. In reality, I am only human, like you.
llGemini 6 months ago
@llGemini so you're not perfect?
P.S.
Oh, due to personal reasons I will no longer be posting on youtube via Forysan. You can reach me at this new address.
EmetTalmudim6 6 months ago