See. That's nasty as well.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Noah's Ark & post-flood speciation
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
See. That's nasty as well.
I agree that christianity is nasty. But you seem to be confusing the fantasies of the christian meme with your own identity. Shouldn't I be sympathetic to the person who is in some way affected? If you read carefully, you see I attack the absurdity and nastiness of christianity: I play the ball not the man (except public creationists, who I think have gone past meme infection to 'lying for god' - they know they are lying). I don't attack personal identity, only the ideas people promote. Of course this is another aspect of religious meme infection that is very important, and best seen in islam: the meme makes you take on the religion as your personal identity, so it becomes impossible for the believer to separate the crazy ideas as abstract thoughts for critical discussion.
What if I am wrong about atomic theory, or Newtonian physics? I know a reasonable amount about both, but when the last Einstein came along and revolutionised physics, it wouldn't have been felt as a personal attack but an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding. If the next Einstein revolutionises what I think is true, I can't take that as a personal attack, only an opportunity.
What if you are demonstrated to be wrong about Jesus? How will that feel? I think for most christians it would be taken as a personal attack, because it took some effort to accept the absurdities of the stories of Jesus, and the impossible promises of existing forever are too much to give up: the Truth of Jesus is the Truth of your own identity. It can't be allowed to be wrong, it must be protected no matter how ridiculous or nasty the defense of it has to be.
What a brilliant psychologist this christian meme is.
Stuart
Nope.
It's only you being rude.
OK. Your words are consistently nasty. Better?
lain::yawn:
And yet when we talk physics, you spew the same irrational nonsense.
If they're just ideas, engage rationally. :up:
What if you are demonstrated to be wrong about Jesus? How will that feel? I think for most Darwinists, it would be taken as a personal attack, because it took some effort to accept the absurdities of atheists' stories, while the possibility that justice and mercy might be real terrify you. Your Darwinism can't be allowed to be wrong, it must be protected no matter how ridiculous or nasty the defense of it has to be.
Stuu: I play the ball not the man.
Remember it is Jesus who brings the sword, recommends his followers abandon their families, demands love on pain of hellfire, introduces the totalitarian system for accessing the deity and in the end organises for you to celebrate a human sacrifice because you were born bad and have no choice but to make yourself well. I didn't invent those nasty concepts, I'm just the messenger. So maybe you could look at the ball rather than the man.
I would be delighted if you could disprove Darwin's theory. It is falsifiable. Can you falsify it?
Stuart
Do you believe the ideas of christianity should be available for people to consider critically? What happens when the nasty ideas within it are exposed? Should that be suppressed? Maybe if you adopted an ethically defensible religion we could have fewer nasty words describing it.
Remember it is Jesus who brings the sword, recommends his followers abandon their families, demands love on pain of hellfire, introduces the totalitarian system for accessing the deity and in the end organises for you to celebrate a human sacrifice because you were born bad and have no choice but to make yourself well. I didn't invent those nasty concepts, I'm just the messenger. So maybe you could look at the ball rather than the man.
Example, please, or perhaps offer to withdraw the accusation.
I believe in justice and mercy, but not the totalitarian christian kind, because that is neither just nor merciful.
I would be delighted if you could disprove Darwin's theory. It is falsifiable. Can you falsify it?
Stuart
:yawn:
Chapter and verse, please.
You can remain sick if you want. :idunno:
No, you don't. You think that when murderers die, they cease to exist.
Trick question. Darwinism keeps evolving every time it faces a challenge.
"Darwinism" is a particular fundy word. An attempt to ignore all the science that has taken place since Charlie. But it is consistent, since fundys must ignore most of the science in every discipline to continue to accept a literal Genesis or face hell-fire at the hands of their "loving" deity.
Although one would think that given prestigious fundy universities, ala Liberty, and the great work being done by AiG and ICR for example someone like Dr. Purdom would be at the forefront of the line up for a Nobel.
Alas, no "scientist" at such universities or the "creation science" groups has been able to falsify evolution, despite their research.
Stuu: Jesus ... demands love on pain of hellfire.
2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ
Stuu: I would be delighted if you could disprove Darwin's theory. It is falsifiable. Can you falsify it?
Stuart
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ
I'm not sick. There was nothing wrong with the way I was born the first time.
That is the merciful truth of our existence, it ends, which gives it meaning. But it sounds like you listen to the meme when it makes false promises of justice. Your version of justice sounds more like an attempt at vengeance. You have your own power to forgive, yet you seem intent on joining Tertullian deriving pleasure from watching the suffering of the condemned. Is that what your religion says mercy is?
Stuu: I would be delighted if you could disprove Darwin's theory. It is falsifiable. Can you falsify it?
Another castle in the air claim. I recommend not listening to the professional creationist liars out there. There is no justice or mercy in what they do.
Stuart
Those are two disparate verses you've put together there.
Elsewhere, the Bible makes it clear that love cannot be "demanded."
1 Corinthians 13:1-13
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Then what are you complaining about? :idunno:
Oblivion has value? The worst offender just vanishes along with the saint, and you think this is justice? This bestows meaning on each of their lives?
Weird.
There's either justice or there isn't. Justice means each man will pay in full for his words and actions. You do not believe this will happen.
What's wrong with vengeance?
No.
I love the easy questions. :up:
The only reason to add Thessalonians is to demonstrate that all the demands of the gospels are reinforced with hellfire, so it wouldn't matter what topic the other gospel verse was dealing with. In this case, you love or you burn.
I guess loving others is optional. Loving Jesus / the deity is compulsory.
I never understood why Saul of Tarsus couldn't take his own advice and give up on his childish belief in imaginary friends. But of course the meme infection occurred on that Damascene road...
Just one verse needed (you can add Thess, 1:8 if you need the 'commanded' part):
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
There it all is: visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons, and vicarious punishment without which you are not 'justified', both morally repugnant. You were created sick, and are commanded to be well. Nasty.
Yes, critical value.
How could it be anything to do with justice? It's just a natural process, one of the few things that unites us, rather than dividing.
Well you can't understand the meaning of death after you are dead, so no. The value is in the anticipation, and reflection on ones life course in that context.
I do, and it is one of the particular reasons I am against christianity, because if you believe that someone is responsible for actions that negatively affect others, then that person should bear the responsibility, including making amends. But since Jesus died for your sins, you no longer bear responsibility... for something: something invented to explain the sudden and unexpected execution of Jesus, the resolution of the doctrine of original sin. Whatever the fantasy crime is, vicarious punishment with removal of responsibility is immoral, and contrary to the justice you describe.
To me, justice is acknowledgement by the wrongdoer of the wrongdoing, and his attempts to heal social rifts and other damage he has caused, possibly including his own genuine involvement in personal reform to prevent reoffending. What else could you want, unless you really enjoy seeing the suffering of those you think deserve it, in which case we wonder how the rest of humanity might seek justice against you.
Well, you tell me. Can you find any NT scripture that supports vengeance as a principle of justice, or a principle of anything? What vengeance would Jesus take?
Stuart
Greg Jennings
New member
Science still supports the existence of a minimum of 10 human species.
Do you deny this?
Keep in mind, of course, that species closely-related can often interbreed.
Greg Jennings
New member
Stripe agrees that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo within his home until death over the heliocentric theory.
Thank you. For admitting some sense
The Catholic church did many wicked things, like keeping the Holy Bible inaccessible to the people.
Greg Jennings
New member
You're not gonna get an argument from me there
This is called begging the question; a logical fallacy. I showed you that love cannot be "demanded."
Love is always optional, otherwise it is not love.
Nope. You sinned of your own accord. There is no need to bring anybody else into it.
Try Ezekiel 18.
Oh, so you're the judge now?
Oblivion has critical value. Explain.
You're the one who wants there to be justice. :idunno:
Every man's reflection will receive the same reward. As will every man's words and actions, which are what justice works on. Not his "reflections."
You sound like you're starting a religion with this sort of talk.
You do believe everyone will pay for their words and actions? Where? When? How?
Something that doesn't rely on mortals to rectify everything they do before they die.
Try the parable of the minas. :up:
Isn't begging the question when you set as one of your assumptions the thing you seek to prove? I think you mean the fallacy of composition. But that would depend on whether you think all of the New Testament is good for teaching, as Jesus is claimed to have said. If it is all good for teaching, then there's definitely hellfire for disregarding any of it. But by all means tell us which parts of the NT you think can be ignored. In the case of Corinthians it doesn't mention who might be the object of the love described, in fact it doesn't even say that this is love directed to anyone or anything. But in Matthew, it says specifically you are to worship and serve Jesus / the deity.
I agree entirely. Shame it's not like that in the NT.
I'm not a sinner from my own point of view. The word is irrelevant to the non-religious, except in regards to the religious doing some judging based on the rules of their club.
Well indeed. The whole nasty idea was basically invented by Saul of Tarsus.
I sure am, or at least I am part of the judge: our inate inborn morality formed by eons of natural selection working through the pressures of tribal life, plus our collective thought are the source of morality. You would be a misfit if you took your morals from the bible. In a democracy you are the judge as much as I am, although there is usually some small leeway for those following their own consciences. Not in a totalitarian christian belief system, though.
Eternal existence, whatever that means, is laughably promised to people who haven't even got a clue what to do on a wet Sunday afternoon. But if you know your existence will end, and you have the usual ambitions to do things, whatever they might be for you personally, then the wet Sunday afternoon takes on a bit more importance. There is a tiny bit more urgency and significance to the fact that you will not always have Sunday afternoons, or indeed any time in any day. That urgency to live life for whatever purpose you have decided for yourself (and that purpose is definitely decided by you, under the influence of your genome) accumulates the more you realise what it means to live and die.
On the other hand, an unending existence has no urgency and no shape. You can lie in bed every morning, and do whatever it is tomorrow instead, forever. There is no need to get around to engaging with the business of being a curious African ape.
Can't decide if that's a platitude or a thinly veiled threat!
No, that's a concept for someone thinking at Kohlberg's first tier of ethical thinking, that of the young child whose reasons for action centre around what other people will do to them. The stages above that are, basically, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", then "What would a good person do?", then "We should all follow the law", and later "Follow laws that are based in ethical principles". Some fundamentalist christians appear superficially to be working at the level of ethical principles because they recall biblical commands, but very often they are actually working at the level of fear for what happens to them if they don't.
Probably Judeo-christianity's biggest broken promise, even bigger than lies about living forever, is the promise of justice for those living in really difficult circumstances. You might believe those two promises to the time of your death, but none of it was true, and you will never know. It's a popular button to push of course, because humans have a very keen sense of justice, but justice is rare and life can be brutal. It's not a comforting fact, but at least it is true. But I stand by my claims about the best justice being restorative, not vengeful, no matter how heinous the actions of the wrongdoer.
Well yes, a good example to give. The parable appears open to a lot of interpretation. It has never really appealed to me because I think it way oversimplifies the nature of human existence and is really an allegory for what happens to you if you ignore Jesus. Death for failing to engage in capitalism? Taken literally it's obviously vengeance and not justice.
The real problem is if you wish to view life as a gift. I do, although we might differ on the existence of a 'giver'. My metaphorical gift of life is mine and no-one else's, so it's mine to waste if I want to. It can't be anything else, or its value drops to that of slavery. I have discussed the purpose of life with christians, and some of them freely admit they are slaves. I think that is the message of this parable, and I disagree with it, but it remains a good example of what we were discussing. I must add that to my list of nasty things Jesus brought!
Stuart