Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[1robin]

That I want to drag into this era? You mean, which you wish to disobey in this era? In what way is this era different from that in which the laws were given? Does God care what decade it is as far as the law is concerned?

Yes , there is a concept called progressive revelation. It means like a child that the human race matures over time, and that God changes his methods of dealing with us. He has certain things planned for certain times for certain purposes. The old testament law was given only to Israel and for a specific time. It was intended to turn the Jews into a somewhat peculiar race known for rightousness. This was done to attract attention to them to point others toward their God, and eventually usher in the Christ. They alone were to be his people during this time and were to behave in a manner superior to their neiboors. They sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed miserably.

The Jews keep them today, in this era. Why do you fail to?

Because the Jews deny the new covenant. They still consider themselves in the old relationship. IMO they are completely wrong and the new testament actually says that point blank. As an illustartion the Jews do not think Jesus was the Christ. The bible says that anyone who does not believe this is the anti-Christ. We are definately in two camps. They are relying on the system that the bible clearly says can't save them. It was given as a means of pushing sins forward until Christ came where they would be dealt with. Their system minus Christ is pointless.

Funny but the Jews around you don't think it has no meaning; and since they were the ones to whom God gave the laws, they are the ones who know better than you.

A group of people who only believe half a truth are not in a position to over rule the group that accepts all of it.

The reason Paul is ruled out is because he was teaching his own law; he was barely teaching what Christ said, let alone the laws he himself had originally been educated in. The 'judgment of the apostles' is highly suspect since once Paul was on the scene what you had was essentially a cult where everyone towed his line, and where he, as you admit, wrote the history; so of course it sounds as if everyone listened to him.
In any real case, their judgment does not supersede God either; and God made the laws. So it doesn't matter who agrees with your erroneous assumption: the 613 laws are what are to be followed, and are NOT to be superseded, or rewritten, by any man.

Ruled out by who? You? He and his writings were accepted by the apostles and there is no higher earthly authority. I do not share you assesment of Paul, nor do the vast majority of Christians.

Yes and? And also, this text does not in any way suggest the subtext you are asserting.

I was using this particular verse to establish that the 10 commandments are a part of the old covenant. My claim of this meaning it goes with the rest is based on many seperate verses.

Paul speaking. At least, that is scholarly consensus, so again, a void point. God's laws don't grow ol;d and obsolete

You have no authority and certainly no reason to dismiss someone accepted by the apostles and commission by Christ. So it's you whos point is void.

LOL, that's essentially heresy. Jesus is making his own personal covenant here with his disciples; he's not wiping out the Ten Commandments over a cup of wine! Wow, what Sunday School did you go to?

Apparently a better one than you did. this was most certainly not a covenant meant just for the desciples, that's why communion is still celebrated today. If he wasn't supperseeding the old covenant then what did his new covenant replace.

OK, I am not sure what you aren't getting. Any spot in the NT where the 'old laws' are said to be removed, is an 'illegal call'. It doesn't matter who said it. Nobody in the NT had the authority to strike out the laws laid down by God for the Jews.
For now I will simply pass by these references as it would entail a whole other discussion about Jesus not fulfilling all these things he mentions in Psalms and etc, in the first place, and I know you won't want to handle that now.

That's convienient. There is too much here that dissproves your position so you don't want to address it. I am unsure exactly what you are stateing here but will aquisee.

And I guess the fact that God lays out that new covenant immediately after this quote, isn't important? He essentially describes the End of the World covenant; nothing of Jesus' 'new covenant' nor anything said by Paul. I won't quote it unless refreshment is needed. Also note: he says 'with the House of Israel and Judah'. What does this have to do with anyone else?

That was an example of the fact that God has and did and will reestablish covenants that have different details.

All of it. IF the thief was even a Jew. Ask any Jew. Despite what you wish to portray these laws were not only for the high priests; that's incorrect.

First of all you have absolutely no idea what any particular Jew did concerning the law. Especially one who was willing to steal. I really get frustrated by these claims to knowledge you do not have. It is epidemic on the critics side in these discussion. If someone ever finds an example of my doing this I have admitted it and withdrawn the comment. Will you reciprocate. Second the Jews spent vast amounts of time in trouble with God for disobeying these laws that you somehow knoe this theif perfectly obeyed. Amazing. Third find a statement I made that said that all these laws were for the priests. I said that many of the ceremonial laws were performed by these priests.

Jesus said he would be in paradise because he was throwing the thief a bone, so to speak, because he and the thief were dieing together. And the thief was scared. Jesus was just being human.

Good lord. I give you a very poigniant example of someone delared rightous in spite of breaking the laws and inspite of being unable to do any work (James) but still going to Heaven on the word of Christ, and you reduce it to a base meaningless statement for which there is no evidence.

True in both cases.

I am somewhat amazed at your earlier statement: You believe Jesus negated the Decalogue, by saying he gave up his blood? I have seen a number of Christians suggest that the 613 laws were no longer applicable but I've never seen one yet say not a single one of God's laws were applicable in the 'new covenant' before. Wow. That's almost signature worthy.

If you will read my posts more carefully, you would realise I said several times that this verse seems to suggest that the 10 commandments are done away with but that is not my position.Once again produce a statement I made that is not in this context. Maybe I should type slower.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes , there is a concept called progressive revelation. It means like a child that the human race matures over time, and that God changes his methods of dealing with us. He has certain things planned for certain times for certain purposes. The old testament law was given only to Israel and for a specific time. It was intended to turn the Jews into a somewhat peculiar race known for rightousness. This was done to attract attention to them to point others toward their God, and eventually usher in the Christ. They alone were to be his people during this time and were to behave in a manner superior to their neiboors. They sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed miserably.

'Only for Israel' in the sense of those who followed the god of Israel. obviously in reality Israelites travel; where they are does not change who they are. In reality if you followed your God's laws you'd technically be an Israelite too. But since you don't follow his laws, you're not.. though you desire to possess their favor with God. But you don't since you discard laws which have no expiration date. It's one thing to try to follow the laws but to fail on occasion; it's another entirely to say they don't mean anything to you. I can say that, as I am not a follower of your God; you are in essence, a fallen follower. For pete's sake in the last post you said the Ten Commandments no longer matter!

Because the Jews deny the new covenant. They still consider themselves in the old relationship. IMO they are completely wrong and the new testament actually says that point blank. As an illustartion the Jews do not think Jesus was the Christ. The bible says that anyone who does not believe this is the anti-Christ. We are definately in two camps. They are relying on the system that the bible clearly says can't save them. It was given as a means of pushing sins forward until Christ came where they would be dealt with. Their system minus Christ is pointless..

It's rather funny here, that you pretend to have the knowledge to declare the Hebrews are all fallen, when a bit later [and in other places] you chide me for making judgments in the same manner but about subjects with obvious evidence.
And seriously you need to stop these facetious calls of 'on what authority'. I've previously been forced to show my bona fides, and we all know you have none at all. You're barely a layman.

A group of people who only believe half a truth are not in a position to over rule the group that accepts all of it..

What about a group of people who make up their own rules about the established laws of God {which specifically say you cannot make up new rules, or discard old ones}? [hint: that's you]. Essentially you have all the truth, plus a huge catalog of unauthorized add-ons which overrule the truth.

Ruled out by who? You? He and his writings were accepted by the apostles and there is no higher earthly authority. I do not share you assesment of Paul, nor do the vast majority of Christians. .

Again, the idea that they were accepted is simply propaganda written by Paul. Paul is an established liar and he got to write his own story. After that momentum and distance did teh rest. Accepted on what authority, by you? As for 'no higher authority on Earth', they weren't a higher authority either. They did not have any authority to write new rules nor to overwrite the Laws. The apostles NEVER had the authority to overwrite the Laws of God! They chose to do that on their own. Jesus was dead. Paul took over. They took authority they did not have, on the word of a fake apostle who never learned from Jesus.

I was using this particular verse to establish that the 10 commandments are a part of the old covenant. My claim of this meaning it goes with the rest is based on many seperate verses..

The problem again being that whatever the 'new' covenant was to be, was given right there and does not match what you claim it was. So again you are simply making things up that are not born out by the real scripture.There is no Christ in the new covenant: it listed what it is right there. In any further case we should not forget that Jesus did not meet all the requirements of the prophesied Moschiach; therefore any change he wished to make, and any change his followers wanted to make, are VOID.

You have no authority and certainly no reason to dismiss someone accepted by the apostles and commission by Christ. So it's you whos point is void..

I gave my reasons, and I have as much authority as you. Scoff all you like but it's you with a child's understanding of what he is reading.

Apparently a better one than you did. this was most certainly not a covenant meant just for the desciples, that's why communion is still celebrated today. If he wasn't supperseeding the old covenant then what did his new covenant replace..

it most certainly was. the Eucharist is followed as a tradition; you aren't doing what you were somehow commanded to do; you are seeking to invest yourself with authority you do not have, just like others have done. It's just an homage, it's not an application. the Great Commission was NOT for you. Guess who told you it was? OH YEAH! Another guy who took authority he didn't have! Paul!
What a surprise.

Basically what I have seen all through this experience is that you lot look for anything Jesus or Moses [or whomever actually acted as a prophet of God]said and take personal conversations they have as a universal statement to all. You self-invest yourself with authority that was being given only to specific individuals in specific cases all throughout scripture, or taking any offhand comment as prophecy when it suits. Jesus gave the Great Commission to the apostles he trained personally, those who sat right in front of him; he expected to come back within their lifetimes and initiate the End of the World. Some were supposed to be alive to see him. But he didn't come back; he failed. Paul's story is a fraud. He [Jesus] was not the Moschiach, so his Great Commission was not even authorized for those dozen apostles, much less any modern Tom Dick and Harry who fancies themselves righteous because they read the latest edit of the Bible.

This is all basically a cascade of people taking upon themselves authority they don't have the power to take. Probably what makes it so enticing to such personalities. You can self-promote yourselves to be like figures of old..... and you do not have to do anything at all but make a gesture and say some words.

If you accept the truth of the original Hebrew prophecies that a Moschiach is even coming, but then discount the authority of those prophecies and to whom they are given, and declare somebody who 'almost got it right' as to having fulfilled ALL the requirements [and if you'd ever read them you'd see they ALL have to be fulfilled for it to be fulfilled] you're not doing it right.


Just like the tough guys who read Kung Fu magazine. Just because you look at a picture of sticky-hands doesn't mean you can perform them in a fight.

That's convienient. There is too much here that dissproves your position so you don't want to address it. I am unsure exactly what you are stateing here but will aquisee..

There hasn't been anything to disprove my position.
Also, I would suggest you spell check the big words you are trying to use, and ponder their grammatical usage, as well.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That was an example of the fact that God has and did and will reestablish covenants that have different details..

True. But God establishes them. Not fake untrained apostles. Prophets. Not just anybody.

First of all you have absolutely no idea what any particular Jew did concerning the law. .

And you do? You were the one who brought it up. But if he were a Jew, that's what Jews did. And do.

Especially one who was willing to steal. .

By what authority do you judge him? If Jesus was unjustly hung, why couldn't the thief have been?

I really get frustrated by these claims to knowledge you do not have. .

And your desperate usage everywhere of this perfection fallacy is really tired.

It is epidemic on the critics side in these discussion. If someone ever finds an example of my doing this I have admitted it and withdrawn the comment..

lol! That's a flat out lie. Any time a fallacy of yours is pointed out you scoff at the entire idea of spotting fallacies as a crutch. Please!

Will you reciprocate. Second the Jews spent vast amounts of time in trouble with God for disobeying these laws that you somehow knoe this theif perfectly obeyed. Amazing. .

Yet he never did anything permanent to them about it, after the Flood. He forgave them every time. As he should.

Third find a statement I made that said that all these laws were for the priests. I said that many of the ceremonial laws were performed by these priests..

You described them as for Levites only and then described said Levites as the priestly caste. It was only a few posts ago.

Originally Posted by 1robin
The Levites were the priestly tribe of Israel. They were generally the only ones allowed to perform the ceremonial requirements that you want to drag into this era. Here is a verse on a core requirement of those laws.

Pants on fire. I think this is a third or fourth time you've backed away from previous statements.

Good lord. I give you a very poigniant example of someone delared rightous in spite of breaking the laws and inspite of being unable to do any work (James) but still going to Heaven on the word of Christ, and you reduce it to a base meaningless statement for which there is no evidence..

And what did you just do above about the Thief, hm?

If you will read my posts more carefully, you would realise I said several times that this verse seems to suggest that the 10 commandments are done away with but that is not my
position.Once again produce a statement I made that is not in this context. Maybe I should type slower.

Ad I said it showed no such evidence of any such thing.
Maybe you should cease typing all together

 

[johnhanks]

There is no more empirical evidence for love, beauty, or human worth than for objective morallity, yet they are universally accepted the way same as objective values are virtually accepted. At least until atheist proffesors can teach people to be so smart that they no longer recognise the word moral anymore. What a great utopia we are creating.

Repeating an appeal to consequences more and more fervently does not alter its fallacious nature.

When churchhill or Roosevelt appealed to the country for the task to come. To stop a man from using atheistic evolutionary ethics from destroying the world.

Who was this "man using atheistic evolutionary ethics"? It surely can't have been the man who wrote:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," adding "Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission."

and whose party banned On the Origin of Species.

 

[1robin]

There hasn't been anything to disprove my position.

It would be more accurate to say you have constructed a alternate stance to mainstream Christianity and most second and third tier theological views that no fact is able to dent. If you feel comfortable gambling your soul on a position so far from mainstream scholasticism then you are of course free to do so. I will now list the most exhaustive discussion of this I know of in the bible. It was probably written by Paul It was excepted by the apostles.

Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul's letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).
Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?

It makes the case so plain that only a person determined to deny the facts it contains could possibly dismiss it. Parenthetical notes are mine, but perfectly consistent with mainstream scholarship.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.(This is the one primarily given to Moses and contains all of which we are discussing except perhaps the ten commandments)
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: ( I read several commentaries and they all said that what is meant here is, to and through the Jews unto the Gentiles. Any interpretation still defeats your position)
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (This is accomplished through the new testament idea that the holy spirit comes to live with the believer at salvation and writes the laws on their hearts. Any other interpretation still defeats your position.)
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (the first mosaic covenant is over, the new was established at Christs death. This will be more evident in a minute)
9 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (obviously the law of the old testament)
2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: (this blood is a type and shadow of Christ's blood)
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (see the obvious defeciency of the first covenant)
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (this makes it obvious that the new covenant will begin with Christs shedding of his blood)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (I do not understand why but a covenant is made in blood. This means that the second covenant replaced the first when Chrst shed his blood)
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; (once again the fullfillment of the new over the old. The old had served it's purpose and the new was instituted at the time of the crucifixion)
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Emphasis (bolding) mine. I have ommited similar, repeating, or irrelevant verses for the sake of space.

If you do not see the possability that you may be wrong after that, then I do not know what could possibly be said by me, the bible, scholars or Christ himself that would make it a meaningful discussion. You will have made obvious the desire to insulate your self from truth and stick your fingers and yell until the truth goes away and you can remain in your confort zone in my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Twenty-three (23) pages! :biglaugh:

 

[1robin]

Repeating an appeal to consequences more and more fervently does not alter its fallacious nature.

And it doesn't lessen it's absolute truth either.

Who was this "man using atheistic evolutionary ethics"? It surely can't have been the man who wrote:

I have already had to prove Hitler's motives in his own words. I ain't doing the whole thing over. My posts can be found easily enough in this forum.

and whose party banned On the Origin of Species.

If you will read my posts on the subject you will realise this is all a bunch of crap. You are actually suggesting that the man more responsible for violence created in the name of the superiority of one race over another than any one else in history would have not been sypathetic to a book that spoke more on justifying race inequality than any other in history, and that was just at this time becomeing a very popular idea. Next you will suggest just like many atheists do that actually he was following the bible which contains the greatest justification for the equality of man in history. Let the madness begin.

 

[Muffled]

There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.

What could you expect from a pagan or satanist?

 

[Me Myself]

What better source to learn about themselves than their maker.

The maker is everywhere. There is no source that doesn't come from him.

If we have to pick one of his sources, I'd say we pick us.

So by this rational. You could ask Nero why he did what he did. He could say feelings. You would say ok but are you nuts, He would say no. You would say ok you passed my tests see you later.

Jesus based his morality on love. I say it is a very good base. If you take care of your neighbour you are taking care of Jesus. Jesus is the way to the Father. Your God is also supopsed to be all love all inteligence.

So if you base morality on both love and rational thought, you are basing it in God.

You sound like some kind of pseudopsychologist.

I am no psychologist, but I am certainly talking about real certifieed psychology. Ask any psychologist, revenge is just not a gran emotional tool.

I will type slow so pay attention.

Wow! Slow down Flash, you were so fast there I couldn't even see you type .

You said theism is not about self worth. The term theism is defined as a deity that is personal, that is he intereacts and cares about people.

That's as accurate as saying the word "bird" is about animals that fly. Which means is wrong of course, because not all birds fly and not all theists think God cares about you.

Theism only says that god or gods exist, it doesn't have anything to do with anything else. Just if they exist. There even exist a form of theism called Maltheism, where people believe in god and they believe they are evil.

However that doesn't matter, for your statement to be true no theistic framework can include worth.

Welcome to www.youarewrongagain.com and back to the example of birds:

The term "birds" is as neutral to the fact of the animal flying as the term theist is neutral to human worth.

This means that the term "bird" doesn't imply flight, but it doesn't negate it. As we know, most birds fly. It would still be incorrect to say that "bird" implies flight.

Likewise, the term "theism" doesn't need to have anything to do with morality. As we know, theistic dogmas can contain morality or derive morality from their deities(gods). It would still be incorrect to say that Theism implies morals or high human worth.

this is because not all birds fly and definetely not all theists believe god or the gods love us. Again, maltheists exist.

Whatever it is, it isn't atheism.

They don't believe in gods. That makes them atheists by definition.

The Germans had a strict moral code, it was anihilated by the US what has a somewhat more objective God based moral code.

Quotes that you might find interesting:

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

That is why dangerous people like me can stop the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world while people like you can't produce a justification consistent with your position to do so.

People of all religions have their hearts shaken when they hear of concentration camps. Compassion is requires no justification, and trust me, it moves people.

Also crazy people like me produced the modern concept of the hospital, faith based organisations to feed and clothe children around the world, invent the US's first public education system, make a large portion of break throughs in, and the formation of many of the fields of science, etc......yep you should get rid of us.

Who said get rid of you? I am merely saying that that specfical quality of you is dangerous, naturaly you have many virtues. You are human after all, with both virtues and defects.
"getting rid of you" sounds more like what God loving Hittler did to the jews.

You are my human brother, I want to educate you, not get rid of you!!

Do you know any of the context and reasons for verses like this? Do you understand what God was doing with Israel and the reason for an old and a new covenant? If you did you wouldn't use this as a point.

What I know is that a God that accepts slavery is not a good moral standard for anyone, and that I have no reason at all to believe that the written letters there talk more about God than any other religious text I could choose to read.

A deity by definition is impersonal anyway, once again this doesn't matter anyway.

It doesn't matter at all. It does discredit you that you contradict yourself this easily though, because up there you said:

The term theism is defined as a deity that is personal, that is he intereacts and cares about people.

But yeah, let's move on.

Virtually everyone would have concluded the same thing if given what I knew.

But most people try to find out more before trusting their most immidiate conclusions. that changes it all.

I mean, it's not like you even had to do any 5 mins research, you only needed to click "first post" and read the religion of the OP starter. The fact that you wont even do this talks loads into how quickly you jump at your conclusions without any interest in actually corroborating them and that makes you... let's say not the best source around.

Of course, that would be if I supposed that you do this with everything, and honestly, I don't know that yet. The fact that you defended your mistake in such poor form could indeed indicate that, but could also simply indicate mild denial. (you see? you think up more than one posible answer and admit that the first one might not be the only one and accept you don't know the true one if yo dont currently have enough info. It's very simple really. You just goota be open to say "i don't know". I know a lot of people find this too scary, and that's why, for example, they prefer to say *this* is the source of morality. If I don't know the answer it is here. I don't have to think too much or be uncertain for too much time, etc)

Their premise of "I am the only one who knows morals" is what makes many of them dangerous.There is nothing more dangerous moraly speaking than an objective morality based in anything but human feelings.

I never said that just human feelings would make up the moral, I mean they are the basis. In this case, the feeling would be love and compassion.

With love and compassion you do morals.

Now, to say you do morals with love and compassion is like saying you do clay figures with clay.

You use love and compassion(the clay) to mold (think and rationalize) a moral system (the clay figure)

Your premise of "no ones knows what morals actually are and no way to define them" is far worse. It basically is based on opinion and then anything goes.

If today every human being thought there is no God up there, they would still strive to make a moral in which humans can grow happy healthy lives and treat each other with love.

It is in our human nature.

Human condition has made that most problems in the ancient world and causes of misery are gone today. there is a biggest porcentage of the community with far more rights being respected than those that we had on ancient times.

Your premise of "no ones knows what morals actually are and no way to define them" is far worse. It basically is based on opinion and then anything goes.

I have faith in democracy. If everything is about opinion, then we have to work it out with all our opinions, and make the best system for all of us.

YIt is also the worst defence in a long line of bad ones that I have seen used for the establishment of morals in atheism.

Just for the kicks of it, all the time you have been talking to me, have you ever doubted I was an atheist?

 

[1robin]

True. But God establishes them. Not fake untrained apostles. Prophets. Not just anybody.

Who was an example of a proffesionally trained apostle? Was there are university of apostleship? Most were fisherman, tax collector, doctor types etc..... You do realise that even without Paul your position is nonsence.

And you do? You were the one who brought it up. But if he were a Jew, that's what Jews did. And do.

Yea thats right that's why they spent half their time being conquored and carried off. God said it was specifically for their disobedience, but I am sure you are right.

By what authority do you judge him? If Jesus was unjustly hung, why couldn't the thief have been?

Your replies have reached the level of ineptitude that I find them entertaining in a comic way. The thief himself admitted his guilt. This is Luke so you can't even use the old trusty, Paul is a nut response:
New International Version(©1984)
We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
http://bible.cc/luke/23-41.htm

And your desperate usage everywhere of this perfection fallacy is really tired.
lol! That's a flat out lie. Any time a fallacy of yours is pointed out you scoff at the entire idea of spotting fallacies as a crutch. Please!

What the holy heck are you talking about? If a claim to knowledge is made without any even possible proof or access, then that is perfectly unacceptable in debateing rules. I don't care about that I just want a meaningful discussion free from claims that at least when concerning me personally are absolutely false. I do not mind if you could explain why a point is invalid. I have always felt that writeing batman phallacy, uber dork fallacy, or even a legitamite one is rude in an informal debate. More is learned if the issue is addressed as I have done many times and not just dismissed.

Yet he never did anything permanent to them about it, after the Flood. He forgave them every time. As he should.

For gosh sakes the old testament is jam packed with God specifically warning against disobedience. His being ignored and then he sent prophets to declare judgement and then allowed another nations to defeat them and several times to remove them from Israel. There is hardly a subject in the bible where more pages are spent on it. This is loosing even it's comedic appeal. It would be hard to make a statement as completely opposite to all evidence as this one of yours.

You described them as for Levites only and then described said Levites as the priestly caste. It was only a few posts ago.

I notice you didn't produce my statement when I requested you to do so if you claim this. What I said was Many of the laws were ceremonial laws, they were only to be performed by levites. That would mean that we would have to kidnap a bunch of levites in order to do just the ceremonial laws. There are many other problems with those laws being performed today but what's the point of listing them. You can't get a grip on the ones I have provided.

Pants on fire. I think this is a third or fourth time you've backed away from previous statements.

Once again a claim to a personal fact. However this one is accessable to you. So produce the statement I made that is inconsistent with the one this addresses or the one I stated above, or abandon this crap.

And what did you just do above about the Thief, hm?

You seem to be disussing somo other Christianity, cross, and thief. My thief admitted his guilt. I wish you wre as forthright.

Ad I said it showed no such evidence of any such thing.
Maybe you should cease typing all together

What can be done with impeccable logic like this. In my ignorance I didn't realise that a man who didn't do any work after or for his salvation, was a self admitted thief, and was not declared rightous on the bases of his law keeping but instead on his statement of faith, actually means he was a rightous law obeying Jew who was wrongfully crucified and judged rightous in isolation of the faith he placed in Jesus but because of the exemplary law abiding he obviously had even though there is only mention of the contrary and not his admission of guilt, remorse, and faith that caused Jesus to admit him to heaven. Which is exactly the opposite of what Christ the apostles and virtually every one of the billions of Christians throughout history. No they are wrong and you are right. Impecable. It takes a long time to reply to your posts, could you please start makeing it worth it. That is not an insult, your positions concerning this issue are extremely out of any mainstream theological or biblically consistent relm.

 

[1robin]

The maker is everywhere. There is no source that doesn't come from him.

If we have to pick one of his sources, I'd say we pick us.

We are not a source of morality in an objective or meaningful way. We are the subjects.

So if you base morality on both love and rational thought, you are basing it in God.

Jesus's base for morality included love but also included wrath (or justice if you prefer) We being faulty (in the extreme) are no reliable source for morality even if based on those ideas.

Wow! Slow down Flash, you were so fast there I couldn't even see you type .

I knew it.

That's as accurate as saying the word "bird" is about animals that fly. Which means is wrong of course, because not all birds fly and not all theists think God cares about you.

No the word bird is has no specific implication about flight. Theism implies specifically a relational God.

Theism only says that god or gods exist, it doesn't have anything to do with anything else. Just if they exist. There even exist a form of theism called Maltheism, where people believe in god and they believe they are evil.

Deism is the word you are defining. Your last example is not really that nuts but true or not it is personal.

Welcome to www.youarewrongagain.com and back to the example of birds:

Funny I don't see this place you refer to.

The term "birds" is as neutral to the fact of the animal flying as the term theist is neutral to human worth.
Again, maltheists exist.

I don't agree but morality is consistent with theism regardless. Why are we disussing theism any way. I defend Christianity not a generic theistic label? Your Maltheists require an objective moral framework to declare their evil status.

They don't believe in gods. That makes them atheists by definition.

Your description of them said they do not believe in a supreme deity. That implys that do believe in deities other than supreme.


Quotes that you might find interesting:

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

Yes Hitler is a reliable source for a critique of biblical morality. A man who who acted in complete opposition to the bible is a natural authority. A teacher should be judged by the obedient student not by the disobedient one.

People of all religions have their hearts shaken when they hear of concentration camps. Compassion is requires no justification, and trust me, it moves people.

The feeling of compassion does not need a justification. A law based on it or an action that requires the lives of many would or should. That is why compassion was not the primary argument used to justify action. So the fact that someone feels something is valid proof that it is a legitamite standard.

Who said get rid of you? I am merely saying that that specfical quality of you is dangerous, naturaly you have many virtues. You are human after all, with both virtues and defects.
"getting rid of you" sounds more like what God loving Hittler did to the jews.

This Hitler stuff is nonsence. I have supplied many quotes from him concerning evolution that he used to justify his actions. The difference is his actions were not contrary to evolution but they were to Christianity.

You are my human brother, I want to educate you, not get rid of you!!

You must first have that ability.

What I know is that a God that accepts slavery is not a good moral standard for anyone, and that I have no reason at all to believe that the written letters there talk more about God than any other religious text I could choose to read.

He accepts slavery (at times) like cancer, murder, or drunkeness etc.. as a reality caused by our fallen nature. By your definition God can only exist if he never allowed any evil thing to exist even in the face of the fact that he said they would.

It doesn't matter at all. It does discredit you that you contradict yourself this easily though, because up there you said:

You are confusing Deism and theism.

But yeah, let's move on.

I can't wait.

But most people try to find out more before trusting their most immidiate conclusions. that changes it all.

I mean, it's not like you even had to do any 5 mins research, you only needed to click "first post" and read the religion of the OP starter. The fact that you wont even do this talks loads into how quickly you jump at your conclusions without any interest in actually corroborating them and that makes you... let's say not the best source around.

Of course, that would be if I supposed that you do this with everything, and honestly, I don't know that yet. The fact that you defended your mistake in such poor form could indeed indicate that, but could also simply indicate mild denial. (you see? you think up more than one posible answer and admit that the first one might not be the only one and accept you don't know the true one if yo dont currently have enough info. It's very simple really. You just goota be open to say "i don't know". I know a lot of people find this too scary, and that's why, for example, they prefer to say *this* is the source of morality. If I don't know the answer it is here. I don't have to think too much or be uncertain for too much time, etc)

Thank God you said you didn't know this yet, because you don't. I have spent so much time developing my ideas about things that concern religion, that I have watched every professional debate on you tube as well as google video about these subjects. I have read the bible many times cover to cover, plus much of the quran. I have even read the transcripts of hundreds of debates concerning religion, philosophy, morality, textual criticism etc.... but you are probably right I just made up my mind yesterday.

I never said that just human feelings would make up the moral, I mean they are the basis. In this case, the feeling would be love and compassion.

If you can't see the folly of basing morality on something so subjective and fickle as feeling then I can't help you. The position is so preposterous that it is referred to with humor by professional philosophers.

With love and compassion you do morals.

Now, to say you do morals with love and compassion is like saying you do clay figures with clay.

You use love and compassion(the clay) to mold (think and rationalize) a moral system (the clay figure)

That's that was quite poetic in a 3rd grade sort of way. Whats a cannables version of love and compassion. You get ate last.

If today every human being thought there is no God up there, they would still strive to make a moral in which humans can grow happy healthy lives and treat each other with love.

According to the bible we have already done this once. It was so disasterous they had to be wiped out. Besides that if the bible was actually followed all the wonderfull things our human nature has provided like Nuclear weapons, world war, genocide, theft, murder, etc..... would be illiminated. Only when we rely on things like our fallen nature do these things become necessary. G. K. Chesterton or maybe it was C. S. Lewis said that Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried.

It is in our human nature.

God help us.

Human condition has made that most problems in the ancient world and causes of misery are gone today. there is a biggest porcentage of the community with far more rights being respected than those that we had on ancient times.

And so we replaced them with the threat of global anihilation, aids, and radiation.

I have faith in democracy. If everything is about opinion, then we have to work it out with all our opinions, and make the best system for all of us.

For an earthly system only, a good dictatorship is the best but it always leads to 5 bad dicatatorships. The next best is democracy, but even that will fail eventually. We are already starting to crack up, mainly because we have kicked God out of schools and much of public life and satan filled the vacume.

Just for the kicks of it, all the time you have been talking to me, have you ever doubted I was an atheist?

Well I am funny about that. For some reason I involuntarily assign genders, appearences, and ages to people that I have no idea where I got them from. However I usually get a persons stance concerning religion from their statements but sometimes I have found out I was mistaken. You specifically I can't remember. Write something shorter next time, I'm exhausted.

 

[Me Myself]

We are not a source of morality in an objective or meaningful way. We are the subjects.

Sentience is the most meaningful subject of morality.

Promoting happiness towards all sentient beings is moral, promoting unhappiness towards other sentient beings is immoral.

Objective morality doesnt work for a "better" system at LEAST from a reilgious perspective because there are far too many religions saying they got the one.

So, even if objective morality exists and it is in one religion, then all the other religions are far more conflicting towards a common morality than atheism or agnosticism, because atheism and agnosticism is at least neutral on the subject, while religions can't.

 

[atanu]

Promoting happiness towards all sentient beings is moral, promoting unhappiness towards other sentient beings is immoral.

And promoting happiness promotes happiness. That is the religion.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It would be more accurate to say you have constructed a alternate stance to mainstream Christianity and most second and third tier theological views

Oh, I can certainly accept that accolade Most people are dreadfully stupid, and no progress was ever made following the guy ahead of you.

. If you feel comfortable gambling your soul on a position so far from mainstream scholasticism then you are of course free to do so.

My soul belongs to a more competent, truly just set of Gods and I have no concern whatsoever for your Pascal's Wager, and it's false dichotomy.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Who was an example of a proffesionally trained apostle? Was there are university of apostleship? Most were fisherman, tax collector, doctor types etc..... You do realise that even without Paul your position is nonsence.

No it isn't. In any case, what I am talking of here is that an apostle, a real apostle, was one of those who learned right at Jesus' feet. Paul does not qualify. Yet his words are literally confused with Jesus' own many times {I've watched you do it yourself often]. They were tax collectors etc until they abandoned those lives and became his followers. After that, they were receiving instructions 'directly from the source' if you want to quibble that Jesus was a literal conduit for God. Anybody else is second-hand, including Paul. Paul's lack of deep knowledge was painfully obvious when he first came among them and he only got better by being among the actual apostles and learning teh details; his precise knowledge as a bounty hunter of them first, did not give him that deep knowledge, and it's obvious his 'vision' was not instructive in the slightest. Which is odd.

However, no matter whom they were, they NEVER possessed the authority to change or undo God's laws.

Yea thats right that's why they spent half their time being conquored and carried off. God said it was specifically for their disobedience, but I am sure you are right.

Wow, so you think the suffering of the Jews is because they ignore God's laws. Holy **** son, you are all over the map of profane.

Your replies have reached the level of ineptitude that I find them entertaining in a comic way. The thief himself admitted his guilt. This is Luke so you can't even use the old trusty, Paul is a nut response:

I've danced the tango around you since the moment you arrived here, Mr Dunning-Kruger.

New International Version(©1984)
We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
http://bible.cc/luke/23-41.htm

I realize the idea of divine retribution appeals to some like you; but we are talking of the thief on the cross sitting right next to Jesus. have you got a grasp of the conversation? If the thief was hung because God saw he was unjust.. then Jesus must have been unjust too, because there he was under the same condition. Think about that idea you are expressing, and then think about the scene we are looking at, when we are discussing it.

If God said the Thief was getting what he deserved why did Jesus give him a pass to Paradise?

What the holy heck are you talking about? If a claim to knowledge is made without any even possible proof or access, then that is perfectly unacceptable in debateing rules.

Any time you've offered this bland excuse it's been a case of deduction or simple psychological observation on my part; you're forgetting the context of what we are talking about, again. I am speaking of ALL the times you dismissed en mass ALL the fallacy spotting done to your posts. Please.

Look, as hard as this may be to swallow, human behavior is very predictable. It fits into patterns. People who grasp or are interested in that kind of thing, can see the patterns. All I am doing is pointing out the behavior you are expressing in your posts. It's not actually that hard. I do not need omnipotence nor do I need to be inside your mind to know why you do things, or why you are reacting, when it's right there in front of us in your words. 'Claim to knowledge', if you think that's a legitimate debate fallacy idea try codifying it. Describe fully what it actually means. Give it a snazzy name. Get it 'published' somewhere. Then you can stand beside me. Definitely a leg up for you, considering.

I don't care about that I just want a meaningful discussion free from claims that at least when concerning me personally are absolutely false. I do not mind if you could explain why a point is invalid. I have always felt that writeing batman phallacy, uber dork fallacy, or even a legitamite one is rude in an informal debate. More is learned if the issue is addressed as I have done many times and not just dismissed.

Oh, but you do mind when I do that.
You see, like that other poster, I've been educating you on the faults of your reasoning; you take that as an insult and refuse to see or learn. When something you've said is dismissed I've given reasons.

You are just dreadfully disingenuous when things go against you.

For gosh sakes the old testament is jam packed with God specifically warning against disobedience. His being ignored and then he sent prophets to declare judgement and then allowed another nations to defeat them and several times to remove them from Israel. There is hardly a subject in the bible where more pages are spent on it. This is loosing even it's comedic appeal. It would be hard to make a statement as completely opposite to all evidence as this one of yours.

Stormtrooper.. Stormtrooper.. Stormtrooper...

I notice you didn't produce my statement when I requested you to do so if you claim this. What I said was Many of the laws were ceremonial laws, they were only to be performed by levites. That would mean that we would have to kidnap a bunch of levites in order to do just the ceremonial laws. There are many other problems with those laws being performed today but what's the point of listing them. You can't get a grip on the ones I have provided.

I QUOTED IT RIGHT AFTER THAT YOU SILLY PERSON. THAT WAS YOUR QUOTE WITH THE WORD 'QUOTE' IN BLUE.

You have lost your grip on reality.

In addition I would recommend that probably for your first time, you should actually Google up the 613 Levitical laws and see what they actually say. They do not read like something only priests could do.

Once again a claim to a personal fact. However this one is accessable to you. So produce the statement I made that is inconsistent with the one this addresses or the one I stated above, or abandon this crap.

Direct observation of your own words.
This is not a mere personal fact, it's your visible habit.
Ooohhh, but wait, I forgot, we are dealing here with a person who thinks all of psychological medicine is quackery.

You seem to be disussing somo other Christianity, cross, and thief. My thief admitted his guilt. I wish you wre as forthright.

Interestingly enough the Thief was not repentant in all the gospels; what specific gospel is the only one you use? If he were repentant I would guess it's Luke. And only Luke.

As for such guilt, I have none

 

[InformedIgnorance]

However, no matter whom they were, they NEVER possessed the authority to change or undo God's laws.

I think the traditional argument here is that they are only expressing the 'correct interpretation' of those words *rolls eyes* even when those interpretations seem completely at odds with the first hand message.

Wow, so you think the suffering of the Jews is because they ignore God's laws. Holy **** son, you are all over the map of profane.

Actually I believe that this was traditionally a very common Jewish perspective (along with other Abrahamic traditions), that suffering (in particular suffering of they themselves as the chosen people) was the result of god's will, that it was at times either trial or punishment. It does not however mesh very well with the more modern concept of God in many parts of Judaism and Christianity; particularly with the concept of God Jesus spoke of in terms of forgiveness, it is however important to note that this is a departure from traditional perspectives.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think the traditional argument here is that they are only expressing the 'correct interpretation' of those words *rolls eyes* even when those interpretations seem completely at odds with the first hand message.

I understand; but at least I am not alone in seeing that it sure seems as if the NT eventually goes off on its own and ignores a grand part of its roots in Judaism, and that people for some reason don't wish to acknowledge that this is the case.

Actually I believe that this was traditionally a very common Jewish perspective (along with other Abrahamic traditions), that suffering (in particular suffering of they themselves as the chosen people) was the result of god's will, that it was at times either trial or punishment. It does not however mesh very well with the more modern concept of God in many parts of Judaism and Christianity; particularly with the concept of God Jesus spoke of in terms of forgiveness, it is however important to note that this is a departure from traditional perspectives.

As a Heathen it's hard for me to accept the idea of a People suffering all together for a Just reason; never really made sense.

In the case we are discussing though, his opinion appears to be that the Jews have fallen away as an entire people, because they don't recognize Jesus as Moschiach. That seems pretty harsh to voice in public, I must say.

 

[OneTwo]

Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

I haven't read any of the other posts, but I'm going to direct this to the original question.

Its's disappointing that other people see religious people in this way, if anything then the believers of God have themselves to blame for this perception. This is strange as religion preaches peace, good and love. So either, religious people are spreading the word in the wrong manner, or the non-believers in God are becoming too defensive when religious people are talking about their religion.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

@HH
I agree. But there is no rule that says God can't be unreasonable; just as there is nothing saying that God cannot be three in one, or any one of an infinite number of potential, unfalsifiable, non logical (even nonsensical) claims. A God concept does not have to be likeable to be valid, even true (although such god concepts usually include claims that are unverifiable); God does not have to be 'good.'

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The Dog Whisperer Fallacy says he can't be! lol!