azmodan

[disclaimer] Ed, while my questions are directed at you, this is by no means a personal attack. since you seem to be the chief voice for the christian worldview, i will ask you these. but anyone who wants to answer them please feel free to do so.[/disclaimer]

that being said....

ed, i have noticed a few things i would like you to explain. no disrespect intended just some honest questions. (i can tend to be advarsarial without intending to, so please just take my word for it, these are honest questions, not attacks)

1)you talk about others' bias, as though thier anti-supernatural/anti-theist bias invalidates thier position. so, my question to you is: why does thier bias invalidate thier position but your pro-supernatural/christianity is the greatest thing since 33ce bias doesnt invalidate yours?

1.5) having been raised in the church & graduating from a christian (EXTREMELY baptist) school i am very familiar with what the bible says, i was wondering if you could do it without simply droping verses or "the bible says it doesnt." i would apreciate knowing the logical/rational basis from which you derive this.

2)i dont have the specific quote, if you want it i will provide it. but earlier in this thread (on the topic of original sin, not deserving to live etc.) you said something to the effect of: for the ancient hebrews it was okay to deliver capitol punishment for simply being sinful, but for others, it is wrong. i have derived a few questions from this:

2a)why is this so?
2b)what caused god to change its mind on the subject?
2c)when did god change its mind about the morality of capitol punioshment for being sinful?
2d)doesnt this sound surprisingly relativistic after repeatedly asking for an "objective, rational basis for evil" from others (again i can provide the quotes if you want). whats right depends on what country youre from (jew or gentile) and what time you happen to live (ancient hebrew or modern hebrew)
2e) how does this mesh with immutability? god isnt supposed to ever change its mind. whats right for one is supposed to be right for all. whats right at one point in time is supposed to be right at all times. "...age to age, hes still the same..." as the old song goes right?

honestly no ofence intended. i'd apreciate any insight you can give.
probably more to come

Ed

Where did such an innate moral sense come from? If atheism is true then it is unlikely that such a thing exists. Because how can the moral come from the amoral? How can an "is" become an "ought"? Only Christian morality provides an objectively rational basis for condemning murder.


No, since no Christian knows with absolute certainty that they are going to heaven and they only know by looking at their lifestyle and their relationship with Christ and how that matches with what the scriptures teach. But if they commit murder that is a strong strike against the possibility that they are going to heaven. Especially if they don't sincerely repent.

It varies, but occurs when the child knows right from wrong.

Proverbs 3:1-6. Proverbs 22:6. Deut. 6:20-25 and many others.

Jack the Bodiless

Evolution and social conditioning.

azmodan

see question 2d in my june 25th post.

ceinwyn

Ed:

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that some of us don't need a god to be moral?

I personally don't need a looming god in heaven to tell me what is right or wrong. I do what I can to help who I can, none of it has anything to do with any religion. I know it's wrong to kill people and I know it's right to love. I help those who need and I let them help me.

I don't believe in any god. I do believe in trying to make this world a decent place. Does that make me an abomination?

Oh, also I'm a woman. Want a spare rib?

highpreistess

Pharoah held all the 'secrets' of existence and death, he had no reason
to fear the Habiru, who held onto their one god. Pharoah said he was
'god'.

In the book of Enoch, the angels make a pact on Mt Horeb to come into
existence as 'one' as a singled consciousness incarnating and reincarnating
through a specific bloodline, which that consciousness made 'divine'

side note" Crowley seen this consciousness and called it Aiwass.

The angels who took on the flesh did so because man's eyes were dim.
And they came to the earth and conquered it, forcing the sons of men
to live in their 'conditional' world. They ruled with absolute authority,
and took life or gave it at their own pleasure. (allegory of Joseph and
the Pharoah).


Pharoah believed that he was stronger than the Habiru's god. NOthing
could stop him, and so god hardened his heart.

Remember in the book of Enoch, it is explained that the fallen angels were
slaughtered from the face of the earth and held in the second reality,
or chained in the second dimension. They are the watchers who are
forced to watch as the remnants of their divine bloodline try to reconquer
the earth, this so that the fallen angels themselves might be loosed from
their chained hell. We see this going on today.......

Moses Killed Pharoah, she was Pharoah's wife, and killed pharoah and took
control of egypt long enough to free the sons of men enslaved by pharoahs
absolute tyranny. She wore a veil and a beard, but could not speak in
public, because it was forbidden for women to speak in public, so Hatshepsut
took them out of egypt and killed pharoah.

God has no reason to be 'nice' to the sodomites of the fallen angels.
Pharoah died because he took on the flesh in the first place. Hatshepsut,
was a woman from Goshen, it is where Pharoah's had taken their wives,
since the time of Joseph, who was 'second' to Pharoah, or Pharoah's wife.
Hatshepsut murdered her husband, and took the sons of men into the
dessert, and there gave birth to Gershon, a stranger in a strange land,
freeing him from being pharoah, and destroying the bloodline at the same
time, this is how Moses parted the 'red' sea.

The work of redemption against the nephilim did not stop there. David
slew his tens of thousands of progeny of the nephilim who were called
giants, or the sons of Anak. David slew them all. And the work did not
stop there, for Solomon then set his seal. Solomon's seal is the most powerful
seal on earth, an electromagnetic field, that he procured around
Stonehenge, by slaughtering 1000 perfect livestock on the slaughter
stone, and chained all of the nephilim in the second realm......

We see with the opening of tut's tomb, that the consciousness returned
to the earth, and those who knew anted to utilize it, it is why Hitler
had Aknaton's sarcophugus brought to Germany, and why he imported
thousands of tibetan monks, so that he might learn the secret of the
blood, traverse the bardo state, and return as mine Fhuher. But his
plan collapsed. But he knew that the 'divine' bloodline of the pharoah's
still existed.

The monarch's of Europe all claimed to be of one blood at the turn of
the century, and they suffered from a blood disease, hemophilia.

The work of the redemption was to kill off all of the nephiilm and their
progeny for all time.

The seal around the womb (stonehenge) prevents them from re-
incarnating, but their consciousness is here, it is why Crowley could
speak with Aiwass, and why Rael can commune with them, as they try
and tell him that they are elohim, and need bodies, so that Rael might
clone human entities that they could possess......hp

lpetrich

To highpreistess I say:

No comment.

highpreistess just doesn't make any sense to me -- like Amos and Sophie.

Ed

Hello Ceinwyn. Its nice to have a woman join this discussion. We rarely get any interested in this thread. I am afraid you misunderstood my post. I never said that atheists NEED God to be moral. The question is why do all humans have an innate sense of morality whether they are theists or not? As I said above, how does an "is" become an "ought"? And how can morality come from amorality? It is more rational to believe that our sense of morality comes from a pre-existing form of morality within the character of our Cause or Creator.

Ed

I am afraid I have already covered this both in this thread and in others I have posted recently. Therefore, I will only respond to a serious inquiry. So if you are serious about learning the explanation of these verses, feel free to send me a PM or an e-mail. But I will not be reposting my earlier responses at this time on this thread.

lpetrich

Ed, have you now decided that it's OK for women to teach adult men?

And if you still believe that women are not allowed to teach adult men, then please explain:

1. What is the age at which a boy/man may no longer be taught by a woman? 12? 16? 18? 21?
2. Why is that not allowed?
3. What will happen if an adult man is taught by a woman?

Please be specific about this, as if you were doing some wildlife biology.

Saying that the sexes are different just doesn't count. If they are, then so what? How would such differences be fundamentally different from numerous other individual differences?

And we don't get many male contributors, either.

Social animals have sociality instincts.

Do wolves in a pack indiscriminately hunt each other?
Do bees in a hive indiscriminately sting each other?

Also, Ed, what do you think are the real reasons for QoS and CoaS deconverting?