NOGO

This has nothing to do with representative government. Representative government is the law of the people for the people.

Representative gorvernment is not the best form of government. The best form of government is totally democratic which means that all the citizens get to vote on all laws.



Chimps have refused food in some experiments.
Each time the chimp pressed a button to get food he zapped another chimp in the cage next door. He heard his cries and eventually would stop pressing the button. Some chimps went a couple of weeks without food in order to avoid the hearing others in pain.


Yes, I know you want to restrict descussion to normal healthy humans but I don't. My purpose is to show that humans who have had their brain damaged at birth or otherwise will behave as animals. Humans who have received no education whatsoever willbehave as animals.


"progressive" is a bad word in the context.
There was nothing until Paul came along.
Paul invented it. Period. No need for any God.
Paul and only Paul.

Genesis 6:5 says no such thing.

The Gospels talk about "sins" not "sin". There is absolutely nothing about the original sin in the Gospels.

Perhaps Jesus did not says anything because there is no such thing and Paul make it all up. Jesus not only did not speak about the original sin but he stated in Mt15 that his mission was for the children of Israel alone which disqualifies him as the saviour of the world.

NOGO

When the bible states that the Amalekites were massacred because of an event that happened 400 years before, you ignore the statement and try to find some excuse to make the bible say something totally different.

When the Bible says that Jesus told the Pharisees that they testified against themselves simply for stating that they were the children of those who killed the prophets, you try and twist this into something else which ignore the clear statement made.

When the Bible says that David was forgiven for his sins and that his child must die because his very presence gives the enemies of the Lord reason to Blaspheme, you claim that Yahweh killed the Child to punish David. Once again ignoring what the bible actually says.

When a woman is captured in battle and raped and then let go with the blessing of Yahweh, you want to transform this kind of behaviour into "moral marriage".

When Job says that there is hope for a tree but there is no hope for man and many more clear statements about the finality of death, you go fishing for some vague statement which you claim proves that Job believed in life after death.

These and many others is what I call gyrations.

Your view of the Bible is not based on what it says.
It is based on an idealist view of God which religious communities have created for themselves.

Ed

No, Christ and the disciples never forced anyone to convert. And Christianity teaches loving obedience. You should obey Christ only if you love him. And you are right about your conscience, you should pattern your conscience to the highest standards and God's standards are the highest.

Ed

Evidence Pharoah was willing?

Quote:

Ed: No, to have a loving relationship with those who want to do so. wj: And if we don't want to do so, we get condemned into eternal torment. How loving.

Actually you are getting what you want, hell is separation from God and without God things are hellishly bad.

Quote:

Ed: No, most of the evidence now points to environmental causes. Studies using twins showed that it was not purely genetic. The act of engaging in homosexuality IS plainly the result of choice. Read any psychiatric publications prior to 1973. Actually studies have shown that pedophiles make up a higher percentage of homosexuals than they do of heterosexuals. wj: Lies. If you wish to disprove me, post links of research. Most gays are NOT pedophiles - the majority are heterosexual. And if it was a choice, why do gay people find it almost impossible to change their sexual orientation?

One of the twin studies is "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation" by Bailey and Pillard. And as far it being a choice, you do not have to act on your desires, sex is not necessary to live. So as long as you don't act on homosexual desires then you are not homosexual in the eyes of God. I didnt say that most gays are pedophiles reread my post. I said that there is a higher percentage of pedophiles in the homosexual population than in the hetero population. Read Freund and Watson's article "The Proportion of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles..." in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18,no.1, (1992), pp. 34-43. Actually studies have shown that with therapy a majority CAN change their orientation. Read "The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men" American Journal of Psychiatry 141, pp. 173-81.

Quote:

Ed: So you think that kleptomaniacs should be allowed to steal as much as they want? Or rapists allowed to act on their "natural" desires? Religion is natural but the Christian life is not. As stated above male homosexual behavior is a threat to society by the spread of serious disease and injury to both the practitioners and innocents, that is why it is not part of God's plan for humans. wj: Straw man argument. Homosexual acts between CONSENTING adults do not harm anyone. The spread of STDs can be controlled through condoms and monogamous relationships. How do the acts harm innocents?

No, since anal sex is the primary male homosexual activity it can cause rectal cancers, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, and of course AIDS. And of course just the act of inserting an object in the rectum often ruptures the intestine. The AIDS virus has been shown to be small enough to enter microscopic holes in the condom.

Quote:

wj: And why does the bible only condemn MALE homosexuality? Sounds sexist to me.

No, it condemns lesbianism also, read Romans 1:26.

lpetrich

On that condom permeability thing, imagine that you have a sieve with holes with a size that allows flour to get through but not sand. Will golf balls be able to get through that sieve?

And the same thing happens with condoms. If water cannot get through, then viruses can't.

And surface tension does NOT stop water from going through semipermeable membranes. Otherwise, osmosis would be impossible.

Ed seems like he's repeating misinformation fed to him by his fellow fundies.

Ed

Yes I did, in an earlier post I pointed out that "American" is just the geographical location of the thing while "personal" is an intrinsic characteristic of the thing.

Quote:

jtb: You claimed, falsely, that Christianity provides a superior rational foundation. But I know WHY good and evil exist: you do not. I know, not just that we HAVE emotions, but where emotions COME from: you do not. By analogy, you know that plants need sunlight, but you don't know why: whereas I understand photosynthesis. Ed: Huh? Christianity explains why good and evil exist. But see above where I demonstrated that if evolution is true then good and evil don't exist. Christianity also explains where emotions come from. By analogy you understand how to fix a car engine but you think it just came into existence by accident. jtb: As you posted your "see above where I demonstrated that if evolution is true then good and evil don't exist" AFTER this issue was addressed by several posters, you are lying AGAIN by pretending this is still an issue. Your decision to keep dredging up old posts from weeks ago is NOT an excuse to blatantly ignore everything that has been said since! You are also lying when you say that "Christianity explains why good and evil exist". The answer "God did it" does not explain WHY these traits EXIST at all, and you have already admitted this, and you KNOW that you have.

I never said that good and evil exist because God did it. Good is what God's objective moral character is. And by logically demonstrating his existence I logically demonstrated the existence of objective goodness. The only thing I admitted is that we don't know why God is good.

Quote:

Ed: Also, they were following the biblical teaching that you can learn about God by studying nature. Yes, some Christians used the bible to justify unbiblical slavery. jtb: There is nothing unbiblical about slavery. Ed: The biblical form of slavery is more like indentured servitude, ie they were freed in the Year of Jubilee. jtb: Incorrect. That was for Jewish "slaves" only. They kept both "indentured servants" AND slaves.

The keeping of Israel's enemies as slaves was part of the punishment meted out on them for attacking Israel, God's representatives on earth. But once God changed the goal of believers in the NT, he only allows indentured servitude.

Quote:

Ed: No, the scriptures refer to religious leaders being under greater accountability and judgement when they do wrong things. Although the scriptures condone indentured servitude as a necessary evil in severe economic times, it is not the ideal, read I Corinthians 7:21-24. jtb: ...Which, of course, says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about indentured servitude being a "necessary evil in severe economic times", or about it being "not the ideal". What it ACTAULLY says is "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant". In other words, God doesn't care either way: his standards of "freedom" and "servitude" are entirely independent of society's standards. So, by implying that the Bible speaks against slavery, you were lying. Ed: No, you failed to read verse 21 where Paul encourages those who are able to, to seek freedom. jtb: Slaves cannot seek freedom. Paul was referring to servants, not slaves. If the Bible DID condemn slavery, then it would instruct the slave OWNERS not to keep slaves. The slaves have no choice in the matter!

In the NT servants and slaves are basically synonymous. Actually there were various means for individual emancipation in the Greco-Roman world. I already stated that God allows indentured servitude but it is not His ideal. When Onesimus returned to Philemon after running away, Paul encouraged him to receive him as no longer a slave but as a "brother in the Lord', Philemon 15-16.

Quote:

Ed: No, the references I provided above show that most of the Nazi leadership hated Christianity and conducted the Holocaust with little or no reference to it. Evolutionary pantheism is a philosophy but also a generic term for religions such as Wicca, New Age religions, and the occult. In fact, there is evidence that many of the Nazi leaders including Hitler were interested in the occult, read Bullock's "A Portrait in Tyranny". jtb: Martin Bormann, the ONLY known atheist among the Nazi leadership (and the source of quotes attributed to Hitler in "Table Talk"), isn't "most".

Hitler endorsed everything Bormann said.

Quote:

jtb: And if you think that "evolutionary pantheism" is "a generic term for religions such as Wicca, New Age religions, and the occult": then I suggest you throw out your dictionary! I hereby claim that "Christian theism" is a generic term for Satanism, astrology, and human sacrifice to the Aztec rain god Tlaloc.

All of those religions I mentioned generally accept some form of evolution and believe in some form of all pervading impersonal force or deity, ie pantheism. Christian theism has nothing in common with those relgions you mention.

Quote:

Ed: No, Karl Marx's writings plainly teach that atheism is an intrinsic and necessary part of Communism. jtb: ...Where?

Comunism is a materialistic philosophy which by definition is atheistic.

Quote:

jtb: And it's a fact that many communists are theists.

Irrelevant to the actual principles of communism.

Quote:

Ed: No, as I explained above Christianity teaches freedom of conscience. jtb: This IS a joke, right? What part of "slay them before me" do you not understand, Ed?

That was a parable of Judgement day, when there will no longer be freedom of conscience, I am referring to Christ's life as an example to the present age. In the present age God allows freedom of conscience so that man can freely make a decision regarding the basis of his life.

Quote:

wj: That also implies that he enjoys letting people suffer, and he has made innocents suffer, take the example of the Egyptian people in Exodus. Egypt was an AUTOCRACY. The people had no influence over what Pharoah did, so why were THEY punished? Oh that's right, they were Egyptian. Ed: The reason they were punished was because of idolatry and as an example to Pharoah so he would let His people free. jtb: Two lies in one sentence! It is quite clear from the Bible that idolatry was't the reason, AND that God had hardened Pharoah's heart.

That most of the Egyptians were guilty of idolatry was a given, so it was not necessary to mention. God allowed Pharoah to harden his own heart. See my posts on how such language is used in scripture.

Quote:

Ed: Also, modern hospitals and medical science were founded by Christians... jtb: There were hospitals and doctors long before Christianity, and of course many modern hospitals were NOT founded by Christians. Have you ever wondered why doctors swear the Hippocratic oath and use the Caduceus of Hermes as their symbol?

Not of a form that is similar to today's hospitals and the doctors did not use the experimental method until after Christians invented it. And I know that in modern times hospitals are not always founded by Christians but in the past this was almost always the case.

winstonjen

If Pharoah wasn't willing, did god need to 'harden his heart'?




Really? He seems to do shit all now, and things can be good without him.




Well in that case, it took them thousands of years, considering that there was no condemnation in the OT.

Still no excuse for an omnipotent being to punish the innocent along with the guilty.

Jack the Bodiless

And I disproved your claim by pointing out that "American" is NOT a geographical location (if it was, there couldn't be any American soldiers in Iraq, they'd be Iraqui soldiers now), and there is no clearly identifiable characteristic called "personal".

They ARE equivalent.

...So please try to KEEP UP. Again you are posting refuted arguments as if they had never been refuted: another form of lying.
You have never logically demonstrated the existence of God. But as you keep ADMITTING that you don't know why God is supposedly "good", why did you lie AGAIN by claiming "Christianity explains why good and evil exist"?
No, he didn't. Bormann kept putting his own "spin" on Nazi ideology behind Hitler's back.
"Some form of evolution" is universally accepted by all modern people who haven't been brainwashed by Stone Age superstitions, because evolution is fact. But that doesn't justify the use of "evolutionary" in this context. Is the Space Shuttle an "evolutionary" spacecraft? Are you using an "evolutionary" computer?

I doubt if many Wiccans or New Agers believe in a strictly unguided "atheistic" neo-Darwinian evolution.

And Christians don't believe that God is omnipresent?
Communism is an economic system. It is no more "atheistic" than capitalism is.
Christianity refers to PUNISHMENT for making certain choices. There is no hint of "free will" or "freedom of conscience". The only reason we actually have freedom is because God does not exist, not because God "allows" this freedom.
You are lying. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. The Bible says so.
Hospitals and medical knowledge (and research) predate Christianity, so you're lying again.

lpetrich

Also, Ed has yet to point out where the Bible explicitly describes the "experimental method". And he has yet to explain why it was invented for ~1500 centuries after Jesus Christ had lived.

Also, consider this about Hippocrates:

Hippocrates was a Greek physician born in 460 BC on the island of Cos, Greece. He became known as the founder of medicine and was regarded as the greatest physician of his time. He based his medical practice on observations and on the study of the human body. He held the belief that illness had a physical and a rational explanation. He rejected the views of his time that considered illness to be caused by superstitions and by possession of evil spirits and disfavor of the gods.

Hippocrates held the belief that the body must be treated as a whole and not just a series of parts. He accurately described disease symptoms and was the first physician to accurately describe the symptoms of pneumonia, as well as epilepsy in children. He believed in the natural healing process of rest, a good diet, fresh air and cleanliness. He noted that there were individual differences in the severity of disease symptoms and that some individuals were better able to cope with their disease and illness than others. He was also the first physician that held the belief that thoughts, ideas, and feelings come from the brain and not the heart as others of him time believed.

Hippocrates traveled throughout Greece practicing his medicine. He founded a medical school on the island of Cos, Greece and began teaching his ideas. He soon developed an Oath of Medical Ethics for physicians to follow. This Oath is taken by physicians today as they begin their medical practice. He died in 377 BC. Today Hippocrates is known as the "Father of Medicine".

(end)

I quoted this in full, so you people can compare with the sort of "medicine" practiced in the Gospels -- exorcism, magical spit therapy, etc.

I think that modern doctors have much more in common with Hippocrates than with Jesus Christ. And that's no matter whatever religion they profess.

Ed

See my post to winstonjen above.