NOGO

Apologetic nonsense.
The text says that you do not give dogs what is meant for the children. This statement follows the statement that Jesus' mission was only for the children of Israel. The only possible conclusion is very different from the nonsense that you write.

Jesus was only there for the citizens of Israel and he was not about to give salvation to undeserving dogs.

Your Greek reference makes no sense because the scene does not take place in Greece and Jesus did not speak Greek nor was he speaking to a Greek person.

Nobody treats dogs as their children. Dogs do not sit at the dinner table, do not eat filet mignon, are not put on one's will, nor does one risk all that one has in order to save their lives. Dogs are inferior creatures and are treated as such.

Jesus' remark is derogatory.



Your logic is something to behold.
What exactly about this statement makes it spiritual truth?
And even if it were a spiritual truth it is still a threat.
It has the form
Do X or pay the price.

That is the form of a threat and does violate freedom of conscience. I do not believe in Christianity because it is simply not believable. It is rationally and logically flawed.

Ed

Yes, you have salt but if you replace the atoms you have a different salt molecule.

Quote:

ng: Life is a chemical structure.

Life may be a chemical structure but personhood is not totally dependent on chemical structure.

Quote:

ng: Therefore a living organism can replace every single atom in its structure and still keeps all the characteristics associated with the chemical structure. As an example take memory. Memory is like a sheet of paper on which is printed some textual message. You can photocopy it and as long as the same dots that were black on the original are still black on the copy the message is preserved. If, however you tear the paper, or burn it then the message is destroyed. The same is true with human memory. Replace every single atom in your brain with a similar atom and at the same place and your memory is preserved. However if you get into an accident and the brain is damaged then the memory is lost. Through accidents where the head is involved people have: 1) passed out (ie loss of consciousness) 2) coma 3) loss of memory 4) loss of brain higher functions (vegetable state) All of these are clearly a breakdown in the chemical structure of the brain. If your memory was more that the chemical structure then it would be preserved even if the chemical structure were damaged. It does not!

No, it could be that the chemical structure is the key for the person to open the memory file. So if the key gets destroyed then the memory file cannot be opened even though the memory is still there.

Ed

These subjects were dealt with in earlier threads. And you failed to deal with my comment, I will assume you were unable to.

Quote:

ng: Many of Yahweh's laws are similar to Hammurabi's code (1750 BC) which were written way before. Hammurabi's code #129 If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

Yes, many of them are similar but generally Moses' laws are more humane according to after Christ standards.

Quote:

ng: The law of causality cannot apply to the universe since according to science matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So your illogical reasoning simply does not hold. When we see matter/energy being spontaneously created we will ask what is the cause of this? but until then you are out of luck.

We did "see" matter and energy being created at the Big Bang. If you run cosmological history backwards you come to a point that does not have any dimensions therefore plainly implying that matter and energy did not exist since they require space to exist.

Quote:

Ed: It is plainly implied by episodes like the Amalekite scenario. No, it cannot be racist because all the peoples in the land of Canaan were Semitic, so they were the same race as the hebrews. ng: They could tell each other apart quite easily. Within each major race there are subgroups.

Huh? You are kidding right? What are the racial differences between the different semitic groups? Of course they could tell the big differences CULTURALLY, but I would like to see your explanation of how they can tell the difference racially.

Quote:

Ed: These are all referring to people of faith. Faith in God's redemption causes your sins to be taken away and forgiven therefore you are considered righteous. Read Genesis 15:6. ng: So what. You said that all have sinned and these cases clearly say that some people have not.

In the sight of God they have not, but in actuality they had but their faith was accounted to them as righteousness in the sight of God. Reread the verse. The bible mentions specific sins of almost all the people you mention. For example, Abraham is rebuked for lying about his wife being his sister.

Starboy

Has anybody noticed that Ed has not listed any serious problems with atheism as a world view? Mostly his problem has been that it is not the Christian world view. I wonder if Ed is even capable of citing objective problems other than because it isn't Christian?

Ed

Islam borrowed their morality from Judaism. But it is not just strictness, but strictness in combination with not being saved by ritualistic behaviors. Man made religions generally require the performance of certain ritualistic behaviors in order gain favors from the deity or deities.

Quote:

(mass murder of Amalekites...) Ed: No, it cannot be racist because all the peoples in the land of Canaan were Semitic, so they were the same race as the hebrews. lp: Hairsplitting that would make a sleazy lawyer proud. That's like claiming that the Nazis had not committed genocide because the Jews are not really a race.

Hardly. My statement is a scientific fact while your example is an obvious false analogy because jews while not scientifically a race are considered a race by themselves.

Ed

Actually there is a big line separating australopithecines and homo "erectus". First the huge difference in brain power and then the large skeletal differences between facultative bipedalism and obligate bipedalism. Such as the location of the foramen magnum. In apes and australopithecines it is at the back of the skull but in humans (homo) it is on the base of the skull. And there are no transitional foramen magnum positions in the fossil record.

Quote:

JTB: Please cite your experiments in which you proved that humans and chimps definitely cannot interbreed fiach: I know of no such experiments. If they were indeed done, they would have led to loss of professional tenure because it is such a taboo subject. Fundies in America would riot in the streets and burn university science labs.

Actually I think someone has probably tried it, but since nothing happened it didnt make the headlines. Maybe not in America but somewhere.

Quote:

fiach: Ah now we get into my field. Humans cannot interbreed with chimps. Nor can chimps interbreed with gorillas or orangutans. This is because we are all different species of primate. But we are all still primates. The term "Ape" has more of a literary meaning than a physiological one. An ape is just a large tailess monkey, so that pretty much covers us. Spot on. But the word is almost always used to mean "the OTHER large tailess monkeys." But a fairly large number of human children are born with a residual tail.

No, all those examples of children born with tails, it turns out they are not actually tails. They are almost always off center of the vertebral column and do not contain any bone or cartilage. See Ledley in the New England Journal of Medicine (1982), "Evolution of the Human Tail".

Quote:

So are some chimps. Part of the problem is the supertitious notion that we are not even animals. Of course we are animals. Anatomy, genetics, comparative proteins all prove it. The fact that like all vertebrate animals we have 4 limbs, a vertebral spinal cord with cushioning discs, ribs, the same bones in our limbs (one upper arm humerous, but two forearm bones- ulna and radius, 5 digits, a scapula for each arm, hips of three fused bones, one femur for each thigh, two bones - fibula and tibia for the lower leg, and five digits, penis and testicles on males, vagina in females, skull with a brain. brain with brainstem, brainstem with medulla-pons-mesencephalon, and diencephalon, a hypothalamus, archeocortex, paleocortex, and neocortex.) We also have temporo-limbic emotional systems, occipital visual cortex, parietal association areas, and frontal lobes for thinking of variable size (not qualititative but quantitative differences.)

Those similarities could also just mean the same designer designed both humans and animals. The thinking of humans is not just quantitatively different but also qualitatively different, ie animals do not have a moral conscience or a true will. Also they cannot think abstractly.

Quote:

fiach: Some palaeoanthropologists posit that it might be possible to bread a chimp with a human but the problem is finding a country to let us try it. Fiach

After you bread the chimp, do you then add oil and put it in a large frying pan?

Jack the Bodiless

No, they weren't. I see the hallucinations are continuing.

You've never heard of Homo Habilis?

And australopithecines were upright bipeds with the foramen magnum at the base of the skull. So you're lying again.
You mean, like baptism? Confirmation? Holy Communion? Marriage? Last rites? Christian burial?

Of course, ALL religions say that the rituals ALONE aren't enough.

So Christianity is a man-made religion. Glad we've settled that.
They are all partly-formed tails. Odd that you would cite a source which talks about the evolution of the human tail. Since you disagree with the premise of the article, why do you imagine that citing it will support your case?
More bullshit, already refuted.

But Starboy is right: after all this time, you still haven't found any problems with "the atheist worldview".

Jack the Bodiless

A google search on "foramen magnum" australopithecine came up with 247 hits. All the ones I've checked list the forward position of the foramen magnum as one of the key hominid features of the austrlopithecine, so Ed's contrary claim is a rather obvious example of "Lying for the Lord".

But this one, by a creationist, was rather amusing:
All creationists are either ignorant or insane (or both). This is a classic example of the latter trait: actual awareness of the fossil record, and the clear existence of a wide range of transitional forms between apes and humans, has forced this particular cretinist into believing that humans HAVE been interbreeding with apes!

I wonder how he imagines that such interspecies crossing would be successful, given that we're "of different kinds"?

Starboy

Perhaps he has personal experience.

Ed

No, but once they reach a certain age I think most people DO instinctively know that a Creator exists. And when they learn basic principles of logic they can learn that the Christian God is the only creator god that could logically exist.

Quote:

wj: From observations of brainwashing children, the primary basis of Xianity is from spoonfeeding helpless children religious propaganda when they cannot resist.

No, if you teach children about the logical basis and truth of Christianity, the rest of their life they will be living the most rational and fulfilling life possible. And in fact will protect them from being brainwashed by cults and irrational naturalistic philosophies such as the secular humanism that many public schools inculcate into children.