J
- Status
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Space Time Energy Matter- essentially all empirical “stuff”
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
A
ateista
Guest
There is no context here… if Jesus wanted to say: “whatever you ask in my name, and it is my will, I will fulfill…” - he would have said it.
And I thought that Jesus came for the sinners, and not the righteous?
A
ateista
Guest
You don’t have to. That is the beauty of it. If you wish to deny your biological need to feed yourself, you can do it… and then you will die. If you wish to deny your biological urge to propagate your genes, you may do so, and your genetic structure will be lost.
Just like above, you can deny your biological urges. You can deny the physical reality that you are unable to fly by flapping your arms. You are free to do whatever you want to, but nature will raise its “veto”, and you will eliminate yourself.
There was no “higher”, transcendant ideal there. Just the reality of nature.
A
ateista
Guest
Do you really say that if I do not agree with the propositions of astrology, then I am not “qualified” to use a book about astrology and point out the problems in it? Because that is exactly what you insinuate…
Sure I do. I consistently deny the validity of the Bible.you don’t have that consistent interpretation that Catholics use to lend your arguments from Scripture that authority.
Haha, no… But we partially move over to Europe, and it took quite a lot of deliberation, what to bring on, and what to leave behind.aside: took a week to pack? you must be going to antartica
A
ateista
Guest
You are not an idiot of any kind… It is a relatively new acronym I happened to coin a few monts ago, and it seems to gain acceptance. Which is most satisfying. At least I created something that may survive my limited existence.oooooooooooooohhhhhhhh
what kinda idiot am i?
J
JDaniel
Guest
I suppose that He said exactly what He wanted to say. I also suppose that warpspeed was correct when he said that Christ’s words are supposed to be taken in the context of the rest of the New Testament.
If I dictated a number of statements, beginning with “that I would give every man 1 million dollars from my lottery winnings,” and, later, in the course of the interview, I continued to say that “to members of my family,” some non-family men, using your logic, would be expectantly waiting their fair share.
Sinners, yes; disbelievers and heretics, apparently not.
JD
S
Sarpedon
Guest
If I decided to kill you and deny you the ability to propagate your genes, is this wrong? If so, why?
A
ateista
Guest
And they would be right. You should have qualified your statement up front. Sloppy wording is not an excuse.
Very interesting… so disbelievers are even below the sinners. I recall a “nice” bumper sticker, I saw many times; “Christians are not perfect, but they are forgiven”. Sure fills me with warm, fuzzy feeling. I feel so loved now… after all God loves all, even the sinners, but not the heathens?
A
ateista
Guest
Because you can never be certain that I am not faster to kill you when I see your intent. And you can never be certain that society will tolerate your action.
A perfect example of the inverse Golden Rule. “Do not do unto others…” you know.
The optimal strategy “rulez”. You leave me alone, and I leave you alone… we both win. Nothing could be simpler. Why seek confrontation when we both can peacefully coexist? No “transcendant” ideal here. Just plain common sense.
The idea you brought up, may work on the short run: you attempt to eliminate everyone whom you see as an impediment to maximizing your own well-being. But you cannot do it to everyone else at the same time. The laws of physics prevent you. The people whom you seek to eliminate will see you intent, and will defend themselves. The sheer number of them will assure that you will lose. And then, what? You antagonize everyone else and they will eliminate you.
That is the result of your strategy… clearly sub-optimal, isn’t it?
H
Highwayhound
Guest
It worked for Castro… and he lived to a ripe old age. Saddam, well I guess he should not have upset the Bush family. Ghengis Kahn did okay, too. I am sure if I thought long enough I would remember others.Because you can never be certain that I am not faster to kill you when I see your intent. And you can never be certain that society will tolerate your action.
A perfect example of the inverse Golden Rule. “Do not do unto others…” you know.
The optimal strategy “rulez”. You leave me alone, and I leave you alone… we both win. Nothing could be simpler. Why seek confrontation when we both can peacefully coexist? No “transcendant” ideal here. Just plain common sense.
The idea you brought up, may work on the short run: you attempt to eliminate everyone whom you see as an impediment to maximizing your own well-being. But you cannot do it to everyone else at the same time. The laws of physics prevent you. The people whom you seek to eliminate will see you intent, and will defend themselves. The sheer number of them will assure that you will lose. And then, what? You antagonize everyone else and they will eliminate you.
Here is America it is easy to have debates and theoretical discussions because we - as it was so eloquently put - are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
im saying that you are taking it out of context, the context of which is the entirety of Scripture, if you read a couple lines from a complicated contract you cant draw meaningful conclusions, you have to read all the addendum’s, because there are all sorts of conditions that affect the meaning of any one passage.Do you really say that if I do not agree with the propositions of astrology, then I am not “qualified” to use a book about astrology and point out the problems in it? Because that is exactly what you insinuate…
Sure I do. I consistently deny the validity of the Bible.
Haha, no… But we partially move over to Europe, and it took quite a lot of deliberation, what to bring on, and what to leave behind.
i will at another time start a thread on biblical validity
J
JDaniel
Guest
Silly man :tsktsk: . . . where did I use the word “love”? Did I say that He didn’t “love sinners”? What the passages said is, “He’s not necessarily going to ‘hear’ you”.And they would be right. You should have qualified your statement up front. Sloppy wording is not an excuse.
Very interesting… so disbelievers are even below the sinners. I recall a “nice” bumper sticker, I saw many times; “Christians are not perfect, but they are forgiven”. Sure fills me with warm, fuzzy feeling. I feel so loved now… after all God loves all, even the sinners, but not the heathens?
If you said, “I want to come home, please guide me,” He would listen and guide you. If on the other hand you said, “I’d sort of like to come home to you, but, you have no meaning to me as I have never laid eyes on you. Show yourself to me and I’ll believe,” do you really expect His ear?
I’m sorry that I’m kind of last to wish you an miracle filled and joyous holiday with your grandson. They are such a joy.
JD
S
Sarpedon
Guest
And what’s wrong with killing me? Why should you take my life into account?
Atheism can construct a moral system but it can only be based on personal preference. Atheists cannot say something is truly, intrinisically wrong, they can only say that you will probably be punished if you do the action.
There is nothing within STEM that mandates anything. Therefore, any “obligation” placed on us (i.e. do not kill) is merely the result of societal conventions. The action of killing is not “bad” in an intrinsic sense, but you will probably be punished by others if you choose to do it.
Of course, very few atheists put this into practice. They typically hold certain actions, such as supporting religious beliefs in laws, morally despicable. But why should we care? We have the majority. We have the power to control them, and we can exercise that power by punishing them for transgressing the moral laws we agree on (since we are the majority, we are the society).
Of course, there is always the risk that they will gain the upper hand with time. However, the chance of that happening during my lifetime is very small. Once I am dead, and I have nothing to lose by being punished, I now longer have any reason to be “moral” and worry about my descendants. I no longer have to worry about survival, so morality is irrelevant for me.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Ateista,
You quited:
Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will fulfill, because I will go the Father”.
The “context” that others have tried to give your quote renders it into a meaningless “God will do what God will do, que sera sera.”
I agree that your quote is a broken promise.
Best,
Leela
You quited:
Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will fulfill, because I will go the Father”.
Ateista, you probably wonder as I do why JDs quotes are just fine the way they are, but yours are always “taken out of context.”
The “context” that others have tried to give your quote renders it into a meaningless “God will do what God will do, que sera sera.”
I agree that your quote is a broken promise.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the definition of context that the church teaches is that scripture must be interpreted in the" full light of the scripture"
its not arbitrary, its been taught that way for millenia.
and the G-d will do as he pleases deal is in response to people anthropomorphizing G-d.
please present a real argument, unless you don’t have a reasonable response that is.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
STEM is not the only reality, can you give me a pragmatic argument for another one?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
why don’t you present a reasonable argument to the people you mean these posts for.
its a little sneaky to attack from behind someone else like that,
do you not have a reasonable argument?
if so present one, instead of making assertions on arguments in a post to one person, when you mean another to read it.
bad form
- Status