3RU7AL

Why, because you can't wrap your head around synergy?

If God is the cause of these bad things, he is to be invoked not blasphemed!

Yet, God exists and you have been given free will. You blaming God for your actions will not be a valid excuse.

or are you going to claim you can have an organ removed and discarded because you don't want it anymore?

Would leaving a living baby to die be immoral in your book?

Surely the mother has no obligation to feed it if she decides not to, right? Since it’s her body and all

Hint: if you have to bend over backwards to justify your own moral philosophy to yourself, it’s probably really dumb and you’ll look back on it in five years and cringe 

my mother was not a citizen, and yet I am.

you can't chose to have a kidney or other organ voluntarily removed even though "it's part of the woman's own body"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/foreign

The mithochondria in a cell contain some Mitochondrial DNA. The mitochonria in the sperm cell that power its motion are in the Mid-Peice which drops of once the head of the sperm has penetrated the ovum. This means that all the mitochonria and therefore all the mitochondrial DNA comes form the mother ovum. So it is true that the mother contributes more DNA to a baby than the father.

if a child has 1 parent that is a citizen then that child is also a citizen and can not be deported.

In other words, you aren't responsible for your own actions, correct?

3RU7AL v.s. GodThat ought to be an interesting court case.This is a really perverse line of reasoning. So when something happens that you don't like is blaming God going to be your go to? No, I imagine you would simply reject God all together. Reality isn't the way I want it to be, so I'm going to blame it, deny it, or replace it with something else!How arbitrary. This type of attitude will only lead to mental illness, not healing.

Depends on what definition of atheism you go by. If you go by the origins of the word "atheism", then agnostic-atheists are just atheist. 

Original atheism (atheos) meant having a lack of belief in god(s). 

I want to be a atheist. But I'm unfortunately agnostic. 

I kind of refuse to call myself a agnostic atheist because agnostic atheist TO me means your agnostic but hou hate saying your agnostic.

Then You start to  think about position.

The 2018 winners of this here religious forum is Team Agnostics. ' gives hand sign '.

The 204 winners of theists v atheists v agnostics .  Ladies and gentlemen .... it's team agnostic. 

Its been 5000 years plus of team Agnos. ' gives hand signals ' 

I hate being agnostic , i never admit to it. 

I'm agnostic because the theists who started the game of religions the very day religious group #0000000000000000000002 started whilst religion group number one was running. 

Being agnostic and knowing full well ( well believing )  the Atheists are the correct ones is hard.

This i feel is the price i pay for the theists having until  " INFINITY  O'CLOCK " to prove god exists.

So in the meanwhile we can pretend he exists.

No but seriously. Having until forever to prove god exists is handy right ?

Very well played. 

 

I suspect you've even given up looking for a god.  

But you're in a religious group ' HI 5 '.

So basically, you are arbitrarily passing judgement on God, the only real righteous judge, because we don't all live in candyland.

Not particularly.

You are implying that you are an atheist here, are you an atheist?

What I am saying has nothing to do with the judicial system or government at all.

Find it yourself. We all did

So we can use that free will to reject God or we can use that free will to love God.

Yet, we do have the ability to choose, and it was God who granted us this ability.

Why do you assume that? Gods develope like people have, evolution.Just because monotheists make a claim does not apply to every other religion out there. 

What kind of weird crap are you spouting? 

A rock can not move on its own, nor can it create anything.

A rock cannot make youtube videos that I'm not going to watch.

No, there is something special about people.

In particular, you as a human being are made in the image of God.

Yet a rock is not The Ultimate Reality, nor would the Ultimate Reality change by the destruction of this rock.

Disagree. Agnosticism is not a statement of belief but knowledge. It is possible to be an agnostic theist.

A rock is not The Ultimate Reality.

Illegal immigrants and coyotes go where the Border Patrol is not.

God is not water in a sponge.

God is certainly omnipresent, and you can't hide from God.

"All things came into being through Him, and without Him, there is nothing that came into being."

If there is reality to something, God is there. If it exists, it is there. Even illusory things exist as illusions. God is there. 

God is with us. Nearer than your breath. Nearer than your blood.

Part of the punishment for crime is the opportunity cost - The lost years that a prisoner won't be able to spend doing something better. This is part of the price - Part of justice. If prison becomes instant, then that price would not be paid. Sentencing policy was made made under the assumption that there would be this price to pay. However, payment may be tendered in alternative currency. The experience would have to be different in some way to make up for the fact that the prisoner now retains those years... the scales of justice must not me made to tilt one way by implementing this policy. It wouldn't necessarily have to be more unpleasant, but perhaps the experience could be longer with standard unpleasantness. For example, a prisoner may have to spend 3 years in virtual prison to count as 1 year in actual prison. Something like that.

The Greek word that we use as "heart" in the context of what it is I am talking about is "Nous", and being that you use words that are derivative of this word (such as noumenon), you should at least already, I would hope, have a rudimentary understanding of the concept.

Purify the heart in another way of expressing, to cleanse the intellect.

And I am saying that cleansing the intellect is more important than knowledge itself.

And Orthodox discipline is mostly centered around cleansing the intellect. Purifying the heart. The west departed from this, and as a result their theology became corrupted, and their philosophy nihilistic. 

What does that even mean to you?

If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.

It depends on how unified the accounts and details are to its confirmation, for a religious claim is a worldview. How does the worldview make sense of life?

Look, if there was only "one family of survivors" from this legendary flood, it would make sense that only one version of it would survive.

No, not necessarily. As the family multiplied and settled in other areas over generations the account would become corrupted by some or all. The biblical account does not claim it is corrupted but a true account because its source is God. 

But you're missing the point.  Just because we can verify there was some sort of flood in that area around that time does not mean "gods are real".

Again, it is just one line of evidence that points to God. That is the point. 

If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.

You seem to think that the argument for God is contained in one bucket so that when you establish a leak you lose all the water. History (His Story) is just one aspect of the argument and worldview, just like your atheistic system of belief is built on many different ideas, but core beliefs sustain it. The credibility is from the whole system. When you realize there is a leak in one bucket and you are losing water you forget that there is a network of buckets underneath that catches the water. 

Historical The Jesus =/= gods.

Historical Joseph Smith =/= The Angel Moroni.

Historical Lafayette Ronald Hubbard =/= Xenu

The examples are not equitable. Where did any of these others claim to be God or where did they give proof? Where did they claim to rise from the dead or claim to fulfill numerous prophecies?

I don't believe in Jesus' divinity because I do believe in materialistic universe.  I can't prove the universe is materialistic, but I judge the evidence good enough to make that choice.   

I believe Jesus was a real person because it seems to me more likely the seed of Christianity was a person rather than a total fiction.  I think it's quite likely a human Jesus preached and taught as per the Gospels in Judea 2000 years ago, but I also think the virgin birth, miracles and resurrection are fictional additions.

I repeat - I can't prove anything.  I have made a judgement based on the evidence I am aware of.   Discussing that evidence make this very long post indeed!

The truth in what I am saying is most evident in how an addict will find the most creative ways to rationalize their addiction.

Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods. [LINK]

Again. all this proves is that one borrowed from the other.

Since you have records that are earlier you believe that the biblical record is the later record. As I said before, this is not necessarily the case.

These accounts could very well have been corrupted and then written down and the biblical account makes many claims that can be backed up in its revelation. Back up these other claims to the same degree. 

If there were 100 different sources that were internally consistent, logically and stylistically, that claimed, for example, "Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods." [LINK]

The stylistic and logical coherence would mean nothing to you.

It would mean that one account or some parts of an account may very well be accurate, but the rest corrupted since the contradictions. You assume the Epic came first because it predates the biblical writings. What it does is avoids the biblical prophecies by a tangent on the Flood. The Flood is an account, not prophecy.

"Historically accurate" =/= 100% true.

It gives credibility to the biblical claims. They are reasonable to believe. If they are truthful on one thing why not on others when the evidence points to other information as reasonable. It is just one confirmation but it shows the Bible can be trusted regarding history. If I told you I saw someone putting a body in your trunk and others back up the claim then you open the trunk and find a body there, you would be more inclined to believe me when I described the person who did this.

"Historically accurate" = The Jesus is a historical figure.

Your point?

That (Gilgamesh) was written down thousands of years before Abraham was even born.  And I'm sure you agree that the age of a lie does not make it true.

I'm not following your connection between Abraham and the Flood? 

There are many accounts of a worldwide flood in ancient folklore. It means many people believed in such a flood. If there were so many it stands to reason that one belief or one account set in motion others since a worldwide flood would have eliminated and decimated humanity.  

That is what you say.

So are you going to dismiss the whole thing?

If you grant the biblical texts are accurate then you need to show they are not a revelation from God for they make this claim thousands of times in that they say, "the LORD said," "God spoke...," "the word of the LORD...," and so on.  

If you grant historical accuracy then you add additional evidence to the claim that Jesus was a real, true to life Person, which contradicts what you said earlier about Him as not real. 

First, what do you see as accurate about the Epic of Gilgamesh so we can compare the claims? They both state a worldwide flood. I agree that they are both historical artifacts but I question the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh as being the source of the biblical accounts. I see the Epic of Gilgamesh as a somewhat hearsay of the biblical accounts that Moses, inspired by God, wrote down giving the true account. - https://www.compellingtruth.org/Gilgamesh-flood.html 

It gives evidence of the reasonableness of it since if it is accurate on history then why is it not accurate on God?

The Bible does not depend on historical verification alone. There are many other lines of reason. Considering the number of authors claiming to speak from God and their consistent themes and unity through centuries is just one such line of reason apart from history and prophecy. As I mentioned, every OT writing has a typology of Jesus Christ that cannot easily be explained away because of the details.  

That isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that purifying the heart will do more for you than having all the knowledge or knowledge so called in the world.

You give the same information to a group of people and ask them to make a judgement.. What effects the judgement of each individual more so than the information itself is the state of their heart.

What do you think my case is?

I was wondering if you know why it is so important that the passage is presented as not merely a prophesy but a prophesy of AD70. 

God's original covenant was with the Hebrews/Jews, but at some point a second covenant with all mankind was established.

The critical thing about AD70 is that it was when the Jewish state and people (represented by the 2nd temple) were destroyed in a war with the Romans.  Israel would not exist again until 1948.

By setting the date of the new covenant with God as AD70 it can be presented not a an expansion of the coventant to include gentiles but an actual switch in God's favour from Jew to Gentile.

Lol I'm done with you. Go google up some more dogma.