Total posts: 2,182
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Any study that global warming is hoax by you via other is itself the hoax.
The study didn't deny Global Warming.
It simply told us that even if everyone went carbon neutral, it would make little to no change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Exodus 22:28 King James Version 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
“Do not blaspheme God[a] or curse the ruler of your people." Exodus 22:28
"let us go down and confuse their language"
Trinity.
The man has become like us"
Trinity.
Psalm 82
Original translation says "mighty" not Gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
I would say that is all very good news. However that doesn’t really change the fact the climate is changing. It can be argued that humans aren’t the driving force of it (I don’t believe we are) but it’s still something we need to be concerned over.
I do believe the climate is changing as well, but it's nothing new.
We have had drastic changes in the weather all throughout history.
The earth has been way colder, and now it's just heating up.
The earth has heated up before, and then got colder once again.
It will do the same thing.
The biggest mass extinctions in history have been caused by climate change.
We think that they were caused by climate change.
We need to make sure as a species we are attributing the the changing climate as minimally as possible.
They actually did a study on this. If every single person on earth stopped using fossil fuels, almost nothing would change in the climate. Almost nothing..................
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The BIBLE clearly refers to other gods. i.e. "let us go down and confuse their language" Genesis 11:7. How can a "false god" or "idol" do anything?"The man has become like us". Genesis 3:22. Who are the "us"?
Listen carefully.......................The Trinity.
Tell me, why would your god say on the one hand "do not make a covenant " with those you have called " false gods and idols" and on the other say "Thou shalt not revile these gods." Exodus 22:28 ?
You're using a very weird translation for some reason.
Original translation: “Do not blaspheme God[a] or curse the ruler of your people."
So yea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.People didn't live hundreds of solar cycles.But hundreds of lunar cycles.So what we regard as 50 today would have been approximately 650 back then.
Nope. A lot of scholars would disagree with you. Nowhere in the Bible did it say they lived by lunar cycles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There is more to the story. Over the last decade, total global emissions declined. Deaths from natural disasters have diminished to a few hundred a year in the United States. Even as the global population has quadrupled over the last century, they have declined internationally by over 90%. The Great Barrier Reef recorded the highest amount of coral in 36 years, and maybe longer, because that's the amount of time we have been studying and measuring.
What do you say to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
But they do feel pain when they are killed.
Most times no. They die instantly usually if the farmer or slaughter is humane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Unlike animals, humans do not care about the survival of cows, pigs and chickens.
They provide nutrition. They are not human and don't share the same moral values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Don't remember the bible mentioning another family in Nod.The contradiction is that Adam and Eve were 1 and 2, Cain and Abel 3 and 4.When there were clearly others elsewhere who produced offspring with Cain.So who did Adam procreate with in Nod?
The family came from Adam and Eve.
People back then lived hundreds of years.
We don't know how long during Cain and Able, what Adam and Eve were doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
Also it is not a stretch to see that the Bible commonly calls the earth a circle. That is inaccurate, it is a sphere. If you can’t take the words of something literally they have very little value in my opinion. Granted I am very science oriented in my life. All of my life revolves around science so I view the world in a very reductionist literal way. So I find little value in words that can’t be taken literally
Does the bible, call it a flat circle? No.
The original translation actually translates to the word round, so not circle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Genesis 3:22Let us go down, and there confound their language. Genesis 11:7The Old Testament God is a "god of gods" who is worshiped by the other gods.
The Trinity.
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. Deuteronomy 10:17Worship him, all ye gods. Psalm 97:7O give thanks unto the God of gods. Psalm 136:2Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord. Psalm 86:8He is better than the other gods.Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 15:11Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 18:11Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Exodus 20:3-5Great is our God above all other gods. 2 Chronicles 2:5Our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 135:5The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 10:11The Hebrew God judges the other gods.And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Numbers 33:4God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1And will punish them.I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods. Jeremiah 46:25The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth. Zephaniah 2:11He is a jealous God (whose name is Jealous). So he forbids us to "go after" or worship any of his competitors.For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Exodus 34:14Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you.) Deuteronomy 6:14-15Thou shalt not ... go after other gods to serve them. Deuteronomy 28:14If you give God glory, he'll go easy on you and all your other gods.Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods. 1 Samuel 6:5And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt. Jeremiah 25:6But you must fear God more than all the other gods.The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. 1 Chronicles 16:25For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 96:4Don't sacrfifice to any of the other gods. (Or God will kill you.)He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20Don't put any of the other gods before him.Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Deuteronomy 5:7Don't make a covenant with them.Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. Exodus 23:32Don't burn incense to them.I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods. Jeremiah 1:16Or even mention their names.Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exodus 23:13Put away your father's gods.Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served. Joshua 24:14And stay away from the god named Chemosh.Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? Judges 11:24But don't revile the other gods.Thou shalt not revile the gods. Exodus 22:28Other people served other gods (as did Abraham's father Terah).Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. Joshua 24:2And a witch once saw gods going up to heaven.And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 1 Samuel 28:13Always remember that people are gods too. (Jesus used this when he was accused of making himself a god.)I have said, Ye are gods. Psalm 82:6The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? John 10:33-34And the three gods in heaven are really only one god. (Don't worry about this one too much. It's a mystery.)For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7
At the time, there were a lot of false Gods. When he says he is God of all Gods, he is referring to the false Gods that people perceive as Gods. Idols if you will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
To anyone not already indoctrinated into Christianity reading the above passages it is crystal clear that according to the Bible Jesus was supposed to return in the first century of the Christian Era. That has not happened. Yet the Christian religion persists with the majority of its adherents still awaiting the return of their savior. How have they reconciled their scriptures to reality?
No this is not true. We do not know the extent of how long humans will be on earth for, before Jesus comes back.
That means that we could go on to survive for thousands, millions, or even billions of years into the future. So, coming back soon does not necessarily mean soon according to John's time. Again, the scripture reads," Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me...". This shows that God is the one speaking, not John. So, according to God, soon, could mean millions of years, or billions of years before the actual end.
These passages show that these New Testament writers did believed the apocalypse was very near. They were clear that they were living in the last days when Jesus was to return in the clouds and bring about the end of the world as they knew it.
Ok? The writers had full right to guess when he would come back. That doesn't mean they had to be right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated, morality is a derivation of the survival instinct.
Give me one point in human history where man told man that we only must be nice to each other, in order to survive.
If this was the case the world would be more chaotic than it is now, because in the back of people's minds, they wouldn't care about another person. W
We would have a lot more psychopaths and criminals, because why not do bad things, if the only reason not to do those things, is for the survival of others.
That is what animals do.
Unlike animals, humans care about the survival of others. Even old frail people we try to save.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Everything is relative and everything is in the mind. In the past, children sacrifice was considered morally good because people thought it would soothe the "madness" of the gods, until someday people realized that children sacrifice was all bullshit because it didn't work most of the time.
In the past, child sacrifice was still considered a moral wrongdoing, but the people who participated in it, did not think that the God they served cared about moral wrongdoing, and only cared about the sacrifice.
I remember a social experiment in a pair of twins that were seperated and raised in different environments, one was raised in a regular family, I guess he was taught the christian morality, and the other was raised in a criminal environment with no moral. The results were what we can expect, one ended up being a "model" person and the other a fucking criminal.
Ok? Just because their lifestyles influenced their outcomes doesn't mean that they didn't have the same morals.
Again, 2 things can be true at once. People can have the same morals, but those same people might not choose to follow them.
For example, it was thought that homosexuality was inmoral, but now it's not.
A lot of people still consider it immoral. That is not a universal truth that it is now moral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
The first verse is in the Old Testament, before Jesus came down, and died for everyone's past, present, and future sins. Therefore, there were more physical everyday life rules that God enforced, like sacrificing a lamb to cover one's sins, and keeping the Sabbath Day holy.
The second takes place in the New Testamate, after Jesus has died. This means that certain things that Jews, had to do in order to account for their sins, and certain rules did not need to be followed (In order to obtain heaven). That doesn't mean we shouldn't still obey some of these respectful rules, but it does mean that the Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. The lamb that was slain for everyone's sins.
with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
With, God all things are possible, but it doesn't mean that he will always do everything for you.
The real problem I have with the Bible and religion in general, is that if you can’t take words literally then they have no special meaning.
Words have different meanings for different situations. Language is complex.
Job 38:14 that says “the earth takes the shape of clay underneath a seal…” what other shape does clay underneath a seal take besides flat with bumps protruding out of it?
A pot.
you can also refer to the many times that the Bible calls the earth a circle. And never refers to it as three dimensional.
Thats a stretch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If Cain was Number 3.Who did he procreate with when he was banished to Nod.
Not a contradiction, but more or less just a question. He most likely married a daughter of Adam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
You're a bot, Tim, so I don't really take you seriously in actual debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Humans exhibits ethical behavior by nature because their biological makeup determines the presence of the three necessary, and jointly sufficient, conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgements; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself, but as a necessary consequence of man's eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection.
Ok, well, how are all humans able to determine the same things as good and bad? I mean, even a 7-year-old would know killing is bad.
Again, what gave humans those abilities, and better yet, what gave all humans all those abilities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Right, it wouldn't be.The problem is that in this world it is a bad thing.
The, so called, Paradice, in this situation would be in this world, but in a specific place in this world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You either accept that its wrong to decrease life, either you dont.You either accept that its wrong to increase pain, either you dont.
But why are those things wrong, and not good?
There has to be a reason for all humans congruently agreeing that certain things are good, and certain things are bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So a simple conclusion would be.......Moral is, as moral chooses.
So, where does it come from then?
Created:
Posted in:
Morality is something that all humans possess. People say that we have a sense of morality imbedded in us. Others say that we only have morals, for the goal of survival, and thriving.
I believe that Morality is a distinctively human trait. Sure, other animals and creatures hold some sort of kindness and generosity for certain things, but those creatures have been proven to do it for survival or thriving.
But we are different.
Imagine you are in paradise (meaning a place where everything is perfect) with another person. You have no reason to kill that person, but you also don't have any reason to not kill that person. Killing them wouldn't affect your survival, or the state of thriving that you are in. Nothing would change, except for that person dying.
Now be honest. Killing in this situation would be a (so to say) sinful thing to do, or a bad thing to do obviously. But why would it be bad? After all, nothing bad would happen except for that person losing paradise.
But that's just it. Harm to the other person, whether it affected you are not, is still bad. But why? Why is it bad?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
If anyone brings out a pretty good contradiction that I have a hard time with, then I would consider doing that, however, I would like this to be an open discussion for the time being.
Created:
Posted in:
I want to challenge any claim of contradiction in the Bible. Now I might take a while to answer some of them. I presume I will probably need to do research on some of the questions that come up, but nonetheless I will try to answer them, one way or another.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey everyone. I know I haven't' been on a lot recently, because I have been busy with life, but I am back, and I am going to be getting into similar arguments as I have before.
So, let's get started:
In the upcoming election, it is pretty clear that Joe Biden is going to win as the nominee for Democrats.
For Republicans it could be Trump, or DeSantis, or someone else.
My question is simple. Would you vote for Biden, or any other legitimate Republican candidate as President.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hmmmmmmm.I would imagine that people said the same about Adolph Hitler.
Ok? Many people also called Hitler good, and many people call Biden good. Is BIDEN HITLER??
Created:
Posted in:
Ron Desantis, in my opinion, is a far better candidate than Donald Trump is.
Ron takes politics in a different direction than most politicians nowadays, take it. He rightfully believes that politics is about getting things done for the better of the people, and not about putting on a show. He doesn't put a show on the media by saying the right things, like most politicians do, but instead lets his actions speak for themselves, which is a very smart strategy and will help him in the nomination.
Trump on the other hand, does things the opposite way. Trump plays politics like he is on a TV show (which he is probably very familiar with). Trump in 2016 did better than most people had originally thought he would and did a pretty good job as president. One of the only reasons why Trump made it to the seat of the president, is because he had no political record, and no other candidates had anything to go off of to attack Trump. Now he does, and with all the mistakes he has made throughout his career, and with the media targeting him it's going to be harder for him to become president, and he needs to start stepping it up.
Republicans need to think about what they want. If they want a showy guy, who will put on an amazing show for the Republicans, than vote for Trump, but if you actually want stuff done, and Joe Biden beat then vote for Ron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Literally read the post dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Biblical testimony actually supports its falsity.p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur.p2. Jesus has never experienced decomposition. (Acts 2:31: His flesh did not experience decay)p3. Jesus never died.c1. Jesus did not resurrectErgo, Christianity is false.
Just because his flesh did not decay, doesn't mean he didn't die. God preserved his body. Look at the context of that verse.
Evil comes about from more ways than just free will.
What do you mean specifically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property.
"As long as"
Something cannot come from nothing.
And at some point, there had to be nothing, or else physics, and biology would be contradicted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I didn't create sin, or the idea of sin. Whose idea was that? This is just a longer way of saying "love me or else."
The meaning behind, "or else" is what is important.
If God was saying: or else, I will send you to hell, then that would be problematic.
But he is instead saying: or else you will send yourself to hell.
So literally every non Christian created by god over the course of let's say 5,000 years, including people like Iroquois babies, are burning in hell.
Babies and small children do go to heaven.
Anyone else though, yes, they are burning in hell, by their own choice.
This is justice, then? If I'm a totally good person, don't believe in Jesus, and die in my sleep, then I go to hell. If you murder someone and are really sorry for it and believe in Jesus, you go to heaven. Sound right?
Yes.
Let's say I'm generous and grant this. Please demonstrate this creator is the character described in the bible, which has existed for less than 5000 years, while the universe is demonstrably between 13 and 14 billion years old.
First of all, you don't grant this, because this is fact.
Second of all, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is 5000-, or 6000-year-old.
If we look in revelation, it claims that 1000, years is like one day for God. This is implying that our perception of time is different than Gods.
So, for God, the first 7 (or six if your being petty) days of creation, were days, but for us they could have been billions of years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is just a longer argument from incredulity.
How so?
Inteligent life cannot exist without an intelligent creator. This is true.
It's extortion: love me or else. And if I were to murder someone, and on my deathbed I'm super sorry and really have a genuine conversion experience, accept my lord and savior, do I go to heaven or hell?
First of all, it isn't: Love me or else.
It is, choose me, so that I can save you from your own sin that you created yourself.
As for your question, it all depends on your heart. God looks at the heart when judging, and I believe that if you really genuinely accepted God as your Lord and Savior on your death bed, you would go to heaven, no matter what you have done in your life.
Conversely, if I jerk off tonight, don't believe in Jesus, don't repent, then die in my sleep, do I go to heaven?
In this scenario, the jerking off has nothing to do with you not going to heaven. You wouldn't go to heaven either way, because you didn't believe in Jesus.
Who is making the criteria for entry to either realm?
First of all, it is not another realm. It is outside of everything in comprehension.
Second of all, there was no criteria for heaven before man fell. It was heaven on earth for Adam and Eve before they fell. The only criteria for heaven, is to be without sin. And God didn't make these criteria, it just makes sense. God is perfect and cannot allow non-perfect people into a perfect place, because then he wouldn't be perfect, and that place wouldn't be perfect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
- Resurrection didn't happen.
There isn't any concrete factual evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did happen, but there is a lot of evidence to support it.
All of his disciples (each and every one of them) left their family's and lives to be tortured, killed, in some of the most gruesome ways, all because they preached that God was resurrected from the dead, and gained no worldly benefit whatsoever by doing this.
This as well as the almost 500 eyewitness accounts claiming Jesus to be resurrected from the dead. To keep that "lie" among 500 people, and the disciples, is a very hard thing to do, especially back then.
Also put into account that if there were concrete hard truth evidence to the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible would be contradicted, because the Bible preaches to live by faith and not by sight. If the evidence was truly there, people would become Christians only to save themselves from their own sin and not for the reason God wants us to. So, I think that just the fact we have so much evidence pointing toward it, but not enough to prove it, proves the point in the first place.
- Has not been demonstrated that our universe exhibits signs of either teleology nor a singular beginning.
Purpose is an example of something we cannot prove. Do we even have a purpose?
Well, if the idea of purpose exists in our brains, then purpose must exist, in a more hierarchical form, because that's how the universe works. In a hierarchal form.
Also, the Big Bang we can prove, and we can use that as a single beginning point of the universe. But I get what you mean by that, given we don't know where the mass for that implosion came from.
- The problem of gratuitous evil.
If God stopped evil, he would take away our free will to choose, and in turn take away our ability to truly love him.
- Epistemic bar is too high such that practically nothing would convince me.
Wouldn't just that alone convince you? This statement somewhat confuses me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Argument from incredulity.
We are intelligent life in the universe. So, how can unintelligent life, create intelligent life? Thats not how it works.
In order for a watch to be made (which is a very complicated piece of equipment) there has to be a watch maker. There is no other way to create it, no matter what the universe throws at it.
We are far more intelligent than a watch, and there is no way that any kind of explosion could create our complicated brains that even we cannot understand.
What happens to people who die without loving god? If the answer is any sort of punishment or unequal treatment of their immortal souls, then what you're talking about is awful close to an abusive relationship and extortion.
God gave us life. And in turn, all he asks for is a loving relationship with him. Choosing not to love him then you going to hell, isn't abusive.
Let's not forget that we all sin and make bad decisions. And because of those bad decisions, we deserve hell.
God is saying, that since, we are all destined to go to hell, and he still loves us, he is offering a way out, by sending his son as a sacrifice for all of our sins and giving us the chance to love him again. Us choosing to deny that gift is our own faults, and he is offering a way out.
God doesn't send anyone anywhere. We send ourselves to either heaven or hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
I can answer your questions:
God exists because how would anything exist without a God like figure the idea that reality has gone on forever and repeated itself is wrong, because then matter comes from basically nothing.
No one created God because he doesn't exist like you and me. Imagine time, space and matter exist in a tiny little box. God exists outside of that box and created that box.
The box is the universe. In this scenario.
As for your question about evil. If God interfered with evil entering the world, than he would have taken away man's free will, and in turn taken away true love, which was the purpose of creating us in the first place. Love goes both ways, and love doesn't work unless both sides choose love. And you can't choose love without free will. Man chose to sin, and not love therefore letting sin in as the consequence.
Created:
Posted in:
Ready, go:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. It's fucked up that he would be sacrificed for my sins. The guy was perfect, he doesn't deserve that. Literally slaughtering an innocent person. I don't want that on my conscience and so I must reject forgiveness.
The whole point of the sacrifice was to give you a chance for forgiveness. You not accepting that, is not only going to not change his suffering, but will make his suffering meaningless to you.
Imagine your in the middle of a swamp with your father, and an alligator is about to attack you. You father fights to get you to land, and you survive, but your father doesn't. Now imagine after all of that, you jump back in the lake with the alligator.
The father represents Jesus.
The alligator represents sin.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems like we have been celebrating it all, year with other special holidays like:
Bisexual Health Awareness Month. 30
International Transgender Day of Visibility. 1
National LGBT Health Awareness Week. 7
National Transgender HIV Testing Day. 1
Non-Binary Parents Day. 1
Lesbian Visibility Day. 1
International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. 1
Harvey Milk Day. 1
Pansexual & Pan Romantic Awareness & Visibility Day. 1
Non-Binary Awareness Week. 7
International Drag Day. 1
LGBTQ History Month (not to be confused with Pride Month). 30
International Lesbian Day. 1
National Coming Out Day. 1
National LGBT Center Awareness Day. 1
Asexual Awareness Week. 7
International Pronouns Day. 1
Transgender Parent Day. 1
Pansexual Pride Day. 1
Gay Uncles Day. 1
Phew. A lot of days, weeks and months that we have celebrated, but now we enter the most holy of them all. Pride month. For those who are wondering how many days that brings us in total in the whole year it is roughly about: 126 days celebrated toward Pride. So, we celebrate pedophiles for almost half a year, but we only celebrate fallen Americans for one? At this point how can you say the LGBTQ+ community is not a religion? They have more holidays than any other one. Plus, they have the holy Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who are basically the priests of this community. Not only this, but for a religion, I am surprised they have gained so much traction in companies, like Bud Light, Target, The North Face, just to name a few. But this is all part of the plan, right? First it was in the 90's where they "just wanted acceptance". Then in the early 2000's where they "just want equality". Then in 2012 where they force pastors to marry them. Then in 2015 where if you misgendered someone, you could lose your job. And now in 2023, where the Drag Queens will force your kids to watch Drag Shows. At first it was "gender is a social construct, so men can be women and vice versa". Now it is "gender is a social construct, so men and women are not genders, and there are millions of them. There is no way to justify this abomination of pride to be celebrated more than any other combination of religious holidays, and celebration of people who have actually done something for our country. But you know, literally mutilating children and chemically castrating them like pedophiles is the real solution to the suicide rate of these kids who are confused about their gender, because of the social influence that they left has pushed upon them. We should be castrating the pedophiles doing this to them, not the kids being targeted by the pedophiles. This whole thing is sick and twisted and needs to be pushed away from being socially acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
But you also have to put into consideration that in a capitalist society there is bound to be others that are nice enough to help these social outcasts. And programs that help people as such, do need these people.
What are the qualifications for a social outcast?
You can't work?
You can't speak?
You can't function properly?
What are the defining qualities of a social outcast?
It is in my belief that if you are mentally "retarded" in some since that the law should help you in some way thrive, given you can't make a decision on your own, but only if you can't. There are many cases, with people who have conditions like downsyndrom, who have lived the American Dream just by their own hard work, and no one around to help them. So, if you really can't function properly, then the law should help you. If you can in any way make a living, then it is on you, no matter how hard your life is to rise up to the challenge and become successful. That creates a stronger person in the end and there is no excuse for it. Most of the social outcasts you talk about today are only social outcasts because they have chosen to be. There are many ways to make a decent living especially in America of all places, and there is absolutely no excuse, if you are bodily and mentally abled to make a good living for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Rather, I think he is quick to forgive the Empire of the sin and overlong on the mitigations of that sin. For example, he paints the Empire itself as the reformers in 1807 reacting to Methodism when the fact is that the Empire was reacting to the global uprising of democratic revolution. The King of France was dead. Italy, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian empire, Spain, Portugal were all in various states of civil war and Napoleanic defeat. For the first time in history, it was beginning to look like Kings and Nobles and slaves and subjects were the past and democratic citizenship was the future. The 1804 Genocide of the white and mulattos of Haiti loomed massively in the imagination of every slave owner in the world just as European monarchies needed to pull troops from overseas security into the European conflagaration. Biggar seems to be suggesting that the English Empire was leading in the abolition of slavery when in fact they were the panicked late-comers looking to save their asses. I suppose every monarchy needs its apologists to justify it present relevance but giving the job to an Oxford theologian seems rather perverse.
In fact, you are incorrect. In Europe, Britian was one of the main ones, leading the prevention of slavery. Even in India, they proposed that classes of Hindu culture, should be secured and taught. Then the Indians came right back and demanded instead of being taught that, that they should be taught new European technology.
If you really take a good look at the history, Britian after the U.S. is one of the main country's leading the end to racial slaveries and segregation. Now they did conquest and capture other places don't get me wrong, but it wasn't race based. It was greed based, and many other countries as well have done this, including still today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I'm going to be out of country this Friday, so I might be a little late to the party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@ADreamOfLiberty
I have no idea who this guy is, but I'm calling BS. It is extremely unlikely a modern commentator defends slavery and thus extremely likely that you are peddling misinformation here.
Your correct.
Biggar is not defending slavery.
He is simply stating in the book that:
Slavery does not equal Colonization.
He talks about how slavery is and was bad, but for most people back then, was a social norm, and looked upon as socially acceptable.
He talks about how even after certain slaves were freed, they would too go out and enslave others after power given to them.
The notion that any British boy in 1960's England had not been told "thou shalt not steal" thousands of times by the time he is old enough to go to other boy's houses to play unsupervised defies credibility.
Ahhhhh, but Biggar did not grow up in a religious household, and he had this experience at a very young age, before he was engulfed in Christianity.
the truth is that voice was constructed for him, first by regular repetition in his family, then church, then school, then an ever-widening circle of social acquaintance, almost entirely in agreement that stealing is bad.
Well, his family was not religious, as he stated in the interview. At that time, he did not go to church. The school maybe incentive it but let's also put into consideration, that the fact that he was stealing this much in the first place has something to say about his character at that time. Also, his social acquaintances were most likely not going to influence this given, he was stealing from them, and they too were most likely doing the same. Kids make friends with people who are similar to them.
Here is an open letter from a bunch of Oxford scholars publicly questioning Biggar's ethics in relation to Imperialism
Yes. He even talks about this in the interview. Even his partner stated to him, that he left the project because of personal affairs, then went on to claim to others that the "project had moved in another direction."
Biggar was suprised that all of these Oxford scholars would do such a thing, and I think it goes to show how much influence cancle culutre has.
Biggar explains in the interview with Jordan Peterson, that in all of his writings (especially now) he lays out all of the information about the topic he is writing about. The good and the bad. In his new book, Colonialism, he explains the good part of the expansion of the British Empire, and how it affected people in a good way. He also went into detail about how badly slaves were treated by those same people, and how it was a travesty.
I challenge you to read his book, or look up even a part of his book, that promotes slavery, and things of that manner.
He challenges you himself in his interview with Jordan Peterson.
I also challenge you to listen to the interview. It's a good listen.
Created:
Posted in:
I was just recently listening to a podcast/show by Jordan Peterson, in which he was interviewing Dr. Nigel Biggar.
In this interview, the topic of morality came up.
Dr. Nigel explained a story in which when he was a little kid, he liked to steal toy soldiers from his "mates".
One day, when he was about to steal the toy, he realized to himself that he didn't want the toys, and that he should put the toy back. He said it wasn't fulfilling for him.
He explains how on that day, that he himself didn't tell him to put the toy back, but something or someone else did. Some other force of nature. No one had caught him doing it before and told him it was wrong. Something else told him it was wrong, but what is this force he asked himself.
He went on to explain that there must be a higher form of hierarchy to our lives. Just as Christians call it, "The King of Kings" using our knowledge of how a hierarchy works in general to symbolize a higher force or power.
My question is, has anyone else experienced anything similar to that, and how would you describe that feeling?
Created:
Link
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, because you continue to rehash the same threads over and over again.I know I’ve asked you this many times over but just don’t recall ever getting a clear answer… setting aside the already precarious nature of trying to provide a fool proof definition of what a biological female is, how have you ever in your life determined that any given person you run into meets your definition?
Because of a combination of biological factors.
Voice pitch.
Body shape.
Limb length.
Women tend to have an hourglass shape that is always definable no matter how obese or skinny the woman is.
Men tend to have a V shape.
Here is a list of physical differences in males and females:
Skull in males are larger
Males shoulders are wider & higher. Female shoulders hold an angle
The female thorax is narrower
The male torsos are shorter
Males have longer arms
The oblique slant of femur is more pronounced in female.
Male legs are longer.
And we as humans notice these specific characteristic in others usually without realizing it.
That is why humans are so good at looking at another person, and just by glance, determining if they are a man or a woman, regardless of what they are wearing.
That's why drag queens are supposed to be comedic. They are dressed like women, but look like men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Legal is all that counts. Don't like it? Call a cop and ask him. Lol
It's legal in other countries to do horrible things. Does that make it ok?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
At this point anyone would be a better president than Biden.
Are you blind?
Have you seen the economy?
Have you seen the border?
Have you seen Afghanistan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well something big is going to have to change because he’s lost a lot of ground lately. Oddly enough the shift in the polls to Trump’s favor came right after Trump got indicted, which says quite a bit about his base.Perhaps once the real indictments come down for trying to overturn the election in Georgia and his role January 6th people will realize he really is a criminal who is completely unfit for the Oval Office, but knowing the Trump base that will probably cement his nomination.
The polls only shifted then because his base deemed the indictment to be unlawful. Even some democrats came out and said things like this.
Also, lets not forget the January 6th tapes, that proved the FBI had a role in January 6th and proved that the notorious goat man was actually being escorted by police officers in the white house.
Also, the Miller Report that just came out that supposedly is going to exonerate Trump, proving that Hillary and Obama were working with the FBI to make false accusations of Trump in which they had no evidence whatsoever of, and the corrupt FBI still pursued the fake investigation, and lied to the public sphere.
Created: