Total posts: 2,013
Why don't you guys just start saying it?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not using the N word yet, but I'm waiting for the 30% figure to fall to even lower numbers among blacks (because many will adopt the majoritarian position solely because it's the majoritarian position, making the majoritarian position even more majoritarian)
Why aren't you doing your part to lower the 30% by exposing to everyone how hypocritical it is to think that word is a "no no" according to your reasoning? You say you're a free speech absolutist, but here you're regulating yourself because of a measly 30%, I mean if you were someone of principle, who really believed in it, you'd just be doing it and explaining it, with everyone who objected, saying "Ohhhh, now I get it, how could i have not understood that? Thanks!" I just don't get what's stopping you, because absolute = absolute.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The people who get mad would be in that 30% of black people. But once they realize they are in the 30%, that percentage would fall pretty quickly (because most blacks don't consider race with the N word).
Cool, so you'd only have a 3 in 10 chance of offending anyone then, and by your own assessment, as you do it would go down and not up. When are you going to start just using the N word in public then, how have the results been so far? Have you said it to a black person and then said "I guess you're in the 30% of black snowflakes who think that's a racist word, it's really just like bitch"?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Only 30% of black adults think it's ok for blacks to say the N word and not whites. Among young black adults, it's even less.
So? I'm sure once you start saying it in stores and dropping it into casual conversation, like even with your fellow white people, everyone will come around to how silly they've been, all thanks to your pioneering perspective. Just explain to them, it's because someone says bitch, and I'm sure the light will dawn, then the world can start healing.
And I can't be racist; I think the confederate statues should be torn down and replaced with bald eagle statues.
I'm convinced.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think you should be the change you want to see in the world. Start using it, then explain your reasoning, I'm sure people will understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You know what, based on what I've seen, I think I agree. You should definitely get a vasectomy.
Explain to me why the probability over twelve years is 78% again. You start with a birth control that's 99% effective in year one, then in year five, how effective is this birth control?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Real question, you are aware that there are options for birth control that aren't abortion and vasectomies, right? These simplistic dichotomies you set up are something else bro. Comparing cigarettes to abortion is quite a choice.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i dont understand how evolution would create such elaborate afterlife stories, with all those common themes like tunnels and light beings life reviews etc
Evolution doesn't create them. The tunnels and lights and all that, it's just the effect of oxygen deprivation on your brain. The stuff assigned to them ("It's heaven!" or "I saw my granma!") is not created by evolution, it's informed by the individual after the fact from notions and ideas in their brains at the time, INCLUDING what people think an NDE should have in it, same way we all basically think aliens are little green or gray humanoids with big eyes. That's so unlikely to be true it's insane, but our culture has memeified that image so that everyone who "encounters" aliens has the same description, and people think that's evidence that it's real. I get it, you really love this topic, you think for some reason some other dimension exists after people die, because like the vast majority of humanity before you, you want to be special, you value your life and don't want it to end, you think it has to "mean something." You don't want to hear the real arguments otherwise, which is why you think "Someone saying something" is evidence. It isn't, any more than me saying "That guy fucked a monkey" is evidence that you fucked a monkey. It's just assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
I am curious as to the thoughts folks here who say they're pro-life have on the implications of the latest ruling in Alabama, which says embryos, stored for the purposes of IVF, are in fact people. No one's said a word about it yet.
Can a married couple claim 50 embryos as tax deductions, for example?
Can you use the HOV lane if you're pregnant?
If someone who has a child successfully through this method then leaves 40 embryos behind, are they legally responsible for paying for the cryogenic storage of same?
If they refuse to pay for this, are they now criminally liable as negligent parents for lack of care?
Do the embryos become wards of the state, supported by tax dollars, if abandoned by parents, or if the parents die, knowing they will be stored indefinitely?
There's a ton of these questions and implications. What's the current thinking?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The explanation is very simple, once you recognize that DNA only has two drives, and they drive literally everything else in life: (1) survive so you can (2) reproduce. It's that stark. This happens not at a conscious level, it's at the cellular level. The drive to reproduce is so strong, so innate, that it can actually threaten the ability to survive in certain mutations. That's kind of how cancer works. Why's that important to NDE's? Your primal brain, the parts of it you cannot control, like your "startle response" reaction, ONLY wants these two things. When that part of your brain finds a mortal threat, a real problem with a vital sign that you can't control, the theory is that it begins to emphasize the first priority: survive, so your cells can continue reproducing. How does it try to convince the conscious part to keep fighting, not just quit, because your cells want to reproduce? It finds the touchstones you've stored in your brain over the entire course of your life, your most cherished shit, and says "HEY! REMEMBER THIS! WE CAN DO THIS AGAIN!" or "LOOK, HERE'S JESUS, FEEL BETTER?" or "HERE ARE YOUR CHILDREN, THE PRODUCT OF SUCCESSFUL REPRODUCTION [except they're usually as babies, not adults]! LET'S SURVIVE AND GO BACK TO TIMES LIKE THIS." It's a trick that DNA plays on the conscious brain to try one more time to move the needle.
Does that help you understand?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since it's a universal law spelled out in religious/spiritual texts, as well as human literature, it's kind of silly to think the/a creator wouldn't have the right to execute judgment if a perpetrator avoided human law enforcement. If he robbed a bank, people suffered as a result. Are you against the concept of retributive justice?
So are we talking about a god that only applies to the texts of Muslim and Christian here, therefore not tied to a specific religion but definitely an Abrahamic one? If so, I can quit this discussion, I'm operating under a different assumption, that this is the 'deism' argument. I don't want to waste your time. Those laws and morals are far from universal, though. THey're common between the two perhaps, but that's far from universal.
I don't understand what the spelling out of a law in a text in has to do with the creator's desire to keep people from stealing. I also don't understand your question as it relates to a creator. If the creator created a law that was so important for people not to break, then relied on people to do the enforcing, that doesn't make sense to me at all. We also may be using the word 'law' in different ways (you, I think, I using in the way that there is a "law of averages" or "law of physics," I am using it in the legal sense, as in laws that can be broken).
Perhaps we'll meet again in another thread, good to see you back.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If someone takes something valuable that belongs to you, you're going to react.
Sure, but this doesn't have anything to do with the law against stealing. I'd react this way if there were no laws about stealing, right? Watch what happens when a predator tries to take a carcass from another predator, and animals don't have laws, religion or any concern that we can see for the creator of the universe at all. They still manage to make very clear that you can't just take what I hunted. Again, exclusive of the idea of law.
The law against stealing is a universal law. Every nation in the world honors this law. In spite of categorization, any religious text demanding laws being practiced among humans will include do not steal.It's a universal principle that taking something belonging to someone else is a violation against the victim, requiring retribution.
This is an assertion and presumes that you've examined every religion for all time, the laws of every nation on earth (including those that have multiple definitions of stealing, as well as cultures that do not acknowledge personal ownership) and every culture for all time. Narrow this down some.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since the creator created humans, it would stand for reason that the laws man creates (establishes) originated from the creator.
How so? Ultimately this is your hypothetical, so your sandbox, your rules. I'm sincerely asking. Why would this creator of everything not just create the laws, if it cared about laws? It sounds like you'd credit it with creating the idea of laws but not the laws themselves. Why create the entire known universe and skip that part?
Still, my statement did not in any way render the creator impersonal.
Fair, but it neither did it say personal either. All it said was 'creator not attached to a specific religion.' This is an added condition, that it's personal. I'm not sure what it means, but probably neither here nor there.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If the creator designed the law, inspired humans to create the laws, then they would of course be the creator's laws.
The creator's laws would have to come from the creator, human laws come from humans.
The issue is if the creator only created everything, why would it care about laws?
Again the only property you've defined is its ability to create physical matter. And it still doesn't provide the necessary link from "created" to "eternal dominion over."
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If someone robbed a bank, but was never caught, the creator (the higher power) would have no right to pass judgment on that person after they pass on?
No, because as you've laid it out, this creator only created everything. It didn't say don't rob banks, or issue any rules, it just made everything. There's nothing to "judge", as there's no infraction.
And there's still no inherent link between "I created this" and "Therefore it is forever subject to my demands."
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
For the sake of argument, let's assume a creator not attached to any religion. If someone commits a crime, but is not found out, would the creator have the right to invoke justice on that person after they pass on?
There's nothing inherent in creating anything that bestows complete and total jurisdiction over it, so no. You've set up no rules that have been violated according to the creator, so there isn't any justice to be sought, as there is no violation at all. It's just a thing that happened. Justice only exists, as far as I can tell, in the presence of law or crime, good or bad, all of which differ all over the world and across time.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Would you, having had that exchange, think "That's justice, now where's my cloud mansion?"If that were the literal exchange, I think I would slink away from St Peter quickly before he changed his mind about me and dart in through the pearly gates and hide among other people.
It's funny, I thought this exact same response as I was typing it. I'd try to mask my horror, the fact that I was thinking wow, that's fucked up, and tiptoe on my way past like "Cool, so these sky mansions, they have keys, or is it more like a smart lock thing...or....?"
I will preface this again that I only have the Bible as a reference and I do not believe that the Bible contains ALL the words, thoughts, works of God that has ever been said, done, etc. I only have my own life (and my friends and family that are in the same faith as I) to attest of how it worked for me.
I read the rest of your response, but it kind of seems to contradict this important part here: all every Christian has is just the bible, which, and I don't mean to presume you're one of these, but many, many many Christians believe to be the perfect word of god himself, and all laws in it are valid forever because they're his laws. And his laws clearly state, in the bible, there's only one way into heaven. That's to be a Jesus believing Christian. It's one of the things almost every Christian agrees on: heaven is for Christians. Not Jews. Not Muslims. Not Hindus. Certainly not atheists. Definitely no one who's avowed a faith that violates the first commandment. To say otherwise is evidence, in my view, that you're a better source of morality and justice than the character in the book itself, which again, is what many Christians purport the bible god to be: the source of morality and arbiter of justice.
I don't know you beyond a few posts here, but I would guess you'd rather live next to a Ghandi than a known sexual predator, right? Unfortunately, according to the bible and to Jesus himself, Gandhi is out, didn't tick the box that says "Christian" on the application, and every child rapist who repented and accepted Jesus from their deathbed, they're in. Every Muslim mother who made food for her community food bank, who counseled young people to keep them out of trouble, who became a doctor and saved lives, they're in hell, but every knucklehead hooligan who beats up a gay kid, or a person who harasses a trans person who just wants to go to work, those people are doing the lord's work, because they can point to bible passages that say so definitively. I'm not saying you think these things as a person, to be clear, I'm saying that this is what Christian theology is, technically.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
As for Ludofl3x, that guy did run rings around me and asked me questions that I never even thought about.
Hey! That's ME! :)
For the record, I rarely think of it in terms of who gets the better of whom. I value the, to quote Major Partigaz, provocative exchange of ideas, particularly opposing ones, when spoken through rationally and thoughtfully. Wish there were more of that here, but most people seem to be doing some sort of schtick.
I didn't say that cannibal heathens go to heaven. I said that my theory is if the heathens would follow the code given, then they would be rewarded somehow. I did not say they would go to heaven. I told you that I do not really know what will happen to them due to our conversation above, BUT I do know where you and I will go if we refuse his word
Can I ask, what would your opinion be if you found out, on your entrance to heaven someday, that there aren't any cannibals in heaven? Or any aborignees, or asian folks? Or ancient Greeks or Egyptians? Wouldn't you think "Huh...that's odd." Maybe you ask St. Peter (I'm ex Catholic, I don't know if this is how protestants view the mechanics of heaven), "Hey man, why isn't Gandhi in here?" And St. Peter says, "Oh, that guy, yeah. Did a lot of good things for his people, I know, but missed one big one: didn't tell them to repent and accept Jesus, so, he's being....(Looks at heavenly iPad)...currently he's being roasted on a spit by some torture demons, he;ll be there for let's see....another ten thousand earth years, then it looks like he's scheduled for....yikes, that giant goat headed fire demon is going to sodomize him with his spiked flaming wang for at least another 20,000 years. So, I see here you're a Christian, nice work!"
I used Gandhi because most people agree he was a net positive for the people in India, but it could be whoever you think it genuinely a decent person, but is demonstrably not a Christian. Would you, having had that exchange, think "That's justice, now where's my cloud mansion?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry, thought I'd tagged you.
I obsess about politics (so do most of the people here) but how is my personality that terrible?
Perhaps this is a little harsh on my part, but the whole "I'm above all this" and this weird "look at how smart I am compared to anyone who I think is in a political party" is exceptionally off putting. And this board is full of absolutely awful personalities, don't feel alone. It's just not how you'd act around real people, not if you wanted to enjoy human interaction in some way.
I don't need sex. I'm happy without it.
And this sounds like "You can't fire me, I quit!" You're only happy without it because you haven't had it. Get you a blow job and tell me you think "Well, I don't need that again."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Sorry to hear that on the job stuff, but it sounds like you came through it okay. Hang in there and let me know if there's a topic you'd want to chop it up about, almost always interested. Otherwise stay healthy amigo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Cranky, thanks for asking, how about you? :) ANd also not around much, there's not a whole lot of serious discussion to be had around here, I miss it. I know, I'm guilty as charged too, my one interaction on this place in like six months has been to get fed up with this person's fake intellectualism and inflated self assessment, sorry!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Your name looks decidedly different with the extra Z, brother :).
Created:
Posted in:
Man, it's really hard to go around just not getting any attention from women at all, huh? Maybe it's your terrible personality, like saying this sort of dumb stuff unironically, I find most women aren't into it. I do, though, encourage you to get a vasectomy, because eventually the lucky lady who takes pity on you and regrets letting you fuck her within twenty minutes of it being over would probably prefer to say "if he had worn a rubber, I'm not sure I'd have felt much of anything at all, oh shit, he's calling again" (you're in her phone as Beta Cuck)
Is this like a character you're working on? You're not really like this, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
As a pro-life guy, who doesn't want anyone to get abortions, then, what is your solution to unwanted pregnancy? I presume you're not big on social programs like food stamps and welfare and housing assistance as it is today. Would I be wrong that you'd be against expanding these programs to support the number of unintended babies that lack of abortion must inevitably lead to? I don't mean just increasing the amount of government funding that goes into these programs, but you'd also need to invent new programs. Like 100% subsidized day care for the children of parents who can't afford it, let's say. Nothing luxurious, but proper preschools for kids whose single parent has to go to work. Would you vote for that?
What about 100% government funded medical care for the child for its first five years of life, when a child absolutely needs professional medical supervision in the early stages of development? Ready to say an enthusiastic yes to that, vote for it, then have your paycheck taxed (well, your parents' paycheck, you're still a kid) to do it? I'm sure the answer is yes, look at all the babies you saved, you must want them to have a long and healthy and fulfilling life!
Bah, maybe that's too expensive, those two things, right? Let's try a cheaper alternative. First, you'd have to support a completely medically accurate and fulsome curriculum of sex education, from about 10 years old. Why there? Because puberty and all those Satanic urges are right around the corner for almost all children. They ought to go into the battle well armed, right? Doesn't seem so bad, right? Well, unfortunately, many of these kids are going to start experimenting sexually early on. Are you willing to put taxpayer funded condoms in every school nurse's office, which children can take without telling their parents? I know you want mom and dad to know that their daughter is curious about giving a blow job, and once she gets a taste of that sweet dick, she might want to hop on it and give that a whirl, but most kids don't tell their parents, and, shockingly, STILL DO IT WITH THEIR PEERS. So telling their parents becomes an obstacle to them using the free birth control you offer, and uh oh, we still have a bunch of unintended pregnancies.
Would you offer government subsidy for IUD's regardless of income status and age provided you're at the age of reprodution? So any female who's had her first period can say "Just to be safe, I'm going to get an IUD because I don't want to have a child." And the government pays for it? They're inexpensive compared to welfare for 18 years, right? And the government buying power probably makes them even cheaper. Sure, some kids might not tell their parents they need an IUD, but those kids might be able to tell their partner to go get some of the rubbers from the nurse's office.
What's your solution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If we are just a product of a cosmic burb, that just happened to create our very intelligent and complex minds, that would mean that we serve no purpose, we have no meaning, we are meaningless, and we don't have a free will
How would any of this follow "product of chemistry and time"?
What is the 'purpose' you serve as someone who believes that we're intelligently designed, and how does the latter inform the former?
If you're granted intelligent design, can you advance the ball towards christianity being true? The former in this case does not in any way support the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So if God has a plan that you don't have to follow, is he all powerful and all knowing?Yes.
How? If he's all powerful and he has a plan, then you don't have free will, just the illusion of it. He's already planned for everything you or anyone else will ever do in their lives. He can't be surprised, because he's all knowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So if God has a plan that you don't have to follow, is he all powerful and all knowing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Does god have a plan for all things / people / animals / molecules that spans all time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Turns out Colbert doesn't have any original thoughts of his own.
Irony!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The idea of AI playing a role in governance is a topic of debate and speculation.
Unlike in this post, which it authored pretty clearly. Good thing it doesn't get mad if you don't cite it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The intricacy of certain Dart members on this platform is truly remarkable. Amidst prior misconceptions of them being merely conventional and clichéd partisans, an unexpected glimmer of elegance emerges by chance.
It's amazing how nuanced some Dart members are on this site. When you might have wrongly thought they were just the simple common hackneyed partisan hack, a ray of grace fortuitously appears.
Bizarre redundancy here...are we using AI to just write whole posts for us now? Because that sentence was either written by a computer, or by someone who thinks throwing big words into a sentence makes them sound smart. Maybe you did write it...can you give me an idea what a poster who is "intricate" looks like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God is infinite. He is not bound by the laws of science that he created. Therefore, it is possible for him to be infinite.
Ok, so this is what's known special pleading, of course. Nothing can be infinite, except for this one thing I require to be infinite in order for my position to make sense.
Which god are you talking about and why that one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I know what it is. It is the beginning of the universe. And explosion that God spoke into existence.
Okay, where did the god come from?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.
Isn't even THIS bolded part pretty questionable? Slaves were freed in the late 1860's. How easy was it in, say 1875, for a black person to own a business in let's say South Carolina? I would bet that "benefits" flowed largely to the white business owners these skilled laborers ended up having to work for, far more than it benefitted the laborer. Especially if that skilled labor was a woman, a seamstress, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Again, God can do supernatural things. Things against the laws of science, because he is the law of science.
This is the sum and substance of your entire argument here. Essentially every contradiction of science will be answered with some version of "God is science so anything he does in the book is now scientifically sound." There's no reason to continue discussing it, it's boring. And I'm not starting fifty topics on each stupid and obvious contradiction in the bible, I'm sure you can get someone else to do that. I already asked:
How, for example, does light come before stars? How did Noah live to be 900 years old? How did he gather two (or more) of each specific species of land dwelling living thing on earth and somehow fit LITERALLY (that's how you use this word) 15+ million creatures on a boat he built for forty days?
Feel free to take on any of these scientifically.
Also, your passage LITERALLY does not say god spoke through the donkey. It LITERALLY says that god opened his mouth and the donkey spoke his own donkey thoughts (That's what "which" is doing in that sentence, and not "Who").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I literally just told you.The story is about how God used a Donkey to talk to Balaam.The donkey did talk, but not by his own choice. God used the donkey.
Yeah, I think you're using this word incorrectly. If the story is LITERAL, then somewhere in there, it should say "And for some odd reason, rather than communicate directly to Balaam, God spoke through the donkey." It doesn't say that, and therefore is not "literal." Literal means the words on the page.
Why are you bothering with this, anyway? You're not really interested in a good faith discussion, because like all Christians on this topic, you simply hand wave everything as "well, that part's a metaphor, duh" and "god used his powers even though the book doesn't say that." I guess my question is what's the point for you? You've yet to address anything that actually contradicts science in any real way. How, for example, does light come before stars? How did Noah live to be 900 years old? How did he gather two (or more) of each specific species of land dwelling living thing on earth and somehow fit LITERALLY (that's how you use this word) 15+ million creatures on a boat he built for forty days?
THe answer's all the same for you: used his science contradicting powers. Are you like trying to "own the atheists" or whatever? I don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So then it's NOT literal?
Here's the passage again.
And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”
Please point out where you're getting that god is speaking through the donkey.
This is why talking about biblical contradictions is a pointless waste of time. Christians just say "well magic is why that doesn't contradict science." You're in over your head from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This story is literal.See, in elementary school, you learn how to tell if something is written as a metaphor.Do you see anything in this story that points to it being a metaphor?
So in this non-metaphorical story, are you saying that the talking donkey was the only and last one of its kind? The donkey LITERALLY spoke, in hebrew I guess?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A thousand is a specific number, is it not? It doesn't say "innumerable years," it says THIS NUMBER OF YEARS. It doesn't even say ten thousand or one hundred thousand. It says one thousand. So the words are there, they are specific. This point is stupid, because this still doesn't address that light can't come before stars. Let's do Noah's Ark instead. There's less metaphor in that story, right? And it's definitely contradicted by what we know today. Do you think the Noah's Ark story is scientifically accurate as it's written?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
Please tell me more about the bolded. How many metaphors are in that story?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Meaning that this is not literal, but simply a Metaphor.A metaphor that shows that time for God is different than time for us.
Maybe, but a thousand years is an equation, not a metaphor. And you didn't understand what I pointed out. The metaphor says it's like a thousand years. It does not say "a day for god is like 223 million years." So that doesn't work. The words are the words. If you want to argue from the bible, you have to use the words as we understand them. And revelations is written long, long after Genesis, that metaphor might hold a little more weight if it were chronologically closer to the point in question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Apologies, I see you are actually using the word Christianity, but it does appear you want to talk about the bible. Let me rephrase my post accordingly:
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000. Not 13.4 billion. If you're going to use the words in the bible, then the words have to mean something, right? If you're just going to say "well, a thousand means 223 million maybe," then there's no point in having this discussion at all. Did ancient hebrews even have a concept of "a billion" anything? THat seems pretty advanced thinking for a culture who contributed so little of import to their time. If you'd like to discuss does the bible contradict science and vice versa, then I'm afraid you have to use the words in the bible as we currently understand these words, otherwise the bible is entirely meaningless as a document. NUmbers especially, as these don't have any interpretation to them, specifically SMALL numbers. 10 has always meant 10. 6 has always meant 6. See what I'm saying?
And if you're going to use the bible, then please note which version you are using so we can discuss that specific version, and please tell me why you're choosing that version.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000. Not 13.4 billion. If you're going to use the words in the bible, then the words have to mean something, right? If you're just going to say "well, a thousand means 223 million maybe," then there's no point in having this discussion at all. You're better off debating does CHRISTIANITY contradict science, because the bible binds you to the words in the book against actual demonstrable knowledge. Stuff like stars came AFTER light, for example, in the bible, where we now know that stars and light exist simultaneously. Did ancient hebrews even have a concept of "a billion" anything? THat seems pretty advanced thinking for a culture who contributed so little of import to their time.
And as I said in your other thread on this, which version of the bible are you working with? And why that one, how do you know it's the authoritative version?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany after World War I, played a major role in weakening the country both economically and politically.this is true.
Of course it's true, it's cribbed from the chatgpt bot or some other AI search engine, that whole enumerated list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Which version of the bible are you using? And why that version?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Agree, but you choose not to chase women other than your wife right?
Sure, but that's a different pair of shoes. I'm talking about a physiological reaction, you're talking about my personal moral code. My point is I can't help who I'm attracted to, and because I'm not consciously deciding "I want to be attracted to this beautiful tower of thicc perfection that is briskly jogging over hurdles and finishing last, girl don't move too fast, lemme get a good look at you." So if I'm not deciding to do that, is it not reasonable to conclude it's something I can't control? An instinct? Why would it be any different for gay people?
So lucky, then, that you ended up in the right one!I know the above is sarcasm, but I think myself lucky to be brought up in this way. It has been a lifeline to me.
I worried it sounded that way, and maybe it was a little tongue-in-cheek, I'll admit. In reality it IS good you ended up in a community that helps make you happy or helps with times of need. So long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, I mean it, good for you, but my point is more that every Christian on earth thinks they're in the right church. You seem to agree here:
There are a lot of wrong churches, but keep in mind that they all read from the same Bible and should hear from the same God. Someone is not listening or following directions.
If there are so many wrong churches, then why isn't god correcting them explicitly, instead choosing to let the wrong church preachers with bad biblical information lead his beloved followers into eternal damnation? God has to get his smite game tight, because it seems irresponsible to let his name be used in such a way. Yet every year new denominations emerge, new preachers both nefarious and benevolent start congregations, and there's no definitive "THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE."
My brother and mother both are not in the same way as me. It is their decision though. So it's sad, but I can only do so much.
I hear you, but this point really gets to the crux of another question. Do you, personally, think that your mom and brother deserve eternal damnation if the only thing they do differently from you is believe differently? You don't have to answer that one, it's an uncomfortable question, it's just something to maybe show a little more of my own perspective. I don't, and I don't think if a perfect justice existed, it would think so either. You can live a perfectly good life as let's say an adherent Muslim, a life that largely comports with Christian standards EXCEPT for the parts about Jesus and the bible, you know, helping your fellow man, not being a murderer, being honest, etc., then die and get to the pearly gates and be kicked into eternal torture because you checked the wrong box on the form. That isn't justice, and it's one of the reasons I find the character immoral and repugnant.
Also Happy 4th!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Maybe I wasn't clear. A man will choose to lust after another man's body just like he can choose to lust after a woman's body, or a child's body or a animals body or a pillow shaped like a "lolli". This does not mean he was born that way or that God designed his lusts towards men. All men lust after something and we all have to reign in our lust so it doesn't hurt ourselves and/or others.
I don't choose to lust after women, it's just something that happens, though. Know what I mean? Something about a certain type of woman just jingles that bell. This week was that Belgian shot put woman who ran the hurdles, and yeah, I was as surprised as you are. But let me tell you bro, she could GET IT. :). In all seriousness, I'm just having trouble understanding your understanding of god's responsibility as the author and knower of all things for all time. Kinda seems to me if it was going to be a big deal to him, then he would have known about it early and fixed it, if indeed he didn't WANT to torture some portion of his creation forever, and just feel right about it.
I was partially raised in it. I stayed and one of my brothers is like you. The difference between him and me is that I followed the Biblical way and was filled with God's spirit. In order to go to the correct church, you have to be led or called of God. Most people that come in to the church will have a testimony that they were somehow drawn to it. There are other factors which guide our lives besides logic and emotion.
The bolded part was the most likely answer. After all, I didn't choose to be Catholic, I just came from a line of them. And you see a vanishingly small number of true "conversions" from faith to faith, like how many Catholics do you know that become Muslims, right? Hereditary is the most common way people end up in churches and faiths. So lucky, then, that you ended up in the right one! The problem still is that every church proclaims themselves to be the right one, right? Which probably leads to your assertion that you must be led or called by god himself to the right church, if in fact you weren't born there. Doesn't this then put the responsibility on god to call or lead his creation to the right church? Makes me wonder why there are so many competing denominations, because they can't all be right, in fact, all of them save one have to be wrong, which means an awful lot of people who think they're in good shape are in for an unpleasant surprise. Does it make you sad to think your brother is going to hell, and when you're in heaven you'll forget about him?
As for a preacher, I'll put it this way, you wouldn't accept the teachings of marriage from a divorced man would you? He would have to know what he is talking about. In order to know if its right, check on what he says with the Bible.
I don't think being divorced necessarily disqualifies you from knowing something about marriage. And you say in order to know he's right, I need to check what he says in the bible...but also say that I can't fully understand the bible without a preacher to interpret it or help me along. Seems like the fox and the hen house. I thought this was exactly the opposite of the 'personal relationship' with Jesus that evangelicals were talking about, where a preacher is a nice to have, not a must have.
To answer your question, yes, you would end up in hell if you continue like you are or keep going to the catholic church. I know this is a complete turn off to any religion because you love your parents, but I didn't write the Bible. We were given it and we are to follow it. Not trying to be mean here.
I didn't take it as mean, I understand this is what you believe, I just like the clarity, which is why I asked for the clarification. It doesn't upset me at all, as I don't think anyone I love is going anywhere but wherever the flame on a blown out candle goes when they pass.
Created:
Posted in:
With this in mind, there would be some sort of afterlife reward and punishment for all, in the same place, not including the church. The church is specifically the "bride of Christ" so I am going to assume that their place in the afterlife has a higher importance.
So you believe the afterlife isn't limited to Christians, just that Christians get the best heaven? I'm not trying to sound glib, I just want to read it as you intend it.
But to clarify, God does not create gay people or make them gay.
Hm. Wouldn't he HAVE to create gay people for them to exist? If not, then at the very least, wouldn't he know they'd be gay? I don't know how that doesn't end up with god being responsible for it. And if it was such a problem, I always wonder why did he even make it a possibility by design? I know you don't have the answer to that last question (it's really more an engineering question), but I'm curious as to how god is absolved of authorship.
Sorry. They may be nice people and all but they cannot be a Christian and be gay.
I hear you, and to be honest, my understanding of Christianity agrees with you. It's just difficult to understand why they'd even want to be Christians, it'd seem they've been betrayed by every level of their belief, from their understanding of their creation (former understanding I guess) to their pewmates who suddenly see them as vile creatures worthy of scorn and shunning. Hard to see people heartbroken and rejected by their family, too, over something like that. I almost said it's not a big deal, being gay, but clearly it's a big deal to a lot of non-gay people I guess.
This is why it's important to go to the right church that preaches Bible and not tradition.
How'd you pick the 'right church', if I can ask? And how would or could I have known if mine was wrong? What if I'd kept going to Catholic church, or the evangelical one, and they were both wrong. Sounds like you think I'd end up in hell, is that incorrect?
Also in this passage of your post, you say the bible might not make sense if it doesn't come from the right preacher. But isn't that what the entire protestant movement was kind of about? Removing that interlocutor between god and his people so they can have a personal relationship with him?
The other problem is that we can miss things unless God reveals it to us.
Do you mean we can miss things in the bible unless god reveals them to you? Because I don't understand why some sort of outside factor, basically a decoder ring, would be required to understand what I would conclude you think is the most important piece of writing ever written. Think of it this way: let's say a tribesman from a remote Amazonian jungle village happens upon a bible in his hunt one day. The bible is in a language he understands, but there's no preacher around. Isn't the point that if he reads the bible and follows it, he's now a Christian and saved, even if he doesn't know any preachers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I know what it takes to go to heaven and I don't want to go to hell
This gets to my point: the main thing that's good about heaven is you know it isn't hell. Doesn't that seem weird? I will never sign up for anything that would in any way jeopardize that relationship, and the idea of something else being so amazing I completely forget that my kids exist, I'm going to pass on it. If hell wasn't an option, let's say, would you sign up for completely forgetting your entire earthly existence? I bet deep down the answer is a little troubling, I know it was for my mom when I asked her this question, when she was upset that I'm an atheist, raising children who don't have any religion. It was her being so upset, to the point of tears, at the idea of spending her afterlife without me or my children than brought this question up initially.
What I mean by heaven is where the Christian people will go to. There is an everlasting "paradise" for old testament people that I can only assume is something similar
Who's in charge of the paradise for old testament folks? And, do you think that the people who existed prior to the old testament, and people who lived on entirely undiscovered continents when the old testament was written (I presume you concede these people were also created by god), do they have their own heavens, or are they in hell? I know there's not a lot of official dogma on this topic, so I'm really just curious as to how you think about it. It would seem inconsistent with the idea that you have to have god or Jesus or have been baptized to get in. Wouldn't it also create a question of god's honesty with the hebrews? If he's in charge of multiple paradises that all have different entry criteria, then why is the bible so strict on how to get in? That's one question. If he's NOT in charge of, let's say, some Aboriginal or Native American heaven, then he's not the only god.
As for you knowing God, I will beg to differ only from what you told me of your background. You were a catholic. The Catholics don't follow the Bible. The Catholics never had God in their church and therefore, no one there really knew God. They knew of God or at least what they heard from the priests, but the concept of God was skewed and warped and it never really showed who God was. That is also why I asked who the Christian couple was at your work that you went to church with. Same concept. If they didn't follow the Bible, then they couldn't have known God too (I am only assuming that this is the case here).
But I've read the bible, I'll admit not exhaustively and not in some time, but I've read a very large portion of it (you can keep all of the begetting early on, that's boring unless you're going to show the actual begetting :)). Can't someone get to know god that way? It's his word, purportedly. THe problem, I'm sure you see, is that every stripe of Christian, from Catholic on down, all say they're following the bible, and as yet no one has presented a reliable way to pick the right one. I figured taking all the outside influence away and just reading the words on the page was the best place to start. If the book is god's word, essentially an instruction manual for Christians, then why would I need someone else to tell me what THEY think it means? Why isn't my view as valid?
God gave them up to vile affections. If there is any reason that God created a gay guy it is because He let that guy go after his own lusts.
So god created the gay guy, knowing he was gay, and he's mad at the gay guys for being gay? I'm sorry, I'm not following here. As it stands, that seems exceptionally cruel, even for god, to create a person in such a way that they can choose between being miserable and lonely and a liar (a sin!) for their whole life, OR, they can burn forever in a lake of fire, for being exactly how they were made. I have to disagree that there are no gay Christians, I've known two (not counting clergy). You're making a "No True Scotsman" argument here, but also ignoring the tenet 'judge not lest ye be judged,' no?
Created: