Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have argued that it is not a person. I have argued the opposite and have asked you to qualify whether a human being by nature is a personal being?
You have not seen a reasonable response because this question doesn't make sense to me. Is a human being always a person, my answer is no. Before they're born they are embryos, zygotes, fetuses. Not people. Please clarify what a 'personal being by nature' means.
How is it that a woman can decide to kill/murder her innocent unborn human offspring but if she decided to kill her innocent two-year-old, twelve-year-old, or twenty-year-old it is murder? Why two different sets of rules?
Because an embryo is not offspring. It is an embryo. All the others are people. This is not hard
But how does that work in our environment, outside the womb?.
Your environment is not part of anyone's body anymore and you are a person.
the newborn is dependent and reliant on the same woman for its life. Why can't she just end its life because it is undesirable too?
Because, you guessed it, the newborn is a person.
there are very few good reasons why abortion is ever justifiable.
THis makes it sound like you think there are also circumstances where it IS justifiable. If you think that, say that, but this seems disingenuous as it is.
I do not have a right with my body or because of it to kill an innocent human being. Why does the woman?
Because the woman is making a choice about her OWN body. If you could carry embryos to term, I'd give you that choice to. As it is, you can only end the lives of PEOPLE. Not embryos.
Well, you must be including yourself in this grouping too then since you would also save the one as opposed to the many.
If it isn't clear, I'm not included in that group because I don't think embryos are 1000 people. I think the child is a person. I've already said if you chose the embryos I'd have disagreed, but said "At least you're consistent that the embryos are in fact people, not just cells, as I see them."
Created:
What's with the dragging up of topics that are months old?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Good! You do not believe it is okay to kill human beings just because they are not as developed as you!!! Since the unborn is a human being and not as developed why are you then endorsing the woman's right to kill it?
Straw man. Please show me the statistics where women who choose abortions mark down "because it's not as developed as me, I'm killing it" as their reason for making the choice. This isn't my argument at all. People have rights. This addresses the paragraphs later in your post as I can see, so I'm not quoting those and responding and repeating myself.
As I mentioned in my last post, the difference from one minute before to one minute after birth, biologically, is the environment. So, it is okay with you to kill human beings because of where they reside. Correct? If not, why?
Straw man again. No one says it's okay to kill a person based on where they live (though many Christians have fought wars and killed many based largely on this principle, strange to bring it up!), and that's not the same as choosing an abortion at week 12 or 16 or 20. You have a right to bodily autonomy. No one is having an abortion one minute before birth, either.
Embryos = people. Inconsistent?
Inconsistent with choosing to let 1000 people die versus 1 and not being an immoral monster, as I see it. If the idea is to do the most good and embryos are the exact same thing as people, the only choice is to save the most you can. We've been over this and you've yet to say why that's wrong, you simply say "I chose the baby because it feels more pain I think, and probably has parents who love it."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
In the interest of keeping this discussion productive, I'll ignore the part where you seem to think I endorse eugenics or that it's okay to kill people because they're not as developed as me. It's very, very simple: once you're born, you are no longer a human embryo. You are now part of PEOPLE. People all have intrinsic value and rights. I'm not using the term being at all, that's your language. Human Embryo. Person. That's it.What is a human embryo? Is it a human being or some other kind of being or does it not exist as a uniquely separate entity or being? Define what you mean by being.
I'm not trying to convince you that you made the wrong choice. I'm saying it's inconsistent with embryos = people. That's it. Go to your crazy talking points about how this ends up with lawlessness and ignore the facts of the matter all you like, but neither one of us really equates embryos with people. I'd save the baby. You'd save the baby. That's all there is to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So you are saying then that human embryos = people?
I never claimed a human embryo isn't a human (it's in the name) and that it isn't a "being." It's just not the same as a person. You don't make the distinction, which to me is problematic because thereby you have legitimately killed 1000 people by saving 1 baby, and is at odds with your assertion that the second a sperm successfully fertilizes an egg, it's the exact same thing as a child. If they were, you wouldn't have to make all these other assumptions about how much pain it's capable of feeling, how it doesn't have parents who love it (it does have parents, and will have parents to love it if born), how sad everyone would be and so on and so forth. You would just say "It's better to save 1000 people than 1," and that would be consistent with 1000 embryos = 1000 people. It just strikes me as strange that you'd allow for circumstances for yourself to make the choice to kill 1000 people, but you wouldn't for someone who actually has to carry that child at risk to their own health and future well being.
But, as I argued above, that could apply to any human being who is less developed as giving the more developed the "right" to kill it. And where does it stop?
Once it's born and becomes a baby, not an embryo. Very simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why are you telling me what I believe because I only have the choice to save one or the other?
Because the answer you've given, save the baby, the only way that answer isn't monstrous is if you don't see the 1000 embryos as 1000 babies.
Now, as for my decision to SAVE one over the other, I do it based on what I perceive is that the embryo does not feel the pain to the same extent the three-year-old does plus the emotional attachment of the parents and others being far greater. So, it is a decision base on perception and compassion. If you can convince me otherwise regarding the pain levels or the emotional attachment I would choose the other scenario.
At what point does the embryo feel enough pain to change your decision? You're basing your decision on compassion for a baby and its parents. Is there ever a compassionate stance for forcing a parent to carry to term the baby who will live in pain for two weeks then die and leave them with a lifetime of grief and guilt? We can all use emotional language, bro. You also say you're basing it on your PERCEPTION of the level of pain a third party, the embryo, feels. How much pain does a six week old embryo feel?
I've said three times now I do not see human embryos the same as I see human babies. They're just not.
Science supports that from conception a new, unique human being begins to grow and develop.
Science support that a new human EMBRYO begins to grow and develop, yes, no disagreement there. Yet here you are, totally comfortable dooming through your inaction 1000 people to save one crying baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, you are saying the embryos are not alive and not beings
No, read it again. I'm not saying they aren't alive. I'm saying they're not the same as a baby. So are you, because one baby > 1000 embryos. This is extremely simple, you've already demonstrated it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm pointing out the fault in your conviction: it's not really there if you're put into a difficult spot and forced to choose on it, you choose the baby not the embryo. Clearly if the embryos weren't embryos and were instead babies, you'd make a different choice: one three year old baby versus four crying newborns. I think you're probably a good person, my guess is you'd make a difficult choice and never forgive yourself, but I think you'd choose the four.Yes, I would unless the three-year-old was my own. There are always circumstances to weigh.
This undercuts your entire argument: yes, there are circumstances to weigh. This is a pro-choice argument. Everything else is nonsense in your post: I don't see the embryos as people, as human beings, and neither do you. If you did, you'd be a monster for letting 1000 babies die to save 1. You're not. I'm not. THis is patently different from whatever weird killing scenario you're trying to make equivalent. Pro choce does not = THe Purge. Your last paragraph is talking about people, not embryos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Am I inconsistent with my view that both have equal value by saving one and not the other?
To be more precise, it's not "one" or "the other". It's "one" or "one thousand." All of the reasoning about why you'd save the three year old is why we'd ALL save the three year old. We get that part, you didn't need to restate it. I'm not trying to find fault in a position with which I agree (save the actual baby), I'm pointing out that your decision is at odds with what your stated beliefs are: all embryos past fertilization are in fact every bit as alive and precious as the three year old. Yet you still saved 999 less lives.
I object to the pigeon-holing as a fact that I don't think the 10 or 1000 embryos are as intrinsically valuable as any other life. Yes, I identify and relate more with the child yet I see both groups as deserving of life and protection.
Well, okay, but you didn't save the box with 1000 times the intrinsic value of the baby. This does not match, you see what I'm saying? There's no conditions on your pro life stance. It doesn't matter if you can't imagine the pain an embryo feels, it's still a baby to you and therefore it should be calculated exactly the same as the three year old, times 1000. You're not pro life only when the embryo has a parent already dedicated to loving it, tons of babies are born into loveless situations that will destroy their lives forever, every single day. Their parents don't care if they're dead. Can we now say "those aren't worth being pro life over" because this seems quite close to your "no one cares about those embryos enough yet" to make the box worth choosing.
I am intentionally choosing to save a life in an undesirable situation when no matter what I do life will be lost.
You're intentionally choosing to end the 999 lives, though, as a result. Wouldn't it make sense to minimize the loss? You're not doing that. It seems according to your own position, you're choosing something we'd call immoral: death for 1000 children for the sake of a single crying three year old.
Again, I'm not trying to find fault in your CHOICE. I'm pointing out the fault in your conviction: it's not really there if you're put into a difficult spot and forced to choose on it, you choose the baby not the embryo. Clearly if the embryos weren't embryos and were instead babies, you'd make a different choice: one three year old baby versus four crying newborns. I think you're probably a good person, my guess is you'd make a difficult choice and never forgive yourself, but I think you'd choose the four. I would. You'd want to do the MOST good, right? But you chose not to save the most lives, according to your own position (all embryos = individual babies, therefore you save 1000 lives, or 200 lives or 10 instead of 1).
I don't see embryos as human beings whose rights supersede the right to bodily autonomy, it's very simple for me. Those embryos aren't lives, they're embryos. And in my experience, there's a lot of hypocrisy from the pro life side, because most of the time they don't give two shits about babies that are born into bad circumstances, they just want them born for some reason. After that, sorry poor folks, you're on your own. Praise his name, I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The question is would you fault me if I saved 1000 less developed human lives instead of the child?
"Fault" you, no. It is, however, inconsistent with your stance that embryos have the same intrinsic value as a baby. Otherwise, because while neither is appealing, generally we'd want to save the most lives in a situation like that, you'd have to choose to save a percentage of the 1000 (if you really want to be specific about the wombs, it's a fertility clinic, at least 200 of the 1000 would have parents waiting for them, because they are grown for applicants, not just wily nily, and each applicant would likely have more than one embryo grown then selected for viability and implanted: 1000 / 5 = 200 applicants, 200 wombs, all 200 selected for most viable). Would you allow someone whose OB told them "I'm sorry, but your embryo is non-viable, it will be born, live a short and painful life," would you allow that person to choose to abort their baby?
My point is you don't preach that you're pro life under conditions, right? It's not pro life so long as the baby has a personality, or parents, or feels pain, or isn't mentally disabled, physically deformed. Yet here you are, making that very same distinction in saving the baby: I saved the baby because I'm not sure the embryos are going to survive. I'm not saying you're a bad person for doing it, I'm saying it merely demonstrates that you do not, in fact, believe that 1 embryo = 1 baby. In fact you don't even think 10 embryos = 1 baby. We all choose the baby because it's a baby. An embryo is a clump of cells. I don't see them as the same and I don't claim to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
1. Both the one child and the thousand embryos are human beings (I contend from conception). Debatably, the fertilized embryos, to continue living, will eventually have to be transported to a womb.Since I did not know whether wombs were available or the thousand will survive for a long period of time I would save the child.Since the child will feel more pain at its stage of development I would save the child.
So you've made the decision that the embryos are less valuable than the three year old, because they aren't viable, they don't all have wombs. This is problematic: if 1% of the 1000 embryos have a reasonable chance at survival, then there are at least 10 viable babies you're letting burn. If all human life starts at conception, and these 1000 embryos are past conception, and 10 post fertilization embryos have a chance at survival, by simple math, that box is ten times as full of life than the single three year old. Also, you have decided that a less-than-viable embryo, even one, is worth less than a living baby. They're both the same, right? I mean you can't believe in aborting non-viable embryos identified in utero, right? You're also valuing the child's pain over the embryos. Why?
Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child.2. Morally, both the thousand embryos and the child are equally valuable if all human beings have intrinsic value.3. Now, if not all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then how can you object when one class of human beings is exploited, dehumanized, devalued, discriminated against, to the point of death? You are being inconsistent in your thinking if not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable.So, the question to you is, Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?
The thousand embryos and theone child are not equally valuable. 1000 embryos, according to your beliefs = 1000 lives. Not embryos. It does not appear that you think embryos have the same intrinsic value as a single child. Otherwise, you'd be choosing one life over at least 10, and that's if it's only 1% of the 1000. Is there a number where the embryo viability becomes more valuable than the single child? Is it 25? 100? 500?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your question was:
if it's not a baby, then what is it?
THat's what I answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
I would have guessed that for you, given the rest of the thread. I admire your conviction in it, too, no equivocating, which for a Christian is not often the case when presented with this version of the trolley problem. Well done!
Created:
Posted in:
Seems one thing I can agree with Christians on: biblical contradictions are not material to our beliefs or lack thereof. Listing stuff like this looks like nitpicks, most of them. Bottom line is the book has a talking donkey in it. Chances are it's not a reliable document. Christians will just say "You can't confirm that donkeys never talked, so it's probably just something that changed over time because...sinning." Yes, I know that's not what anyone is arguing, but that's the sort of argumentation you get on biblical contradictions.
Also, contradictions are self evident. If I say A=A and then say A=B, you're not "claiming" I've contradicted myself. You're pointing it out. I can't then say "Well prove A=A and A=B is a contradiction otherwise it isn't."
Created:
Posted in:
Let's do the thought experiment again: I didn't invent this one, it's not my creation, I just find it interesting.
You are standing on the third floor of a burning hospital, at the top of a flight of stairs that will lead to your escape. To the right is the children's ward. To the left, the fertility clnic. Somehow, in the children's ward, you can see a three year old, frozen in terror, crying and needing help. One child, the last one left, and you're that child's only hope to survive. The the right is the fertility clinic. There's a case of 1000 fertilized embryos. If you pick up the child, you can't carry the embyros. If you pick up the embryos, you can't carry the child. Whichever you pick dooms the other, because the stairs will burn before you can get back.
As pro-life Christians, which do you save?
Don't add any conditions in: do you save 1000 or 1?
Created:
Posted in:
Don't you two assholes have an entire other website dedicated to your pointless rivalry? Why move it here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Is the implication all gods that are no longer worshiped are that way because they are false (and not due to cultural changes like Rome overtaking Greece then Constantinople overtaking Rome?)? In this case, how many worshipers would need to stat worhsiping Zeus in order for you to suspect he is real?yeah, why do you think the Greek Gods fell and are no longer worshipped
Doesn't that imply then that any CURRENT god being actively worshiped is at least probably real and exists?
I give you the god of Scientology, Xenu. Please prove he is not real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
because as a human being you have inherited the knowledge of good and evil.
Is everyone inherting the same knowledge of good and evil? If not, why not? If so, why do we see such a wide array of different behaviors, shouldn't all behavior be the same? For example, some people think it's evil to eat pork on certain days. It's a sin. Some don't. If god gave them the exact same knowledge, which one is wrong and going to hell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Appreciate the clarification. It relies pretty heavily on your interpretations, I am sure you'd agree. If animals can get into heaven, without souls and / or without knowing Jesus, doesn't that make faith irrelevant in some way? It also strikes me as strange that god was able to not just curse man, instead he had a tantrum and cursed everything, but that's another topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
..., would you consider there to be a difference between the actions of America going to war with Germany and the Holocaust? Or would you consider both to be genocide?
The actions of AMerica weren't "kill all germans because they're germans," it was "stop the Axis powers including the genocide of the jews." The actions of the Nazis were "kill all jews, full stop." By definition, one is a genocide. The other is a different action entirely. There's only one circle in the venn diagram of the holocaust: jewish people. There are two, at least, in the other side, the Nazis. "Nazis" were German, but not all Germans were Nazis.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all start somewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth.
Here we go again. We all start somewhere, and that somewhere is "here I am." That's the only fair starting block. You're starting with "Here I am...and so God's there too." There is nothing earned to arrive at, or demonstrably gained from, your addition of small g god. Prophecy is weak evidence: you still haven't told me why the 2014 SI cover predicting the Houston Astros would win the 2017 World Series isn't proof of the supernatural, but some weird non-specific, math twisting stupidity about a temple means an entire screed of myths is true.
Created:
Posted in:
I do not believe in the existence of the Voltron with the forty cars and trucks, that's clearly just dumb. But if you are doubting the five lion version, I'm prepared to take some drastic, violent steps to prove that he's real, and you better swear allegiance to him, or you will NEVER get to heaven and meet the Thundercats. Instead you end up in hell, where you meet the Silverhawks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Animals do not have souls as humans do. It seems like a safe conclusion to say that there will be animals in heaven. However, the Bible is not explicitly clear on whether particular animals will be there. I tend to think they just cease to exist since they do not have a human soul, but they certainly won't go to hell. Since they don't have souls, they are not culpable for moral choices and cannot be punished in that way.
So you're saying then that it's possible to get into Christian heaven without a soul, and that animals will be there, but maybe not 'particular' animals? I'm sorry, that's not exactly a clear position. Especially when you say you think it's a safe conclusion there will be animals in heaven, but that you think they just ceases to exist when they die. If they have no souls, what then exactly would they be doing in heaven?
To put my view another way, there will likely be animals in heaven, just not the animals that die in this lifetime. This may not be a particularly comforting answer, but we can find comfort in knowing that there is no sorrow, grief, or death in heaven.
So if there are animals in heaven, soulless animals, in heaven, they'd be animals that didn't 'die in this lifetime'? THis is even less clear. First of all, nothing dies in a lifetime, by definition, when death occurs that entity's 'LIFEtime' is over. If you're not referring to the specific entity's lifetime, rather, for example, MY lifetime during which my dog died, are you then saying if (theoretically) I died and went to heaven, I'd have A dog, just not MY dog, because it died in my lifetime, but I love dogs... but I won't notice because noticing would make me sad, or I won't care? Or, did "this lifetime" mean the generic time we share as humans, meaning that the animals that are in heaven when we get there, it'll be the ones that went extinct prior to our existence, like heaven's full of dinosaurs? Sorry if I didn't get your meaning, but in the text you take a couple of strange positions. I will restate it as a I interpret you, so that you might point out easily where I'm wrong:
"There will be animals in heaven, but they won't be earth animals specific to the ones you know or knew. Because animals have no soul, they cannot be punished with hell, but it wouldn't be fair to reward them with heaven, so what IS there will be a simulation or generic version of an animal that you might vaguely recognize, but it won't be an animal you knew, mainly to [purpose unknown], because there won't be any need for a pet since there's no sorrow, grief, death or, presumably, desire for companionship and friendship in heaven. All of this is based on nothing in the bible."
And no, if there's a heaven, I guess my dog will be sad, because I'm burning in hell for not believing in Jesus. I don't lose any sleep over it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm not sure we agree that these two things are mutually exclusive: that we are only collections of atoms (you've offered no alternative theory thus far, are you going to?) and that as such, life has no value, meaning or purpose. Add the word "intrinsic" and you might have something, but my life certainly means something to ME; I'm not sure to whom it should . Again, you're not making your own argument, you're simply taking issue with his, and it does seem a bit straw-man. It also seems a different topic.there is nothing more to us then random clusters of molecules and uncontrollable chemical reactions, and that life has no value, meaning, or purpose.
Do you believe animals have souls and therefore are subject to the rules of heaven or hell and Jesus? Or are they soulless, therefore they are consigned to whatever place that a burned down tree goes? What is the basis for your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Parents own children, state owns prisoners, bosses own employees.
This is not how you use the word "own." Two of them would be more appropriately "are responsible for" which is not the same as "ownership," the other would be "employs" which is not ownership either.
Having a pet that you care for doesn't in any shape or form mean it lacks a soul.
As you aren't a Christian, you're free to interpret as you like I guess, but does it mean definitely that animals DO have souls? It's one or the other, isn't it? It's difficult to address the question to you without understanding exactly what system of beliefs you're a subscriber to, and my experience with 'pagans' are largely that their systems of belief are extremely malleable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
First and foremost, BECAUSE KIM JONG UN IS VERIFIABLY A REAL THING. For pete's sake! It's really difficult to believe someone can be this obtuse and still manage to operate a computer safely. Like how many scam emails do you fall for in a week?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
- 6 to 7 foot people being stronger is y
Kim jong ung chose people with the y trait to help with x.Animals have more fur during the winter.
- Winter will be x
- more fur will be y
God created animals with y to help with x
Can I demonstrate the existence of Kim Jong Un? You continue to miss this point. Demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being and we can go from there. Alternatively, DISprove the following:
Animals have more fur during the winter. Winter will be X. More fur will by Y. THanos created animals with y to help with x.
Created:
Posted in:
You aren't trying to SHOW anything. You are saying something is as it is, therefore it is that way because something no one can confirm exists as of yet designed it to be as it is. This flies in the face of the available evidence, not to mention puts man on par with your generic god (again, not Jesus, you're still a step away from proving why Jesus would be the designer and not just some 'god', you have not in any way countered my claim it was in fact Zeus). Man can and has designed animals to do certain things, look certain ways. Ask a labradoodle.
Is your opening statement in Santa Vs. Jesus really "Santa is Satan With Two Letters Flipped"??? I might be done with serious discussion if that's not some genius satirical trolling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Can you verify the thing you cannot immediately see, like the apple store, the orchard, and the existence of people who pick and sell apples, if you wanted to? Could you prove to a friend that these things were real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Why is it Jesus and not the similarly undemonstrable Zeus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Zeus is a god, he did it. And also the hummingbird thing, Zeus made them too.
Unsurprisingly, you are missing the point, so I'm trying to simplify it. I am making a claim that Zeus did everything you say some common noun small g god did. Please counter this claim if you disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You mean if ZEUS didn't water plants. Right? Or just any generic god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
How do you counter this:
- Rain will fall from clouds
- Plants need rain to live
Therefore Zeus made it so plants could drink rain.
Created:
Posted in:
This sort of sounds like a somehow dumber version of post hoc ergo propter hoc,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Now you're talking about the problem with heaven in general, a topic I find fascinating but can't get Christians to honestly engage. It's been three weeks and I miss the shit out of my dog still, that I can assure you. I am sure everyone who has had a dog and been through it feels the same. But there's no support for dogs going to heaven or having souls. Only angel horses, whatever the fuck that is. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
How do you argue against the response "I've not been presented with any compelling evidence that any god, much less a specific version of god, exists. I will gladly examine evidence if you have it to present."? Do you present the evidence you have (which I hope is more compelling than "we make conclusions about god x y z all the time, therefore it exists, because this would also seem to imply that Superman "exists" in the same way the bible god does: as imaginary creations).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, they presume God/Supreme Being.
They presume little g god, prime mover. Not Supreme Being necessarily, that seems to me imbued with other properties that aren't necessary, like supremacy, for the proposition of starting the universe. But now we're both arguing distinction without difference, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't have any argument against a deistic argument, because it just presumes "something." The arguments are usually like "well, I'm not sure how else it would happen that the universe would exist," to which atheism simply stops at "we don't know." Deism seems to add the argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance to this. To which I simply can say "well, I guess we disagree." I even grant this codntion in arguments, "something" started the universe, and no one as you point out can ever get from there to Jesus. They say they can, but they have never demonstrated it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
what characteristics would we expect theisttic evolution to have that non-theistic evolution would not,and vice versa.
The characteristic that would distinguish the two is simple: Jesus did it. Otherwise you're right, they are exactly the same thing! Are you saying adding Jesus to the mix only introduces something that can't be proven? Sort of like how atheism and deism are the exact same thing, except one says "probably some being created the universe" and the other says "don't know, convince me."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So if evolution is true, which the overwhelming majority of evidence indicates, then why isn't it mentioned in the bible at all? Like not even a little?
I didn't miss your double talking pompous nonsense. Isn't there a feast of St. Smithens coming up you have to give up talking on this board for soon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@Mopac
If he did it, then why would he lie about it in the bible and just say he created things whole cloth?
How would you distinguish theistic evolution from non-theistic evolution?
By saying "god started it," rather than "don't know what started it," as far as I can tell, without any justification for asserting such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@chustave
Yeah, your latest post did not exactly clarify it, sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@chustave
its dominion is given to earth man, and it is not given to anyone. and you are the damn theives. ( understand that ? )
I can honestly respond no, I do not understand what you're talking about. That man was given dominion over the animals and land and plants of the earth is pretty standard Christian doctrine drawn from Genesis. Not all Christians see it the same way, big shock there, but the ones that do have some scriptural basis for doing so. I don't believe in any of that, though, I am an atheist who sees humanity as just another organism. I'll chalk up your post to being new. Otherwise I'm not sure we disagree at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Biblically speaking - if the Garden of Eden is a picture of heaven. it contained both trees and animals and insects.
But it's not a picture of heaven: it was purportedly here on earth, and god didn't live here, and man was given 'dominion' over all of earthly existence. That's not at all like heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Couldn't agree more. I've actually had a topic on that very matter, but few Christians participated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The Bible doesn't seem clear on the afterlife of animals. There are references to animals in heaven in the Bible that may be more symbolic in nature, but it is possible that animals that lived on earth are taken to heaven. What is clear is that animals in heaven would be living in absolute peace and harmony.But even if not, I'm very confident that your pet is in complete peace right now.
What passages make you say that it's 'possible' that animals that lived here are taken there? Do you subscribe to aniimals having souls, or do you take Tradesecret's position that maybe you can get in without a soul? I thank you for the kind thoughts nonetheless, but you and I are confident of exactly the same thing: my dog is no longer alive, and she's not suffering anymore :). I'm confident she lived a good life and that's the best comfort there can be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The bigger question for you however is - would you want your pet to go to heaven if you are not going to be there? Surely the state of your eternal affairs are more important than that of an animal?
THis and the thing about angels were the only things you mentioned that had anything to do with the question, and neither one of them really answered it at all. I don't believe in any heaven at all. What part of the bible leaves you enough room to doubt that souls are required to be in it? As far as I can tell, it's EXCLUSIvELY souls. If no souls, then the tomato plants that died in my garden due to over-wet soil are in heaven?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"All flesh" in that context seems to remove any conditions at all from heaven, which makes faith irrelevant, right? And the Ecclesiastes makes it sound like there's not heaven for anyone!
Created: