Issues of morality shut Christians up

by Greatest I am Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:47 pm

First topic message reminder :

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

==========================

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

=============================

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

==============================

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:04 am

either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (B) existence is meaningless.

Well, that's somewhat debatable. Granted, we're only in our infancy when it comes to exploring the universe, but thus far, it really doesn't appear that the universe is very conducive to life. Even if we were to find 100 planets with life on them in the next 50 years, those small motes of rock where life clings are but the tiniest fraction of the entire universe. One would think that if the purpose of the universe was to support life, there would be more of it.

Even so, it doesn't explain why I should believe that God created Adam out of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib. That's the story that makes no sense.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:03 am

Shirina wrote:
either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (b) existence is meaningless.
Well, that's somewhat debatable.

My statement, as delimited in my post (see underlined text below), is not reasonably debatable within the posted parameters. As nothing else has been posited hereon except that which I have posited, the options identified in the two quoted “either/or” statements are the only options currently on the table.

“Summation: Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (b) existence is meaningless” (click here to view my entire post).

Shirina wrote:
Granted, we're only in our infancy when it comes to exploring the universe, but thus far, it really doesn't appear that the universe is very conducive to life.

It is proven fact that the universe is conducive to life. We are proof of this fact; every living thing on the Earth is proof of this fact. As the Earth is essential to survival of Life (on Earth), and the universe is essential to survival of the Earth, sans the universe, Life does not exist (on Earth). That’s conducive enough for my loved ones and me.

Shirina wrote:
Even if we were to find 100 planets with life on them in the next 50 years, those small motes of rock where life clings are but the tiniest fraction of the entire universe. One would think that if the purpose of the universe was to support life, there would be more of it.

This “one” would think and does think that the universe supports life just fine. I took approximately twenty thousand breathes of precisely oxygenated air in the last twenty-four hours, and I remain alive.

Shirina wrote:
Even so, it doesn't explain why I should believe that God¹ created Adam² out of dirt³ and Eve⁴ out of Adam's rib.⁵

Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).

Shirina wrote:
That's the story that makes no sense.

The story of life makes no sense. From my post:

“Life is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of earth is concerned. Earth is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Solar System is concerned. The Solar System is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Milky Way Galaxy is concerned. The Milky Way Galaxy is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the universe is concerned” (Click here to view my entire post).

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:31 am

Then please keep your legs firmly crossed, to avoid embarassment..

I take that as a no then, oh well, so much for original thought, maybe you just like singing " I am what I am " to be different and get noticed.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:24 pm

Life doesn’t make any sense. Life is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Earth is concerned. The Earth is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Solar System is concerned. The Solar System is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Milky Way Galaxy is concerned. The Milky Way Galaxy is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the universe is concerned. And the universe? Ah, the pinnacle of nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of anything save itself is concerned, and since doing anything, including existing, to ensure the survival of something nonsensical is nonsensical, the existence of the universe is nonsensical.

Texas, you don't half waffle on, I get the impression your verbosity and flatulence is intended to disguise the weakness of your arguments.

Meaning and purpose are concepts of consciousness, relating any of these concepts to non-conscious phenomena makes no sense. The universe, life or any other physical cause and effect has no purpose or meaning in of itself, if it is not conscious of its own existence.

Fortunately I am a conscious being and I can create meaning and purpose to make sense of my existence, I fail to see the sense in creating meaning and purpose on behalf of non-conscious phenomena.

With these facts in mind lets have a look at your summation:

(a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life,

No, the universe is not conscious.

(b) the universe has no purpose.

Yes, because it is not conscious.

Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence,

Not only is this a non-sequitur, it is nonsensical, and I haven't a clue where this conclusion comes from or even what it means.
The meaning of existence is to exist, consciousness creates meaning to existence, the survival of life is one of the purposes of conscious existence.

or (B) existence is meaningless.

[/quote][/quote]

Existence is meaningless to everything that is not conscious of its own existence.

So my rebuttal is simple, there is a relationship between consciousness, meaning and purpose, and this relationship must involve other conscious beings to make sense, therefore the meaning and purpose of conscious life is the relationship between yourself and others.
Which is what religion( false idols) in a round about way tries to teach us, but wraps it up in primitive voodoo, it uses God as the catalyst to encourage and promote this relationship, the fellowship of man.

Where I disagree with Texas is I believe Judaism was always a metaphor, I do believe the authors had worked out the meaning of life and the purpose of existence, they just adapted contemporay beliefs to get the message across.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:08 pm

Tosh wrote:
… your… flatulence…

Any “flatulence” you perceive is due to malodorous emanations streaming up from the orifice beneath your nose directly into your nostrils.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:30 pm

Any “flatulence” you perceive is due to malodorous emanations streaming unhindered from the orifice beneath your nose directly into your nostrils.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

.

lol, at least you are talking to me again, albeit in rather heated terms.

Flatulence is not that bad an insult, no worse than repeating your mantra ad nauseam, both are intended to irritate, you should know me better and turn the other cheek.

Apart from that, wotcha think of my atheistic philosophy ?

Not too far away from good old Moses, methinks. He just didn't realise where it all came from, and it comes from our social genes and our consciousness expanding these principles.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:39 pm

I accept monkeys and evolution are not as romantic as children of an allmighty father, but one day we will not need any false idols to get the message.

I actually think the evolution of our consciousness is a heroic epic, we have come a long way from our primitive behaviour as hunter-gatherers in Africa.

Not bad for simple monkeys.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:25 pm

Tosh wrote:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
.
lol…

I once invested my mind’s capabilities in unethical behavior towards folks that had one me no harm. The fsact that my behavior was perfectly illegal mitigates not the tears and the grieving for those I wronged that spring forth esac and every time my acts enter my thoughts. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”; I speak from personal experience.

A fine mind intentionally wasted by one so gifted as you evokes no laughter from me; such squander, conversely, evokes tears. I mourn for your mind; thus, I mourn for you.

Tosh wrote:
… at least you are talking to me again, albeit in rather heated terms.

Whatever “heated terms” you might see belong to their originator; sadly, you are that originator. Once upon a time, not so long ago, you joined intellectual and moral integrity to your mind, and I looked forward to your posts. Until such time, if ever, you return to that practice, there is and will be little said by me to you.

Insofar as my reluctance to address the remainder of your post is concerned, about two years two months ago, circa mid-September 2010, you voiced your understanding of the inherent congruence of Big Bang and Genesis 1:1. Your circa mid-September 2012 departure from public expression of this congruence signaled a downward spiral from what you once chose to be and what you now choose to be. Whenever you resurface, I will rejoice; until then, I mourn.

by Shirina Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:34 pm

It is proven fact that the universe is conducive to life. We are proof of this fact; every living thing on the Earth is proof of this fact.

But we're not talking about "Earth," we're talking about the universe.

Think of it this way. Hundreds of sailors were trapped in bowels of the USS Oklahoma when it capsized during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Some of those sailors were able to stave off their inevitable doom by finding air pockets within the ship. But they were going to die ... and did die ... as the air ran out. Now, by your logic, an upside down battleship filled with water is conducive to human life because of a few temporary air pockets that kept sailors alive for a few more hours.

Earth is a temporary air pocket in a ship filled with water. Sooner or later, humanity will be made extinct, most likely by the universe that you claim supports life. An asteroid or comet impact, being nailed with a gamma ray burst (note a star called WR 104*), the sun running out of fuel and expanding into a red supergiant, the moon moving into such a high orbit that it no longer controls earth's wobble, climate cycles, and a wide range of other dangers ... and *some* of them are as inevitable as the air running out for those sailors. It's only a matter of time.

In addition, this tiny little blue sphere we call home is such an infinitesimally small part of the overall universe -- a universe that is hostile to life everywhere else we've looked, including the other 400 or so planets we've discovered so far.

However, I know what you're getting at. You're trying to say that the universe allows life to exist, even if it's only on this one singular planet. That is true. But that does not mean the universe is necessarily conducive to life any more than a battleship filled with water is conducive to life even if sailors are clinging to life within it.

As for the universe having a purpose, well, whatever purpose it does have, we've assigned to it. But I very much doubt it's chief purpose is to support life. Otherwise, it would be far more abundant than it is. Have you ever gone camping, pulled out the old tent in the basement only to find the canvas covered with mold? Yuck! Yet no one would say that the chief purpose of a tent is to support mold growth. Know what I mean?

Take care, Rock.

*Some info on star W 104 from astronomer Phil Plait: LINK

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:41 pm

Texas,

You did me harm.

I was not the originator.

My intellectual and moral integrity mirrors those that choose to debate with me.

Genesis possesses some similarities with the Big Bang, the BB does not stipulate something from nothing nor the first cause, my position has never altered.

None of this will change your mind, it is not an attempt to change your mind, you are from Texas, you do not change your mind.

I accept this with sadness.

by Shirina Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:45 pm

Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).

Rock, my original post, to which you responded, had to do with the nonsensical accout of Adam and Eve. None of those things may have been mentioned in your post, but they were mentioned in mine, and the story was the initial topic of my post.

Perhaps it is I who should have taken your post apart and exposited all of the things you said in your post that wasn't mentioned in mine. Very Happy

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:31 pm

Shirina wrote:
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Rock, my original post, to which you responded, had to do with the nonsensical accout of Adam and Eve. None of those things may have been mentioned in your post, but they were mentioned in mine, and the story was the initial topic of my post.

I chose to introduce an entirely separate non-sensible truth into the thread discussion. From your responses thereto, it is clear to me that my action was and is clear to you.

I choose to not discuss/discourse upon the portions of Genesis upon which you focused until such time as you and I can together discuss/discourse upon the congruence of Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 insofar as the “who”-”what”-“when”-“where” of each is concerned. Until then, any discussion/discourse upon Genesis 2:8 and following (to chapter/s end) would be premature, and thus nonproductive. I’ve communicated this to you at various times in various words a number of times since circa mid-September 2010, so I believed that you remained aware of this.

I remain ready to discuss/discourse upon Genesis 1:1 at any time. After we’ve torn it Part and put it back together, I will if you so desire perform with you the same operation upon Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:7; then and only then will I discuss/discourse upon Genesis 2:8 through the end of Genesis 3. I hope that I am clear.

Shirina wrote:
Perhaps it is I who should have taken your post apart and exposited all of the things you said in your post that wasn't mentioned in mine.

Perhaps you confuse exposit and identify. I exposited point by point and commented upon all items in your post except the items taken from Genesis 2:8 through the end of the chapter. I identified those items and refrained from commenting thereon.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:59 pm

Tosh wrote:
Texas,

You did me harm.

I have done you no harm.

Tosh wrote:
I was not the originator.

Between you and me, you are the originator. The last time I originated such phraseology was late July 2011, when I aided you in smoking out the lead virtual hoodlum of the gang of five or six “Legends in Their Own Minds” thugs that ganged up upon a dear lady hereon.

Tosh wrote:
My intellectual and moral integrity mirrors those that choose to debate with me.

William Jefferson Clinton chose to submerge his prodigious intellect within the vast fickle ocean of today’s public opinion. US intelligence operators have recently stated publicly that Osama Who Swims With Fishes was accessible and “kill-able” around 1997-1999, during Willie’s Watch. I wonder; did public opinion prevent the ever-charming Mr. Clinton from “green-lighting” a covert operation that might have prevented 11 September 2001?

I’ll not insult your intelligence by pointing out the obvious application.

Tosh wrote:
Genesis possesses some similarities with the Big Bang, the BB does not stipulate something from nothing nor the first cause, my position has never altered.

None of this will change your mind, it is not an attempt to change your mind, you are from Texas, you do not change your mind.

I accept this with sadness.

In mid-September 2010, your acknowledgement of the congruence was far more comprehensive; at that time, you mentioned but one point of deviation while affirming the fact that this point of deviation actually becomes evident at or beyond Genesis 1:2. I forget where I put my pencil down ten seconds ago, but I remember clearly what I had for breakfast a few decades ago, where I had it, and, within half a month either way, when I had it.

Your sadness pales next to mine.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:49 pm

Texas,

This is the tiniest of forums with the tiniest of religious contributors, although it was inevitable I did not welcome being the constant recipient of your " macro-evolution trolling act ". To be honest repetitive semantic games are an insult to my intelligence and offend me, Intelligent Design or Progressive Creationism is soley dependant on distorting science, and you revel in what is basically intellectual fraud. You were given ample opportunity to tone your trolling down but you are committed to your tactics, to do otherwise would result in defeat.

I too have a " creationist trolling act " and you do not appreciate being the recipient, it insults your intelligence and offends you.

It was possible on a larger forum to avoid this debate but we are where we are, I am not a pacifist and neither are you. I came for some serious debate and got you and polyglide, such is life.

It was torture to decipher all your arguments against the modern synthesis, and not one has any scientific or philosophical merit, I am happy to leave it at that.

If you seriously believe God created mankind in one fell swoop then I am entitled to question your intelligence or your mental state.

No offence.

by Guest Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:42 am

Tosh wrote:
Texas,

This is the tiniest of forums with the tiniest of religious contributors…

Except for the tiniest fraction of humans, all persons who participate in anything do so in or on the tiniest of forums. Julius “The Doctor” Erving thrilled millions with impossible swoops to the hoop performed on nationwide TV in sports palaces across the land; Rock “The Unidentifiable” Brother thrilled two or three teammates by leading his team in rebounds performed during full court scrimmages in a NAIA school gym that accommodated less than one hundred spectators.

Wake up and smell the coffee; in 2012, unless your name is Barack Hussein Obama Jr., your press conferences will not be preceded by “And now, the President of the United States.”

Tosh wrote:
… although it was inevitable I did not welcome being the constant recipient of your " macro-evolution trolling act ".

Au contraire. Since I do not “troll” and possess no “act” of any sort, you could not have been and were not “the constant recipient of [my] ‘ macro-evolution trolling act ’.”

Truth: Macro-evolution remains unproven. You stated unproven speculative conjecture as fact; I stated fact. It’s that simple. It amazes me that you confuse “act” with “fact.”

Tosh wrote:
To be honest repetitive semantic games are an insult to my intelligence and offend me…

You are speaking dishonestly. To be honest, I do not engage in “repetitive semantic games.” As you have been created by your Creator into freedom of choice, you are free to speak dishonestly if you so choose.

Tosh wrote:
… Intelligent Design or Progressive Creationism is soley dependant on distorting science…

Ideologies tend to be identifiable by their possession of titles such as the two you’ve mentioned. I don’t trouble myself with memorization of ideological tenets.

Tosh wrote:
… and you revel in what is basically intellectual fraud.

Once again you speak dishonestly.

Tosh wrote:
You were given ample opportunity to tone your trolling down…

1. One cannot be “given ample opportunity to tone down” something in which one does not engage. I do not engage in “trolling”, so you are once again speaking dishonestly. 2. You do not possess authority to give or not give me ample opportunity to do anything.

Tosh wrote:
… but you are committed to your tactics…

I’m committed to truth. It amazes me that you confuse “tactic” with “truth.”

Tosh wrote:
… to do otherwise would result in defeat.

Since I’m not playing a game, my efforts hereon can result in neither victory nor defeat. More on this at the end of this post.

Tosh wrote:
If you seriously believe God created mankind in one fell swoop then I am entitled to question your intelligence or your mental state.

That’s a nice bit of “gamesmanship.” It bores me not because you are inept at it; on the contrary, you are damned good, almost as good a “me and the fellas” when we’re “jes havin’ fun.” It bores me because, unless I’m “funnin’ with the fellas” gender inclusive, I’ve a deep-seated distaste for such profitless gaming. It’s a waste of my time. It’s also a waste of your time, but I cannot compel you to abandon this pursuit; I can only mourn for your mind and mourn for you.

by Tosh Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:09 am

Truth: Macro-evolution remains unproven. You stated unproven speculative conjecture as fact; I stated fact. It’s that simple. It amazes me that you confuse “act” with “fact.”

The truth is you are not qualified to dismiss the comprehensive evidence nor the global scientific consensus that proves macro-evolution as a fact, it amazes me that you consider your unqualified speculative conjecture evidence that macro-evolution remains unproven.

I mourn for your sanity, you my friend are stark raving bonkers.

Get help.

by Guest Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:10 am

Shirina wrote:
It is proven fact that the universe is conducive to life. We are proof of this fact; every living thing on the Earth is proof of this fact.
But we're not talking about "Earth," we're talking about the universe.

Earth exists` within the universe; thus, Earth cannot be separated from the universe. Analogy: Border collies exist within the sub-species Canis lupus familiaris, dogs, (Earth exists `within the Solar System), dogs exist within the species Canis lupus, wolves (the Solar System exist within the Milky Way), and wolves exist within the whatchamacallit Canis or Canidae, all of the dogs/wolves/wild dogs/foxes (the Milky Way exists within the universe). Accordingly, just as one cannot separate Border Collies from the overall group of dogs/wolves/wild dogs/foxes within which Border Collies exist, one cannot separate Earth from the universe within which it exists.

The connection between Earth and the universe is most likely even closer than the connection between Border Collies and all canines or whatever they are called as a group. It is now posited by some “mega-brained” physicists that what happened or happens on the other side of the universe, which is maybe 150 billion plus light years across, affects what happens on Earth.

When I talk about the universe and life, I talk about the portion of the universe in which I know life thrives. We call that universe portion “Earth.”

Shirina wrote:
Think of it this way. Hundreds of sailors were trapped in bowels of the USS Oklahoma when it capsized during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Some of those sailors were able to stave off their inevitable doom by finding air pockets within the ship. But they were going to die ... and did die ... as the air ran out. Now, by your logic, an upside down battleship filled with water is conducive to human life because of a few temporary air pockets that kept sailors alive for a few more hours.

Not by my logic. Life thrives on Earth, the oxygen of which is sufficiently renewable to support life long enough for me and my foreseeable posterity to live and die without running out.

Shirina wrote:
Earth is a temporary air pocket in a ship filled with water.

That’s your logic. That’s not my logic.

Shirina wrote:
Sooner or later, humanity will be made extinct, most likely by the universe that you claim supports life.

I don’t claim that the universe supports life. You are living proof that the universe supports life; your continued life testifies to this fact independent of any claim I might make.

Shirina wrote:
However, I know what you're getting at. You're trying to say that the universe allows life to exist, even if it's only on this one singular planet.

Close. I say (no “trying” to it) that the universe supports life, even if only on this singular planet. I’ll add something I haven’t said until now: Given the speed of light and all electromagnetic waves, which are our as yet only window into the universe past our moon and the seven other planets, and some of their moons, visited by planetary probes, and given the posited expanse of the universe, which I believe is 150 plus billion light years across, we lack the ability to state anything definitive about life elsewhere in the universe.

Shirina wrote:
That is true. But that does not mean the universe is necessarily conducive to life any more than a battleship filled with water is conducive to life even if sailors are clinging to life within it.

Once again, that your logic, not mine

Shirina wrote:
As for the universe having a purpose, well, whatever purpose it does have, we've assigned to it.

We’ve certainly done so. We’ve also assigned human-generated purpose to certain diseases. While speaking to my rather mature class about one disease assigned such a purpose, the consultant “decapitated” that foolishness with cold, hard facts the remembrance of which still send chills up and down my inner core. As he pointed out, “viruses have no brains.” As with tiny viruses, the universe has no brain with which to either self-generate a purpose or take on a man-generated purpose; thus, any purpose the universe might have must be ascertained (not generated) by, insofar as we know, the only living thing which possesses the capability to observe, contemplate, and seek to understand the universe.

With that inherent restraint in mind, examine again my summation and note that there must be at least two options, one of which must be “purposeless.”

“Summation: Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (b) existence is meaningless.”

Shirina wrote:
But I very much doubt it's chief purpose is to support life. Otherwise, it would be far more abundant than it is. Have you ever gone camping, pulled out the old tent in the basement only to find the canvas covered with mold? Yuck! Yet no one would say that the chief purpose of a tent is to support mold growth. Know what I mean?

When my youngest child said at bout four years old, “I don’t like going camping. It’s yucky and nasty”, I was set free from that barbaric activity forever or for the rest of my life, whichever comes first. I might conclude that, contrary to the purpose generated by and assigned to tents by humans, support of human life, the inherent purpose of tents as observed by humans is support of mold life. After all, just like the weevil, they’re looking for a home.

Boll Weevil Song - Brook Benton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5BI6PO48s8

Shirina wrote:
Take care, Rock.

You also. I pray for you “without ceasing.”

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:38 am

The obsessed in dialogue with the possessed.

Soon to be a major Hollywood movie.

by Tosh Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:03 pm

Soon to be a major Hollywood movie..

The Secret Life of Oftenwrong. Suspect

You must be on a list somewhere.

by Tosh Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:35 pm

I choose to not discuss/discourse upon the portions of Genesis upon which you focused until such time as you and I can together discuss/discourse upon the congruence of Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 insofar as the “who”-”what”-“when”-“where” of each is concerned. Until then, any discussion/discourse upon Genesis 2:8 and following (to chapter/s end) would be premature, and thus nonproductive. I’ve communicated this to you at various times in various words a number of times since circa mid-September 2010, so I believed that you remained aware of this.

Intellectual fraud alert, dishonest poster in the room. :affraid:

by polyglide Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:52 am

99% of scientists do not agree on the evolution you suggest, they agree a certain amount of evolving takes place and I also agree with that, however, they do not believe in evolution as opposed to creation, the vast majority are in the same class as most people, they do not know, that is where you make a choice based on all the evidence, my evidence is in nature and all that it involves and which proves to anyone with common sense that to everything to have come about by chance or by natural selection is beyond the realms of possibility.

That which is evolving on earth at this time is that which God created in the first place.

by Greatest I am Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:54 pm

Shirina wrote:
either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (B) existence is meaningless.

Well, that's somewhat debatable. Granted, we're only in our infancy when it comes to exploring the universe, but thus far, it really doesn't appear that the universe is very conducive to life. Even if we were to find 100 planets with life on them in the next 50 years, those small motes of rock where life clings are but the tiniest fraction of the entire universe. One would think that if the purpose of the universe was to support life, there would be more of it.

Even so, it doesn't explain why I should believe that God created Adam out of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib. That's the story that makes no sense.

Biologically speaking, could Adam have had the required genes to produce breasts, a vagina and womb.

I don't think so.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:00 pm

God made Eve first. It was Eve’s rib. Not Adam’s.

In God’s creation time line, Eve would obviously come to be, before Adam.

In the creation time line of which we are a part, the hierarchy is God at the peak with consciousness able to encompass all that is. Angels and demons others of the supernatural world. Souls. God’s breath to humans as individual consciousness’. Mater and physics. So believers must roughly think.

In Humankind, the template as proof of concept is either hydrogenous or female. Not male. Humans --- as a form,--- thanks to the fact that woman has a womb and man does not.

Man is thus beholden to woman and not woman to man for existence. Woman made from a man’s rib is just too silly to contemplate seriously.

This reasoned argument is in conflict with

“and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

The last refers to females as well as males.

How then do the Abrahamic religions get away with their suppression and repression of women and Gays while living under a democratic flag?

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yVHYqh3RS8&feature=relmfu

Hebrew Bible

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness…” So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27

by Tosh Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:40 pm

99% of scientists do not agree on the evolution you suggest, they agree a certain amount of evolving takes place and I also agree with that, however, they do not believe in evolution as opposed to creation, the vast majority are in the same class as most people, they do not know, that is where you make a choice based on all the evidence.

Wrong, 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields reject creationism and know common descent has been proven based on the evidence. I am not interested in what civil engineers or any other non-related scientist thinks, although your psychiatric report would be hilarious reading.

Keep taking the meds.

by Shirina Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:12 pm

Wrong, 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields reject creationism and know common descent has been proven based on the evidence.

Yep, and if you exclude American scientists, the number of relevant scientists who believe in Creationism is less than one-tenth of one percent. Which means here in the United States of Jesus, there's A LOT of cultural bias crawling into the brains of some of these scientists.

by snowyflake Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:01 pm

99% of scientists do not agree on the evolution you suggest,

95% of scientists accept evolution as the most likely cause of diversity of species. The other 5% are mentally ill.

by polyglide Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:29 am

Those you think are mentally ill, could of course be right and you the mentally ill one.

Diversity of species does not explain creation or evolution it just shows that evolution of that which was created in the first place can evolve.

The majority of scientists have doubts regarding evolution.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:56 am

The majority of scientists have doubts regarding evolution.

This is a blatant lie, poly. I'm sure bearing false witness gets you sent the burning lake of fire for all eternity. Might I remind you that just because you believe it does not make it true, real or a fact.

That there are specific problems within the theory of evolution does not discredit the entire theory. You do not throw out the entire car when you're oil light comes on. You fix the problem.

by Tosh Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:12 pm

The majority of scientists have doubts regarding evolution..

I doubt you are a female, I would guess a young man amusing himself by trolling.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:17 pm

I think you're right, Tosh. This is not a christian person. Just someone out here to 'disagree' not have a reasoned debate. Anyway, I'm done with her and this board for awhile. Enjoy. Smile

by Tosh Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:50 pm

I think you're right, Tosh. This is not a christian person. Just someone out here to 'disagree' not have a reasoned debate. Anyway, I'm done with her and this board for awhile. Enjoy

The persona does not add up, for polyglide to be a genuine poster she would have to be nigh on retarded.

More likely some teenager having a giggle.

by polyglide Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:46 pm

Why should I be nigh on retarded just because I am debating with someone who is retarded.

by polyglide Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:59 pm

Sorry about Snowflake, I was just beginning to look on her as someone who could be converted and who could understand how a quesion reasonably put should not be replied to with a load of insults.

I am not the kind of Christian who believes in the High Church and all the dressing up and mornfull songs etc; I believe in Jesus and all that he stood for, this does not mean you should not stand up for what you believe in and answer that which insults your belief, Tosh has never answerd any quesion in a reasonable manner all he has done is try to, without any success, to ridicule what I and other posters have put forward.

He is of course to be pittied he must have a very sad life.

by Tosh Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:10 pm

He is of course to be pittied he must have a very sad life. .

Not as sad as some juvenile kid pretending( badly) to be a retarded creationist for kicks.

Go surf somewhere else for reactions.

by polyglide Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:29 pm

Thats a laugh, I do get under your skin and the thickness must take some getting through, but then as I have said previously, you make it so easy.

by Tosh Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:34 pm

Thats a laugh, I do get under your skin and the thickness must take some getting through, but then as I have said previously, you make it so easy..

Look child I am the best troll you will ever meet, you are not in my league, now go and practice somewhere else, humiliating you is an insult to my talents.

by Tosh Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:44 pm

Thats a laugh, I do get under your skin and the thickness must take some getting through, but then as I have said previously, you make it so easy..

Oh dearie me, where has sweet old Christian polyglide gone, why would a dear old lady want to get under my skin...lolol ?

You can smell the teenage angst in this post.

by polyglide Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:44 pm

If you are a Troll you are very droll and have a lot to learn.

I know, I know, when I get under your thick skin it must realy hurt.

I am certainly not in your league I was promoted from the fourth division many moons ago, if you try harder you may eventually get a couple of leagues behing where I am now, just try a little harder.

by Tosh Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:53 pm

You are posting too much and it reeks of desperation, maintaining a false persona under pressure is an art form, and you just aint up to the task sucker.

I seem to be getting under your skin, don't I sonny boy...lolol.

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:59 pm

".... maintaining a false persona under pressure is an art form, and you just aint up to the task sucker.
"

The first true statement you've made this month , Tosh, but I'm sure you're doing your best with poor resources. "E" for effort.

by Tosh Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:46 pm

The first true statement you've made this month , Tosh, but I'm sure you're doing your best with poor resources. "E" for effort..

You are melting down in front of everyone stalker, and with minimal effort on my part. Very Happy

You are morphing into CGF and look what I did to that poor soul, be thankful I have mellowed.

by Sponsored content