Matthew 24 34

[ding]

So that he could experience the full spectrum of the material world?

Or maybe because he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

But whatever the reason, you can be certain that a mind without a body capable of creating existence has a good reason.

"So that he could experience the full spectrum of the material world?" So god lives vicariously through us?

"Or maybe because he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions. " So you're guessing. Got it.

"a mind without a body capable of creating existence has a good reason" Total speculation, and zero proof.

Not really. We live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

What's logical about deformed and retarded babies that live in constant pain?

That they are a byproduct of existence and diversity.

Not logical to have that. Only to you, not to the rest of us.

You can tell God how illogical he is.

 

[Taz]

You're the one who claims that an invisible being wants us to be self-aware. Which is laughable.

Why is it laughable?

That the story of Adam and Eve would be about being self-aware, that's funny.

You would only see that.

That's totally a lame reason for that story.

It’s a little more than that.

It was passed down for thousands of years orally from generation to generation. There’s nothing comparable in the history of mankind.

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

 

[Taz]

"So that he could experience the full spectrum of the material world?" So god lives vicariously through us?

"Or maybe because he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions. " So you're guessing. Got it.

"a mind without a body capable of creating existence has a good reason" Total speculation, and zero proof.

Not really. We live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

What's logical about deformed and retarded babies that live in constant pain?

That they are a byproduct of existence and diversity.

Not logical to have that. Only to you, not to the rest of us.

You can tell God how illogical he is.

I’m going to knock him off his throne.

 

[norwegen]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

 

[ding]

Why is it laughable?

That the story of Adam and Eve would be about being self-aware, that's funny.

You would only see that.

That's totally a lame reason for that story.

It’s a little more than that.

It was passed down for thousands of years orally from generation to generation. There’s nothing comparable in the history of mankind.

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

 

[ding]

Not really. We live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

What's logical about deformed and retarded babies that live in constant pain?

That they are a byproduct of existence and diversity.

Not logical to have that. Only to you, not to the rest of us.

You can tell God how illogical he is.

I’m going to knock him off his throne.

That should be quite interesting to see.

 

[ding]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

 

[Taz]

That the story of Adam and Eve would be about being self-aware, that's funny.

You would only see that.

That's totally a lame reason for that story.

It’s a little more than that.

It was passed down for thousands of years orally from generation to generation. There’s nothing comparable in the history of mankind.

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

 

[ding]

You would only see that.

That's totally a lame reason for that story.

It’s a little more than that.

It was passed down for thousands of years orally from generation to generation. There’s nothing comparable in the history of mankind.

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

Why are you reading it literally again?

 

[Taz]

That's totally a lame reason for that story.

It’s a little more than that.

It was passed down for thousands of years orally from generation to generation. There’s nothing comparable in the history of mankind.

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

Why are you reading it literally again?

Because that’s how it was written. They were trying to explain the world around them.

 

[ding]

It’s a little more than that.

It was passed down for thousands of years orally from generation to generation. There’s nothing comparable in the history of mankind.

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

Why are you reading it literally again?

Because that’s how it was written. They were trying to explain the world around them.

Because that’s how it was written? It wasn’t written until thousands of years later. That’s how it was told. And it was told that way to make it easier to remember and pass down.

You’re hung up on six days when the point of the account is that what they saw was the result of a process over time.

 

[TNHarley]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

It's not trolling when I use reality and not Christian spin

 

[ding]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

It's not trolling when I use reality and not Christian spin

You seeing what you want to see isn’t reality.

And you absolutely are a troll.

 

[Taz]

It’s dumb. Lots of comparable dumb stories.

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

Why are you reading it literally again?

Because that’s how it was written. They were trying to explain the world around them.

Because that’s how it was written? It wasn’t written until thousands of years later. That’s how it was told. And it was told that way to make it easier to remember and pass down.

You’re hung up on six days when the point of the account is that what they saw was the result of a process over time.

So you're saying that the 6 days thing is wrong. Good for you.

 

[TNHarley]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

It's not trolling when I use reality and not Christian spin

You seeing what you want to see isn’t reality.

And you absolutely are a troll.

Oh yea. You mean reading what it actually says. Yes, good point.
Dumbfuck

 

[ding]

You think the question how we got here and if there is a purpose to existence is dumb? I don’t.

Not to mention that pesky concept of fairness that we didn’t put there and can’t seem to get rid of.

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

Why are you reading it literally again?

Because that’s how it was written. They were trying to explain the world around them.

Because that’s how it was written? It wasn’t written until thousands of years later. That’s how it was told. And it was told that way to make it easier to remember and pass down.

You’re hung up on six days when the point of the account is that what they saw was the result of a process over time.

So you're saying that the 6 days thing is wrong. Good for you.

I am saying that it was never believed to be 6 days. I am saying that the message was always, God created existence and man arose from that creation.

 

[ding]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

It's not trolling when I use reality and not Christian spin

You seeing what you want to see isn’t reality.

And you absolutely are a troll.

Oh yea. You mean reading what it actually says. Yes, good point.
Dumbfuck

The dumbfuck is the one who has to read it literally to not believe in it.

 

[Taz]

We got here in 6 days? Umm... nope.

Why are you reading it literally again?

Because that’s how it was written. They were trying to explain the world around them.

Because that’s how it was written? It wasn’t written until thousands of years later. That’s how it was told. And it was told that way to make it easier to remember and pass down.

You’re hung up on six days when the point of the account is that what they saw was the result of a process over time.

So you're saying that the 6 days thing is wrong. Good for you.

I am saying that it was never believed to be 6 days. I am saying that the message was always, God created existence and man arose from that creation.

No it wasn't and you know it. It was to explain the world around them. They thought everything revolved around the earth... And had no scientific clue what it really was until Copernicus...

 

[TNHarley]

Ding keeps humoring Spaz, the Religion forum troll.

Another thread hijacked.

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

It's not trolling when I use reality and not Christian spin

You seeing what you want to see isn’t reality.

And you absolutely are a troll.

Oh yea. You mean reading what it actually says. Yes, good point.
Dumbfuck

The dumbfuck is the one who has to read it literally to not believe in it.

Lol yea. I should listen to a strangers interpretation.
I shouldn't take prophecies literal
You are a dishonest hack.

 

[ding]

It doesn’t cost me anything to talk to Taz.

Besides you think TN isn’t trolling with this thread?

It's not trolling when I use reality and not Christian spin

You seeing what you want to see isn’t reality.

And you absolutely are a troll.

Oh yea. You mean reading what it actually says. Yes, good point.
Dumbfuck

The dumbfuck is the one who has to read it literally to not believe in it.

Lol yea. I should listen to a strangers interpretation.
I shouldn't take prophecies literal
You are a dishonest hack.

Your entire argument is that Jesus didn’t fulfill an end times prophecy when end times haven’t occurred yet. And I’m dishonest? Your whole argument is built on dishonesty.