How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[ding]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free within the USA. Since decades now you always need more guns to fight against more and more guns. Only destruction and death justifies your way to argue any longer. You became a poor guy far from real life.

.

But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword".

.
you are correct about the nra and american christians - bing bond picaro but not americans ...
.
View attachment 387902
.
the originals knew when to leave their guns home and when to use them when they were needed.

there is no place for automatic weapons those people are not american.

Let's see... you are a liberation theologist who hates Christians and zaangalewa is a self loathing German socialist Catholic....


... you two should hit it off.

.

Let's see... you are a liberation theologist who hates (knows the crucifiers) Christians and @zaangalewa is a self loathing German socialist Catholic....


... you two should hit it off.

.
and you are a 4th century crucifier ... forger and falsifier of the true events of the 1st century.

Actually, I'm not, dumb ass.

what did I miss? who was CRUCIFYING in the 4th century? As far as I know, the romans had given it up. The greeks?

Apparently I was.

oh---in what country?

Why are you asking me?

I don't know of any country that actively engaged in that sport in 400 AD

.

I don't know of any country that actively engaged in that sport in 400 AD

.
seriously.

were they ever brought to justice, snowflake -
.
View attachment 388299
.
what goes around comes around.

Apparently I was.

.
they wrote your book, the christian bible you are one of them. and have yet to be stopped. making yourself great again.

You aren't making any sense.

 

[BreezeWood]

the romans had OTHER sportive ways of murdering people-----LOTS

Sure, ways of being tortured to death are probably endless, but one crucifixion and its aftermath saved everyone past, present, and in the future.

People will always die even if they are murdered, i.e. morally wrong. Death is still the physical problem due to original sin and it won't be fixed until Jesus comes back to Earth for vengeance the second time. Thus, pain and suffering in this life is the norm or what is expected. The moral problem is whether one believes in Jesus as Savior or not and that may be the #1 issue. However, the non-believers want proof and do not have the requisite "faith." Instead, they have developed a different faith in no God/gods and we still have pain and suffering as the norm.

.

Sure, ways of being tortured to death are probably endless, but one crucifixion and its aftermath saved everyone past, present, and in the future.

.
only a madman would equate a murder to salvation, you are either the crucifier for your own needs or the ones that allowed it to happen - and have yet to bring them to justice for their crime. throughout the centuries to the present day.

 

[abu afak]

I already showed that there is, dummy.
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.

That's on Topic but already Refuted.

""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. ""​

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

`

 

[zaangalewa]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free in the USA.

Yes, it makes so much sense for a German to look down on Americans.

It is as I said it here. You demonstrate very well with this words that your only argument is destruction and death any longer. You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

No, my post wasn't destructive. My post was sarcastic.

The USA had not any reason to begin a war against Germany - but you feel damned proud that you wan this war against your grandparents. That's sarcasm.

Your post - the post I responded to with sarcasm - was the destructive post.

Way to accuse me of what you did.

Dead ears.

Leave it to you to blame America instead of Germany for WWII.

I spoke not about world war 2. I spoke about one war. Worls war 1+2 are the same war for me. And now your nation is on the direct way into world war 3.

Again, Germans literally have zero room to talk about starting wars.

I'm only pretty sure American citizens owning guns won't start a war. Stop being a drama queen and get the sand out of your vagina. Mind your own business. Germans don't get a say on American citizens owning guns.

I don't have any idea how to translate your last sentence here - after the nonsense you said before - into the German language.

 

[zaangalewa]

You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

I know exactly as much about Germany as you do about America, you hypocritical fool.

And now the same sentence in German please. Not even the ambassadors of the USA in Germany speak German any longer - asides that there is no ambassador of the USA in Germany any longer - what's perhaps better than to have to hear the totally absurde and idiotic things, which your ambassadors say.

Apparently you misunderstood my post. Germans have about as much business interjecting themselves in American issues as Americans have in interjecting themselves in German issues. Now do you understand?

I don't like to reduce the USA to 1/3 of its size and power and murder many innocent US-Americans only on reason you think it would be fair to do so.

As for my comment about your hypocrisy that should have been self evident but if it wasn't let me know and I will find a ten year old to explain it to you.

I guess you should slowly start to read and to try to understand what I said to you. You will not find what I think in your own "allknowing ignorance".

 

[zaangalewa]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free within the USA. Since decades now you always need more guns to fight against more and more guns. Only destruction and death justifies your way to argue any longer. You became a poor guy far from real life.

.

But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword".

.
you are correct about the nra and american christians - bing bond picaro but not americans ...
.
View attachment 387902
.
the originals knew when to leave their guns home and when to use them when they were needed.

there is no place for automatic weapons those people are not american.

Let's see... you are a liberation theologist who hates Christians and zaangalewa is a self loathing German socialist Catholic....


... you two should hit it off.

Btw. Since 1789 - in 231 years - for about 2-3 years in total a Catholic was president of the USA. He brought you direction moon and made the USA great. So the USA eliminated all Kennedies - partially physically - out of the politics of the USA.

Not sure exactly what your point is or how it relates to anything I said but that's not surprising given your inability to hold rational and cogent conversations.

The problem in this context is it, that the USA is not this, what it thinks about itselve. About 20-25% (I guess in former times more) of all US-Americans are Catholics and they are represented in the politics of the USA with less than 0.5% in the leadership of the USA. So some people are much more equal in the USA than other people in the USA. You system is a system of injustice. I fear in general without truth justice is not possible. But to live without justice is impossible. All forms how US-Americans "discuss" seem not to have a lot to do with the trying to find out what's true. You like to be happy (=to be ignorant) and you like to win, independent from "what to win". I the moment the USA wins a lot of speechlessness for example.

 

[james bond]

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

So much wrong in this so that you LOSE. There were no cavemen. Why would people live in caves when they had better places they could settle? It's common sense. Societies didn't naturally adapt, they fought wars. Moses led 2.4 million ancient peoples, 600,000 of which were military out to the promised land. Later, people grouped together by language and ethnicity and the population grew and towns and cities arose as the masses settled in different countries. Later, the USA was founded on winning wars and battles with the British.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself and societies naturally adapting. Tribes raiding the tribes next door was the norm for their betterment and survival. Most early civilizations grouped together to protect themselves. The ones who made the best weapons started to rule their lands.

>>'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.'<<

This is just circular reasoning. No explanation of how the any of this came about from tribes warring against each other. People did live in tighter quarters as they do today. You conveniently leave out how the losers like you were put into slavery.

>>Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.<<

Next, you jump into modern times and leave out the continued moral problems we have. For example, free speech isn't free. Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Gays shouldn't happen naturally. Second amendment should be what came after tribes raiding one another. I have no idea what is esoteric for all kinds of groups and genders.

Simply, you don't know what you are talking about haha.

 

[zaangalewa]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free within the USA. Since decades now you always need more guns to fight against more and more guns. Only destruction and death justifies your way to argue any longer. You became a poor guy far from real life.

.

But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword".

.
you are correct about the nra and american christians - bing bond picaro but not americans ...
.
View attachment 387902
.
the originals knew when to leave their guns home and when to use them when they were needed.

there is no place for automatic weapons those people are not american.

Let's see... you are a liberation theologist who hates Christians and zaangalewa is a self loathing German socialist Catholic....


... you two should hit it off.

Btw. Since 1789 - in 231 years - for about 2-3 years in total a Catholic was president of the USA. He brought you direction moon and made the USA great. So the USA eliminated all Kennedies - partially physically - out of the politics of the USA.

I would have to disagree here in a big way. If a man like Eisenhower had still been in office, there would have been no way Bible reading, opening prayer, and REAL Baccalaureate Ceremonies/Services would have been removed from public education. This marked the speedy slide of education from the search for the sublime to that of the absurd. And a breakdown of authority in the public "educational" system. It took only one Catholic President to undermine nearly 200 years of consideration of the spiritual to a total disregard for it as an important factor, and to replace it with material gain as the prime objective. You can try to blame it on the Supreme Court; however, the Democrats had been nibbling away at the public importance of encouraging Spiritual discernment for years, and Kennedy but put the icing on the whole sugary cake.

And why do you tell me this? What exactly do you say here? That to be the same time a Catholic and an US-American is an impossible thing? Catholics don't have any right to be US-Americans?

By the way: Everyone who helps the US-government to seperate mothers and children of migrants spits in the face of god.

I'm saying Kennedy was Roman Catholic and a Democrat, who not only did nothing to help the move to eject Castro from Cuba, and nothing to reverse the damage done to the US public school education through the Supreme Court, but cheated on his wife and got us into the Vietnam conflict. Kennedy's father was a known bootlegger who lavished his sons with political appointments. Kennedy though made a young good looking President who had stylish wife and lovely children ---- I'll give him that.

You are not good in the logic of time. One example: The commies had conquered more than 50% of the planet. So it was not wrong to start the war in Vietnam (as you had done in Korea before). But it was also right to stop this war in Vietnam after it made no sense any longer. You had killed the people there who you liked to liberate - and this made no sense any longer. To end the war in Vietnam was one of the greatest things the people of the USA ever had done. But this makes John F. Kennedy not to a bad man, because he had started this war. This war ran out of control - and so the people stopped this war.

And for the most Germans John F. Kennedy will always stay to be "the president" of the USA. Sure darkened G.W. Bush (=the worst president the USA ever had seen) and Donald Trump (=the much more worst president the world ever had seen) the relations between Germany and the USA. But JFK will always stay to be JFK.

 

[zaangalewa]

I already showed that there is, dummy.
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.

That's on Topic but already Refuted.

""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. ""​

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

`

Esoterics (=elitarian exclusion) is counterproductive nonsense in an open society for everyone. And a gay marriage is impossible in case of this what Christians understand under the sacrament marriage. A third gender is for example biologically also not existing. And the second ammandement - whatever it is - seems to be important since the 1970ies, when the weapon industry started to use it for maketing. The man made human right "abortion" for example means to kill a human being - but the right to kill a human being is not able to be a god given human right.

 

[esalla]

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

So much wrong in this so that you LOSE. There were no cavemen. Why would people live in caves when they had better places they could settle? It's common sense. Societies didn't naturally adapt, they fought wars. Moses led 2.4 million ancient peoples, 600,000 of which were military out to the promised land. Later, people grouped together by language and ethnicity and the population grew and towns and cities arose as the masses settled in different countries. Later, the USA was founded on winning wars and battles with the British.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself and societies naturally adapting. Tribes raiding the tribes next door was the norm for their betterment and survival. Most early civilizations grouped together to protect themselves. The ones who made the best weapons started to rule their lands.

>>'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.'<<

This is just circular reasoning. No explanation of how the any of this came about from tribes warring against each other. People did live in tighter quarters as they do today. You conveniently leave out how the losers like you were put into slavery.

>>Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.<<

Next, you jump into modern times and leave out the continued moral problems we have. For example, free speech isn't free. Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Gays shouldn't happen naturally. Second amendment should be what came after tribes raiding one another. I have no idea what is esoteric for all kinds of groups and genders.

Simply, you don't know what you are talking about haha.

What did he lose? What did you win?

 

[LittleNipper]

The only reason the majority of American citizens were against Communism was because they (the Communists) espoused ATHEISM --- closing churches, ejected and murdered missionaries, controlled education and, wanted the US to be an atheistic country eventually (the sooner the better). Once the US becomes indifferent to Atheism, the war is over...

 

[esalla]

The only reason the majority of American citizens were against Communism was because they (the Communists) espoused ATHEISM --- closing churches, ejected and murdered missionaries, controlled education and, wanted the US to be an atheistic country eventually (the sooner the better). Once the US becomes indifferent to Atheism, the war is over...

The America as I grew up in is already over

 

[irosie91]

The only reason the majority of American citizens were against Communism was because they (the Communists) espoused ATHEISM --- closing churches, ejected and murdered missionaries, controlled education and, wanted the US to be an atheistic country eventually (the sooner the better). Once the US becomes indifferent to Atheism, the war is over...

my take on the McCarthy era is that americans were MISLED about communism and the atheism libel was the ONE that charlatans FOCUSED upon. Communism was presented as IMMORAL AND ANTI-JESUS. Its faults are far more significant than THAT---but it is probably true that the overwhelming majority of the people of the USA would not understand the threat if it had not been for the ANTI-JESUS issue. I was used because it WORKED

 

[ding]

I already showed that there is, dummy.
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.

That's on Topic but already Refuted.

""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. ""​

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

`

No. It hasn't been refuted, dummy. Reason and logic determine right and wrong. I love that you argue against reason and logic.

 

[ding]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free in the USA.

Yes, it makes so much sense for a German to look down on Americans.

It is as I said it here. You demonstrate very well with this words that your only argument is destruction and death any longer. You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

No, my post wasn't destructive. My post was sarcastic.

The USA had not any reason to begin a war against Germany - but you feel damned proud that you wan this war against your grandparents. That's sarcasm.

Your post - the post I responded to with sarcasm - was the destructive post.

Way to accuse me of what you did.

Dead ears.

Leave it to you to blame America instead of Germany for WWII.

I spoke not about world war 2. I spoke about one war. Worls war 1+2 are the same war for me. And now your nation is on the direct way into world war 3.

Again, Germans literally have zero room to talk about starting wars.

I'm only pretty sure American citizens owning guns won't start a war. Stop being a drama queen and get the sand out of your vagina. Mind your own business. Germans don't get a say on American citizens owning guns.

I don't have any idea how to translate your last sentence here - after the nonsense you said before - into the German language.

It means stop being overly emotional and start using your brain.

 

[ding]

You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

I know exactly as much about Germany as you do about America, you hypocritical fool.

And now the same sentence in German please. Not even the ambassadors of the USA in Germany speak German any longer - asides that there is no ambassador of the USA in Germany any longer - what's perhaps better than to have to hear the totally absurde and idiotic things, which your ambassadors say.

Apparently you misunderstood my post. Germans have about as much business interjecting themselves in American issues as Americans have in interjecting themselves in German issues. Now do you understand?

I don't like to reduce the USA to 1/3 of its size and power and murder many innocent US-Americans only on reason you think it would be fair to do so.

As for my comment about your hypocrisy that should have been self evident but if it wasn't let me know and I will find a ten year old to explain it to you.

I guess you should slowly start to read and to try to understand what I said to you. You will not find what I think in your own "allknowing ignorance".

Oh, I am understanding you perfectly. You are against peaceable law abiding citizens owning firearms. So were the Nazi's.

Germans don't have a seat at this discussion. It's not your country. Your people have fucked up the world enough already.

 

[ding]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free within the USA. Since decades now you always need more guns to fight against more and more guns. Only destruction and death justifies your way to argue any longer. You became a poor guy far from real life.

.

But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword".

.
you are correct about the nra and american christians - bing bond picaro but not americans ...
.
View attachment 387902
.
the originals knew when to leave their guns home and when to use them when they were needed.

there is no place for automatic weapons those people are not american.

Let's see... you are a liberation theologist who hates Christians and zaangalewa is a self loathing German socialist Catholic....


... you two should hit it off.

Btw. Since 1789 - in 231 years - for about 2-3 years in total a Catholic was president of the USA. He brought you direction moon and made the USA great. So the USA eliminated all Kennedies - partially physically - out of the politics of the USA.

Not sure exactly what your point is or how it relates to anything I said but that's not surprising given your inability to hold rational and cogent conversations.

The problem in this context is it, that the USA is not this, what it thinks about itselve. About 20-25% (I guess in former times more) of all US-Americans are Catholics and they are represented in the politics of the USA with less than 0.5% in the leadership of the USA. So some people are much more equal in the USA than other people in the USA. You system is a system of injustice. I fear in general without truth justice is not possible. But to live without justice is impossible. All forms how US-Americans "discuss" seem not to have a lot to do with the trying to find out what's true. You like to be happy (=to be ignorant) and you like to win, independent from "what to win". I the moment the USA wins a lot of speechlessness for example.

We'll figure it out. We certainly don't need the advice of Germans. Hitler thought he knew what was best for the world too.

 

[irosie91]

In ~ 1935 Adolf enacted the NUREMBERG code which is not much more or less than the Canon Law enacted
by CONSTANTINE in the time that he was Emperor of the HOLEY roman empire. It include disarmament of all "enemies" which in Germany (and for Constantine) largely referred to jews. Adolf did not impose disarmament on christian german citizens---but I believe he insisted on registration of fire arms. The ban was supposed to include conquered nations too

 

[ding]

In ~ 1935 Adolf enacted the NUREMBERG code which is not much more or less than the Canon Law enacted
by CONSTANTINE in the time that he was Emperor of the HOLEY roman empire. It include disarmament of all "enemies" which in Germany (and for Constantine) largely referred to jews. Adolf did not impose disarmament on christian german citizens---but I believe he insisted on registration of fire arms. The ban was supposed to include conquered nations too

And your point?

 

[irosie91]

In ~ 1935 Adolf enacted the NUREMBERG code which is not much more or less than the Canon Law enacted
by CONSTANTINE in the time that he was Emperor of the HOLEY roman empire. It include disarmament of all "enemies" which in Germany (and for Constantine) largely referred to jews. Adolf did not impose disarmament on christian german citizens---but I believe he insisted on registration of fire arms. The ban was supposed to include conquered nations too

And your point?

several points would be clear to all but the brainless----VERY IMPORTANT is the fact that disarming this or that population was NOTHING NEW in the "holy
roman empire" -----for the record---the THIRD REICH actually means THE THIRD HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. I consider it a fascinating point that the NUREMBERG LAWS are nothing more than a recapitulation of the original laws of the holy roman empire. The Spartans disarmed the HELOTS---also
an oppressed underclass being "not greek"