Is the Bible right, are we sheep?

[Votto]

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

What the founding fathers said isnt very logical - since theres no God proven and all..... they made a guess and spoke it as an ultimate truth.

Anyhoo, what seperates us from animals is our capability to reason.

Ironically.

Animals can't reason? Do tell.

I have a dog that has figured out how to open a door by turning a door nob.

Then again, he probably did not tell you he was reasoning to figure that out, so..........

No I didnt say animals cant reason.

wtf, how would they survive????

Our abilities supercede theirs in the reasoning department by a factor of a kabillion ~ and thats what seperates us.

I see, so all the stupid humans can be rounded up and treated like cattle?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Apparently our Founders didn't believe in the natural rights of women.

I left that out of my last post.

Nor did they believe in the natural rights of non-landowners.

They get that from God too?

 

[Votto]

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

thats a humanity truth, not a biblical truth, that money is the root of all evil...but then.......evil is subjective regardless.

I see, so even though it is in the Bible it is not really a Biblical truth, it is a humanity truth?

Additionally, evil does not really exist, but is a human construct.

You seem to be agreeing with the money is evil concept while trying to strip the Bible of any credit for being right by saying it is a human truth instead. Then you whip right back around and claim that evil does not really exist and is merely a human construct?

Dizzying.

 

[MarkDuffy]

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

Not sure what you want here. We use the Popeye excuse ~ I am what I am

Science sez we are intelligent killer apes and if we don't mend our ways we will turn out to be the shortest-lived species ever to have inhabited this tiny rock.

 

[Votto]

Apparently our Founders didn't believe in the natural rights of women.

I left that out of my last post.

Nor did they believe in the natural rights of non-landowners.

They get that from God too?

You obviously disdain the Founding Fathers and everything they stood for, however, they created a nation that remained divided on such things as slavery and allowed for correction for such things as women's rights.

In short, they created a system that allowed itself to autocorrect.

That's what happens when you don't centralize power.

Today, however, power has become centralized. The notion of our current system auto correcting is laughable.

 

[Votto]

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

Not sure what you want here. We use the Popeye excuse ~ I am what I am

Science sez we are intelligent killer apes and if we don't mend our ways we will turn out to be the shortest-lived species ever to have inhabited this tiny rock.

So why should you have rights that an ape in the zoo does not?

 

[Votto]

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

thats a humanity truth, not a biblical truth, that money is the root of all evil...but then.......evil is subjective regardless.

I see, so even though it is in the Bible it is not really a Biblical truth, it is a humanity truth?

Additionally, evil does not really exist, but is a human construct.

You seem to be agreeing with the money is evil concept while trying to strip the Bible of any credit for being right by saying it is a human truth instead. Then you whip right back around and claim that evil does not really exist and is merely a human construct?

Dizzying.

paragraph 1: the bible borrowed a lot of ideas from pre existing human culture, yupp....

paragraphs 2 and 3...


the bible gets zero credit for any human truths because said truths didnt originate with the bible


thou shalt not kill, gee poindexter i wonder how anyone would ever think of that



evil does not have an ultimate arbiter that humans are currently aware of - and until one is proven its the most rational position that these things are subjective.


subjective doesnt mean that the observor doesnt consider anything evil....it means that theyre saying they have an opinion.... that they ultimately cannot prove ~ its honesty and humility with a lick of courage....something religious folks lack

but the problem with relative beliefs is that folks like you assume out of thin air that a relativist doesnt still fight for and ultimately sacrifice for their opinions.......even though its proven wrong day in and day out...its like you need to be hit with a brick or something to realize it

The Bible did not create truths after it was written, rather, it was merely spelling out which truths were correct. The Bible still got it right, according to my opinion and it would seem yours as well, even though you seem very evasive on the matter.

The problem with beliefs is that they can harm other people, and lead to laws that harm people. It seems beliefs are valid for such things EXCEPT if they are religious based. Then all of a sudden they become inferior.

You are free to believe what you want, but in a KJB type PC culture, we are less free than ever in expressing them.

 

[Votto]

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

Not sure what you want here. We use the Popeye excuse ~ I am what I am

Science sez we are intelligent killer apes and if we don't mend our ways we will turn out to be the shortest-lived species ever to have inhabited this tiny rock.

So why should you have rights that an ape in the zoo does not?

"why should" implies theres a should or shouldnt that supercedes mere opinion

prove one.

Prove what? This is not a math class. I'm asking for your opinion.

Why should you have more rights than an ape in a zoo?

 

[Care4all]

Well let's hear it. Are we all just looking for a "good" shepherd?

We certainly are not acting like we are the "Sheep" in the Sheep and the Goats parable! We are most definitely acting like the Goats right now imo.....or at least the Trumpians are....

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25:31-46 - New International Version

 

[Votto]

Well let's hear it. Are we all just looking for a "good" shepherd?

We certainly are not acting like we are the "Sheep" in the Sheep and the Goats parable! We are most definitely acting like the Goats right now imo.....or at least the Trumpians are....

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25:31-46 - New International Version

Thanks for that.

It is interesting that the believer is referred to as a sheep and the nonbeliever a goat.

One is docile and harmless, and the other is cantankerous and a hellion.

Both are otherwise very similar

 

[MarkDuffy]

Apparently our Founders didn't believe in the natural rights of women.

I left that out of my last post.

Nor did they believe in the natural rights of non-landowners.

They get that from God too?

You obviously disdain the Founding Fathers and everything they stood for, however, they created a nation that remained divided on such things as slavery and allowed for correction for such things as women's rights.

You need remedial reading comprehension course. The pedestal I put our FFers on is just not as tall as the one you use.

In short, they created a system that allowed itself to autocorrect.

but they made that really really hard to accomplish.

That's what happens when you don't centralize power.

Today, however, power has become centralized. The notion of our current system auto correcting is laughable.

Wait WHAT?

You claim the greatest system ever that now sucks? and claim I am the one who hates our Founders?

Hint ~ It's the very same system.

Would it help if I reminded you that if power were really centralized, we would be using popular vote and not electoral college and Hillary would be president? republicans would not control Congress. It is the simple fact that we have 50 states & not one nation that gives republicans power.

 

[Votto]

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?

thats a humanity truth, not a biblical truth, that money is the root of all evil...but then.......evil is subjective regardless.

I see, so even though it is in the Bible it is not really a Biblical truth, it is a humanity truth?

Additionally, evil does not really exist, but is a human construct.

You seem to be agreeing with the money is evil concept while trying to strip the Bible of any credit for being right by saying it is a human truth instead. Then you whip right back around and claim that evil does not really exist and is merely a human construct?

Dizzying.

paragraph 1: the bible borrowed a lot of ideas from pre existing human culture, yupp....

paragraphs 2 and 3...


the bible gets zero credit for any human truths because said truths didnt originate with the bible


thou shalt not kill, gee poindexter i wonder how anyone would ever think of that



evil does not have an ultimate arbiter that humans are currently aware of - and until one is proven its the most rational position that these things are subjective.


subjective doesnt mean that the observor doesnt consider anything evil....it means that theyre saying they have an opinion.... that they ultimately cannot prove ~ its honesty and humility with a lick of courage....something religious folks lack

but the problem with relative beliefs is that folks like you assume out of thin air that a relativist doesnt still fight for and ultimately sacrifice for their opinions.......even though its proven wrong day in and day out...its like you need to be hit with a brick or something to realize it

The Bible did not create truths after it was written, rather, it was merely spelling out which truths were correct. The Bible still got it right, according to my opinion and it would seem yours as well, even though you seem very evasive on the matter.

The problem with beliefs is that they can harm other people, and lead to laws that harm people. It seems beliefs are valid for such things EXCEPT if they are religious based. Then all of a sudden they become inferior.

You are free to believe what you want, but in a KJB type PC culture, we are less free than ever in expressing them.

Its fine to believe in Religion all you wanna same as its fine for me to tell you how epically asinine and gullible that is.

The bible says homosexuals should be killed.

So....cool story "jealous" god..... but according to my moral code god you are an insecure, tyrant of a *****

It also says that someone caught in adultery should be stoned as well. Jesus, however, later showed us a better way by showing mercy on a woman caught in adultery.

So let's look at being gay from a scientific perspective. Is there drive to reproduce in error?

What about the CDC numbers? Why is it that gay males account for well over half of all STD and AIDS cases even though they account for less than 10% of the population?

Left wingers are all set to ban things that are bad for you, like soda pop in New York city, but turn a blind eye to things like this.

Why?