Is the Bible right, are we sheep?

[G.T.]

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 pussy

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?

Im not on the ban all bad things train. Murders a good one, though.

Gays and AIDS and STDs is a HORRID analogy to pop in NYC though.

I cant even believe a grown man could extrapolate such a comparison....its so toddler brained. Seriously!!!

 

[MarkDuffy]

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?

That comes from my unevolved primitive conservative reptilian brain-stem. I try to control it but it is hard.

 

[G.T.]

I cant believe this whole "humans are only speshul because the bible tells me" train of thought....that shit is incredible

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

The Bible still got it right

OK, now I'm laughing

 

[MarkDuffy]

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 pussy

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?

https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf

Gay men are women?

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?

Soda pop is legal in New York. Why do you conservatives lie so much?

 

[MarkDuffy]

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 pussy

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?

Im not on the ban all bad things train. Murders a good one, though.

Gays and AIDS and STDs is a HORRID analogy to pop in NYC though.

I cant even believe a grown man could extrapolate such a comparison....its so toddler brained. Seriously!!!

His post was almost a thread killer for me.

Cannot wait for the next one

 

[MarkDuffy]

Since I'm compassionate votto, here's what CDC actually sez

While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:

Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

You were just about as accurate with your claim here as you were about soda bans in NYC

 

[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.

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.

No, it's a very different system.

States had far more power and the system was based upon a thing called Federalism.

Then Progs took over with the Federal Income tax amendment. They had to create an amendment because SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional beforehand. That was back when they actually gave a damn about the Constitution.

Then they created their own bank to print money they could not raise and got off the gold standard so its all monopoly money to spend.

Now states do the bidding of the Federal government or not get that money they depend on from the Feds. Now it is a top down system where the Executive controls everything from what doctor you see to how your child is educated in school.

 

[Votto]

Since I'm compassionate votto, here's what CDC actually sez

While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:

Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

You were just about as accurate with your claim here as you were about soda bans in NYC

How does that conflict with what I said?

Ever heard of the soda ban in New York?

What on earth are you babbling about?

 

[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?

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?

I dont think apes should be in a zoo, necessarily - but my reasoning tells me that they're incapable of understanding Law & Order.... as evidenced by gorillas grabbing children and treating them like puppets..... and so Im not ready to use any of my sweat equity to protect them having the same right as me....its redundant, theyd all end up in prison for violating the law.

That sounds reasonable to me, ironically my own brain gave it to me too, what a novelty!

Grabbing children and treating them like puppets?

So just because animals are not domesticated they should have no rights?

What if apes locked you up? How would you behave towards them?

 

[G.T.]

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?

I dont think apes should be in a zoo, necessarily - but my reasoning tells me that they're incapable of understanding Law & Order.... as evidenced by gorillas grabbing children and treating them like puppets..... and so Im not ready to use any of my sweat equity to protect them having the same right as me....its redundant, theyd all end up in prison for violating the law.

That sounds reasonable to me, ironically my own brain gave it to me too, what a novelty!

Grabbing children and treating them like puppets?

So just because animals are not domesticated they should have no rights?

What if apes locked you up? How would you behave towards them?

What does locking them up have to do with it?

A gorilla in the fucking congo will tear your ass up ~ cant tell if youre serious.

Animals are not capable of understanding and following laws. Domesticated? uhh.. This line of reasoning is pretty retarded.

We take away the rights of humans who cant follow laws as well. Its a non starter for animals, theyre 100% incapable.

 

[Votto]

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?

I dont think apes should be in a zoo, necessarily - but my reasoning tells me that they're incapable of understanding Law & Order.... as evidenced by gorillas grabbing children and treating them like puppets..... and so Im not ready to use any of my sweat equity to protect them having the same right as me....its redundant, theyd all end up in prison for violating the law.

That sounds reasonable to me, ironically my own brain gave it to me too, what a novelty!

Grabbing children and treating them like puppets?

So just because animals are not domesticated they should have no rights?

What if apes locked you up? How would you behave towards them?

What does locking them up have to do with it?

A gorilla in the fucking congo will tear your ass up ~ cant tell if youre serious.

Animals are not capable of understanding and following laws. Domesticated? uhh.. This line of reasoning is pretty retarded.

We take away the rights of humans who cant follow laws as well. Its a non starter for animals, theyre 100% incapable.

So animals don't care if they are free or locked up?

Again, when is the last time you had a conversation with one?

My dog know when they are locked up. I hear about it once I leave to go out. I can assure you, he is most displeased.

 

[G.T.]

"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?

I dont think apes should be in a zoo, necessarily - but my reasoning tells me that they're incapable of understanding Law & Order.... as evidenced by gorillas grabbing children and treating them like puppets..... and so Im not ready to use any of my sweat equity to protect them having the same right as me....its redundant, theyd all end up in prison for violating the law.

That sounds reasonable to me, ironically my own brain gave it to me too, what a novelty!

Grabbing children and treating them like puppets?

So just because animals are not domesticated they should have no rights?

What if apes locked you up? How would you behave towards them?

What does locking them up have to do with it?

A gorilla in the fucking congo will tear your ass up ~ cant tell if youre serious.

Animals are not capable of understanding and following laws. Domesticated? uhh.. This line of reasoning is pretty retarded.

We take away the rights of humans who cant follow laws as well. Its a non starter for animals, theyre 100% incapable.

So animals don't care if they are free or locked up?

Again, when is the last time you had a conversation with one?

My dog know when they are locked up. I hear about it once I leave to go out. I can assure you, he is most displeased.

you said "so" again followed by something I didnt say or imply.

you should probably cut that out, you make yourself a niusance instead of a conversationalist.

 

[BreezeWood]

Animals are not capable of understanding and following laws.

that's absurd -

they are far beyond the written laws for the concrete jungle they have no desire to be a part of. beyond perhaps cats and dogs.

 

[RWNJ]

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

Out of context comparison. If the analogy had been conceived in the American West it would be "a good farmer" or "good rancher". Idea, of course, is simply that humans are social creatures and look to good leaders to help them make decisions.

The message of Jesus is both of forgiveness and acceptance. That if we give our hearts to God, we'll be protected as a shepherd protects their flock from predators. In this case, the predator is Satan.

No, they had other forms of live stock. A sheep was specifically chosen because if their leader jumps over a cliff, the rest follow.

No. the word sheep was chosen for their propensity to wander away from the flock. Something that humans often do. Jesus, the good shepherd, is callin you. You can answer the call and be safe, or you can wander away to certain destruction.

 

[G.T.]

Animals are not capable of understanding and following laws.

that's absurd -

they are far beyond the written laws for the concrete jungle they have no desire to be a part of. beyond perhaps cats and dogs.

its not absurd

they cant understand or follow written law, or written language in general

itd be cool if they could though...pretty cheeky