Zone1 Who created all things?

[zaangalewa]

Who created all things?​

Finally a simple question.Was it Donald Trump?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Our Third President agrees

View attachment 1122867

He was 100% right in what he said too. This is what I have said on numerous occasions and, sadly, people ignore the murder, torture, and oppression of humans at the hands of religion. They say that was then and this is now. One would think that humans are smarter than this and realize that the only reason people believe in stupid things still such as the Trinity, heaven, and hell, that we are guilty of original sin is because that BELIEF itself was enforced at the edge of a sword, the gallows, torture or being burned alive for many centuries and it became a part of a humans genes.

So much so that the offspring of those heinous and evil acts believed what their fathers and mothers did without thinking about it too much. They just accepted the beliefs of their elders and the society they were born into because everyone else did. Anyone here knows that ISIS still believes this way and that polls show upwards of 25% of Muslims believe it is OK to kill nonbelievers as it is an offense to God to not believe. But ISIS is no different than the Catholic church was up to 400 years ago when America had people like Jefferson who resisted killing people for blasphemy. That it was still permitted and even done was abhorrent and many wanted it to continue.

Fast forward to today and we see the intense anger at nonbelievers by people like ding here and scores of others who argue till they are blue in the face over scripture and say nonbelievers like me are aligned with communists, socialists, etc. in order to demonize me. This is a common tactic among tribes and cults. Anyone who does not share their beliefs is denigrated, ostracized, ridiculed and if they could still do it, would be burned at the stake.

 

[Donald H]

I didn't want to make my previous post overly long but will continue it. In the 1960s the Catholic church had various meetings of high up officials. It was then that they changed radically and when I questioned AI their response was that they reached a deeper understanding of scripture regarding the subjugation of women and homosexuality.

That means they were wrong for almost 2,000 years and only now (in the 60s) did they discover that, meaning that their understanding of scripture was not "deeper" for all that time.

The real reason was that even in the 60s people were rebelling against the church and leaving. To stem the flow and keep parishioners they changed their former "understanding of scripture." The church is all about money and power and we see how they wielded it when they ruled the world. Bloodthirsty and torture freaks, drunk with power and money from the time of Constantine who built them churches and gave them land and money (so they asserted after he died).

Like anyone with power who is evil, they thrived on suppressing and silencing which was enforced by the church through blasphemy laws.

Thanks for the details on the Catholic church.

My biggest interest is still on how they decided that they needed to throw out the superstitious bullsh-t beliefs on creation and finally accept the obvious truth of Darwinian evolution.

They're still trying to pretend to have it both ways by claiming that the god can be true, together with evolution.

lBaloney! it just doesn't work! Without the creation bullsh-t, they have no religion.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Thanks for the details on the Catholic church.

My biggest interest is still on how they decided that they needed to throw out the superstitious bullsh-t beliefs on creation and finally accept the obvious truth of Darwinian evolution.

They're still trying to pretend to have it both ways by claiming that the god can be true, together with evolution.

lBaloney! it just doesn't work! Without the creation bullsh-t, they have no religion.

I was taught by nuns. They were very nice and kind people. The school I went to and many others no longer have nuns as teachers because the church can no longer attract enough females to become nuns. In 1970 about 50% of Catholic schools were taught by nuns. Today it is a mere 7%. In the 1930s females were discouraged from driving as it was seen as male activity and also working as that took jobs away from males. My mom never drove because of her religious teachings.

Staring in the 50s the church was seeing declining membership and churchgoers. Obviously, that put a big dent in the money they got from donations and they started changing their former beliefs. In 1950, the pope stated there was no conflict between Christianity and evolution but Catholics were to still believe that God created all things and the soul was a direct creation of "God". In 1996 Pope John Paul said that evolution was a process of "God" and this is now part of Catholic school teaching.

It seems that the Catholics are part of evolution too, changing their morals and positions based on SECULAR teachings and morals. No more do they want homosexuals denigrated even though the OT god said they are an abomination and deserve death. No more do they feel females are property and second-class citizens even though the bible says they are.

I loathe Ilhan Omar but she once said a very wise thing. "It's all about the Benjamins" and no truer statement was ever uttered. The Catholic church continues to see a membership decline. In 1950 a staggering 75% of US Catholics attended church weekly. In 2017 it dropped to under 40%. And get this. Today it is down to just around 25%. An entity whose only income comes from donations dropped like a boulder in water and their changes are due to that decrease in order to attract more members and stem the decline of Benjamins.

 

[Donald H]

I didn't want to make my previous post overly long but will continue it. In the 1960s the Catholic church had various meetings of high up officials. It was then that they changed radically and when I questioned AI their response was that they reached a deeper understanding of scripture regarding the subjugation of women and homosexuality.

That means they were wrong for almost 2,000 years and only now (in the 60s) did they discover that, meaning that their understanding of scripture was not "deeper" for all that time.

I don't believe subjugation of women and homosexuality could have been misunderstood. and neither was the evils of slavery misunderstood. The churches just found it inconvenient to change. They were wrong on all three issues because they interpreted the bibles as the authority, and as being the literal word of the god.

Are you apologizing for the bibles by allowing that it's messages of evil were misunderstood?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I don't believe subjugation of women and homosexuality could have been misunderstood. and neither was the evils of slavery misunderstood. The churches just found it inconvenient to change. They were wrong on all three issues because they interpreted the bibles as the authority, and as being the literal word of the god.

Are you apologizing for the bibles by allowing that it's messages of evil were misunderstood?

I am not sure where you get that from. Even though I was raised as a Catholic and am a conservative I think the Catholic religion is inherently evil in its teachings. I have studied religion and indoctrination techniques for decades and have written about it.

You are right that they were not just misunderstood. They intentionally subjugated women because their cult is filled with men and what better way to keep women obedient than to make them believe that this comes not from them, but from God. My mom was a devout Catholic and subjugated by our dad. The believers here will insist the bible doesn't say this. Yet the church still does not allow women to become priests and only relented to let them into other areas in the past 3 decades or so and we are talking almost 2 thousand years of subjugation. How can any Catholic dare criticize hijabs?

The OT is all about males, written by and for males. The NT is really Paulianity who detested females and sex. He also preached a completely different teaching than Jesus. But who cares? Powerful people were able to dupe people into the Trinity in 325 AD with the help of Constantine who saw the bishops and cultists as an aid to keep people docile and obedient.

 

[Donald H]

I was taught by nuns. They were very nice and kind people. The school I went to and many others no longer have nuns as teachers because the church can no longer attract enough females to become nuns. In 1970 about 50% of Catholic schools were taught by nuns. Today it is a mere 7%. In the 1930s females were discouraged from driving as it was seen as male activity and also working as that took jobs away from males. My mom never drove because of her religious teachings.

Staring in the 5os the church was seeing declining membership and churchgoers. Obviously, that put a big dent in the money they got from donations and they started changing their former beliefs. In 1950, the pope stated there was no conflict between Christianity and evolution but Catholics were to still believe that God created all things and the soul was a direct creation of "God". In 1996 Pope John Paul said that evolution was a process of "God" and this is now part of Catholic school teaching.

It seems that the Catholics are part of evolution too, changing their morals and positions based on SECULAR teachings and morals. No more do they want homosexuals denigrated even though the OT god said they are an abomination and deserve death. No more do they feel females are property and second-class citizens even though the bible says they are.

I loathe Ilhan Omar but she once said a very wise thing. "It's all about the Benjamins" and no truer statement was ever uttered. The Catholic church continues to see a membership decline. In 1950 a staggering 75% of US Catholics attended church weekly. In 2017 it dropped to under 40%. An entity whose only income comes from donations dropped like a boulder in water and their changes are due to that decrease in order to attract more members and stem the decline of Benjamins.

I'm not convinced that the Catholic church really changed their attitude toward subjugtion of women and homosexuality. That notion is betrayed by Catholics such as Ding and Meriweather by the begrudging attitudes toward both. They've both said far too much already and have never just stated that the bible's word is wrong.

They both are acceptinig that their bibles are allegorical, but you won't find where either one of them has clearly stated that their bibles are full of lies on suggesting that they contain truth.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I'm not convinced that the Catholic church really changed their attitude toward subjugtion of women and homosexuality. That notion is betrayed by Catholics such as Ding and Meriweather by the begrudging attitudes toward both. They've both said far too much already and have never just stated that the bible's word is wrong.

They both are acceptinig that their bibles are allegorical, but you won't find where either one of them has clearly stated that their bibles are full of lies on suggesting that they contain truth.

I listen to podcasts through my bluetooth hearing aids and numerous nonbeliever atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and currently many former pastors and even priests who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Recently Jordan Peterson did a round table where he answered questions and you cannot pin him down on anything. He is the master of evasion and vagaries. One guy said Peterson was a Christian and he wouldn't deny or confirm it and said it was personal. The guy said he was invited because it was a discussion between atheists and a Christian. He kicked him off the panel.

Like the two you mentioned he talks in metaphors and stories and he likes much of the bible stories though he admits that many are allegorical. He thinks that the stories come from a higher entity because they teach about moral values. People like Matt Dillahunty and other atheists have debated him and he is like jello. You cannot pin him down and he goes off into esoteric and weird tangents that avoid the topic. This is what believers do.

 

[Donald H]

I sleep like a baby at night knowing not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

You will sleep much better at night when you are able to stop trying to make evolution and creation both be true together and at the same time. That just can't ever happen! Life on earth didn't evolve over billions of year aboard Noah's Ark.

I have no 'contradictions in what I believe to be true. Those are yours and Meriweather's when she experiences a truthful mood.

 

[Donald H]

I listen to podcasts through my bluetooth hearing aids and numerous nonbeliever atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and currently many former pastors and even priests who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Recently Jordan Peterson did a round table where he answered questions and you cannot pin him down on anything. He is the master of evasion and vagaries. One guy said Peterson was a Christian and he wouldn't deny or confirm it and said it was personal. The guy said he was invited because it was a discussion between atheists and a Christian. He kicked him off the panel.

Like the two you mentioned he talks in metaphors and stories and he likes much of the bible stories though he admits that many are allegorical. He thinks that the stories come from a higher entity because they teach about moral values. People like Matt Dillahunty and other atheists have debated him and he is like jello. You cannot pin him down and he goes off into esoteric and weird tangents that avoid the topic. This is what believers do.

Let's just say that Jordan Peterson is a phony who seems to be in the 'god' business for the money. He can only lead his lowbrow audience to embarrassment over his inability to simply say that he believes there's a god.

I've watched and listened to Peterson's and Dillihunty's debate and in my opinion Matt destroyed him. Jordan is very intelligent, but intelligence simply can't make up for him being saddled with a topic that's full of lies!
He can't even say that he believes in the god?? LOL

I'm quite familiar with Dawkins, C. Hitchens and the brother, Dennet, etc. (FYI)

 

[Meriweather]

In the 1930s females were discouraged from driving as it was seen as male activity and also working as that took jobs away from males.

In the 1930s starting a car was not about inserting a key to start the motor. It was about cranking the motor which took a great deal of strength--and was known to be dangerous. The roads and tires were also unlike today's roads and tires. It was not uncommon for tires needing to be repaired or changed more than once in a single trip. Women have at least twenty percent less upper body strength than men--and depending on size, may only have thirty-five percent of male upper body strength.

Consider women not being discouraged by men from driving; consider women not having the strength to start a car, having to change and repair tires during most trips, discouraged women from driving.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Let's just say that Jordan Peterson is a phony who seems to be in the 'god' business for the money. He can only lead his lowbrow audience to embarrassment over his inability to simply say that he believes there's a god.

I've watched and listened to Peterson's and Dillihunty's debate and in my opinion Matt destroyed him. Jordan is very intelligent, but intelligence simply can't make up for him being saddled with a topic that's full of lies!
He can't even say that he believes in the god?? LOL

I'm quite familiar with Dawkins, C. Hitchens and the brother, Dennet, etc. (FYI)

It seems we listen to some of the same people. There is also a guy on YouTube named Brandon with a site called Mindshift. Dan Barker is a good debater as is Alex O'Connor. Recently I have been listening to a guy named Dura Lamar who is black and a former pastor who rips Christianity to shreds and sometimes talks about how Christianity taught that pain and suffering is worthwhile and that BS was believed by slaves and blacks and still is to justify poverty.

It is noted that ding uses this as his signature line.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

In the 1930s starting a car was not about inserting a key to start the motor. It was about cranking the motor which took a great deal of strength--and was known to be dangerous. The roads and tires were also unlike today's roads and tires. It was not uncommon for tires needing to be repaired or changed more than once in a single trip. Women have at least twenty percent less upper body strength than men--and depending on size, may only have thirty-five percent of male upper body strength.

Consider women not being discouraged by men from driving; consider women not having the strength to start a car, having to change and repair tires during most trips, discouraged women from driving.

Don't be disingenuous. Those were not the reasons that women driving was frowned on.

 

[Donald H]

It seems we listen to some of the same people. There is also a guy on YouTube named Brandon with a site called Mindshift. Dan Barker is a good debater as is Alex O'Connor. Recently I have been listening to a guy named Dura Lamar who is black and a former pastor who rips Christianity to shreds and sometimes talks about how Christianity taught that pain and suffering is worthwhile and that BS was believed by slaves and blacks and still is to justify poverty.

It is noted that ding uses this as his signature line.

Yes on Barker and O'Connor, and Chris Hedges and Jeffry Sachs too.

Those speaking the truth on America starting the war against Russia, seem to overlap with actively outspoken atheists.

Can I find Brandon by searching "Mindshift"?

 

[Donald H]

Consider women not being discouraged by men from driving; consider women not having the strength to start a car, having to change and repair tires during most trips, discouraged women from driving.

Do you believe that's the reason why women didn't drive?

Or is it a deliberate lie?

Are you telling women to get in the back seat, so to speak?

 

[InstantOn]

 

[hobelim]

You will sleep much better at night when you are able to stop trying to make evolution and creation both be true together and at the same time. That just can't ever happen!

The story of the creation of heaven and earth was never about the Big Bang, or the creation of the solar system, the earth, the moon, or the first plants animals and human beings. The earth did not exist before the Light was SPOKEN into existence as it is written in the story. "And the Spirit of God HOVERED OVER THE WATERS and said "let there be light" Also when the children of Adam and Eve wanted to find a mate THEY WENT TO A CITY, which shows they were not the first humans. The story is about the law being spoken into existence as a "light to the nations". The Law, the light, divided day from night, true from false clean from unclean, good from evil, life from death around 5000 years ago on this planet that had been without shape or form (lawless) and void (pointless) and darkness, (ignorance) had covered the face of the deep (the unknown) for billions of years.

The Big Bang, the creation of the universe, the evolution of man, and the story of the creation of Heaven and Earth, a world above and a world below, have absolutely nothing whatever to do with one another and never did.

 

[Donald H]

The story of the creation of heaven and earth was never about the Big Bang, or the creation of the solar system, the earth, the moon, or the first plants animals and human beings. The earth did not exist before the Light was SPOKEN into existence as it is written in the story. "And the Spirit of God HOVERED OVER THE WATERS and said "let there be light" Also when the children of Adam and Eve wanted to find a mate THEY WENT TO A CITY, which shows they were not the first humans. The story is about the law being spoken into existence as a "light to the nations". The Law, the light, divided day from night, true from false clean from unclean, good from evil, life from death around 5000 years ago on this planet that had been without shape or form (lawless) and void (pointless) and darkness, (ignorance) had covered the face of the deep (the unknown) for billions of years.

The Big Bang, the creation of the universe, the evolution of man, and the story of the creation of Heaven and Earth, a world above and a world below, have absolutely nothing whatever to do with one another and never did.

Some Christians are placing their hope in the 'Big Bang' being the creation by the god.

But the JWST has just blown that one up.

Don't waste my time with your religion superstitious bullshit.

 

[Meriweather]

Don't be disingenuous. Those were not the reasons that women driving was frowned on.

I'm guessing you never talked to your grandmothers about this. My grandmothers (and my other female ancestors) were strong women. They both had amazing stories which led me into exploring stories of my other female ancestors--you know, the stories about them traveling and exploring into the wilderness alone; crossing and re-recrossing the Atlantic--also alone--because they were trustees of various estates. Imagine my history books then trying to teach me that women could not be trustees of estates; never crossed the Atlantic alone; never took off on any explorations of the wilderness. They also ran their own small businesses. It amazes me that so many are convinced that their female ancestors would allow themselves to be confined/restrained by mere male ancestors--or that your male ancestors would treat their wives and daughters in such a manner.

I'm far from being disingenuous, so don't be naive.

 

[Donald H]

I'm guessing you never talked to your grandmothers about this. My grandmothers (and my other female ancestors) were strong women. They both had amazing stories which led me into exploring stories of my other female ancestors--you know, the stories about them traveling and exploring into the wilderness alone; crossing and re-recrossing the Atlantic--also alone--because they were trustees of various estates. Imagine my history books then trying to teach me that women could not be trustees of estates; never crossed the Atlantic alone; never took off on any explorations of the wilderness. They also ran their own small businesses. It amazes me that so many are convinced that their female ancestors would allow themselves to be confined/restrained by mere male ancestors--or that your male ancestors would treat their wives and daughters in such a manner.

I'm far from being disingenuous, so don't be naive.

Your religion still demands that you play second fiddle to men. You're obviously comfortable with that and you're not going to make waves. You can decide on whether that's good or bad, right or wrong.

You condemn homosexuality. You're wrong and you don't get to decide on that one.