I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
You can comprehend it but you won't be able to fully understand it and there's a difference between a religion and science so don't use that as a counter-argument.
Well then, does that mean that theists are unqualified to argue against evolution and the big gang? That is ridicuolous. I am studying different political ideologies at the moment, but does that mean that unless I am a socialist, for example, then I would never be able to fully understand socialism. That is ridiculous.
Plus there are many scientists who are believers in God. Are they unqualified to talk about science?
lol...big gang...I like that. Anyways, I'm back! Anybody happy about that?
What's so bad about raping and killing your way across the world? As long as their perspective says that its fine, who are you to tell them otherwise. You're being biased against people who were raised that raping and killing are fine.
If you think raping and killing is fine, I have to say, there is something wrong with your head. Either you are a criminal who has been doing that kind of stuff all your life, or you are a psycho who is planning on living that way. If you ask the rest of the atheists here, I'm sure they have enough of a conscience left in them to tell you that raping and killing is wrong.
I'm sure they have enough of a conscience left in them to tell you that raping and killing is wrong.
Morals are highly subjective. 'Good' and 'Evil','Right' and 'Wrong' are just words. If you were raised in a certain way there is no reason you would not condone what would be seen as highly immoral in another culture for example. In many African nations for example, people identified as witches(for no logical reason) are moved to separate settlements and suffer terible persecution, yet the majority of the people in this society believe that is morally acceptable. See my point?
I don't see your point. Who moves the "witches" and why? Who persecutes the "witches"?
My point is that 'good' and 'evil' is in the eye of the beholder and this is clearly demonstrated in different cultural differences. Who and why is immaterial to the point I am making, the point is, it isa morally acceptable in their culture to do so, when it would be considered the opposite in most of the western world.
And just where did you get the idea that everyone liked the "witches". Obviously, they didn't like the witches, but the witches were their only means of curing their sicknesses. They knew that it was wrong, but to get rid of the witches would be like getting rid of all the pharmacists and doctors in the US. They couldn't go without the witches. Unless you are not speaking of "witch doctors". If you aren't, then I don't know what you are talking about. So, even the Africans had morals, but they were afraid to rid themselves of the only things that they believed were keeping them alive.
fireflyIV is talking about things like the Salem Witch trials and things like that. Bed nobs and broomsticks and all that good stuff.
The only thing different from now and back then is technology. Imagine if you actually believed witches existed and were making people sick. I'm sure you would be willing to have them punished too. The only difference is you don't believe in witches. Its not a change in morals.
fireflyIV is talking about things like the Salem Witch trials and things like that. Bed nobs and broomsticks and all that good stuff.
No I'm not, I'm talking about the persecution of 'witches' in various African nations.
So, even the Africans had morals,
That pretty much goes along with my point, that morals are subjective, because what they believed they were doing was morally acceptable, whereas many would not.
Ok. Apparently, we have different definitions of moral. Your seems to be something like a perspective while mine is the one from the dictionary. "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical" with "right" meaning "in accordance with what is good, proper, or just" ^good, proper, and just according to the Bible^ and "wrong" meaning just the opposite.
So, even the Africans had morals
I should have say "roper morals" with proper meaning "right". (and right meaning "in accordance with what is good, or just according to the Bible"
If you followed every one of the morals in the Bible but without becoming a Christian (it's impossible, but I'm trying to make a point here), there would be nothing any government could put you in jail for. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Not really. You're not arguing against my point, just coming up with another one.
As for the point itself:
If you followed every one of the morals in the Bible but without becoming a Christian (it's impossible, but I'm trying to make a point here), there would be nothing any government could put you in jail for
Really? According to the bible:
How about for example
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
I cannot thinkmk of any country that would condone behaviour such as this, and if there is one, I sure as hell don't want to go there.
Well, Firefly, since we are quoting commandments, why don't we compare the laws you quoted to the Ten Commandments...
What's the difference? The 10 commandments were set in stone! Those are absolute laws laid out by the Bible. Those are the Morals that God gave to us as permanent rules. The commandments you're posting from Deuteronomy were made specifically for the people of Israel in that time period.
God wanted His people to walk the narrow road to avoid corruption. If you put a teaspoon of dung in a batch of brownies, would you still want to eat it? god's basically saying that if a batch of bad brownies come their way, dump it in the garbage.
Same with pork. God didn't want us to eat it because it we didn't know how to properly prepare it to eat. It we ate it then, we would have gotten sick. But now we know how to cook pork and we can eat it now
If you follow the two "greatest commandments" from somewhere in Matthew, everything else should fall into place. The greatest commandment was, "love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and spirit." The second was "love your neighbor as yourself." Can you see why those are "right"?
The commandments you're posting from Deuteronomy were made specifically for the people of Israel in that time period.
From the site:
It is common that a Christian will blow off these old rules with "Jesus came to change the laws, so these are outmoded, and we don't need them", but throughout Leviticus God states that these laws are to be followed forever. Hmmm.
I am not an expert on the Bible, but surely forever means forever?
But now we know how to cook pork and we can eat it now
How can you claim the Bible contains the definitive set of morals and rules, whilst acknowledging some of its rules are outdated?
Can you see why those are "right"?
Yes, but for example in specific regions of East Africa, tribes live in such harsh environment and conditions that their sets of morals are completely different from ours. They are encouraged to steal and even kill to survive, yet this is seen as morally acceptable. Christian morals aren't in any way compatible with this type of society.
