Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Tbh Bz I've been waiting to see you spank us and all I've seen so far is you getting slapped about all over the place and I'm interested in hearing if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and the whole of geology and the fossil record is wrong or is that an inconvenient question for you ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2016 11:14 AM by ohio_drg.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:51 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 10:40 AM)Impulse Wrote:  It's not ad hominem. I was making the valid point that anyone who can so easily dismiss what science has conclusively established has something seriously wrong with their method of evaluating information. There is no question that evolution is true. So, for you to call it a lie, either means you dismissed it without actually learning about it or you learned about it and didn't understand it. Meanwhile, if you think evolution is a lie, I have to assume then that you believe "God" created all living things - something that absolutely had not been established and even believers admit has to be accepted on mere faith.

This is what really pisses me off. You said "who can so easily dismiss what science..." It has nothing to do with dismissing science. I do not dismiss science.
Darwinism is a theory that lacks scientific evidence. The science disproves Darwinism.
Microbiologist do not dismiss science and believe that Darwinism cannot explain life's diversity.

You also said, "without actually learning about it or you learned about it and didn't understand it." I have learned about it and I do understand the theory. I don't accept it logically.
One geneticists sad that there would have to be 50,000 structural changes to a cow for it to go into the ocean and become a whale. Cow to whale is stated as a proof of evolution. 50,000 structural changes would require so many genetic changes through beneficial mutations and randomly selected changes that it is not possible.



Peer reviewed scientific examples please.... What exactly is not possible other than the whole whales came from cows part?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_03
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:43 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Matthew 5:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Beyond the scope but here goes - Fulfilling the law means that Jesus lived his life without sin and won back the worked from Satan. This is way beyond the scope and a short incomplete answer. Have you got a couple of days?
OK, so let's go with the KJV then. It doesn't change my point. In fact, you agreed with me without realizing it. Your quoted verse says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law", so it supports my statement that the OT still applies and that Jesus himself said so. In addition, your description of Jesus fulfilling the law describes why he was the supposed savior - again agreeing with what I said about its real meaning. So fulfilling is not replacing the morality definitions from the OT.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Remember, it is not part of a Christian's moral code to lie. It is ingrained in the atheist to lie because there are no repercussions. For the atheist whatever is advantageous to the cause it is allowed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:03 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Tbh Bz I've been waiting to see you spank us and all I've seen so far is you getting slapped about all over the place and I'm interested in hearing if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and the whole of geology and the fossil record is wrong or is that an inconvenient question for you ?


Ask the question in the right thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:51 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  This is what really pisses me off. You said "who can so easily dismiss what science..." It has nothing to do with dismissing science. I do not dismiss science.
Darwinism is a theory that lacks scientific evidence. The science disproves Darwinism.
Microbiologist do not dismiss science and believe that Darwinism cannot explain life's diversity.

You also said, "without actually learning about it or you learned about it and didn't understand it." I have learned about it and I do understand the theory. I don't accept it logically.
One geneticists sad that there would have to be 50,000 structural changes to a cow for it to go into the ocean and become a whale. Cow to whale is stated as a proof of evolution. 50,000 structural changes would require so many genetic changes through beneficial mutations and randomly selected changes that it is not possible.
There is a lot wrong with what you said here, but I think this too is outside the scope and topic of this thread so I'll move on.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 09:59 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Read Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution.

Michael Behe's credibility and academic standing was destroyed in Kitzmiller v Dover. He is a discredited laughing stock.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Says who?

Peer reviewed scientific examples please....


I will have to find the citation. I read it in a book on the subject where they gave the citation. I cannot remember who it was.
Until then...What do you think of the premise. What would it take structurally speaking to turn a cow into a whale? Use you head.
What would it take for each of those changes to take place on a genetic level. How would the DNA have to change? It is a great leap. Use your head and give it some thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 09:55 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Alma discussion. http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/...218_d.html
This was my first try. You should try harder you may be persuaded - maybe not.

Should I change my name to Liar For Jesus or are you going to get off that dime and address issues and not call people names. I used to do that in grade school - it worked real well then. It is not working on me now.

Well, I did see that website. It's a letter written TO a Christian Evangelical organization (one of the "Jews for Jesus" groups) by James Trimm, who is not a rabbinical scholar but an evangelist who pretended to be a Nazarine. He's a known charlatan.

"Mr. Trimm is one of the most infamous Messianic 'teachers' and is known in many circles as being a charlatan and nothing more than a carbon copy Christian televangelist."

http://www.messianichallofshame.com/ztrimm.html

Further, Mr. Trimm's "article" there not only makes the mistake I already pointed out, by failing to consider other contexts but merely asserting without any other evidence that "of course a young unmarried woman would be a virgin", and thus trying to tie the word for "young woman" to a prophecy about a virgin.

Again, if the author of Isaiah had wanted to refer specifically to a virgin birth, the word would have been betulah, not almah.

Further, it does not address my contention that the passage in Isaiah (as ever Hebrew scholar with whom I've ever spoken has unanimously pointed out) refers to events that are to happen in the lifetime of the king to whom that part of Isaiah is addressed, not at some distant-future time. The passage is part of a story depicting an ongoing invasion of Judea, and a savior who will arise from among them. It's a "this is about to happen" prophecy, not a "someday, generations from now, this will happen" prophecy.

It also does not address where I pointed out that in Proverbs 30, Solomon refers to a promiscuous woman (in metaphorical terms, using "eats" instead of "screws") using the word almah. This is clear proof that the phrase did not automatically have a virgin connotation, and shows that the author of Isaiah did not intend to depict the woman in the story as a virgin.

Would you like to try again? This time with someone who is not a fraud defrocked by his own organization?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
16-12-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Remember, it is not part of a Christian's moral code to lie.
And yet they do lie just as much as any other group of people.

(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  It is ingrained in the atheist to lie because there are no repercussions. For the atheist whatever is advantageous to the cause it is allowed.
This, after you chided me for what you labeled ad hominem? Well, this is certainly more productive... Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: