[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh (and others) I can’t remember why I had this link opened in my browser since yesterday (did someone else post it?) but it gets into some of the recent subject matter on this thread. Read the all the comments too.
http://shtf411.com/religious-topics-f84-p167432.html[/quote]
Thanks, I will read it some time this weekend
haha…oh push, care to explain how that may not be true?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
…So back to the original topic, though I prefer humanity to outgrow religion…[/quote]
This is pretty naive and ignorant. There is nothing to outgrow. There is no great maturity to non-belief and you just demonstrated. It’s not enlightened, it’s not advanced, it’s not evolutionary, it holds no advantage.
[/quote]
I must admit the espenl ethos is definitely regression. He doesn’t realize it because he bathes in ignorance.[/quote]
So which ones of your religions should I choose? You are atheists to every religion but your own. I was protestant once, but I apparently regressed from it.
Youre asking but I am asking. If youre going to start quoting the bible only its going to be a short conversation.
At the same time you would have to explain those skeletons they have in museums…the ones that don’t look like us but we may have ascended from.
I am not trying to argue but actually have a conversation. So why do you think it so impossible that there could be no one before adam (man)?
hipsr4runnin, those skeletons are only there to fool us ignorant folks 
Its all the MAN (Adam) trying to keep us down…Fuckin Gen: 6.4… I knew it!!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Does the character God punish evil thoughts or the ensuing evil acts? You have been taught the former, and I infer it is the latter. [/quote]
Christianity certainly leans toward the former. If I’m understanding you correctly, the Torah leans toward the latter. Correct?
Re: the last speech in Duet., do you mean Moses’ death?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Does the character God punish evil thoughts or the ensuing evil acts? You have been taught the former, and I infer it is the latter. [/quote]
Christianity certainly leans toward the former. If I’m understanding you correctly, the Torah leans toward the latter. Correct?
Re: the last speech in Duet., do you mean Moses’ death?[/quote]
I refer to the speech of blessings and curses: Try Deut 28:1-69.
I can’t let you skate away easy on that one ‘‘pusharder’’…BABEL is not the origin for the different races of people…that’s horseshit unless you can prove that from Scripture…language and race are two completely different things, so please don’t attempt to tie those
two in a pretty little bow without Scriptural back up…Languages were changed, but change of flesh was not mentioned whatsoever,
and far be it from scripture to omit a concurrent confusion at Babel where all of a sudden people LOOKED different as well.
That’s theory, not fact backed up by the Bible.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that sez people in an instant at Babel had their flesh changed in various color shades and
epicanthic folds suddenly appeared around people’s eyes in addition to the confusion of languages, how would the instant
change of races confuse in and of it itself in the first place?
Different races are beautiful and diverse, so please don’t give us the theory that this beautiful diversity was
a direct result of angering the lord.
Try again, or just admit that you do not know how exactly the races were differentiated, unless you back it
up with scripture.
Oh!! Push coming back with the ad hominem…
You do you realize you are arguing about a story written 1000’s of years ago, told through multiple narrators, with different languages, several translations, divided by multiple cultures, controlled by ruling classes, and its canonical, excludes “banished” texts, filtered through the eyes of (male) history, about the history of man and his religion, which is hypothetical/ theoretical because we have hardly proved any of it like its FUCKING FACT! You see that right? You are arguing about the first human like we have proven it. You know the book may be leaving things out? It may or may not be the whole story? You know its an oral tradition mainly of theory? You are aware that many things with in it could or could not be true, real, or definable? You’re taking that into consideration I hope?
Great! If so then please don’t state things like you know the answer. Mi amigo, you don’t. Its all a guessing game, the one you said I cant play. Usually you say some insightful shit, A lot of the time you just bash people. Digressing to your arguments, as if google has the answers…
You know “adam” means “Man” right. It may or may not be pertaining to one sole individual. So, one possibility is that the original author scarcely thought of a specific man and woman at all. Some scholars believe that the several stories of Adam and Eve were in some cases about different Adams and Eves and in other cases about men and women in general (remembering the actual meanings of Adam and Eve). You know that there are stories of a first wife before eve?..outside of the bible of course. Your arguments are very close to post hoc, so we are teetering.
Yes, DNA separates races and features associated to race…doesn’t mean there is a sole strand picked from the rib of one individual to create all on the planet.
There is a problem with Gen. 4: 14/15 with Cain being casted out and afraid of “someone else killing him.” Who would these other people be the book is referring to if there are only his parents left? Also: The Hebrew rendition of Gen. 2:5 is that, “there was no Adam to till the ground.” There were none of the Adamic kind on earth before Adam was created, but there were other humanoid kinds. Cain also “takes a wife”…well…where the fuck did she come from?
What about Gen. 6:4?
This brings up the old “incest debate” which theologens excuse by saying the DNA and perfection of the first beings was so pure that crossing the same DNA would not be a problem…really?
One of your references says we come from Noah…the guy who built a ship to contain all animals of the lands and saved them all from a flood why are loving god drowned the rest of the world…
Which the reference goes on to say there was a population, born first from Adam and Eve and then they grew but when the earth turned bad god kept only knows family alive and drowned the rest of the little bastards. and then the population restarted from there…huh…If Noahs family was the only surviving family that would conclude incest.
There is also a debate about 6th day created man and 8th day created man.
If youre going to quote only Christian websites Im concerned…
Either the further in time Mankind goes in the future this will become clearer…or it will become
‘fuzzier’…Who is to know?
I need a woman, because even in Genesis, it’s not good to a Man to be alone…and it’s made me
a fuckin’ asshole …fuckin’ feminist ‘I don’t need a man’ movement.
LOL.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The very nature of coveting is limited to the mind.
Coveting is a sin, therefore it is a thought sin.
Carrying out coveting, say someone’s wife would be adultery…
Plain and simple. Though sin exists, it was taught to me during catechism that it is a sin. [/quote]
Ummm…yeah…that’s pretty much the consensus here.[/quote]
Yes, clearly something very flawed with this ethical rule. As we cannot control our thoughts, but we can control how we act and what we act out on.
What accompanies strong physical attraction? I’ll try and get at this without coming off in a very inappropriate way, but we have natural indicators from eye dialation, parts of the body we expose, standing up of hair and the flutter of a heart on top of whatever goes on in your pants.
Desire is there, and if that person happens to be married that elicited this thoughtless desire, well guess what? You just sinny sinn sinned!
More likely, well this is the way I think about this sort of thing. Aquinas stating if shit is just retarded in scripture, we should amend and take a more scientific stance and say that thought sin retarded given what you believe in free will.
I think it’s one thing if you sit and dwell on a person you know is in a committed relationship instead of going out and looking for someone to fill that gap in your own life because at this point you are intensifying such thoughts by partaking in them in a more intentional way.
But, the bible doesn’t specify… Would God design you to sin? Give you free will to master yourself, then send you to hell for thought sin anyhow?
Seems like a pretty cruel and evil dude this God of yours. Every time you get a raging boner for someone that isn’t your wife, but someone elses, and angel loses it’s wings.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
…So back to the original topic, though I prefer humanity to outgrow religion…[/quote]
This is pretty naive and ignorant. There is nothing to outgrow. There is no great maturity to non-belief and you just demonstrated. It’s not enlightened, it’s not advanced, it’s not evolutionary, it holds no advantage.
[/quote]
I must admit the espenl ethos is definitely regression. He doesn’t realize it because he bathes in ignorance.[/quote]
So which ones of your religions should I choose? You are atheists to every religion but your own. I was protestant once, but I apparently regressed from it.[/quote]
You’re putting the cart before the horse. You have to believe that God exists and understand something about his nature first. When you get that, then you will know how to interact.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I can’t let you skate away easy on that one ‘‘pusharder’’…BABEL is not the origin for the different races of people…that’s horseshit unless you can prove that from Scripture…language and race are two completely different things, so please don’t attempt to tie those
two in a pretty little bow without Scriptural back up…Languages were changed, but change of flesh was not mentioned whatsoever,
and far be it from scripture to omit a concurrent confusion at Babel where all of a sudden people LOOKED different as well.
That’s theory, not fact backed up by the Bible.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that sez people in an instant at Babel had their flesh changed in various color shades and
epicanthic folds suddenly appeared around people’s eyes in addition to the confusion of languages, how would the instant
change of races confuse in and of it itself in the first place?
Different races are beautiful and diverse, so please don’t give us the theory that this beautiful diversity was
a direct result of angering the lord.
Try again, or just admit that you do not know how exactly the races were differentiated, unless you back it
up with scripture.
[/quote]
Why do people feel compelled to discuss my pecker.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s an odd analogy but I believe trying to express one’s personal relationship with God and how it works is like trying to explain an acid trip to somebody who’s never done it. [/quote]
I will respond to the rest later, but for now–I love this analogy.[/quote]
The analogy is spot on, but it will only convey meaning to someone who has actually dropped acid. :)[/quote]
Yes indeed, I was in college once.[/quote]
Indeed a good point, but then again, it’s precisely the point.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Does the character God punish evil thoughts or the ensuing evil acts? You have been taught the former, and I infer it is the latter. [/quote]
Christianity certainly leans toward the former. If I’m understanding you correctly, the Torah leans toward the latter. Correct?
Re: the last speech in Duet., do you mean Moses’ death?[/quote]
Scripturally speaking, God punishes the latter. The point about intent is that once you have made a decision, you have already made a turn down the road of the latter. So if you’re planing to kill somebody, you have already made the decision to do the act. Then the act is merely a consequence of the intent. By having the intent, you have sinned. If you are unable to carry out the act because of circumstances beyond your control, you still willed it to happen.
This is different than feeling. You cannot help how you feel. What you can help is whether you intend to do harm, say as a result of being harmed.
Somebody can make you angry, you can decide retribution, or not.
It’s a lot like football, when the ref’s are trying to determine the difference between incidental contact and intent. Only the latter is punished.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
…So back to the original topic, though I prefer humanity to outgrow religion…[/quote]
This is pretty naive and ignorant. There is nothing to outgrow. There is no great maturity to non-belief and you just demonstrated. It’s not enlightened, it’s not advanced, it’s not evolutionary, it holds no advantage.
[/quote]
I must admit the espenl ethos is definitely regression. He doesn’t realize it because he bathes in ignorance.[/quote]
So which ones of your religions should I choose? You are atheists to every religion but your own. I was protestant once, but I apparently regressed from it.[/quote]
You’re putting the cart before the horse. You have to believe that God exists and understand something about his nature first. When you get that, then you will know how to interact.[/quote]
I have to rebelieve something on poor manmade evidence, understand why he is either a terrible being or just impotent, then find a way to interact with said creature. That is a tall order.