African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[clambake]

That's not what I said specifically. But go on... lie some more.

you told me to go to a dark place with a ouija board...
light some candles...
draw a pentagram on the floor and profess that i don't believe in demons...
and then see what happens.


yikes

[clambake]

man those were fun times.

you thought he could be the antichrist!

[Phenomanul]

Saying 'limited' is selling it high. The scientific toolset grotesquely falls short of being able to answer the 'origins' question because everything we know about the laws of this universe, quantum physics, all the universal constants ---> it all breaks down at the point of origins.

AND those that believe it IS scientifically proven have to do so on grounds of faith - believing theories such as eternally existing multiverses to avoid the theological ramifications of t=0.

I should press to end any mischaracterization of our positions...

Just so that we have a tally:

Official position: I don't know how this universe came into existence. What I believe is that at t=0, "everything in the universe" appeared. A 'big-bang' explosion is assumed by observing the expanding nature of our universe. I don't know how the 'big-bang' itself happened because it is not observable anywhere near t=0, as such my 'origins' premise cannot be scientifically verified. I believe science will eventually answer the question.
RandomGuy
Blake

Official position: I believe that the universe came into existence with the power of GOD's spoken WORD, JESUS. As a being of light, GOD spoke energy into creation at t=0 (in the beginning), and light appeared (from this cosmic energy explosion all matter and visible light condensed). Time had a discrete beginning. Matter and Space had a discrete beginning. These premises cannot be scientifically verified but this portion of the Scripture account matches what can be observed in the heavens. I don't believe that science is fundamentally equipped to answer the 'origins' question - because the event not fully observable, not repeatable, and has limited measurability.
Phenomanul

[Phenomanul]

"temperance and restraint" was not in the witness statement from the money changers.

A zeal for GOD's Justice trumped the former.

[clambake]

he just didn't have any "zeal" for the old testament.

lets talk ouija!!!!!!

[Phenomanul]

Nope, not referring to "respect your masters"

I'm referring to the parts that say "slavery is OK :tu"

Indentured servitude? Under Roman rule.

Umm ok.

OT slave systems are bound to the context of the Old Covenant prior to Christ's arrival --> hence not a part of what Christianity endorses. You've tried to suggest that before. It's not the first time.

[Blake]

Indentured servitude? Under Roman rule.

Umm ok.

OT slave systems are bound to the context of the Old Covenant prior to Christ's arrival --> hence not a part of what Christianity endorses. You've tried to suggest that before. It's not the first time.

I absolutely suggested it before. It stands.

You rolling with :cry but it was the old covenant :cry doesn'the make slavery OK no matter how you spin it.

[baseline bum]

you told me to go to a dark place with a ouija board...
light some candles...
draw a pentagram on the floor and profess that i don't believe in demons...
and then see what happens.


yikes

What happened?

[Phenomanul]

You're free to dismiss evidence. I'm free to lol at your dismissal of it and putting an invisible sky man in there instead.

As I've stated repeatedly Evolution doesn't answer the Origins of Life question. Many Evolutionary adherents, however, believe that naturalistic origins are not only possible but are a proven fact. YET there is no evidence for life coming from non-life. Many famous experiments purportedly claiming the creation of amino acids (precursor genetic nucleotides) seem to gloss over one important element: chiefly, that their interference/direction in any proposed series of chemical reactions is tantamount to taking a 'designer role'. In other words, all they've managed to support is that the creation of even the smallest of life's molecules requires a designer --> a Creator. But apparently no one else is able to see past the slight of hand.

[Phenomanul]

you told me to go to a dark place with a ouija board...
light some candles...
draw a pentagram on the floor and profess that i don't believe in demons...
and then see what happens.


yikes

And like the coward you are, you probably never did. Am I right?

[baseline bum]

And like the coward you are, you probably never did. Am I right?

Why? Would a demon have came fire ants on his face?

[Blake]

What happened?

Well when Jesus shows up the temperature drops, so I'm guessing the opposite..

[Phenomanul]

I absolutely suggested it before. It stands.

You rolling with :cry but it was the old covenant :cry doesn'the make slavery OK no matter how you spin it.

I don't think it's ok. The New Covenant rises above it. But keep spinning.

[Blake]

As I've stated repeatedly Evolution doesn't answer the Origins of Life question. Many Evolutionary adherents, however, believe that naturalistic origins are not only possible but are a proven fact. YET there is no evidence for life coming from non-life. Many famous experiments purportedly claiming the creation of amino acids (precursor genetic nucleotides) seem to gloss over one important element: chiefly, that their interference/direction in any proposed series of chemical reactions is tantamount to taking a 'designer role'. In other words, all they've managed to support is that the creation of even the smallest of life's molecules requires a designer --> a Creator. But apparently no one else is able to see past the slight of hand.

Neat. Six day creation Bible God thanks you for your support.

Of course, if creation of molecules requires a designer, then who designed God's molecules

[Blake]

I don't think it's ok. The New Covenant rises above it. But keep spinning.

No, old covenant/new covenant tangent spinning is irrelevant when it comes to evil deeds.

Evil deeds like slavery. ...which Jesus daddy said was cool.

[clambake]

you still believe that ouija board shit?

that antichrist shit?

[RandomGuy]

NO... YOU are the one that keeps redefining the framework to attribute evil to GOD's actions. YOUR evil mind is doing that. Yet you claim moral superiority. You still don't get it.

Sin requires death ---> That's justice.

GOD justice requires execution of said verdict ---> People are accountable for their choices.

GOD isn't a human. He transcends us. Your entire premise is built on this fallacious footing.

Pretty much the definition of Special Pleading. God does not get a "get out of evil free" card.


Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

I reject the premise that God is "above morality." Even granting, for the sake of argument, that it exists.

As for my "evil mind". My mind is not evil. Also rejected, as you have failed to prove that either, even according to your own conceptual framework.

The definition that "human = created depraved" is rejected as not in evidence either. That is precisely one of the things what we are discussing, and you don't get to wave it around as some sort of given.

I can prove god's evil. words and deeds, using the same bible you use to claim his perfection. You don't get to have it both ways, "bible is true" and "god is perfect" are two mutually exclusive propositions to anyone being honest.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think it's ok. The New Covenant rises above it. But keep spinning.

Show any new testament verse that states slavery is evil or wrong.

[Blake]

Show any new testament verse that states slavery is evil or wrong.

there's that as well

[Phenomanul]

No, old covenant/new covenant tangent spinning is irrelevant when it comes to evil deeds.

Evil deeds like slavery. ...which Jesus daddy said was cool.

LOL again redefining the framework of your view of GOD to make YOUR selective criteria 'stick'.

It's explicitly stated in the Gospels...

Oh... but wait, you chucked them out the window... threw out the baby with the bathwater.

No matter what I say, you will counter with a non-biblical position because you don't believe any of it. In that context your framework is askew.

[clambake]

I'm just saying that your belief in the supernatural, good and evil, is not your fault.

[Phenomanul]

Show any new testament verse that states slavery is evil or wrong.

The NT doesn't say a lot of things (especially when anachronistically trying to use it as an explicit, catch all, be all, end all list of do's and don'ts).

Even then you would have to show me where the purpose of Jesus ministry was to overthrow the social political system of his time...? For Him to then set about establishing such explicit criteria.

I'm pretty sure JESUS said, "LOVE thy neighbor as thyself."

I'm pretty sure JESUS said, "Treat others in the manner that you want to be treated."

NOW show me how modern-day slavery, and all of its abuses are inclusive of both of those statements.

[RandomGuy]

AND those that believe it IS scientifically proven have to do so on grounds of faith - believing theories such as eternally existing multiverses to avoid the theological ramifications of t=0.

I should press to end any mischaracterization of our positions...

Just so that we have a tally:

Official position: I don't know how this universe came into existence. What I believe is that at t=0, "everything in the universe" appeared. A 'big-bang' explosion is assumed by observing the expanding nature of our universe. I don't know how the 'big-bang' itself happened because it is not observable anywhere near t=0, as such my 'origins' premise cannot be scientifically verified. I believe science will eventually answer the question.
RandomGuy
Blake

Official position: I believe that the universe came into existence with the power of GOD's spoken WORD, JESUS. As a being of light, GOD spoke energy into creation at t=0 (in the beginning), and light appeared (from this cosmic energy explosion all matter and visible light condensed). Time had a discrete beginning. Matter and Space had a discrete beginning. These premises cannot be scientifically verified but this portion of the Scripture account matches what can be observed in the heavens. I don't believe that science is fundamentally equipped to answer the 'origins' question - because the event not fully observable, not repeatable, and has limited measurability.
Phenomanul

Still not quite there.

I don't know how this universe came into existence. What I believe is that at t=0, something happened. A 'big-bang' explosion is a reasonable conclusion based on observing the expanding nature of our universe. I don't know how the 'big-bang' itself because I am not an expert in the field of cosmology. From what I have read, a lot of the equations that govern our universe breakdown in the absence of spacetime. I assume that the people who study it have some reasonable theories that fit the available evidence, and I am willing to accept those theories as being tentatively true, since I have no reason to believe otherwise. I believe science may eventually answer the question.

Blake will have to fill in the blank for himself.

"something from nothing" is a meaningless construct of your own, useful for your strawman, but really useless in scientific terms. "nothing" is a very, very slippery thing to attempt to define.

[Phenomanul]

Pretty much the definition of Special Pleading. God does not get a "get out of evil free" card.



I reject the premise that God is "above morality." Even granting, for the sake of argument, that it exists.

As for my "evil mind". My mind is not evil. Also rejected, as you have failed to prove that either, even according to your own conceptual framework.

The definition that "human = created depraved" is rejected as not in evidence either. That is precisely one of the things what we are discussing, and you don't get to wave it around as some sort of given.

I can prove god's evil. words and deeds, using the same bible you use to claim his perfection. You don't get to have it both ways, "bible is true" and "god is perfect" are two mutually exclusive propositions to anyone being honest.

Your absolutist logic is what is fallacious. Is a jury or a judge inherently evil when rendering a guilty verdict?

[RandomGuy]

The NT doesn't say a lot of things (especially when anachronistically trying to use it as an explicit, catch all, be all, end all list of do's and don'ts).

Even then you would have to show me where the purpose of Jesus ministry was to overthrow the social political system of his time...? For Him to then set about establishing such explicit criteria.

I'm pretty sure JESUS said, "LOVE thy neighbor as thyself."

I'm pretty sure JESUS said, "Treat others in the manner that you want to be treated."

NOW show me how modern-day slavery, and all of its abuses are inclusive of both of those statements.

The new testament is the core of your moral system. Jesus commented a great deal as to what to do or not to do. Why should slavery be any different?

Does the new testament, or the old testament say slavery is inherently evil or wrong?

[RandomGuy]

Your absolutist logic is what is fallacious. Is a jury or a judge inherently evil when rendering a guilty verdict?

Your reasoning is entirely fallacious. The answer is no.

Is it possible for a judge or a jury to render a punishment that is itself immoral? Yes or no will do, sophist.

[Phenomanul]

Still not quite there.

I don't know how this universe came into existence. What I believe is that at t=0, something happened. A 'big-bang' explosion is a reasonable conclusion based on observing the expanding nature of our universe. I don't know how the 'big-bang' itself because I am not an expert in the field of cosmology. From what I have read, a lot of the equations that govern our universe breakdown in the absence of spacetime. I assume that the people who study it have some reasonable theories that fit the available evidence, and I am willing to accept those theories as being tentatively true, since I have no reason to believe otherwise. I believe science may eventually answer the question.

Blake will have to fill in the blank for himself.

"something from nothing" is a meaningless construct of your own, useful for your strawman, but really useless in scientific terms. "nothing" is a very, very slippery thing to attempt to define.


NO. Nothing IS nothing. Literally nothing.

Before t=0

None of our universe's matter existed.
Space did not exist

After t=0

ALL OF IT existed.

It's not a strawman at all. It's a concept that "breaks" naturalism because it doesn't fit within its law-based framework. That's why you seem (and unless you state otherwise cause your answer above certainly points to it) you keep wanting to avoid the ramifications of this naturalistic paradox as it pertains to naturalism itself.

My belief system doesn't have that paradox at all. It defines what happened at t=0, defines the action/cause and defines the reaction/effect.

[RandomGuy]

Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. 2And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. 3In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself. 4Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.

5The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

6If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 7But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

8When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

9Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

10Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.

11Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

12Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself

I don't "own other people" in there.

Why is that?

Either the God who "inspired" the bible doesn't think that owning people is a bad thing, worthy of a simple "shalt not" like so many other minor transgressions, or the bible was simply written by humans who didn't think that owning other people was immoral.

[Phenomanul]

Your reasoning is entirely fallacious. The answer is no.

Is it possible for a judge or a jury to render a punishment that is itself immoral? Yes or no will do, sophist.

Yes it happens all the time.

Let's get specific to drive the point home.

Adolph Hitler, Jack-the-Ripper, The Boston Strangler, Jeffrey Dahmer... take your pick. Their actions all morally reprehensible.

So if you were the judge of a trial held to render justice over them, would a guilty verdict make you inherently evil?

You suggested that when GOD renders his Judgement over sinful humans that somehow HE is evil for rendering exactly what the law demands - death.

[Phenomanul]

I don't "own other people" in there.

Why is that?

Either the God who "inspired" the bible doesn't think that owning people is a bad thing, worthy of a simple "shalt not" like so many other minor transgressions, or the bible was simply written by humans who didn't think that owning other people was immoral.

What part of none of that is applicable under the New Covenant do you not get? Wait. You don't want to "understand it" cause it doesn't suit your contrived narrative that claims that Christianity endorses slavery.

[RandomGuy]

NO. Nothing IS nothing. Literally nothing.

Before t=0

None of our universe's matter existed.
Space did not exist

After t=0

ALL OF IT existed.

It's not a strawman at all. It's a concept that "breaks" naturalism because it doesn't fit within its law-based framework. That's why you seem (and unless you state otherwise cause your answer above certainly points to it) you keep wanting to avoid the ramifications of this naturalistic paradox as it pertains to naturalism itself.

My belief system doesn't have that paradox at all. It defines what happened at t=0, defines the action/cause and defines the reaction/effect.

(sighs)

Ok, fine, you want to keep hammering away at what I think is a strawman, then it is up to you to prove it is accurate. You claim this is an accurate view of the current understanding of cosmology, you accept yet another burden of proof.

Show any scientific paper, or article summary that states, that "no matter existed before the big bang". I am always willing to learn.

[Phenomanul]

As I've stated repeatedly Evolution doesn't answer the Origins of Life question. Many Evolutionary adherents, however, believe that naturalistic origins are not only possible but are a proven fact. YET there is no evidence for life coming from non-life. Many famous experiments purportedly claiming the creation of amino acids (precursor genetic nucleotides) seem to gloss over one important element: chiefly, that their interference/direction in any proposed series of chemical reactions is tantamount to taking a 'designer role'. In other words, all they've managed to support is that the creation of even the smallest of life's molecules requires a designer --> a Creator. But apparently no one else is able to see past the slight of hand.

So Blake ran away from this... by throwing some sarcasm at it....?

Ummmmm... ok.

THIS is ultimately why it's all an impasse in world views...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think it's ok. The New Covenant rises above it. But keep spinning.

Pick and choose away sophist.

[Phenomanul]

(sighs)

Ok, fine, you want to keep hammering away at what I think is a strawman, then it is up to you to prove it is accurate. You claim this is an accurate view of the current understanding of cosmology, you accept yet another burden of proof.

Show any scientific paper, or article summary that states, that "no matter existed before the big bang". I am always willing to learn.

That is the implication of the asymptotic nature of a singularity.

[RandomGuy]

What part of none of that is applicable under the New Covenant do you not get? Wait. You don't want to "understand it" cause it doesn't suit your contrived narrative that claims that Christianity endorses slavery.

I specifically asked you for a new testament quote. Go ahead, I want to know what the new covenant has to say about slavery, specifically.

[RandomGuy]

Yes it happens all the time.

Let's get specific to drive the point home.

Adolph Hitler, Jack-the-Ripper, The Boston Strangler, Jeffrey Dahmer... take your pick. Their actions all morally reprehensible.

So if you were the judge of a trial held to render justice over them, would a guilty verdict make you inherently evil?

You suggested that when GOD renders his Judgement over sinful humans that somehow HE is evil for rendering exactly what the law demands - death.

So it is possible for a jury to sentence someone to infinite torture, and that to be immoral?

Assuming you accept torture is evil. Is torture evil?

[Phenomanul]

Pick and choose away sophist.

It's not picking and choosing.

It's an understanding of the context.

Prior to the 19th amendment women couldn't vote. Afterwards they could.

If you said that women today were bound to the original language of the constitution then they wouldn't be allowed to vote.

The 19th amendment allows them to.

LIKEWISE, the New Covenant supplants many things from the Old Covenant because it is a major amendment.

Have you found new evidence that supports your premise that Constantine reinvented Christianity...?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NO. Nothing IS nothing. Literally nothing.

Before t=0

None of our universe's matter existed.
Space did not exist

After t=0

ALL OF IT existed.

It's not a strawman at all. It's a concept that "breaks" naturalism because it doesn't fit within its law-based framework. That's why you seem (and unless you state otherwise cause your answer above certainly points to it) you keep wanting to avoid the ramifications of this naturalistic paradox as it pertains to naturalism itself.

My belief system doesn't have that paradox at all. It defines what happened at t=0, defines the action/cause and defines the reaction/effect.

I brought up Euler's topology where 0 and inf were linked with bilateral symmetry and two axis. The one we see that is in singular proportions of 1 and the other along the square root of i or the complex conjugate as mathematicians call it.

In fact when you do projections in reality that work as evidenced by atomic and electrical engineering you start seeing circular behavior as ratios of pi are the solutions. That is what is real and how real things actually behave.

Straight lines with easily defined starting points sure are easy to figure but occam's razor is a lie and in reality a crutch for simpletons.

[RandomGuy]

Proof #13 - Take a look at slavery
Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery:

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:


And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.
In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.
Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:


If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Not only does God condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32:

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.


Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:

No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.

Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Here God states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down.

Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2:

Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard. This sentiment is repeated in Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:


Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Once again God shows that he is quite enamored of slavery.

God loves slavery

If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.

As you can see, these slavery passages present us with an immense contradiction:

On the one hand, we all know that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. As a result, slavery is now completely illegal throughout the developed world.
On the other hand, most Christians claim that the Bible came from God. In God's Word, the "creator of the universe" states that slavery is perfectly acceptable. Beating your slaves is fine. Enslaving children is fine. Separating slave families is fine. According to the Bible, we should all be practicing slavery today.
The intensity of this contradiction is remarkable. It shows us quite clearly that God is imaginary.

If God were to exist, and if he were playing any role whatsoever on our planet, he would eliminate this connection between himself and slavery. There is no way that a loving God would allow himself to be perceived as condoning and encouraging slavery like this.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: You, as a rational human being, know that slavery is wrong. You know it. That is why every single developed nation in the world has made slavery completely illegal. Human beings make slavery illegal, in direct defiance of God's word, because we all know with complete certainty that slavery is an abomination.

What does your common sense now tell you about a Bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments? Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, your common sense should be telling you that God is imaginary.

http://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm

The bible spends a lot of ink on slavery. None of it to every say the simple words "owning other people is a bad thing".

Fully consistent with the bible being made up by bronze age savages, yet inconsistent with the statement "God is perfect".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I specifically asked you for a new testament quote. Go ahead, I want to know what the new covenant has to say about slavery, specifically.

Paul tells slaves to be obedient. Masters to be 'fair.'

[Phenomanul]

So it is possible for a jury to sentence someone to infinite torture, and that to be immoral?

Assuming you accept torture is evil. Is torture evil?

(sigh) You didn't answer the question... but I love how you always want to conclude the logical construct as you've narrowly defined it.

Humans will receive whatever their actions deserve. Period. GOD is the judge.

Again, you keep wanting to absolve them of the accountability of their choices. GOD's Justice cannot let those choices go unpunished. Eternal punishment is the equivalent footing in light of the fact that eternal salvation was rejected.

[Phenomanul]

Paul tells slaves to be obedient. Masters to be 'fair.'

You don't believe anything Paul says. So why does it matter what he believes about the indentured servitude of his time...?

[RandomGuy]

Paul tells slaves to be obedient. Masters to be 'fair.'

heh, see above. He say a heckuva lot more than that.

[RandomGuy]

(sigh) You didn't answer the question... but I love how you always want to conclude the logical construct as you've narrowly defined it.

Humans will receive whatever their actions deserve. Period. GOD is the judge.

Again, you keep wanting to absolve them of the accountability of their choices. GOD's Justice cannot let those choices go unpunished. Eternal punishment is the equivalent footing in light of the fact that eternal salvation was rejected.


So if you were the judge of a trial held to render justice over them, would a guilty verdict make you inherently evil?

Already answered, when you asked about judges juries. No. Didn't think you wanted it a second time.

[clambake]

i love that "indentured servitude" shit

[Phenomanul]

I brought up Euler's topology where 0 and inf were linked with bilateral symmetry and two axis. The one we see that is in singular proportions of 1 and the other along the square root of i or the complex conjugate as mathematicians call it.

In fact when you do projections in reality that work as evidenced by atomic and electrical engineering you start seeing circular behavior as ratios of pi are the solutions. That is what is real and how real things actually behave.

Straight lines with easily defined starting points sure are easy to figure but occam's razor is a lie and in reality a crutch for simpletons.

LOL

The thing is you think I don't understand any of your statements. The truth is my thesis dissertation for my degree in Physics was applying Lorentz transformations to several mathematical constructs taking a Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.

The problem is that nothing you've stated is relevant to the origins paradoxes. The amount of energy involved (inherently all the mass) blows up most equations. All of those equations are asymptotic by definition.

Again.

Prior to t=0, nothing existed.

After t=0, everything existed.

[Blake]

LOL again redefining the framework of your view of GOD to make YOUR selective criteria 'stick'.

It's explicitly stated in the Gospels...

Oh... but wait, you chucked them out the window... threw out the baby with the bathwater.

No matter what I say, you will counter with a non-biblical position because you don't believe any of it. In that context your framework is askew.

Lol the biblical position is that slavery is ok.

There's no way to spin that. But I've definitely seen better efforts than ":cry but but the new covenant wipes out God being evil in the Old Testament :cry

[Blake]

LOL

The thing is you think I don't understand any of your statements. The truth is my thesis dissertation for my degree in Physics was applying Lorentz transformations to several mathematical constructs taking a Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.

The problem is that nothing you've stated is relevant to the origins paradoxes. The amount of energy involved (inherently all the mass) blows up most equations. All of those equations are asymptotic by definition.

Again.

Prior to t=0, nothing existed.

After t=0, everything existed.

Spaghetti monster existed prior to t=0 tho. He's powerful like that.

[RandomGuy]

i love that "indentured servitude" shit

Except it isn't indentured servitude. Provably so, using the text.

Another weak tea apologetic, easily cast aside.

(edit)

TDL0FttPX-4

Let a former evangelical deal with that. Dude was on the verge of the seminary, then came to his senses. Specific, permanent slavery was a feature of the bible's instructions.

[Blake]

So Blake ran away from this... by throwing some sarcasm at it....?

Ummmmm... ok.

THIS is ultimately why it's all an impasse in world views...

No, I asked you a serious logical question. If the molecules requires a designer as you say, then who created God molecules

Or is this one of those gentleman agreement things you made up where God doesn't adhere to his own rules

[Phenomanul]

The new testament is the core of your moral system. Jesus commented a great deal as to what to do or not to do. Why should slavery be any different?

Does the new testament, or the old testament say slavery is inherently evil or wrong?

Unfortunately not everything JESUS said was written down.

John 21:25 "25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

So if I practice the following two clauses as taught by JESUS:

"LOVE thy neighbor as thyself."

"Treat others in the manner that you want to be treated."

Now tell me how that behavior endorses me being a slave owner. It doesn't.

[Phenomanul]

No, I asked you a serious logical question. If the molecules requires a designer as you say, then who created God molecules

Or is this one of those gentleman agreement things you made up where God doesn't adhere to his own rules


GOD is not bound to the natural laws. He doesn't need to be created.

Everything else is bound to natural laws. Therefore, it needs to be created.

Where else in our universe does something pop out of nothingness? No where. It is a verifiable concept anywhere and anytime. Even at the subatomic or quantic level (for example micro-black holes pop in and out of existence theoretically), but even they draw on the energy that exists in the vacuum of space --> so technically they don't pop out of 'nothing' something else is there (be it energy or other particles).

[Phenomanul]

No, I asked you a serious logical question. If the molecules requires a designer as you say, then who created God molecules

Or is this one of those gentleman agreement things you made up where God doesn't adhere to his own rules

And you keep failing to understand why I referenced "a gentlemen's agreement" in the first place.

GOD is all knowing.

and GOD gifting man choice

ARE not mutually exclusive statements. In your finite mind they are but they aren't.

If GOD knows every permutation about any decision anyone makes HE is still Omniscient. The choice is still ours. We decide.

[Blake]

It's not picking and choosing.

It's an understanding of the context.

Prior to the 19th amendment women couldn't vote. Afterwards they could.

If you said that women today were bound to the original language of the constitution then they wouldn't be allowed to vote.

The 19th amendment allows them to.

LIKEWISE, the New Covenant supplants many things from the Old Covenant because it is a major amendment.

Have you found new evidence that supports your premise that Constantine reinvented Christianity...?

So you're saying God realized that slavery was wrong and amended it.

[clambake]

And like the coward you are, you probably never did. Am I right?

ok...fine. are there any specific pentagram dimensions?

draw this pentagram with what?

should i cut off someones head and use their skull as an inkwell?

[Blake]

And you keep failing to understand why I referenced "a gentlemen's agreement" in the first place.

GOD is all knowing.

and GOD gifting man choice

ARE not mutually exclusive statements. In your finite mind they are but they aren't.

If GOD knows every permutation about any decision anyone makes HE is still Omniscient. The choice is still ours. We decide.

Except if he blocks himself from knowing something he is no longer omniscient. You can't have it both ways.

[Blake]

GOD is not bound to the natural laws. He doesn't need to be created.

Everything else is bound to natural laws. Therefore, it needs to be created.

Where else in our universe does something pop out of nothingness? No where. It is a verifiable concept anywhere and anytime. Even at the subatomic or quantic level (for example micro-black holes pop in and out of existence theoretically), but even they draw on the energy that exists in the vacuum of space --> so technically they don't pop out of 'nothing' something else is there (be it energy or other particles).

Where else in our universe exists a being that has always existed?

[RandomGuy]

Unfortunately not everything JESUS said was written down.

John 21:25 "25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

So if I practice the following two clauses as taught by JESUS:

"LOVE thy neighbor as thyself."

"Treat others in the manner that you want to be treated."

Now tell me how that behavior endorses me being a slave owner. It doesn't.

NOW show me how modern-day slavery, and all of its abuses are inclusive of both of those statements.

I don't really care about your personal interpretation of other verses that don't deal specifically with slavery. There are so many interpretations out there. That is a human construct.

I want to read it myself to see the Word of God.

Show me where God decided "slavery is evil" was as important as "mixed fabrics is bad". I'm sure Jesus thought not being evil was important. He talked about all sorts of things required to be a righteous person.


Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus wants all those old testament laws in place.

Edit:
Given: Slavery is evil. I assume we can all agree on that much, at least.

[Blake]

ok...fine. are there any specific pentagram dimensions?

draw this pentagram with what?

should i cut off someones head and use their skull as an inkwell?

Only if the room suddenly drops in temperature 30 degrees

[Blake]

What day exactly did the newcovenant take place over the old one?

Serious question

[RandomGuy]

.

[RandomGuy]

GOD is not bound to the natural laws. He doesn't need to be created.

Everything else is bound to natural laws. Therefore, it needs to be created.






Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. [1][2]

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter


Example: I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.
claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly

Example: Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.

In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, as it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies.[3]




soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.

[Phenomanul]

So you're saying God realized that slavery was wrong and amended it.

GOD created Adam and it was PERFECT.

Sin entered the world and corrupted creation. Sin amended GOD's creation.

GOD wove the fabric of a Covenant with Abraham.

GOD then sealed the Covenant through JESUS CHRIST. JESUS was very much needed because the old covenant would have condemned us all.

[Phenomanul]

Except if he blocks himself from knowing something he is no longer omniscient. You can't have it both ways.

How is knowing every possible permutation an infringement of His omniscience.

As it pertains to our eternal destination, why do you think the "Book of Life" exists...? Why do you think it is sealed?

Again you want to draw you framework outside of the context of Scriptures and then criticize your strawman.

[Phenomanul]

What day exactly did the newcovenant take place over the old one?

Serious question

The crucifixion/resurrection was an event that covers Adam --> the last man on earth. IT was a redemptive act for all time. The Book of Hebrews covers that issue.

[RandomGuy]

GOD created Adam and it was PERFECT.

Sin entered the world and corrupted creation. Sin amended GOD's creation.

GOD wove the fabric of a Covenant with Abraham.

GOD then sealed the Covenant through JESUS CHRIST. JESUS was very much needed because the old covenant would have condemned us all.

GOD chose to create a universe that could be corrupted by sin? God's choice, if one assumes he had a choice. Maybe he didn't? Which is it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL

The thing is you think I don't understand any of your statements. The truth is my thesis dissertation for my degree in Physics was applying Lorentz transformations to several mathematical constructs taking a Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.

The problem is that nothing you've stated is relevant to the origins paradoxes. The amount of energy involved (inherently all the mass) blows up most equations. All of those equations are asymptotic by definition.

Again.

Prior to t=0, nothing existed.

After t=0, everything existed.

Claiming unprovable degrees and whatnot is a waste of time. I don't believe you are who you say you are. You've shown no aptitude in this regard at all with your simpleton topologies.

Fact is that we have no idea what happened then and your wishful thinking for first cause doesn't change that. Just because you see time =0 doesn't mean that there isn't a time = -1 or t = i.

Your limitations are glaring.

[Phenomanul]

I don't really care about your personal interpretation of other verses that don't deal specifically with slavery. There are so many interpretations out there. That is a human construct.

I want to read it myself to see the Word of God.

Show me where God decided "slavery is evil" was as important as "mixed fabrics is bad". I'm sure Jesus thought not being evil was important. He talked about all sorts of things required to be a righteous person.

JESUS never talked about pornography.

And yet He said, "anyone who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery." Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse pornography.

JESUS never talked about the IRS.

And yet He said, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to GOD what is GOD's." [when asked about taxes] Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse tax evasion (evasion of responsibility).

JESUS never talked about racism.

And yet the Gospel gives three examples where Samaritans (people the Jewish nation treated like dogs) were the 'hero' of a parable. Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse the poor treatment of others (despite their 'nationality'/'ethnicity').

JESUS never talked about sexism.

And yet JESUS was always talking with women, and some women even fiscally supported His ministry (despite the objections from his disciples). Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse the subjugation of women.

Unfortunately JESUS isn't recorded explicitly addressing the social political caste systems in place at the time of his ministry.

Your assumption THEN that He didn't explicitly address slavery is moot. To me more than enough context is provided to suggest it isn't endorsed.

You quoting cut and paste objections from other websites doesn't change anything because (of course) the context of the Covenants are fully ignored.


Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus wants all those old testament laws in place.

Edit:
Given: Slavery is evil. I assume we can all agree on that much, at least.

I've told you this before.

Sin (as revealed by the law) will definitely condemn anyone who isn't covered by JESUS' grace. The law must therefore exist for judgment to be enacted.

Jesus summarized ALL the laws of the OT with:

1) Love the LORD GOD with all your heart, soul and mind.

2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Laws of goats or fabric are irrelevant (where not applicable) as they were unique to the Hebrew nation. The New Covenant supplants them (kind of like Federal Laws superseding City Laws). Unless you want to be dense for the sake of being dense.

[Phenomanul]

Claiming unprovable degrees and whatnot is a waste of time. I don't believe you are who you say you are. You've shown no aptitude in this regard at all with your simpleton topologies.

Fact is that we have no idea what happened then and your wishful thinking for first cause doesn't change that. Just because you see time =0 doesn't mean that there isn't a time = -1 or t = i.

Your limitations are glaring.

If you want to work with t=i go right ahead... :lmao :lmao It just proves the relentlessness with which you run away from the ramifications of the origins paradox. There's a reason why I didn't include you in the list of the 'official position' creed I attempted to write above. Because you of all people still press to try and suggest that denying GOD's existence is supported by your particular brand of science...

BTW people have evaluated t=-1 (or t<0) when suggesting the 'big crunch'. Unfortunately the expansion of our universe is accelerating away from the 'big bang epicenter' leaving no room for belief in a cyclical big bang --> big crunch never-ending series.

And I don't care if you believe my academic acumen or not. No matter what I believe, your inference of my intellectual capabilities is already set by your exclusivity of divine belief... e.g. your belief that somehow my belief in GOD makes me "stupid and ignorant". That sort of irrationality is foolish. Science isn't equipped to answer everything.

[Phenomanul]

GOD chose to create a universe that could be corrupted by sin? God's choice, if one assumes he had a choice. Maybe he didn't? Which is it?

The risk of gifting man free-will was that sin would corrupt mankind.

The risk of not gifting man free-will was that sin would never be defeated.

JESUS defeated sin by becoming human Himself and subjecting Himself to all the temptations, sufferings and fragilities of our corporal form. If humanity had never been gifted free-will, this outcome would not be possible.

[Phenomanul]

Where else in our universe exists a being that has always existed?

He transcends our universe. You keep wanting to tie GOD down to the laws that govern our natural universe. He is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

[Blake]

GOD created Adam and it was PERFECT.

Sin entered the world and corrupted creation. Sin amended GOD's creation.

GOD wove the fabric of a Covenant with Abraham.

GOD then sealed the Covenant through JESUS CHRIST. JESUS was very much needed because the old covenant would have condemned us all.

But God okay ed slavery

[Blake]

He transcends our universe. You keep wanting to tie GOD down to the laws that govern our natural universe. He is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Oh. So does Santa Claus.

[Phenomanul]

Oh. So does Santa Claus.

ummmmm ok...

I didn't realize Santa Claus was credited with the creation of the universe.

[Phenomanul]

But God okay ed slavery

He also relented and gave Israel an earthly king. He didn't want to. The people wanted it.

[Phenomanul]

On for round 10 tomorrow. Bye peeps.

[Blake]

ummmmm ok...

I didn't realize Santa Claus was credited with the creation of the universe.

That can be arranged just the same with a flick of the pen.

[Blake]

He also relented and gave Israel an earthly king. He didn't want to. The people wanted it.

Why do you do this goal post move shit? We're not talking about kings. We're talking about slavery. Focus.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want to work with t=i go right ahead... :lmao :lmao It just proves the relentlessness with which you run away from the ramifications of the origins paradox. There's a reason why I didn't include you in the list of the 'official position' creed I attempted to write above. Because you of all people still press to try and suggest that denying GOD's existence is supported by your particular brand of science...

BTW people have evaluated t=-1 (or t<0) when suggesting the 'big crunch'. Unfortunately the expansion of our universe is accelerating away from the 'big bang epicenter' leaving no room for belief in a cyclical big bang --> big crunch never-ending series.

And I don't care if you believe my academic acumen or not. No matter what I believe, your inference of my intellectual capabilities is already set by your exclusivity of divine belief... e.g. your belief that somehow my belief in GOD makes me "stupid and ignorant". That sort of irrationality is foolish. Science isn't equipped to answer everything.

Prove that the big bang is the beginning with nothing before. That is the your entire arguments basis in your typical reductio ad absurdum manner.

It's amusing when I point out how my paradigm works in atomics and telecom and your sole retort is a smilie after claims of supposed expertise. You lose.

Just because you cannot explain iyour supposed origin does not mean God = real. I gave several alternate realities that don't include your wishful thinking with empirical basis. Even if there is a first cause that does not mean Bible = true either.

[RandomGuy]

JESUS never talked about pornography.

And yet He said, "anyone who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery." Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse pornography.

JESUS never talked about the IRS.

And yet He said, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to GOD what is GOD's." [when asked about taxes] Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse tax evasion (evasion of responsibility).

JESUS never talked about racism.

And yet the Gospel gives three examples where Samaritans (people the Jewish nation treated like dogs) were the 'hero' of a parable. Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse the poor treatment of others (despite their 'nationality'/'ethnicity').

JESUS never talked about sexism.

And yet JESUS was always talking with women, and some women even fiscally supported His ministry (despite the objections from his disciples). Context is provided to suggest He doesn't endorse the subjugation of women.

Unfortunately JESUS isn't recorded explicitly addressing the social political caste systems in place at the time of his ministry.

Your assumption THEN that He didn't explicitly address slavery is moot. To me more than enough context is provided to suggest it isn't endorsed.

You quoting cut and paste objections from other websites doesn't change anything because (of course) the context of the Covenants are fully ignored.



I've told you this before.

Sin (as revealed by the law) will definitely condemn anyone who isn't covered by JESUS' grace. The law must therefore exist for judgment to be enacted.

Jesus summarized ALL the laws of the OT with:

1) Love the LORD GOD with all your heart, soul and mind.

2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Laws of goats or fabric are irrelevant (where not applicable) as they were unique to the Hebrew nation. The New Covenant supplants them (kind of like Federal Laws superseding City Laws). Unless you want to be dense for the sake of being dense.

More fail.

I don't really care about your personal interpretation of other verses that don't deal specifically with slavery. There are so many interpretations out there. That is a human construct.

I want to read it myself to see the Word of God.

Show me where God decided "slavery is evil" was as important as "mixed fabrics is bad". I'm sure Jesus thought not being evil was important. He talked about all sorts of things required to be a righteous person.

[RandomGuy]

GOD chose to create a universe that could be corrupted by sin? God's choice, if one assumes he had a choice. Maybe he didn't? Which is it?


The risk of gifting man free-will was that sin would corrupt mankind.

The risk of not gifting man free-will was that sin would never be defeated.

JESUS defeated sin by becoming human Himself and subjecting Himself to all the temptations, sufferings and fragilities of our corporal form. If humanity had never been gifted free-will, this outcome would not be possible.

Original sin is another moral abomination.

Holding someone responsible for the crimes of others is evil.

Human sacrifice for the crimes of others is a moral abomination.

It is pretty much the kind of sick thing that barbarians thousands of years ago would imagine as part of their God Idea.

A fall from grace is not really all that original in terms of mythological themes. It is simply a common trope in the attempt to understand why bad things happen.


In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent).

These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought earth, and there it was. They thought mountains, and so there were. They thought trees, and sky, and animals etc, and each came into being. But none of these things could praise them, so they formed more advanced beings of clay. But these beings fell apart when they got wet, so they made beings out of wood, but they proved unsatisfactory and caused trouble on the earth. The gods sent a great flood to wipe out these beings, so that they could start over. With the help of Mountain Lion, Coyote, Parrot, and Crow they fashioned four new beings. These four beings performed well and are the ancestors of the Quich.


Ask and Embla

One day Odin, Vili and Ve walked on the beach. There they found two logs; one appeared to be from the Ash tree and the other appeared to come from an Elm tree.

Odin gave the logs spirit and life, Ve gave them movement, mind and intelligence and Vili gave them shape, speech, feelings and the five senses. The first two humans had been created.

The man was given the name Ask, and the woman was given the name Embla. The Aesir decided the humans should live in the place named Midgard


In the beginning nothing existed, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light. To the east, he created yellow streaks of dawn. To the west, tints of many colors appeared everywhere. There were also clouds of different colours. He also created three other gods: a little girl, a Sun-God and a small boy.

Then he created celestial phenomena, the winds, the tarantula, and the earth from the sweat of the four gods mixed together in the Creator's palms, from a small round, brown ball, not much larger than a bean. The world was expanded to its current size by the gods kicking the small brown ball until it expanded. Creator told Wind to go inside the ball and to blow it up.

The tarantula, the trickster character, spun a black cord and, attaching it to the ball, crawled away fast to the east, pulling on the cord with all his strength. Tarantula repeated with a blue cord to the south, a yellow cord to the west, and a white cord to the north. With mighty pulls in each direction, the brown ball stretched to immeasurable size--it became the earth! No hills, mountains, or rivers were visible; only smooth, treeless, brown plains appeared. Then the Creator created the rest of the beings and features of the Earth.



Long, long ago, the Creator, the Great Chief Above, made the world. Then he made the animals and the birds and gave them their names -- Coyote, Grizzly Bear, Deer, Fox, Eagle, the four Wolf Brothers, Magpie, Bluejay, Hummingbird, and all the others. When he had finished his work, the Creator called the animal people to him. "I am going to leave you," he said. "But I will come back. When I come again, I will make human beings. They will be in charge of you." The Great Chief returned to his home in the sky, and the animal people scattered to all parts of the world.

After twelve moons, the animal people gathered to meet the Creator as he had directed. Some of them had complaints. Bluejay, Meadowlark, and Coyote did not like their names. Each of them asked to be some other creature. "No," said the Creator. "I have given you your names. There is no change. My word is law.

"Because you have tried to change my law, I will not make the human being this time. Because you have disobeyed me, you have soiled what I brought with me. I planned to change it into a human being. Instead, I will put it in water to be washed for many moons and many snows, until it is clean again."

Then he took something from his right side and put it in the river. It swam, and the Creator named it Beaver. "Now I will give you another law," said the Great Chief Above.

"The one of you who keeps strong and good will take Beaver from the water some day and make it into a human being. I will tell you now what to do. Divide Beaver into twelve parts. Take each part to a different place and breathe into it your own breath. Wake it up. It will be a human being with your breath. Give it half of your power and tell it what to do. Today I am giving my power to one of you. He will have it as long as he is good." When the Creator had finished speaking, all the creatures started for their homes -- all except Coyote. The Great Chief had a special word for Coyote.

"You are to be head of all the creatures, Coyote. You are a power just like me now, and I will help you do your work. Soon the creatures and all the other things I have made will become bad. They will fight and will eat each other. It is your duty to keep them as peaceful as you can. "When you have finished your work, we will meet again, in this land toward the east. If you have been good, if you tell the truth and obey me, you can make the human being from Beaver. If you have done wrong, someone else will make him." Then the Creator went away.

It happened as the Creator had foretold. Everywhere the things he had created did wrong. The mountains swallowed the creatures. The winds blew them away. Coyote stopped the mountains, stopped the winds, and rescued the creatures. One winter, after North Wind had killed many people, Coyote made a law for him: "Hereafter you can kill only those who make fun of you."

Everywhere Coyote went, he made the world better for the animal people and better for the human beings yet to be created. When he had finished his work, he knew that it was time to meet the Creator again. Coyote thought that he had been good, that he would be the one to make the first human being. But he was mistaken. He thought that he had as much power as the Creator. So he tried, a second time, to change the laws of the Great Chief Above.

"Some other creature will make the human being," the Creator told Coyote. "I shall take you out into the ocean and give you a place to stay for all time." So Coyote walked far out across the water to an island. There the Creator stood waiting for him, beside the house he had made. Inside the house on the west side stood a black suit of clothes. On the other side hung a white suit. "Coyote, you are to wear this black suit for six months," said the Creator. "Then the weather will be cold and dreary. Take off the black suit and wear the white suit. Then there will be summer, and everything will grow. I will give you my power not to grow old. You will live here forever and forever."

Coyote stayed there, out in the ocean, and the four Wolf brothers took his place as the head of all the animal people. Youngest Wolf Brother was strong and good and clever. Oldest Wolf Brother was worthless. So the Creator gave Youngest Brother the power to take Beaver from the water. One morning Oldest Wolf Brother said to Youngest Brother, "I want you to kill Beaver. I want his tooth for a knife."

"Oh, no!" exclaimed Second and Third Brothers. "Beaver is too strong for Youngest Brother." But Youngest Wolf said to his brothers, "Make four spears. For Oldest Brother, make a spear with four forks. For me, make a spear with one fork. Make a two-forked spear and a three-forked spear for yourselves. I will try my best to get Beaver, so that we can kill him."

All the animal persons had seen Beaver and his home. They knew where he lived. They knew what a big creature he was. His family of young beavers lived with him. The animal persons were afraid that Youngest Wolf Brother would fail to capture Beaver and would fail to make the human being. Second and Third Wolf Brothers also were afraid. "I fear we will lose Youngest Brother," they said to each other. But they made the four spears he had asked for.

At dusk, the Wolf brothers tore down the dam at the beavers' home, and all the little beavers ran out. About midnight, the larger beavers ran out. They were so many, and they made so much noise, that they sounded like thunder. Then Big Beaver ran out, the one the Creator had put into the water to become clean.

"Let's quit!" said Oldest Wolf Brother, for he was afraid. "Let's not try to kill him."

"No!" said Youngest Brother. "I will not stop."

Oldest Wolf Brother fell down. Third Brother fell down. Second Brother fell down. Lightning flashed. The beavers still sounded like thunder. Youngest Brother took the four-forked spear and tried to strike Big Beaver with it. It broke. He used the three-forked spear. It broke. He used the two-forked spear. It broke. Then he took his own one-forked spear. It did not break. It pierced the skin of Big Beaver and stayed there. Out of the lake, down the creek, and down Big River, Beaver swam, dragging Youngest Brother after it.

Youngest Wolf called to his brothers, "You stay here. If I do not return with Beaver in three days, you will know that I am dead." Three days later, all the animal persons gathered on a level place at the foot of the mountain. Soon they saw Youngest Brother coming. He had killed Beaver and was carrying it. "You remember that the Creator told us to cut it into twelve pieces," said Youngest Brother to the animal people. But he could divide it into only eleven pieces.

Then he gave directions. "Fox, you are a good runner. Hummingbird and Horsefly, you can fly fast. Take this piece of Beaver flesh over to that place and wake it up. Give it your breath." Youngest Brother gave other pieces to other animal people and told them where to go. They took the liver to Clearwater River, and it became the Nez Perce Indians. They took the heart across the mountains, and it became the Methow Indians. Other parts became the Spokane people, the Lake people, the Flathead people. Each of the eleven pieces became a different tribe.

"There have to be twelve tribes," said Youngest Brother. "Maybe the Creator thinks that we should use the blood for the last one. Take the blood across the Shining Mountains and wake it up over there. It will become the Blackfeet. They will always look for blood."

When an animal person woke the piece of Beaver flesh and breathed into it, he told the new human being what to do and what to eat. "Here are roots," and the animal people pointed to camas and kouse and to bitterroot, "You will dig them, cook them, and save them to eat in the winter.

"Here are the berries that will ripen in the summer. You will eat them and you will dry them for use in winter." The animal people pointed to chokecherry trees, to serviceberry bushes, and to huckleberry bushes.

"There are salmon in all the rivers. You will cook them and eat them when they come up the streams. And you will dry them to eat in the winter."

When all the tribes had been created, the animal people said to them "Some of you new people should go up Lake Chelan. Go up to the middle of the lake and look at the cliff beside the water. There you will see pictures on the rock. From the pictures you will learn how to make the things you will need."

The Creator had painted the pictures there, with red paint. From the beginning until long after the white people came, the Indians went to Lake Chelan and looked at the paintings. They saw pictures of bows and arrows and of salmon traps. From the paintings of the Creator they knew how to make the things they needed for getting their food.


Long, long ago, a great island floated in a giant ocean. This island hung from four thick ropes from the sky, which was solid rock. There were no peoples and it was always dark. The animals could not see so they got the sun and put it in a path that took it across the island from east to west each day. The animals and plants were told by the Great Spirit to stay awake for seven days and seven nights but most could not and slept. Those plants that did stay awake, such as the pine and cedar and those few others were rewarded by being allowed to remain green all year. All the others were made to lose their leaves each winter. Those animals that did stay awake, such as the owl and the mountain lion and those few others were rewarded with the ability to go about in the dark. Then the people appeared.


In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again.

When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and on the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth. According to some versions of the Pan Gu legend, his tears flowed to make rivers and radiance of his eyes turned into thunder and lighting. When he was happy the sun shone, but when he was angry black clouds gathered in the sky. One version of the legend has it that the fleas and lice on his body became the ancestors of mankind.

The more one reads of creation myths... the more mundane the dusty Adam and Lilith, er- meaty Eve are.

The Bad Thing of eating the Magic Fruit is not even overly unique. Humans all over the world have attempted to explain why they are different from animals.

[RandomGuy]

The more we study the human brain, and its foibles, the more we learn about why such mythology arises, and why gods tend to act suspiciously like humans.

"I am a jealous God" is, again, not a unique mythological trope. What need would a perfect being have for being worshiped or praised?

That is quite literally the best primitive man could come up with.

We can do better.

[RandomGuy]

He transcends our universe. You keep wanting to tie GOD down to the laws that govern our natural universe. He is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.




Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. [1][2]

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter


Example: I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.
claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly

Example: Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.

In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, as it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies.[3]




soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.

Zeus is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Jupiter is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Coyote is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Nu and Naunet Nu are Supernatural and supersede the natural realm.

Ra is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Mbombo is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Coatlicue is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Tengri is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Umay is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Kayra is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Ainu is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Papa smurf is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

_________ is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Not a very convincing statement, when it comes to providing proof of the existence of something, or considering if an explanation is better than any other explanation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Zeus is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Jupiter is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Coyote is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Nu and Naunet Nu are Supernatural and supersede the natural realm.

Ra is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Mbombo is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Coatlicue is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Tengri is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Umay is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Kayra is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Ainu is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Papa smurf is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

_________ is Supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

Not a very convincing statement, when it comes to providing proof of the existence of something, or considering if an explanation is better than any other explanation.

But SCRIPTURE is special!

[Phenomanul]

More fail.

I don't really care about your personal interpretation of other verses that don't deal specifically with slavery. There are so many interpretations out there. That is a human construct.

I want to read it myself to see the Word of God.

Show me where God decided "slavery is evil" was as important as "mixed fabrics is bad". I'm sure Jesus thought not being evil was important. He talked about all sorts of things required to be a righteous person.

You are really being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about abortion
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about drug use
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about alcoholism
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about domestic abuse
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about racism
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about sexism
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about any number of other issues.

That doesn't mean enough context can't be surmised from those things he did say:

IF HE specifically said,

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

and

"Treat others the way you want to be treated."

NO WHERE WOULD that be an endorsement the cruel treatment of anyone else.

Only in your dense mind you want the specificity where CONTEXT is plenty.

You constantly define the framework of your criticisms so that you criticism can have any merit.

[RandomGuy]

You are really being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about abortion
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about drug use
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about alcoholism
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about domestic abuse
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about racism
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about sexism
JESUS isn't recorded as having talked about any number of other issues.

That doesn't mean enough context can't be surmised from those things he did say:

IF HE specifically said,

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

and

"Treat others the way you want to be treated."

NO WHERE WOULD that be an endorsement the cruel treatment of anyone else.

Only in your dense mind you want the specificity where CONTEXT is plenty.

You constantly define the framework of your criticisms so that your criticism can have any merit.

I am using your framework.

gX9BNzaaFmY

"Context" when it comes to talking about the bible seems to have a floating definition.

In context: Anything in the bible that gives you a warm fuzzy.

Out of context: Inconvenient child slaughter, human sacrifice and foreskin collecting.

[Blake]

You're purposely avoiding bible god's hypocrisy/contradictions. Why is that

[RandomGuy]

.

IF HE specifically said,

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

and

"Treat others the way you want to be treated.".

So the only guidance is to be nice to my slaves.

Gotcha.

Jesus talked plenty about slavery. He just never said it was bad.


Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2:

Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

Had a chance to say "slavery is bad".

Didnt'.

[RandomGuy]

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...

[RandomGuy]

Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.

[RandomGuy]

Claim: The Bible never says a word against owning people as property.

This claim is specific and simple to refute in principle – all it would take is a Bible verse that says something along the lines of Article 4 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:


Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

[RandomGuy]

Exodus 20:17 (NRSV)

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

God doesn't want me to covet my neighbors slaves and views them a property. Check.

[RandomGuy]

1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV)

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Christian slaves, obey your masters well – and obey your Christian masters especially well. Anyone who teaches otherwise is going against the words of Jesus, and has a morbid craving for disputes about words.

[RandomGuy]

Titus 2:9-10,15 (NRSV)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

Christian slaves, be submissive to your masters. This teaching should be exhorted with authority. Do not let anyone look down on you for advocating slavery.

[Phenomanul]

Original sin is another moral abomination.

You don't understand what 'original sin' means. It means our physical bodies have been tarnished by the effects of sin. They are no longer pure. We must die because of original sin. Were it not for the disobedience of Adam and Eve, our physical lives could have been immortal. Entropy exists because of the introduction of sin into our world.


Holding someone responsible for the crimes of others is evil.

Says the guy that doesn't even want to make them accountable for their own crimes. :lmao


Human sacrifice for the crimes of others is a moral abomination.

It is pretty much the kind of sick thing that barbarians thousands of years ago would imagine as part of their God Idea.

Blood atonement was not the preferred method for the remission of sins - it became necessary though due to the hardness of man's heart.

The sacrificial system created a horrific, lasting image of how much GOD despised sin... GOD prefers genuine repentance... In fact, the message of the Bible is replete with the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins... For example, when Nineveh was spared judgment from GOD, the city repented and their sins were forgiven - NO blood atonement was offered.



A fall from grace is not really all that original in terms of mythological themes. It is simply a common trope in the attempt to understand why bad things happen.

The more one reads of creation myths... the more mundane the dusty Adam and Lilith, er- meaty Eve are.

The Bad Thing of eating the Magic Fruit is not even overly unique. Humans all over the world have attempted to explain why they are different from animals.

It's silly that you've hardened your heart to the extent that you would waste your time looking up all that stuff.

If YOU want to place them on equal footing with Christianity go right ahead - even while the scriptures are the most validated work from ancient antiquity. I'd like to see you try and subject them to the same scrutiny you kept insisting on for the Christian manuscripts that actually exist.

As I read those, only one of those sounds like it can explain the big bang singularity. None of the others do. And the one that did, you'd have to prove that said language existed prior to the Genesis account.

The Torah account from Genesis not only describes the singularity but begins with language that lays the groundwork for the modern understanding of physics (Time, Matter, Space -- all resulting from an Action/Cause). "A Physics Book" was never the intent of the Scripture but for the Book of Genesis to open up with this language is still significant.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like I found quite a bit in the bible about slavery.

Just nothing that says its bad.

That seems to be enough context for me to decide God thinks slavery is ok.

I do not think slavery is ok. My moral code holds that is evil to deny rights of self direction.

Again, my moral code is superior to the bible god.

Why?

Because bible God is a fiction, designed by human beings who also thought slavery was ok. If they saw nothing wrong with the concept, why should the God they made up?

Bible God not saying anything about slavery being inherently bad fully supports that theory.

That is why you scream context to deflect the topic towards being nice to neighbors.

[RandomGuy]

It means our physical bodies have been tarnished by the effects of sin. They are no longer pure. We must die because of original sin. Were it not for the disobedience of Adam and Eve, our physical lives could have been immortal. Entropy exists because of the introduction of sin into our world.


Prove that statement. Any of it.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The concept of original sin remains an abomination. I have to die because someone else made a mistake. That punishes me with a limited lifespan for the crimes of someone else.

[Phenomanul]

So the only guidance is to be nice to my slaves.

Gotcha.

Jesus talked plenty about slavery. He just never said it was bad.



Had a chance to say "slavery is bad".

Didnt'.

"JESUS talked plenty about slavery"

PRESENTS only one passage. The ONLY such reference.

"where He had a chance to say it was bad"

Such was the love of the master towards his 'slave' that he physically sought JESUS out to plead for the healing of the latter. Yeah what a cruel abominable master.

Yeah, you're not disingenuous at all.

And you clearly don't understand the nature of slavery in the context of that story. We don't know if said person received wages for serving the Centurion (as was customary in many parts). Or if the person was offered a roof over their head for work... You assume too much just for the sake of trying to plead for the groundwork of your cut-and-paste argument.

[RandomGuy]

Holding someone responsible for the crimes of others is evil.



Says the guy that doesn't even want to make them accountable for their own crimes. .


Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

I have never advocated not holding someone responsible for their own actions. I hold that we should hold people accountable for their own actions.


soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.

[Phenomanul]

I have never advocated not holding someone responsible for their own actions. I hold that we should hold people accountable for their own actions.

soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.

"JESUS talks plenty about slavery."

Just take your lies elsewhere.

[RandomGuy]

"JESUS talked plenty about slavery"

PRESENTS only one passage. The ONLY such reference.

"where He had a chance to say it was bad"

Such was the love of the master towards his 'slave' that he physically sought JESUS out to plead for the healing of the latter. Yeah what a cruel abominable master.

Yeah, you're not disingenuous at all.

And you clearly don't understand the nature of slavery in the context of that story. We don't know if said person received wages for serving the Centurion (as was customary in many parts). Or if the person was offered a roof over their head for work... You assume too much just to try and make your argument.

I don't have to understand the "context" of the story.

Only enough to know it didn't say slavery is bad.

That is all it would have taken.

"Slavery is bad"

Three.
Little.
Words.

Didn't see them put together. All your dissembling and deflection cannot put them there, that is why you scream "context". You know it is wrong. You know it would be easy for the creator of the universe, who divinely inspired the writers of the bible sections to put them there. Yet there they are NOT. WHY IS THAT, SOPHIST?

[RandomGuy]

soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.

"JESUS talks plenty about slavery."

Just take your lies elsewhere.

:cry


(sighs) Ok, fine. Let's worry about the semantics, sophist.

JESUS talks about slavery.

That is the truth.

Jesus did not say "slavery is a bad thing".

That is the truth.

See any lies there?

[DisAsTerBot]

so as long as the slave has a roof over his head it's all good?

[Phenomanul]

Prove that statement. Any of it.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence..

How? If right off the bat you've discounted my use of Scripture.


The concept of original sin remains an abomination. I have to die because someone else made a mistake. That punishes me with a limited lifespan for the crimes of someone else.

Happens all the time.

Airplane pilots make mistakes that cost others their lives.

Military leaders make mistakes that cost others their lives.

It happens in most walks of life.

Ultimately however, your argument is moot. 'Original sin' isn't what keeps anyone from entering heaven (attaining salvation). For that to happen they would need to live PERFECT lives (with original sin as the only blemish). YET NO ONE meets that standard.

In other words, they will be judged on whether or not they've REJECTED JESUS' offer of Grace. If they haven't then their own works condemn them (as revealed by the law). In other words, accountable for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

[Phenomanul]

(sighs) Ok, fine. Let's worry about the semantics, sophist.

JESUS talks about slavery.

That is the truth.

Jesus did not say "slavery is a bad thing".

That is the truth.

See any lies there?

Just the convenience of somehow wanting JESUS to explicitly state anything in a certain manner for the sake of your argument.

HE said it plenty. You've skirted the question on 4 occasions now.

How can anyone possibly be a cruel slave master IF:

They love their neighbor as thyself.

or

They treat others the way they would like to be treated themselves.

THE ANSWER which you've clearly avoided is that they wouldn't be.

[Blake]

God murdered innocent people and condoned slavery.

Perfect.

[RandomGuy]

How? If right off the bat you've discounted my use of Scripture.


That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Yes.

Because you make unprovable claims about the nature of the universe and humanity based on a book that proclaims its own truth.


5 Sacred texts of various religions
5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Caodaism
5.11 Cheondoism
5.12 Christianity
5.13 Confucianism
5.14 Discordianism
5.15 Druidism
5.16 Druze
5.17 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.18 Etruscan religion
5.19 Ancient Greece
5.20 Hermeticism
5.21 Hinduism
5.22 Islam
5.23 Jainism
5.24 Judaism
5.25 Konkokyo
5.26 Mandaeanism
5.27 Manichaeism
5.28 Maya religion
5.29 Meher Baba
5.30 Native American Church
5.31 New Age religions
5.32 Orphism
5.33 Raëlism
5.34 Rastafari movement
5.35 Ravidassia
5.36 Samaritanism
5.37 Satanism
5.38 Science of Mind
5.39 Scientology
5.40 Shinto
5.41 Sikhism
5.42 Spiritism
5.43 Sumerian
5.44 Swedenborgianism
5.45 Taoism
5.46 Tenrikyo
5.47 Thelema
5.48 Unarius Academy of Science
5.49 Unification Church
5.50 Urantianism
5.51 Wicca
5.52 Yârsân
5.53 Yazidi
5.54 Yorùbá
5.55 Zoroastrianism


Scientology has a book that does the same.

Why is yours better?

[RandomGuy]

(sighs) Ok, fine. Let's worry about the semantics, sophist.

JESUS talks about slavery.

That is the truth.

Jesus did not say "slavery is a bad thing".

That is the truth.

See any lies there?


Just the convenience of somehow wanting JESUS to explicitly state anything in a certain manner for the sake of your argument.

HE said it plenty. You've skirted the question on 4 occasions now.

How can anyone possibly be a cruel slave master IF:

They love their neighbor as thyself.

or

They treat others the way they would like to be treated themselves.

THE ANSWER which you've clearly avoided is that they wouldn't be.

So, no, I didn't lie.

Thank you for your direct honest answer to my question.

Oh wait, you didn't directly or honestly answer my question.

Why is that?

[Phenomanul]

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Yes.

Because you make unprovable claims about the nature of the universe and humanity based on a book that proclaims its own truth.

Scientology has a book that does the same.

Why is yours better?

You didn't understand the nature of my statement.

HOW do you want me to prove any of my arguments if you are dismissing the context of the very Scriptures which provide the basis for my belief?

Whatever I say of original sin for example is addressed in Scripture. The concept and therefore the answer to any question of original sin ARE addressed there.

But not for you.

You've tossed it out from the get-go...

[Phenomanul]

So, no, I didn't lie.

Thank you for your direct honest answer to my question.

Oh wait, you didn't directly or honestly answer my question.

Why is that?

YOU ARE the one that says JESUS endorsed Slavery.

YOU said He talked about it 'plenty'

YOU really are stretching the TRUTH for me to believe that. IN other words YOU are lying.

[DisAsTerBot]

Just the convenience of somehow wanting JESUS to explicitly state anything in a certain manner for the sake of your argument.

HE said it plenty. You've skirted the question on 4 occasions now.

How can anyone possibly be a cruel slave master IF:

They love their neighbor as thyself.

or

They treat others the way they would like to be treated themselves.

THE ANSWER which you've clearly avoided is that they wouldn't be.

so now there are qualifiers? as long as you are not a cruel slave master you can own other people?

[Blake]

How do you want me to prove....


If you can get God to say hello, that would be a start.

A strange cold front while trying to exorcize demons doesn't cut it.

[clambake]

If you can get God to say hello, that would be a start.

A strange cold front while trying to exorcize demons doesn't cut it.

lol

[Phenomanul]

I don't have to understand the "context" of the story.

Only enough to know it didn't say slavery is bad.

That is all it would have taken.

"Slavery is bad"

Three.
Little.
Words.

Didn't see them put together. All your dissembling and deflection cannot put them there, that is why you scream "context". You know it is wrong. You know it would be easy for the creator of the universe, who divinely inspired the writers of the bible sections to put them there. Yet there they are NOT. WHY IS THAT, SOPHIST?

LOL

YOU wanting to construct Scriptural language to your liking.

Slavery was a construct of man, due to his corrupted nature.

The excerpt from Romans 1 I referenced earlier (the one that calls you a 'fool' for saying HE doesn't exist) also says that "GOD let man follow the desires of his heart"


specifically,


"every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

In other words,

Slavery was constructed by man, not GOD...
much like tyranny...

[Phenomanul]

so now there are qualifiers? as long as you are not a cruel slave master you can own other people?

I'm pretty sure that describes many employers out there today... even if they aren't officially termed 'slave owners'...

YOU don't have to own someone to 'own' them.

"Oh no, but what a cruel Centurion - he wanted to rescue his servant from the grips of death..!"

[Blake]

Slavery was a construct of man, due to his corrupted nature.

Iirc, God instructed Israelites to enslave enemies.

I know he instructed them to murder them.

[Blake]

.

[Blake]

I'm pretty sure that describes many employers out there today... even if they aren't officially termed 'slave owners'...

YOU don't have to own someone to 'own' them.

"Oh no, but what a cruel Centurion - he wanted to rescue his servant from the grips of death..!"

Lol what a spin

[Blake]

Exodus 21

20 *“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
21*But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the*slave is his money.

[Blake]

I've heard Walmart employees talk about it being just like that

[Phenomanul]

Prove that the big bang is the beginning with nothing before. That is the your entire arguments basis in your typical reductio ad absurdum manner.

It's amusing when I point out how my paradigm works in atomics and telecom and your sole retort is a smilie after claims of supposed expertise. You lose.

A LOL was required.

BECAUSE YOU literally referenced phenomena that occurs within the framework of the established laws of the physical universe and then suggested that they apply to a period or an instant (take your pick) where those laws couldn’t be applied.

In fact, allow me to laugh again at the ridiculous nature of your assertion (“it works in atomics and telecom…”). The big-bang singularity being defined as having infinite density suggests that if the energy of the universe is finite (inclusive of all of the mass) THEN the volumetric parameter, i.e. space, is zero. If it is zero, and density is infinite THEN mathematically NOTHING is there.

Hence prior to t=0, nothing existed.

Shortly after t=0 everything existing.

It helps to illustrate (for the nay sayers in this board). The traditional big bang can be graphically illustrated with a cone, which comes to the singularity at the sharp edge where time moves forward towards the open end…

Yes, there are alternative theories which mathematically avoid this ratio… The alternative theories can be graphically illustrated with a badminton birdie, which avoids the sharp edge – if you were to start at the mouth of the cone and go backwards in time you would not come back to a beginning point, you would simply follow the curve and suddenly you would find yourself heading forward in time again...

The problem with these alternative theories however is that they are EVEN LESS provable with the Scientific Method (mathematically, an eternal timeline for our universe IS absurd due to the “Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite” paradox).



Alternatives to the Singularity

Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another formulation, based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background, states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[5]

Believing such theories only to avoid the implications of a creatio ex-nihilo paradox only suggests that folks that believe such alternate theories feel compelled to believe in something else to ensure that the answer is never “GOD”. WHEN they do that, they are doing so on grounds of faith, BECAUSE their theories are completely umprovable.

You all called me condescending for attributing intent to you all or even the scientists pursuing these alternate theories but even Hawking addresses the matter by saying, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (from a book in my collection, “A Brief History in Time”)… In other words, even Hawking knows what the implications are - his equations are just more palatable to him the way he’s chosen to define them.

Folks here continually scoff with indignity at the mere suggestion that you all couldn't possibly claim any more proof about the cause of 'big bang' singularity as anything I or anyone else can provide. While it’s true that I attribute the creation of the universe to the GOD of the Bible, and I believe so on grounds of faith – I take confidence in the fact that the creation narrative jives with the description of the big-bang singularity. That the universe was birthed into existence by the power of GOD’s WORD. That physical time had a discrete beginning. That the probability that all of the physical constants which govern our universe would have the value they currently have being for all practical purposes zero points toward Creation (even if such scant probabilities alone don’t prove it).

Random Guy and Blake finally arrived to the point of semi-admission that their disbelief in a Creator (not necessarily the GOD of the Bible) is not belief that can be supported scientifically. They said, "Science doesn't know." Which is fine by me.

They won't admit, however, that Science cannot answer the origins of the cosmos riddle because t=0 is neither observable, repeatable, and offers only limited measurability (for the nth time - the Scientific Method cannot be applied because it is wholly ill-equipped to tackle the origins question).

You however are pressing further.


Just because you cannot explain iyour supposed origin does not mean God = real. I gave several alternate realities that don't include your wishful thinking with empirical basis. Even if there is a first cause that does not mean Bible = true either.

Empirical basis indeed…! You couldn’t even understand the meaning of the phrase "infinitesimally smaller THAN…" AND went on a derisive diatribe about your alleged unhinging of my position. THEN you suggested the use of imaginary numbers, negative numbers, Euler topology (kicking and screaming, I would add). I’ve already explained the problem with the use of negative numbers. AND here is my problem with a basis that proposes the use of imaginary numbers... In Hawking’s model or any variant quantum loop model, imaginary numbers have the effect of turning time into a dimension of space… The issue is that when imaginary numbers are employed, they’re just ‘computational devices’ used to grease the equations and get the result the mathematician wants... That’s fine, but when you want to get a real, physical result, you have to convert the imaginary numbers into real ones. Hawking simply refuses to convert them. He just keeps everything in the imaginary realm. When you convert the numbers into real ones, HOWEVER… Voila..! The singularity reappears… In fact, the singularity is really there the whole time - it’s just hidden behind the device of so-called ‘imaginary time’. Hawking even concedes this in a another book from my collection that he co-authored with Roger Penrose. He said he doesn’t pretend to be describing reality, because he says he doesn’t know what reality is… So Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin… it’s merely a mathematical way of modeling the beginning of the universe in such a manner that the singularity doesn’t appear…

I’ve said this on many occasions; the situation is reversed from say, a hundred years ago… Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly the opposite… IT is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicable way eternal after all.

My professor, Dr. Alan Guth (one of the most staunch proponents for naturalistic cosmological origins – yet far more civil than anyone on this board) used to say, that our universe was essentially a “free lunch”. HE knew the implications too, which is why he tried to suggest - “it just happened”.


You lose.

What?? You think this is grade school...?

[Blake]

Yeah, I don't know the exact origin of the universe but I've ruled out bible god.

That evil fucker is a myth. Anyone that doesn't get how ridiculous the bible is, is an ignorant boob

[DisAsTerBot]

I'm pretty sure that describes many employers out there today... even if they aren't officially termed 'slave owners'...

YOU don't have to own someone to 'own' them.

"Oh no, but what a cruel Centurion - he wanted to rescue his servant from the grips of death..!"

c'mon man, really?

[Phenomanul]

c'mon man, really?

The language of Luke Chapter 7 CANNOT in any sane way be taken as an approval of slavery - it merely states a fact: Romans had servants and slaves. The Roman government allowed it and it was legal. The whole point of the narrative was to reveal the Centurion's faith and the love he had for his servants. Only someone as dense and skeptical as you all would view this as an endorsement of slavery because JESUS didn't explicitly confront the Roman authorities about it. JESUS accepted dinner invitations from all manner of "sinners", from tax collectors, talked with lepers and prostitutes. The people of His time actually thought He condoned their immoral practices. At every turn and corner, however, His emphasis was geared towards the repentance of the heart of most of the people He met. The fact is, JESUS never owned any slaves, and He certainly did not back out from the opportunity of healing one... It's highly disingenuous to then suggests He condones slavery. Again, the passage from Luke tells us how JESUS praised the faith of this Gentile because, among his many virtues he took good care of his slaves. He was not there to sermon social justice the way we do in our society today, He was there to sermon a spiritual awakening.

Earlier folks like Fuzzy tried to suggest that JESUS' actions at the temple when He drove out the thieves with a cord whip were punishable, and YET no one brought this up at His trial? "None could accuse Him of anything..."

[clambake]

lol

[Blake]

The language of Luke Chapter 7 CANNOT in any sane way be taken as an approval of slavery - it merely states a fact: Romans had servants and slaves. The Roman government allowed it and it was legal. The whole point of the narrative was to reveal the Centurion's faith and the love he had for his servants. Only someone as dense and skeptical as you all would view this as an endorsement of slavery because JESUS didn't explicitly confront the Roman authorities about it. JESUS accepted dinner invitations from all manner of "sinners", from tax collectors, talked with lepers and prostitutes. The people of His time actually thought He condoned their immoral practices. At every turn and corner, however, His emphasis was geared towards the repentance of the heart of most of the people He met. The fact is, JESUS never owned any slaves, and He certainly did not back out from the opportunity of healing one... It's highly disingenuous to then suggests He condones slavery. Again, the passage from Luke tells us how JESUS praised the faith of this Gentile because, among his many virtues he took good care of his slaves. He was not there to sermon social justice the way we do in our society today, He was there to sermon a spiritual awakening.

Earlier folks like Fuzzy tried to suggest that JESUS' actions at the temple when He drove out the thieves with a cord whip were punishable, and YET no one brought this up at His trial? "None could accuse Him of anything..."

Right. ...keep ignoring the giant Exodus in the room.

[DarrinS]

No one wins these "debates", tbh


I don't know why you waste your time.

[DarrinS]

No one wins these "debates", tbh


I don't know why you waste your time.

[Blake]

No one wins these "debates", tbh


I don't know why you waste your time.

Its entertaining tbh but really, nobody cares about your opinion either. Not sure why you're wasting your time.

[Phenomanul]

Right. ...keep ignoring the giant Exodus in the room.

The part that belongs in the Old Covenant ---> which you keep wanting to dismiss...? But thanks for acknowledging that JESUS does not specifically endorse slavery as Random Guy disingenuously asserted.

My beliefs are rooted in the New Covenant, based on the teachings of, and sealed by the atonement of one JESUS Christ --> Hence, Christianity is my emblem, JESUS Himself the banner.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A LOL was required.

BECAUSE YOU literally referenced phenomena that occurs within the framework of the established laws of the physical universe and then suggested that they apply to a period or an instant (take your pick) where those laws couldn’t be applied.

In fact, allow me to laugh again at the ridiculous nature of your assertion (“it works in atomics and telecom…”). The big-bang singularity being defined as having infinite density suggests that if the energy of the universe is finite (inclusive of all of the mass) THEN the volumetric parameter, i.e. space, is zero. If it is zero, and density is infinite THEN mathematically NOTHING is there.

Hence prior to t=0, nothing existed.

Shortly after t=0 everything existing.

It helps to illustrate (for the nay sayers in this board). The traditional big bang can be graphically illustrated with a cone, which comes to the singularity at the sharp edge where time moves forward towards the open end…

Yes, there are alternative theories which mathematically avoid this ratio… The alternative theories can be graphically illustrated with a badminton birdie, which avoids the sharp edge – if you were to start at the mouth of the cone and go backwards in time you would not come back to a beginning point, you would simply follow the curve and suddenly you would find yourself heading forward in time again...

The problem with these alternative theories however is that they are EVEN LESS provable with the Scientific Method (mathematically, an eternal timeline for our universe IS absurd due to the “Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite” paradox).



Believing such theories only to avoid the implications of a creatio ex-nihilo paradox only suggests that folks that believe such alternate theories feel compelled to believe in something else to ensure that the answer is never “GOD”. WHEN they do that, they are doing so on grounds of faith, BECAUSE their theories are completely umprovable.

You all called me condescending for attributing intent to you all or even the scientists pursuing these alternate theories but even Hawking addresses the matter by saying, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (from a book in my collection, “A Brief History in Time”)… In other words, even Hawking knows what the implications are - his equations are just more palatable to him the way he’s chosen to define them.

Folks here continually scoff with indignity at the mere suggestion that you all couldn't possibly claim any more proof about the cause of 'big bang' singularity as anything I or anyone else can provide. While it’s true that I attribute the creation of the universe to the GOD of the Bible, and I believe so on grounds of faith – I take confidence in the fact that the creation narrative jives with the description of the big-bang singularity. That the universe was birthed into existence by the power of GOD’s WORD. That physical time had a discrete beginning. That the probability that all of the physical constants which govern our universe would have the value they currently have being for all practical purposes zero points toward Creation (even if such scant probabilities alone don’t prove it).

Random Guy and Blake finally arrived to the point of semi-admission that their disbelief in a Creator (not necessarily the GOD of the Bible) is not belief that can be supported scientifically. They said, "Science doesn't know." Which is fine by me.

They won't admit, however, that Science cannot answer the origins of the cosmos riddle because t=0 is neither observable, repeatable, and offers only limited measurability (for the nth time - the Scientific Method cannot be applied because it is wholly ill-equipped to tackle the origins question).

You however are pressing further.



Empirical basis indeed…! You couldn’t even understand the meaning of the phrase "infinitesimally smaller THAN…" AND went on a derisive diatribe about your alleged unhinging of my position. THEN you suggested the use of imaginary numbers, negative numbers, Euler topology (kicking and screaming, I would add). I’ve already explained the problem with the use of negative numbers. AND here is my problem with a basis that proposes the use of imaginary numbers... In Hawking’s model or any variant quantum loop model, imaginary numbers have the effect of turning time into a dimension of space… The issue is that when imaginary numbers are employed, they’re just ‘computational devices’ used to grease the equations and get the result the mathematician wants... That’s fine, but when you want to get a real, physical result, you have to convert the imaginary numbers into real ones. Hawking simply refuses to convert them. He just keeps everything in the imaginary realm. When you convert the numbers into real ones, HOWEVER… Voila..! The singularity reappears… In fact, the singularity is really there the whole time - it’s just hidden behind the device of so-called ‘imaginary time’. Hawking even concedes this in a another book from my collection that he co-authored with Roger Penrose. He said he doesn’t pretend to be describing reality, because he says he doesn’t know what reality is… So Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin… it’s merely a mathematical way of modeling the beginning of the universe in such a manner that the singularity doesn’t appear…

I’ve said this on many occasions; the situation is reversed from say, a hundred years ago… Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly the opposite… IT is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicable way eternal after all.

My professor, Dr. Alan Guth (one of the most staunch proponents for naturalistic cosmological origins – yet far more civil than anyone on this board) used to say, that our universe was essentially a “free lunch”. HE knew the implications too, which is why he tried to suggest - “it just happened”.



What?? You think this is grade school...?

Your program was waving your hands and insisting that there was no time less than zero. Nevermind that there is no unified field theory that works to make such a claim authoritatively. That the current models are insufficient si no excuse for your God of the gaps.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one wins these "debates", tbh


I don't know why you waste your time.

Seeing your position on the climate debate, your hypocrisy does know no bounds.

No one finds you credible anyway.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol

Pilate, a Roman non-christian prefect, ignored Roman property law?

We've already gone over thanks to dipshit that Pilates records were almost certainly changed. Accounts older than the ecumenial mention heresy and blashphemy that aren't in what the catholics have now. REmember the context of 4th-7th century book burnings on the regular.

The famous stuff are the circular motion works of Hero and Archimedes but it obviously wasn't limited to only that. What couldn't be hidden could always be rewritten.

[Blake]

The part that belongs in the Old Covenant ---> which you keep wanting to dismiss...? But thanks for acknowledging that JESUS does not specifically endorse slavery as Random Guy disingenuously asserted.

My beliefs are rooted in the New Covenant, based on the teachings of, and sealed by the atonement of one JESUS Christ --> Hence, Christianity is my emblem, JESUS Himself the banner.

No, it's the Old Testament that you are wanting to ignore and dismiss.

Jesus' daddeh is the god of the OT. The god that ordained the laws of slavery in Exodus 21.

There's no way around it. You're trying to give God a pass for his OT evil.

[Phenomanul]

I see you keep pressing some more... is it that uncomfortable to get yourself to state that your disbelief in GOD is not scientifically supported...?


Your program was waving your hands and insisting that there was no time less than zero.

And your program was waving your hands and insisting that somehow your observations from telecom somehow applied to the big-bang singularity.

Oh AND THEN claiming I had somehow lost the argument...

You can claim that there is still no "official" Grand Unified Theory of Everything, but that doesn't justify ANYONE's staunch disbelief. ALL of the working models we currently have today (with real solutions) and the bulk of the empirical data from observing the cosmos suggests that the universe had a finite beginning. IF our universe had a finite beginning, THEN a t=0 premise is mathematically defensible... There is no other way around it. IF t was allowed to be negative you would have needed to "traverse the infinite" to get to zero, which is impossible. And as I stated before, mathematical models that claim to validate an eternal cyclical nature are not based on reality because they inherently work with the use of 'imaginary time'. Again, even Hawking, Penrose and my professors have verbally acknowledged what the implications of a finite beginning are...


Nevermind that there is no unified field theory that works to make such a claim authoritatively.

That's the whole conundrum with the singularity! The equations don't work there (they blow up). But mostly they reveal that in our very real realm the singularity was present and cannot be avoided.


That the current models are insufficient si no excuse for your God of the gaps.

One of the other reasons why I wanted to graphically illustrate the big-bang expansion is because that is how I would envision GOD's command of "Let there be light!" to proceed if someone had 'spoken light into being'. It would 'progress' in the direction away from the origin of the command. Which is exactly what it looks like. And why is the usage of the term "light" in said command significant? Light has come to represent energy, and from energy all matter can condense... HENCE with that one statement GOD successfully created "everything" - which is consistent with our understanding of physics today.

Creation points to theism. For me it simply does, the more I've learned over the past two decades of academic accreditation and the work field the more it has all pointed back at the Creator - that is my truth. You have chosen not to see this for whatever reasons are near and dear to your heart - so that is your truth. AND YOU ARE VERY MUCH ENTITLED to believe so.

My beef with you, and other atheist/agnostics like you however, is that somehow you view your position as being superior and have chosen to brand me as intellectually inferior simply because I don't agree with you.

BUT your position is scientifically no more valid than mine - and certainly not as iron-clad as you all think it is... You can't even come to grips with that.

ME PERSONALLY, I don't care that you don't believe my position - but your disagreement with my tenets can't be used to suggest that it cannot be truth for me.

You all keep throwing the "God of the gaps fallacy" in my face as if somehow that is the governing dynamic that has brought me to my knees in belief of JESUS as the LORD and Savior of my life. It's pure arrogance to suggest that any of you could claim that said fallacy is why I follow Him and serve Him - why I worship Him... This whole exercise just proves that your disbelief is not based on the rock hard, solid foundation you all claimed to have. The worst part is you can't even get yourselves to say it.

The best you can say is "I see no reason to believe your GOD".

Which is wholly different from:

"I don't believe in GOD because it is established fact the universe did not need to be created, and because life did not need to be created..."

Which many of you are guilty of uttering in a myriad of variations - over and over and over again.

[Phenomanul]

No, it's the Old Testament that you are wanting to ignore and dismiss.

Jesus' daddeh is the god of the OT. The god that ordained the laws of slavery in Exodus 21.

There's no way around it. You're trying to give God a pass for his OT evil.

OR rather that you don't understand that until we were covered with JESUS' atoning justice all we deserved prior to that was punishment for our sin. IN other words, death.

The explanations are in the very Scriptures you reject - so how can I satisfactorily answer your alleged inconsistency...? THERE is NO WAY AROUND THAT.

[Blake]

OR rather that you don't understand that until we were covered with JESUS' atoning justice all we deserved prior to that was punishment for our sin. IN other words, death.

The explanations are in the very Scriptures you reject - so how can I satisfactorily answer your alleged inconsistency...? THERE is NO WAY AROUND THAT.

No, there's no explanation in the bible for the justification of owning, selling and beating up on another human being.

God endorsed it. Jesus is God. Therefore Jesus endorsed slavery. Why is this so hard for you?

[Blake]

I see you keep pressing some more... is it that uncomfortable to get yourself to state that your disbelief in GOD is not scientifically supported...?

is your belief in bible god scientifically supported?

Simple yes or no will do.

[Phenomanul]

is your belief in bible god scientifically supported?

Simple yes or no will do.


BUT your position is scientifically no more valid than mine - and certainly not as iron-clad as you all think it is...

[Phenomanul]

No, there's no explanation in the bible for the justification of owning, selling and beating up on another human being.

God endorsed it. Jesus is God. Therefore Jesus endorsed slavery. Why is this so hard for you?

GOD allowing something is not the same as GOD endorsing something.

GOD allowed man to follow the desires of his heart.

Man has free-will.

Ultimately, that is why man does evil things --> the will of his choices to "follow all manner of wickedness"...

[Phenomanul]

See you peeps on Monday.

(pour it on...)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see you keep pressing some more... is it that uncomfortable to get yourself to state that your disbelief in GOD is not scientifically supported...?



And your program was waving your hands and insisting that somehow your observations from telecom somehow applied to the big-bang singularity.

Oh AND THEN claiming I had somehow lost the argument...

You can claim that there is still no "official" Grand Unified Theory of Everything, but that doesn't justify ANYONE's staunch disbelief. ALL of the working models we currently have today (with real solutions) and the bulk of the empirical data from observing the cosmos suggests that the universe had a finite beginning. IF our universe had a finite beginning, THEN a t=0 premise is mathematically defensible... There is no other way around it. IF t was allowed to be negative you would have needed to "traverse the infinite" to get to zero, which is impossible. And as I stated before, mathematical models that claim to validate an eternal cyclical nature are not based on reality because they inherently work with the use of 'imaginary time'. Again, even Hawking, Penrose and my professors have verbally acknowledged what the implications of a finite beginning are...



That's the whole conundrum with the singularity! The equations don't work there (they blow up). But mostly they reveal that in our very real realm the singularity was present and cannot be avoided.



One of the other reasons why I wanted to graphically illustrate the big-bang expansion is because that is how I would envision GOD's command of "Let there be light!" to proceed if someone had 'spoken light into being'. It would 'progress' in the direction away from the origin of the command. Which is exactly what it looks like. And why is the usage of the term "light" in said command significant? Light has come to represent energy, and from energy all matter can condense... HENCE with that one statement GOD successfully created "everything" - which is consistent with our understanding of physics today.

Creation points to theism. For me it simply does, the more I've learned over the past two decades of academic accreditation and the work field the more it has all pointed back at the Creator - that is my truth. You have chosen not to see this for whatever reasons are near and dear to your heart - so that is your truth. AND YOU ARE VERY MUCH ENTITLED to believe so.

My beef with you, and other atheist/agnostics like you however, is that somehow you view your position as being superior and have chosen to brand me as intellectually inferior simply because I don't agree with you.

BUT your position is scientifically no more valid than mine - and certainly not as iron-clad as you all think it is... You can't even come to grips with that.

ME PERSONALLY, I don't care that you don't believe my position - but your disagreement with my tenets can't be used to suggest that it cannot be truth for me.

You all keep throwing the "God of the gaps fallacy" in my face as if somehow that is the governing dynamic that has brought me to my knees in belief of JESUS as the LORD and Savior of my life. It's pure arrogance to suggest that any of you could claim that said fallacy is why I follow Him and serve Him - why I worship Him... This whole exercise just proves that your disbelief is not based on the rock hard, solid foundation you all claimed to have. The worst part is you can't even get yourselves to say it.

The best you can say is "I see no reason to believe your GOD".

Which is wholly different from:

"I don't believe in GOD because it is established fact the universe did not need to be created, and because life did not need to be created..."

Which many of you are guilty of uttering in a myriad of variations - over and over and over again.

Nice wall of text that no one including myself is going to read.

Not all math is real. It's the entire point of initial premise. My point about telecom was to show that the complex plane is real and thus my topology of zero not being an endpoint. That is my premise demonstrated in reality. Now let's compare how you talk about t = 0.


Hence prior to t=0, nothing existed.

Shortly after t=0 everything existing.

How do you account for quantum behavior at t= 0? That is my point about there not being a unified field theory. You talk about it in declarations as if you know what happened.

You don't except to say 'it has to be God.' You ignorance does not make a case. It doesn't even have to be your God even if the rest of your argument is correct.

There is no reason to believe your Bible in anything you've said.

[Blake]

no

Saying bible god created the universe has absolutely no scientific merit. Saying "I don't know" is perfectly reasonable in science

[Blake]

GOD allowing something is not the same as GOD endorsing something.

GOD allowed man to follow the desires of his heart.

Man has free-will.

Ultimately, that is why man does evil things --> the will of his choices to "follow all manner of wickedness"...

God endorsed slavery by not only allowing it but giving rules on how to use it.

If he saw it to be evil, which he should have because we do, then he should have specifically not allowed it. That's all there is to it.

[Blake]

See you peeps on Monday.

(pour it on...)

The the temperature dropped pretty low today in San Antonio. There must be some demons leaving

[mingus]

Psalm 22 was written by King David. Several centuries before JESUS' timeline (or about 1,000 years prior). With the oldest known copies of it found in Dead Sea Scrolls that pre-date Jesus' timeline as well by over a century.

As for the "piercing" translation, I'm not a Hebrew scholar:

http://www.hadavar.org/critical-issues/anti-missionary-arguments/tampering-with-the-text/psalm-2216/





Like I said, it can't be used as proof for anyone other than myself. But I was there, I definitely know what I saw, heard and felt.

That's one psalm that meets the criteria of being prophetic that I laid out before, and that's only if I'm to believe your interpretation of it, which is by no means THE ONLY, or necessarily the MOST CREDIBLE one. Unless of course you toss out the Hebrew interpretation of it, which you've already done way back in this thread.

The thing that pisses me off, and why I called you arragont, is that many times you've said something to the effect of "well it's your choice to not believe, there are repercussions", as if your in God's head. You're not giving the divine authority to be the judge of anyone in the afterlife.

[Phenomanul]

That's one psalm that meets the criteria of being prophetic that I laid out before, and that's only if I'm to believe your interpretation of it, which is by no means THE ONLY, or necessarily the MOST CREDIBLE one. Unless of course you toss out the Hebrew interpretation of it, which you've already done way back in this thread.

The thing that pisses me off, and why I called you arragont, is that many times you've said something to the effect of "well it's your choice to not believe, there are repercussions", as if your in God's head. You're not giving the divine authority to be the judge of anyone in the afterlife.

Wait what....?

I've specifically said, I believe that scripture supports the doctrine that NO ONE is blameless. Everyone has sinned, i.e. I gain nothing by comparing myself to anyone else. According to the 'law' - no one is good enough.

I've said this repeatedly. So frankly, I don't know how you can substantiate your claim that somehow I've cast condemnation over anyone here.

[Blake]

Wait what....?

I've specifically said, I believe that scripture supports the doctrine that NO ONE is blameless. Everyone has sinned, i.e. I gain nothing by comparing myself to anyone else. According to the 'law' - no one is good enough.


Even bible God has sinned.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy and Blake finally arrived to the point of semi-admission that their disbelief in a Creator (not necessarily the GOD of the Bible) is not belief that can be supported scientifically. They said, "Science doesn't know." Which is fine by me.

your position is scientifically no more valid than mine - and certainly not as iron-clad as you all think it is... You can't even come to grips with that.



Um, not quite.

First there is a distinction between "a god", and your "God".

One doesn't need science to be sure that your "God" is provably false, given the logical contradictions. "omnipotence" and "omniscience" are logically impossible characteristics. The concept of "omnibenevolent" is directly contradicted by "jealous and angry". It is a bit like claiming that God has the properties of being a four-sided triangle.

The default position for ANY hypothesis is "not true" until there is evidence to prove "true". Lack of belief in something is therefore not anything that can, or has to be, supported scientifically.

The amount of proof required to accept something is generally commensurate with the claim. Your burden of proof is pretty big.

You have to sort out the logical contradictions, then go about watering down the obviously false bits about six day creations, mythical adam & eve/lilith, global floods, etc. into "that is just a parable", without really a guide as to what is "parable" and what is supposed to be actual real events, until you are left with a mushy, inconsistent mess, open to tens of thousand of interpretations, which is what we have today in all the various denominations.

If one had asked the earliest Christians about whether Adam and Eve were literally true, talking snakes were real, global floods were real, they would answer rather unequivocally "yes". The sun goes around the earth.

All of this offers a lot of testable claims that each failed. With each failure, "true" retreated into "parable".

Lack of belief in something is not something that has to be "scientifically" justified. It is the very definition of science.

The two positions are NOT equal. One has a burden of proof, "bible God" exists, and the other, withholding acceptance of the theory, doesn't.

All you are left with is an argument from ignorance. "you don't know what happened before X, so therefore bible GOD."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

[RandomGuy]

You all keep throwing the "God of the gaps fallacy" in my face as if somehow that is the governing dynamic that has brought me to my knees in belief of JESUS as the LORD and Savior of my life. It's pure arrogance to suggest that any of you could claim that said fallacy is why I follow Him and serve Him - why I worship Him... This whole exercise just proves that your disbelief is not based on the rock hard, solid foundation you all claimed to have. The worst part is you can't even get yourselves to say it.

The best you can say is "I see no reason to believe your GOD".

Which is wholly different from:

"I don't believe in GOD because it is established fact the universe did not need to be created, and because life did not need to be created..."

Which many of you are guilty of uttering in a myriad of variations - over and over and over again.

Again, not quite.

You fall on your knees because you accept it is true.

"Bible God is true" has to be accepted before worship, given that people generally don't worship things they hold to be non-existent.

To get THERE, you have to go through "A God exists AND the bible is true"
"
Your ultimate problem is that "bible" can be replaced by just about any other myth in that sentence. "A God exists AND the [insert holy book here] is true"

Your un-testable claim falls in with every other un-testable claim in terms of validity, leaving me with little reason to accept "bible" explanations" over anything else.

[baseline bum]

Why does god like negging people so much? What a manipulative bastard.

[RandomGuy]

You didn't understand the nature of my statement.

HOW do you want me to prove any of my arguments if you are dismissing the context of the very Scriptures which provide the basis for my belief?

Whatever I say of original sin for example is addressed in Scripture. The concept and therefore the answer to any question of original sin ARE addressed there.

But not for you.

You've tossed it out from the get-go...

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

It gets tossed because it is unverifiable, and indistinguishable from any other book with self-proclaimed truth.

Show me how sin makes me mortal. This is a pretty testable claim.

First let's define terms, scientifically.

Define "sin".

[RandomGuy]

https://herbertblaser.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/10338341_10153206008774110_2652921356560496413_n-1.jpg

[mingus]

Wait what....?

I've specifically said, I believe that scripture supports the doctrine that NO ONE is blameless. Everyone has sinned, i.e. I gain nothing by comparing myself to anyone else. According to the 'law' - no one is good enough.

I've said this repeatedly. So frankly, I don't know how you can substantiate your claim that somehow I've cast condemnation over anyone here.

I can probably go back and find your posts, where you if I'm correct say something along those lines. I just think it's phony to take on God's and ONLY God's right to judge us. If that's something you never intended to say, then I'll just assume I misread it.

[Phenomanul]

Again, not quite.

You fall on your knees because you accept it is true.

"Bible God is true" has to be accepted before worship, given that people generally don't worship things they hold to be non-existent.

To get THERE, you have to go through "A God exists AND the bible is true"
"
Your ultimate problem is that "bible" can be replaced by just about any other myth in that sentence. "A God exists AND the [insert holy book here] is true"

Your un-testable claim falls in with every other un-testable claim in terms of validity, leaving me with little reason to accept "bible" explanations" over anything else.

The odd thing is that when in comes to the merits of proving the credibility of Scripture you have thrown a gauntlet of 'burden of proof' that becomes almost unreasonable for ANY book in antiquity. Yet somehow, I know that any evidence that I could provide to show why the merits of other 'holy books' are less credible than the merits for the Scriptures of Judeo/Christian beliefs would immediately be tossed out and dismissed by most of you all.

Heck, you all gobbled up Fuzzy's assertions without a single shred of evidence. Why...? Because, ultimately you all don't want to validate a book which contains a message you plainly reject.

Besides, the exercise would be futile. And we would have the ad nauseam discussion over said merits.

The fact is NO BOOK in antiquity is more validated by other historical works than Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Your collective willingness to want to believe every blog post that states the contrary as an indictment against said credibility isn't proof itself. Just more fallacious consensus gentium.

Frankly, I don't have neither the time nor the willingness to dissuade you all.

Go on believing that 'any myth' from ancient antiquity can present enough evidence of its credibility when compared to what the Scriptures can support. At this point I don't care.

[Phenomanul]

https://herbertblaser.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/10338341_10153206008774110_2652921356560496413_n-1.jpg

Except that Scripture doesn't ever claim that the Sun revolves around the earth...

[Phenomanul]

Um, not quite.

First there is a distinction between "a god", and your "God".

One doesn't need science to be sure that your "God" is provably false, given the logical contradictions. "omnipotence" and "omniscience" are logically impossible characteristics. The concept of "omnibenevolent" is directly contradicted by "jealous and angry". It is a bit like claiming that God has the properties of being a four-sided triangle.

The default position for ANY hypothesis is "not true" until there is evidence to prove "true". Lack of belief in something is therefore not anything that can, or has to be, supported scientifically.

The amount of proof required to accept something is generally commensurate with the claim. Your burden of proof is pretty big.

You have to sort out the logical contradictions, then go about watering down the obviously false bits about six day creations, mythical adam & eve/lilith, global floods, etc. into "that is just a parable", without really a guide as to what is "parable" and what is supposed to be actual real events, until you are left with a mushy, inconsistent mess, open to tens of thousand of interpretations, which is what we have today in all the various denominations.

If one had asked the earliest Christians about whether Adam and Eve were literally true, talking snakes were real, global floods were real, they would answer rather unequivocally "yes". The sun goes around the earth.

All of this offers a lot of testable claims that each failed. With each failure, "true" retreated into "parable".

Lack of belief in something is not something that has to be "scientifically" justified. It is the very definition of science.

The two positions are NOT equal. One has a burden of proof, "bible God" exists, and the other, withholding acceptance of the theory, doesn't.

All you are left with is an argument from ignorance. "you don't know what happened before X, so therefore bible GOD."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

:lol The contradictions are all yours though.... You keep wanting to suggest that a Supernatural being MUST obey the natural laws. THAT is a contradictory requisite. You again want to define the framework in a way that constrains GOD to make "natural" sense.

He's Omnipresent in the sense that He can be anywhere or everywhere He chooses to be. And since He isn't constrained by natural laws HE CAN BE.


Lack of belief in something is not something that has to be "scientifically" justified. It is the very definition of science.
You missed the point altogether.

Atheists can't claim scientific validation to their disbelief. THAT was my point.

IF they want to say they don't believe. Fine. But they can't then turn around and in the very same breath say that their disbelief is scientifically supported. The two statements are incongruous.


All you are left with is an argument from ignorance. "you don't know what happened before X, so therefore bible GOD."

Um, not quite.

For the umpteenth time. My belief in GOD has nothing to do with my academic understanding of our world. What's ignorant is your incessant arrogance to suggest that a belief system can only be built on scientific truths alone. Science is not the only revealer of truth.

I applaud efforts to keep searching for the truth. That's how we got to the point where we observed that our universe in fact began...

But ultimately, my belief in GOD is rooted far deeper. It means nothing to you, because you don't walk in my shoes. You haven't seen, heard, or experienced the things that I have... None of those things would sway you anyways, AND they don't have to... They're my experiences alone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The odd thing is that when in comes to the merits of proving the credibility of Scripture you have thrown a gauntlet of 'burden of proof' that becomes almost unreasonable for ANY book in antiquity. Yet somehow, I know that any evidence that I could provide to show why the merits of other 'holy books' are less credible than the merits for the Scriptures of Judeo/Christian beliefs would immediately be tossed out and dismissed by most of you all.

Heck, you all gobbled up Fuzzy's assertions without a single shred of evidence. Why...? Because, ultimately you all don't want to validate a book which contains a message you plainly reject.

Besides, the exercise would be futile. And we would have the ad nauseam discussion over said merits.

The fact is NO BOOK in antiquity is more validated by other historical works than Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Your collective willingness to want to believe every blog post that states the contrary as an indictment against said credibility isn't proof itself. Just more fallacious consensus gentium.

Frankly, I don't have neither the time nor the willingness to dissuade you all.

Go on believing that 'any myth' from ancient antiquity can present enough evidence of its credibility when compared to what the Scriptures can support. At this point I don't care.

I made a point to talk about things that are easily verifiable on the interwebs. Your smear campaign without disputing any point of fact just makes you seem like an asshole frankly.

You can make circular arguments about what 'scripture supports' all you like. It's not even worth addressing.

[Phenomanul]

Nice wall of text that no one including myself is going to read.

Your admission of dismissiveness is ultimately why no one wants to discuss anything with you – it’s already plainly obvious that you don’t read the content of arguments anyways – admitting it, however, is just downright cynical.


Not all math is real. It's the entire point of initial premise. My point about telecom was to show that the complex plane is real and thus my topology of zero not being an endpoint. That is my premise demonstrated in reality. Now let's compare how you talk about t = 0.

I don’t know if you are trying to be disingenuous or simply don’t understand the nature of argument.

I’m not debating the merits of non-real math, or imaginary numbers. Your example, however, is from a framework where the laws of physics are still very much the governing dynamic that define the boundaries of reality. All observations, measurements, interactions of anything we do in a lab, supercolliders, or elsewhere in the real universe are governed by those laws.

We might be able to seemingly ‘bend’ one law here or there when talking about the perturbative characteristics of virtual particles/antiparticles and their interactions, or to some extent with certain fractional quantum Hall effects - but quantum effects themselves are still ultimately reined in by those laws... Hence, any mathematical construct that you are trying to employ to extrapolate the dynamics of what we observe TODAY and suggest that it is applicable to the origins period or even the Planck epoch are intrinsically untenable… (Again, another “LOL” :lmao…) Quantum fluctuations alone don’t validate the use of imaginary topology just for the sake of ‘making the math work’. The concept of these mathematical devices isn’t novel either; we’ve been using Hilbert space, for functional analysis in many other applications that are constrained by similar mathematical hurdles – understanding of course that use of the mathematical device can produce non-real solutions. The crux of my argument is that you stubbornly want to latch on to those non-real solutions seemingly to avoid the ramifications of real solutions in various cosmological models – solutions that produce the ‘singularity’ because ultimately THEY point to a finite beginning for our universe.


How do you account for quantum behavior at t= 0? That is my point about there not being a unified field theory. You talk about it in declarations as if you know what happened.

My statements are declarative statements that are trying to get you to see the bigger picture. You want to argue about the math in theoretic rhetoric. The engineer part of me, however, is trying to point out the practical implication of the math in those cosmological models – namely that if something (space time) is infinitely small to the point of being zero, THEN you essentially have ‘nothingness,’ BUT within the ‘nothingness’ you essentially have ‘everything’.

So IF our universe had a finite beginning.

THEN it follows that before the universe began you had ‘nothingness’ AND after it began you had ‘everything’. BY arguing about the undefined nature of the mathematics you’ve managed to lose sight of the bigger picture. You do so only because it suits you. You don’t want to concede any ground whatsoever. Heck, you’ve admitted you’ll likely not even reach this portion of my argument.

Again, cosmological theories that avoid a ‘beginning’ don’t jive with observations and are not based on reality, because mathematically they use devices that employ imaginary time or imaginary space BOTH which are inherently, by definition NOT REAL. If you want to add your name to the list of folks who advocate the merits of such a belief go right ahead.


You don't except to say 'it has to be God.' You ignorance does not make a case. It doesn't even have to be your God even if the rest of your argument is correct.

There is no reason to believe your Bible in anything you've said.

You all lazily rely on the “GOD of the gaps” rebuttal every time it suits your need to twist the emphasis of an argument. “GOD” isn’t the answer to the gap of my understanding of cosmology. GOD is simply an answer that works for me, due to the entirety of my life’s journey – the experiences I’ve lived and witnessed. The fact that I believe that our current understanding of cosmology also jives with certain key aspects of the origins narrative as described in Scripture doesn’t mean that YOU have to believe as much… IT just means you are still searching for your answers. That said, you don’t get to decide that your opinion (because that is what it amounts to at this juncture) is any more valid than mine.

Blake mentioned that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer for the origins question. I agree it is… only in the sense that it is an answer to the question. What I don’t believe however, is that it is an acceptable reason to fully rule out supernatural origin as many of you routinely do. Divine Creation still answers the question, not as some indecipherable gap, but as a definitive CAUSE that also satisfies the Kalam cosmological argument: “Anything which begins to exist must have a cause…. Those are the very ramifications that the atheistic ‘luminaries’ in the field of cosmology understand and try to avoid when trying to prove that the universe is somehow eternal, even while all evidence points to the contrary.

[Phenomanul]

dp

[Phenomanul]

I made a point to talk about things that are easily verifiable on the interwebs. Your smear campaign without disputing any point of fact just makes you seem like an asshole frankly.

You can make circular arguments about what 'scripture supports' all you like. It's not even worth addressing.

IF they're so easily verifiable how come you never provided any evidence...?

Subject those sites to the same level of scrutiny.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IF they're so easily verifiable how come you never provided any evidence...?

Subject those sites to the same level of scrutiny.

Still no argument on a point of fact. I wrote from memory for the most part. If you dispute any particular that would be interesting.

You've given up the topology argument completely. Before I said you lose and you said it was juvenile. Aside from your pigheadedness providing delectable irony, there are actual ways to judge an argument. One way to quickly identify the losing side are they who drop arguments. Thus, you lose.

That is your entire schtick though. Ignore most everything and instead try to reduce it down to some oversimplified construct like your t = 0 narrative. You do it in these massive walls of text too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your admission of dismissiveness is ultimately why no one wants to discuss anything with you – it’s already plainly obvious that you don’t read the content of arguments anyways – admitting it, however, is just downright cynical.



I don’t know if you are trying to be disingenuous or simply don’t understand the nature of argument.

I’m not debating the merits of non-real math, or imaginary numbers. Your example, however, is from a framework where the laws of physics are still very much the governing dynamic that define the boundaries of reality. All observations, measurements, interactions of anything we do in a lab, supercolliders, or elsewhere in the real universe are governed by those laws.

We might be able to seemingly ‘bend’ one law here or there when talking about the perturbative characteristics of virtual particles/antiparticles and their interactions, or to some extent with certain fractional quantum Hall effects - but quantum effects themselves are still ultimately reined in by those laws... Hence, any mathematical construct that you are trying to employ to extrapolate the dynamics of what we observe TODAY and suggest that it is applicable to the origins period or even the Planck epoch are intrinsically untenable… (Again, another “LOL” :lmao…) Quantum fluctuations alone don’t validate the use of imaginary topology just for the sake of ‘making the math work’. The concept of these mathematical devices isn’t novel either; we’ve been using Hilbert space, for functional analysis in many other applications that are constrained by similar mathematical hurdles – understanding of course that use of the mathematical device can produce non-real solutions. The crux of my argument is that you stubbornly want to latch on to those non-real solutions seemingly to avoid the ramifications of real solutions in various cosmological models – solutions that produce the ‘singularity’ because ultimately THEY point to a finite beginning for our universe.



My statements are declarative statements that are trying to get you to see the bigger picture. You want to argue about the math in theoretic rhetoric. The engineer part of me, however, is trying to point out the practical implication of the math in those cosmological models – namely that if something (space time) is infinitely small to the point of being zero, THEN you essentially have ‘nothingness,’ BUT within the ‘nothingness’ you essentially have ‘everything’.

So IF our universe had a finite beginning.

THEN it follows that before the universe began you had ‘nothingness’ AND after it began you had ‘everything’. BY arguing about the undefined nature of the mathematics you’ve managed to lose sight of the bigger picture. You do so only because it suits you. You don’t want to concede any ground whatsoever. Heck, you’ve admitted you’ll likely not even reach this portion of my argument.

Again, cosmological theories that avoid a ‘beginning’ don’t jive with observations and are not based on reality, because mathematically they use devices that employ imaginary time or imaginary space BOTH which are inherently, by definition NOT REAL. If you want to add your name to the list of folks who advocate the merits of such a belief go right ahead.



You all lazily rely on the “GOD of the gaps” rebuttal every time it suits your need to twist the emphasis of an argument. “GOD” isn’t the answer to the gap of my understanding of cosmology. GOD is simply an answer that works for me, due to the entirety of my life’s journey – the experiences I’ve lived and witnessed. The fact that I believe that our current understanding of cosmology also jives with certain key aspects of the origins narrative as described in Scripture doesn’t mean that YOU have to believe as much… IT just means you are still searching for your answers. That said, you don’t get to decide that your opinion (because that is what it amounts to at this juncture) is any more valid than mine.

Blake mentioned that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer for the origins question. I agree it is… only in the sense that it is an answer to the question. What I don’t believe however, is that it is an acceptable reason to fully rule out supernatural origin as many of you routinely do. Divine Creation still answers the question, not as some indecipherable gap, but as a definitive CAUSE that also satisfies the Kalam cosmological argument: “Anything which begins to exist must have a cause…. Those are the very ramifications that the atheistic ‘luminaries’ in the field of cosmology understand and try to avoid when trying to prove that the universe is somehow eternal, even while all evidence points to the contrary.

You say absolutely nothing. Signals and stochastics are what they are. Empirically proven to match with reality. Your Newtonian construct of before and after is meaningless. You don't have a physics degree or whatever you claim this time. Your level and sophistry are apparent.

You have no credibility.

[RandomGuy]

https://herbertblaser.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/10338341_10153206008774110_2652921356560496413_n-1.jpg


Except that Scripture doesn't ever claim that the Sun revolves around the earth...

There are a few people who would disagree with that interpretation.

You can find them on youtube, if you wish.

I would guess Cardinal Bellarmine and others felt they had some basis.

The only real relevance to the discussion is to point out the implications of relying on an old book to give you the truth.

That's why I don't play the "context" game. Either the bible says slavery is evil or it doesn't.

Your problem is that it doesn't. You can interpret all the context you want, and that doesn't change.

[RandomGuy]

:lol The contradictions are all yours though.... You keep wanting to suggest that a Supernatural being MUST obey the natural laws. THAT is a contradictory requisite. You again want to define the framework in a way that constrains GOD to make "natural" sense.

He's Omnipresent in the sense that He can be anywhere or everywhere He chooses to be. And since He isn't constrained by natural laws HE CAN BE.


You missed the point altogether.

Atheists can't claim scientific validation to their disbelief. THAT was my point.

IF they want to say they don't believe. Fine. But they can't then turn around and in the very same breath say that their disbelief is scientifically supported. The two statements are incongruous.



Um, not quite.

For the umpteenth time. My belief in GOD has nothing to do with my academic understanding of our world. What's ignorant is your incessant arrogance to suggest that a belief system can only be built on scientific truths alone. Science is not the only revealer of truth.

I applaud efforts to keep searching for the truth. That's how we got to the point where we observed that our universe in fact began...

But ultimately, my belief in GOD is rooted far deeper. It means nothing to you, because you don't walk in my shoes. You haven't seen, heard, or experienced the things that I have... None of those things would sway you anyways, AND they don't have to... They're my experiences alone.


"I got up during the middle of class one day, and without telling anyone, I started to walk home — which was about five miles away — and I felt that the houses were starting to communicate with me and that they were sending me messages... Accompanying this were feelings of intense loathing and fear."
Full context for quote here. (http://io9.gizmodo.com/5983970/im-elyn-saks-and-this-is-what-its-like-to-live-with-schizophrenia)


Your personal experience is not really a good reason for me to accept something as true. If houses can communicate with people then we can test that.

But if you want to play the "supernatural" game we can do that too. It will lead, yet again, to conclusions you don't like.

How do you know "God is supernatural"?

[Blake]

Except that Scripture doesn't ever claim that the Sun revolves around the earth...

Yeah but creating heavens and earth in 6 days is good enough to lol.

[RandomGuy]

Just in case it got missed, let's go down the other line of reasoning, to yet another uncomfortable conclusion for you.


You didn't understand the nature of my statement.

HOW do you want me to prove any of my arguments if you are dismissing the context of the very Scriptures which provide the basis for my belief?

Whatever I say of original sin for example is addressed in Scripture. The concept and therefore the answer to any question of original sin ARE addressed there.

But not for you.

You've tossed it out from the get-go...

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

It gets tossed because it is unverifiable, and indistinguishable from any other book with self-proclaimed truth.

Show me how sin makes me mortal. This is a pretty testable claim.

First let's define terms.

Define "sin".


edit:


Going to be hard to get out of this one:


You don't understand what 'original sin' means. It means our physical bodies have been tarnished by the effects of sin. They are no longer pure. We must die because of original sin. Were it not for the disobedience of Adam and Eve, our physical lives could have been immortal. Entropy exists because of the introduction of sin into our world.

This is where the "supernatural" schtick begins to breakdown.


Your "supernatural" claim becomes measurable and testable when "supernatural" starts having effects on the natural.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah but creating heavens and earth in 6 days is good enough to lol.

Nah, talking snakes.

Although you, me, Phenomanul , and FuzzyLumpkins can all agree this is funny:

http://christianfunnypictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/young-2Bjesus-2Bat-2Bbath-2Btime.jpg

[Blake]

Blake*mentioned that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer for the origins question. I agree it is… only in the sense that it is an answer to the question. What I don’t believe however, is that it is an acceptable reason to fully rule out supernatural origin as many of you routinely do. Divine Creation still answers the question, not as some indecipherable gap, but as a definitive CAUSE.......

Bible God is getting ruled out.

[RandomGuy]

Just the convenience of somehow wanting JESUS to explicitly state anything in a certain manner for the sake of your argument.

HE said it plenty. You've skirted the question on 4 occasions now.

How can anyone possibly be a cruel slave master IF:

They love their neighbor as thyself.

or

They treat others the way they would like to be treated themselves.

THE ANSWER which you've clearly avoided is that they wouldn't be.

I haven't skirted it at all. I readily admit that you can interpret anything you want to on whatever passage you want to.

Interpretation is a huge problem for your belief system, as already noted.


Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.

Brinton, author of “Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation and Contemporary Christian Conflicts,” says both the Union and the Confederacy invoked the Bible to justify their positions on slavery.

Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible, Brinton says.

They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).

The more clear a passage is about it intentions, the less room there is for interpretation, because interpretations can be incorrect. This is a good reason to reject vagueness, and why science strives for specificity.

[Blake]

The odd thing is that when in comes to the merits of proving the credibility of Scripture you have thrown a gauntlet of 'burden of proof' that becomes almost unreasonable for ANY book in antiquity.
Heck, you all gobbled up Fuzzy's assertions without a single shred of evidence. Why...? Because, ultimately you all don't want to validate a book which contains a message you plainly reject.

Lol unreasonable. Poor phenomanul can't prove bible god is real. :depressed

It's true tho that I do reject the bible's message to kill the gays and be obedient slaves

[Phenomanul]

Yeah but creating heavens and earth in 6 days is good enough to lol.

Kinda the definition of 'Supernatural'...

[Phenomanul]

You say absolutely nothing. Signals and stochastics are what they are. Empirically proven to match with reality.

I’m not arguing against signals and stochastics. Or about your experience in telecom – your continued attempt at ‘sleight of hand’ noted.

I’m arguing against the premise that your ‘telecom observations’ apply to a period that they, BY DEFINITION cannot be applied to (especially when you imply values of time < zero). You bring up stochastics - which when applied to cosmology inherently try to ‘make sense’ of the vastness of the cosmological fields by reducing several of the asymptotic tensors to usable terms using deterministic methods and probabilities (random even). Stochastic processes are intrinsically mathematical tools, and while most modern cosmological models are generated by said methods – cosmological solutions, however, are still very real, the parameters are still very real: time remains a discrete term, the cosmological constant remains a discrete term, critical energies remain discrete terms, etc… yet you keep wanting to justify imaginary solutions for cosmological models as valid answers – at their most critical point, no less (t=0). The use of stochastics in other applied fields is not the same as using stochastics in cosmology where over 46 physical constants must be satisfied.

It’s worse than backpedaling when you keep trying to state the same thing over and over again, after being told of its absurdness.


Your Newtonian construct of before and after is meaningless.

Newtonian construct...??? You must be out of your damn mind.

Transfinite arithmetic leads to inherent contradictions which is why physicists are generally forbidden from using it. In math, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However – and here’s the point – it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world....

The universe indicates a finite beginning because it has one; that the mathematical expressions for the various cosmological models currently fail to ‘unify everything,’ including some discrete quantum effects and other phenomena is irrelevant in light of the fact that a beginning IS still indicated by most of the models. In fact, the finiteness of the cosmological constant itself appears to be a necessary condition for the stability of models which undergo an exponentially expanding state (as currently observed in our universe). The finiteness of the cosmological constant, in turn, is dependent of the finiteness of time. So again, a “t=0 premise” is completely defensible because one can’t assume an infinite number of past events for time, and then traversing the infinite to get to the moment of the big bang singularity. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all of the negative numbers to arrive at zero, the ‘origins moment’... Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that mathematical reason alone physicists can conclude that there must have been a beginning to the universe. So IF time marks the beginning (i.e. time began), and IF one can’t traverse an infinite past to get to point zero THEN the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

In the big picture: Nothing……….. “BOOM”…… Everything. You wanting to believe the ‘unreal’ nature of other models for the sake of avoiding that ramification is your prerogative alone but ultimately why we don’t see eye to eye on the viability of solutions.


You don't have a physics degree or whatever you claim this time. Your level and sophistry are apparent.

You have no credibility.

LOL

Who are you trying to convince..?? Yourself? The delusion that you have to gauge your intelligence against anyone else’s on this board only speaks to your own insecurities.

AND I don’t have to show you anything. The last time I listed my degrees on this forum (over 10 years ago) I was lambasted and accused of trying to ‘show off,’ of being ‘arrogant’. Again, no matter what I do… you all criticize it as ‘wrong’. The hate will keep coming simply because you all don’t agree with my beliefs. Just imagine… Since that time frame I’ve added three more degrees to my wall – 2 in the last year alone.

What’s annoying is that you all get so caught up on semantics and harp on my word choices (neglecting the arguments themselves) – but English was not even my primary language as I didn’t start learning it until the age of 12.


You've given up the topology argument completely. Before I said you lose and you said it was juvenile. Aside from your pigheadedness providing delectable irony, there are actual ways to judge an argument. One way to quickly identify the losing side are they who drop arguments. Thus, you lose..

What part of “I’ll be back Monday” was difficult for you to understand….? I have really busy work days on most days. It’s rare when I can multitask and weave in forum participation. Unlike you, I’m also trying to address like 5 other simultaneous posts that are lost in the flow of any semblance of true discourse... You have it easy. You can focus all of your brain power on having to counter-address only my posts… Unfortunately for you, your rebuttals never amount to nothing more than your opinions and assertions, or get this, fallacious comparisons (i.e.” telecom observations apply to the framework of the big bang singularity”). That you keep pressing with said argument is still laughable.

You keep saying your argument is correct, but FUNDAMENTALLY it is WRONG.


That is your entire schtick though. Ignore most everything and instead try to reduce it down to some oversimplified construct like your t = 0 narrative. You do it in these massive walls of text too.

And your schtick is claiming to be smarter than anyone else to the point of smug and cynical dismissiveness.

How else do you want me to talk about cosmology if you also want me to reduce my responses down to one liners? You can’t have it both ways. Some concepts in cosmology – the whole point of stochastics actually – need to be framed in relatively simplified constructs (expressions) to be described at all in a practical sense.

[Phenomanul]

There are a few people who would disagree with that interpretation.

You can find them on youtube, if you wish.

I would guess Cardinal Bellarmine and others felt they had some basis.

The only real relevance to the discussion is to point out the implications of relying on an old book to give you the truth.

That's why I don't play the "context" game. Either the bible says slavery is evil or it doesn't.

Your problem is that it doesn't. You can interpret all the context you want, and that doesn't change.

So wait...? You say that the JESUS endorses slavery because HE never explicitly condemns it, but then you also say that the bible endorses the concept that the Sun revolves around the earth even though it's not explicitly stated?

The context you wish to apply for the latter has to be twisted to even fit.

The context for the former doesn't. JESUS said, "LOVE your neighbor as thyself" / "Treat others in a manner as you would also like to be treated" (which is not consistent with the endorsement of slavery).

YES context is important. But so is intent.

[Phenomanul]

Full context for quote here. (http://io9.gizmodo.com/5983970/im-elyn-saks-and-this-is-what-its-like-to-live-with-schizophrenia)


Your personal experience is not really a good reason for me to accept something as true. If houses can communicate with people then we can test that.

But if you want to play the "supernatural" game we can do that too. It will lead, yet again, to conclusions you don't like.

How do you know "God is supernatural"?

For someone that likes to accuse others of sophism you sure do rely on it much.

I'm not suggesting my own personal experience has to convince you of anything. Again though, why insist that science be the only revealer of truth..?

Also, the supernatural is by definition an 'untestable premise' for the scientific toolset.

[Phenomanul]

Just in case it got missed, let's go down the other line of reasoning, to yet another uncomfortable conclusion for you.



That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

It gets tossed because it is unverifiable, and indistinguishable from any other book with self-proclaimed truth.

Show me how sin makes me mortal. This is a pretty testable claim.

First let's define terms.

Define "sin".


edit:


Going to be hard to get out of this one:



This is where the "supernatural" schtick begins to breakdown.


Your "supernatural" claim becomes measurable and testable when "supernatural" starts having effects on the natural.

I'll have to address this post later in the week or perhaps not til the weekend RG.

[Th'Pusher]

"LOVE your neighbor as thyself" / "Treat others in a manner as you would also like to be treated" (which is not consistent with the endorsement of slavery).



These statements are perfectly consistent with an endorsement of slavery if you consider slaves as property.

[Phenomanul]

So you would treat others as property if you want to be treated as property yourself...? It's quite the stretch.

[Th'Pusher]

So you would treat others as property if you want to be treated as property yourself...? It's quite the stretch.

Slaves aren't others. Slaves are property and I can treat my own property however I want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I’m not arguing against signals and stochastics. Or about your experience in telecom – your continued attempt at ‘sleight of hand’ noted.

I’m arguing against the premise that your ‘telecom observations’ apply to a period that they, BY DEFINITION cannot be applied to (especially when you imply values of time < zero). You bring up stochastics - which when applied to cosmology inherently try to ‘make sense’ of the vastness of the cosmological fields by reducing several of the asymptotic tensors to usable terms using deterministic methods and probabilities (random even). Stochastic processes are intrinsically mathematical tools, and while most modern cosmological models are generated by said methods – cosmological solutions, however, are still very real, the parameters are still very real: time remains a discrete term, the cosmological constant remains a discrete term, critical energies remain discrete terms, etc… yet you keep wanting to justify imaginary solutions for cosmological models as valid answers – at their most critical point, no less (t=0). The use of stochastics in other applied fields is not the same as using stochastics in cosmology where over 46 physical constants must be satisfied.

It’s worse than backpedaling when you keep trying to state the same thing over and over again, after being told of its absurdness.



Newtonian construct...??? You must be out of your damn mind.

Transfinite arithmetic leads to inherent contradictions which is why physicists are generally forbidden from using it. In math, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However – and here’s the point – it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world....

The universe indicates a finite beginning because it has one; that the mathematical expressions for the various cosmological models currently fail to ‘unify everything,’ including some discrete quantum effects and other phenomena is irrelevant in light of the fact that a beginning IS still indicated by most of the models. In fact, the finiteness of the cosmological constant itself appears to be a necessary condition for the stability of models which undergo an exponentially expanding state (as currently observed in our universe). The finiteness of the cosmological constant, in turn, is dependent of the finiteness of time. So again, a “t=0 premise” is completely defensible because one can’t assume an infinite number of past events for time, and then traversing the infinite to get to the moment of the big bang singularity. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all of the negative numbers to arrive at zero, the ‘origins moment’... Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that mathematical reason alone physicists can conclude that there must have been a beginning to the universe. So IF time marks the beginning (i.e. time began), and IF one can’t traverse an infinite past to get to point zero THEN the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

In the big picture: Nothing……….. “BOOM”…… Everything. You wanting to believe the ‘unreal’ nature of other models for the sake of avoiding that ramification is your prerogative alone but ultimately why we don’t see eye to eye on the viability of solutions.



LOL

Who are you trying to convince..?? Yourself? The delusion that you have to gauge your intelligence against anyone else’s on this board only speaks to your own insecurities.

AND I don’t have to show you anything. The last time I listed my degrees on this forum (over 10 years ago) I was lambasted and accused of trying to ‘show off,’ of being ‘arrogant’. Again, no matter what I do… you all criticize it as ‘wrong’. The hate will keep coming simply because you all don’t agree with my beliefs. Just imagine… Since that time frame I’ve added three more degrees to my wall – 2 in the last year alone.

What’s annoying is that you all get so caught up on semantics and harp on my word choices (neglecting the arguments themselves) – but English was not even my primary language as I didn’t start learning it until the age of 12.



What part of “I’ll be back Monday” was difficult for you to understand….? I have really busy work days on most days. It’s rare when I can multitask and weave in forum participation. Unlike you, I’m also trying to address like 5 other simultaneous posts that are lost in the flow of any semblance of true discourse... You have it easy. You can focus all of your brain power on having to counter-address only my posts… Unfortunately for you, your rebuttals never amount to nothing more than your opinions and assertions, or get this, fallacious comparisons (i.e.” telecom observations apply to the framework of the big bang singularity”). That you keep pressing with said argument is still laughable.

You keep saying your argument is correct, but FUNDAMENTALLY it is WRONG.



And your schtick is claiming to be smarter than anyone else to the point of smug and cynical dismissiveness.

How else do you want me to talk about cosmology if you also want me to reduce my responses down to one liners? You can’t have it both ways. Some concepts in cosmology – the whole point of stochastics actually – need to be framed in relatively simplified constructs (expressions) to be described at all in a practical sense.

So you google them and describe them as tools trying to demonstrate you can address what I am talking about. You at some point going to try and address what I am talking about the topology of zero as not an endpoint, the transverse axis along the complex conjugate? Modern real constructs are built on said principles.

The universe indicates at least one apparent beginning due to the expansion pattern we can observe. There is no direct evidence to even the very best singularity theorem and they still do not know how to account for the quantum effect because the mechanics are not yet defined.

Time is not discrete particularly at those types of extremes for your creation story. Einstein's relativity of time is what it is. You can keep on insisting on your Newtonian construct to describe reality at those conditions but that debate was settled a century ago. Descartes coordinates from a source are more intuitive to reality. Euler did that much better with his complex analysis and actually matches all observations. All are real and fundamental.

All you are doing is trying to justify your creation story for your magic sky person. It's been very common throughout history to attribute the unknown to their God.

My schtick is that I am smarter than you. That is it. Your compensation are these walls of texts. Your schtick is to get people to talk to you however you can.

[Blake]

Kinda the definition of 'Supernatural'...

Yeah like Zeus and Santa Claus

[boutons_deux]

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned
to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike
up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replid to the total
stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God,
or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask
you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same
stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns
out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence,
thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which
the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss
God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IF they're so easily verifiable how come you never provided any evidence...?

Subject those sites to the same level of scrutiny.

I don't feel the need to cite my claim that Constantine ordered the councils that chose the books to put in what became known as the Bible. I don't feel the need to cite that he did it as part of declaring his state religion.

Anyone can google Constantine and check for themselves. We also both know if you could dispute a point of fact you would go reductio ad absurdum and try to make it all about my mistake.

If you want to believe that book is binding then go ahead.

[Phenomanul]

So you google them and describe them as tools trying to demonstrate you can address what I am talking about. You at some point going to try and address what I am talking about the topology of zero as not an endpoint, the transverse axis along the complex conjugate? Modern real constructs are built on said principles.

The universe indicates at least one apparent beginning due to the expansion pattern we can observe. There is no direct evidence to even the very best singularity theorem and they still do not know how to account for the quantum effect because the mechanics are not yet defined.

Time is not discrete particularly at those types of extremes for your creation story. Einstein's relativity of time is what it is. You can keep on insisting on your Newtonian construct to describe reality at those conditions but that debate was settled a century ago. Descartes coordinates from a source are more intuitive to reality. Euler did that much better with his complex analysis and actually matches all observations. All are real and fundamental.

All you are doing is trying to justify your creation story for your magic sky person. It's been very common throughout history to attribute the unknown to their God.

My schtick is that I am smarter than you. That is it. Your compensation are these walls of texts. Your schtick is to get people to talk to you however you can.

Euler himself was a devout Christian, perhaps the greatest mathematician ever... to use his methods to suggest that you can claim an imaginary or a non-real beginning to this universe is laughable. In the bigger picture that's what all of your fuss is about. You wanting to avoid the ramifications of a finite, discrete beginning. The worse part is that you keep insisting on obfuscating the larger issue with irrelevant minutiae (that are inherent to the complexity of cosmology) as if somehow your side-bar tangents with the mention of said complexity validates your position. It doesn't. It's a ploy that might work in your dealings with other folks, "razzle and dazzle" with buzzwords.... but it doesn't work on me.

If I have to re-explain your own terms to you it's because you insist on misapplying them.

What part of "your observations from telecom cannot be fully applied to a period when all physical laws break down..." don't you understand???

I did not realize your lab could generate temperatures to replicate the Planck epoch (over a billion degrees Kelvin). Much less the higher temperatures required to simulate a closer approximation to the singularity itself. :rolleyes

It's absurd.

It's idiotic.

Yet you insist.

I'll keep it short so that you quit trying to dodge it, in your 'supreme' intelligence. :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Phenomanul]

I don't feel the need to cite my claim that Constantine ordered the councils that chose the books to put in what became known as the Bible. I don't feel the need to cite that he did it as part of declaring his state religion.

Anyone can google Constantine and check for themselves. We also both know if you could dispute a point of fact you would go reductio ad absurdum and try to make it all about my mistake.

If you want to believe that book is binding then go ahead.

Those two statements are verifiable. I don’t have a beef with either of them. They, however, were not the speculative assertions that I was arguing with you about over the course of the thread. More sleight of hand on your part. That’s your shtick…

You implied that ‘Constantine and his cronies’ tampered with pre-existing 1st writings to change the overall gospel message. That Constantine reinvented JESUS; his deity.

You later backpedaled when I pointed out that belief in JESUS' deity pre-dated the 4th century… “well… yes, yes… but Constantine made that the ONLY official belief…” Good grief.


You still have not shown the gospels or the writings of 'Paul' from before the 4th century.
I pointed to 48 different manuscripts that exist in collections all over the world, which of course you rejected.


as if that invalidates my point that Constantine and his cronies embellished and excluded when he made the Bible.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… embellished how? Where? To what extent? Proof?


I just think the contrivances like the genealogy that the NT starts with are obvious. The context is the actual story of what jesus did without the miracles and who Constantine was and his background over 3.5 centuries later.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… who contrived the genealogy? When (what year)? Proof?



(1) Constantine made christianity into his own image. :lol the first few chapters of the NT.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part and some added dismissiveness for emphasis… it’s an opinion. Nothing more. Proof?



(2) Joseph was a refugee from Herod. [prior to jesus’ birth]
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Per scripture Joseph was indeed fleeing from Herod, not because he was a political refugee but because Herod wanted to kill all infants in Bethlehem...



(3) Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?



(4) Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Joseph was a carpenter by trade, not a Pharisee…



(5) He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS wasn’t a disciple of John the Baptist… [LOL re-writing the entire gospel narrative in a manner that suits your phony allegations…]



(6) When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Jesus fled?



I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.
Another assertion (I don’t dislike you – I find you annoying)… this one alleging to describe my motives. And I would hardly call your methods ‘reasonable’; they’re dishonest and morally bankrupt .



(7) When Christianity is termed a slave's religion, I mean it literally. [I translate most of the OT in terms of former Egyptian slaves and the slavemaster dynamic that we know existed in Ptolemaic Egypt from which they escaped.]
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Here you are throwing all of Judaism away basically saying Moses made up the Torah.



(8) Jesus overturns dovecotes and harrangues the pharisees practicing leviticus for demanding sacrifice for salvation.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS fought the established religious authorities of His day because of their inherent hypocrisy… because of their lack of understanding of the scriptures themselves….



(9) You do understand that your Holy Book was put together by men named Constantine, Cyril, and Nestor? Your God did not make that book. Men did.
This is closer to your initial statement in the post above. It could do without the smugness. But the assertion that ‘compiling works’ and ‘making a book’ is the same as ‘reinventing’ it…well, that right there is the unsubstantiated lie...



(10) That is what gave the pharisees probable cause with the romans to go after Jesus. [overturn the dovecotes and moneychangers table]
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?



(11)It's Roman property law over wrecking the temple that sees him crucified.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Scripture specifically says that [I]“no one could accuse JESUS of any wrongdoing”.



(12) That is the story that took over the mediterranean. That and him telling everyone to give up judgment and find absolution through him.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? A belief system spreads over the Mediterranean even though said beliefs were subject to penalty of death and persecution? Doesn’t really sound convincing unless there was more to said beliefs - your trite oversimplification, notwithstanding.



(13) Then they had the second council where they took the torah, the gospels. a bunch of sales guides from early church leaders whose opinions the Romans liked which are no more valid then what you and I are talking about today then the prophecy that predicted Jesus appearance to corroborate the stuff in John and called it the word of God.
A slew of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof? LOL “sales guides”



(14) Much of the New Testament is so contrived as to be upsetting. The genealogy it starts off with irritates me from the go. For the Jesus story to make any sense, he has to be a bastard outside the social order of Nazareth. If he's not then he is the son of a builder and goes to work with his father. His disdain for the pharisees actually makes sense if that geneology is not true. Nevermind that God was the one it says knocked up Mary to gloss over any uncertainty.
Another set of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof?

At which point the allegation that the NT message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. Again, why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the Gospel message in higher regard? Because it suits you. It’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. Your only ‘evidences’ are vague references to documents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said documents.

And yet you portend to speak of credibility.

[Blake]

It's a ploy that might work in your dealings with other folks, "razzle and dazzle" with buzzwords.... but it doesn't work on me.*

Lol

[Blake]

Those two statements are verifiable. I don’t have a beef with either of them. They, however, were not the speculative assertions that I was arguing with you about over the course of the thread. More sleight of hand on your part. That’s your shtick…

You implied that ‘Constantine and his cronies’ tampered with pre-existing 1st writings to change the overall gospel message. That Constantine reinvented JESUS; his deity.

You later backpedaled when I pointed out that belief in JESUS' deity pre-dated the 4th century… “well… yes, yes… but Constantine made that the ONLY official belief…” Good grief.


I pointed to 48 different manuscripts that exist in collections all over the world, which of course you rejected.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… embellished how? Where? To what extent? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… who contrived the genealogy? When (what year)? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part and some added dismissiveness for emphasis… it’s an opinion. Nothing more. Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Per scripture Joseph was indeed fleeing from Herod, not because he was a political refugee but because Herod wanted to kill all infants in Bethlehem...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Joseph was a carpenter by trade, not a Pharisee…


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS wasn’t a disciple of John the Baptist… [LOL re-writing the entire gospel narrative in a manner that suits your phony allegations…]


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Jesus fled?


Another assertion (I don’t dislike you – I find you annoying)… this one alleging to describe my motives. And I would hardly call your methods ‘reasonable’; they’re dishonest and morally bankrupt .


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Here you are throwing all of Judaism away basically saying Moses made up the Torah.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS fought the established religious authorities of His day because of their inherent hypocrisy… because of their lack of understanding of the scriptures themselves….


This is closer to your initial statement in the post above. It could do without the smugness. But the assertion that ‘compiling works’ and ‘making a book’ is the same as ‘reinventing’ it…well, that right there is the unsubstantiated lie...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Scripture specifically says that [I]“no one could accuse JESUS of any wrongdoing”.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? A belief system spreads over the Mediterranean even though said beliefs were subject to penalty of death and persecution? Doesn’t really sound convincing unless there was more to said beliefs - your trite oversimplification, notwithstanding.


A slew of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof? LOL “sales guides”


Another set of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof?

At which point the allegation that the NT message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. Again, why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the Gospel message in higher regard? Because it suits you. It’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. Your only ‘evidences’ are vague references to documents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said documents.

And yet you portend to speak of credibility.

Any proof of Jesus walking on water?

[Phenomanul]

Slaves aren't others. Slaves are property and I can treat my own property however I want.

Talk about a semantical dodge.

It's a shame JESUS didn't overthrow the Roman empire to drive that point home. :rolleyes...

[Phenomanul]

Any proof of Jesus walking on water?

You're missing the point. Typical sophist.

Fuzzy is crying that somehow I misrepresented his position. That the counter-narrative he's stated against scriptural credibility is backed by mountains of evidence he's not presenting but "readily available".

His counter narrative is comprised of unsubstantiated allegations... I just rounded them up for him.

You come in saying... "ooooh ooooh ooooh but prove that Jesus walked on water".

That's not my argument at all.

I've told you (repeatedly at this juncture) that I believe the credibility of Scripture on grounds of faith. I do believe its legitimacy and authenticity as a volume of works from ancient antiquity. I believe in the authenticity of NT as providing first hand narratives detailing the life of JESUS. That said, I don't have to prove its content. That's a wholly different battle.

But thanks for jumping in all out of context, like always.

[Phenomanul]

Later peeps.

[Blake]

You're missing the point. Typical sophist.

Fuzzy is crying that somehow I misrepresented his position. That the counter-narrative he's stated against scriptural credibility is backed by mountains of evidence he's not presenting but "readily available".

His counter narrative is comprised of unsubstantiated allegations... I just rounded them up for him.

You come in saying... "ooooh ooooh ooooh but prove that Jesus walked on water".

That's not my argument at all.

I've told you (repeatedly at this juncture) that I believe the credibility of Scripture on grounds of faith. I do believe its legitimacy and authenticity as a volume of works from ancient antiquity. I believe in the authenticity of NT as providing first hand narratives detailing the life of JESUS. That said, I don't have to prove its content. That's a wholly different battle.

But thanks for jumping in all out of context, like always.

I don't really care what your trivial point is. The ultimate point is that it's all on you to validate bible god's existence.

Bible god just does not get to be talked about regarding origins of the universe. Tough shit.

[Blake]

Later peeps.

Tell god to text me. I lost some keys and I need him to find them

[I. Hustle]

You have to prove yourself to me and Blake. We don't care what your beliefs are or respect them. We will continue to belittle you and mock your beliefs because they conflict with our views!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those two statements are verifiable. I don’t have a beef with either of them. They, however, were not the speculative assertions that I was arguing with you about over the course of the thread. More sleight of hand on your part. That’s your shtick…

You implied that ‘Constantine and his cronies’ tampered with pre-existing 1st writings to change the overall gospel message. That Constantine reinvented JESUS; his deity.

You later backpedaled when I pointed out that belief in JESUS' deity pre-dated the 4th century… “well… yes, yes… but Constantine made that the ONLY official belief…” Good grief.


I pointed to 48 different manuscripts that exist in collections all over the world, which of course you rejected.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… embellished how? Where? To what extent? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… who contrived the genealogy? When (what year)? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part and some added dismissiveness for emphasis… it’s an opinion. Nothing more. Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Per scripture Joseph was indeed fleeing from Herod, not because he was a political refugee but because Herod wanted to kill all infants in Bethlehem...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Joseph was a carpenter by trade, not a Pharisee…


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS wasn’t a disciple of John the Baptist… [LOL re-writing the entire gospel narrative in a manner that suits your phony allegations…]


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Jesus fled?


Another assertion (I don’t dislike you – I find you annoying)… this one alleging to describe my motives. And I would hardly call your methods ‘reasonable’; they’re dishonest and morally bankrupt .


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Here you are throwing all of Judaism away basically saying Moses made up the Torah.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS fought the established religious authorities of His day because of their inherent hypocrisy… because of their lack of understanding of the scriptures themselves….


This is closer to your initial statement in the post above. It could do without the smugness. But the assertion that ‘compiling works’ and ‘making a book’ is the same as ‘reinventing’ it…well, that right there is the unsubstantiated lie...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Scripture specifically says that [I]“no one could accuse JESUS of any wrongdoing”.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? A belief system spreads over the Mediterranean even though said beliefs were subject to penalty of death and persecution? Doesn’t really sound convincing unless there was more to said beliefs - your trite oversimplification, notwithstanding.


A slew of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof? LOL “sales guides”


Another set of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof?

At which point the allegation that the NT message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. Again, why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the Gospel message in higher regard? Because it suits you. It’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. Your only ‘evidences’ are vague references to documents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said documents.

And yet you portend to speak of credibility.

TLDR.

You proved that they did when you brought up the Chronicle of Nicodemus. Remember the 2nd century complaining about all the blasphemy and it not appearing in the stuff out of Nicaea?

You argued no point of fact there either. Just demand citation.

My point about Roman property law comes from reading Summa Theologica. In it Aquinas talks about his stance of God's law and natural law. In it he pulls the Pandect which is Justinian's legal journal. From there I pulled what are known as the Twelve Tablets from Roman law which were from antiquity.

Here is the actual statute. When Jesus destroyed Temple property he incurred a debt.


"When a debt has been acknowledged or a judgment has been pronounced in court, 30 days must be the legitimate grace period. Thereafter, arrest of the debtor may be made by the laying on of hands. Bring him into court. If he does not satisfy the judgment (or no one in court offers himself as surety on his behalf) the creditor may take the debtor with him. He may bind him either in stocks or fetters, with a weight of no less than 15 lbs. (or more if he desires)." [After 60 days in custody, the case is returned to the court, and if the debt is not then paid, the debtor can be sold abroad as a slave, or put to death.]

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/12tables.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Think of the term ball and chain. Ultimately fettering him with the instrument of execution was the final act. Think Jesus carrying his cross up the hill.

Also look at the time periods involved. Think about how people act and realize that his is a time before radio, television, film, or literature. The movement was already in Judea and Galilee. People would have talked about it incessantly. Jesus followers included people with boats. They ritually bathed after all.

The scene with his family and followers would have been recorded by the prelate. We come back to the whole Pilate discussion where the church very obviously fucked with the documents.

Roman law and traditions changed significantly following the crucifixion. All free people in the empire became citizens. Augustine was a beneficiary of said change.

[Blake]

You have to prove yourself to me and Blake. We don't care what your beliefs are or respect them. We will continue to belittle you and mock your beliefs because they conflict with our views!!!

So you showed up on page 12 just to mock and run. That's cool.

[I. Hustle]

So you showed up on page 12 just to mock and run. That's cool.

Thanks, amigo. You know how we do. We be slayin' them left and right. Hustle and Blake. Shake and Bake.

[Blake]

Thanks, amigo. You know how we do. We be slayin' them left and right. Hustle and Blake. Shake and Bake.

You're an idiot

[I. Hustle]

You're an idiot

And you're a moron.

I love the way we banter back and forth. Are you going to be at the meeting tonight? I'm bringing hot wings.

Shake and Bake!

[Blake]

Your shtick is idiotic too. The concerted effort to go after me is kinda amusing tho