Total posts: 12
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Abrahamic faiths neither outbreed, nor overpowered them by great force. Quite simply, they outlived their competition/captors, and made themselves an ernest labor force. They're the working class religions, paving roads and laying brick. They excelled at masonry, carpentry, farming, medicine, record keeping, law, money lending, all through a curious exchange of religions cultural tendencies, for enslavement to history's worst oppressors. The Jews have proven countless times that the designated scapegoat will survive in the end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists lack a belief in a specific GOD.....Which doesn't mean that they cannot assume a purpose in material existence.....People that assume a purposeless existence are usually referred to as nihilists.I just utilise the well known term "GOD" , which I assume represents a purpose....
Though I chose to believe in a little deeper meaning in God, I strongly support this viewpoint. Surely there must be a rational notation for God, as a quantum concept even. If there isn't, I demand a scientific symbol for BOB!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks! Glad to be here ☺️
Also:
Nah, because if you believe in a "true god" then you are begging the question, which is a fallacy, your hidden argument behind your poorly structured word salad is amusing but not very compelling unless you already agree
Perhaps in a modern context. Don't forget that in an ancient world, where "gods" were born and died practically every day. Empires came, conquered, and died under genuinely fake gods... and most of them had a turn at enslaving the Jews, and then the early Christians. The concept a "true and lasting God" might have been a big deal. The verbiage would carry our of reverence, tradition, and legitimate track record. One of many possible explanations.
And also consider:
"if you know that the false God is false then everything will be false. Because then you will have false love and a false life... So everything then is false for you even when you think are false but you must be false to yourself for everything to be false as well..."
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Trust me on this, he was going to win the Battle of Waterloo had a certain Illuminati family not gotten involved. Do the research and you'll know, I won't name names.
Is it a troll slaying family? Is that why you're afraid to invoke them?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I call Napoleon more of a second Caesar than a proto-Hitler although there are inevitable parallels.
So like... 1.5 or 2.5 Reich?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
This holds a scary amount of truth if you replace the word "true" with "false"...
Side note, I thought this was an Eiffel 65 reference at first. I apologize for not giving you enough credit...
even your car will be a true camry. So everything then is true...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Are we time creatures presently, because there's death? Man may think in the past present and future, but we also ponder a whole lot about eternity, and faith is an eternal venture because it deals with the afterlife. Wouldn't this equate to us being eternal as well?
This is a pretty valid question. Our presence and perception is planted in a "now" and propelled forward. But you're free to conceive all temporal states and eternity as a whole via recollection and reckoning. So where does your "soul live"? If it-- the actual you-- lives in an eternal state... It must be already/eternally saved, yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
This seems like a Schrodinger's cat situation. You can conclude that God always knows the status of your salvation and gives you everything to obtain it. You are in equal danger of being saved AND not saved, not "or". The spirit- logical conclusion is to maintain faith, and proceed forward in life cautiously and righteously as possible... Kinda like what the book said to do!
A logic problem that's actually a map, leading God's children back to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As things stand "Christianity" is just a club based upon one creation hypothesis....And the club book has yet to be verified.....
It would be more accurate to say a collection of clubs with a collection of books of varying editions and translations and a career total fan base that surely must be in trillions by now... And growing....
If you've ever been a part of a club with devoted members, you'll know that all these are crucial elements for insuring generations disjointed doctrine. "Sorry Dad, I kinda like episode 2&3. Can we just not talk about the last one and eat dinner?" To be fair, what kind of thousand year logistics were we expecting when the original authors (aside from God) were stone/iron age working class slaves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@Checkmate
If you think about science and it’s origin, you can conclude that all science is observable in nature. Gravity is observable through day to day observation.
Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable.
We can't forget that there is no "observable insurance" that isn't actually a vast collection of data points. We must perceive through the passage of time; this is relativity. You're day-to-day is many days. Though it seems instantaneous, you actually have to release the apple, and then wait for the moments when it is falling to observe gravity.
In the scope of time without relativity (and presumably the divine), there is little difference between 2 seconds, 2 weeks, or 2 billion years. There is only meaning in your observations if there is a scope, a point a and point b. Science is well aware of this relationship, which is why we can lean on seemingly instantaneous observations as confidently as millennial observations... Not the young millennials, the time... Like eons... You get it...
It's always easiest to work your evidence from current and go back, just like researching for a paper. You come up with questions like "why are birds kinda like reptiles, and reptiles a lot like amphibians...? And amphibians kinda breath like fish...? But why are mammals and bugs different from all of them?" Or "but if the bible can't be proven, why do so many rational people believe in it, and have for thousands of years? Why are so many of it's accounts that are considered less fantastic consistently backed by history? And why do so many people that don't believe in it still okay with the idea of God, heaven, and/or hell?" The answers remain unclear, but all the evidence is in old books or in the sand... So to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Evoking The Natural Law is great because you don't even have to believe in/agree with it to draw for it's truth. It outlines the principal that practically all peoples and individuals have agreed that murder is wrong.
However, all civilizations have, at very least, participated in war (and not having executions is kind of a new thing, anyway). So all these people have made excuses to justify murder. Indeed, throughout the history of law and order, it is very rare to find someone who admits to murder and does not present a justification. And you're unlikely to find a murderer who asserted that murder is never wrong, only that theirs might not have been.
We can infer these things:
- The wrongness of murder is so universal that most human being were actually able to agree upon something for thousands of years, without sharing language, country, religion, relation, etc. That's huge!
- The act of excusing murder is also universal, and much more self evident, but does not hinder the Law from being presented as a universal.
The answer to why, or even if murder is wrong, must reflect both of these realities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Yes, but why is it wrong? Why is killing a homo sapien wrong as opposed to killing a pigeon, which is right.
Unfortunately, for English at least, this is where the conversation splits. "Murder" is defined as humans killing humans, and almost always with the subtext of "intent" (accidental killing is rarely referred to as murder). "Killing" is anytime you take a life, and it doesn't have to be a human or an animal to be killed either... Or even living, now, that I think about it (kill the power, kill the music, etc.).
Kinda semantical, but I honestly think we make this distinction for the sake of intelligent conversation. We have to have words somewhere 🤷
So, referring to your original question, were you looking for why "murder" or all "killing" is wrong?
Created: