Originally Posted by sid

I am now infracting all posts that are not up to par with my debate standards.

Why do you consider us flawed?Why can't it be just different?If you've studied some biology,you'd notice how lucky we are to be in this evolved state,we evolved from some bacteria goddamit.
I consider us flawed because we are not morally perfect. We cannot all be perfectly honest, we all cannot be perfectly charitable, and so on. Also, I haven't studied much biology, but I do accept evolution as the most logical theory (basically making it a fact). This doesn't contradict my beliefs because the Church teaches about Genesis is that it is of religious truth, not necessarily historical or scientific. I swear I said that somewhere in here already
You are true,that no one is different from another according to beliefs.But,when a relegions comes and defines what is morally good,and what you "should" do to enter "heaven".Isn't that trying to diffrentiate people according to what the "Bible" considers a good.Yes,it doesn't force you to abide by their rules,but if you don't.You are a bad bad person who deserves to rot in hell.
I believe that hell isn't a place you are sent to. I think it is a state of being in which you are separated from who your soul is destined to be united with. That is a pain that is unrivaled.
And,I want to say again,that I don't believe in anything being morally good.It is simply something to please a whole society.I would like more explanation from you on how something should be defined as morally good according to you.In,your case I believe your relegion is what defines this stuff,but I don't want to make generalizations.
I believe that laws made by government should simply be moral, because the government and society is secular. I live in the US. Our court system is just (for the most part), and our democracy is working the way it was made to, even if I don't agree with the side in power.


As far as I know it is still not 100percent proven.In addition,did you know that the Bible has been modified several times to fit the views of the people who were in charge at that time(yeah,i'm talking about the corrupted church).
The bible was originally translated from the fustercluck of languages it was originally assembled in by St. Jerome in the 4th century into latin. From then on, it was translated into other languages, and for different denominations when the Protestant Reformation occurred. The translation was not modified by the Church. Popes, such as Rodrigo Borgia, have been corrupted. He specifically had numerous illegitimate children, and neglected his position. But, he did not use his power as Pope to perform any evil acts, or blaspheme.
This mere fact would make me not trust this book at all.Yes,history might reinforce the Bible,and isn't it only normal since the people who wrote it were living at that time,and were highly educated people?
Cite your source, and give me examples of how history reinforces the bible. And many who wrote the bible weren't necessarily educated. The apostles were fishermen.
Furthermore,I'm sure that if I research I will be able to find flaws in the stuff related to the history and the bible.I'd like to demonstrate some flaws when I remember them,for now I'd like your replies.

Originally Posted by William

Ok,then I guess it depends on the perspective you're seeing it from.If,you're following a certain moral system,then of-course any human would come short to it,specially one which is detailed such as the christian moral system.
So,if you are christianity,you have a following set of morals.I can argue about them because they are hypothetically set by "god",or whatever.But,I just wanna ask?Do you think sex before a marriage is an immoral thing to do?If,you believe in a universal moral law,than we're talking about something entirely different now.

Personally I think sex before marriage is fine if all parties are consenting and are aware of the implications of sex. It's simply my opinion, and I disagree with the Church on that fact.




I don't really believe in the existence of souls;I believe that we are animals just like all of other organisms,but smarter(lucky us! :P)
Sure. Monism vs Dualism and all that.



http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worl...?articleid=909
This quite illustrates my point of view.

Alright. The Bible has only changed from its original meaning about 2%, according to academic review.

Originally Posted by Redundant

We could technically perceive transcendental things, we could just not understand/prove them.
Considering the existance of a transcendence to be true can be rather contraproductive simply because it is very hard to get to one base everyone agrees on.
And that is because god cannot be defined properly. We can only define his actions as in “he made this and then he proceeded to make that” etc etc.
The problem with that is that it creates a fault for people who try to understand our existance but do not want to look any further. God does not need a cause, he just is there and always was. The universe, of course, needs a cause.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islamism define God as an omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent super natural being; who is also all good, all just and all merciful. This interpretation of God comes from The Old Testament, and not only interpretated from his actions but of revelation from his prophets. The need of an omnipotent, omnipresent creator is also proved by rationalistic arguments, such as that of Aquinas and Mortimer Adler

Deuteronomy 13

Show

---

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

Do not judge non-believers.
Kill them instead.

You could probably interpret it differently or call it out of context (dunno if it is out of context) but one can in general say that if the bible is so poorly worded that it depends on proper interpretation rather than defining itself it is flawed and very prone to getting missunderstood.
If it has been translated incorrectly a million times you can't even use it as source for anything, not even your own beliefs so this whole discussion is redundant (huehuehuhe) unless we all learn whatever the bible has been written in first and then discuss everything in that language.
That is very true. That is the reason why there are so many Christian (and muslim, but I am not so sure) denominations. Every respective denomination and The Church has its own interpretation.
We cannot be morally perfect because everyone has his own morals and ethical code.
There is no such thing as universal morals, and if there are, prove it. Aztecs sacrificed people to their gods in order to please them while the bible condemns such actions (as far as I know). The point is that the aztecs thought they were RIGHT when they did that. God did not give them the feeling that they did something wrong.
I believe in moral universalism to an extent, due to the fact that one's conscience is heavily influenced by his upbringing and belief. But, the Aztecs' polytheistic religion contradicted their conscience and they believed it regardless.
Same with nazis killing all the jews, white people enslaving black people, etc etc.

Not at all. The nazis killed the Jews because they believed that they could make the perfect human through (un) natural selection, and that the Jews were the farthest from the Perfdct human. That is their scientific beliefs contradicting morals. Whites enslaved blacks because they denied te slaves their right to freedom and treated them as property.

There are many examples so if this one does not work I will find another one.

And there comes the next problem: The age of this religion.
If the christian faith is around 1700 years old that means that all the people who previously lived did not follow the right religion and were vastly missinformed if christianity is the right religion. They did not eat what they are supposed to eat, they did not live how they were supposed to live, they did not marry who they were supposed to marry (they just had sex).
I mean, we agreed that the theory of evolution is true. That means some species gave birth to some being that could be called the first human being (in theory) and until someone created the concept of morals etc they were rather clueless about what to do.
Just as people who do not know about Christianity today, they did not have the opportunity. Thay cannot be held against them.
Also, how'd you define heaven? We know now that there is no heaven above the sky but space and random spaceobjects.
And why do you think there is such a thing in the first place. The bible is no proper source and something you can rely on would be nice.

Heaven is simply fulfillment of the soul. It is supernatural, and cannot be perceived, just like how souls are supernatural. What I rely on is the interpretation of the bible by the church magisterium, and sacred tradition of the church.

Originally Posted by Redundant

We could technically perceive transcendental things, we could just not understand/prove them.
Considering the existance of a transcendence to be true can be rather contraproductive simply because it is very hard to get to one base everyone agrees on.
And that is because god cannot be defined properly. We can only define his actions as in “he made this and then he proceeded to make that” etc etc.
The problem with that is that it creates a fault for people who try to understand our existance but do not want to look any further. God does not need a cause, he just is there and always was. The universe, of course, needs a cause.

Deuteronomy 13

Show

---

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

Do not judge non-believers.
Kill them instead.

You could probably interpret it differently or call it out of context (dunno if it is out of context) but one can in general say that if the bible is so poorly worded that it depends on proper interpretation rather than defining itself it is flawed and very prone to getting missunderstood.
If it has been translated incorrectly a million times you can't even use it as source for anything, not even your own beliefs so this whole discussion is redundant (huehuehuhe) unless we all learn whatever the bible has been written in first and then discuss everything in that language.

We cannot be morally perfect because everyone has his own morals and ethical code.
There is no such thing as universal morals, and if there are, prove it. Aztecs sacrificed people to their gods in order to please them while the bible condemns such actions (as far as I know). The point is that the aztecs thought they were RIGHT when they did that. God did not give them the feeling that they did something wrong.
Same with nazis killing all the jews, white people enslaving black people, etc etc.
There are many examples so if this one does not work I will find another one.

And there comes the next problem: The age of this religion.
If the christian faith is around 1700 years old that means that all the people who previously lived did not follow the right religion and were vastly missinformed if christianity is the right religion. They did not eat what they are supposed to eat, they did not live how they were supposed to live, they did not marry who they were supposed to marry (they just had sex).
I mean, we agreed that the theory of evolution is true. That means some species gave birth to some being that could be called the first human being (in theory) and until someone created the concept of morals etc they were rather clueless about what to do.

Also, how'd you define heaven? We know now that there is no heaven above the sky but space and random spaceobjects.
And why do you think there is such a thing in the first place. The bible is no proper source and something you can rely on would be nice.

Originally Posted by PUFFPWN

I would also like to add that there is significant proof that Evolution (not evolution) is a poorly drawn theory. First of all, where did the information come from to create us, with trillions of cells from a bacteria with one cell? Second of all, have you even considered the chances of a single protein (not a cell) forming? The chances of the simplest protein forming are about 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0

To put that in perspective, it takes thousands of such proteins to form a single cell, and many are many powers of ten more complex. Therefore, abiogenesis itself is out the window.

Originally Posted by PUFFPWN

The chances of the simplest protein forming are about 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0

To put that in perspective, it takes thousands of such proteins to form a single cell, and many are many powers of ten more complex. Therefore, abiogenesis itself is out the window.

Vox Moderated Message:

User was given a 5 day ban for making shit up on the spot as if he knew anything.

Originally Posted by PUFFPWN

I understand that this is an old quote, but I would like to refute your statement about Deuteronomy 13. I am a conservative Christian, and I have studied the Bible in great detail. All of the books of the old testament are under what is know as the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants involved the command to kill the native Canaanites. Why? Because they would corrupt the Israelites. According to the New Testament, we are in the Messianic covenant, which does not involve the genocide of people who do not agree with us. The Old Testament is not a book of "Christian" beliefs, it is the history of Judaism, which was replaced by Christianity by those who follow Christ. I also believe that God (being an all powerful being) could reveal himself to any tribe that lived apart from the western world. Also, look at the fact that almost every civilization in every part of the world has a story of a worldwide flood, and that a small group survived it.
I would also like to add that there is significant proof that Evolution (not evolution) is a poorly drawn theory. First of all, where did the information come from to create us, with trillions of cells from a bacteria with one cell? Second of all, have you even considered the chances of a single protein (not a cell) forming? The chances of the simplest protein forming are about 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0

To put that in perspective, it takes thousands of such proteins to form a single cell, and many are many powers of ten more complex. Therefore, abiogenesis itself is out the window.

Vox Moderated Message:

User was given a 5 day ban for making shit up on the spot as if he knew anything.

Incidentally if you are wondering, responses to bullshit are fine, all posts are fine provided they obey the discussion rules, so if you want to respond to this guy go for it.

I really don't appreciate being banned for my beliefs either. Here are your facts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Originally Posted by hanz0

... I'm pretty sure your source actually refutes your claim. Congratulations, you've made it unnecessary for me to respond to that ridiculous argument at all.

I really hope you're joking, because a) "had you actually read that source, you would've discovered it was a page dedicated to debunking exactly what you were trying to prove" is exactly what I said, and b) I should hope that I've demonstrated in pretty much every "oh my god evolution" thread that I've posted in that I'm pretty goddamn knowledgeable about that subject.
Otherwise: The fuck are you talking about?

Btw: check the genetic model of Mendel. Basic knowledge you should try, good stuff.