i know this is a pointless question, but what if this happened:.
you came home from work one day, sat down, and turned on the tv.
there is a sudden announcement that the un has banned all religion.
Some things are just too silly to even consider. Like...what if Dracula and Bill Nye the Science guy come to my room tonight, give me a jetpack and then take me to the moon for a freaky three-way?
Wondering what if the JWs are right (about anything) falls into a similar category.
just a refresher on the jw explanation of the what number 666, the mark of the beast, really means:.
the mark identified.
immediately after disclosing the number 666, revelation mentions 144,000 followers of the lamb, jesus christ, who have his name and the name of his father, jehovah, written on their foreheads.
There were news articles recently that suggested the number of the beast was actually "665" or "616", and it was a translation error that led to the 666. Which is alot less catchy, and would have presented problems for Iron Maiden.
i have, on occasion, pissed off many or most of the christians on this board.
i have forthrightly ridiculed you at times, but more often, i have lathered satire, or frothed sarcasm at what appeared to me to be inanely ludicrous viewpoint.. i must apologize, for i have seen the light.. i now understand that all of mankind's' plight can indeed be traced to a day in a perfect garden in iraq.
an eloquent snake overcame a naked woman with words that rang truer to her than the words of her master and god.
Two thousand years later we are still praising Jesus for his 9 hours of suffering and his three days of death.
from page 12:.
the theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention.. .
false: simply plain false on both accounts.. however, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance.. false: author state conclusion which is not supported by the text.
Gravity is a fact I can work with.
Gravity is a theory, in the EXACT same way evolution is a theory. In short, scientists are continually revising their ideas about how and why gravity and evolution occur, but they are aware that gravity and evolution are continuing to occur no matter if we yet understand how or why. Please understand the difference between the FACT of evolution and gravity (i.e. they exist and occur constantly) and the THEORY of evolution and gravity (i.e. how and why they exist and occur constantly).
i fail to see why people such as alice in wonderland, bane and others, are regularly singled out as tolls.
demands are repeatedly made that they are shunned and thrown off the forum; while people like perry, who rant on with pages of controversial drivel, are considered acceptable?.
i personaly don't view any of them as trolls, just people who feel a need to stand up for what they believe.
Bane Said;
With that said if you apostates don´t want witnesses here then........................CHANGE the name of the site.
Michael Bolton: Yeah, well, at least your name isn't Michael Bolton.
Samir: You know, there's nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: There *was* nothing wrong with it... until I was about twelve years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir: Hmm... well, why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
i'm afraid of starting a new post because i've stepped on a few feet here with my last post... but i still love you guys.. last night i went home to find my wife and her friend on the couch with the bible, ready to show me how i'm wrong and exercising "apostate thinking".
my wife said, "i am unable to fight you with the bible because you know more than me about it.
but k** knows more and will be able to show you how you are wrong.. so my wife went into the other room so as not to be stumbled by my discussion.
Use the likes of Bane, mAlice and Debator to practice your skills. Don't listen to posters who think you shouldn't entertain them. Go for it.
They use the same tactics and logic and blind faith that my family throw at me. It's better to make mistakes with a faceless Watchtower goon on the internet than with your own family members.
I agree completely. There are some threads the trolls shouldn't be on, but they do serve a valuable purpose - not only in reaffirming in our own minds that we've made the right decisions, but in practicing for talking to our friends and relatives, should the opportunity present itself.
is god necessary for morality?.
below are videos of two debates on this topic.
each debate features dr. william lane craig, an american evangelical apologist, theologian and philosopher.
There is also a serious but rarely noted problem with this myth in that it assumes that it doesn't matter that more people are happy and fewer people suffer if God does not exist. Consider that carefully for a moment: this myth can only be espoused by someone who doesn't consider either their happiness or their suffering to be especially important unless their god tells them to care. If you are happy, they don't necessarily care. If you suffer, they don't necessarily care. All that matters is whether that happiness or that suffering occurs in the context of the existence of their God or not. If it does, then presumably that happiness and that suffering serve some purpose and so that's OK — otherwise, they're irrelevant.
If a person only refrains from killing because they believe they are so ordered, and the suffering that murder would cause is irrelevant, then what happens when that person starts to think that they have new orders to actually go out and kill? Because the suffering of the victims was never a dispositive issue, what would stop them? This strikes me as an indication that a person is sociopathic. It is, after all, a key characteristic of sociopaths that they are unable to empathize with the feelings of others and, hence, aren't especially concerned if others suffer. I not only reject the assumption that God is necessary to making morality relevant as being illogical, I also reject the implication that the happiness and suffering of others isn't very important as being immoral itself.
is god necessary for morality?.
below are videos of two debates on this topic.
each debate features dr. william lane craig, an american evangelical apologist, theologian and philosopher.
Dude, I believe in evolution, God is not installing anything in us as we are being born, other than spirit that it.
Don't believe in the "evil gene" do you?
Or people being born "bad"?
Or certain views that sociopathic behaviour and such may be a result of a "birth deffect"?
Sociopaths are genetically incapable of being moral.
At what point in our evolutionary development did God install our morality, so that none of our closest animal relatives have it?
All I'm saying is that your ideas for God having any part AT ALL in our morality always turn out to be conflicting and self-defeating. We developed our current morality as we grow as a society. God's got nothing to do with it.
is god necessary for morality?.
below are videos of two debates on this topic.
each debate features dr. william lane craig, an american evangelical apologist, theologian and philosopher.
Dying to save a stranger is NOT a tribal thing and animals do not sacrifice themselves for other animals outside thier "kin".
All other humans are our kin. People do not willingly go into situations where death is imminent (or completely unavoidable) for strangers. But we also have a cultural thing where putting yourself in harm's way for the good of others is deemed heroic. In all cases the one at risk is getting something out of it. There are no completely unselfish acts.
Having something and not using it is a choice, but if a person was indeed born "without it" then it would be an anomally, a "birth defect".
This is inconsistent with your idea that an a creator being is installing this morality gene in us. Your new theory about birth defects suggests that the creator being can fail, or be thwarted in giving his creation something that is completely necessary for them to function in everyday life.
is god necessary for morality?.
below are videos of two debates on this topic.
each debate features dr. william lane craig, an american evangelical apologist, theologian and philosopher.
Hmmm,perhaps, but how would you explain a totally unselfish act of self-sacrifice?
There are many such, it would be tough to nail them all down. I would say that no act is ever truly unselfish - combined with the fact that we are a tribal animal. (See tribal animals making sacrifices to protect the young from predators - this is not isolated to humans)
Whether a person believes in God or not is irrelevant if all were created with a "moral gene" put their by God ( for arguments sake of course).
Who created the immoral people? The sociopaths? etc? If this is part of our creative makeup, we must all have it. Sociopaths absolutely do not.
