It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GIs Told to Bring Afghans to Jesus

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
Not that I am in the habit of defending slave owners, but I think that we have to accept the founding fathers much the same as many people from antiquity (with a grain of salt) as being a product of their time.


I agree



This is the only nation in which we scruple with the system and habits of the people at the time that they founded our country. We can not equate our morals and manner of doing things with the standards of people from over two centuries ago. You don't really see the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America squabbling about the manner in which their ancient leaders conducted government. They merely take the glean lessons of import and likewise lessons from their imperfections.


exactly- that is my point, when people try to claim ownership of the views of people who lived in a completely different era




secularism has to borrow morals from Christians (as the religion of reference in the western civilisation)- when they stop doing so (as they now do), they have to rely on force to regulate an immoral anarchy. QED.


You are right indeed. Although I'd like to think that people are still raised to be decent human beings on that basis alone. Then again, there are many "religious" people that aren't. That's why I don't consider myself to be counted among the religious. I do believe in GOD and I do belong to a specific sect of Christianity. But, I'm not one to allow anyone to dictate what I should believe, that's just where I find myself closest to like minded people. See religious people try and force absolutes upon you. It is my opinion that the letter of the Law kills and the Spirit of what's behind it gives life.

If Religious people want to try and tell me that GOD says I must do thus and it feels wrong then it's time for me to say goodbye.


I would broadly agree, I am from a Christian background (ie, raised in a country with a CHristian heritage, Christian majority, went to Church in my early years etc)- though I probably would not be classed as a Christian (by the way I live my life) by most (that being said I would not deny Christ, maybe that's a cop out lol).

When making a comment I was thinking of those people who are totally convinced there is no spiritual aspect, no life beyond the physical, just sheer relentless evolution and physical existence- for those people then really, there is nothing "morally" wrong with killing someone, as morals are nothing but thoughts produced by the chemical reactions in your brain.




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
When making a comment I was thinking of those people who are totally convinced there is no spiritual aspect, no life beyond the physical, just sheer relentless evolution and physical existence- for those people then really, there is nothing "morally" wrong with killing someone, as morals are nothing but thoughts produced by the chemical reactions in your brain.


Nothing morally wrong with killing? I suppose that would be the case if the only provision of morals was religion and the only reason you did not kill is because God told you not to (unless they are infidels, of course).

There is indeed something "morally" wrong with killing, and it is this: if you only have one life, you only have one life to lose. Strangely, us despicable atheists still feel pleasure, pain, discomfort, sadness and joy. We aren't the inhuman killing machines you freaking religious types make us out to be, and we aren't stupid enough to believe in a magical afterlife.

If anything, we are far more human, because I have absolutely no intention of killing or dying for a cause - which is, and always has been, the fad for those with a supernatual fetish.

Think of it as the ultimate in selfishness, if you like: I don't kill others because you are held to your own standards, and that means someone might kill me.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


I believe he was getting at the ideas of "natural selection" and "evolution."

If we are all animals that have merely evolved due to natural selection than the moral obligations (by process or logic and reason) have just gone out the window. Humanity is the only creature on the face of the earth that allows for the weak to survive.

In that case the morality (that was indeed founded in religion) ought to be tossed aside for more logical pursuits. Why should those of us that are strong and smart suffer the weak and dim witted to pollute the gene pool??????????


How do you like your world without religious history and influence now.

Where did we see this before?????


Oh, that's right Nazi Germany, and right here in the good old USA.

Eugenics was spread far and wide with sterilization programs.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.dianedew.com...

The idea that all human life has intrinsic value is an idea that is born from religions around the world and that fact can not be argued.

Have those religions falsely killed in the name of their god's yes.

And we also have those that worship man, that have done unspeakable horrors in the name of advancing science due to the fact that they have lost sight of mans intrinsic value.





[edit on 13-5-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 




Correct, it seems to be ramping up in the past ten years or so. There are many that are egging on a general hatred for those that practice the Abrahamic religions. It just feels as though the liberals seem to have a soft spot when it comes to Islam.

And before we go any further, lets make it clear that unless I point a finger at you I am speaking in a general sense.



Hi my friend, sorry I could not respond right back to you, but I starred your last post when I first read it. I enjoyed what you had to share and thank you for it.

I have to be honest with you my friend. It is my personal belief that a conspiracy has long been in the working that involves the complete conquest of the world into a one world government.

Few people would believe this conspiracy. I believe it though. If I am correct it dates back to the time of Hadrian though I suspect it was in fact Julius Gaius Caesar himself or possibly Augustus who conceived it.

My theory is that the conspiracy was hatched between the Romans and the Israelites who were Rome’s principal money lenders and source of gold to pay for the conquests of the Empire when the treasury was dry or short. Rome and it’s armies whether military or religious would conquer a territory in an endless repetition of divide and conquer warfare, with the Israelites moving in shortly behind them to set up the Gold based system of commerce often not in use with pagans who used a barter system of commerce, and to further help define and legitimize the new Divinity that conquered peoples were being taught to adopt as a universal type of governing figure, with universal governing laws and morality that would allow for conquered territories to remain divided on paper so each could retain it’s own unique culture and language but none the less bound and governed by two vital and intrinsic things that each subsequent state conquered or already conquered would share with them to give Rome uniform control. The first being that shared universal spiritual belief and laws, and the second the gold based system of commerce. My theory favors that a Rome ever bent on conquest and world domination realized two things along the way, and made some deliberate modifications to complete it. One is that it was very hard to maintain a constant state of warfare because of the nearly prohibitive cost in both the human life needed to devote to it, and the cost of the commerce in garrisoning, training, feeding, equipping and transporting all those troops out of your main population base center and capital. The second thing they discovered is once giving everyone a unified identity in a shared named nation that bound the people of it together under a common shared law and common system of commerce that it was a huge responsibility, burden and cost to always without fail provide the bread and circuses that citizens would demand in exchange for acceptance of and willing desire to be included in that nation by following it’s laws and giving their continued allegiance too. That latter being even more especially so because there was that constant expectation to be taxed in either coin or one’s very own life to one way or another take part in that militaristic expansion of nation and empire. Roman citizens were asked a lot, they demanded a lot in return.

Once learning this and understanding how logistics and resources both human and nonhuman played such a large role in this conquest to take over the world, Rome would avoid that burden by binding it’s conquered territories in a way that kept the responsibility off of the Roman principals themselves to provide these uniform things to all the people it had conquered by keeping them divided to create an illusion of independence to these regions so regional and ethnic prides and passions could be used to unite and exploit them as a distinct people, but bind them together in a philosophy, underlying ideology, universal law, and universal commerce that Rome itself maintained control over through it’s principals and their vassals. In this manner of divide and conquer warfare each Roman State’s citizens not even knowing it was purely and simply a Roman State could call upon it’s citizenry to both pay a tax in coin and provide human lives for conquest based on those regional and cultural passions and desires espoused in that culture and history of that state, to either conquest new territories for the Roman State or conduct wars that would entire eliminate some humans who were not needed or able because of their tribal culture to ever accept that common system of universal law and commerce that would bind them under the States Control through the philosophy and spiritual ideology that all Roman States citizens were taught to share and embrace that formed the base of that law and commerce. While each State’s citizens would think it was creating its own destiny as a nation unto themselves in reality their conquests where all orchestrated and planned as the building blocks of absorbing people, eliminating others, and forcing others to migrate from one place to another where they could be better used to the over all development of the infrastructure of the combined states in their sum total Rome would control. In essence the people themselves would keep dividing and conquering one another willingly at their own volition time and expense if they could just be led to believe it was actually of their own volition time and expense by retaining the illusion they were divided and not ruled by one entity that would not have the burden or responsibility of having to provide anything potentially bankrupting or momentum breaking to each and every one.

By breaking the philosophical ideal and spiritual beliefs of the absorbed citizen into one of three subsets to be used to unite larger masses of people yet again to turn and be used upon one another and to also keep them from growing so large that any one State could create an entity unto itself that no other easily ready combinations of states sharing one of the three base philosophies could not be employed to check it’s growth and reassert the Roman and the Principals control through commerce and the law.

In essence a Banking Class (the Israelites) would work with the Warrior Class (the Christians) to eradicate the Religious Pagan Class the human beings that would eventually come to be just the (the Muslims) the tribal area from which the Israelites religion sprang from and would cease to ever take on a metamorphous from the point it spread out to create the Banking Class in the conquest from the region that their religion had been evolving in prior to their departure from it.

Once nearly everyone was divided into those three base camps, a fourth class could be produced by Rome to counter any of those three classes by introducing a Statist Class, the Atheist/Communist still bound by Rome’s Banking Commerce and Laws thus still under Rome’s firm control but with a citizenry whose allegiance was based solely on state with no other “Ethereal” spiritual element of control. This 4th class could allow for complete control of commerce, warfare, and law being based solely on the State being all those things and nothing but those things.

Rome could always use this class to keep in balance and check any other class as the conquest neared completion.

Once nearly complete Rome who still controlled all three ideological/spiritual classes all diametrically opposed to one another in their disparate route similarities to simply eliminate one another through that divide and conquer process of warfare.

Once they culled their human numbers by their own volition and expense Rome would simply employ the Statist Class to stamp out the remnants of the Religious Class that had divided and conquered themselves on Rome’s behalf.

Simple addition, division, multiplication, addition and subtraction = the Roman State.

The really bad part about my theory is while you look at your U.S. One Dollar Bill emblazoned with “In G-d We Trust” and you look at that Pyramid full of building blocks made with simple addition, division, multiplication, addition and subtraction that inscription around it that announces success in that endeavor is in Latin the tongue of Rome, and well the treaties that bind and recognize in commerce and shared law every last little piece of land on the planet and it’s people, all have Latin in them and Latin Titles assigned to the parties that signed them as the principals of those States and those solely whose respective powers are communicated and communicable between each State and Rome.

Including our own the United States of America. You can discover this by reading the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Ghent carefully.

Its my own humble opinion as to why Christians, Jews and Muslims alike are all under increasing attack because that’s what the plan calls for.

A plan not all that eerily similar to what’s been laid out in your Bible, my big problem is in fact with Caesar my friend, and the way he does math.

That is where I am at my friend, where I am from, and prefer to truly think I am brothers with everyone first and foremost because I am human and amongst human kind.

Thinking the way I do, looking at things the way I do, and as a human being I am naturally quite concerned for all human beings involved in this method of arithmetic.

I want to love all my brothers and do so equally as I look at all my brothers who have in all fact been in nothing but a state of warring and fighting amongst one another now for nearly 2000 years to make that ambition a reality.

Please lets always be friends and that I do not want to attack anyone.

I feel empathy for everyone my friend, and worry for I truly fear they do not know what they do.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



I have to be honest with you my friend. It is my personal belief that a conspiracy has long been in the working that involves the complete conquest of the world into a one world government.
Agreed.


My theory is that the conspiracy was hatched between the Romans and the Israelites who were Rome’s principal money lenders and source of gold to pay for the conquests of the Empire when the treasury was dry or short.
I follow the logic and the strategic reasoning (on the part of Rome). How ever I do not follow where the Israelites fit in? At this point in time there was no such thing as a secular Jew. The Jews in power besides those such as King Herod were all of strict adherence and wanted little to nothing to do with what was considered "goyim" and "profane." It was unheard of for any reason.

I think I can rest assured that you have probably read some Livy. Do you remember the words of Fabius to the Carthaginians? "Rome offers you peace or war, choose, for it matters not to Rome." If the Romans wanted gold they would have invaded Israel and demanded tribute. Or else!


Rome and it’s armies whether military or religious would conquer a territory in an endless repetition of divide and conquer warfare, with the Israelites moving in shortly behind them to set up the Gold based system of commerce often not in use with pagans who used a barter system of commerce, and to further help define and legitimize the new Divinity that conquered peoples were being taught to adopt as a universal type of governing figure, with universal governing laws and morality
Was this not the way of the Romans in the first place? Without the aid of any "Israelite bankers." The Romans already had their form of currency, although you seem to be correct in the assertion that the Roman Gold Standard of the "Aureus" (equal to 25 silver Denarius) didn't come into play until the 1st century. And I think that the Romans exiled The Jews into Europe as slaves of sorts after the revolt around 70AD. If they didn't exile them they sure did make the land uninhabitable.

The idea of the universal governing figure and laws are the trademark of Rome and followed them where ever they conquered. However I would say that it was an advancement above some of the other forms of dealing with tribal issues, which usually ended up in tribal warfare.


One is that it was very hard to maintain a constant state of warfare because of the nearly prohibitive cost in both the human life needed to devote to it, and the cost of the commerce in garrisoning, training, feeding, equipping and transporting all those troops out of your main population base center and capital.
Granted, this is why the Romans began incorporating the conquered peoples into the Republic (if you can call it that after a certain point) in order to indoctrinate them into their culture. It gave the advantage of having new and fresh troops (without looking over your shoulder), they could exploit that cultures technology (as all conquerors do), and it brings new resources. And all they had to do is bring Roman innovation and advancements to them and promise military aid from Rome in time of need in return they got a loyal province that would keep safe Romes borders.


The second thing they discovered is once giving everyone a unified identity
This did serve itself up as a serious problem in later years of incorporation. However many peoples cultures and languages still reflect the Romans to this day. Hell, I think the best preserved Roman bathhouse in existence is in Turkey of all places. That goes to show you how well they did with the incorporation of cultures.


burden and cost to always without fail provide the bread and circuses that citizens would demand in exchange for acceptance of and willing desire to be included in that nation by following it’s laws and giving their continued allegiance too.
I'm sorry to disagree with you freind, it was the citizens of Rome itself (i.e. the city Rome) that fell prey to "bread and circuses" that they voted themselves by proxy of self serving Senators. Something that we shall soon see here on a larger scale than we already do.

"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"-(Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)


Roman citizens were asked a lot, they demanded a lot in return.
Roman citizens were taken advantage of so often by predatory aristocrats that they ceased to care about the matters of their Republic, so long as they were kept "fat and happy." This is fast becoming the attitude of America!


by keeping them divided to create an illusion of independence to these regions so regional and ethnic prides and passions could be used to unite and exploit them as a distinct people, but bind them together in a philosophy, underlying ideology, universal law, and universal commerce that Rome itself maintained control over through it’s principals and their vassals.
Interesting concept. I'll buy that. As a tactic, I just don't see it linking up in practice.


In this manner of divide and conquer warfare each Roman State’s citizens not even knowing it was purely and simply a Roman State could call upon it’s citizenry to both pay a tax in coin and provide human lives for conquest based on those regional and cultural passions and desires espoused in that culture and history of that state, to either conquest new territories for the Roman State
This is true, and it goes all the way back to the Coronation of the first Holy Roman Emperor "Charlemagne". The Romans had long lost their power and Empire but they still held the Roman Catholic Church. And they were increasingly fearful of the Byzantines. Fear not, there is a burgeoning Frankish Kingdom to the north that you can hold sway over if only you enter into a pact.

Now the Frankish/Germanic tribes can conquer all the non-believers that they want and they have the backing of GOD according to the Catholic Church.
Continue............



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Recently saw this show on the History Channel, or whatever, that said they found a tomb in Jerusalem dating from the 1st centuray AD with ossuaries (bone boxes) labeled "Jesus", "Mary", and others from Jesus' bibllical family. If this is true, then what exactly is the point?




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



In essence a Banking Class (the Israelites) would work with the Warrior Class (the Christians) to eradicate the Religious Pagan Class the human beings that would eventually come to be just the (the Muslims)
This was played out time and again during European culture from the middle ages onward. I don't see how the Muslims figure into the equation. There was no Muslim involvement in the European stage until they put themselves into the scenario by trying to invade the continent and spread Islam by way of the sword (i.e. Spain, parts of southern France, Byzantine Empire,etc.). This make more sense with the persecution of peoples like the indigenous pagans of Europe and the Cathars. I understand your basic idea though, just not the key players. Some of the characters aren't in order in my book.

See my view of it is that if it is a "Roman" conspiracy it was more of a gradual corruption of the original Catholic (universal) Church by the Romans in order to keep power by controlling some aspect of the people that they wanted to continue rule over. The Religion was already on the rise so it was the logical vessel/conduit to conduct business. They successfully used this host without alarm until the reformation when people like Calvin and Martin Luther became aware of the corruptions such as the Church selling "Indulgences" for the forgiveness of sins.

Which any Christian knows that is a bold face distortion of the message of Christ; however, we nor most priest weren't allowed to read the Bible. They claimed that we could not understand it, we said it made it easy for them to lie. I think you see which was true.

After the Protestant reformation the Churches' (and the elitist which were usually elected as Pope) monopoly on power was lost. Man could turn to GOD directly and through other Churches.

The bankers and other elitist have been in it for them selves from the beginning. You can see this in the way that they would often kill each other in order to get the Papal Throne. It was the most powerful position in Europe, they cared not about the Religious aspects of it all. Look what happened to the Templars for money! Shameless.

I know that still waters run deep, and the Vatican is extremely corrupt. But the conspiracy to take over the planet in a NWO "Global Government" is of a multifaceted approach, and I think that the key players are so much more sinister. T Vatican is just up to it's old tricks.




and well the treaties that bind and recognize in commerce and shared law every last little piece of land on the planet and it’s people, all have Latin in them and Latin Titles assigned to the parties that signed them as the principals of those States and those solely whose respective powers are communicated and communicable between each State and Rome. Including our own the United States of America. You can discover this by reading the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Ghent carefully.
I've often wondered why it is that Legal jargon is in Latin??? I was always under the impression that it was due to the fact that most of the European legal system takes it's heritage from two sources. The Roman Republican way of law afforded to all Roman Citizens. And obviously "The Law" as prescribed by the Bible.

en.wikipedia.org...




Its my own humble opinion as to why Christians, Jews and Muslims alike are all under increasing attack because that’s what the plan calls for.
That is no great surprise to me either.

www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com...




Please lets always be friends and that I do not want to attack anyone. I feel empathy for everyone my friend, and worry for I truly fear they do not know what they do.
I fear that they know exactly what they do and they are just that twisted. Know this there are those that pull strings at the top who view us as nothing more than insects.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



I know that this seems like a Christian crying foul but they have already said that this is another fraud that was purchased in the antiquities market. Which is notorious for fakes. They found an Ossuary with a few names that could be toyed with in order to make it look like "The Family of Jesus!" So they did in order to make money.


Looky Looky.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 


I don't believe that's the one he is referring to. The James ossuary is a famous hoax now but there are most definitely two sites discovered that were authenticated, bearing several names of the Biblical family and other characters, as well as inscriptions of crosses and 'Yeshua.' There is a thread around here somewhere about the discoveries.

There is also another hoax about the family tomb of Jesus (as in, his alleged wife and children) but don't get that one confused with the real finds. lol



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

I'm almost entirely sure that this is the one that he and you speak of.


"Jesus son of Joseph."

It's not the name on the Ossuary it's a combination of things.

There are nine Ossuaries.

One that says "Miriam" aka Mary, and a few others from the Gospels. It's the combination of all of these together that has everyone in an uproar.

en.wikipedia.org...

dsc.discovery.com...

The problem is that like I said, the Israeli Antiquities Authority says that it's shoddy Archeology based mostly on assumptions and conjecture. Normally I wouldn't trust them in matters like such because it would benefit the Jewish religion to discredit the Christian Gospels with such irrefutable prof. But when you have a Jewish person saying, "no this is not undeniable proof that Jesus was buried and did not resurrect," then I say that they aren't missing a free bus ride to discredit the Messiah for no particular reason.

But there are some links if you want to look.
benwitherington.blogspot.com...

[edit on 14-5-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
I believe he was getting at the ideas of "natural selection" and "evolution."


As was I.


Originally posted by lazy1981If we are all animals that have merely evolved due to natural selection


We are.


Originally posted by lazy1981than the moral obligations (by process or logic and reason) have just gone out the window.


Not at all. It is utterly logical. All social animals evolve acceptable standards of social behaviour - most animals don't serously injure each other when competing for mates. Death is surprisingly rare when the conflict is between two creatures of the same species, as they are both capable of inflicting terrible wounds upon each other that both would rather avoid. The act of submission is enough to carry the day and end the fight.

This is the basis of morality.



Originally posted by lazy1981Humanity is the only creature on the face of the earth that allows for the weak to survive.


Not at all. Even if you want to discount the social great apes, elephants, dolphins and even african wild dogs support the weak and injured.


Originally posted by lazy1981In that case the morality (that was indeed founded in religion)


No, morality was not founded in religion, religion is founded in morality. Morality is a consequence of having to live in close proximity with one another and not have the society torn apart by infighting - if everyone agrees a code of conduct, we can all live in harmony (at least, that is the theory).


ought to be tossed aside for more logical pursuits. Why should those of us that are strong and smart suffer the weak and dim witted to pollute the gene pool??????????


Because humans do not think like computers. The species is about diversity, not efficiency. I can't help but notice it isn't the atheists who take this stance on atheism.


How do you like your world without religious history and influence now.


...just fine, because you have presented a straw-man argument built on fallacies. I like world history and religion, but in the past, because that is where it belongs - to a world before man had opened it up and inserted his brain into it.


Oh, that's right Nazi Germany,


Perhaps, but the Germans were also against the Jews (aka, a religious group) primarily, and Hitler himself was Roman Catholic. Religion helped not at all in WWII.



and right here in the good old USA.


Is this like Voltaire's comments on the Holy Roman Empire? It's neither good, nor old, nor united, it seems.


Eugenics was spread far and wide with sterilization programs.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.dianedew.com...


So? Eugenics is morally abhorrent. I don't agree with it at all, am I no longer an atheist?


The idea that all human life has intrinsic value is an idea that is born from religions around the world


No, it comes from the small pre-historical tribal structure where every member of the tribe was extremely important because the world was so dangerous.


and that fact can not be argued.


You don't have the authority to make that claim.


Have those religions falsely killed in the name of their god's yes.


What was false about it? They killed, they did it for their god. The only false thing about it was the diety of their choice.


And we also have those that worship man, that have done unspeakable horrors in the name of advancing science due to the fact that they have lost sight of mans intrinsic value.


Please, please stop, or I will be forced to go into detail of Timur the Lame's (Muslim) pillar of skulls outside Aleppo, or the Crusader's cannibalism of the inhabitants of Jerusalem on the first Crusade (Christian), or the systematic annihilation of the Canaanites (Jews), along with centuries of other atrocities done in the name of these religions.

Evil men will always find a way of doing evil, it is not about what god or philosophy they follow...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


I see that we like to pick and chose words in an attempt to twist, instead of making a statement. I'll indulge with this last response. Afterward it would be appreciated if you want to debate an issue than debate it. Do not pick three or four words in an attempt to take it out of context. You would do well working for the media.


Originally posted by lazy1981
If we are all animals that have merely evolved due to natural selection



We are.
Let us get one thing straight if you want to debate these things based upon the "Scientific Method" then you must first throw out your stance that were are "IN FACT" an evolved species. It is the "Theory of Evolution," and has yet to be proven. It also remains to be reproduced in a laboratory. Which are two of the main tenants of the Scientific Process. So unless you are in the habit of "taking things on faith" than you need to realize that you are arguing a theory as if it were factual evidence. That's as big a leap as any religion. One "missing link" and the theory goes bye bye.


Not at all. It is utterly logical. All social animals evolve acceptable standards of social behaviour - most animals don't serously injure each other when competing for mates.
So am I to take it that it is now an acceptable standard to fight for a woman in the middle of the street? So long as we only maim each other. After all as you say we are only animals correct? Oh, I'm sorry did I take that out of context? I hope I made my point.




Death is surprisingly rare when the conflict is between two creatures of the same species, as they are both capable of inflicting terrible wounds upon each other that both would rather avoid. The act of submission is enough to carry the day and end the fight.
Death is rare due to the fact that in the animal kingdom it is in fact the survival of the fittest. The "bull" who is faster and stronger will hit harder and this puts fear into the opposition. And that is the source of their submission. The fear of being killed, and the knowledge that ones opponent will do it. This is the animal instinct and the basis of the survival instinct in such scenarios. Aka "fight or flight." You either have what it takes to be the top dog or you run and accept a subservient position. This is not the basis of morality, this is the basis of tyranny and despotism.



Not at all. Even if you want to discount the social great apes, elephants, dolphins and even african wild dogs support the weak and injured.
granted, but they will not suffer it to the extent that we do. A male silver-back will often kill it's own young, and dogs (as I have seen with my own eyes) will let the runt of the litter starve in order to feed the healthy.



No, morality was not founded in religion, religion is founded in morality. Morality is a consequence of having to live in close proximity with one another and not have the society torn apart by infighting - if everyone agrees a code of conduct, we can all live in harmony (at least, that is the theory).

We will have to simply agree to dis agree here. For what's moral in one portion of the world is not in another. If the codes of conduct (for lack of a better word) sprang up first in an attempt to keep people in order than they (morals) would be relatively similar in nature due to the similarity in social issues that needed to be addressed in all societies. Obviously this is not the case as the morals and virtues around the world differ vastly. Man has had gods since he first looked at the sky, seen fire, or heard the wind blow. I am positive that or social and moral structures are based in a religious foundation. Social Sciences and Anthropology have all pointed in this direction.


Because humans do not think like computers. The species is about diversity, not efficiency. I can't help but notice it isn't the atheists who take this stance on atheism.
I was making a point, and Atheist are not angels my friend. I have heard some pretty twisted things come out of the mouths of Atheist on the matter of population control and the manner by which it should be done. All people have the potential to be equally sick, no matter what their beliefs


...just fine, because you have presented a straw-man argument built on fallacies. I like world history and religion, but in the past, because that is where it belongs - to a world before man had opened it up and inserted his brain into it.
.We are entitled to our opinions.


Perhaps, but the Germans were also against the Jews (aka, a religious group) primarily, and Hitler himself was Roman Catholic. Religion helped not at all in WWII.
He may have been a Catholic due to his family and his youth but he was not a practicing Catholic and he didn't truly believe in Christ at all. "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."-Adolf Hitler

You can say what ever you like but it's how you conduct yourself that makes you a Christian.

en.wikipedia.org...

As far as the Catholics helping the Jews in WW2, here are two stories. There are many more, about many people and religions.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.christiantelegraph.com...




Is this like Voltaire's comments on the Holy Roman Empire? It's neither good, nor old, nor united, it seems.
Do you really want to split hairs????


So? Eugenics is morally abhorrent. I don't agree with it at all, am I no longer an atheist?
I didn't expect it to have that effect. Just making a point.


No, it comes from the small pre-historical tribal structure where every member of the tribe was extremely important because the world was so dangerous.
Possible, and so is the Inuit and Yupik notion that an elder that has much knowledge to share is also much of a burden to be cast off to die at sea rather than waist resources. We can do this all day long. You give one extreme and I'll give another cultural extreme to prove and disprove each others point. The idea that a human life is invaluable is of a religious nature.

Continue.........



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 

Sure, people genuinely care about one another and don't want to see each other die. A family member or friend doesn't want to do harm or see it done to a loved one. Just as we all mourn "our loss" and not really "the death" of a loved one (if we are honest about where our sadness comes from).

But as to the idea that a human life is "sacred" and has intrinsic value, that is founded in religion.

I fully understand your assessment of it on a historic tribal level but I do not a agree when it comes to the context in which we are speaking of. It is akin to comparing it to the loss that a general feels when he losses a troop and the loss that his comrade in arms feels; Furthermore, the loss that his mother or brother back home feels. Sure the soldier may have been invaluable to a commanding officer, yet the loss is not so deep.


You don't have the authority to make that claim.
Half of us don't have the authority to make the better part of theclaims made on this forum. Get over it.


What was false about it? They killed, they did it for their god. The only false thing about it was the diety of their choice.
Outside of the Hebrew Torah and maybe the Qur'an I don't think that there is a religion in the world that tells anyone to kill in the name of GOD. I know for a fact that Christ tells us to turn the other cheek. The New Testament (which places Christians under a new Covenant separate from that of the Jewish Law) teaches non violence. The Crusades that were pushed by the Catholic Church were a perversion of the Word of GOD. Early Christians were not allowed to read the Bible and could not discern Biblical fact from lies.


Please, please stop, or I will be forced to go into detail of Timur the Lame's (Muslim) pillar of skulls outside Aleppo, or the Crusader's cannibalism of the inhabitants of Jerusalem on the first Crusade (Christian), or the systematic annihilation of the Canaanites (Jews), along with centuries of other atrocities done in the name of these religions.
This was my point about killing in the name of GOD.

This is but an example of what I was speaking about. Those that follow the Old Testament and the Old Covenant will kill and commit wars in the name of GOD. Because they follow the "letter of The Law." It's the spirit of Gods word that man is supposed to learn from. The Spirit is of Love and Peace. It tells things like, "he who has committed no sin may cast the first stone." When the "letter of The Law" says that an adulterer must be killed accourdingto the Old Testament.

If Christians were allowed to read the Bible in the Middle Ages they would have known better than to commit such atrocities.

Example: 2 Corinthians 3:6 (New King James Version)

(6) who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

We are thought that a Christian that judges by The Letter of The Law will also be Judged by The Letter of The Law.

I hope that I have made the point clear on this issue.




Evil men will always find a way of doing evil, it is not about what god or philosophy they follow...
Pretty much the notion that I was trying to drive home by giving examples of those that believe in the worship man and science doing evil things. Just as man has committed evil in the name of GOD.

Two last things evil is a religious concept also.

And Eugenics is a Scientific idea that was prevalent at the turn of the century all around the world. This is also in part why I mentioned it in tandem with the Nazis. It shows the Link in the movement away from Religion and towards Science and the fact that man will still do evil. So the notion that Religion is at the very core of all mans woes is a flawed idea.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but you are not correct with the majority of your post, however its 1am here, so my reply to this will come tomorrow, and I apologise for leaving it so long (i forgot about this thread, to be honest).



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
I see that we like to pick and chose words in an attempt to twist, instead of making a statement. I'll indulge...cut


Actually I have tried to address all your points, and correct your assumptions and mistakes, in as much detail as possible.


Let us get one thing straight if you want to debate these things based upon the "Scientific Method" then you must first throw out your stance that were are "IN FACT" an evolved species.


...why? Its quite evident that we are not divinely created, in the silly residual traits humans have, like the coccyx and the appendix. These things once served a function, but do not any longer.


It is the "Theory of Evolution," and has yet to be proven. It also remains to be reproduced in a laboratory. Which are two of the main tenants of the Scientific Process. So unless you are in the habit of "taking things on faith" than you need to realize that you are arguing a theory as if it were factual evidence. That's as big a leap as any religion. One "missing link" and the theory goes bye bye.


No, there is no "missing" link. This is a common fallacy that I am not going to go into detail about, for space and time reasons. Frankly, this is an old, and widely disproven, argument.

There was an experiment in which bacteria, after about 40,000 generations, managed to spontaneously develop the ability to metabolise a vitamin they were previously unable to use. This is verifiable evolution.

What you need to do is prefix your statements with "I have not seen..."


So am I to take it that it is now an acceptable standard to fight for a woman in the middle of the street? So long as we only maim each other. After all as you say we are only animals correct? Oh, I'm sorry did I take that out of context? I hope I made my point.


Christ on a bike, why do religious types have to take everything to extremes? And I said it was bad to maim, not acceptable, fool. You are an animal, but even animals don't act like you suggest.


Death is rare due to the fact that in the animal kingdom it is in fact the survival of the fittest.


No, and please stop using buzzwords and phrases incorrectly. It is rare because the animals don't want risk injury to themselves and deplete the numbers of their own social group.


The "bull" who is faster and stronger will hit harder and this puts fear into the opposition. And that is the source of their submission. The fear of being killed, and the knowledge that ones opponent will do it.


No, the bull will not kill a submissive opponent. That is the point - the creatures is unwittingly thinking of himself and his species when he doesn't kill his rival. The more of your kind, the better, so simply winning is usually enough.


This is the animal instinct and the basis of the survival instinct in such scenarios. Aka "fight or flight." You either have what it takes to be the top dog or you run and accept a subservient position. This is not the basis of morality, this is the basis of tyranny and despotism.


Okay, no. Another misused buzzword phrase. "Fight or flight" is about whether you are being mortally attacked by a predator, not whether you're going to challenge the dominant male for mates.

And it is indeed the basis of morality, but also a hierarchical society. And why is tyranny and despotism bad?


granted, but they will not suffer it to the extent that we do. A male silver-back will often kill it's own young, and dogs (as I have seen with my own eyes) will let the runt of the litter starve in order to feed the healthy.


Animals have to be brutally pragmatic because there is rarely a stable social system to support them.



We will have to simply agree to dis agree here. For what's moral in one portion of the world is not in another.


Isn't it? Where is it acceptable to murder, rape and steal? It is only the specifics that really differ, the general message is the same the world over - be nice to one another.


Man has had gods since he first looked at the sky, seen fire, or heard the wind blow. I am positive that or social and moral structures are based in a religious foundation. Social Sciences and Anthropology have all pointed in this direction.


No, I have explained how morality pre-dates humanity, so you are incorrect, I am afraid. Morality is simply the result of social creatures. Even elephants mourn their dead.


I was making a point, and Atheist are not angels my friend. I have heard some pretty twisted things come out of the mouths of Atheist on the matter of population control and the manner by which it should be done. All people have the potential to be equally sick, no matter what their beliefs


Which surely shows that it is not the doctrine, it is the person? Atheists are not some homogeneous social group, you can't say "Atheists think this..." because the only thing they share is a rejection of religion. Stop taking everything to extremes!


You can say what ever you like but it's how you conduct yourself that makes you a Christian.


I agree. If cannibalism, genocide and persecution is something that also makes one a Christian. Or perhaps people in ancient days were not Christians?


Possible, and so is the Inuit and Yupik notion that an elder that has much knowledge to share is also much of a burden to be cast off to die at sea rather than waist resources. We can do this all day long. You give one extreme and I'll give another cultural extreme to prove and disprove each others point. The idea that a human life is invaluable is of a religious nature.


Not simply possible, but essential. You have presented me with nothing but extremes, so far, and frankly makes me afraid of what you might do without your religion, as you seem to take the stance that the only reason you aren't personally doing terrible things is literally because God will spank your ass if you do.

I have more faith in human nature, than that.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
Sure, people genuinely care about one another and don't want to see each other die. A family member or friend doesn't want to do harm or see it done to a loved one. Just as we all mourn "our loss" and not really "the death" of a loved one (if we are honest about where our sadness comes from).

But as to the idea that a human life is "sacred" and has intrinsic value, that is founded in religion.


Actually, I would say it is founded in the concept of evil. "Evil" is literally just selfishness, whereas "good" is really just altruism.

The concept of human life being sacred is a fallacy anyway. There is nothing 'sacred' about life, its just we all possess it and jealously guard it - if we allow killing without compunction, we ourselves may become a victim of our own standards - not an acceptable option.

But fundamentally, it comes from the fear of the world, and the necessity of having the few humans alive to remain alive, so that we as an individual may remain alive. It's all a big net of support.

Thus human life being 'sacred' may be a religious concept, but its origins are not in religion.


Originally posted by lazy1981I fully understand your assessment of it on a historic tribal level but I do not a agree when it comes to the context in which we are speaking of. It is akin to comparing it to the loss that a general feels when he losses a troop and the loss that his comrade in arms feels; Furthermore, the loss that his mother or brother back home feels. Sure the soldier may have been invaluable to a commanding officer, yet the loss is not so deep.


False analogy. The general is not related to the men, and has tens of thousands of troops to worry about.

In contrast, the pre-historical tribal structure i'm talking about probably maxed out at about 100 people, most of which you would have been directly or indirectly related to, but certainly would have spent your entire life around. Each member is vital to the strength of the tribe, so each loss is a significant blow.




Half of us don't have the authority to make the better part of theclaims made on this forum. Get over it.


No. I am not making baseless claims; everything I have said has been a verifiable fact, and if you have evidence (not religion) that proves me wrong, I'll be the first to embrace it because I was incorrect.

So, I will not get over it and you may not make blanket, unverifiable statements and expect to have them ratified as 'fact'.



Outside of the Hebrew Torah and maybe the Qur'an I don't think that there is a religion in the world that tells anyone to kill in the name of GOD. I know for a fact that Christ tells us to turn the other cheek. The New Testament (which places Christians under a new Covenant separate from that of the Jewish Law) teaches non violence. The Crusades that were pushed by the Catholic Church were a perversion of the Word of GOD. Early Christians were not allowed to read the Bible and could not discern Biblical fact from lies.


That's because most religions did not concern themselves with the eradication of other religions; most religions were syncretic.



This is but an example of what I was speaking about. Those that follow the Old Testament and the Old Covenant will kill and commit wars in the name of GOD. Because they follow the "letter of The Law." It's the spirit of Gods word that man is supposed to learn from. The Spirit is of Love and Peace. It tells things like, "he who has committed no sin may cast the first stone." When the "letter of The Law" says that an adulterer must be killed accourdingto the Old Testament.


Quite obvious proof that the Bible was not divinely inspired. I'm sure God wouldn't have been so contradictory or contrary.


If Christians were allowed to read the Bible in the Middle Ages they would have known better than to commit such atrocities.


Speculation, but not impossible. They'd be the exception that proved the rule, though.

Example: 2 Corinthians 3:6 (New King James Version)

(6) who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

We are thought that a Christian that judges by The Letter of The Law will also be Judged by The Letter of The Law.

I hope that I have made the point clear on this issue.

Very, but I don't believe your point is correct.



Pretty much the notion that I was trying to drive home by giving examples of those that believe in the worship man and science doing evil things. Just as man has committed evil in the name of GOD.


Okay, I have to ask - why do you have to associate 'worship' with everything? I can't worship anything. I can't fathom the concept of worshipping. Sure, I respect a lot of stuff, but to literally bow-down and, I don't know, think wilfully good thoughts toward an entity? Why would I want to lose my dignity like that?


Two last things evil is a religious concept also.

And Eugenics is a Scientific idea that was prevalent at the turn of the century all around the world. This is also in part why I mentioned it in tandem with the Nazis. It shows the Link in the movement away from Religion and towards Science and the fact that man will still do evil. So the notion that Religion is at the very core of all mans woes is a flawed idea.


The scientists who promoted eugenics are exactly the same as Urban II and the leaders of the first Crusade. All they need is the excuse.

I didn't say religion is the core of all man's woes, because religion is just a symptom of human nature.

I'm saying that now we understand that, we can move on from it. It's clear that it is an ancient method of explaining the universe satisfactorily to enable the rest of life to continue with some kind of semblance of order and purpose.

However, since we now know that, and science has opened up the universe to us, its time to leave the unbased and obviously false doctrine behind us, not the morality or kindness innate to human nature.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 



Its quite evident that we are not divinely created, in the silly residual traits humans have, like the coccyx and the appendix. These things once served a function, but do not any longer.
Sorry, creation has yet to be dis proved.


The Coccyx is part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person....

It also has important attachments for various muscles, tendons and ligaments.....

When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the Coccyx.......


en.wikipedia.org...

You can split hairs about why or where we get it from but it does serve a purpose. So it doesn't prove that we have evolved. It merely shows that we share traits with other living creatures on the planet, just as we share over 90% of our DNA.

Given the appendix's propensity to cause death via infection, and the general good health of people who have had their appendix removed or who have a congenital absence of an appendix, the appendix is traditionally thought to have no function in the human body. However, new studies propose that the appendix may harbor and protect bacteria that are beneficial in the function of the human colon.[3] There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in people without an appendix.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Maybe we should revisit your statement about making "statements" without authority?
As I said we can go around in circles like this.



No, there is no "missing" link. This is a common fallacy that I am not going to go into detail about, for space and time reasons. Frankly, this is an old, and widely disproven, argument.
No actually the common fallacy is that there is an uninterrupted sequence to the "fossil record" of "human evolution." Many of the fossils that are trotted out as proof are later disproved.


There was an experiment in which bacteria, after about 40,000 generations, managed to spontaneously develop the ability to metabolise a vitamin they were previously unable to use. This is verifiable evolution.
Granted, I'll give you that. Bacteria and Viruses readily evolve/mutate in order to become more potent and deadly. They are a sort of parasitic organisms (I use the term loosely). But that is as far as I go, as for the rest of creation it is still yet to be proven without a shadow of a doubt.


Not at all. It is utterly logical. All social animals evolve acceptable standards of social behaviour - most animals don't serously injure each other when competing for mates.



And I said it was bad to maim, not acceptable, fool.
Just wanted to refresh your memory, you did in fact say "acceptable standards of social behavior" in reference to competition for a mate.... I was being facetious if you understand such things. I could care less what you view as acceptable, It's childish to act in such a manner. It is similarly childish to call someone a "fool" because of a difference in opinion or misunderstanding. Let's not regress to our "primal simian" deficiencies.



but even animals don't act like you suggest.
No, they don't have the ability to reason in the fashion that you or I do. So they wouldn't have the ability to choose between a peaceful resolution or a violent display of dominance in order to place another into a submissive roll.


No, and please stop using buzzwords and phrases incorrectly.
Oh, I have forgotten all about that tactics. Place "yourself" in a position of authority in order to discredit your oppositions argument.

How I have missed it so! It's really old, try a new tactic.


It is rare because the animals don't want risk injury to themselves and deplete the numbers of their own social group.
OK, why don't you use your real name and stop hiding who you really are. This is Dr. Doolittle right, I mean it must be????? Otherwise please let me how you hope to explain just exactly how you know that animals restrain the urge to eliminate their opposition in the pack (etc.) for fear of decreasing vital numbers???? They must have told you right???? Did a little bird whisper it in your ear??? Help me please because my dog wont stop barking when I take her for walks and it's really pissing off the neighbors maybe you can get through to her????


Animals don't reason like we do (or should when we aren't acting like vengeful idiots) and they don't think that far ahead. When they do (as in storage of food etc.) it is due to instinct and not foresight. Get serious!


the creatures is unwittingly thinking of himself and his species when he doesn't kill his rival.
How very noble, I'm so sure of it.....



No, the bull will not kill a submissive opponent.
Probably not, but the point being made is that the opponent will not become submissive until he is given reason to! That reason will come when he challenges the stronger Bull and gets put on his behind, then he will usually become submissive by giving the dominant Bull a "wide birth." Otherwise in some cases you will see an animal fight to the death, it (death) may not come during the fight but some will succumb to their wounds. The point being is that the old saying holds true even amongst the animals, respect is earned and not given. The alpha male doesn't have that position handed to him as is customary in our social structures.



"Fight or flight" is about whether you are being mortally attacked by a predator, not whether you're going to challenge the dominant male for mates.
It does factor in because it isn't only applicable in response to a predatory attack. It is also applicable where you may be the attacker. The same adrenal hormones and neurotransmitters come into affect when you initiate an attack as when you are attacked. It's the levels of certain stress response hormones and the individual reaction to them that dictates whether you fight or run (flight).en.wikipedia.org...-or-flight
Continue............

[edit on 17-5-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 



And it is indeed the basis of morality, but also a hierarchical society. And why is tyranny and despotism bad?
I doubt that "fight or Flight is the basis of morality???????


What are you getting at? This is the topic that you last spoke about before this statement.

In any event, morality certainly didn't start with the animals. How very moral to eat your lunch while it's still attempting escape...
I mean, really!???? Sure we can't judge by the standards of animals (I think I just made my point) they don't share in our concept of morality and they never will for they have not the reasoning capabilities that we have...

That brings to mind, "why is tyranny and despotism bad???" Good GOD man, wake up and smell the NWO!!!! Actually it smells a lot like the old world order with oregano!!!



Animals have to be brutally pragmatic because there is rarely a stable social system to support them.
I do not contend this fact, nor do I see any fault with it in the animal world because it can not be helped. I was merely making a counter to your claims.


Isn't it? Where is it acceptable to murder, rape and steal?
I don't know? where is it??? And why would you ask a Christian such a question??
As far as I know Murder and rape are not commonly accepted anywhere in the world; However, (if I remember correctly) the culture that we (western society) call Gypsies are known to view thievery as acceptable due to the notion that those outside the culture are of a lower class and are open prey (if you will), supposedly the practice has it's roots in the cast system of India.


It is only the specifics that really differ, the general message is the same the world over - be nice to one another.
You think???
Now if we could just drive that point home, what a wonderful world we could live in.
The problem comes in where people got the notion that "love one another" only applied to their race and culture. This is an issue that was battled over between the Apostles in the early Church. Some in the early Church wanted to keep it in the family (Jews only) others said that it was to be spread around the world.



No, I have explained how morality pre-dates humanity, so you are incorrect, I am afraid.
Morals are unique to humanity, you are incorrect. The issue is whether or not we practice the morals that each society (respectively) has taught us as individuals.



Morality is simply the result of social creatures. Even elephants mourn their dead.
Any creature that can come to love "it's own" will feel the loss on an emotional level. Some animals mate for life due to emotional ties, not because they view it as "immoral" to bang another bird (etc.). To think that animals do not have feelings would be irrational, but to think that they have the time or inclination to develop or take into consideration a moral value in the course of their existence is ludicrous.


Stop taking everything to extremes!
I'm just following your lead. Examples below.


Where is it acceptable to murder, rape and steal?



If cannibalism, genocide and persecution is something that also makes one a Christian. Or perhaps people in ancient days were not Christians?



Not simply possible, but essential. You have presented me with nothing but extremes, so far, and frankly makes me afraid of what you might do without your religion, as you seem to take the stance that the only reason you aren't personally doing terrible things is literally because God will spank your ass if you do.
No, I've always taken the position of live and let live. Even before I became a practicing Christian. I also hold faith in mankind, I just place my personal faith in GOD.

As far as the examples that I give, I'm just following the path of logic and what would be the logical outcome of many of these scientific notions. That's all, and in order to follow logic without reason or compassion as a human being you would have to be flawed in some way. Don't worry about me, I have a soul. And I'm not worried about a spanking.
Good one!



The concept of human life being sacred is a fallacy anyway. There is nothing 'sacred' about life, its just we all possess it and jealously guard it - if we allow killing without compunction, we ourselves may become a victim of our own standards - not an acceptable option.
These are some of the "philosophic" points to be made. But logically, if life has no value than there is no logical reason to refrain from using deadly force in order to resolve serious issues. It would strengthen the gene pool as per survival of the fittest.

That's why I don't prescribe to any of this nonsense, it holds no water with me. Every life has value!


False analogy. The general is not related to the men, and has tens of thousands of troops to worry about.
That may be so but I doubt that every person in the tribe was related also.


In contrast, the pre-historical tribal structure i'm talking about probably maxed out at about 100 people, most of which you would have been directly or indirectly related to, but certainly would have spent your entire life around. Each member is vital to the strength of the tribe, so each loss is a significant blow.
This was already granted to your side of the argument, why do you feel the need to beat a dead horse??

I wanted to give a general reference to the different ways that the same loss of life fits into the equation for different people. That's all.


No. I am not making baseless claims; everything I have said has been a verifiable fact, and if you have evidence (not religion) that proves me wrong, I'll be the first to embrace it because I was incorrect. So, I will not get over it and you may not make blanket, unverifiable statements and expect to have them ratified as 'fact'.
No, not all of your statements are "verifiable" facts. So please don't make it seem as if you and your entire argument are infallible.
CONTINUE.........................



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 



That's because most religions did not concern themselves with the eradication of other religions; most religions were syncretic.
Agree.
I will say this one thing, Christianity was never meant to be a religion that was forced upon others, that was a perversion. It was only meant to be Evangelical. Meaning that it was to be ministered to those that would hear. It's a choice.

As for the history of it I can not argue with you. So you are correct about that, and the the assertion that Islam was also spread by the sword. Judaism was never really spread with intent. Israel was spread, they accepted no converts.


Okay, I have to ask - why do you have to associate 'worship' with everything?
Just being a facetious jerk.......




I didn't say religion is the core of all man's woes,
Oh, it just seems that way.



However, since we now know that, and science has opened up the universe to us, its time to leave the unbased and obviously false doctrine behind us, not the morality or kindness innate to human nature.
You make valid points, accept for me and many like me Science and our faith (I don't like religions because they control) are intertwined. There is no separation of the two. For you, it is clear cut as you have no belief in a higher power. You consider it a "false doctrine" we consider it a foundation. These things we will never agree upon. As far as Science is concerned I look forward to the day that we can all be reconciled but something tells me that it's in mans nature that we will never see that day. Because along with kindness and morality man also has some things in his nature that keep him from true brotherly love with one another. Namely resentment, vanity, and greed.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
After reading your posts, I find myself waning on this debate. You aren't correct, and I can't agree with most of what you have said, but to continue now would mean repeating myself.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I will say this one thing, Christianity was never meant to be a religion that was forced upon others, that was a perversion. It was only meant to be Evangelical. Meaning that it was to be ministered to those that would hear. It's a choice.


But only because of the way it evolved. As soon as it became dominant, especially with a doctrine that contradicted all others, it became aggressive.


Originally posted by lazy1981As for the history of it I can not argue with you. So you are correct about that, and the the assertion that Islam was also spread by the sword. Judaism was never really spread with intent. Israel was spread, they accepted no converts.


Not true, many Arabic tribes were Jewish converts, as well as the Khazars.


Originally posted by lazy1981You make valid points, accept for me and many like me Science and our faith (I don't like religions because they control) are intertwined. There is no separation of the two. For you, it is clear cut as you have no belief in a higher power. You consider it a "false doctrine" we consider it a foundation. These things we will never agree upon. As far as Science is concerned I look forward to the day that we can all be reconciled but something tells me that it's in mans nature that we will never see that day. Because along with kindness and morality man also has some things in his nature that keep him from true brotherly love with one another. Namely resentment, vanity, and greed.


Your assessment of my beliefs is entirely correct; there is no higher power, and if there was, he is an asshole and I would want nothing to do with him.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join