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.

 

The Abrahamic Confinement Of Atheism

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



It's not science per se, it's the interpretations of the observer what counts.

The results of a scientific experiment do not change depending on who looks at them. Science does not, and should not, concern itself with what use is made of its discoveries. Any such concern would impede the quest for truth.


Science also has led to great persecution against others of humanity.

Science has not. It may have been misrepresented to justify various inequities and persecutions. Again, this is neither the fault nor the concern of science. You may as well say that a whip is to blame for the use to which it is put.


When we are talking about science, we must also include Scientific Ethics.

No, scientific ethics and science are different subjects. The first is a branch of ethical philosophy, not a science.

Scientific ethics concerns itself with plagiarism and fraud, the proper conduct of research using human and animal subjects, the objectivity of peer review, and so on. Genocide and racial stereotyping are matters of general concern, not aspects of scientific ethics.


it is only right to point out the flaws of scientists, who do hold popular opinion in our society.

Quite so. But the flaws of scientists are not the flaws of science.


I think we could say the scientific establishment is flawed if scientists with no ethics are allowed to thrive.

The scientific establishment is not science. And — as a matter of fact — the scientific establishment holds its members to very high ethical standards in the conduct of their profession.


Maybe that's the thing people are not able to see, they can't separate the scientists from science.

You appear to be having some difficulty on that score yourself.


edit on 12/11/13 by Astyanax because: it got stuck in peer review.




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I just wanted to point out something here. There were three very common arguments you made in one post that Christians use when defending their faith.

These were your responses defending science against being the cause of genocide and having other flaws.


An atheist says:

Astyanax
Science has not. It may have been misrepresented to justify various inequities and persecutions. Again, this is neither the fault nor the concern of science. You may as well say that a whip is to blame for the use to which it is put.


A Christian would say:
"Religion is misrepresented to justify genocide and persecution. This is not the fault of religion."



An atheist says:

Astyanax
Quite so. But the flaws of scientists are not the flaws of science.


A Christian would say:
"Bad Christians are bad people. Their sins are not the sins of my faith but of the people themselves."



An atheist says:

Astyanax
The scientific establishment is not science.


A Christian would say:
"The church is not my religion!"



We read these arguments every day from Christians and they are normally not accepted as valid points. It's just interesting to see it come from an atheist perspective. The arguments are generally correct, regardless of who uses them. That's my point.
edit on 12-11-2013 by Cuervo because: added stuff



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So we shall leave out the atomic bomb in the equation?

it's what people have done with science that makes it difficult to trust people who are scientists, just the same as people who claim the religious are the source of all evil.

Not all scientists are evil, some are very compassionate. We have great medical establishments and research because of it. We also have cars that are too expensive, gas that is too expensive and insurance that doesn't make better drivers. But they all fall under engineering, chemistry and economics. Science should be a good tool, I agree. But sometimes it is not used as a good tool.

Can we kind of agree that the atomic bomb is probably not the best scientific achievement of mankind?

Since I did post that karma is defined for them as an action with a result, then wouldn't "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" be comparable?

Since the action in the principle isn't stated as a natural action, simply an action, then why would karma not be reasonable to have a reaction?

We see magnets are attracted to the polar opposites, and their symbol of Yin-Yang contains the positive and negative in attraction. But car batteries would blow up if you attached positive to negative and vice versa. But this is karma, I would think, the action of hooking the jumper cables up wrong results in a very negative and opposite reaction, hence, you don't use knowledge in this action, you blow yourself up.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



When they are designed by man, yes. Humanity is utterly unreliable. That's why we are looking for something beyond humanity. Science can only look at humanity and the universe, but cannot fix humanity. Even scientists are utterly unreliable when they themselves disagree about the nature of the universe.


If I were to rely on anyone to fix humanity, it would not be one subject to said humanity. But if I may ask, what is it about humanity that you want fixed? And why?


Science is utterly unreliable, it can only tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but it cannot tell you whether 2 or 4 is good or bad.


"Good" and "bad" are abbreviated labels for "this feels good for ___" and "this feels bad for ___". Whenever either of those labels are employed, it is a reflection of ourselves rather than an absolute assessment of the nature of the object or concept being evaluated. It is an emotional expression, a subjective impression. Impressions are not facts, they are opinions. So it is not science that is unreliable. Science is a tool. We are the handler of that tool. It is WHY some employ science that is perceived as unreliable, because those people are not employing science according to its purpose: to increase our understanding on the physical universe. They are instead employing it to make them feel better about themselves. That's not what science is for.


The law of nature is utterly unreliable because it has failed humanity. You have been told that you are the product of evolution, survival of the species is utterly dismal, it has put some people born into very awful places and some in very good places.


Your statement is a precise reflection of what I just explained above. You speak as though nature is here to serve us. It isn't. Nature nearly annihilated the dinosaurs. But by the same token, it also revealed precisely how powerful it is through the cockroach, which nature itself also created. The cockroach can survive a nuclear blast with little difficulty. We can't. With that taken into consideration, we are the spoiled teenager who petulantly demands that the universe revolve around him or her. We take and take and take, and we only give when there is an immediate and relatively useless reward to be had.

You say the survival of the species is utterly dismal. This is hilarious coming from a member of a species who slaughters thousands of weaker species with every second that passes. How many have gone extinct purely on our account? How many forests have withered, oceans polluted, homes destroyed, animals left to starve and die out as a direct result of our thoughtless actions? If any species is capable of going out of its way to make harmonious coexistence a more possible and efficient reality with little to no real sacrifice, it is ours. But instead, we have chosen to be the most reckless and destructive animal in the entire world. And you have the gall to call survival of the species dismal? We are the reason it is dismal. Nature has not failed us. We have failed nature.


But science tells us that it is the way it should be, so no compassion and no mercy from nature. And evolution can only say that if a male and female breed, then another byproduct of evolution happens. It doesn't place any moral compunction on the utterly unreliable humanity to stop the survival of the species.


Science tells us that the strongest will survive and the weakest will die. What separates us from the rest of the animals is that we are able to develop a means by which to circumnavigate the primal techniques of the natural world and still flourish. Simply put, we employ the exact opposite of survivalism and not suffer as a result. Unfortunately, this only works so long as the predominant majority of our people following the protocols necessary to make such a system work. Furthermore, those who are insistent on catering to their primal instincts to the detriment of the rest would have to be cast out in order to prevent the one bad apple from ruining the barrel. We have not done so, and have suffered for it.

There comes a point where morality is precisely the weakness which allows more primal forces to triumph. Where you would hesitate to kill a fellow man, you are already dead. Where you would hesitate to steal, your castle is already being ransacked and burned to the ground. This explains the hesitance of many of our species to give themselves over to morality, utterly and permanently, given that there will always be someone who hasn't, and our society will fail to cast them out because humans are the perfect predator, capable of imitating perfect morality while practicing the exact opposite in the shadows. The same mechanisms which have enhanced our morality have also enhanced our killing instincts. And some are genetically predisposed to respond to one more favorably than the other. It's a result of our inheritance.

What I'm trying to say here is that science is not nature. Science is the STUDY of it. Nature itself is responsible for what we have been given, and we are responsible for what we have allowed to come of it. Science has nothing to do with it. And because we are terrified of what nature has given us to work with, we have religion, otherwise known as the art of pretending to be something other than animals. Meanwhile, our primal instincts continue to work in the shadows, and some of us are less inclined to resist than others. And for those less inclined to resist, they have recognized that those people who ignore it in themselves also ignore it in others, making them the perfect prey.

Welcome to the evolution of cat and mouse.


If science were reliable, then the laws should be set in stone as well, but they aren't either. So which system is the most unreliable? Science, that changes by every scientist, through the same observations but different interpretations, or religion that has sought to prove something beyond what is in flux, and through our observations arrive at different interpretations as well?


The rules of science are far more concrete than the rules of spirituality. The rules of spirituality change with our emotions. The rules of science change with our observations.

But maybe next time you're on the verge of death, you can pray for God to help instead of using science to dial 911 on your cellphone. And when you could be using scientifically developed medicine to stave off your condition, you can just pray to be healed. Let me know how that works for you.
edit on 12-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Let me put it this way, we can manipulate nature for good things, or we can manipulate nature for bad things. When the good use is in practice, then we all cheer our manipulation of it, but when bad use is practiced, then we blame everyone else for it.

We first learned to use wood for fire and wheat for agriculture. That was good. But then we built the atomic bomb and then everyone blamed the "religious" for determining where and when it should be used. See what happens when we manipulate nature, that was the essence of the novel Frankenstein's Monster by Mary Shelley. She was asking how far will man go in his scientific pursuits, and will it lead in a good direction or a bad direction. Since 1945, we have learned that it can go in a bad direction.

But now, we have this monster that holds us hostage to each other. But on the other hand, we can manipulate microwaves and radiation for cooking food and Xrays. If scientists had only pursued what would be good manipulation, then we wouldn't have this mess today.

But there seems to be no accountability whatsoever and the arguments about nuclear energy still remain in the moral arena. Did science do a good thing? Chernobyl and Fukishima prove otherwise, however, nuclear energy still runs hospitals. So the question is why is science neutral when bad things happen, but cheered when it is the opposite?

I have thought a long time about nuclear energy and was on the fence, but the cons outweigh the pros for me. I can't support it, because it is left to humans to maintain it, and humans can't stop earthquakes.

Science is a double-edged sword. We can put man on the moon, but we can't end world hunger. I think that's the bad karma of religion and science, because no one wants accountability. How do we stop it? Make each other accountable to each other.

If I harm you, then I am wrong. If I build a weapon and give it to somebody, and they harm you with it, then I am wrong. But I should be accountable to you. And when I don't become accountable to you, by saying the weapon was neutral, so blame it on the person that used it, then I absolve myself of responsibility.

I don't think you would want me to give myself absolution. Because then, I could continue until someone else does it to me. Hence, this world mess.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


So in other words, guns kill people? That's your argument? And spoons make people fat. Aaaalllllrighty then....



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


So in other words, guns kill people? That's your argument? And spoons make people fat. Aaaalllllrighty then....


is that what you thought I just said?

No, I said that is what scientists say when the atomic bomb blows people up. Science says that the atomic bomb is intrinsically neutral, so the atomic bomb kills people, it is not the bomb's fault, nor is it the fault of science.

What I said was..."Oh, you found a moral reason to drop the bomb that we invented, shame on you".

A tire iron can get the lugnuts off your car, but a tire iron can also be used to bash someone's head in....that's the problem. When something is designed solely for one purpose and one purpose only, then it was designed from a moralist position.

Tell me, why was the atomic built in the first place?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



We read these arguments every day from Christians and they are normally not accepted as valid points. It's just interesting to see it come from an atheist perspective. The arguments are generally correct, regardless of who uses them.

Not so.


"Religion is misrepresented to justify genocide and persecution. This is not the fault of religion."

It is not misrepresented; it is correctly so represented. The Bible, for example, contains precise instructions for genocide: see 1 Samuel 15:3 and Numbers 31:14–18. It also commands people to murder witches (Exodus 22:18) and homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13).

These Biblical examples are particularly egregious, but the same sort of thing is found in other religious traditions also. The inequities of caste, which amount to persecution, are part of the doctrines of Hinduism; Islam is almost as intolerant of homosexuals and other outsiders as Judaism and Christianity. Animal and human sacrifices have been part of religion since its very beginnings, and both continue to this day. Ritual mutilation is a commonplace in many faiths. I could go on and on.


"Bad Christians are bad people. Their sins are not the sins of my faith but of the people themselves."

On the contrary, the heroes and heroines of the Old Testament, all supposedly the chosen of God, behave so reprehensibly — and with the full sanction of the Almighty — that it may be said that the Bible endorses and promotes wickedness. Jacob, with the apparent approval of the Lord, cheats Laban, his benefactor, of the cream of his flocks (Genesis 30:29-43). Out of cowardice, Abraham repeatedly pimps his wife Sarah to the local bigwigs in the towns they pass through on their journeys (Genesis 20:2ff) and even claims that she is his sister and that the two of them are in an incestuous relationship (Genesis 20:12). His nephew Lot didn't just claim incest — he did it with his daughters (who, of course, got the blame; rape was always the woman's fault in those days). Or perhaps they were just getting their own back on him for offering them as sex toys to the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:8) in place of his angelic visitors...

This is the kind of 'morality' taught throughout the Old Testament and also — once Jesus has left the scene — in the New. The surprise, frankly, is that Christians and Jews are not worse than they are; it is a testament to natural human decency that exposure to such filth has not destroyed their moral sense altogether.


"The church is not my religion!"

What does that matter? It is not their church, but their faith that makes them do evil. Science does not make anyone do evil — if you know of any examples to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear them.

The most important point of all, though, is this: science is not an alternative to religion. Science is a way of finding out how things work in the material, phenomenal world. It does not pretend to moral authority. Religion does.


edit on 12/11/13 by Astyanax because: of angelic visitors.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



it's what people have done with science that makes it difficult to trust people who are scientists

This makes no sense; it is not scientists, on the whole, who have used science to wicked ends, but laypersons.


Can we kind of agree that the atomic bomb is probably not the best scientific achievement of mankind?

The atom bomb is not a scientific achievement but a technical and political one. What science contributed was the principles of its operation. Scientists were certainly involved in building the bomb; they were at war, serving their country, and were honoured for what they did. Science is not to blame for the atom bomb: people are.


Since I did post that karma is defined for them as an action with a result, then wouldn't "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" be comparable?

No. Newton's Third Law has a very specific physical application. It has nothing to do with karma; that's just a bad analogy.


We see magnets are attracted to the polar opposites, and their symbol of Yin-Yang contains the positive and negative in attraction. But car batteries would blow up if you attached positive to negative and vice versa. But this is karma, I would think, the action of hooking the jumper cables up wrong results in a very negative and opposite reaction, hence, you don't use knowledge in this action, you blow yourself up.

Metaphors are not scientific.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Cuervo
 


God did not endorse any immoral action and makes it quite clear that these people do indeed face judgement for their actions. Remember that Jacob had also tricked his father? Well, that's karma, he tricked and was tricked back.



What does that matter? It is not their church, but their faith that makes them do evil. Science does not make anyone do evil — if you know of any examples to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear them.


That depends on what you define evil as.

From the New York Times, Dr. Arthur Caplan said

''You can't think about contemporary issues of medical ethics outside the shadow of the Holocaust,'' said Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota and the chief organizer of the conference. ''This is forcing people to confront the evil wrought by medicine.'' 'Children as a Commodity'


This article was about the recent debate of sex determination.

Scientists are grappling with each other over what is evil.

Nazi Scientists and Ethics of Today



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



God did not endorse any immoral action and makes it quite clear that these people do indeed face judgement for their actions.

Could you please point to the passages in the Bible where Jacob is punished for cheating Laban, or Lot's daughters (who are portrayed in the Bible as the culprits) punished for having sex with their father? What was Abraham's punishment for pimping his wife? I seem to remember reading that he lived to a great age and was rewarded with numberless posterity.


edit on 12/11/13 by Astyanax because: of stars like grains of sand upon the seashore.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



is that what you thought I just said?


I don't know, I thought you were railing on about science corrupting us. And then there was this:


And when I don't become accountable to you, by saying the weapon was neutral, so blame it on the person that used it, then I absolve myself of responsibility.


Yep. Sounds like it to me.


No, I said that is what scientists say when the atomic bomb blows people up. Science says that the atomic bomb is intrinsically neutral, so the atomic bomb kills people, it is not the bomb's fault, nor is it the fault of science.


Right. It's the people using it. Isn't that what I was just saying?


The same mechanisms which have enhanced our morality have also enhanced our killing instincts. And some are genetically predisposed to respond to one more favorably than the other. It's a result of our inheritance.


Right here. I keep saying that we are still animals. No matter how much we pretend otherwise, we are animals. We will always be competing with one another. We're catering to the basic animal psychology we inherited. Science studies that too. But it doesn't say, "Oh hey, look, an urge to attack a country for its oil!" or "Wow, there's this insane compulsion to raze a heathen village!" You know, the kind of stuff that's survival and zealotry. While there is a great intensity in the investigation of this world's mysteries, there is a concrete benefit from it that justifies the deep interest.

And while I too am afraid of what science might do, we can't afford to abandon it.


What I said was..."Oh, you found a moral reason to drop the bomb that we invented, shame on you".


You do know that bomb was the main reason the war ended, don't you? The leader of Japan had to think about it before he surrendered. Does that tell you anything?


Tell me, why was the atomic built in the first place?


To match the Germans, who were developing one of their own.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Ultimately, what was the bomb built for? For the ultimate purpose.

Was it to show Germany and Japan that we could build something spectacular...or was it because it was built for the ultimate purpose of killing people?

Who had the first idea of that? Who had the brilliant idea to say "Let's make the ultimate bomb" and then someone else said "That's brilliant, but who should we use it on?"

What was the purpose in the first place?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Ultimately, what was the bomb built for? For the ultimate purpose.

Was it to show Germany and Japan that we could build something spectacular...or was it because it was built for the ultimate purpose of killing people?


A strategic tool. Ever seen Ender's Game? Commanding officer asks why the kid kept kicking the guy while he's down. The kid says, "Knocking him down was when I won the first fight. But I knew it wouldn't be the last. Kicking him was when me winning the rest before they ever happened."

Hit 'em hard and give 'em a black eye to prove who is the bigger kid in the playground. Particularly if the other kid just gave you a black eye. Rules of the wild, man.
edit on 12-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



God did not endorse any immoral action and makes it quite clear that these people do indeed face judgement for their actions.

Could you please point to the passages in the Bible where Jacob is punished for cheating Laban, or Lot's daughters (who are portrayed in the Bible as the culprits) punished for having sex with their father? What was Abraham's punishment for pimping his wife? I seem to remember reading that he lived to a great age and was rewarded with numberless posterity.


edit on 12/11/13 by Astyanax because: of stars like grains of sand upon the seashore.


Well let me see, the punishment to Jacob was "you tricked, so don't complain when you get tricked" He was stuck with fighting wives and sons. They fought each other all the time...so nope, not a perfect world. I think you may think judgment only comes in hellfire and brimstone?

Lot's daughters had Moab and Ammon, two sons who eventually had offspring that worshiped Molech and Chemosh, and didn't survive for a millenia. So sometimes judgement comes as "Reap what you sow".

Abraham didn't technically pimp Sarah, he was afraid of Pharaoh and he only lied about it. But if you are referring to Hagar, then judgement came as two sons who just could not get along, domestic squabbles and much like Jacob, a constant headache and embarrassment. Sometimes the punishment fits the crime. But to say they were approved by God for doing these things? No, it was their own stupidity that got them in the mess they were in. Sometimes judgment is just that, letting them think their way out of it so they can learn something important.

Is the only punishment supposed to be stoning or fire and brimstone? I think that's an assumption.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Ultimately, what was the bomb built for? For the ultimate purpose.

Was it to show Germany and Japan that we could build something spectacular...or was it because it was built for the ultimate purpose of killing people?


A strategic tool. Ever seen Ender's Game? Commanding officer asks why the kid kept kicking the guy while he's down. The kid says, "Knocking him down was when I won the first fight. But I knew it wouldn't be the last. Kicking him was when me winning the rest before they ever happened."

Hit 'em hard and give 'em a black eye to prove who is the bigger kid in the playground. Particularly if the other kid just gave you a black eye. Rules of the wild, man.
edit on 12-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I am always so amazed how people reference movies.

I have written screenplays, I have friends in the business. I know how to make movies. I have made short films. Every film is written by a person sitting at a computer or typewriter and it's their own personal worldview in the script. If they made you believe some truth, then they suspended your disbelief and did their job.

Let's go through it again...who created the bomb and why? Was it simply "oh, here is a strategic tool". No, that is what it became, but the ultimate reason for building it was what?

My microwave was first designed to cook my food, but if I strategically use it to toss off the roof onto someone's head, then the purpose was misused. But the bomb was designed for carnage, is that not correct?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



If they made you believe some truth, then they suspended your disbelief and did their job.


Nah, I believed it beforehand.


Let's go through it again...who created the bomb and why? Was it simply "oh, here is a strategic tool". No, that is what it became, but the ultimate reason for building it was what?


Why not just come out and call me a liar? Because that's what you're doing. If this is all you wanna do, I'm done here.


My microwave was first designed to cook my food, but if I strategically use it to toss off the roof onto someone's head, then the purpose was misused. But the bomb was designed for carnage, is that not correct?


It was designed for exactly the use I just described in my previous post. Unless you're suggesting that those scientists just went, "Hmm, I'd really love to watch two cities full of people get vaporized and leak radiation on nearby cities, resulting in generations worth of horrible mutation. Sounds like something I'd really get a kick out of. Hey Jim, let's go blow stuff up with sciencey stuff! Yay, science!"

Is that how you think it went down?
edit on 12-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I am not calling you a liar. I am simply asking you to look directly at the bomb (not physically though)

It was designed for carnage, it was never introduced or thought of as something that would benefit mankind, only the Nazis.

BTW, Robert Oppenheimer was not a layperson.

And since the Nazis did not know the power yet, that was why it was so important for the US to get it away from the Nazis. Could you imagine the world today if the Nazis had learned of the power?

Operation Paperclip was to get the Nazi scientists out of Germany and into the United States. That is true, because the Nazis had not yet learned what the bomb could do. And if you look at the list of Nazi scientists in Operation Paper Clip, you will find a whole bunch of them listed as rocket engineers, those who made missiles for the purpose of war and destruction.

If you choose not to see that, it isn't my fault you can't look at it. But those Nazis were bent on destruction, because they lived by the philosophy that "Might Makes Right". Does might make right?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



It was designed for carnage, it was never introduced or thought of as something that would benefit mankind, only the Nazis.


It was made for military purposes. Again, you seem to be implying that someone thought it would be fun to wipe a city off the face of the earth.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Well let me see, the punishment to Jacob was "you tricked, so don't complain when you get tricked" He was stuck with fighting wives and sons. They fought each other all the time...so nope, not a perfect world. I think you may think judgment only comes in hellfire and brimstone?

No, I'm willing to accept that it comes in many forms. However, there is no verse in the Bible that tells us Jacob's misfortunes were the consequence of his cheating Laban. This is a connection you have made yourself. It has no foundation in Scripture. The same goes for the rest of your claims.

Unless the causal connection is made explicit in the text itself, there is no moral to the story. Now, please, let's move on. You will never convince me that the Bible is a reliable moral guide; I have read it, you see.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join